exploring ceramic vessel use at casas grandes, chihuahua

Brigham Young University Brigham Young University

BYU ScholarsArchive BYU ScholarsArchive

Theses and Dissertations

2018-08-01

Exploring Ceramic Vessel Use at Casas Grandes, Chihuahua, Exploring Ceramic Vessel Use at Casas Grandes, Chihuahua,

Mexico, Through Use-Alteration Analyses Mexico, Through Use-Alteration Analyses

Jessica Simpson Brigham Young University

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd

Part of the Anthropology Commons

BYU ScholarsArchive Citation BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Simpson, Jessica, "Exploring Ceramic Vessel Use at Casas Grandes, Chihuahua, Mexico, Through Use-Alteration Analyses" (2018). Theses and Dissertations. 6955. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/6955

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected].

http://home.byu.edu/home/

http://home.byu.edu/home/

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd?utm_source=scholarsarchive.byu.edu%2Fetd%2F6955&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/318?utm_source=scholarsarchive.byu.edu%2Fetd%2F6955&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/6955?utm_source=scholarsarchive.byu.edu%2Fetd%2F6955&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected],%[email protected]

Exploring Ceramic Vessel Use at Casas Grandes, Chihuahua, Mexico Through

Use-Alteration Analyses

Jessica Simpson

A thesis submitted to the faculty of Brigham Young University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

Michael T. Searcy, Chair James Allison John E. Clark

Department of Anthropology

Brigham Young University

Copyright © 2018 Jessica Simpson

All Rights Reserved

ABSTRACT

Exploring Ceramic Vessel Use at Casas Grandes, Chihuahua, Mexico Through Use-Alteration Analyses

Jessica Simpson

Department of Anthropology, BYU Master of Arts

The Casas Grandes Valley is located in the northwestern corner of the modern state of Chihuahua, Mexico. This area falls into the greater Northwest/Southwest cultural region. Research conducted on Casas Grandes ceramics up to this point has focused on form and design in connection with burials, authority, sociopolitical organization, ceremony and ritual, communication, and identifying cultural boundaries and influences. Very little has been said about some of the everyday uses of Casas Grandes ceramics. My thesis explores the evidences of use on ceramic vessels in the Casas Grandes region during the Medio period (AD 1200-1450). I conducted a use-alteration analysis on the interiors and exteriors of 300 vessels. The purpose of this study was to examine the question: how were the vessels used by the people of Casas Grandes? These analyses suggest that the vessels were typically used for separate but not altogether distinct use activities. All vessels had some evidences of wear, regardless of vessel form, size, or decoration. The general use patterns followed some intended functional categories, with enough variety to suggest vessels were also used according to individual needs.

Keywords: Casas Grandes, Paquimé, ceramics, use-alteration, use wear

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I want to thank Dr. Mike Searcy for being such a fabulous committee chair and mentor.

Thank you for guiding me, reading endless drafts, encouraging me, and for believing in my

abilities as an archaeologist. To the rest of my committee, Dr. James Allison and Dr. John Clark

for helping me write a good thesis and encouraging me to work hard. An additional thank you to

Dr. Clark for teaching the best theory course in the history of the Anthropology Department.

“Archaeology at Hogwarts” contains some of the most enjoyable papers I’ve written.

To my Dad, for being my project manager, checking in with me each week, and for

pushing me when I wanted to be done. To my Mom for listening and being my greatest

cheerleader. To Kylie, for bringing me Diet Coke, doing the dishes, and always being a listening

ear. Thank you for reminding me that when it came down to Netflix or my thesis, I should

choose my thesis.

To the Amerind Museum for allowing me to analyze some of the vessels in your

collection, and to Eric Kaldahl for providing everything I needed during my week there. Visiting

the Foundation was one of the highlights of my time in graduate school. To the Museum of

Peoples and Cultures for the use of your collections in my analysis, and for providing work and

computer space to complete my thesis. To Haylie Ferguson for helping me create the map of

Casas Grandes, and a special thank you to Paul Stavast. Thank you for encouraging me, teaching

me about how to ask questions and think critically, and for being a true friend.

Lastly, to the God of Heaven: thank you for helping me grow and evolve into my adult

self during all this. Thank you for listening during every tearful or angry prayer, for helping me

learn how to ask the right questions and how to get the best answers. Thank you for letting me

choose. I became something powerful and strong along the way.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page ......................................................................................................................................... i Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... iii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vii List of Tables .................................................................................................................................... x

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1

A Word about Intended Function ................................................................................................ 4

2. Introducing Casas Grandes ..................................................................................................... 6

Archaeology in Casas Grandes ................................................................................................... 9

Joint Casas Grandes Expedition ............................................................................................ 10

Exploring Casas Grandes after the JCGE .............................................................................. 11

Casas Grandes Ceramics ....................................................................................................... 12

Use-alteration Analyses on Casas Grandes Ceramics ............................................................... 15

3. Methods and Sample............................................................................................................... 17

Ceramic Collections .................................................................................................................. 19

The Sample ................................................................................................................................ 20

Casas Grandes Ceramic Types .............................................................................................. 22

Data Collection .......................................................................................................................... 30

Assumptions and Analytical Issues ........................................................................................... 39

4. Analytical Results.................................................................................................................... 40

Vessel Morphology ................................................................................................................... 40

Evidence of Use-alteration ........................................................................................................ 48

Abrasion................................................................................................................................. 48

Cracks .................................................................................................................................... 56

Soot ........................................................................................................................................ 62

Delamination ......................................................................................................................... 72

Discoloration ......................................................................................................................... 80

Fireclouds .............................................................................................................................. 85

Flaking ................................................................................................................................... 88

Indeterminate ......................................................................................................................... 93

Mend Holes............................................................................................................................ 97

v

Missing Pieces ....................................................................................................................... 99

Modern Repair ..................................................................................................................... 103

Nick-Chip-Gouge ................................................................................................................ 106

Oxidation ............................................................................................................................. 114

Patches ................................................................................................................................. 117

Perforations .......................................................................................................................... 121

Pits ....................................................................................................................................... 125

Scratches .............................................................................................................................. 132

Spalling ................................................................................................................................ 135

Stirring Marks ...................................................................................................................... 139

Severity ................................................................................................................................ 142

Summary ................................................................................................................................. 145

5. Discussion............................................................................................................................... 149

Intended Function .................................................................................................................... 149

Patterns in Use-alteration ........................................................................................................ 151

Bowls ................................................................................................................................... 151

Jars ....................................................................................................................................... 152

Effigies................................................................................................................................. 153

Plainware ............................................................................................................................. 153

Ramos Polychrome .............................................................................................................. 154

Villa Ahumada Polychrome ................................................................................................ 155

Ramos Black ........................................................................................................................ 156

Babicora Polychrome .......................................................................................................... 157

Playas Red ........................................................................................................................... 158

Other ceramic types ............................................................................................................. 158

Sooting Traces on the Sample ............................................................................................. 160

Pits and Delamination .......................................................................................................... 161

Funerary Goods and Mortuary Practices ............................................................................. 163

Social and Community Structure at Casas Grandes ............................................................ 168

Summary ................................................................................................................................. 169

A Note on Modern Repair ................................................................................................... 171

6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 173

Problems and Future Research ................................................................................................ 175

Future Research ................................................................................................................... 176

vi

Final Thoughts ......................................................................................................................... 178

References Cited........................................................................................................................ 179

Appendix A: Vessel Attributes ................................................................................................ 188

Appendix B: Use-Alteration Analysis ..................................................................................... 220

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Map of the Casas Grandes cultural boundaries in relation to the greater NW/SW. Map drawn by Haylie Ferguson. ................................................................................................. 7

Figure 3.1.a. Ramos Black (7490), b. Plainware (1977.193.185.1), c. Ramos Polychrome (7462), d. Villa Ahumada Polychrome (1977.193.129). ............................................................... 24

Figure 3.2.a. Babicora Polychrome (3426), b. Playas Red (1977.193.137.1), c. Carretas Polychrome (1977.193.92.1)............................................................................................. 26

Figure 3.3.a. Corralitos Polychrome (1977.193.132.1), b. Dublan Polychrome (1976.17.36.1), c. Madera Black-on-red (1977.193.183). .............................................................................. 27

Figure 3.4.a. Ramos Black-on-white (1986.18.53), b. Villa Ahumada Black-on-white (1977.193.119), c. Escondida Polychrome (1986.18.23). ................................................ 29

Figure 3.5. Diagram of vessel zones. Adapted from Skibo (1992:114). ...................................... 31 Figure 3.6. Close up of neck vs. rim differentiation. .................................................................... 32 Figure 3.7. Example of how each vessel was filled with acrylic beads and weighed to calculate

maximum volume. ............................................................................................................ 38 Figure 4.1. Boxplot of volume divided by vessel form. Labels indicate the 1st quartile, mean, and

3rd quartile volume measurements for each vessel form. ................................................. 42 Figure 4.2. Plot of vessel height and body diameter, sorted by vessel form. ............................... 45 Figure 4.3. Plot of height and orifice diameter. Note the categories by form. ............................. 46 Figure 4.4. Plot of volume and diameter for all vessels, sorted by vessel form. Outliers (n=6) are

miniature bowls and jars. .................................................................................................. 47 Figure 4.5. Abrasion traces on base of vessel. .............................................................................. 49 Figure 4.6. Abrasion traces seen on lower body and base. ........................................................... 50 Figure 4.7. Example of pedestalled temper. ................................................................................. 50 Figure 4.8. Occurrence percentage of abrasion traces for all vessels (n=300) by vessel form. .... 51 Figure 4.9. Percentage of abrasion trace occurrences on the interior of vessels sorted by trace

location and vessel form. .................................................................................................. 53 Figure 4.10. Percentage of abrasion trace occurrences for all vessels (n=300) by ceramic type. 54 Figure 4.11. Percentage of interior and exterior abrasion occurrences by ceramic type. ............. 55 Figure 4.12. Example of cracks. ................................................................................................... 57 Figure 4.13. Another example of cracks. ...................................................................................... 58 Figure 4.14. Tabulated statistics for cracks. Contains percentages of occurrences for wear pattern

on each vessel zone, divided by vessel form. ................................................................... 58 Figure 4.15. Tabulated statistics for cracks. Contains percentages of occurrences for wear pattern

on each vessel zone, divided by ceramic type. ................................................................. 60 Figure 4.16. Cracking score occurrences for all data. The numbers 1, 2, and 3 on the x-axis refer

to the score. ....................................................................................................................... 61 Figure 4.17. Example of sooting seen on base and lower body of the vessel. .............................. 62 Figure 4.18. Percentage of soot trace occurrences by vessel form. .............................................. 63 Figure 4.19. Percentage of soot trace occurrences on effigies by interior/exterior and vessel zone.

........................................................................................................................................... 64 Figure 4.20. Percentage of occurrence of soot traces by ceramic type. ........................................ 66 Figure 4.21. Occurrence percentage of interior lower body/base sooting for bowls by ceramic

type. ................................................................................................................................... 68 Figure 4.22. Occurrence percentage of interior lower body/base sooting for jars by ceramic type.

........................................................................................................................................... 69

viii

Figure 4.23. Occurrence percentage of interior lower body/base sooting for effigies by ceramic type. ................................................................................................................................... 69

Figure 4.24. Occurrence percentages of exterior lower body and base sooting by ceramic type. 70 Figure 4.25. Principal components analysis that illustrates the relationship of vessel forms with

dark staining traces. .......................................................................................................... 71 Figure 4.26. Principal components analysis that illustrates the relationship of ceramic types with

dark staining traces. .......................................................................................................... 72 Figure 4.27. Example of delamination on a Playas Red bowl. ..................................................... 73 Figure 4.28. Another example of delamination. ........................................................................... 73 Figure 4.29. Percentage of occurring delamination traces by vessel form. .................................. 74 Figure 4.30. Occurrence percentage of delamination traces by ceramic type. ............................. 77 Figure 4.31. Percentages for occurrences of delamination sorted by vessel form and type. ........ 80 Figure 4.32. Example of discoloration. ......................................................................................... 81 Figure 4.33. Percentages of occurrence of discoloration traces sorted by vessel form. ............... 82 Figure 4.34. Percentages of occurrence of discoloration traces sorted by ceramic type. ............. 82 Figure 4.35. Example of the how the Ramos Black surface can burn away leaving the brown

surface exposed. ................................................................................................................ 85 Figure 4.36. Example of fireclouding on Plainware jar. ............................................................... 86 Figure 4.37. Percentages of occurrence of firecloud traces by vessel form. ................................ 87 Figure 4.38. Percentages of occurrence of firecloud traces sorted by ceramic type. .................... 88 Figure 4.39. Example of flaking. .................................................................................................. 89 Figure 4.40. Close up view of peeling paint (“Flaking Paint 01” Aimi-Stock https://aimi-

stock.deviantart.com/art/Peeling-Paint-01-162498612). Although not a vessel surface from the samples in this study, this is a good illustration of the flaking traces I noted. ... 89

Figure 4.41. Example of painted decoration almost completely gone from the surface of a Villa Ahumada vessel due to flaking. ........................................................................................ 90

Figure 4.42. Percentage of flaking trace occurrences by vessel form. ......................................... 91 Figure 4.43. Occurrence percentage of flaking traces by ceramic type. ....................................... 93 Figure 4.44. Example of indeterminate traces. Trace is patches of faint bluish splotches. .......... 94 Figure 4.45. Example of indeterminate trace. Trace is a spot of a shiny substance that is quite

dry, but is stuck to the surface of the vessel. .................................................................... 94 Figure 4.46. Percentage of occurrence of indeterminate traces by vessel form. .......................... 95 Figure 4.47. Percentage of occurrence of indeterminate traces by ceramic type. ........................ 96 Figure 4. 48. Example of a mending hole. .................................................................................... 97 Figure 4.49. Percentage of occurrence of mend hole traces by vessel form. ................................ 98 Figure 4.50. Percentage of occurrence of mend hole traces by ceramic type. .............................. 99 Figure 4.51. Example of missing piece. ...................................................................................... 100 Figure 4. 52. Percentage of occurrence of missing piece traces by vessel form. ........................ 101 Figure 4.53. Percentage of occurrence of missing piece traces by ceramic type. ....................... 102 Figure 4.54. Example of modern repair. ..................................................................................... 103 Figure 4.55. Percentage of occurrence of modern repair traces by vessel form. ........................ 104 Figure 4.56. Percentage of occurrence of modern repair traces by ceramic type. ...................... 105 Figure 4.57. Example of a nick-chip-gouge trace. ...................................................................... 106 Figure 4.58. Example of a modern, or post-excavation nick-chip-gouge trace. This trace could

have been cause by a trowel striking the vessel through wet soil. .................................. 107 Figure 4.59. Percentage of of occurrences of nick-chip-gouge traces by vessel form. .............. 108

ix

Figure 4.60. Occurrence percentage of nick-chip-gouge traces by ceramic type. ...................... 110 Figure 4.61. Number of nick-chip-gouge traces in association with cracks and/or abrasion on the

rim of individual bowls (n=17). ...................................................................................... 112 Figure 4.62. Number of n/c/g traces associated with abrasion or cracks on jar rims, sorted by

ceramic type and interior/exterior location for individual vessels. ................................. 113 Figure 4.63. Number of n/c/g traces associated with abrasion or cracks on effigy rims, sorted by

ceramic type and interior/exterior location for individual vessels. ................................. 113 Figure 4.64. Possible oxidation traces. ....................................................................................... 114 Figure 4.65. Occurrence percentage of oxidation traces by vessel form. ................................... 115 Figure 4.66. Percentage of occurrences of oxidation traces by ceramic type. ............................ 116 Figure 4.67. Example of patches. ................................................................................................ 117 Figure 4.68. Percentage of occurrence of patch traces by vessel form. ...................................... 118 Figure 4.69. Percentage of occurrence of patch traces by ceramic type. .................................... 120 Figure 4.70. Example of perforations. ........................................................................................ 122 Figure 4.71. Percentage of occurrence of perforation traces by vessel form. ............................. 123 Figure 4.72. Percentage of occurrence of perforation traces by ceramic type. ........................... 124 Figure 4.73. Example of pitting. ................................................................................................. 125 Figure 4.74. Percentage of pitting traces occurring by vessel form. ........................................... 126 Figure 4.75. Occurrence percentage of pitting on vessel interiors by location and trace size. ... 129 Figure 4.76. Occurrence percentage of pitting traces limited to vessel interiors by location and

trace severity score. ......................................................................................................... 130 Figure 4.77. Percentage of occurrences of pitting traces by ceramic type. ................................ 131 Figure 4.78. Occurrences of pitting traces for dataset (n=300) by ceramic type and

interior/exterior location. ................................................................................................ 131 Figure 4.79. Example of scratches. ............................................................................................. 132 Figure 4.80. Percentage of occurrence of scratch traces by vessel form. ................................... 133 Figure 4.81. Percentage of occurrences of scratch traces by ceramic type. ................................ 135 Figure 4.82. Example of spalling as seen from vessel interior. .................................................. 136 Figure 4.83. Percentage of occurrence of spalling traces by vessel form. .................................. 137 Figure 4.84. Percentage of occurrence of spalling traces by ceramic type. ................................ 138 Figure 4.85. Example of stirring. ................................................................................................ 139 Figure 4.86. Percentage of occurrence of stirring traces by vessel form. ................................... 140 Figure 4.87. Percentage of occurrence of stirring traces by ceramic type. ................................. 141 Figure 4.88. Percentage of occurrence of severity scores for jars by ceramic type. ................... 143 Figure 4.89. Percentage of occurrence of severity scores for bowls by ceramic type. ............... 144 Figure 4.90. Percentage of occurrence of severity scores for effigies by ceramic type. ............ 144 Figure 5.1. Example of a potential kill hole. ............................................................................... 166 Figure 5.2. Example of a vessel with multiple perforation traces. ............................................. 167

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.3. Ceramic types in the sample. ....................................................................................... 29 Table 3.4. Ceramic wares by vessel form. .................................................................................... 30 Table 4.1. Tabulated height statistics for all vessels sorted by form. ........................................... 42 Table 4.2. Tabulated volume (mL) statistics for all vessels sorted by type and form. ................. 43 Table 4.2. Continued from previous page. .................................................................................... 44 Table 4.3. Tabulated volume statistics for all vessels sorted by form. ......................................... 44 Table 4.4. Tabulated diameter/height ratio statistics for all vessels sorted by form. .................... 45 Table 4.5. Tabulated statistics for abrasion. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for

wear pattern by vessel form. ............................................................................................. 51 Table 4.6. Tabulated statistics for abrasion. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for

wear pattern on each vessel zone, divided by exterior and interior. ................................. 52 Table 4.7. Tabulated statistics for abrasion. Counts and percentages of occurrence for wear

pattern on each vessel zone, divided by vessel form. ....................................................... 53 Table 4.8. Tabulated statistics for abrasion. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for

wear pattern by ceramic type. ........................................................................................... 55 Table 4.9. Table associated with Figure 4.11. Shows percentage of interior and exterior abrasion

occurrences by ceramic type. ............................................................................................ 56 Table 4.10. Tabulated statistics for cracks. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for

wear pattern by vessel form. ............................................................................................. 58 Table 4.11. Tabulated statistics for cracks. Contains percentages of occurrences for wear pattern

on each vessel zone, divided by ceramic type. ................................................................. 59 Table 4.12. Tabulated statistics for cracks. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for

wear pattern by ceramic type. ........................................................................................... 60 Table 4.13. Tabulated statistics for cracks. Contains counts and percentage of occurrences for

wear pattern on each vessel zone, divided by exterior and interior. ................................. 61 Table 4.14. Tabulated statistics for soot traces. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for

wear pattern by vessel form. ............................................................................................. 63 Table 4.15. Tabulated statistics for sooting. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for

wear pattern on each vessel zone, by vessel form. ........................................................... 64 Table 4.16. Tabulated statistics for sooting. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for

wear pattern by ceramic type. ........................................................................................... 65 Table 4.17. Tabulated statistics for sooting. Contains counts and percentages of occurrences of

wear pattern on each vessel zone, sorted by vessel exteriors and interiors. ..................... 67 Table 4.18. Tabulated statistics for delamination. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence

for wear pattern by vessel form. ....................................................................................... 74 Table 4.19. Tabulated statistics for delamination. Contains counts and percentages of

occurrences for wear pattern on each vessel zone by vessel form. ................................... 75 Table 4.20. Tabulated statistics for delamination. Contains counts and percentages of occurrence

of wear pattern on each vessel zone by exterior and interior. ........................................... 76 Table 4.21. Tabulated statistics for delamination. Contains counts and percentages of occurrence

of severity of wear trace sorted by vessel zone................................................................. 76 Table 4.22. Tabulated statistics for delamination. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence

for wear pattern by ceramic type. ..................................................................................... 77

xi

Table 4.23. Counts and percentage of occurrence of delamination associated with pitting by vessel zone. ....................................................................................................................... 78

Table 4.24. Counts and percentage of occurrence of delamination associated with pitting by ceramic type. ..................................................................................................................... 79

Table 4.25. Tabulated statistics for discoloration. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by vessel form. ....................................................................................... 81

Table 4.26. Tabulated statistics for discoloration. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by ceramic type. ..................................................................................... 83

Table 4.27. Counts and percentage of occurrence of discoloration traces for Ramos Black bowls by interior/exterior and location. ....................................................................................... 84

Table 4.28. Counts and percentage of occurrence of discoloration traces for Ramos Black jars by interior/exterior and location. ............................................................................................ 84

Table 4.29. Tabulated statistics for fireclouds. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by vessel form. ............................................................................................. 86

Table 4.30. Tabulated statistics for fireclouds. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by ceramic type. ........................................................................................... 87

Table 4.31. Tabulated statistics for flaking. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence of wear pattern on each vessel zone by exterior and interior. ............................................... 90

Table 4.32. Tabulated statistics for flaking. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by vessel form. ............................................................................................. 90

Table 4.33. Tabulated statistics for flaking. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern on each vessel zone by vessel form. ............................................................ 91

Table 4.34. Tabulated statistics for flaking. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by ceramic type. ........................................................................................... 92

Table 4.35. Tabulated statistics for indeterminate. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by vessel form. ....................................................................................... 95

Table 4.36. Tabulated statistics for indeterminate. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by ceramic type. ..................................................................................... 96

Table 4.37. Tabulated statistics for mend holes. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by vessel form. ....................................................................................... 97

Table 4.38. Tabulated statistics for mend holes. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by ceramic type. ..................................................................................... 98

Table 4.39. Tabulated statistics for missing pieces. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by vessel form. ..................................................................................... 101

Table 4.40. Tabulated statistics for missing pieces. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by ceramic type. ................................................................................... 102

Table 4.41. Tabulated statistics for modern repair. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by vessel form. ..................................................................................... 104

Table 4.42. Tabulated statistics for modern repair. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by ceramic type. ................................................................................... 105

Table 4.43. Tabulated statistics for nick-chip-gouges. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by vessel form. ................................................................... 107

Table 4.44. Tabulated statistics for nick-chip-gouges. Contains counts and percentages of occurrence for wear pattern on each vessel zone by vessel form. .................................. 108

Table 4.45. Tabulated statistics for nick-chip-gouges. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by ceramic type. ................................................................. 109

xii

Table 4.46. Counts and percentages for nick-chip-gouge trace occurrences associated with cracks and abrasion on the rim of bowls by ceramic type then interior or exterior location. .... 111

Table 4.47. Tabulated statistics for oxidation. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by vessel form. ........................................................................................... 115

Table 4.48. Tabulated statistics for oxidation. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by ceramic type. ......................................................................................... 116

Table 4.49. Tabulated statistics for patches. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by vessel form. ........................................................................................... 118

Table 4.50. Tabulated statistics for patches. Contains counts of occurrence for wear pattern on each vessel zone, divided by vessel form. ...................................................................... 119

Table 4.51. Tabulated statistics for patches. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by ceramic type. ......................................................................................... 119

Table 4.52. Tabulated statistics for patches. Contains counts and percentage of occurrences of wear pattern on each vessel zone by exterior and interior. ............................................. 121

Table 4.53. Tabulated statistics for perforations. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by vessel form. ..................................................................................... 122

Table 4.54. Tabulated statistics for perforations. Contains counts of occurrence for wear pattern on each vessel zone, divided by vessel form. ................................................................. 123

Table 4.55. Tabulated statistics for perforations. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by ceramic type. ................................................................................... 124

Table 4.56. Tabulated statistics for pits. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by vessel form. .................................................................................................... 126

Table 4.57. Tabulated statistics for pits. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern on each vessel zone by vessel form. ................................................................... 127

Table 4.58. Tabulated statistics for pits. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence of wear pattern on each vessel zone by exterior and interior and vessel form. ........................... 127

Table 4.59. Counts and percentage of each occurrence of pitting by severity. .......................... 128 Table 4.60. Tabulated statistics for pits. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear

pattern by ceramic type. .................................................................................................. 130 Table 4.61. Tabulated statistics for scratches. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for

wear pattern by vessel form. ........................................................................................... 133 Table 4.62. Tabulated statistics for scratches. Contains counts of occurrence for wear pattern on

each vessel zone, divided by vessel form. ...................................................................... 134 Table 4.63. Tabulated statistics for scratches. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for

wear pattern by ceramic type. ......................................................................................... 134 Table 4.64. Tabulated statistics for spalling. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for

wear pattern by vessel form. ........................................................................................... 136 Table 4.65. Tabulated statistics for spalling. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for

wear pattern by ceramic type. ......................................................................................... 137 Table 4.66. Tabulated statistics for stirring. Contains counts of occurrence for wear pattern on

each vessel zone, divided by vessel form. ...................................................................... 140 Table 4.67. Tabulated statistics for stirring. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for

wear pattern by ceramic type. ......................................................................................... 141 Table 4.68. Totals for occurrences of severity scores by ceramic type and vessel form. ........... 143

1

1. Introduction

Many archaeologists look to pottery as evidence for a variety of human behaviors.

Among other things, ceramics can indicate evidence of trade and exchange, the spread of ideas,

ritual or ceremonial behavior, and everyday life. Skibo (1992) argues that inferences about past

society must be based on an understanding of pottery function. He says, “it is difficult--if not

impossible--to understand why there was a change in a pottery decorative style or technological

attribute if there is little information about how the pots were used in everyday life” (Skibo 1992:

ix-x).

My thesis explores the organization of communities in the Casas Grandes region during

the Medio period through the evidences of use on ceramic vessels. I conducted a use-alteration

analysis to identify various evidences of use on the interiors and exteriors of 300 vessels. The

purpose of this study was to examine the question: what were ceramic vessels actually used for

by the people of Casas Grandes? A use-alteration analysis has never been done to this scale on

any vessels from the Casas Grandes area. My study suggests that the vessels were typically used

for separate but not altogether distinct use activities. The general use pattern followed intended

functional categories, with enough variety to suggest vessels were also used according to

individual needs.

The Casas Grandes Valley is located in the northwestern corner of the modern state of

Chihuahua, Mexico. This area falls into the greater Southwest cultural region, but for the sake of

including all modern political boundaries, this area is referred to as the Northwest/Southwest

(Northwest for the geographical area in Mexico, Southwest for the geographical area in the

United States of America). During the Medio period (approximately AD 1200-1450), the whole

2

Casas Grandes region experienced large growth and prosperity, particularly at Paquimé, the large

central site. Paquimé is thought to have been the center of an emerging polity that controlled

surrounding settlements (Whalen and Minnis 2001, 2009). Silva (2012:1) describes the central

site of Paquimé as “one of the largest and most impressive sites in northern Mexico.”

Research conducted on Casas Grandes ceramics up to this point has focused on three

main elements: 1) description and classification of types, 2) examinations of the symbolic

significance of vessel decoration, and 3) how the distribution and manufacture of ceramics

reflects the interaction and political organization of the Casas Grandes region. Analyses of Casas

Grandes ceramics have looked at form and design in connection with burials (Ravesloot 1988),

authority, sociopolitical organization (Searcy 2014; Sprehn 2006), ceremony and ritual (Rakita

2009), communication, and identifying cultural boundaries and influences (Burgett 2006;

Hendrickson 2003). Very little has been said about some of the everyday uses of Casas Grandes

ceramics to date. I will review previous use-alteration analyses on Casas Grandes ceramics in

Chapter 2. This thesis adds to the work from these three studies with data on vessels from two

different collections.

The 300 vessels analyzed for this study came from two different collections: 204 vessels

from collections at the Museum of Peoples and Cultures (MPC) at Brigham Young University,

and 96 vessels from the Amerind Foundation in Dragoon, Arizona. All the vessels from both

institutions have unknown provenience, and were donated by private collectors (Eric Kaldahl,

personal communication 2016).

I analyzed a mix of jars, bowls, and effigy vessels that fall into 13 types. The most

frequently occurring types were Plainware, Babicora Polychrome, Ramos Black, Ramos

Polychrome, and Villa Ahumada Polychrome. In addition to whole vessels, many of the vessels

3

in the sample have been reconstructed. However, the vessels in my sample only included vessels

that were at least 50% complete. Each vessel was divided analytically into 10-12 zones and

analyzed for use-alteration traces, including pitting, spalling, nicks, chips, gouges, stirring,

general abrasion, and sooting. Every occurrence of each trace was noted and given a severity

ranking—mild, moderate, or severe. I also noted the orientation (vertical, horizontal, diagonal),

length, width, direction (clockwise, counter-clockwise, upward, downward), and size of each

trace as applicable, although these data points were not part of the final analysis as their

inclusion did not positively contribute to the question and my overall study. It was also one of

the goals of my project to take detailed photographs of each type of wear, as good photos of

different types of use-alteration are difficult to find in the literature.

At the beginning of my analysis I was positive I would see Ramos Black and Ramos

Polychrome vessels, in particular, fall into specific and unique use categories. I thought I saw a

lot of pitting on Ramos Black vessels, both on their interiors and exteriors. And I did not see a lot

of wear on Ramos Polychrome. However, once the vessels were analyzed, a few separate and

distinct patterns emerged. All vessels had some evidences of wear, regardless of vessel form,

size, or decoration. The ceramic types and vessel forms generally fell into categories that

coincided with intended function, but there was a considerable amount of overlap between the

use categories. In essence, the residents of the Casas Grandes region used their ceramic vessels

for a broad range of activities that did not necessarily reflect a vessel’s intended function. This

varied use of vessels for all types of activities is actually consistent with other findings about the

organization of Casas Grandes—that ceramic production and distribution were likely not

centrally controlled, as has been recently suggested by Triadan and colleagues (2017) and others

(Cruz Antillón et al. 2004; Pitezel 2008; Whalen and Minnis 2009).

4

A Word about Intended Function

When considering vessel function, it could be beneficial to sort the vessels into intended

functional categories as an aid in looking for general patterns. While it is true that vessels with

similar morphological attributes generally fall into similar use categories, limiting research to

intended function overlooks the possibility that vessels were multifunctional (Skibo 1992:38).

Archaeologists create categories and ways of organizing data that make sense for their research,

but we should be careful to not over-categorize (Krieger 1944). If a vessel is already categorized

as a “cooking” vessel because of its morphological attributes and lack of decoration prior to use-

alteration analysis, but it does not bear the markers of a cooking vessel, this can be problematic.

To quote Skibo (1992:37) again:

Clearly all tests that investigate performance characteristics must be carried out with some knowledge of subsistence and cooking practices. However, as correlations of finer resolution are made between technological properties and vessel use, a limitation of the approach is highlighted; the intended function of the vessel is too general. What is required are strategies to infer how the vessel was actually used.

As others have suggested (Krieger 1944:276), it is my opinion that categories of intended

function are useful as an aid in determining a vessel’s use, but used in conjunction with use-

alteration studies improves our understanding of vessel function.

My thesis is divided into six chapters to illuminate use-alteration in the pottery of Casas

Grandes. In Chapter 2, I cover the archaeological background of Casas Grandes and give an

account of the research conducted in that area. I also provide a brief history of previous ceramic

use-alteration studies and of ceramic studies specific to the Casas Grandes region. Chapter 3

includes information regarding the museum collections, my dataset, and what data I collected

during my analysis. The results of my analysis can be found in Chapter 4 with a discussion of

5

those results in Chapter 5. I end in Chapter 6 with my conclusions and recommendations for

further research.

6

2. Introducing Casas Grandes

The Casas Grandes Valley is a drainage basin tucked at the base of the Sierra Madre

Mountains in the northwestern corner of the modern state of Chihuahua, Mexico. This valley

runs through the Chihuahuan desert and spreads up into the southern tips of Arizona and New

Mexico in the United States (Figure 2.1). During its height, Casas Grandes was surely an

important player in the social dynamics of the NW/SW. Plog (1997:173) says the Casas Grandes

area was “probably the most developed and centralized polity in the prehistoric Southwest.” The

centralized polity to which Plog referred is the large site of Paquimé, thought to have been the

regional center of the cultural area. Excavations and research in Casas Grandes have revealed

three major periods of occupation ranging from AD 700 to just after AD 1450. The data

presented in this thesis is associated with the most populated time period, the Medio period, but

the other periods are mentioned to put the Medio period in context.

Before continuing further, I define two terms that will be used extensively throughout this

and subsequent chapters: Paquimé and Casas Grandes. I use Paquimé to refer to the actual

archaeological site. In some texts the site is also referred to as “Casas Grandes”, but to avoid

confusion, in this text Casas Grandes will refer to the larger cultural region.

Although it is not the beginning of human activity in this area (Kelley and Searcy 2015),

the Viejo period stretched from AD 700 to AD 1200/1250. This period is marked by increased

sedentism, and an aggregation of peoples into more centralized communities. Excavations have

found people during this time primarily lived in pithouse structures near arable land close to

water sources and used brown ware pottery (Kelley and Searcy 2015:17). Basic subsistence in

7

this period consisted of corns, beans, and squash, subsidized by local game (Kelley and Searcy

2015).

Figure 2.1 Map of the Casas Grandes cultural boundaries in relation to the greater NW/SW. Map drawn by Haylie Ferguson.

8

The Medio period is the most heavily studied in Casas Grandes because of its abundance

of material evidence. The dates originally given for the Medio period by Di Peso have been the

subject of much scrutiny and reexamination (Minnis and Whalen 2004:266; See also Dean and

Ravesloot 1993; LeBlanc 1980; Lekson 1984; Phillips and Carpenter 1999; Rakita and Raymond

2003; Whalen and Minnis 2001). Today, generally accepted dates for the Medio period are AD

1200-1450 (Dean and Ravesloot 1993).

The Medio period was different from the Viejo period by the further aggregation of

people into larger communities and the establishment of the central city of Paquimé. Excavations

at Paquimé have revealed impressive multistoried domestic room blocks, and public and

ceremonial structures made of puddled adobe surrounding enclosed plazas. This settlement

displayed prominence and power through ceremonial platforms, three ballcourts, and an

extensive water system that ran throughout the entire city (Ravesloot 1988; VanPool and

VanPool 2007). Just as in the Viejo period, the people of Casas Grandes continued to rely on

their agricultural practices. Whalen and Minnis (2009:2) argue that Casas Grandes was the

“center of one of the major regional systems” in the NW/SW.

Perhaps one of the most unique aspects of Paquimé during the Medio period was the

presence of macaw and turkey pens and exotic goods like shell and copper bells. In fact, as

Whalen and Minnis (2009:267) assert, Casas Grandes is famous for its huge quantities of exotic

items and trade goods. This was a wealthy community. In their 2001 publication, Casas Grandes

and Its Hinterland, Whalen and Minnis discuss how the political elite would have used the

confluence of Mesoamerican elements and goods from the North and West to promote their

political ideologies and authority in the region. Paquimé was most likely a gateway city between

9

the greater SW/NW and the Mesoamerican cultures to the south, a sort of “regional Mecca”

(Whalen and Minnis 2001:199).

It is unclear exactly why Paquimé was abandoned around AD 1450 and to where the

inhabitants may have relocated. Models proposed by Whalen and Minnis (2012) and Phillips and

Gamboa (2015) have suggested the peoples of Casas Grandes likely rejected the ritual practices

imposed by the elite and either migrated north to join communities of their Puebloan neighbors

or west to congregate with Sonoran groups. When the Spanish arrived and built a settlement in

the area in AD 1663 (Di Peso 1974:3:865) Paquimé was in ruins.

Archaeology in Casas Grandes

The earliest descriptions of the Casas Grandes region were provided by explorers who

traversed the area in the 16th century and provided descriptions of the land and the ruins found

there. Baltazar de Obregón (Hammond and Rey 1928:205-208) described buildings he believed

had been built by the ancient Romans as “marvelous to look upon” (see also Brand 1943:141). In

the late 19th century, Adolph F. Bandelier mapped Paquimé and briefly described the

archaeological remains there, as did J. R. Bartlett, and A. H. Blackiston (Carey 1931:360; Minnis

and Whalen 2015:4). And in 1902, Carl Lumholtz published the results of his five years of

exploration in Chihuahua and Sonora (Whalen and Minnis 2001:28).

Kidder compiled a general typology of Casas Grandes pottery (Kidder 1916). He based

his research on the surveys of the area performed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by

Bartlett, Bandelier, Lumholtz, and Hewett. More about Kidder’s contributions will be discussed

later in this chapter during my discussion of Casas Grandes pottery types.

10

Joint Casas Grandes Expedition

The most significant project carried out in the Casas Grandes area occurred from 1958-

1961 when the Amerind Foundation and the National Institute of Anthropology and History of

Mexico (INAH) joined together to excavate the ruins of Paquimé and sites in the vicinity. The

Joint Casas Grandes Expedition (JCGE) was led by Di Peso, who, with a large crew, conducted

extensive excavations and surveyed surrounding areas, and began processing and analyzing the

vast quantities of artifacts uncovered during the three-year project (Di Peso 1974 vols. 1-3 and

Di Peso et al., 1974 vols. 4-8). Much of what we know about Paquimé and Casas Grandes

material culture comes from the Joint Casas Grandes Expedition (JCGE). It was at this time,

thanks to Di Peso, that the large central ruins of the Casas Grandes region received the name by

which they are known today: Paquimé (Cordell and McBrinn 2012:273).

The JCGE excavated approximately 42% of Paquimé (Ravesloot 1988:5), and the

subsequent eight volume project report (Di Peso 1974, vols. 1-3 and Di Peso et al., vols. 1974:4-

8) contains what Rakita (2008) calls “excruciating detail of each feature, eco-fact, and artifact

recovered” (Rakita 2008:15). John A. Ware states, “...Di Peso’s prodigious research

efforts...[form] a legacy that includes a remarkably broad vision of Southwest prehistory backed

by painstaking research and meticulous documentation” (Minnis and Whalen 2015:ix). The work

completed by Di Peso and his crew served as a solid foundation for continuing archaeological

research, and marked the first significant study on the area. Even today, anyone wishing to study

the archaeology of Casas Grandes must begin with the volumes produced by the Amerind

Foundation (Pitezel 2008:3).

11

Exploring Casas Grandes after the JCGE

Since Di Peso published his work, interest in archaeological research in Casas Grandes has

continued. These projects are still small and limited in scale when compared to the literature

produced about Southwestern cultures to the north of Casas Grandes or the Mesoamerican

cultures to the South, but the fact remains that Casas Grandes has an archaeological presence that

is gradually growing. And it is thanks largely in part to the following individuals that the area

continues to be studied.

Beginning in the 1980s and 1990s, Whalen and Minnis conducted surveys and excavations in

several areas of the Casas Grandes region, and their field research represents the most significant

progress regarding Casas Grandes archaeology after the JCGE. They have suggested that

Paquimé is a centralized polity and have worked to develop interpretations of the extent of the

regional system that surrounded Paquimé (Whalen and Minnis 1999). They have proposed

Paquimé as the primate center of a core zone for a region with specialization, differentiation, and

organized regional control (Whalen and Minnis 2001; Whalen and Pitezel 2015).

Kelley led the Proyecto Arqueológico Chihuahua (PAC) until recently, completing 13 field

seasons in Chihuahua, focusing mostly on the southern end of the region (Kelley et al. 2012).

Together with her colleagues, Kelley has worked to clarify “chronology, cultural sequences, the

ways people interacted with their environment, and the relationships between northern and

southern parts of the culture area…” (Kelley et al. 2012:86). The research conducted by PAC has

focused primarily on the Viejo period, and suggests that the southern cultural boundary of Casas

Grandes extends well below the center of Paquimé (King 2016). Kelley passed away in 2016, but

her extensive work in Casas Grandes continues as an enduring legacy. Thanks to her diligent

12

efforts, we have the largest body of data pertaining to the Viejo period outside Di Peso’s data

(King 2016).

Largely thanks to the work of Whalen, Minnis, and Kelly, research continues as their students

(and now students of their students) focus on the Casas Grandes area. Many archaeologists study

museum collections or unfinished data from other projects (King 2016). There is a wealth of data

yet to be discovered. Phillips has studied the Robles phase of the Casas Grandes culture for much

of his career (Phillips 1989; Phillips 1990; Phillips and Carpenter 1999; Phillips 2008; Phillips

and Gamboa 2015) while Searcy and Pitezel have been shedding light on the Viejo period

(Kelley and Searcy 2015; Pitezel and Searcy 2013; Searcy and Pitezel 2017). Other researchers

include Burgett (2006), Cruz Antillón and Maxwell (1999), Fish and Fish (1999), Pitezel (2008;

Pitezel and Searcy 2013; Searcy and Pitezel 2017; Whalen and Pitezel 2015), Rakita (2008 and

2009), Silva (2012), and VanPool and VanPool (VanPool 2002; VanPool 2003; VanPool and

VanPool 2007; VanPool, VanPool, and Harmon 2008; VanPool, VanPool, and Phillips 2006).

This list is not exhaustive, but represents a fair number of the most prominent archaeologists in

the area.

Casas Grandes Ceramics

Research on Casas Grandes ceramics began with Kidder. Kidder’s (1916) typology of

Casas Grandes ceramics marks the first systematic study of Casas Grandes ceramics. He based

his research on collections made during surveys of the area performed in the late 19th and early

20th centuries by Bartlett, Bandelier, Lumholtz, and Hewett. Although his original typology has

been modified, he provided general descriptions of vessel form, manufacture, firing, decoration

techniques, and decoration styles. He noted the absence of soot on some larger jars and suggests

that they were likely used to hold water (Kidder 1916:254). Kidder’s contribution to the study of

13

Casas Grandes ceramics is significant because it synthesized previous work in the area. Other

published descriptions of the pottery of Casas Grandes include Brand (1935, 1943), Brooks

(1973), Carey (1931), Chapman (1923), and Sayles (1936). None of these typologies attempted

to “emphasize spatial and temporal change in the material” (Ford and Steward 1954:43), they

were merely descriptive of form and decoration.

Then, in 1974, Di Peso, Rinaldo, and Fenner published the results of an in-depth ceramic

analysis conducted on the vessels and sherds recovered during the Joint Casas Grandes

Expedition (Di Peso et al. 1974 vol. 6). Their published report on the analysis of ceramics

contains the most comprehensive classification and description of Chihuahuan pottery

(Hendrickson 2003:7). They covered the chronology of the various types through each Casas

Grandes period and phase as well as the distribution of the various decorative techniques

throughout the area. They discussed manufacturing techniques, vessel form, and analysis of

painted designs. They also listed all the excavated ceramic types and suggested the function of

each vessel based on form (Di Peso et al. 1974:6:85-88). The work completed by Di Peso,

Rinaldo, and Fenner with the Joint Casas Grandes Project set the foundation for the study of

Chihuahuan ceramics (Hendrickson 2003:7), and directed the path of ceramic research in that

area for quite some time.

VanPool and VanPool have published extensively on a variety of topics on Casas

Grandes and the greater NW/SW. Much of their research looks at ceramic iconography and how

the symbols and motifs relate to symbolism, gender, ritual, and religion (VanPool 2002; VanPool

2003; VanPool and VanPool 2007; VanPool, VanPool, and Harmon 2008; VanPool, VanPool,

and Phillips 2006). They primarily have been concerned with the symbolic decoration providing

evidence for ritual and cult practices. Most notably, they have suggested that the cosmological

14

symbols depicted on Casas Grandes vessels indicate a “worldview based on shamanism”

(VanPool and VanPool 2007:21).

Rakita has focused largely on evidences of ritual and religion in Casas Grandes (2008 and

2009). His work has explored how ritual practices and the organization of ritual specialists

helped maintain aggregated populations and cause institutionalized social inequality to emerge

(Rakita 2009). Among other things, he has proposed the presence of an ancestor cult at Paquimé.

He notes the presence of unique artifacts, Ramos Black vessels among them, associated with

special burial and funerary contexts, and uses this evidence as an argument for an ancestor cult.

Searcy (2010) completed his dissertation on symbols and sociopolitical organization in

the Casas Grandes and Salado regions. This study looked at the interaction between the

southwest and Mesoamerica through an analysis of “Mesoamerican symbols on pottery that was

produced during the late prehistoric period in the Salado and Casas regions” (2010: xi). Searcy

looked for iconographical symbols such as plumed/horned serpents, macaws, twins, and Flower

World imagery to indicate how people in the Salado and Casas Grandes traditions incorporated

Mesoamerican motifs into their ceramic designs, and how those symbols may have affected or

reflected sociopolitical organization (2014:14-15). He found that Mesoamerican symbols

occurred more frequently at the more hierarchical sites in the Casas region (2014:17), indicating

their use as tokens of authority (2014:22), while the symbols were distributed more evenly

through Salado sites (2014:17), indicating their use as girders, or unifying links between distant

groups (2014:22). His work shows how ceramic vessels can be used to convey messages,

promote social and political hierarchies, and unify groups of people.

As has been illustrated above, the research conducted on Casas Grandes ceramics up to

this point has focused on three main elements: 1) description and classification of types, 2)

15

examinations of the symbolic significance of vessel decoration, and 3) the relationships of Casas

Grandes to Mesoamerica and the Southwest. Numerous analyses of Casas Grandes ceramics

have looked at form and design in connection with burials (Ravesloot 1988), authority,

sociopolitical organization (Sprehn 2006), ceremony and ritual, communication, and identifying

cultural boundaries and influences (Burgett 2006; Hendrickson 2003). However, very little has

been said about some of the more everyday uses of Casas Grandes ceramics. Di Peso and

colleagues (1974 vol. 6), Whalen and Minnis (2009), and Pitezel (2008) discuss ceramic use in a

domestic context, and I will discuss each of their contributions in the next section. Skibo (1992)

says that there is often not sufficient information about how pottery was used. He argues that, “it

is difficult--if not impossible--to understand why there was a change in a pottery decorative style

or technological attribute if there is little information about how the pots were used in everyday

life” (Skibo 1992:x). In order to discover how vessels were used by those in the Casas Grandes

region, it is necessary to explore use-alteration analysis, which is the topic of this thesis.

Use-alteration Analyses on Casas Grandes Ceramics

As part of the large volume on Casas Grandes ceramics, Di Peso and colleagues (1974

vol. 6) contributed some information regarding vessel use. As with Kidder (1916), Bradfield

(1931), Bullock (2011), and others, they noted the presence of sooting as evidence for cooking

activities. They further divided the ceramics of the Medio period into categories of use based on

the form and size of a vessel (Di Peso et al. 1974:6:85-88).

Whalen and Minnis (2009) conducted a use-wear study on sherds and whole vessels

recovered during their excavations at several sites in the Casas Grandes region, looking at

exterior sooting and interior pitting on bowls and jars. They found sooting on many of the jars,

and some of the bowls. The presence of sooting on the various types appeared to be close to

16

parity (2009:178). They suggest that higher frequencies of use-wear on certain sites may indicate

the presence of regional hierarchies, with increased food production and feasting occurring at the

administrative sites (2009:182).

And in 2008, Pitezel conducted a use-wear study on 63 Casas Grandes vessels housed at

the Arizona State Museum. He looked at three ceramic types, identifying scratches, nicks,

spalling, laminations, other abrasions, and sooting on the interior and exterior of the vessels. He

recommended in the future that vessel form and design be considered in connection with use-

wear (2008:15). Pitezel concluded that the three ceramic types he analyzed had separate but not

distinct categories of use. He also noted the presence of soot on painted pottery, a characteristic

unique to Casas Grandes. As a continuation of his initial paper, Pitezel and Searcy conducted a

cursory analysis of around 300 of the Casas Grandes vessels housed in the collections at the

Arizona State Museum. This thesis is an extension of that joint project, and I will use many of

the same analysis methods employed in studying those vessels.

17

3. Methods and Sample

There is an assumption that because pots are tools (Braun 1983), each vessel was

originally formed to serve a specific function. Allison and Hagopian (2010) dedicated a chapter

in the Animas-La Plata project report to determining vessel function based on examinations of

“vessel form and other relevant evidence” (Allison and Hagopian 2010:161). Research of basic

vessel dimensions such as size, form, wall width, and temper can give us information about a

vessel's intended use—its function (Allison and Hagopian 2010). However, this study is not

about intended but actual use. In Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook, Rice (2015:419) notes the

difference:

Relations between the form of a vessel and its functions are of long-standing interest and are usually the conceptual starting point for analyzing function. ...The application of familiar or generic shape terms such as bowl and jar tends to ascribe a particular function without clear indications that such was the vessel’s intended or actual use, however. Skibo (1992:33) argues that only use-alteration analyses can provide information for

reconstructing how pottery was actually used in past activities. Ceramic use-alteration is the

study of all physical or chemical changes in the ceramic (surface or subsurface) as a result of use

(Skibo 1992). Skibo further states that this use can cause changes in the ceramic in the form of

“addition, deletion, or modification of material” (Skibo 1992:42), and occur because of the

“intentional interaction of a human and ceramic” (Skibo 1992:46).

This method of analysis is still relatively young, and early researchers referred to their

work as use-wear studies. However, I use the term use-alteration in this study. This term is more

specific than use-wear and encapsulates my research more completely. Skibo (1992) argues for

the term use-alteration over use-wear.

18

This term is preferred over use-wear because as Hally (1983) demonstrates, a pottery use-alteration study is concerned with both additions and deletions. ...the term use-wear implies an attritional process and is regarded in the present framework as just one form of use-alteration. (Skibo 1992:45) Ceramic use-alteration studies allow archaeologists to determine vessel use based on

vessel attributes and use traces found on the vessel surface (Braun 1983:107). Through careful

observation and inspection, it is possible to see the wear ceramic vessels sustained during

prehistoric daily use as well as any modern or post excavation alterations. All evidences of wear

can be measured and quantified. Before 1969, archaeologists occasionally noted the

presence/absence of soot on the exterior or interior of a vessel, but this was for descriptive

purposes and did not necessarily include developed conclusions for the use or function of a

vessel (Bradfield 1931; Bullock 2011:36; Di Peso et al. 1974 vol. 6; Kidder 1916). Chernela

(1969) encouraged the examination of wear patterns in future ceramic analyses, and Braun

(1970) conducted a study where he measured vessel size and mouth diameter of rim sherds and

vessels from the Navajo Project excavated sites to determine intended vessel function.

The examination of use-wear as an analytical method did not become common until the

late 1970s. Griffiths (1978) studied the wear marks left by silverware on historic glaze ware,

marking the first significant use-wear study. Hally (1983) described soot patterns, and the

differences between soot and smudging. Other use-wear patterns studied included basal wear

from vessels that were placed on the ground (Skibo 1992:113-115), stirring marks on vessel

interiors (Henrickson and McDonald 1983:639), and spalling from thermal shock, chemical

exposure, or physical abrasion (Hally 1983:18-19 and Skibo 1992:134-136).

19

Ceramic Collections

As stated in the introduction, all the whole vessels from the Amerind and MPC

collections have no known provenience, and were donated by private collectors. Many vessels

may have been purchased from local dealers or received as gifts. Some may have come from

family property in the Mormon colonies, such as Dublan and Colonia Juarez. Obtaining the

vessels from “local dealers” suggests a large number of vessels in my dataset were likely looted.

Silva (2012) wrote her Master’s thesis on the history of looting in the Chihuahua area in the last

century and its association with institutions such as museums in the United States. She identified

three dominant periods of looting and discusses how Casas Grandes artifacts arrived in the

United States during each of those periods. The majority of the vessels in my sample were

donated to both museums between 1940-1970 during the time she termed the “Private Collector

Period,” a time when Chihuahuan locals began “looting and selling pots to supplement their

income” (Silva 2012:53). Searcy (personal communication, 2013) has suggested that many

looters find burial caches to be the most profitable for uncovering ceramic vessels. Di Peso and

colleagues (1974:8:364) reported that 75% of the furnished burial pits (n=91) excavated during

the Joint Casas Grandes Project had at least one ceramic bowl or jar, and 49 of the 91 “contained

only ceramic offerings”. Rakita (2009:38) states that 28-29% of goods found in Medio period

burials were ceramics. It is logical, then, to assume that a significant portion of the Amerind and

MPC collections came from burials. This context adds a potential level of difficulty to this study

as funerary goods could have less or distinct wear as opposed to their everyday counterparts.

Some of the vessels at the MPC have been in the collection for 40 years, and it is unclear

how long prior to donation they may have been excavated. Post-excavation vessel treatment by

collectors likely influenced the wear vessels sustained before donation.

20

Some curation information after donation exists for each vessel, which allows for the

identification of wear particular to storage in the Amerind and MPC. For the most part, the

vessels have been stored in temperature and light controlled storage rooms at both institutions.

At the MPC, the vessels have been placed in foam mounts designed for each individual vessel.

The vessels at the Amerind are stored rim down on metal shelving. The shelves do not have a

foam layer, but the metallic surface is quite smooth. I agree with Pitezel (2008) and Bullock

(2011) in arguing that museum shelf time does not contribute significantly to vessel surface

alteration. As Bullock (2011:19) states, “Most of the objects are in a good to excellent state of

preservation, and the MPC has stored the collection in such a way to ensure its long-term

preservation.”

The Sample

Two-hundred and four whole vessels from collections at the Museum of Peoples and

Cultures, and 96 whole vessels from the Amerind Foundation collections were analyzed for

traces of wear. In addition to whole vessels, many of the vessels in the sample have been

reconstructed from sherds. However, the sample only included vessels that were at least 50%

whole (Table 3.1). Rice (2015) explains that use-alteration patterns may be extremely localized,

making it difficult to conduct a use-alteration analysis on sherds. She recommends analyzing

whole vessels as they “yield much more reliable inferences” (2015:431).

21

Table 3.1 Vessel reconstruction in the sample. Vessel Reconstruction Count %

Whole vessel 212 71% Reconstructed vessel 49 16%

Partial reconstructed (>50%) 39 13% Total 300 100%

The analyzed vessels are from different ceramic types: Babicora Polychrome, Carretas

Polychrome, Corralitos Polychrome, Dublan Polychrome, Escondida Polychrome, Madera

Black-on-red, Plainwares, Playas Red, Ramos Black-on-white, Ramos Black, Ramos

Polychrome, Villa Ahumada, and Villa Ahumada Black-on-white. I analyzed almost the entire

collection of Casas Grandes pottery at the Museum of Peoples and Cultures. Because of limited

time at the Amerind Foundation, I specifically requested a random selection of 20 vessels of

varying forms from each of the following types: Ramos Polychrome, Ramos Black, Plainware,

and Villa Ahumada Polychrome, and 16 Babicora Polychrome vessels. The Amerind Foundation

has roughly 1,000 Chihuahuan vessel in their collection (Eric Kaldahl, personal communication),

so the vessels I analyzed make up roughly 10% of the total collection. Of the 300 vessels

analyzed in my dataset, 200 were jars and 74 were bowls. The breakdown of vessel forms is

listed in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 Vessel forms in the sample.

Vessel Form Count %

Jar 199 66%

Bowl 74 25%

Effigy 25 8%

Other 2 1%

Total 300 100%

22

Casas Grandes Ceramic Types

As has been stated previously, Di Peso, Rinaldo, and Fenner (Di Peso et al. 1974 vol. 6)

analyzed and described the thousands of sherds and vessels they recovered as part of the JCGP.

The data about ceramics is published as Volume 6 in the eight volume series. A brief description

of each vessel form will be given hereafter, describing manufacture, firing techniques, typical

vessel hardness, and decoration information provided in volume 6 (Di Peso et al. 1974, vol. 6).

All vessels were formed by coiling which was then smoothed. For most types, Di Peso and

colleagues referred to their surfaces as well smoothed. Di Peso and colleagues do not identify the

difference between smoothed and well smoothed.

Ramos Black vessels (Fig. 3.1.a) are highly polished, self-slipped vessels with a highly

lustrous surface (Di Peso et al. 1974:6:160). They are fired “under conditions to promote the

deposit of carbon and tarry products of combustion not only on both surfaces but also...inside the

core” (Di Peso et al. 1974:6:161). Di Peso and colleagues suggested this method is used to

“blanket the vessel with a carbonaceous substance” (1974:6:161), giving the vessel its color.

They also noted from their analysis that when fired over a Bunsen burner, the black burned off to

reveal the oxidized surface. Because of its color, fire clouds, burn-out holes, and sooting were

difficult to identify. In fact, they (Di Peso et al. 1974:6:160) reported that this type was not

analyzed for sooting because some sherds “burned out to brown,” meaning the black surface

burned away. Therefore, they concluded this ceramic type was not used for cooking because the

heat would burn away the color of this type. Typically, the entire paste is fired dark gray, with an

average vessel hardness of 4.0 on Moh’s scale. Characteristic surface hardness is 4.5 (Di Peso et

al. 1974:6:161). If decoration occurs, it consists mainly of textures on the rim and body (Di Peso

et al. 1974:6:163-164)

23

Plainware (Fig. 3.1.b) is a relatively coarse class of pottery that features large thick

walled vessels with surfaces that generally range from gritty and uneven to well smoothed (Di

Peso et al. 1974:6:108). This type does not have a slip. The surface colors seem to indicate

oxidized firing, and surface hardness ranges from 3.0 to 4.5 with a typical hardness of 4.0 (Di

Peso et al. 1974:6:109). As indicated by the type name, these vessels have no decoration.

Ramos Polychrome (Fig. 3.1.c) is “probably the best known and most widely recognized

of all the Casas Grandes types” (Di Peso et al. 1974:6:250). This type features a light colored

paste. Both bowls and jars are well-smoothed and self-slipped on the exterior and interior for

bowls (Di Peso et al. 1974:6:251). When a carbon streak is present it constitutes a majority of the

core. Characteristic paste hardness for this type is 4.0, and 4.0 for the surface as well. I only

encountered the Standard Variant in my study, the decoration of which consists of finely painted

black and red lines. The red elements are also outlined in black (VanPool et al. 2009:67).

24

Figure 3.1.a. Ramos Black (7490), b. Plainware (1977.193.185.1), c. Ramos Polychrome (7462), d. Villa Ahumada Polychrome (1977.193.129).

Villa Ahumada Polychrome (Fig. 3.1.d) has a dark paste and white slip, unlike Ramos

Polychrome variants with their light paste and self-slip. After forming, vessel exteriors are well-

smoothed, coated with a white slip, and sometimes polished over the decoration (Di Peso et al.

1974:6:300). The presence of a carbon streak is typical for this type, and characteristic hardness

of the paste and surface are 3.5 and 3.0-3.5, respectively (Di Peso et al. 1974:6:300-301).

Decoration features thick lines balanced in red and black (VanPool et al. 2009:67).

25

Babicora Polychrome (Fig. 3.2.a) generally has a well-smoothed, lightly polished interior

and exterior. Jar interiors are less well-smoothed and junctures between coils can be seen in

between rough smoothing marks (Di Peso et al. 1974:6:184). It is considered cruder in design

and execution and darker than its polychrome counterparts (Di Peso et al. 1974:6:183). This type

is slipped with a thin wash that is lighter than the paste, a very pale brown (Di Peso et al.

1974:6:184). The carbon core ranges from the light brown surface through various shades of

gray (Di Peso et al. 1974:6:184). Paste hardness averages 4.0, and surface hardness is also 4.0.

Decoration over its dark brown/orange surface consists of thick lines balanced in red and black,

similar to Villa Ahumada Polychrome (VanPool et al. 2009:65).

Playas Red (Fig. 3.2.b) features a well-smoothed, polished exterior that is typically

slipped. Vessel interiors are also well-smoothed and polished but not usually slipped except to

just below the rim (Di Peso et al. 1974:6:148). The vessels name derives from the pottery’s thin,

red exterior slip (VanPool et al. 2009:62). The presence of a carbon streak indicates an oxidized

firing with a typical hardness of 4.0 (Di Peso et al. 1974:6:149), and the typical surface hardness

is also 4.0. Decoration of this type is simple, largely limited to the exterior red slip, but can

include incising, rubbed incising, tool punching, or scoring (VanPool et al. 2009:62).

Carretas Polychrome (Fig. 3.2.c) vessels are polished on the exterior and have no slip (Di

Peso et al. 1974:6:199). Di Peso and colleagues said, “there are generally one or two firing

clouds on the exterior” (1974:6:199). Among the ceramics they analyzed (1974:6:199), carbon

streaking was present only about 50% of the time. Typical paste hardness is 4.5, and typical

surface hardness is also 4.5 (Di Peso et al. 1974:6:199). This type is similar to Babicora

Polychrome except the decoration is a painted subglaze and lacks polishing over the design

(VanPool et al. 2009:65).

26

Figure 3.2.a. Babicora Polychrome (3426), b. Playas Red (1977.193.137.1), c. Carretas Polychrome (1977.193.92.1).

Corralitos Polychrome (Fig. 3.3.a) pottery is similar to Ramos Black—highly polished,

self-slipped vessels—but with a dull surface (Di Peso et al. 1974:6:208). Fire clouds are present

on only about half the vessels on the lower body/base (Di Peso et al. 1974:6:208). The core of

this type is almost entirely gray (Di Peso et al. 1974:6:208). Characteristic paste hardness is 4.0

and surface hardness is 4.0 (Di Peso et al. 1974:6:208-209). Decoration of this type is largely

confined to the exterior surface above the shoulder (Di Peso et al. 1974:6:207). Often this type is

incised or punched, but a vessel does not need to be textured to be classified as Corralitos

Polychrome (VanPool et al. 2009:66).

Dublan Polychrome (Fig. 3.3.b) is distinguished from other types by the closeness of the

red and black painted lines. The distance between lines ranges from 0.07 to 0.78 cm for bowls,

and from 0.18 to 0.80 cm for jars (Di Peso et al. 1974:6:222). The shoulder and neck of jars are

typically textured (VanPool et al. 2009:66). This type has a polished interior and exterior, and Di

Peso and colleagues (1974:6:221) suggested the vessels were fired in an inverted position, so

27

firing clouds were occasionally present on the lower body of the vessel. There is a carbon streak

in the paste. Typical hardness of the paste is 4.5 and the surface is 5.0.

Figure 3.3.a. Corralitos Polychrome (1977.193.132.1), b. Dublan Polychrome (1976.17.36.1), c. Madera Black-on-red (1977.193.183).

Madera Black-on-red (Fig. 3.3.c) are well-smoothed, polished, and have a self-slipped

interior and exterior. The paste is soft, with a typical hardness of 2.5. Typical surface hardness is

2.5-3.0 (Di Peso 1974:6:170). The softness of the vessel seems to indicate a low firing

temperature (Di Peso 1974:6:169). Surface color is a dark red and is decorated with a dense

black mineral paint (Di Peso 1974:6:168-169). Elements of design include motifs like scrolls,

triangles, and lines (VanPool et al. 2009:63). Vessels are polished after the painted decoration is

applied (Di Peso 1974:6:172).

Ramos Black-on-white (Fig. 3.4.a) is a variation of the Ramos Polychrome type. Neither

VanPool and colleagues (2009) nor Di Peso and colleagues (1974 vol. 6) say much about it. Di

Peso (1974) discussed how this variation was only studied if whole vessels were found, but that

black on white paint was observed on many Ramos type sherds. VanPool (2009:66) says this

28

variant has a red base, but that was not observed on the two vessels I analyzed. For the remaining

information about this type, please see Ramos Polychrome.

Villa Ahumada Black-on-white (Fig. 3.4.b) is a variation of the Villa Ahumada type.

Neither VanPool and colleagues (2009) nor Di Peso and colleagues (1974 vol. 6) even mention it

as a variation of the Villa Ahumada type. Only two vessels in my dataset fit in this category.

Like the standard variant, this type features a well smoothed surface with a white slip on the

exterior. This type has black and white painted decoration. For information about this type,

please see Villa Ahumada Polychrome.

Escondida Polychrome (Fig. 3.4.c) features vessel exteriors that are covered with a soft

thin red slip or wash and polished inside and out. Jar interiors, like many Casas Grandes types,

are polished near the rim and smoothed elsewhere (Di Peso et al. 1974:6:227). A carbon streak is

present in only about 10% of vessels (Di Peso et al. 1974:6:227). Because of the thin slip/wash,

often the unslipped surface can be seen. This ranges from a light white or gray color to a light

brown, similar to Ramos Polychrome (Di Peso et al. 1974:6:227). Characteristic hardness for the

paste is 4.0-4.5 (Di Peso et al. 1974:6:227), and for the slip is 4.0 for bowls, and 4.5 for jars.

Crown (1994:86) defined Escondida Polychrome decoration as having “broad meandering ribbon

like motifs or large lifelike form outlines, which are then further subdivided and filled with

smaller motifs”. Table 3.3 shows the number of ceramic types in the sample analyzed for this

project, and the ceramic wares sorted by vessel form can be seen in Table 3.4.

29

Figure 3.4.a. Ramos Black-on-white (1986.18.53), b. Villa Ahumada Black-on-white (1977.193.119), c. Escondida Polychrome (1986.18.23).

Table 3.3. Ceramic types in the sample.

Type Count %

Ramos Black 65 21.7

Plainware 64 21.3

Ramos Polychrome 58 19.3

Villa Ahumada Polychrome 47 15.7

Babicora 32 10.7

Playas Red 15 5.0

Carretas 4 1.3

Corralitos 4 1.3

Dublan 3 1.0

Madera Black-on-red 3 1.0

Ramos Black-on-white 2 0.7

Villa Ahumada Black-on-white 2 0.7

Escondida 1 0.3

Total 300 100.0

30

Table 3.4. Ceramic wares by vessel form.

Jar Bowl Effigy Other Total Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Ramos Polychrome 39 67.2 13 22.4 6 10.3 0 0 58 100 Ramos Black 35 53.8 27 41.5 2 3.1 1 1.5 65 100 Babicora Polychrome 30 93.8 1 3.1 1 3.1 0 0 32 100 Carretas Polychrome 1 25 2 50 1 25 0 0 4 100 Corralitos Polychrome 3 75 1 25 0 0 0 0 4 100 Dublan Polychrome 2 66.7 0 0 1 33.3 0 0 3 100 Escondida Polychrome 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 1 100 Madera Black-on-red 2 66.7 0 0 1 33.3 0 0 3 100 Plainware 41 64.1 17 26.6 6 9.4 0 0 64 100 Playas Red 10 66.7 3 20 1 6.7 1 6.7 15 100 Ramos Black-on-white 1 50 0 0 1 50 0 0 2 100 Villa Ahumada Black-on-white 2 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 100 Villa Ahumada Polychrome 33 70.2 9 19.1 5 10.6 0 0 47 100 Total 199 66.3 74 24.7 25 8.3 2 0.7 300 100

Data Collection

Following Smith (1983), who describes how vessel technofunction can be used to predict

use, I took measurements of some of the morphological attributes of each vessel such as rim

diameter, volume, maximum body diameter, and vessel height. I also noted whether the vessel

was polished, and the presence and type of hanging holes and handles. Hanging holes and

handles both appear at vessel rims and are usually opposite another handle or pair of hanging

holes.

Each vessel was divided conceptually into 10-12 zones for analytical purposes as shown

in Figure 3.5. As a continuation of his project, I am using the same analytical zones as Pitezel

(2008). However, I used Skibo’s (1992) designation for the vessel base: where the surface of the

vessel actually touches the surface upon which it rests.

Vessels with no clearly identifiable neck did not have a “neck” designation, I just

identified “upper body” and “rim” vessel areas. The neck can be identified on a vessel as where

31

the area above the shoulder curves inward significantly before curving back out to make the rim

(Fig 3.6). Presumably, discrete uses eventuate in different use-alteration traces exhibiting in the

various vessel zones. The division of each vessel into zones is for ease in analysis, description,

and interpretation.

Figure 3.5. Diagram of vessel zones. Adapted from Skibo (1992:114).

32

Figure 3.6. Close up of neck vs. rim differentiation.

My methods are based on the preliminary use-alteration study conducted by Pitezel

(2008). I included additional use-alteration categories from Skibo (1992) as well as some that I

observed in the sample that did not appear in Pitezel’s study (2008). What follows is a list of use-

alteration traces I noted during my analysis with a brief description of how those traces should

appear. Photos of each trace have been included as part of chapter 4.

Sooting is a dull black layer that can be found on the exterior base, lower body, and

sometimes mid body of a vessel. Skibo (1992) indicates this layer could be largely removed

when rubbed, but over time, the stain remains. At the base of a vessel there should be an

oxidized patch at the point nearest the fire where no soot is visible (Skibo 1992:158). Sooting

can sometimes also be found on the interior base and lower body of a vessel. According to

Skibo (1992:148) “Interior carbon deposits...provide more information about cooking-related

activities.”

As indicated previously, many ceramic studies have included brief descriptions of the

presence or absence of soot on vessels or sherds. This trace is often used only to differentiate

between cooking and non-cooking vessels. Toward the beginning of my study, I had a difficult

time determining which traces were sooting and which were another trace, such as fireclouding

or something else entirely. I began to note the ambiguous traces as “dark staining” until I became

more familiar with sooting as a use-alteration trace. I kept the dark staining term, which may be

33

occasionally seen in this thesis. Dark staining and sooting are considered the same for the

purposes of this study.

Pits are circular, often concave or bowl-formed cavities (Pitezel 2008:20) that occur in

groups. A pit that occurred on its own was categorized as a spall.

Spalling is a round or nearly round pit, and a cross-section of the spall would either be

hemispherical or conical. In many cases there is also microscopic cracking associated with

spalling (Skibo 1992:140). Pits could be considered spalling, so to differentiate between the two

use-alteration traces, I noted a spall as a singular occurrence on a vessel surface. There are

several causes for spalls on a ceramic surface. Thermal spalling is caused as water vaporizes in

the body of the ceramic and the escaping steam spalls off a small portion of the interior surface

(Skibo 1992:134). Skibo (1992:136) notes that, “thermal spalls are never found on the interior

base on any of the cooking vessels because, while the pots are on fire, they always contain some

water.” Salt erosion can cause spalling as well. Beck (2001:197) describes salt erosion as the

disintegration of the vessel surface as the salts expand and exert pressure on the surface from the

inside out. The salt increases in volume as it crystallizes and will burst through the vessel wall.

Abrasion refers to vessel surface wear that does not clearly fit into another alteration

category. It is a general removal of paint, slip, or sometimes paste in a broad area on the vessel

when the surface of the vessel comes into contact with another surface with texture. This

abrasion can deteriorate further into pedestalled temper, pitting, and/or delamination. Abrasion

can be caused by a person, a tool, or other substances (e.g., sand, soil, dried goods, etc.).

Stirring marks consist of wide abrasions that run parallel to each other in a concentric

pattern on the interior of a vessel.

34

Scratches are linear depressions (Pitezel 2008:21), oriented in any direction, that travel

across the surface of the vessel. This trace is typically caused by dragging and sliding an abrader

across the vessel surface or vice versa (Skibo 1992:116). Multiple scratches in one area of the

vessel were only defined together as a scratch if the depressions ran parallel to each other.

Patches are related to scratching, but with a few notable differences. Patches are multiple

shallow attritional marks or scratches, consisting of center and periphery (Skibo 1992:111).

These scratches do not run in a particular direction, but rather vary in directionality and length.

These are referred to as “multiple marks” in Pitezel’s study (2008:21). Skibo (1992) notes the

presence of scratching in the sooted areas on the lower body of vessels. He states that the abrader

was softer than the vessel surface but still hard enough to scratch into the sooting present on the

vessel surface (Skibo 1992:122). Patches show up more clearly on a dark surface like Ramos

Black vessels or vessels with sooting.

Nicks, chips, and gouges are traces that are usually angular or subangular cavities (Pitezel

2008:21), formed by single impacts (Skibo 1992: 137-138). An abbreviation for this use-

alteration trace used in this thesis will be “n/c/g”. I combined these traces into one category

because of their similarities. I determined there is very little difference in the visual appearance

of a nick, a chip, or a gouge. All the traces are formed by single impacts, and all take away from

the surface of the vessel.

Delamination consists of thin, flat portions of missing surface which often appears flakey

(Pitezel 2008:21). It is differentiated from flaking in that delamination is a removal of paste.

Flaking traces are thin, flat portions of missing slip or paint. Flakes are more shallow

than delamination traces.

35

Cracks are the splitting of vessel temper and paste as the result of stresses that exceed the

strength of the vessel body (Rice 2015:321). These stresses can be thermal, compressive, or

tensile (Rice 2015:326). Once a crack or micro-crack has weakened the vessel body, the severity

of cracking may increase and eventually cause the vessel to fracture into separate parts (Rice

2015).

I did not note crazing during my analysis. Crazing is a fine network of cracks over the

surface of a vessel which can affect the painted decoration or paste. Traces that could be

considered crazing were also included as cracks and were noted with severity and trace size

when possible.

Modern repair was noted in places where the vessel had been patched or glued using

modern materials. Sometimes holes and missing pieces have been filled in, and occasionally the

repair is painted to match the rest of the surface decoration. The repair is usually obviously

visible, and frequently poorly done.

Discoloration occurs where part of the vessel surface is a different color than the rest of

the vessel.

Oxidation is spots or patches on the vessel where the “constituents in the paste have taken

up as much oxygen as they can” (Shephard 1976:370). Skibo (1992) indicates that vessels will

gain an oxidized patch over time as they are placed near flame. This trace occurred rarely as will

be seen in Chapter 4. On vessels with a lighter color surface, such as Ramos Polychrome,

oxidation traces appeared orange to red orange, while on plainware vessels, the spot took on a

browner or yellow color. It is possible I may have mistaken this trace for discoloration on several

vessels.

36

Missing pieces mainly applied to effigies missing appendages. On a few other vessels, if

a large portion of the vessel was missing (larger than 3 by 4 cm) I noted it had a missing piece.

Reconstructed or partially reconstructed vessels were not included in this category.

Mend holes are small holes intentionally drilled such that binding material fed through

the holes would cross cracks in the vessel surface and “repair” the vessel. This type of mending

occurred before the vessel was deposited in the ground and is not a modern repair.

A perforation is a hole in the surface of the vessel that has broken entirely through the

vessel wall—too big to be spalling, but too small to be considered a missing piece. Some have

been identified as potential “kill holes,” a significant wear pattern relating to death rituals in both

Southwestern and Mesoamerican cultures. They are generally understood as a hole punched into

the center base or body of a vessel to ritually “sacrifice” or “kill” the vessel for mortuary

purposes (Brody 2004:177; see also Brand 1943, Bray 2018, Fewkes 1914, Shafer and Taylor

1986). Vessels with this trace are—generally—found with burials (Shafer and Taylor 1986).

Bray (1982:144), however, notes she found a vessel with a kill hole perforation in direct

association with a floor, not a burial. Other causes of perforations could include modern

destruction which will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5.

Indeterminate traces typically refer to some kind of modern accretion or additive on the

vessel surface.

In many use-alterations studies, each trace is noted merely as present or absent. I wanted

to take my study a bit further, so I included additional information. Each trace was given a

severity level—mild, moderate, or severe. These severity levels were subjectively assigned based

on the severity level of that trace type compared to other traces of the same type within my

sample, so this designation is relative to my observations of the 300 vessels of my study. I also

37

noted the orientation (vertical, horizontal, diagonal), length, width, direction (clockwise, counter-

clockwise, upward, downward), and size of each trace as applicable. Similar to severity, size was

subjectively assigned to trace types based on the percentage they took up of a particular vessel

area. Traces that covered approximately 0-33% of a vessel area were listed as “small,”

approximately 33-66% was considered “medium,” and traces that covered around 66-100% were

categorized as “large.”

There are several attributes examined in other use-alteration analyses that I will not be

considering because of time or research constraints. For example, chemical analysis of residues

such as charring, salt erosion, and any others traces that would have required destructive

analysis.

During the initial stages of analysis, it was necessary to expedite the process for

calculating vessel volume. It took too long to fill each vessel with acrylic beads and then pour the

beads into graduated beakers to measure volume. To save time, I devised a formula for

calculating volume from the weight of the acrylic beads inside each vessel. Using this new

method, I estimated the volume of each vessel in significantly less time with a 1.5-2% margin of

error. I poured 50 mL of acrylic beads in a glass beaker and weighed the beads (after taring the

scale to account for the beaker). I repeated this process 9 times and took the average weight of

the beads, which was 28.86 g. Moving forward with the assumption that 28.86 g of acrylic

beads=50 mL, I then tested the theory on two vessels, a small bowl and a medium jar. I weighed

the beads inside each vessel (taring the scale to account for the vessel) and calculated the

approximate volume (bead weight/28.86 and then multiplying the result by 50). I then measured

the acrylic beads the long way. I did this five times for each vessel, and calculated an average

discrepancy of 1.5-2.0%. I am comfortable using this margin of error for two reasons: first, there

38

is air space between each acrylic bead, so volume measurement can only be an approximation.

Second, in order to be consistent, each vessel was filled to the brim with acrylic beads. Since

there is no way to know how full each vessel would have been filled prehistorically, this volume

calculation is a measurement of maximum volume. Therefore, I am going to accept the 1.5-2%

margin of error, and maintain that 28.86g of acrylic beads closely correlates to 50 mL in volume

(Figure 3.7).

Figure 3.7. Example of how each vessel was filled with acrylic beads and weighed to calculate maximum volume.

39

Assumptions and Analytical Issues

Many vessels had a significant amount of depositional accretion that was never cleaned

off the surface. Skibo (1992:109) notes that, “In some cases all or many of the traces of the

abrasions may be present, but in others one abrasive trace may obliterate the others.” Dust and

dirt was gently wiped away with a microfiber cloth when possible, but on many vessels, the

accretion masked the surface and any wear that may have been present. I stopped noting

depositional accretion except when it was particularly prominent. There is a certain amount of

error that must be assumed with the data because all the wear from the life cycle of the vessel

could not be noted.

Not knowing the history of each vessel post-excavation makes it difficult to account for

wear that may have occurred during that time. It is possible that modern alterations could

produce the same trace marks described above. When identifiable, I did not note traces such as

modern scratches, accretions, and fresh breaks. Many vessels have modern scratches usually on

the exterior or interior where it looks like someone tried to clean out the depositional accretions.

Most traces categorized as “indeterminate” are also modern—traces like shiny residues and

something that looked a little like melted wax that someone had then tried to scrape out.

In addition to looting, vessel replicas are a struggle for archaeologists studying Casas

Grandes ceramics (Silva and Kelley 2016). Local Mexican potters have become quite adept at

mimicking vessel manufacture, decoration, and depositional accretion. There were a few vessels

in the collections at the MPC that are known replicas, so those vessels were not studied. It is

difficult to know if the rest of the collection is legitimate. It was assumed the vessels analyzed

were authentic.

40

4. Analytical Results

This chapter reports the results of my analysis of the 300 Casas Grandes vessels from the

Amerind Foundation and the Museum of Peoples and Cultures. I collected significantly more

information than other previous use-alteration studies. Most studies have collected

presence/absence data (Beck et al. 2002; Duddleson 2008; Pitezel 2008; Skibo 1992) or merely

noted a certain type of wear in their descriptions of vessels (Di Peso et al. 1974 vol. 6). I counted

each occurrence of use-alteration and included information about size and severity, and the sheer

volume of data was a bit overwhelming. Measures had to be taken to simplify the data to a

degree, but the results of the analysis are still complex (see Appendix A and Appendix B).

My sample was a constrained random sample. I was able to analyze the majority of the

collection at the Museum of Peoples and Cultures (n=204). The collections at the Amerind

Foundation were intended to supplement the collections at the MPC, and as I had a limited

amount of time, I was unable to analyze the full collection at the Amerind, but was able to

examine 96 vessels. As such, in my sample there is a large representation of the five most

frequently occurring Casas Grandes ceramic types. These types were Ramos Black (22% of the

sample), Plainware (21%), Ramos Polychrome (19%), Villa Ahumada Polychrome (16%), and

Babicora Polychrome (11%).

Vessel Morphology

Before delving into the results of the collected use-alteration data, it is important to

consider vessel morphology. Archaeologists typically determine vessel function by a vessel’s

form and morphological measurements like height, maximum body diameter, orifice diameter,

41

etc. Henrickson and McDonald (1983:630) state that, “vessels within a functional class are

designed and made according to a specific set of morphological boundary conditions.” It should

be possible to see functional categories based on the physical characteristics of each vessel. I

believe intended function should be considered only as a very basic guideline, something I

discuss more in chapter 5 as well, but examining function is one of the reasons why I collected

basic measurements of each vessel (Appendix A). Descriptive statistics of the vessels analyzed

include average heights, diameter/height ratios, and volume, as well as ranges for each of these

measurements.

Figure 4.1 illustrates the ranges of individual vessel volumes divided by vessel form. The

mean values for effigies and jars differ by approximately 900 mL, but while 50% of effigy

vessels fall below the mean, 50% of jars are above the median. Additionally, the value for the

third quartile for bowls is close to the median value of effigy vessels. The range of volumes for

bowls, effigies, and jars are 1110.98 mL, 1230.09 mL, and 1810.47 mL respectively. With a

difference of 699.49 mL between the ranges, this indicates no drastic differences between the

smallest and largest vessels between all vessels in the sample. However, the range for jars is

quite large.

Table 4.1 provides the height statistics for the entire sample sorted by vessel form. The

range of means for height measurements of the vessels sorted by form is larger, with bowls being

at the lower end (7.79 cm) and jars at the highest (15.28 cm). The mean heights of jars and

effigies are much closer, with a difference of only 2.9 cm. The largest range is 22.5 cm for the

jars. This is explained by the miniature vessels from the sample (n=6).

42

Figure 4.1. Boxplot of volume divided by vessel form. Labels indicate the 1st quartile, mean, and 3rd quartile volume measurements for each vessel form.

Table 4.1. Tabulated height statistics for all vessels sorted by form.

Mean Median Minimum Maximum Range Count % of Total

Jar 15.3 14.6 3.5 26 22.5 199 66.3 Bowl 7.8 7.9 1.8 13 11.2 74 24.7 Effigy 12.4 12.4 7.1 20 12.9 25 8.3 Other 8.3 8.3 7.4 9 1.6 2 0.7 Total 13.14 13.2 1.8 26 24.2 300 100

In regards to volume, Table 4.2 illustrates the volume of each vessel sorted by type and

form, and Table 4.3 shows the volume statistics for all vessels by form only. The ranges for jars

is the largest at 11,166 mL. This is explained by the small Playas Red jar, with a volume of 9 mL

contrasted with a Corralitos Polychrome jar at 11,175 mL (11.2 L). There were also some small

OtherJarEffigyBowl

10800

9600

8400

7200

6000

4800

3600

2400

1200

0

Shape

Volu

me

285.86

2384.551468.47

1004.62 294.5

277.2

3031.87

1221.441957.7

727.65

1498.62

387.64

43

Plainware jars, the smallest of which is 17 mL. This range is rather large, indicating a wide

discrepancy between jar sizes. The ranges for bowls, effigies, and other vessels is fairly small,

meaning there is not much variety in the maximum volume across vessel forms and types.

Table 4.2. Tabulated volume (mL) statistics for all vessels sorted by type and form.

Mean Minimum Maximum Range Total Count %

Ramos Black Bowl 1097 260 2443 2183 27 41.5 Effigy 832 130 1533 1403 2 3.1 Jar 2341 372 6809 6436 35 53.8 Other 277.2 277.2 277.2 — 1 1.5 Plainware Bowl 836 17 3222 3205 17 26.6 Effigy 1210 321 1992 1672 6 9.4 Jar 1759 17 7363 7346 41 64.1 Ramos Polychrome Bowl 901 17 2131 2114 13 22.4 Effigy 1766 1161 2356 1195 6 10.3 Jar 3343 1048 8316 7268 39 67.2 Villa Ahumada Polychrome Bowl 898 121 2607 2486 9 19.1 Effigy 1686 364 3214 2850 5 10.6 Jar 2358 719 7285 6566 33 70.2 Babicora Polychrome Bowl 848.9 848.9 848.9 — 1 3.1 Effigy 1126.1 1126.1 1126.1 — 1 3.1 Jar 2129 321 7892 7571 30 93.8 Playas Red Bowl 1383 251 2581 2330 3 20 Effigy 1091.5 1091.5 1091.5 — 1 6.7 Jar 1225 9 2599 2590 10 66.7 Other 294.53 294.53 294.53 — 1 6.7 Carretas Polychrome Bowl 1546 884 2209 1325 2 50 Effigy 3854.8 3854.8 3854.8 — 1 25 Jar 3092.5 3092.5 3092.5 — 1 25 Corralitos Polychrome Bowl 2364.9 2364.9 2364.9 — 1 25 Jar 4747 563 11175 10612 3 75

44

Table 4.2. Continued from previous page.


Dublan Polychrome Effigy 701.66 701.66 701.66 — 1 33.3 Jar 1325 1048 1603 554 2 66.7 Madera Black on Red Effigy 1706.5 1706.5 1706.5 — 1 33.3 Jar 2950 1819 4080 2261 2 66.7 Ramos Black-on-white Effigy 285.86 285.86 285.86 — 1 50 Jar 4825 4825 4825 — 1 50 Villa Ahumada Black-on-white Jar 2720 1750 3690 1940 2 100 Escondida Polychrome Bowl 259.87 259.87 259.87 — 1 100

Table 4.3. Tabulated volume statistics for all vessels sorted by form.


Bowl 1004.6 17.3 3222.4 3205.1 74 24.7 Effigy 1468 130 3855 3725 25 8.3 Jar 2385 9 11175 11166 199 66.3 Other 285.87 277.2 294.53 17.33 2 0.7

Total 300 100

Table 4.4 provides data of the diameter to height ratio, dividing the vessels by type and

form. The mean diameter/height ratio for jars in the sample is 1.19, meaning that on average, the

vessels were approximately as wide as they are tall. Bowls are almost twice as wide as they are

tall, with a mean of 1.96. Figure 4.2 illustrates the diameter/height ratio, showing the separation

of vessels by form. Jars and bowls are in distinct groupings, while the effigies and other vessels

45

are scattered throughout the plot. This plot shows that as jar body diameters increase, the heights

also increase, but at a higher rate than bowls.

Table 4.4. Tabulated diameter/height ratio statistics for all vessels sorted by form.

Mean Minimum Maximum Range Count % of Total

Jar 1.19 0.69 1.76 1.06 199 66.3

Bowl 1.96 1.50 2.96 1.45 74 24.7

Effigy 1.36 0.95 2.11 1.16 25 8.3

Other 1.81 1.14 2.47 1.33 2 0.7

Total 1.40 0.69 2.96 2.26 300 100

Figure 4.2. Plot of vessel height and body diameter, sorted by vessel form.

35302520151050

25

20

15

10

5

0

Diameter

Hei

ght

BowlEffigyJarOther

Shape

46

When looking at the range of vessel height and orifice diameter measurements by type,

no clear patterns emerge. But when sorted according to vessel form (Figure 4.3), two groupings

appear between bowls and jars. Effigy vessels are mainly distributed with the jars, with a few

vessels bearing similar measurements to bowls. This plot indicates that as the orifice diameter of

bowls increases, the height does not increase equally. Whereas with jars and most effigy vessels,

the height increases while the orifice diameter stays within a narrower range.

Figure 4.3. Plot of height and orifice diameter. Note the categories by form.

When looking at a histogram of vessel volume and vessel body diameter, the types are all

part of the same curve (Figure 4.4), with only the slightest separation between jars and bowls.

The few outliers in this plot are miniature vessels (n=6, outlined by a red box in Figure 4.4).

There is also no distinction between vessel forms when looking at a plot of volume and diameter.

20151050

25

20

15

10

5

0

Orifice Diameter

Hei

ght

BowlEffigyJarOther

Shape

47

The curve of this plot is fairly simple, indicating that as the vessel diameter increases, the volume

increases as well.

Figure 4.4. Plot of volume and diameter for all vessels, sorted by vessel form. Outliers (n=6) are miniature bowls and jars.

Morphological attributes can give an idea for a vessel’s intended function. As discussed

in Chapter 3, I believe intended function is useful only insofar as it can give a general idea of a

vessel’s uses. As bowls generally have wide orifices, it would be impractical to cook or store

food in bowls, and it is also not logical to cook food in a narrow necked jar. By collecting this

information and combining it with the use-alteration traces on each vessel, I can better determine

the function of ceramic types and vessel forms.

35302520151050

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

Diameter

Volu

me

(mL)

BowlEffigyJarOther

Shape

48

Evidence of Use-alteration

Each occurrence of wear was given a score based on its severity. For example, a severe

crack would get a score of 3, while a moderate abrasion would receive a score of 2. The scores

for each wear pattern were then totaled, giving each vessel a total wear score, which is a method

similar to that used by Duddleson (2008). Additionally, wear traces with a size attribution were

given a second score. This was done by taking the original score for each occurrence of wear and

multiplying that score by 1-3 (1=small, 2=medium, 3=large) where applicable. Not every vessel

got an overall size score, but all vessels have an overall wear score.

In all, I noted 5359 separate use-alteration traces for the 300 the vessels (Appendix B).

The results of these are reported below in 19 different sections, including abrasion, cracks,

sooting, delamination, discoloration, fireclouds, flaking, indeterminate, mending holes, missing

pieces, modern repair, nicks-chips-gouges, oxidation, patches, pedestalled temper, perforations,

pitting, scratches, spalling, and stirring.

Abrasion

Abrasion is a general removal of paint, slip, or sometimes paste in a broad area from the

surface of a vessel coming into contact with another surface (Figure 4.5 and 4.6). Pedestalled

temper is gentle abrasion by material that has a diameter less than the distance between temper

particles (Skibo 1992). Ceramic material is removed around individual temper particles (Figure

4.7). After some consideration, I determined pedestalled temper to be too vague a trace to be

considered in the data. It is too similar to abrasion. I have left the definition of pedestalled

temper in Chapter 3, as well as the notations of this trace in my data. Of the nine counts of

pedestalled temper, all occurred on the exterior base of jars: two on Babicora Polychrome, two

49

on Plainware, one on Playas Red, one on Ramos Polychrome, and one on Villa Ahumada

Polychrome. However, for the sake of this analysis, I have combined the nine counts of

pedestalled temper with the data on abrasion traces and will now refer to all traces as abrasion.

Abrasion was present on nearly every vessel (n=286, 95%). Jars had by far the highest

percentage of occurrences of abrasion traces (Figure 4.8 and Table 4.5), followed by effigies,

bowls, and then the other vessels. In fact, the percentage of abrasion trace occurrences on jars is

more than double that seen on the other vessel forms.

Figure 4.5. Abrasion traces on base of vessel.

50

Figure 4.6. Abrasion traces seen on lower body and base.

Figure 4.7. Example of pedestalled temper.

51

Figure 4.8. Occurrence percentage of abrasion traces for all vessels (n=300) by vessel form.

Table 4.5. Tabulated statistics for abrasion. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by vessel form.

Count % Jar 958 64.2 Effigy 303 20.3 Bowl 223 14.9 Other 9 0.6 Total 1493 100

The occurrence of exterior basal and lower body abrasions account for nearly 61.8% of

all exterior abrasion traces (Table 4.6). Interior base abrasion traces account for 34.6% of all

interior abrasion traces, and the combination of interior basal and lower body traces account for

nearly 68% (Table 4.6). Figure 4.9 shows that effigies have the highest percentage of interior

JarEffigyBowlOther

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

64.2

20.3

14.9

0.6

52

base abrasion trace occurrences, while jars have the highest percentage of interior lower body

abrasion traces. It is interesting to note in Table 4.7, there is not a lot of rim abrasion for jars

(8.7%), but for bowls, 12% of abrasion traces occur on vessel rims. This indicates that rim

abrasion was unusually common on bowls. This could indicate bowls were stored rim side down,

or bowls were frequently covered. The data in Table 4.7 and Figure 4.9 shows that for all vessel

forms, the percentage of abrasion traces occurred most on the base and lower body.

Table 4.6. Tabulated statistics for abrasion. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern on each vessel zone, divided by exterior and interior.

Exterior Interior Total

Count % Count % Count % Base 368 64 199 34.6 575 100 Lower Body 249 66.2 126 33.5 376 100 Mid Body 138 75.8 44 24.2 182 100 Neck 26 50 26 50 52 100 Rim 100 62.5 60 37.5 160 100 Upper Body 118 82.5 25 17.5 143 100 Total 999 67.1 480 32.3 1488 100

53

Figure 4.9. Percentage of abrasion trace occurrences on the interior of vessels sorted by trace location and vessel form.

Table 4.7. Tabulated statistics for abrasion. Counts and percentages of occurrence for wear pattern on each vessel zone, divided by vessel form.

Bowl Effigy Jar Other Total Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Base 114 51.1 74 24.4 384 40.3 3 33.3 575 38.6 Lower Body 63 28.3 80 26.4 231 24.2 2 22.2 376 25.3 Mid Body 12 5.4 49 16.2 121 12.7 0 0 182 12.2 Neck — — 5 1.7 45 4.7 2 22.2 52 3.5 Rim 27 12.1 48 15.8 83 8.7 2 22.2 160 10.8 Upper Body 7 3.1 47 15.5 89 9.3 0 0 143 9.6 Total 223 100 303 100 953 100 9 100 1488 100

Abrasion was present on all ceramic types, and Villa Ahumada Polychrome has the

highest percentage of abrasion trace occurrences of all the ceramic types (Figure 4.10 and Table

Base

Lower

BodyRim

Mid BodyNec

k

Upper Body

Effigy

BowlOtherJar

Effigy

BowlOtherJar

Effigy

BowlOtherJar

Effigy

Bowl

OtherJarEffig

yBowl

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

27.9

4.2

9.4

16.3

4.65.4

8.1

1.72.7

5.8

2.11.30.4

4.4

0.6

3.31.7

0.2

54

4.8). Villa Ahumada Polychrome and Ramos Polychrome each have a higher percentage of

occurrences of abrasion traces than Plainware vessels. The most common locations for abrasion

are on the exterior base, exterior lower body, and the interior base and interior lower body. Both

Villa Ahumada Polychrome and Ramos Polychrome have more exterior abrasion than the

Plainware vessels. Plainware vessels have the most interior abrasion (Figure 4.11 and Table 4.9).

Villa Ahumada, Ramos Polychrome, and Babicora Polychrome do not have as much interior

abrasion as Plainware vessels, but they have higher percentages of interior abrasion occurrences

relative to the other types in the sample. Villa Ahumada Polychrome, Plainware, Ramos Black,

Dublan Polychrome, Madera Black-on-red, and Corralitos Polychrome vessels also have similar

percentages of interior and exterior abrasion.

Figure 4.10. Percentage of abrasion trace occurrences for all vessels (n=300) by ceramic type.

Villa A

humada

Poly

chrom

e

Ramos

Polych

rome

Plainware

Babico

ra Poly

chrome

Ramos

Black

Playas

Red

Dublan

Po lych rome

Carreta

s Po lyc

h rome

Madera

Black -on

-red

Villa A

humada

Black-o

n-whit

e

Corrali

to s Po lyc

hrome

Ramos B

lack-o

n-whit

e

Escondid

a Poly

chrom

e

20

15

10

5

0

20.219.618.8

14.6

11.4

6.1

2.32.32.11.11.00.40.2

55

Table 4.8. Tabulated statistics for abrasion. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by ceramic type.

Count % Villa Ahumada Polychrome 302 20.2 Ramos Polychrome 292 19.6 Plainware 280 18.8 Babicora Polychrome 218 14.6 Ramos Black 170 11.4 Playas Red 90 6 Carretas Polychrome 34 2.3 Dublan Polychrome 34 2.3 Madera Black-on-red 32 2.1 Villa Ahumada Black-on-white 16 1.1 Corralitos Polychrome 15 1 Ramos Black-on-white 6 0.4 Escondida Polychrome 3 0.2 Total 1493 100

Figure 4.11. Percentage of interior and exterior abrasion occurrences by ceramic type.

18.116

19.618.1

11.7

6.73.5

1.9 2.90.2 1.3

21 21

18

1311

62 2 2 1 1 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

Interior % Exterior %

56

Table 4.9. Table associated with Figure 4.11. Shows percentage of interior and exterior abrasion occurrences by ceramic type.

Interior % Exterior % Villa Ahumada Polychrome 87 18.1 212 21 Ramos Polychrome 77 16 214 21 Plainware 94 19.6 184 18 Babicora Polychrome 87 18.1 129 13 Ramos Black 56 11.7 114 11 Playas Red 32 6.7 58 6 Carretas Polychrome 17 3.5 17 2 Dublan Polychrome 9 1.9 25 2 Madera Black-on-red 14 2.9 18 2 Villa Ahuama Black-on-white 1 0.2 15 1 Corralitos Polychrome 6 1.3 9 1 Ramos Black-on-white 0 0 6 1 Escondida Polychrome 0 0 3 0 Total 480 100 1004 100

Cracks

Cracks are the splitting of vessel temper and paste as the result of stresses that exceed the

strength of the vessel body (Rice 2015:321; Figure 4.12 and 4.13). Cracks are generally a result

of wear on the vessel wall as it reacts to temperature changes, pressure, post-depositional

conditions, or time. Table 4.10 and Figure 4.14 illustrate the percentage of cracking trace

occurrences noted on vessel forms. Jars have the highest percentage of cracking traces, by nearly

three times. Table 4.11 shows that most vessels zones have few occurrences of cracks, except for

the rim. Cracks on rims were identified in 54% of all cracking. This seems logical because the

rim would be more likely to crack in response to pressures caused as a result of the following

activities: as the vessel contents were manipulated, lids being placed on and off the vessel, and/or

when the vessel was placed rim down. On jars, which have the highest percentage of cracking

57

traces, rims have the most cracking trace occurrences. Jar base, lower body, mid, and upper body

zones all have relatively close percentages of cracking traces, indicating that generally, cracks

are evenly distributed across jar forms. Cracks occur almost entirely on rims and the base of

effigy vessels.

Figure 4.12. Example of cracks.

58

Figure 4.13. Another example of cracks.

Table 4.10. Tabulated statistics for cracks. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by vessel form.

Count % Jar 203 69.3 Bowl 59 20.1 Effigy 31 10.6 Other 0 0 Total 293 100

Figure 4.14. Tabulated statistics for cracks. Contains percentages of occurrences for wear pattern on each vessel zone, divided by vessel form.

JarBowlEffigy

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

69.3

20.1

10.6

59

Table 4.11. Tabulated statistics for cracks. Contains percentages of occurrences for wear pattern on each vessel zone, divided by ceramic type.

Bowl Effigy Jar Total Count % Count % Count % Count % Base 7 11.9 10 32.3 23 11.6 40 13.8 Lower Body 3 5.1 1 3.2 28 14.1 32 11.1 Mid Body 6 10.2 0 0 20 10.1 26 9 Neck — — 0 0 6 3.0 6 2.1 Upper Body 8 13.6 0 0 19 9.5 27 9.3 Total 59 100 31 100 199 100 289 100

Ramos Polychrome and Ramos Black vessels have the highest percentage of noted

cracking traces of all the ceramic types, while Corralitos Polychrome and Madera Black-on-red

vessels have no cracking traces at all (Table 4.12 and Figure 4.15). When looking at cracks more

closely (Table 4.13), rim cracks appear to be evenly distributed between interior and exterior.

There are more noted exterior cracks in all the other vessel zones than in the interior zones, but

the margin is close, 51.9% and 48.1% respectively. Ramos Polychrome vessels have the highest

percentage of cracking occurrences (Table 4.13) of all the ceramic types, followed closely by

Ramos Black, Plainware, and Babicora Polychrome. This table does not account for cracking

severity, however. Figure 4.16 shows the cracking severity scores for all vessels. The majority of

scores are a “1”, meaning for the most part, the cracking traces are not very severe. As cracking

becomes more severe and frequent, the vessel would break more easily, resulting in a broken

vessel, so the higher percentage of low severity score occurrences is logical.

60

Table 4.12. Tabulated statistics for cracks. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by ceramic type.

Count % Ramos Polychrome 60 20.5 Ramos Black 59 20.1 Plainware 51 17.4 Babicora Polychrome 49 16.7 Villa Ahumada Polychrome 41 14 Playas Red 16 5.5 Carretas Polychrome 9 3.1 Villa Ahumada Black-on-white 4 1.4 Ramos Black-on-white 2 0.7 Dublan Polychrome 1 0.3 Escondida Polychrome 1 0.3 Corralitos Polychrome 0 0 Madera Black-on-red 0 0 Total 293 100

Figure 4.15. Tabulated statistics for cracks. Contains percentages of occurrences for wear pattern on each vessel zone, divided by ceramic type.

Ramos P

olychrome

Ramos B

lack

Plainware

Babicora Polych

rome

Villa A

humada P

olychrome

Playas

Red

Carreta

s Polych

rome

Villa A

humada Black-

on-white

Ramos B

lack-on-w

hite

Escondida P

olych

rome

Dublan Polych

rome

20

15

10

5

0

20.520.1

17.416.7

14

5.5

3.11.40.70.30.3

61

Table 4.13. Tabulated statistics for cracks. Contains counts and percentage of occurrences for wear pattern on each vessel zone, divided by exterior and interior.

Exterior Interior Total

Count % Count % Count % Base 13 32.5 27 67.5 40 13.8

Lower Body 11 34.4 21 65.6 32 11.1

Mid Body 20 76.9 6 23.1 26 9.0 Neck 6 100 0 0 6 2.1

Upper Body 18 66.7 9 33.3 27 9.3

Total 150 51.9 139 48.1 289 100

Figure 4.16. Cracking score occurrences for all data. The numbers 1, 2, and 3 on the x-axis refer to the score.

321

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

9.6

29.9

60.5

62

Soot

Sooting is a dull black layer that can be found on the exterior base, lower body, mid

body, and sometimes on the upper body and rim of a vessel. It can also occur on the interior base

and lower body of a vessel. As organic materials are burned the carbonaceous material is

transferred to the surface of the vessel, creating the soot trace (Figure 4.17).

Figure 4.17. Example of sooting seen on base and lower body of the vessel.

I did not see much sooting on the vessels in my sample. Sooting traces only occurred on

52 out of 300 vessels (17%). Of the vessels analyzed, sooting was noted overwhelmingly on jars

(46%, Table 4.14 and Figure 4.18). All vessel forms except for the vessels categorized as “other”

(n=2) included traces of soot.

63

Table 4.14. Tabulated statistics for soot traces. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by vessel form.

Count % Jar 97 46 Bowl 59 28 Effigy 55 26.1 Other 0 0 Total 211 100

Figure 4.18. Percentage of soot trace occurrences by vessel form.

Table 4.15 shows the distribution of sooting traces across the vessel zones for each vessel

form. Lower body traces account for 43% of all sooting trace occurrences, but it is not a

significant trace on effigy vessels. Traces on the lower body occur most frequently for jars and

bowls, however. Effigy vessels have the most soot traces noted on the upper and mid body, and

when those traces are sorted into exterior and interior trace locations (Figure 4.19), it is clear to

see the majority of those traces occur on the exterior of the vessel.

JarBowlEffigy

50

40

30

20

10

0

46

2826.1

64

Table 4.15. Tabulated statistics for sooting. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern on each vessel zone, by vessel form.

Bowl Effigy Jar Total Count % Count % Count % Count % Base 11 18.6 6 10.9 14 14.4 31 14.7 Lower Body 28 47.5 24 4.4 39 40.2 91 43.1 Mid Body 13 22.0 14 25.5 21 21.6 48 22.7 Neck — — 0 0 4 4.1 4 1.9 Rim 1 1.7 3 5.5 3 3.1 7 3.3 Upper Body 6 10.2 8 14.5 16 16.5 30 14.2 Total 59 100 55 100 97 100 211 100

Figure 4.19. Percentage of soot trace occurrences on effigies by interior/exterior and vessel zone.

Exterio

r

Interior

Mid Bod

y

Lower

BodyBaseRim

Upper Body

Mid Body

Lower Body

Base

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

10.9

5.5

21.8

30.9

3.63.6

12.710.9

65

Sooting traces were noted most on Plainware vessels (Table 4.16 and Figure 4.20). Di

Peso and colleagues (1974 vol. 6), Pitezel (2008), and Triadan and colleagues (2017) all note the

abundance of polychrome vessels with sooting. Triadan and colleagues (2017) state that Di Peso

and colleagues noted 39.4% of Ramos Polychrome vessels as having sooting. Sooting appears on

eight of the ware types. Of those types, besides Plainware, Villa Ahumada, Ramos Polychrome,

and Playas Red have the highest percentage of occurrences of soot traces. However, the

percentages are quite low for these ceramic types, accounting for only 10-11% of noted sooting

traces respectively. Although the vessels in my sample do not show as much evidence of soot as

suggested by Pitezel (2008), Triadan (et al. 2017), or Di Peso (et al. 1974 vol. 6), my study is

still consistent in that the non-Plainware vessels showing the most occurrences of soot are the

painted polychrome ceramic types.

Table 4.16. Tabulated statistics for sooting. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by ceramic type.

Count % Plainware 116 55 Playas Red 24 11.4 Villa Ahumada Polychrome 22 10.4 Ramos Polychrome 21 10 Corralitos Polychrome 7 3.3 Ramos Black 7 3.3 Carretas Polychrome 6 2.8 Babicora Polychrome 5 2.4 Ramos Black-on-white 3 1.4 Dublan Polychrome 0 0 Escondida Polychrome 0 0 Madera Black-on-red 0 0 Villa Ahumada Black-on-white 0 0 Total 211 100

66

Figure 4.20. Percentage of occurrence of soot traces by ceramic type.

I also note that the percentage of sooting traces occurring on Ramos Black vessels was

very low. This is most likely because the vessels are black and it is difficult to see contrasts in

color indicative of sooting. Di Peso and colleagues (1974:6:160) state that Ramos Black vessels

were not examined for sooting because “the small number of sherds burned out to brown

indicated that it was probably not used over a cooking fire.” However, given that I found seven

sooting traces on Ramos Black vessels, it is likely that Ramos Black vessels were used over a

fire, at least to some degree. So it is unclear whether Ramos Black vessels were not used over a

fire as suggested by Di Peso and colleagues (1974 vol. 6), or whether the traces are difficult to

see given the color of the vessel.

The percentage of occurrences of sooting was highest on the exterior lower body and

somewhat on the exterior mid body (Table 4.17) across all vessel forms. The smaller counts of

Plainware

Playas

Red

Villa A

humad

a Polychro

me

Ramos P

olychrome

Ramos Black

Corralito

s Polych

rome

Carretas P

olychrome

Babico

ra Po

lychrom

e

Ramos B

lack-on-w

hite

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

55

11.410.410

3.33.32.82.41.4

67

sooting on vessel bases could be attributed to one of two things: 1. Abrasion traces have

obscured any sooting that might have occurred on the base (in other words: the soot was worn

off and the resultant abrasion trace remains), or 2. based on a vessel’s placement over fire, the

carbonaceous material would not land and settle on a vessel base. If the base sat in the direct path

of the most intense part of the flame any soot would have burned off, leaving no trace (Skibo

1992). The evidence seems to indicate option 2 is the most likely.

Table 4.17. Tabulated statistics for sooting. Contains counts and percentages of occurrences of wear pattern on each vessel zone, sorted by vessel exteriors and interiors.

Exterior Interior Total Count % Count % Count %

Base 18 58.1 13 41.9 31 14.7 Lower Body 71 78 20 22 91 43.1 Mid Body 39 81.3 9 18.8 48 22.7 Neck 3 75 1 25 4 1.9 Rim 5 71.4 2 28.6 7 3.3 Upper Body 23 76.7 7 23.3 30 14.2 Total 159 75.4 52 24.6 211 100

Figures 4.21-4.23 show the occurrence percentage of soot on vessel interior bases or

lower bodies for bowls, jars, and effigies, respectively. Dark staining on the interior of vessels is

likely caused when contents are burned. There is not much evidence of interior sooting in my

sample of vessels, but Plainwares have the most occurrences of all ceramic types. The most

interior sooting occurs with bowls, while the least occurs with jars. I was surprised by the

presence of interior sooting on effigy vessels (Table 4.15 and Figure 4.19). Plainware vessels

have the highest occurrence percentage of exterior lower body and base sooting traces (Figure

4.24), which was established previously. Villa Ahumada Polychrome, Ramos Polychrome, and

68

Playas Red have the highest percentage of occurrences of exterior lower body and base sooting

traces after Plainware vessels.

Figure 4.21. Occurrence percentage of interior lower body/base sooting for bowls by ceramic type.

Plainware

Ramos B

lack

Playas

Red

Villa A

humad

a Polychrome

Ramos

Polychrome

Carreta

s Polychro

me

50

40

30

20

10

0

50

14.3

7.17.17.1

14.3

69

Figure 4.22. Occurrence percentage of interior lower body/base sooting for jars by ceramic type.

Figure 4.23. Occurrence percentage of interior lower body/base sooting for effigies by ceramic type.

PlainwareVilla Ahumada Polychrome

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

66.7

33.3

PlainwareRamos BlackPlayas RedRamos Polychrome

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

30.830.8

23.1

15.4

70

Figure 4.24. Occurrence percentages of exterior lower body and base sooting by ceramic type.

According to Di Peso and colleagues (1974:6:85-88) and others (Allison and Hagopian

2010:162; Skibo 1992:147-157), cooking vessels could have sooting present both in the exteriors

and interiors. These vessels, which according to Henrickson and McDonald (1983:631) should

mainly consist of jars, also have attrition marks, such as exterior basal abrasion (Allison and

Hagopian 2010:200), and pitting and thermal spalls on the interior as a result of cooking (Skibo

1992:181). A correspondence analysis illustrates the relationship of vessel form and sooting

traces in locations that could be associated with cooking vessels (Figure 4.25). Bowls are more

closely associated with interior base sooting traces than are the other vessel forms. Jars are more

closely associated with exterior lower body and base sooting traces than are the other types. And

effigies are not significantly associated with any of the sooting traces.

Plainware

Villa A

humada P

olychrom

e

Ramos Polychrome

Playas R

ed

Corralito

s Polych

rome

Babicora

Polychrome

Carreta

s Polychrome

Ramos Black

50

40

30

20

10

0

47.2

13.512.412.4

7.7

3.42.31.1

71

Figure 4.25. Principal components analysis that illustrates the relationship of vessel forms with dark staining traces.

The principal components analysis by ceramic type (Figure 4.26) shows that Plainware

vessels are most closely associated with soot staining in the exterior, lower bodies. In fact, the

other three ceramic types do not seem closely related to that trace. Ramos Polychrome and

Ramos Black vessels are more closely associated with dark staining on the interior low body.

Referring again to the lack of sooting on Ramos Black vessels, I only noted sooting on 3 of 65

Ramos Black vessels. This would seemingly concur with Di Peso and colleagues’ assertion that

Ramos Black vessels were not likely used over a cooking fire. However, upon combing through

my data again, I found that I noted “discoloration” on 22 Ramos Black vessels. These

72

discoloration traces could connect Ramos Black vessels to heating and warming activities. This

data will be discussed further in a subsequent section of this chapter.

Figure 4.26. Principal components analysis that illustrates the relationship of ceramic types with dark staining traces.

Delamination

This trace consists of thin, flat portions of missing surface which often appears flakey

(Pitezel 2008:21; Figure 4.27 and 4.28). It is differentiated from flaking in that delamination is a

removal of paste. I noted 179 delamination traces in my analysis (Table 4.18 and Figure 4.29),

73

mostly occurring on jars. In fact, jar traces account for 81% of all noted delamination traces. Of

all delamination traces noted for jars, 35.2% occur on the lower body (Table 4.19).

Figure 4.27. Example of delamination on a Playas Red bowl.

Figure 4.28. Another example of delamination.

74

Table 4.18. Tabulated statistics for delamination. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by vessel form.

Count % Jar 145 81 Bowl 25 14 Effigy 9 5 Other 0 0 Total 179 100

Figure 4.29. Percentage of occurring delamination traces by vessel form.

JarBowlEffigy

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

81

14

5

75

Table 4.19. Tabulated statistics for delamination. Contains counts and percentages of occurrences for wear pattern on each vessel zone by vessel form.

Bowl Effigy Jar Total Count % Count % Count % Count % Base 2 8 0 0 24 16.6 26 9.2 Lower Body 6 24 9 100 51 35.2 66 36.9 Mid Body 11 44 0 0 40 27.6 51 28.5 Neck — — 0 0 1 0.7 1 0.6 Rim 0 0 0 0 4 2.8 4 2.2 Upper Body 6 24 0 0 25 17.2 31 17.3 Total 25 100 9 100 145 100 179 100

Traces on the lower body account for 100% of delamination traces noted on effigy

vessels. The mid body is the zone with the second highest occurrence percentage of traces for

jars (27.6%), and the highest for bowls (24%, the same as upper body traces also at 24%). So the

highest percentage of occurrences of delamination are found on the lower to upper body zones

across all vessel forms.

Further, 72% of all delamination traces across the vessels (n=300) occurred on vessel

interiors (Table 4.20). Of the interior traces, 41.5% occur on the lower body, while the exterior

traces are largely split between the lower, mid, and upper body zones. A little less than half of all

occurring delamination traces are considered mild with severity scores of 1 (Table 4.21). Those

traces are mostly distributed between the lower, mid, and upper body zones with 31.58%,

23.68%, and 22.37%, respectively. The remaining half of all delamination traces is split between

moderate and severe traces.

76

Table 4.20. Tabulated statistics for delamination. Contains counts and percentages of occurrence of wear pattern on each vessel zone by exterior and interior.

Exterior Interior Total Count % Count % Count % Base 5 10.2 21 16.2 26 14.5 Lower Body 12 24.5 54 41.5 66 36.9 Mid Body 14 28.6 37 28.5 51 28.5 Neck 0 0 1 0.8 1 0.6 Rim 0 0 4 3.1 4 2.2 Upper Body 18 36.7 13 10 31 17.3 Total 49 100 130 100 179 100 % of Total 49 27.4 130 72.6 179 100

Table 4.21. Tabulated statistics for delamination. Contains counts and percentages of occurrence of severity of wear trace sorted by vessel zone.

1 Mild % 2

Moderate % 3 Severe % Total %

Neck 1 1.32 0 0 0 0 1 0.6 Rim 4 5.26 0 0 0 0 4 2.2 Base 12 15.79 7 10.9 7 17.9 26 14.5 Upper Body 17 22.37 9 14.1 5 12.8 31 17.3 Mid Body 18 23.68 21 32.8 12 30.8 51 28.5 Lower Body 24 31.58 27 42.2 15 38.5 66 36.9 Total 76 100 64 100 39 100 179 100 % of Total 76 42 64 36 39 22 179 100

Villa Ahumada jars have the highest percentage of occurring delamination traces with

30.7%, followed by Plainware vessels and then Ramos Black vessels (Table 4.22 and Figure

4.30). Dublan, Escondida, and Madera Black-on-red vessels have no delamination traces, and

traces found on Carretas Polychrome vessels only account for 0.6% of all identified traces. The

presence of this trace could have something to do with the manufacturing processes of these

ceramic types.

77

Table 4.22. Tabulated statistics for delamination. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by ceramic type.

Count % Villa Ahumada Polychrome 55 30.7 Plainware 34 19 Ramos Black 31 17.3 Babicora Polychrome 22 12.3 Ramos Polychrome 22 12.3 Playas Red 8 4.5 Corralitos Polychrome 2 1.1 Ramos Black-on-white 2 1.1 Villa Ahumada Black-on-white 2 1.1 Carretas Polychrome 1 0.6 Dublan Polychrome 0 0 Escondida Polychrome 0 0 Madera Black-on-red 0 0 Total 179 100

Figure 4.30. Occurrence percentage of delamination traces by ceramic type.

Villa A

humad

a Polychrome

Plainware

Ramos

Black

Ramos P

olychrome

Babico

ra Polych

rome

Playas Red

Villa A

humada Black-

on-white

Ramos

Black-o

n-white

Corralito

s Polych

rome

Carreta

s Polychro

me

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

30.7

1917.3

12.312.3

4.5

1.11.10.6 1.1

78

Due to slipping of vessel surfaces during manufacture, it can be common for

delamination to be associated with pitting. As the surface of the vessel is pitted away, the surface

of the vessel at the sides of the pits tends to flake or peel away. Sixty vessels manifest both

delamination and pitting traces, suggesting that delamination is often caused by pitting. Table

4.23 shows the number of vessels that had delamination traces associated with pitting traces in

the same vessel location. Interior lower and mid body zones had the most noted delamination-

pitting combinations with 25.4% and 18.6%, respectively. Exterior upper body vessel zones had

16.9% of all identified delamination-pitting combinations. By ceramic type, Ramos Black

vessels had the highest number of delamination-pitting combinations at 24.5% (Table 4.24).

Table 4.23. Counts and percentage of occurrence of delamination associated with pitting by vessel zone.

Count %

Interior upper body 1 1.7

Exterior base 2 3.4

Exterior mid body 3 5.1

Exterior lower body 4 6.8

Interior base 7 11.9

Combo 7 11.9

Exterior upper body 10 16.9

Interior mid body 11 18.6

Interior lower body 15 25.4 Total 59 100

79

Table 4.24. Counts and percentage of occurrence of delamination associated with pitting by ceramic type.

Count % Ramos Black 13 24.5 Plainware 10 18.9 Babicora Polychrome 9 17 Villa Ahumada Polychrome 9 17 Ramos Polychrome 5 9.4 Playas Red 3 5.7 Carretas Polychrome 1 1.9 Corralitos Polychrome 1 1.9 Ramos Black-on-white 1 1.9 Villa Ahumada Black-on-white 1 1.9 Total 53 100

Plainware, Babicora Polychrome, and Villa Ahumada Polychrome vessels all have

similar percentages of delamination-pitting combinations around 17-18%. Plainware bowls have

the highest occurrence percentage of trace combinations of all the bowls, at 6.7%, while Villa

Ahumada Polychrome jars have the highest percentage for jars at 25.7% (Figure 4.31). The

effigies do not have a high percentage of combination traces anyway, and Villa Ahumada

Polychrome, Ramos Polychrome, and Playas Red have similar occurrence percentages.

80

Figure 4.31. Percentages for occurrences of delamination sorted by vessel form and type.

Discoloration

Discoloration is identified when part of the vessel surface is a different color than the rest

of the vessel (Figure 4.32). Discoloration can be caused by many things, an error during firing,

proximity of the vessel to any chemicals or minerals during deposition, or even perhaps an

accident after the vessel was uncovered. The traces were not accretions, meaning the

discoloration was part of vessel surfaces.

The percentage of discoloration traces occur most on jars (Table 4.25 and Figure 4.33).

The percentage of occurrences of discoloration occur most frequently on Ramos Black vessels,

as indicated by Figure 4.34. Ramos Polychrome and Plainware vessels each show 20% of noted

discoloration traces (Table 4.26). It is unlikely that discoloration traces can be related to use, but

it is necessary to discuss the discoloration traces on Ramos Polychrome vessels.

JarBowl

Effigy

Villa A

humada Polych

rome

Villa A

humada B

lack-on-w

hite

Ramos Polych

rome

Ramos Blac

k-on-w

hite

Ramos B

lack

Playas Red

Plainware

Corralito

s Poly

chrome

Babicora

Polychrome

Villa A

humada Polych

rome

Ramos B

lack

Plainware

Carreta

s Polychrome

Villa A

humada P

olych

rome

Ramos P

olychrome

Playas

Red

25

20

15

10

5

0

25.7

1.1

11.2

1.1

13.4

2.8

12.3

1.1

12.3

2.83.96.7

0.62.21.11.7

81

Figure 4.32. Example of discoloration.

Table 4.25. Tabulated statistics for discoloration. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by vessel form.

Count % Jar 135 63.4 Bowl 46 21.6 Effigy 32 15 Other 0 0 Total 213 100

82

Figure 4.33. Percentages of occurrence of discoloration traces sorted by vessel form.

Figure 4.34. Percentages of occurrence of discoloration traces sorted by ceramic type.

JarBowlEffigy

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

63.4

21.6

15

Ramos

Black

Ramos P

olychrome

Plainware

Villa A

humada Polych

rome

Playas

Red

Carreta

s Polych

rome

Babico

ra Polych

rome

Ramos Blac

k-on-w

hite

Madera

Black o

n Red

Corralito

s Polyc

hrome

25

20

15

10

5

0

25.8

20.720.2

11.3

87.5

4.2

1.40.50.5

83

Table 4.26. Tabulated statistics for discoloration. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by ceramic type.

Count % Ramos Black 55 25.8 Ramos Polychrome 44 20.7 Plainware 43 20.2 Villa Ahumada Polychrome 24 11.3 Playas Red 17 8 Carretas Polychrome 16 7.5 Babicora Polychrome 9 4.2 Ramos Black-on-white 3 1.4 Corralitos Polychrome 1 0.5 Madera Black-on-red 1 0.5 Dublan Polychrome 0 0 Escondida Polychrome 0 0 Villa Ahumada Black-on-white 0 0 Total 213 100

I specifically noted the presence of brown spots on Ramos Black vessels that could only

refer to the “brown out” Di Peso and colleagues wrote about (1974:6:160). This discoloration

occurs almost equally on the interiors and exteriors of bowls, and exclusively on the exteriors of

jars (Tables 4.27 and 4.28). Di Peso and colleagues (1974:6:160) referred to these brown spots as

the surface of the vessel appearing when the black layer is burned off (Figure 4.35). They argue

Ramos Black vessels were not likely used for cooking or activities that required heat as these

activities would remove the black surface. However, I did find enough discoloration traces to

suggest that Ramos Black vessels could have been used for heating and warming activities,

contrary to the assertion of Di Peso and colleagues (1974 vol. 6). This brown out/discoloration is

not like soot staining, but more similar to oxidation. However, unlike oxidation, this trace is

likely caused during use.

84

Table 4.27. Counts and percentage of occurrence of discoloration traces for Ramos Black bowls by interior/exterior and location.

Interior Exterior Total

Count % Count % Count % Base 3 60 2 40 5 14.7 Lower Body 6 54.5 5 45.5 11 32.4 Mid Body 5 62.5 3 37.5 8 23.5 Upper Body 3 37.5 5 62.5 8 23.5 Neck 1 100 0 0 1 2.9 Rim 1 100 0 0 1 2.9 Total 19 55.9 15 44.1 34 100

Table 4.28. Counts and percentage of occurrence of discoloration traces for Ramos Black jars by interior/exterior and location.

Interior Exterior Total Count % Count % Count % Base 0 0 2 100 2 100 Lower Body 0 0 6 100 6 100 Mid Body 0 0 7 100 7 100

Upper Body 0 0 6 100 6 100

Neck 0 0 1 100 1 100 Rim 0 0 0 100 0 100 Total 0 0 22 100 22 100

85

Figure 4.35. Example of the how the Ramos Black surface can burn away leaving the brown surface exposed.

Fireclouds

Fireclouds are a dark spot on vessel surfaces. Fireclouds do not have the lustrous

appearance of soot staining, but have a duller quality. They usually occur in small spots, and are

caused typically during firing (Figure 4.36). As fireclouds are typically caused during firing, they

cannot be connected to use, so the data will not be discussed extensively. The data collected for

fireclouds by vessel form can be seen in Table 4.29 and Figure 4.37, and by ceramic type in

Table 4.30 and Figure 4.38.

86

Figure 4.36. Example of fireclouding on Plainware jar.

Table 4.29. Tabulated statistics for fireclouds. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by vessel form.


87

Figure 4.37. Percentages of occurrence of firecloud traces by vessel form.

Table 4.30. Tabulated statistics for fireclouds. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by ceramic type.

Count % Plainware 214 48.3 Ramos Polychrome 69 15.6 Babicora Polychrome 48 10.8 Villa Ahumada Polychrome 40 9 Playas Red 37 8.4 Ramos Black 20 4.5 Dublan Polychrome 5 1.1 Ramos Black-on-white 4 0.9 Carretas Polychrome 3 0.7 Madera Black-on-red 3 0.7 Corralitos Polychrome 0 0 Escondida Polychrome 0 0 Villa Ahumada Black-on-white 0 0 Total 443 100

JarBowlEffigy

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

65.5

20.3

14.2

88

Figure 4.38. Percentages of occurrence of firecloud traces sorted by ceramic type.

Flaking

This trace was identified when bits of slip or painted decoration came off in thin, flat

pieces (Figure 4.39). Figure 4.40 shows an example of paint flaking off a wooden surface, but it

illustrates the trace style well. In some areas of particular vessels, the painted decoration had

flaked off almost completely (Figure 4.41). Table 4.31 indicates the vast majority of flaking

traces occur on vessel exteriors (90.2%). Jars had the highest percentage of flaking trace

occurrences over effigies by 12% (Table 4.32 and Figure 4.42). Flaking traces on bowls only

accounted for 18% of flaking noted in the sample. The upper body and mid body zones account

for 89.6% of all flaking traces noted on jars in the sample (Table 4.33). The same is true for

effigies and bowls.

Plainware

Ramos P

olychrome

Babico

ra Polychrome

Villa A

humada Polych

rome

Playas Red

Ramos B

lack

Dublan Polychrome

Ramos

Black-o

n-white

Madera

Black o

n Red

Carreta

s Polychrome

50

40

30

20

10

0

48.3

15.6

10.898.4

4.51.10.90.70.7

89

Figure 4.39. Example of flaking.

Figure 4.40. Close up view of peeling paint (“Flaking Paint 01” Aimi-Stock https://aimi-stock.deviantart.com/art/Peeling-Paint-01-162498612). Although not a vessel surface from the

samples in this study, this is a good illustration of the flaking traces I noted.

90

Figure 4.41. Example of painted decoration almost completely gone from the surface of a Villa Ahumada vessel due to flaking.

Table 4.31. Tabulated statistics for flaking. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence of

wear pattern on each vessel zone by exterior and interior.

Exterior Interior Total Count % Count % Count %

Base 0 0 3 100 3 100 Lower Body 14 82.4 3 17.6 17 100 Mid Body 49 90.7 5 9.3 54 100 Neck 1 100 0 0 1 100 Rim 12 85.7 2 14.3 14 100 Upper Body 72 96 3 4 75 100 Total 148 90.2 16 9.8 164 100

Table 4.32. Tabulated statistics for flaking. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by vessel form.

Count % Jar 77 47 Effigy 57 34.8 Bowl 30 18.3 Other 0 0 Total 164 100

91

Figure 4.42. Percentage of flaking trace occurrences by vessel form.

Table 4.33. Tabulated statistics for flaking. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern on each vessel zone by vessel form.

Bowl Effigy Jar Total Count % Count % Count % Count % Base 3 10 0 0 0 0 3 1.8 Lower Body 4 13.3 9 15.8 4 5.2 17 10.4 Mid Body 8 26.7 17 29.8 29 37.7 54 32.9 Neck — — 0 0 1 1.3 1 0.6 Rim 2 6.7 9 15.8 3 3.9 14 8.5 Upper Body 13 43.3 22 38.6 40 51.9 75 45.7 Total 30 100 57 100 77 100 164 100

JarEffigyBowl

50

40

30

20

10

0

47

34.8

18.3

92

Villa Ahumada and Ramos Polychrome vessels had the majority of identified flaking

traces (Table 4.34 and Figure 4.43). In fact, Villa Ahumada Polychrome (with 28.7% of noted

flaking traces) more than doubles the occurrence percentage of the next highest ceramic type:

Carretas Polychrome. Madera Black-on-red, Playas Red, and Ramos Black each account for

5.5% of noted flaking traces which is the media of the sample. Di Peso and colleagues

(1974:6:257) suggest that Ramos Polychrome paint chips more because the paint is highly

polished. I argue the paint does not chip, but flakes off, and perhaps the reason is that the paint is

highly polished. The black paint is also rather thick, and Di Peso and colleagues (1974:6:256)

suggest this is why the black paint flakes. There is nothing chemically or mechanically different

about Villa Ahumada painted decoration as compared to that of other ceramic types, so it is

difficult to say why this type has so many flaking traces. Perhaps it has to do with the slip,

similar to delamination.

Table 4.34. Tabulated statistics for flaking. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by ceramic type.

Count % Villa Ahumada Polychrome 51 31.1 Ramos Polychrome 47 28.7 Carretas Polychrome 19 11.6 Babicora Polychrome 11 6.7 Madera Black-on-red 9 5.5 Playas Red 9 5.5 Ramos Black 9 5.5 Escondida Polychrome 4 2.4 Ramos Black-on-white 3 1.8 Dublan Polychrome 1 0.6 Plainware 1 0.6 Corralitos Polychrome 0 0 Villa Ahumada Black-on-white 0 0 Total 164 100

93

Figure 4.43. Occurrence percentage of flaking traces by ceramic type.

Indeterminate

Indeterminate traces usually referred to some kind of modern accretion or additive on the

vessel surface (Figure 4.44 and 4.45). As seen in the images, one example is patches of what can

only be described as faint bluish splotches. I did not see this trace on any other vessels. One bowl

had something on the interior low body that looked like wax. Figure 4.45 shows a spot of a shiny

substance that is quite dry, but is stuck to the surface of the vessel. Another example included a

white spot that looked like dried white-out.

Of the over 5,000 use-alteration traces noted in the course of this project, only 52

were considered indeterminate. As indeterminate traces are typically considered of modern

origin, they are not suggestive of prehistoric use, and are therefore outside the scope of this

project. So the data will not be discussed extensively here. The data collected for indeterminate

Villa A

humada P

olych

rome

Ramos Polych

rome

Carretas P

olychrome

Babico

ra Poly

chrome

Ramos Blac

k

Playas

Red

Madera

Black on Red

Escondida P

olychrome

Ramos B

lack-o

n-white

Plainw

are

Dublan Polychro

me

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

31.128.7

11.6

6.75.55.5

2.41.80.60.6

5.5

94

traces by vessel form can be seen in Table 4.35 and Figure 4.46, and by ceramic type in Table

4.36 and Figure 4.47.

Figure 4.44. Example of indeterminate traces. Trace is patches of faint bluish splotches.

Figure 4.45. Example of indeterminate trace. Trace is a spot of a shiny substance that is quite dry, but is stuck to the surface of the vessel.

95

Table 4.35. Tabulated statistics for indeterminate. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by vessel form.

Count % Jar 29 55.8 Effigy 13 25 Bowl 10 19.2 Other 0 0 Total 52 100

Figure 4.46. Percentage of occurrence of indeterminate traces by vessel form.

JarEffigyBowl

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

55.8

25

19.2

96

Table 4.36. Tabulated statistics for indeterminate. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by ceramic type.

Count % Ramos Polychrome 16 30.8 Plainware 15 28.9 Villa Ahumada Polychrome 8 15.4 Ramos Black 7 13.5 Playas Red 3 5.8 Babicora Polychrome 1 1.9 Carretas Polychrome 1 1.9 Madera Black-on-red 1 1.9 Corralitos Polychrome 0 0 Dublan Polychrome 0 0 Escondida Polychrome 0 0 Ramos Black-on-white 0 0 Villa Ahumada Black-on-white 0 0 Total 52 100

Figure 4.47. Percentage of occurrence of indeterminate traces by ceramic type.

Ramos Polych

rome

Plainware

Villa A

humada P

olychrome

Ramos B

lack

Playas Red

Madera Blac

k on Red

Carreta

s Polychrome

Babicora Polych

rome

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

30.828.8

15.413.5

5.8

1.91.91.9

97

Mend Holes

These are small holes intentionally drilled through the walls of vessels such that binding

material fed through the holes would cross cracks in the vessel surface and “repair” the vessel

(Figure 4.48). This type of mending occurred before vessels were deposited in the ground and

should not be confused with modern repairs. Mend holes were noted only three times in the data.

Two were associated with Babicora Polychrome jars, and one with a Corralitos Polychrome

bowl. The data is illustrated in Table 4.37, Table 4.38, Figure 4.49, and Figure 4.50.

Figure 4. 48. Example of a mending hole.

Table 4.37. Tabulated statistics for mend holes. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by vessel form.

Count % Jar 2 66.7 Bowl 1 33.3 Total 3 100

98

Table 4.38. Tabulated statistics for mend holes. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by ceramic type.

Count % Babicora Polychrome 2 66.67 Corralitos Polychrome 1 33.33 Total 3 100

Figure 4.49. Percentage of occurrence of mend hole traces by vessel form.

JarBowl

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

66.7

33.3

99

Figure 4.50. Percentage of occurrence of mend hole traces by ceramic type.

Missing Pieces

Missing pieces (Figure 4.51) usually occurred when a vessel was reconstructed and a

piece was missing, or on effigies when a protuberance was no longer present. On a few other

vessels, if a large portion of the vessel was missing (larger than approximately 3 by 4 cm), I

noted it had a missing piece. Reconstructed or partially reconstructed vessels were not included

in this category.

Babicora PolychromeCorralitos Polychrome

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

66.7

33.3

100

Figure 4.51. Example of missing piece.

Missing pieces were still noted 80 times among the 300 vessels. The majority, 61.3%,

occurred on effigy vessels (Table 4.39). On effigies, most of the missing pieces were

protuberances that had broken off (i.e., animals with missing legs or tails, human figures with

missing toes, etc.). It is easy for these pieces to break off, so it is impossible to place exactly

when the breaks would have occurred, but the traces were not new. The pieces could have

broken before deposition, when the vessels were in the ground, or during excavation. As missing

pieces can be caused in a myriad of circumstances, they are not necessarily connected to use. The

data collected for missing pieces by vessel form can be seen in Table 4.39 and Figure 4.52, and

by ceramic type in Table 4.40 and Figure 4.53.

101

Table 4.39. Tabulated statistics for missing pieces. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by vessel form.

Count % Effigy 49 61.3 Jar 27 33.8 Bowl 4 5 Other 0 0 Total 80 100

Figure 4. 52. Percentage of occurrence of missing piece traces by vessel form.

EffigyJarBowl

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

61.3

33.8

5

102

Table 4.40. Tabulated statistics for missing pieces. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by ceramic type.

Count % Plainware 32 40 Villa Ahumada Polychrome 15 18.8 Ramos Black 9 11.3 Madera Black-on-red 8 10 Ramos Polychrome 5 6.3 Carretas Polychrome 4 5 Playas Red 4 5 Babicora Polychrome 3 3.8 Corralitos Polychrome 0 0 Dublan Polychrome 0 0 Escondida Polychrome 0 0 Ramos Black-on-white 0 0 Villa Ahumada Black-on-white 0 0 Total 80 100

Figure 4.53. Percentage of occurrence of missing piece traces by ceramic type.

Plainware

Villa A

humada Polych

rome

Ramos B

lack

Mad

era Black-o

n-red

Ramos P

olychrome

Playas

Red

Carreta

s Polychrome

Babicora

Polychrome

40

30

20

10

0

40

18.8

11.310

6.3553.8

103

Modern Repair

This trace was noted in places where vessels had been patched or glued using modern

materials (Figure 4.54). Sometimes holes and missing pieces have been filled in, and

occasionally the repair was painted to match the rest of the surface decoration. The repair was

usually obviously visible, and frequently poorly done. Modern repair traces are not connected to

prehistoric use. The data collected for modern repair traces by vessel form can be seen in Table

4.41 and Figure 4.55, and by ceramic type in Table 4.42 and Figure 4.56.

Figure 4.54. Example of modern repair.

104

Table 4.41. Tabulated statistics for modern repair. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by vessel form.

Count % Jar 58 81.7 Effigy 9 12.7 Bowl 4 5.6 Other 0 0 Total 71 100

Figure 4.55. Percentage of occurrence of modern repair traces by vessel form.

JarEffigyBowl

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

81.7

12.7

5.6

105

Table 4.42. Tabulated statistics for modern repair. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by ceramic type.

Count % Ramos Polychrome 19 26.8 Ramos Black 17 23.9 Babicora Polychrome 15 21.1 Villa Ahumada Polychrome 9 12.7 Plainware 8 11.3 Dublan Polychrome 3 4.2 Carretas Polychrome 0 0 Corralitos Polychrome 0 0 Escondida Polychrome 0 0 Madera Black-on-red 0 0 Playas Red 0 0 Ramos Black-on-white 0 0 Villa Ahumada Black-on-white 0 0 Total 71 100

Figure 4.56. Percentage of occurrence of modern repair traces by ceramic type.

Ramos

Polychrome

Ramos B

lack

Babico

ra Polychro

me

Villa A

humada P

olychrom

e

Plainware

Dublan Polych

rome

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

26.8

23.9

21.1

12.711.3

4.2

106

Nick-Chip-Gouge

These traces are usually angular or subangular cavities (Pitezel 2008:21), formed by

single impacts (Skibo 1992: 137-138; Figure 4.57). Nicks, chips, and gouge traces (n/c/g) were

documented 636 times on the 300 vessels of my sample. More than half these occurrences were

located on vessel rims. Figure 4.58 clearly looks like a gouge from a shovel or tool used during

excavation. When similar traces occurred occasionally, they were noted. For the most part

however, I remained consistent in my methods in not confusing new traces with old. If a nick

trace looked recent it was not noted.

N/c/g traces were recorded 636 times. 57% of those traces occur on jars (Table 4.43 and

Figure 4.59). Effigies and bowls are even at 20%. Seventy percent of the occurrences of n/c/g

traces on jars were found on the lower body and neck, followed by the upper body and rim

(Table 4.44).

Figure 4.57. Example of a nick-chip-gouge trace.

107

Figure 4.58. Example of a modern, or post-excavation nick-chip-gouge trace. This trace could have been cause by a trowel striking the vessel through wet soil.

Table 4.43. Tabulated statistics for nick-chip-gouges. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by vessel form.

Count % Jar 368 57.9 Bowl 131 20.6 Effigy 130 20.4 Other 7 1.1 Total 636 100

108

Figure 4.59. Percentage of of occurrences of nick-chip-gouge traces by vessel form.

Table 4.44. Tabulated statistics for nick-chip-gouges. Contains counts and percentages of occurrence for wear pattern on each vessel zone by vessel form.

Bowl Effigy Jar Other Total

Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Base 3 17.7 8 47.1 6 35.3 0 0 17 100 Lower Body 5 11.6 5 11.6 31 72.1 2 4.7 43 100 Mid Body 3 3.9 38 49.4 36 46.8 0 0 77 100 Neck — — 6 28.6 15 71.4 0 0 21 100 Rim 108 25.5 63 14.9 247 58.4 5 1.2 423 100 Upper Body 12 21.8 10 18.2 33 60 0 0 55 100 Total 131 20.6 130 20.4 368 57.9 7 1.1 636 100

JarBowlEffigyOther

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

57.9

20.620.4

1.1

109

Effigies only have 20% of all n/c/g trace occurrences. Of those, the majority occurred on

the base and mid body. N/c/g trace occurrences are fairly evenly distributed across bowls, the

rim, upper body, and lower body having the highest percentage of noted traces. Ramos Black and

Plainware vessels have the highest occurrence percentage of n/c/g traces (Table 4.45 and Figure

4.60). Villa Ahumada Polychrome, Ramos Polychrome, and Babicora Polychrome have similar

percentages, between 9.3% and 12.7%.

Table 4.45. Tabulated statistics for nick-chip-gouges. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by ceramic type.

Count % Ramos Black 193 30.3 Plainware 152 23.9 Villa Ahumada Polychrome 81 12.7 Ramos Polychrome 69 10.8 Babicora Polychrome 59 9.3 Playas Red 26 4.1 Corralitos Polychrome 17 2.7 Madera Black-on-red 12 1.9 Ramos Black-on-white 10 1.6 Dublan Polychrome 7 1.1 Carretas Polychrome 5 0.8 Villa Ahumada Black-on-white 4 0.6 Escondida Polychrome 1 0.2 Total 636 100

110

Figure 4.60. Occurrence percentage of nick-chip-gouge traces by ceramic type.

In the above section on abrasion, I noted that abrasion on bowl rims is unusually

common. I decided to explore how frequently n/c/g traces were associated with abrasions or

cracks on bowl rims. Of the 131 n/c/g traces noted across the sample, 19, or 14.5%, were

potentially associated with abrasion or cracking on 17 vessels. Table 4.46 identifies which

combination trace occurrences were located on the interior or exterior rims of bowls sorted by

ceramic type. This information is illustrated in Figure 4.61, showing the 19 trace combinations

on the vessels (n=17) sorted by type. The combination of n/c/g traces and abrasion or cracking

on vessel rims could be evidence of vessel content manipulation or placement of a lid. The fact

that only 14.5% of all n/c/g occurrences are found in conjunction with abrasion or cracking does

not preclude evidence of vessel content manipulation or placement of a lid, but does bolster the

pattern of evidence.

Ramos B

lack

Plainware

Villa A

humada P

olychrome

Ramos P

olychrome

Babicora Polych

rome

Playas R

ed

Corralito

s Poly

chrome

Mad

era Blac

k-on-re

d

Ramos Blac

k-on-w

hite

Dublan Polychrome

Carretas P

olychrome

Villa A

humad

a Blac

k-on-w

hite

Escondida Polych

rome

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

30.3

23.9

12.710.8

9.3

4.12.71.91.61.10.80.60.2

111

Table 4.46. Counts and percentages for nick-chip-gouge trace occurrences associated with cracks and abrasion on the rim of bowls by ceramic type then interior or exterior location.

Count % Interior % Exterior Ramos Black Interior 4 28.6 — Plainware Interior 3 21.4 — Villa Ahumada Polychrome Interior 3 21.4 — Ramos Polychrome Interior 2 14.3 — Exterior 1 — 33.3 Carretas Polychrome Exterior 1 — 33.3 Babicora Polychrome Interior 1 7.1 — Playas Red Interior 1 7.1 — Exterior 1 — 33.3 Total Interior 14 100 —

Total Exterior 3 — 100

112

Figure 4.61. Number of nick-chip-gouge traces in association with cracks and/or abrasion on the rim of individual bowls (n=17).

As stated previously, jars accounted for nearly 58% of occurring n/c/g traces in the

sample. Of these, 11% were potentially associated with rim abrasion or cracking. Those

associated traces were found on eight ceramic types, most notably Babicora Polychrome (n=9)

and Plainware (n=14) vessels (Figure 4.62). Effigies had 20.4% of noted n/c/g traces, and 8% of

those were potentially associated with abrasion or cracking on the rim. Although the sample is

small, Ramos Polychrome (n=3), Villa Ahumada Polychrome (n=2), and Plainware vessels (n=2)

are the most commonly occurring types that have this combination of use-alteration traces

(Figure 4.63).

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Interior Interior Interior InteriorExterior Exterior Interior InteriorExterior

Ramos Black Plainware VillaAhumada

Polychrome

Ramos Polychrome CarretasPolychrome

BabicoraPolychrome

Playas Red

113

Figure 4.62. Number of n/c/g traces associated with abrasion or cracks on jar rims, sorted by ceramic type and interior/exterior location for individual vessels.

Figure 4.63. Number of n/c/g traces associated with abrasion or cracks on effigy rims, sorted by ceramic type and interior/exterior location for individual vessels.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Exte

rior

Com

bos

Inte

rior

Exte

rior

Com

bos

Inte

rior

Exte

rior

Inte

rior

Exte

rior

Exte

rior

Com

bos

Exte

rior

Com

bos

Com

bos

Inte

rior

BabicoraPolychrome

Plainware Ramos black VillaAhumada

Polychrome

Playas Red RamosPolychrome

Dublan Ramosblack on

white

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Inte

rior

Exte

rior

Exte

rior

Exte

rior

Exte

rior

Exte

rior

Com

bos

Exte

rior

Ramos Polychrome VillaAhumada

Polychrome

Madera Blackon Red

Plainware DublanPolychrome

Ramos Black-on-white

CarretasPolychrome

114

Oxidation

Oxidation occurs in spots or patches on the vessel where the “constituents in the paste

have taken up as much oxygen as they can” (Shephard 1976:370). Skibo (1992) indicates that

vessels will gain an oxidized patch over time as they are placed near flame, generally during

firing. On vessels with a lighter color surface, such as Ramos Polychrome, oxidation traces

appeared orange to red orange while on plainware vessels, the spot took on a more brown or

yellow color (Figure 4.64). It is also possible I mistook discoloration for oxidation traces.

Figure 4.64. Possible oxidation traces.

115

Oxidation traces were only noted 10 times in the sample. As oxidation traces are typically

caused during firing, they are not necessarily connected to use. The data collected for oxidation

by vessel form can be seen in Table 4.47 and Figure 4.65, and by ceramic type in Table 4.48 and

Figure 4.66.

Table 4.47. Tabulated statistics for oxidation. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by vessel form.


Figure 4.65. Occurrence percentage of oxidation traces by vessel form.

JarBowl

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

60

40

116

Table 4.48. Tabulated statistics for oxidation. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by ceramic type.

Count % Ramos Polychrome 6 60 Plainware 4 40 Babicora Polychrome 0 0 Carretas Polychrome 0 0 Corralitos Polychrome 0 0 Dublan Polychrome 0 0 Escondida Polychrome 0 0 Madera Black-on-red 0 0 Playas Red 0 0 Ramos Black 0 0 Ramos Black-on-white 0 0 Villa Ahumada Black-on-white 0 0 Villa Ahumada Polychrome 0 0 Total 10 100

Figure 4.66. Percentage of occurrences of oxidation traces by ceramic type.

Ramos PolychromePlainware

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

60

40

117

Patches

Patches are groupings of small scratches that have not significantly penetrated the vessel

surface (Figure 4.67). These small scratches are not necessarily uniform in depth, length, or

direction. Jars have the highest percentage of patching trace occurrences at 58% (Table 4.49 and

Figure 4.68), and on jars, the highest percentage of patching is on the lower body (Table 4.50). In

fact, the lower body zone has the highest percentage of occurrence of patching traces across all

vessel forms, followed by the exterior mid body.

Figure 4.67. Example of patches.

118

Table 4.49. Tabulated statistics for patches. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by vessel form.

Count % Jar 167 58 Bowl 80 27.8 Effigy 41 14.2 Other 0 0 Total 288 100

Figure 4.68. Percentage of occurrence of patch traces by vessel form.

JarBowlEffigy

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

58

27.8

14.2

119

Table 4.50. Tabulated statistics for patches. Contains counts of occurrence for wear pattern on each vessel zone, divided by vessel form.

Bowl Effigy Jar Total Count % Count % Count % Count % Base 18 22.5 5 12.2 21 12.7 44 12.7 Lower Body 47 58.8 21 51.2 89 53.9 157 53.9 Mid Body 10 12.5 9 22.0 40 24.2 59 24.2 Neck 0 0 0 0 3 1.8 3 1.8 Rim 1 1.3 3 7.3 1 0.6 5 0.6 Upper Body 4 5 3 7.3 11 6.7 18 6.7 Total 80 100 41 100 165 100 286 100

Ramos Black vessels had the greatest percentage of occurrence of patching (Table 4.51

and Figure 4.69), likely due to the dark vessel color. Plainware has the next highest percentage at

14.6%, and Ramos Polychrome, Villa Ahumada Polychrome, and Babicora Polychrome all have

similar percentages of identified patching traces.

Table 4.51. Tabulated statistics for patches. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by ceramic type.

Count % Ramos Black 137 47.6 Plainware 42 14.6 Ramos Polychrome 28 9.7 Villa Ahumada Polychrome 24 8.3 Babicora Polychrome 22 7.6 Dublan Polychrome 9 3.1 Playas Red 8 2.8 Madera Black-on-red 7 2.4 Carretas Polychrome 6 2.1 Ramos Black-on-white 2 0.7 Corralitos Polychrome 1 0.3 Escondida Polychrome 1 0.3 Villa Ahumada Black-on-white 1 0.3 Total 288 100

120

Figure 4.69. Percentage of occurrence of patch traces by ceramic type.

Eighty-two percent of patching traces occurred on vessel exteriors (Table 4.52). These

traces were likely caused by processes similar to abrasion, and may be a precursor to abrasion

traces. The fact that the lines do not run in parallel directions or uniform lengths indicates the

vessel rubbed against a surface that was hard enough to cause the trace. However, vessels either

did not come into contact with that abrader frequently enough to cause further wear similar to

abrasion, or the surface was not hard enough to cause that kind of alteration.

Ramos B

lack

Plainware

Ramos P

olychrome

Villa A

humada P

olychrome

Babicora Polych

rome

Dublan Polych

rome

Playas Red

Mad

era Blac

k-on-re

d

Carreta

s Polych

rome

Ramos B

lack-on-w

hite

Villa A

humada Blac

k-on-w

hite

Esco

ndida Polych

rome

Corralito

s Polych

rome

50

40

30

20

10

0

47.6

14.6

9.78.37.63.12.82.42.10.70.30.30.3

121

Table 4.52. Tabulated statistics for patches. Contains counts and percentage of occurrences of wear pattern on each vessel zone by exterior and interior.

Exterior Interior Total Count % Count % Count % Base 34 77.3 10 22.7 44 100 Lower Body 137 87.3 20 12.7 157 100 Mid Body 50 84.7 9 15.3 59 100 Neck 3 100 0 0 3 100 Rim 0 0 5 100 5 100 Upper Body 13 72.2 5 27.8 18 100 Missing — — 2 100 2 100 Total 237 82.9 49 17.1 286 100

Perforations

Perforations are defined here as holes in the surface of vessels that have broken entirely

through the vessel wall (i.e., too big to be spalling, but too small to be considered missing pieces)

(Figure 4.70). Perforations occurred 13 times across the vessels in the sample. Jars have 61% of

noted perforation traces in the sample, twice the percentage of bowls, and effigies have no

perforation traces at all (Table 4.53 and Figure 4.71). According to Table 4.54, perforations

occurred across multiple vessel zones. Thirty percent of perforations occurred on the lower body,

with base, upper body, and neck perforations as the vessel zones with the next highest

percentage.

Perforation traces occurred on six of the ceramic types (Table 4.55 and Figure 4.72).

Babicora Polychrome and Ramos Polychrome have the highest percentage of perforation traces.

Plainware and Villa Ahumada Polychrome vessels have the same percentage of 15.4%.

Corralitos Polychrome and Ramos Black vessels also have the same percentage of recorded

perforation traces at 7.7%.

122

Figure 4.70. Example of perforations.

Table 4.53. Tabulated statistics for perforations. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by vessel form.

Count % Jar 8 61.5 Bowl 5 38.5 Effigy 0 0 Other 0 0 Total 13 100

123

Figure 4.71. Percentage of occurrence of perforation traces by vessel form.

Table 4.54. Tabulated statistics for perforations. Contains counts of occurrence for wear pattern on each vessel zone, divided by vessel form.

Bowl Jar Total Count % Count % Count % Base 0 0 3 37.5 3 23.1 Lower Body 3 60 1 12.5 4 30.8 Mid Body 0 0 1 12.5 1 7.7 Neck — — 2 25 2 15.4 Upper Body 2 40 1 12.5 3 23.1 Total 5 100 8 100 13 100

JarBowl

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

61.5

38.5

124

Table 4.55. Tabulated statistics for perforations. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by ceramic type.

Count % Babicora Polychrome 4 30.8 Ramos Polychrome 3 23.1 Plainware 2 15.4 Villa Ahumada Polychrome 2 15.4 Corralitos Polychrome 1 7.7 Ramos Black 1 7.7 Carretas Polychrome 0 0 Dublan Polychrome 0 0 Escondida Polychrome 0 0 Madera Black-on-red 0 0 Playas Red 0 0 Ramos Black-on-white 0 0 Villa Ahumada Black-on-white 0 0 Total 13 100

Figure 4.72. Percentage of occurrence of perforation traces by ceramic type.

Babicora Polych

rome

Ramos P

olychrome

Villa A

humada P

olychrome

Plainware

Ramos Blac

k

Corralito

s Polych

rome

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

30.8

23.1

15.415.4

7.77.7

125

Pits

Pits are the removal of temper, especially after it has been pedestalled (Skibo 1992:115).

Pits are circular, often concave or bowl-shaped cavities (Pitezel 2008:20) that occur in groups

(Figure 4.73). Pitting occurs as a reaction to thermal or chemical processes.

Seventy-four percent of recorded pitting traces occur on jars in the sample (Table 4.56

and Figure 4.74). Bowls and effigies have a similar percentage of pitting traces, around 13%.

Bowls have the highest occurrence percentage of pitting traces on the lower body, mid body, and

upper body (Table 4.57).

Effigies have the highest percentage of pitting traces occurring on the lower body, base,

and mid body, and jars have the highest percentage on the lower body, mid body, and upper body

zones. Out of 872 total pitting traces, 60% occur on the exterior of vessel forms in the sample,

and 40% occur on the interior of vessel forms in the sample (Table 4.58) Jars have 73% of

recorded exterior pitting traces and 76% of interior pitting traces as well. As a functional form,

jars are typically used in heat related activities and are used in cooking and other activities that

could result in so much exterior and interior pitting.

Figure 4.73. Example of pitting.

126

Table 4.56. Tabulated statistics for pits. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by vessel form.

Count % Jar 648 74.3 Bowl 113 13 Effigy 109 12.5 Other 2 0.2 Total 872 100

Figure 4.74. Percentage of pitting traces occurring by vessel form.

JarBowlEffigyOther

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

74.3

1312.5

0.2

127

Table 4.57. Tabulated statistics for pits. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern on each vessel zone by vessel form.

Bowl Effigy Jar Other Total Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Base 12 10.6 30 27.5 98 15.1 0 0 140 16.1 Lower Body 41 36.3 40 36.7 193 29.8 0 0 274 42.3 Mid Body 30 26.5 25 22.9 156 24.1 2 100 213 24.4 Neck — — 3 2.8 37 5.7 0 0 40 4.6 Rim 2 1.8 2 1.8 19 2.9 0 0 23 2.6 Upper Body 28 24.8 9 8.3 145 22.4 0 0 182 20.9 Total 113 100 109 100 648 100 2 100 872 100

Table 4.58. Tabulated statistics for pits. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence of wear pattern on each vessel zone by exterior and interior and vessel form.

Exterior % Interior % Total % of Total

Bowl 77 68.1 36 31.8 113 13

% 14.5 10.5

Effigy 64 59 45 41.3 109 12.5

% 12.1 13.2

Jar 387 30 261 40.3 648 74.3

% 73 76.3

Other 2 100 0 0 2 0.2

% 0.4 0

Total 530 60.8 342 39.2 872 100

% of Total 100 100 100

When considering severity across all vessels in the sample, 64% of occurrences of the

exterior pitting traces are mild, while only 43% of interior pitting traces were considered mild.

The remaining 57% is split between “moderate” and “severe,” with 138 or 40% and 56 or 16%,

respectively. There is significantly more severe interior pitting than exterior pitting (Table 4.59).

And when interior pitting traces are further divided into vessel zones and trace size, it is

128

interesting to note that the majority of all interior pitting traces, regardless of vessel zone, is

“small” or “medium” (Figure 4.75 and 4.76). To summarize: most interior pitting traces are

considered mild or moderate, are small or medium, and the percentage of those traces occur most

on the base, lower body, mid body, with some on the upper body. This signifies that vessels were

used frequently in activities that would cause this use-alteration trace, but no so much that there

is a severe or large amount of this trace. This could be because people may have used a vessel

only for a certain amount of time before burying it, so these vessels do not bear any severe or

large traces. Or this could say something about the manufacture of these vessels: that they are

made with such resources that processes that would cause pitting do not affect vessel surfaces.

The activities associated with pitting involved vessel contents that filled the vessel at least to the

mid body.

Table 4.59. Counts and percentage of each occurrence of pitting by severity.

Interior Exterior Total Count % Count % Count % 1 Mild 148 42.5 348 70.2 496 100 2 Moderate 138 109.5 126 47.7 264 100 3 Severe 56 280 20 26.3 76 100 Total 342 64.5 530 60.8 872 100

129

Figure 4.75. Occurrence percentage of pitting on vessel interiors by location and trace size.

Plainware, Villa Ahumada Polychrome, and Ramos Black all have very similar

percentages of pitting trace occurrences, right around 20% (Table 4.60 and Figure 4.77). Ramos

Polychrome has 15% of the noted pitting traces, and the other ceramic types have less than 10%

of pitting traces. Plainware and Villa Ahumada also had the highest percentage of occurrences of

interior pitting traces. And Ramos Black, Plainware, Ramos Polychrome, and Villa Ahumada

Polychrome had the highest number of exterior pitting traces from highest to lowest respectively

(Figure 4.78).

Pi ts

Interi

or

Upper B

odyRimNeck

Mid Bod

y

Lower Bod

yBase

small

mediumlar

gesm

all

mediumsm

all

mediumlar

gesm

all

mediumlar

gesm

all

mediumlar

gesm

al l

mediumlar

ge

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

130

Figure 4.76. Occurrence percentage of pitting traces limited to vessel interiors by location and trace severity score.

Table 4.60. Tabulated statistics for pits. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by ceramic type.

Count % Plainware 186 21.3 Villa Ahumada Polychrome 179 20.5 Ramos Black 178 20.4 Ramos Polychrome 138 15.8 Babicora Polychrome 81 9.3 Playas Red 42 4.8 Villa Ahumada Black-on-white 24 2.8 Carretas Polychrome 20 2.3 Corralitos Polychrome 9 1.0 Madera Black-on-red 7 0.8 Ramos Black-on-white 7 0.8 Escondida Polychrome 1 0.1 Dublan Polychrome 0 0.0 Total 872 100

PitsInterior

Upper BodyRimNeckMid BodyLower BodyBase32132121321321321

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

131

Figure 4.77. Percentage of occurrences of pitting traces by ceramic type.

Figure 4.78. Occurrences of pitting traces for dataset (n=300) by ceramic type and interior/exterior location.

Plainware

Villa A

humada P

olychrome

Ramos B

lack

Ramos P

olychrome

Babicora

Polychrome

Playas Red

Villa A

humada Blac

k-on-w

hite

Carreta

s Polychrome

Corralito

s Polych

rome

Ramos Blac

k-on-w

hite

Mad

era Blac

k-on-re

d

Escondida P

olychrome

20

15

10

5

0

21.320.520.4

15.8

9.3

4.8

2.82.31.00.80.80.1

Exterio

r

Interi

or

Villa A

humada

Poly

chrome

Villa A

humada

Blac

k-on-w

hite

Ramos P

olychr

ome

Ramos

Black-on

-whi t

e

Ramos

Black

Playas

Red

Plainware

Madera

Blac

k on R

ed

Escondid

a Polyc

hrome

Corralito

s Polyc

hrome

Carreta

s Polyc

hrome

Babicora

Polychrom

e

Vi lla A

humada P

ol ychr

ome

Vil la A

humada B

lack-on

-white

Ramos P

olychrom

e

Ramos B

lack-on-w

hite

Ramos B

lack

Playas

Red

P lainw

are

Madera

Blac

k on R

ed

Corrali

tos P

olychrome

Carreta

s Poly

chrome

Babicora

P olychr

ome

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

132

Scratches

A scratch is a linear depression in the vessel surface (Pitezel 2008:21), oriented in any

direction, that travels across the surface of the vessel (Figure 4.79). This trace is typically caused

by dragging and sliding the vessel across another surface (Skibo 1992:116).

Figure 4.79. Example of scratches.

Scratching was noted 248 times in the sample (n=300). Jars account for 74% of scratch

traces noted in the sample. Bowls and effigies have small percentages of noted scratches, with

only 26% of traces occurring between the two vessel forms (Table 4.61 and Figure 4.80). Table

4.62 shows that jars have the highest percentage of identified scratch traces on the upper body,

followed by the mid body, with a small percentage on the lower body and base. Conversely,

bowls have the highest percentage of noted scratches on the mid and lower body zones.

133

Table 4.61. Tabulated statistics for scratches. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by vessel form.


Figure 4.80. Percentage of occurrence of scratch traces by vessel form.

JarBowlEffigy

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

74.2

16.9

8.9

134

Table 4.62. Tabulated statistics for scratches. Contains counts of occurrence for wear pattern on each vessel zone, divided by vessel form.

Bowl Effigy Jar Total Count % Count % Count % Count % Base 3 7.1 0 0 18 9.8 21 8.5 Lower Body 15 35.7 8 36.4 33 17.9 56 22.6 Mid Body 17 40.5 11 50 57 31.0 85 34.3 Rim 1 2.4 0 0 0 0 1 0.4 Upper Body 6 14.3 3 13.6 76 41.3 85 34.3 Total 42 100 22 100 184 100 248 100

Eight of the ceramic types have scratch traces (Table 4.63 and Figure 4.81). The trace

was identified most frequently on Ramos Black vessels at 30.7%, though this could be simply

because scratches are more easily seen on this type. Ramos Polychrome vessels account for

21.8% of occurrences of scratches, and Babicora Polychrome and Plainware vessels each have

16% of noted scratch traces.

Table 4.63. Tabulated statistics for scratches. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by ceramic type.

Count % Ramos Black 76 30.7 Ramos Polychrome 54 21.8 Babicora Polychrome 40 16.1 Plainware 40 16.1 Villa Ahumada Polychrome 28 11.3 Dublan Polychrome 4 1.6 Playas Red 4 1.6 Corralitos Polychrome 2 0.8 Carretas Polychrome 0 0 Escondida Polychrome 0 0 Madera Black-on-red 0 0 Ramos Black-on-white 0 0 Villa Ahumada Black-on-white 0 0 Total 248 100

135

Figure 4.81. Percentage of occurrences of scratch traces by ceramic type.

Spalling

A pit caused by a spall is usually circular or nearly so, and a cross-section of the pit

would either be hemispherical or conical. I noted a spall as a singular occurrence on a vessel

surface (Figure 4.82). The most common causes of spalls on a ceramic surface are thermal

spalling and salt erosion. Ninety-one percent of all spalling traces (n=80) occur on jars (Table

4.64 and Figure 4.83). Ramos Polychrome vessels manifest 32% of spalling traces, which is not

a majority, but is worth noting (Table 4.65 and Figure 4.84). Perhaps these traces are related to

the soot traces noted above. If the spalling traces are thermal spalls, then Ramos Polychrome

vessels were likely used in heat related activities. Ramos Black, Babicora Polychrome, and

Plainware vessels have the next highest percentages of occurrences of spalling traces, with

22.5%, 20%, and 17.5%, respectively.

Ramos B

lack

Ramos P

olychrome

Plainw

are

Babicora

Polychrome

Villa A

humada Polych

rome

Playas R

ed

Dublan Polych

rome

Corralito

s Polychrome

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

30.6

21.8

16.116.1

11.3

1.60.8 1.6

136

Figure 4.82. Example of spalling as seen from vessel interior.

Table 4.64. Tabulated statistics for spalling. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by vessel form.

Count % Jar 73 91.3 Effigy 7 8.8 Bowl 0 0 Other 0 0 Total 80 100

137

Figure 4.83. Percentage of occurrence of spalling traces by vessel form.

Table 4.65. Tabulated statistics for spalling. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by ceramic type.

Count % Ramos Polychrome 26 32.5 Ramos Black 18 22.5 Babicora Polychrome 16 20 Plainware 14 17.5 Villa Ahumada Polychrome 5 6.25 Ramos Black-on-white 1 1.3 Carretas Polychrome 0 0 Corralitos Polychrome 0 0 Dublan Polychrome 0 0 Escondida Polychrome 0 0 Madera Black-on-red 0 0 Playas Red 0 0 Villa Ahumada Black-on-white 0 0 Total 80 100

JarEffigy

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

91.3

8.7

138

Figure 4.84. Percentage of occurrence of spalling traces by ceramic type.

Ramos Polych

rome

Ramos

Black

Babicora Polych

rome

Plainware

Villa A

humada Polych

rome

Ramos B

lack-o

n-white

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

32.5

22.520

17.5

6.3

1.3

139

Stirring Marks

This trace consists of thick abrasions that run parallel to each other in a concentric pattern

on the interiors of vessels (Figure 4.85). All stirring traces occur on vessel interiors in the mid

and lower body. There were only 10 noted stirring traces across the sample. Skibo (1992) argues

that activities such as stirring and other vessel manipulations result in pitting traces, which could

account for the small number of traces noted in the sample. Depositional accretion from

uncleaned vessels could also obscure potential stirring traces.

Fifty percent of those traces occur on jars (Table 4.66 and Figure 4.86). Bowls

and effigies make up the remaining 50%. Four ceramic types exhibit stirring traces, none of

which are Plainware or Playas Red (Table 4.67 and Figure 4.87). In fact, 50% of noted stirring

traces occur on Ramos Black vessels. Ramos Polychrome, Babicora Polychrome, and Carretas

Polychrome also have stirring traces.

Figure 4.85. Example of stirring.

140

Table 4.66. Tabulated statistics for stirring. Contains counts of occurrence for wear pattern on each vessel zone, divided by vessel form.


Figure 4.86. Percentage of occurrence of stirring traces by vessel form.

JarBowlEffigy

50

40

30

20

10

0

50

30

20

141

Table 4.67. Tabulated statistics for stirring. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by ceramic type.

Count % Ramos Black 5 50 Ramos Polychrome 3 30 Babicora Polychrome 1 10 Carretas Polychrome 1 10 Corralitos Polychrome 0 0 Dublan Polychrome 0 0 Escondida Polychrome 0 0 Madera Black-on-red 0 0 Plainware 0 0 Playas Red 0 0 Ramos Black-on-white 0 0 Villa Ahumada Black-on-white 0 0 Villa Ahumada Polychrome 0 0 Total 10 100

Figure 4.87. Percentage of occurrence of stirring traces by ceramic type.

Ramos BlackRamos PolychromeCarretas PolychromeBabicora Polychrome

50

40

30

20

10

0

50

30

1010

142

Severity

Table 4.68 (and Figure 4.88) shows the severity scores for each ceramic ware and form.

Plainware vessels have the highest cumulative severity percentage occurring at 23.2%. Ramos

Black and Ramos Polychrome vessels have similar percentages between 17-18%. Figures 4.88-

4.90 show severity scores by percentage across the ceramic types for jars, bowls, and effigies.

Ramos Polychrome jars have the highest percentage of occurrences of mild traces (Figure 4.88),

but Plainware jars have the second highest percentage of identified mild and severe traces and

the highest percentage of moderate traces. Villa Ahumada Polychrome, Ramos Black, and

Babicora Polychrome jars have similar percentages of occurrences of moderate traces. Ramos

Black bowls have more than twice the percentage of mild traces than any other ceramic type

(Figure 4.89), the highest percentage of moderate traces, but only the second highest percentage

of severe traces. Plainware bowls have a lower percentage of mild trace occurrences, but the

second highest percentage of moderate traces, and the highest percentage of severe traces. And

Plainware and Ramos Polychrome effigies have similar percentages of mild trace occurrences,

around 13% (Figure 4.90), while the next highest is Villa Ahumada Polychrome at 9.6%. Ramos

Polychrome (4.8%) and Villa Ahumada Polychrome (4.7%) have similar percentages of noted

moderate traces, but Plainware effigies have the highest percentage of moderate (7.7%) and

severe traces (6.5%). Carretas Polychrome and Playas Red have similar percentages of recorded

severe traces, 1.9% and 1.6%, respectively.

143

Table 4.68. Totals for occurrences of severity scores by ceramic type and vessel form.

Jar Bowl Effigy Other Total % Plainware 758 217 259 0 1234 23.2 Ramos Black 576 364 47 1 988 18.6

Ramos Polychrome 596 122 191 0 909 17.1

Villa Ahumada Polychrome 620 104 160 0 884 16.6

Babicora Polychrome 548 14 42 0 604 11.4 Playas Red 172 50 51 3 276 5.2 Carretas Polychrome 15 31 78 0 124 2.3

Madera Black-on-red 36 0 44 0 80 1.5

Dublan Polychrome 16 0 45 0 61 1.1

Corralitos Polychrome 43 13 0 0 56 1.1

Villa Ahumada Black-on-white 51 0 0 0 51 1

Ramos Black-on-white 31 0 12 0 43 0.8

Escondida Polychrome 0 11 0 0 11 0.2 Total 3462 926 929 4 5321 100 % 65.06 17.40 17.46 0.08 100

Figure 4.88. Percentage of occurrence of severity scores for jars by ceramic type.

Plainware

Villa A

humada

Polychr

ome

Ramos P

o lychro

me

Ramos

Black

Babico

ra Poly

ch rome

Playas

Red

Villa Ahum

ada B

lack -on-w

hite

Corrali

to s Po lyc

hrome

Madera

Black o

n Red

Ramos

Black -on

-whit

e

Dublan

Polychr

ome

Carreta

s Po lyc

hrome

32132132132132132132132132132132121

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

1.9

8.1

11.9

2.1

5.6

10.2

1.2

4

12

1.2

5.2

10.2

1.5

4.9

9.4

0.3

1.82.9

0.10.70.7

0.10.40.700.30.10.30.50.10.40.3 0.1 0 7

0.

144

Figure 4.89. Percentage of occurrence of severity scores for bowls by ceramic type.

Figure 4.90. Percentage of occurrence of severity scores for effigies by ceramic type.

Ramos

Black

Plainware

Ramos

Polychr

ome

Villa A

humada

Polychr

ome

Playas

Red

Carreta

s Poly

chrom

e

Babic

ora Poly

chrom

e

Corral

itos P

olychr

ome

Escond

ida Poly

chrom

e

32132132132132132121211

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

1.9

10.3

27.1

2.5

9

12

0.32.1

10.8

0.92.7

7.7

0.61.13.7

0.40.92.1

0.70.80.21.21.2

Plainwa

re

Ramos

Polychr

ome

Villa A

humada

Polychr

ome

Carreta

s Poly

ch rome

Playas

Red

Ramos

Black

Dublan

Po lychro

me

Madera

Black o

n Red

Babico

ra Poly

chrom

e

Ramos

Black -on-w

hite

3213213213212132132132132121

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

6.57.7

13.7

2.6

4.8

13.1

2.9

4.7

9.6

1.91.6

4.8

1.6

3.9

0.70.9

3.4

1.02.3

1.60.71.1

3

0.3

1.62.6

0.40.8

145

Summary

By way of summary, the volume of bowls and effigies differed by about 1000 mL (1 L)

from smallest to largest. The difference between the smallest jar and the largest is 1800 mL

(almost 2 L). Even accounting for miniatures, these ranges indicate quite a spread of volumes for

each of the vessel forms. The heights of bowls and effigies do not vary distinctly, but again, the

range of jars is unusually large. Jars are about as wide as they are tall, and bowls are generally

twice as wide as they are tall. Concerning morphological attributes, effigies seem to vary the

most widely.

All vessels had some form of exterior abrasion, and many had interior abrasion on the

lower vessel zones. Scratches appear to be accidental or occasional traces. I argue the scratch

traces noted on vessel in these collections are the result of generic daily activities, such as

washing, storage, accidental bumps, or modern traces. Overall, there is not as much soot as I was

expecting on any ceramic types or forms. Effigy vessels do not have a lot of recorded sooting

traces in any zone, no matter the ceramic type. Sooting did occur on the painted vessels, making

my data consistent with Pitezel (2008). Interior pitting traces were consistently mild or moderate

and small or medium. These traces typically occurred on the base, low body, and sometimes on

the upper body of vessels in the sample.

Bowls have an unusual amount of rim abrasion and seem to have a large amount of

identified interior basal sooting traces. The interior sooting suggests that materials were

frequently burned inside bowls. There is some indication of stirring in bowls as well as pitting on

the low, mid, and upper body zones. Some scratching traces occurred on the mid and lower body

zones, but not a high percentage.

146

Jars have the most occurrences of exterior lower body and basal soot, suggesting their

frequent placement over fires more than the other vessel forms. Jars show a high percentage of

occurrences of stirring, the highest percentage of noted interior lower body abrasion, high

percentages of interior basal, low, and mid body pitting, and the highest percentage of recorded

interior delamination traces. These traces were not large or severe, but frequent and consistent.

Jars also have the highest percentages of occurrences of exterior lower body and basal abrasion,

the most nick/chip/gouge traces on the lower body and neck, the most rim cracking, and 91% of

all spalling traces. This vessel form also had perforation traces.

Effigies had the highest percentage of occurrences of interior base abrasion as well as

pitting on the base, lower body, and mid body zones, and some stirring traces. The exteriors of

effigy vessels had soot traces on the mid and upper body zones, and no perforation traces were

noted at all for this vessel form.

Plainware vessels had the most occurrences of interior abrasion, the most recorded

exterior lower body sooting, interior sooting, discoloration, interior pitting, exterior pitting, and

50% of all occurrences of firecloud traces. This type also has a high percentage of occurrences of

patching, delamination, cracking, pedestalled temper, and a large amount of nick-chips-and

gouges combined with abrasion or cracking on the rim. There are some perforations noted on

Plainware vessels, but a low percentage of recorded spalling traces. Plainware vessels also had

the highest overall severity score of all the ceramic types. Vessels of this type were well used.

Ramos Polychrome vessels have high percentages of occurrences of abrasion, sooting,

pitting, scratches, spalling, and overall the second highest severity score of all the ceramic types.

This type also has stirring traces. Similar to Ramos Polychrome, Villa Ahumada vessels also

have high percentages of noted sooting and abrasion. This type has the most occurrences of

147

delamination, flaking, and one of the highest percentages of recorded pitting traces of all the

ceramic types. Villa Ahumada vessels also had some perforation traces. The similarity of use-

alteration traces between these two types could suggest they have separate but not altogether

distinct uses.

Ramos Black has similar traces to Ramos Polychrome in several ways as well. This

ceramic type has the most occurrences scratching, pitting, and patching traces of all the ceramic

types. It has the second highest severity score, has stirring traces, and high percentages of

identified spalling, nick-chip-gouges, and delamination. The delamination and pitting traces

typically occur together on the interior mid body, and this type has the most delamination and

pitting traces found occurring together than any other ceramic type. There are also some

perforation traces for this ceramic type. One third of all Ramos Black vessels also have the

“brown out” discoloration trace—which could be evidence of use over a fire.

Babicora Polychrome vessels showed traces of mend holes, some noted spalling traces,

evidence of stirring, and a high percentage of occurrences of nick-chip-gouge traces associated

with cracking and abrasion. This type also had the highest percentage of perforation trace

occurrences of all the ceramic types.

Playas Red, Corralitos Polychrome, and Carretas Polychrome vessels have smaller

percentages of occurrences of use-alteration traces. Playas Red vessels have quite a bit of

exterior sooting, suggesting it was used in heating activities and moved around in contact with

other surfaces. Carretas Polychrome has stirring marks like Ramos Black and Ramos

Polychrome. It is interesting that three polychrome types feature stirring wear. This signifies that

these vessels could have been used to stir food or utensils were used to remove vessel contents.

148

The data did not illuminate significant occurrences of use-alteration traces for Dublan

Polychrome, Escondida Polychrome, and Madera Black-on-red vessels. This does not mean the

vessels were not used, merely that not all uses leave a trace. I will continue to discuss the

significance of use-alteration traces and uses of each ceramic type in the next chapter.

149

5. Discussion

Intended Function

As I have indicated previously in this thesis, some researchers argue that a vessel’s

morphological and cosmetic attributes could indicate the expected or intended function of a

vessel before a use-alteration study is ever conducted (Allison and Hagopian 2010; Hally 1983;

Henrickson and McDonald 1983). Intended function is how a researcher expects a vessel was

used archaeologically based on vessel form, orifice diameter, height, wall thickness, and other

morphological and technofunctional characteristics. Henrickson and McDonald (1983:630) state

that “vessels within a functional class are designed and made according to a specific set of

morphological boundary conditions.” Regardless of use-alteration traces actually observed, a

vessel could be placed in a category of intended function, such as cooking, serving and eating,

dry storage, liquid storage, food processing, processing of non-food materials, and potential

social, religious, and symbolic functions. Rice (2015:414) says that in the past, “proposed

relations between variables of form and use were based on assumptions about intended function

of the vessels and sometimes were not matched by actual usage.” I argue that conjectured

intended functional categories should be used only as a basis for guiding patterns of use-

alteration in connection with physical artifact analysis (jars make good cooking vessels and

bowls are better as serving vessels, for instance).

Early studies of intended function include Henrickson and McDonald (1983), who

gathered ethnographic data concerning the primary function of a wide range of pottery vessels.

They created descriptions of what vessels in certain use categories would look like and the size

150

and measurements of vessels in each category. Di Peso and colleagues (1974 vol. 6) wrote

categorical descriptions of Casas Grandes pottery. However, the problem with these two studies

is that the ranges are so wide, and the descriptions so general that many vessels in my sample

could have fit in multiple use categories. For example, according to Henrickson and McDonald’s

(1983) study, all the vessels in my sample that could be classified as cooking could be liquid

storage vessels, but not all liquid storage vessels could fit into the cooking category. In addition,

all dry storage vessels also fall into the cooking and liquid storage vessel categories (sometimes

even the water transport category), and almost every vessel in my sample could potentially fall

into the liquid storage category.

Between all the categories, there is a significant amount of overlap. This is what makes

my study important: the presence of wear patterns makes it possible to determine into which

functional category a vessel actually falls. Use-alteration can better identify how vessels were

actually used, not just how they could have been used based on form, wall thickness, and other

morphological and technofunctional characteristics. When considering vessel function, it can be

beneficial to sort vessels into intended function categories based on morphological

characteristics to aid in looking for patterns as a companion to use-alteration analysis. To quote

Rice (2015:414) again, “a pottery vessel is, ultimately, a product of a set of decisions about

composition, shape, and use that are not necessarily equally weighted, do not always adhere to

the principles of modern materials science, and are likely heavily influenced by intangibles such

as tradition and custom.”

151

Patterns in Use-alteration

In his conclusions, Pitezel (2008:15) recommended future use-alteration research should

“evaluate relative performance characteristics of types, such as vessel hardness.” This may be

unnecessary on the grounds that vessel hardness does not seem to vary significantly between the

types. Paste hardness between the types ranges from 2.5-4.5 on Moh’s scale, while surface

hardness ranges from 2.5-5. If Madera black-on-red is removed (with a paste hardness of 2.5 and

surface hardness of 2.5-3.0), the new ranges are 3.5-4.5 and 3.0-5 with an average of 4.0 and 4.2,

respectively. I assert that vessel hardness played no significant factor in the evident use traces

found on each vessel. However, this would require further independent investigation, which is

outside the scope of this thesis.

I would like to note the difference between high percentages of occurrences of use-

alteration traces or high severity percentages and frequency of use. A higher percentage of

occurrences of use-alteration traces or a vessel with more severe traces does not mean the vessel

was used more frequently, only that the wear patterns are more pronounced. Dry storage vessels

would not show the same kinds of wear as a pot used for fermentation or nixtamalization even if

the dry storage vessel was used more frequently. Determining frequency of use is also outside

the scope of this thesis. The intent of this study was only to record use-alteration traces and

discuss potential uses for the ceramic vessels in my sample.

Bowls

The unusually high percentage of occurrences of rim abrasions on bowls in the sample

would indicate placement of a lid or cover as the bowls were used. Just as we use lids now to

keep heat in, to keep pests out, to keep food in while the vessel is transported to another location,

and so on, lids were likely used for similar purposes. The occurrences of interior sooting traces

152

indicated materials were burned inside bowls in the Casas Grandes region, and the presence of

stirring traces indicates the people of Casas Grandes used bowls as more than just for serving or

presentation. Generally, the trace patterns indicated bowls were used for warming and possibly

some cooking activities.

Jars

Jars in my sample had the highest percentage of occurrences of exterior lower body and

base soot, which means they were frequently placed over fires. Jars also showed the most

occurrences of sooting in the study by Whalen and Minnis (2009), particularly mid-sized jars

which they define as between 10.1 L to 18 L. The largest jar in my sample is 11,175 mL (11.2

L), and it is the only vessel that falls in the range provided by Whalen and Minnis (2009). So the

ranges between our two sets of data are different, but my data is consistent that jars have the

most sooting.

Based on the simple components analysis from Chapter 4, the forms tend to fall in line

with expected categories of use. Jars are more strongly associated with exterior lower body and

base sooting—a trace typically associated with cooking. And bowls are more closely related to

interior lower body sooting—a trace typically associated with warming and serving. This could

mean that, generally, the people of Casas Grandes did use their vessels how they were intended

in regards to form. Of all the vessel forms, jars have more use as cooking vessels. Jars also have

the highest percentage of severity score occurrences of all the vessel forms, again indicating jars

were used more, and for activities that would cause the appearance of more use-alteration traces,

such as cooking. But as will be discussed further in this chapter, painted decoration was clearly

not a strict deciding factor in regards to use.

153

The other traces on jars were not necessarily large or severe, but were frequent and

consistent. Jars also had 91% of all recorded spalling traces. Jars likely were used for the most

destructive or intensive activities such as heavy cooking, boiling, roasting, fermentation, and so

on. This does not mean jars were the only vessel form used for these daily activities, but were

instead the vessel form that assisted the people of Casas Grandes with the activities that would

leave the most wear.

Effigies

Effigies had the highest percentage of occurrences of interior abrasion, as well as pitting

and stirring traces. These traces could indicate effigies were used for activities such as warming

or preparing food or other materials, but not intensive cooking. There are not enough recorded

soot traces associated with effigy jars to argue effigies were used for cooking.

Di Peso and colleagues (1974:6:86) say 55 of 69 analyzed effigy forms they analyzed

were unsooted. I noted interior sooting on 12 of 25 vessels. My data suggest that the people of

Casas Grandes were burning incense or another material, or burning food items in effigy vessels.

It is impossible to verify using only my data, but they could support the argument made by Di

Peso and colleagues (1974 vol. 6) and VanPool and VanPool (2007) that effigy vessels were

used for ceremonial purposes.

Plainware

Plainware vessels had the highest percentage of occurrences of wear traces and

presumably were used most frequently or were used for activities that would leave the most use

traces, particularly jars. This ceramic type has one of the highest percentages of severity scores

for all ceramic types in the sample. This means that across the sample, plainware vessels had

higher percentages of occurrences of wear traces than vessels of other types, and those wear

154

traces were more severe. Plainware vessels had 50% of all recorded firecloud traces in the data.

Perhaps it was less of a concern during manufacture for Plainware vessels to appear perfect, as

fireclouds are traces left by open air firing (Whalen and Minnis 2009). Plainware vessels also

had the highest number of interior abrasion of all ceramic types, and one of the highest

percentages of occurrences of exterior abrasion. The type of manipulation that would cause this

trace probably would not have been the movement of dry goods—interior abrasion is usually

caused by stirring, boiling of liquids, roasting, and so forth—processes that would wear down the

interior surface of the vessel. The high percentage of occurrences of exterior abrasion indicates

that this ceramic type was moved around a lot, placed on hearthstones, rotated on the ground

during washing, or even slid across the ground. High percentages of identified nick-chip-gouge

traces in conjunction with abrasion or cracking on the rim could further indicate content

manipulation: as utensils were used to stir the pot, they would rub against the rim, or as a lid was

placed on the rim over time it could wear down the rim. I will discuss soot in more detail below,

but this ceramic type has the highest percentage of recorded exterior lower body soot traces than

any other ceramic type by quite a bit. Overall, this ceramic type shows a large amount of wear. I

did not see stirring marks on the interior of plainware vessels, but this could be explained by the

presence of the other use-alteration traces. As a vessel becomes worn, use traces are replaced

with a more severe trace. Stirring would have been replaced by abrasion or pitting. I argue that

Plainware vessels, particularly jars, were used for cooking, roasting, fermentation, or other

activities that would cause the significant amounts of wear seen for this type.

Ramos Polychrome

It could seem odd that Ramos Polychrome vessels have a high severity score, second

only to Plainware vessels. These vessels have the highest percentage of occurrences of exterior

155

abrasion as well. The interior abrasion on this ceramic type is not high, but there is a significant

amount of interior lower body soot and the jars of this type have the most stirring traces. The

presence of stirring indicates the vessel contents were manipulated frequently beyond occasional

placement of dry goods. The contents required stirring, hard enough to leave a trace. Similar to

Ramos Black vessels, sooting was present on this vessel, but not enough to indicate this type was

used for cooking. Triadan and colleagues (2017) state that Ramos Polychrome vessels were

found in larger numbers at Paquimé, and this type is renowned for its putative religious

iconography (VanPool and VanPool 2007). All that can be said with certainty within the

parameters of this study is that Ramos Polychrome vessels were not likely used for regular

cooking, but perhaps for heating and warming materials that would alter the interior surface of

the vessel. It was a ceramic type well used by the people of Casas Grandes.

Villa Ahumada Polychrome

I believe this ceramic type shows signs of extensive wear and was also the most affected

by depositional factors. This ceramic type has the highest percentage of occurrences of exterior

pitting and very high percentages of occurrences of exterior flaking. I suggest these traces were

caused by soil pressures and salinization during deposition. In terms of pre-depositional use, jars

of this ceramic type have the highest percentage of noted severe scores in the sample. This

means that among all the jars in the sample, Villa Ahumada vessels had severe traces noted most

often. This type also has the highest percentage of occurrences of exterior abrasion, a high

percentage of noted exterior sooting traces, some interior abrasion, and the highest percentage of

recorded interior pitting in the sample. The combination of these traces for this ceramic type

indicates this ceramic type was used often. The sooting indicates the vessels were heated

consistently, while the interior abrasion and pitting shows the vessels contained materials that

156

reacted chemically or thermally with the vessel surface. I would argue that besides Plainware

vessels, this type shows significant evidence for everyday domestic activities like cooking or

roasting.

Ramos Black

These vessels manifest quite a bit of wear, but cannot be considered to have as high

percentages of wear as Plainware or Villa Ahumada vessels. Ramos Black has a high percentage

of occurrences of cracking and is the only type with severe cracking traces. It also has the highest

percentage of occurrences of exterior pitting. It is possible that cracking could be caused by soil

pressure post-deposition, and the pitting could be caused by soil salinization. Di Peso and

colleagues (1974 vol. 8) noted that Ramos Black vessels were the type most frequently seen as

grave furniture. Rakita (2008 and 2008) expounds on this further: 63% of Ramos Black vessels

uncovered at Paquimé as part of the JCGP were associated with burials.

Rakita (2008 and 2009) argues that Ramos Black vessels are evidence of an ancestor cult

at Paquimé. The vessels uncovered with the JCGP were found associated almost exclusively with

human burials and in ceremonial locations such as the House of the Macaws and the House of

the Dead at Paquimé. Rakita (2009) uses this as evidence that Ramos Black vessels were used by

elites in private ceremonial locations as part of ancestor worship. My data do not necessarily

support his claims about Ramos Black vessels being used ceremonially. The “brown out”

indicates the vessels were heated, but not so frequently that all the color is burned away. And the

connection of this trace with pitting and stirring indicates the vessels were not used for regular

cooking, but potentially heating and warming. It is impossible to connect Ramos Black vessels to

ceremonial or ritual use based solely on my data. But my data could potentially bolster

157

arguments in the future. This ceramic type also had the highest percentage of occurrences of

stirring, which means the ceramic type was used for something other than storage.

Babicora Polychrome

This ceramic type has high percentages of occurrences of abrasion traces on the interior

base and lower body zones, and high percentages of recorded pitting and delamination traces

found together on the interior body. Also associated with this ceramic type are small amounts of

pitting, abrasion, and some cracking on the exterior. Babicora Polychrome and Plainware vessels

had the most cracks found in connection with n/c/g or abrasion traces of all the ceramic types.

This suggests the contents were accessed or manipulated on a regular basis, a lid was

consistently placed on the vessel, utensils hit and rubbed against the rim as they went in and out

of the vessel, or the vessel was stored on the rim. The presence of this combination of use-

alteration traces combined with the extensive abrasion traces, and the pitting, indicates this

ceramic type was used for activities that cause significant wear. The lack of significant

percentages of occurrences of sooting is confusing as it seems as though these other use-

alteration traces are typically associated with cooking, so I am unsure as to what kind of specific

activity this ceramic type could have been used for. My data suggest this type sustained

substantial wear. This ceramic type was the only type to have a vessel with two separate mend

hole traces. While the presence of one mend hole does not indicate a pattern for the ceramic type,

it may speak to the substantial use this ceramic type receives. The vessel broke, and it was

incumbent upon the consumer that the vessel be repaired and continue to be used. This is

significant to me as it shows the value of a pot that can bear significant use.

Ramos Polychrome, Plainware, and Babicora Polychrome all had high percentages of

occurrences of mild cracking scores, but only Babicora Polychrome and Villa Ahumada

158

Polychrome had a severe score. The mild cracking could be explained by stress, or thermal

exposure (especially in the case of the Plainware vessels). But for the three ceramic types with a

severe score, this may suggest something about use or post-depositional factors. If these vessels

are more common in burials, perhaps the cracking was caused by the weight of the soil.

Playas Red

These vessels had high percentages of occurrences of sooting and some abrasion traces

(pedestalled temper). This suggests use in association with activities that require heat. The

abrasion signifies the vessel came into contact with surfaces like hearthstones and the ground as

it was heated and used. This type also has a higher severity score percentage than Babicora

Polychrome for effigy vessels and bowls. This could indicate that Playas Red effigies and bowls

were used more intensely than Babicora effigies and bowls. I would argue this ceramic type was

used for tasks like cooking and warming food.

Other ceramic types

Because of the small numbers of these vessels in my sample, there is little I can

definitively say about the uses of these types. One Corralitos bowl has mend holes. This says

little about the type overall, but I would like to discuss this trace briefly. This bowl has small

amounts of abrasion on the interior, but evidence of sooting on the exterior lower body. This

bowl was used to heat contents, likely until it broke. The presence of mend holes is the most

significant. Mend holes could signify the vessel was important and worth repairing or it could

mean the consumer did not have the means to replace the vessel and repaired it to use in other

ways. I suggest that no matter the reason, the bowl was worth saving to be used again. If it was

placed in a burial, perhaps the vessel was important to the deceased.

159

Carretas Polychrome was one of the few types that had a stirring trace. This trace is

significant because it shows this ceramic type was used for activities that required consistent

vessel manipulation. The lack of sooting indicates the vessel was not heated, so it is unclear what

use activities require no heat but are still intense enough to cause a trace like stirring. It would be

good to study more Carretas polychrome vessels to obtain a grasp of the types of uses with

which this ceramic type was associated.

And for the other ceramic types, again, I do not believe a sample size of two or three

allows for any significant discussion. When I began my analysis I was not aware how many

vessels of each type were in the collections. As my sampling was bound by the scope of the

museum collections, I had to analyze what was there. The result, unfortunately, is a small sample

size for several ceramic types. I strongly recommend in the future these specific ceramic types

are better represented.

There were six miniature vessels in the sample. Miniature vessels, though not useful for

the more utilitarian activities like storage or cooking, likely played a specific purpose in the

culture of Casas Grandes. Allison (2012:46) says miniatures “may have been used for toys, for

some symbolic purpose, or to carry valuable substances that only come in small amounts, such as

perfumes, medicines, or sacred liquids.” Four of the six vessels were bowls, two were jars, and

four vessels were Plainwares, while Ramos Polychrome and Playas Red were the other two

vessels. There were slight traces of abrasion, some small scratches, and a few n/c/g traces around

the rims of a couple vessels. Most of these use-alteration traces were not large or severe, and

could easily be dismissed as age or the stresses of deposition and excavation. However, one

Plainware bowl had exterior base abrasion and exterior low body fireclouding. Another

Plainware bowl had sooting on the interior low body, pitting on the interior rim, and abrasion on

160

the interior rim. As has been stated previously, the exterior base abrasion traces can be explained

as the vessel coming into contact with a textured surface. So this bowl was used often enough

that the base began to wear away. The sooting on the interior of the second bowl could be

indicative of heat related activities. As this vessel is so small, it is unlikely food sources were

heated and burned inside, but perhaps incense or another material was burned inside this small

vessel.

Sooting Traces on the Sample

Pitezel (2008:13-15) compared his data set to vessels at Paquimé. Using the data Di Peso

and colleagues (1974 vol. 6) provided on vessel sooting, Pitezel discussed sooting on painted

vessels in Casas Grandes. Di Peso and colleagues reported 25% of painted vessels at Paquimé

showed evidence of soot, and Pitezel argues there is little to no difference between the

collections or ceramic types based on soot. He states that “soot on painted jars...is a Casas

Grandes characteristic not [often] observed in other regions of the North American Southwest”

(Crown 1994; Lindauer 1988:78-83; Vint 2000), and that “a common assumption—painted jars

were not used over a fire—should be abandoned, at least for the Casas Grandes region”

(2008:16). Although the number of painted pots with sooting traces in my sample is still

relatively low when compared to the entire body of painted vessels in my sample (Di Peso and

colleagues confirms the same in their study, 1974 vol. 6), there is strong evidence for sooting on

painted pottery. Besides Plainware, Ramos Polychrome and Villa Ahumada both had the highest

percentages of occurrences of sooting, particularly on vessel exteriors. Traces on Villa Ahumada

vessels tended to be a bit smaller but more severe, while there was a higher percentage of

occurrences of soot traces on Ramos Polychrome exteriors but they were not quite as severe.

Whalen and Minnis (2009) note the painted types with the most sooting from their sample are

161

Carretas, Escondida, and Huerigos Polychromes. Unfortunately, my sample size for these types

is very small (Huerigos was not represented in my sample). Future research should examine

more vessels of these types.

Pits and Delamination

In Pitezel’s 2008 study, he found that Villa Ahumada vessels had a higher percentage of

occurrences of interior pitting. My data indicate that Villa Ahumada and Plainware vessels had

the highest percentage of occurrences of interior pitting traces. Of the delamination-pitting

combinations I checked, Ramos Black had the highest number (n=13). Perhaps there is

something about the materials used in the manufacture of Ramos Black vessels that makes them

particularly susceptible to pitting. Or, perhaps Ramos Black and Villa Ahumada Polychrome

vessels were used for activities that resulted in pitting, something like fermentation or alkali

processing (also called nixtamalization). Beck (2001) indicates pitting from alkali corn

processing, like making hominy, is caused by salt erosion. As the salt minerals crystallize or

hydrate, the pressure causes the vessel surface to break and pit. Noneman and colleagues (2017)

have further experimented with hominy and beer production to explore what kinds of wear are

left behind by these separate tribochemical processes. They have initially concluded that the two

processes leave behind pitting traces almost immediately, though the pitting forms are different

between the two processes.

Whalen and Minnis (2009:172) assert that “pitting occurs there at a low but constant

intensity... This argues that interior surface pitting is not produced by a basic, widespread food

processing technique such as alkali corn processing, but rather by an occasional one such as

fermentation” (2009:172). King and colleagues (2017:376) found the presence of fermented

maize starches, proving that maize was fermented during the Medio period. During analysis I did

162

not notice the differences between pitting, and likely would have attributed it all to wear of the

vessel surface over time. However, as Hally (1983:19) asserts, “long term exposure to corrosive

chemicals could conceivably weaken vessel surfaces and lead to their eventual breakdown.” I

agree with King and colleagues (2017:377) that corn was an important part of the diet of the

people of Casas Grandes during the Medio period. The high percentage of noted interior pitting

traces on the vessels indicates processes such as fermentation or nixtamalization occurred

regularly. It is likely Villa Ahumada, Plainware, and Ramos Black vessels may have been used

in connection with these activities.

Ramos Black, Villa Ahumada, and Ramos Polychrome vessels had the highest

percentage of identified exterior pitting traces. However, in my dataset, Ramos Black vessels had

the highest number of recorded exterior pitting traces. Villa Ahumada was the fourth most

common ceramic type to exhibit exterior pitting. The exterior pitting on these vessels may

perhaps be explained by the slip on the vessels deteriorating over time or exposure to soil

salinization during deposition.

Ramos Black vessels also have the highest percentage of occurrences of interior

delamination traces found in association with pitting traces. These traces are found most often on

the interior low and mid body vessel zones. Pitting has been discussed at length above, and

delamination is often found in association with pitting traces. I argue that a process similar to

fermentation or nixtamalization may have caused the pitting on Ramos Black interiors. My

assertion is further supported by the fact that 33% of Ramos Black vessels had occurrences of

brown spots of discoloration on the exterior low and mid body zones. This is what Di Peso and

colleagues (1974 vol. 6) refer to as brown out. When Ramos Black vessels were heated, the

black surface may have burned away, leaving the oxidized surface underneath. This happens

163

because, during manufacture, carbon is infused into the surface of the vessel, and then during

use, the carbon is burned away. Removing the carbon from the paste would require heat and

oxygen. Processes like fermentation require heat (though not necessarily from fire), so oxidation

of the vessel surface could be a byproduct.

Funerary Goods and Mortuary Practices

Because of the importation laws established by the United States and Mexican

governments in 1972 (Silva 2012:6-7), legally excavated artifacts remain in the custody of

INAH. It is likely that many artifacts—ceramic vessels in particular—found in collections

outside Mexico were looted. And to reiterate from the Chapter 1, it is likely most of the vessels

in this collection were looted from burials. Most burials contain whole ceramic vessels, and

many are rich in ceramics. Ceramic vessels are quite common in burials across the American

Northwest/Southwest, and the burials of the Casas Grandes area are no exception. As of yet,

however, no one has provided a suggestion as to why ceramic vessels were so prevalent in Casas

Grandes burials. Di Peso and colleagues (1974:8:365) state that, “the allocation of funerary

ceramics did not fall into any recognizable pattern.”

Ravesloot (1988) and Rakita (2008 and 2009) have written about the role of mortuary

practices in establishing social hierarchies in Casas Grandes. Both publications focus on the

Paquimé burial data reported by Di Peso and colleagues (1974:8:355-410). Both studies look at

mortuary practices and grave treatment to determine the hierarchical organization of Casas

Grandes society. Ravesloot (1988:68) suggests that not all members of society were treated the

same at death, and the way people were treated at death is an indication of the “dimensions of

social differentiation that separated members of Casas Grandes society into different social

positions of rank and authority within the decision-making hierarchy...social status distinctions

164

would be symbolized by the variability in mortuary treatment.” Although I do think my study

could add to their studies, it would require a use-alteration analysis of the same vessels studied

by Di Peso and colleagues (1974 vol. 6) and referenced by Ravesloot and Rakita. Even so, the

current mortuary analyses do not indicate a reason why vessels that bear signs of use over an

extended period would have been placed with an individual as part of mortuary practices. Other

research in the Northwest/Southwest provide possible reasons.

Lindauer (1996:718) indicates that according to ethnographers such as Fewkes

(1896:163) and others (Ellis 1968:71; Ortiz 1969:51-52; and Tyler 1986:49-80) southwestern

Pueblo groups bury the dead with their personal possessions. Others have widely observed that

Pueblo cultures believed in a life after death (Fewkes 1896:163; Green 1979:127-134; Tyler

1975:238-239). He further goes on to discuss how adult burials at the Roosevelt Platform Mound

contained ceramic vessels and other personal belongings with a posited explanation being that

the deceased would need those items in their future existence (Lindauer 1996:718,721). Rice

(2016:187) and Pearson (1999:7) have suggested explanations similar to Lindauer (1996), that

the dead in Southwest communities required personal items with which to equip themselves in

the afterlife. Having these items may have prevented the deceased from coming back to haunt the

living, looking for those provisions and supplies. In some Hohokam burials, vessels held food

and water, or were placed symbolically for sustenance for the deceased (Rice 2016:170).

There was an absence of what Di Peso and colleagues (1974:6:85) consider large storage

vessels or ollas in the collections at the Museum of Peoples and Cultures and at the Amerind.

According to Di Peso and colleagues, these vessels range in volume from 15 to 79 L. The largest

vessel in my sample was 11.2 L. I would like to suggest some reasons why these vessels are

absent. It could be difficult to smuggle a large vessel into the United States illegally, so perhaps

165

storage vessels were not given to United States museums. Maybe looters do not excavate storage

vessels in burials. Perhaps it was not practical in Medio period Casas Grandes to bury the

deceased with such a valuable community item, or maybe storage vessels were not considered a

viable funerary item. Rice (2016) offers the following about O’Odham burial practices: “...the

kinds of vessels placed in the grave were a subset of those used in the households and did not

represent the full household inventory of vessels” (Rice 2016:84). He further cites a study by

Andrew Lack (2014), indicating mortuary contexts at a cemetery featured smaller bowls and jars,

and that many of the vessel forms, like wide mouth cooking jars, were not found in graves.

No significant patterns emerged in the data for perforations identified on vessels. Unlike

thermal spalling, discussed above, perforations are likely intentionally made, and the ones

observed in my study appear to have broken through the entire wall of the vessel. They vary in

size and location on the vessel. In fact, the spread of perforations across the vessel zones (Table

4.53) indicates this trace could have been caused several ways. I would like to posit two potential

explanations for this wear: ritual killing associated with burial practices, and modern destruction.

Perforations in ceramic vessels associated with burials is typically referred to as “kill

holes” (Figure 5.1). Pearson has given some explanation about the significance of kill holes in

his book The Archaeology of Death and Burial (1999), “The ‘killing’ of artefacts associated with

the deceased can be linked to concerns with pollution and to the means by which possessions

become ‘dead’ so that they may travel along the same supernatural channels as the spirit”

(Pearson 1999:26).

166

Figure 5.1. Example of a potential kill hole.

In the NW/SW region, Rice (2016:166) discusses how some Puebloan groups believe that

objects are associated with spirits, so an object is mutilated or “killed” to separate the object

from its spirit in this world. The object and the spirit are then free to reunite in the next world

(Rice 2016:166). I argue that in some burial contexts it is possible these perforations are kill

holes. It would be good to build a more robust study of vessels from known burial contexts to

verify this. As these traces were found across types and locations on the vessel, it is necessary to

study vessels with burial data in order to support or refute this idea.

There is a possibility some or all of the perforation traces are modern. In the course of

processing collections at the Museum of Peoples and Cultures, undergraduate student Julie

Stoner and other museum employees noticed perforations in the walls of 5 of the 200 vessels.

They considered these holes too perfectly circular and small to have been made by stone, bone,

or ceramic tools, so Stoner completed a BYU Office of Research & Creative Activities (ORCA)

project in 2008 to determine potential modern ways these traces could have been made. Stoner

167

took some replica vessels and tested her experiment by shooting the vessels with BB pellets. Her

experiments indicated that the small holes may have been caused by a modern projectile (like a

BB gun pellet) penetrating the vessel wall. Four of the eight vessels with this trace have more

than one perforation that appear to be too uniform in size (Figure 5.2). It is likely then that there

is some merit to Stoner’s suggestions. Rebar could also have caused perfectly round holes in the

vessel wall. Rebar is a common material used in looting practices (Searcy and Allison, personal

communication, 2018). The bar is brought down into the soil and then looters dig where the rebar

makes contact with artifacts. I would suggest that some of the perforations seen in this collection

are possibly the result of modern destruction while those with irregular edges are indicative of

possible ritual killing. Distinguishing the potential modern perforations would require more

thorough experimental work and a closer examination of the exposed edges. However, this type

of analysis is outside the scope of this thesis.

Figure 5.2. Example of a vessel with multiple perforation traces.

168

Di Peso and colleagues (1974:8:364-365) discuss the presence of single and paired rim

perforations and lug handles on ceramic goods found in burials. They surmise these “adorned”

vessels were manufactured specifically as burial furniture. Of the vessels in my sample, 82 had

either rim holes or handles. That is only 27% of my sample, but these features were only found

on 26.4% of grave goods analyzed by Di Peso and colleagues (1974 vol. 8). Seeing the evidence

of use on all the vessels in my data set, I do not agree with the assessment given in the chapter. I

argue that rim holes and handles were an essential part of the use of a vessel. Both are useful for

suspending a vessel over a flame, for carrying empty vessels, or for tying on a cover so the vessel

can be better used for storage. I argue that the vessels were used long before being deposited in

the ground either as grave furniture or for another reason.

The fact that ceramic vessels were present in 75% of the furnished burial pits, and 58% of

the burial pits (n=91) at Casas Grandes contained only ceramic offerings is significant. If objects

were placed in a burial context so as to provide the deceased the necessary supplies—tools as

Rice (2016) calls them—to thrive in the next life, they were likely used while the deceased

person was alive. Then when that person died, their friends and loved ones likely wanted to

ensure the deceased had the items they needed in their next life. So these used vessels were

placed in the grave with the deceased so the deceased had the necessary tools with them. Perhaps

the fact the vessels were already used is important, rather than making new grave furniture for

the deceased. Just as the deceased would continue living in the next life, perhaps it was important

for the vessels to be used so the deceased could continue using the vessels in the next life.

Social and Community Structure at Casas Grandes

In their recent article, Triadan and colleagues (2017:1) have concentrated on defining

“the nature and intensity of interaction in the Casas Grandes region and the extent of

169

intraregional social and political organization.” They sought to explore the dominance of

Paquimé in the political and economic system during the Medio period through the distribution

of Casas Grandes ceramics. They cite the excavations at Paquimé with the JCGP (Di Peso 1974

vol. 2) and the excavations conducted by Whalen and Minnis (2009) as showing that all ceramic

types, including polychromes, were found evenly distributed through all excavated contexts

including room fill. Their sourcing data indicate that access to raw ceramic materials necessary

for ceramic production was not restricted (Triadan et al. 2017:19), and so contend that “the

majority of Chihuahuan polychrome vessels...were probably made and certainly used by a broad

segment of population of Paquimé.” They argue that Paquimé was not a producer of ceramics,

but that pottery was produced at the household level; that pottery production and access was not

controlled by elites. I would like to add the data from this thesis to that conclusion. My data

helps establish that vessel use was not highly formalized or controlled. The vessels were

generally used for their intended functions, but the uses overlap, indicating consumers used the

vessels to suit individual needs. All ceramic types bear signs of use in everyday tasks. This

indicates vessels were likely used in domestic contexts by individual households across the

Casas Grandes landscape.

Summary

Pitezel (2008) originally concluded two main ideas from his initial study: (1) that Ramos

Polychrome and Villa Ahumada vessels had different, although not exclusive functions, and (2)

that vessels were sooted across the region and sooting on painted jars is a Casas Grandes

characteristic. Despite the small number of vessels in my sample that contained sooting, I concur

with Pitezel and Di Peso that vessels were sooted across the types. This does indicate a non-

170

discriminatory use of vessels, at least over fire. In addition, sooting on polychrome vessels is a

unique characteristic of the Casas Grandes region.

I agree that the ceramic types exhibited different, though not exclusive functions.

Plainware vessels were generally associated with cooking activities, as illustrated by percentage

of occurrences of sooting, abrasion, and rim wear (n/c/g and abrasion/crack combination traces).

Vessel contents were accessed frequently, and the vessels were used in proximity to fire, likely

for cooking. Villa Ahumada vessels bore similar traces, and I argue that this ceramic type was

also used for everyday domestic tasks.

Ramos Black vessels were associated with interior pitting traces. This suggests that

Ramos Black vessels may have been used for activities that required the manipulation of vessel

contents, but the activities may have been more occasional (see discussion above on pitting and

delamination) such as fermentation or nixtamalization. Similar to Ramos Black vessels, the data

indicates Ramos Polychrome vessels were used for activities that required content manipulation

strong enough to leave a trace like stirring, but the lack of soot indicates these activities were

either rare or did not require heat.

Babicora Polychrome vessels were also involved in activities that did not require heat as

sooting was not a significant wear pattern for this type. However, all the other traces seem to

indicate this ceramic type was used consistently and sustained substantial interior wear.

Like Babicora Polychrome, Ramos Polychrome had more evidence associated with

stirring and abrasion, but this type is also associated with sooting on the exterior lower body.

This suggests that the vessel contents required attention or agitation during heating, but unlike

Babicora Polychrome, Ramos vessels were used to heat the contents. And Villa Ahumada

vessels had interior pitting like Ramos Black, and abrasion and soot like Ramos Polychrome.

171

Vessel contents were likely heated, which caused extensive damage to vessel interiors. Boiling

liquids or corn processing would produce this kind of wear.

Jars were used for activities that would cause more wear such as cooking or fermentation,

while bowls were likely used for warming or serving. And the interior sooting on effigy vessels

indicates its use in activities such as burning incense or small quantities of food items.

The data overwhelmingly support the argument that many of the ceramic types in my

sample were used for everyday activities like cooking and warming. There is a general pattern

that would fit with categories of intended function, but those patterns are not separate and

distinct among ceramic types or vessel forms. As Di Peso and colleagues (1974:6:85-88) and

Pitezel (2008) noted, no single ceramic type or form seemed to be connected to one specific use,

and my data seems to corroborate these conclusions.

It is important to note that my initial assumption was that a large portion of my sample

likely came from burials, and that the wear could be distinct from that of vessels found in other

contexts. However, as my findings agree with the other ceramic studies, I argue that these

ceramic vessels as burial goods are not different from ceramic vessels in other contexts. The

alterations on these vessels would require numerous uses over longer periods of time, which

indicates to me that the vessels may have had social significance in regards to mortuary ritual,

but were not exclusive to activities surrounding the dead.

A Note on Modern Repair

Traces of modern repair were recorded in an effort to note everything about a vessel, but

they are not diagnostic of any use-alteration activity except perhaps activities that occurred post

excavation. Most of these traces could be considered “modern” (even though some are

potentially nearing 100 years old) or post excavation and give no information regarding use

172

activities during the Medio period. Reconstruction by looters is important to discuss here. As

stated previously, not only is looting an issue for archaeology in Casas Grandes, so is identifying

fakes or replicas (Searcy, personal communication 2017). Silva (2012:75) describes the Mata

Ortiz Phenomenon, a movement that began in 1971. This movement was spurred by Juan

Quezada who was interested in recreating Casas Grandes pottery. His interest became skill, skill

became a profession, and one he taught to his family. Silva (2012) says the ceramic types are

copied so well, it is nearly impossible to differentiate between real artifacts and copies. Many

museums have replicas, and this includes vessels that appear as though they were reconstructed

from sherds. Local Casas Grandes potters are so skilled they can reconstruct vessels from sherds

and pass them off as whole pots. However, if methods are developed to identify methods of

reconstruction, it may be possible to find evidence of looted materials.

173

6. Conclusion

This thesis is a use-alteration study I completed on 300 vessels from the Medio period of

the Casas Grandes region of Chihuahua, Mexico. The intent of this study was to explore the

question “what were the vessels used for?” My study suggests the people of Casas Grandes used

their vessels for separate but not altogether distinct use activities.

During the analysis, I looked for diagnostic and other use-alteration traces that may

suggest patterns that were indicative of particular activities for which the vessels were used.

Missing pieces, modern repair, and other indeterminate or miscellaneous use traces were also

collected and represent the additional cultural transforms that were not related to the prehistoric

uses of these pots.

Perforations were noted and suggest that ritual killing of vessels may have been used as a

part of burial practices. It is difficult to assess the veracity of this possible activity, but by

looking at vessels from known burials, it would be a better way to assess the practice of making

kill holes on Casas Grandes pottery by those who buried their dead in this region. Thanks to the

experiments of Stoner (2008), we know there is also a high likelihood that some of the

perforations were modern damage.

Bowls show evidence of generally being used for warming and some cooking activities.

Based on their form, they were likely used for warming and serving food as intense cooking

activities would not make much sense for this vessel form. There is also evidence the people of

Casas Grandes placed lids on bowls regularly. Lids help keep food and heat in, which is helpful

during transport, keeping food warm, storage, and serving.

174

Jars had the most evidence of use alteration suggesting their use for heavy cooking,

fermentation/nixtamalization, boiling, roasting, and so forth. The use-alteration traces I noted for

this type, including heaving sooting, abrasion, stirring, spalling and delamination traces all

indicate this form was used directly over flame consistently, during activities that would wear

out the surface of the vessel.

Effigies had some traces that would indicate warming activities such as stirring and

interior abrasion, and pitting traces, but there is no sooting on the lower body of effigies. Sooting

only appears on the exterior mid and upper body zones. Further study on effigy vessels could

further illuminate the uses of this vessel form.

Plainware vessels were likely used for cooking and preparing food and other materials.

These vessels showed the most traces of sooting and evidence of nicks-chips-gouges, and high

percentages of occurrences of exterior sooting on the lower body. Abrasion and cracks on vessel

rims were likely caused by the use of lids or from contact with utensils as the contents were

repeatedly manipulated or removed using these utensils. Much of the abrasion could also be

explained from storing the pots rim side down. The people of Casas Grandes, like other cultural

groups across the world, used the Plainware vessels for many different activities.

Babicora Polychrome vessels appear to have been used for warming or other non-cooking

activities. This type has a significant percentage of nick-chip-gouge traces associated with

cracking and abrasion and also has stirring traces, so this ceramic type was used for activities

that would leave those traces. Ramos Black vessels may have been used for the fermentation of

substances like corn beer (Beck 2001; King et al. 2017; Noneman 2017). I am not comfortable

stating I support the argument, but if combined with burial and iconography studies, my data

could lend credence to Rakita’s (2009) argument that this ceramic type was used in an ancestor

175

cult. This would require more analysis which is outside the scope of this thesis. Ramos Black

vessels also had some perforation traces, indicating the people of Casas Grandes may have used

this ceramic type in funerary ritual.

Ramos Polychrome had some evidence of stirring and abrasion traces, and this type is

also associated with sooting on the exterior lower body. This suggests that this ceramic type is

associated with activities that would require heat. This ceramic type was not as well used as

Plainware vessels, but may have been used for cooking, boiling and roasting, heating and

warming, and even storage. The people of Casas Grandes made many Ramos Polychrome

vessels and used them well. And Villa Ahumada vessels had interior pitting like Ramos Black,

and abrasion and soot like Ramos Polychrome. So these vessel contents were likely heated,

which damaged vessel interiors. It is less common for painted pottery to be used for cooking in

other cultural areas of the Southwest. Nevertheless, my data indicates painted pottery was used to

some degree for cooking. This corroborates the work completed by Pitezel (2008) and Whalen

and Minnis (2009).

Playas Red, Corralitos Polychrome, and Carretas Polychrome vessels had smaller

percentages of occurrences of use-alteration traces. Perhaps these vessels were used for some

cooking and warming activities, or the small number of use-alteration traces could indicate other

uses such as storage of dry goods or liquids.

Problems and Future Research

My main concern with previous use-alteration studies is that there was no accounting for

severity or number of traces on a given vessel. A use-alteration trace was either marked present

or absent one time for a particular vessel zone. This method seems to yield results in showing

176

patterns between vessels for many studies, but I do not believe it draws a precise enough picture

of what is actually happening in the sample. Giving an accounting of trace number and severity

could more clearly indicate the types of activities for which a vessel was used. For example, as

illustrated in Chapter 5, Playas Red vessels had a higher severity score than Babicora

Polychrome vessels. Even though there were fewer traces, the severity is higher. This suggests

the vessels were used in activities that caused more severe damage, or were not as robust in

withstanding wear as the other type. Accounting for severity and trace counts and percentages

allows us to delve further into the causes of wear between vessel forms and types. My method of

data collection draws a more accurate picture of which alteration traces can be found on each

vessel, the location of the trace, and other information such as size, severity, and so forth.

Pitezel (2008) sought to identify the “differences between three ceramic types from the

Casas Grandes Region” (2008:16). His analysis concludes that Villa Ahumada vessels were used

more than Ramos Polychrome and Playas Red vessels, and that the ceramic types had different

but not exclusive functions. I originally based my methods on the work completed in this study

by Pitezel, and the methods used by Pitezel and Searcy when they originally started building on

the 2008 study. As my analysis grew, however, it diverged from Pitezel’s work quite a bit. We

did not collect the same types or amounts of data. These differences make it difficult to compare

our results. I have done my best to reference Pitezel’s work and relate our studies as much as

possible.

Future Research

My sampling strategy left some types underrepresented. In the future it would be

beneficial to increase the variety of types, analyzing more such as Carretas Polychrome,

Corralitos Polychrome, Dublan, Madera Black-on-red, Ramos Black-on-white, Villa Ahumada

177

Black-on-white, and Escondida Polychrome. My data did not illuminate significant use-alteration

traces on these types. It is difficult to extrapolate any kind of use for these ceramic types until a

larger sample of each type is analyzed.

The study of the vessels from the site of Paquimé would also be beneficial. Very little has

been done with these whole vessels since Di Peso and colleagues’ work after they were

excavated (Di Peso et al. 1974 vol. 6). I admire the dedication and wealth of information

provided by Di Peso, Rinaldo, and Fenner, but in some respects, their work does not provide

enough data on use traces to make a robust comparison. Several things could be accomplished by

an additional study of the vessels these vessels. For example, I assumed all the vessels in my

study likely came from burials. A comparison to the known burial goods at Paquimé could verify

the results of my study that vessels were well used previous to being used as burial goods. If the

burial goods at Paquimé do not match the vessels in my sample, this could indicate that burial

practices between the large site at Paquimé and surrounding sites were different, or that the

vessels in my sample did not come from burials. A comparison to the vessels at Paquimé could

also establish the practices of burial further, beyond social status and grave richness. I would like

to know if the ritual killing of vessels was a practice employed by the people of Casas Grandes.

Whalen and Minnis (2009) provide information about hearths. It would be interesting to

conduct a study looking for sooting on the exterior lower body and base of Casas Grandes

vessels. The soot traces could be measured and compared to hearth sizes to determine exactly

which types of vessels would have been placed over hearths.

There is a still a question about the “brown out” on Ramos Black vessels. It is unclear

what conditions cause this trace. Future experimental archaeology could seek to clarify how this

trace is caused.

178

Final Thoughts

Triadan and colleagues (2017:21) contend in their article on sourcing Chihuahuan

ceramics that “the majority of Chihuahuan polychrome vessels, including Ramos Polychromes,

were probably made and certainly used by a broad segment of population of Paquimé” and

surrounding settlements. They argue that vessels were most likely created at the household level,

and while there may have been some specialized production, for the most part, access to specific

raw material sources and paste recipes was not restricted. They make a note on vessel use,

indicating ceramics were used for mundane activities and were not a prestige item. I agree.

The data collected during this study indicates that the people of Casas Grandes used their

ceramic vessels for a variety of use activities. There was some consideration for intended vessel

function, but the uses of types overlapped in many ways. It appears that not only was ceramic

production widespread among the Casas Grandes region, but vessel use was also variable and all

types were likely used for a wide variety of activities that suited individual circumstances.

179

References Cited

Allison, James A. 2012 The Useless Made Useful: Pottery Form and Function in the Talbot Collection. In Anasazi along the Vermilion Cliffs: An Examination of the Talbot Collection, edited by Deborah C. Harris, Jaime L. Davis, and Paul R. Stavast. Brigham Young University Museum of Peoples and Cultures, Popular Series 6. Allison, James A. and Hagopian 2010 Ceramic Form and Function. In 2010 Animas-La Plata Project: Volume XIV—Ceramic Studies. SWCA Anthropological Research Paper No. 10, Volume XIV, edited by James A. Allison, SWCA Environmental Consultants, Phoenix, pp. 161-207. Beck, Margaret 2001 Archaeological Signatures of Corn Preparation in the U.S. Southwest. Kiva 67(2):187-218. Beck, Margaret, James M. Skibo, David J. Hally, and Peter Yang 2002 Sample Selection for Ceramic Use-Alteration Analysis: The Effects of Abrasion on Soot. Journal of Archaeological Science 29:1-15. Bradfield, Wesley 1931 Cameron Creek Village: A Site in the Mimbres Area in Grant County, New Mexico. Monograph of the School of American Research, No. 1. Santa Fe. Brand, Donald D. 1935 The Distribution of Pottery Types in Northwest Mexico. American Anthropologist 37(2):287-305. 1943 The Chihuahua Culture Area. New Mexico Anthropologist 6-7(3):115-158. Braun, David P. 1970 Appendix I: Experimental Interpretation of Ceramic Vessel Use on the Basis of Rim and Neck Formal Attributes. In The Navajo Project: Archaeological Investigations Page to Phoenix 500 KV Southern Transmission Line, edited by Donald C. Fiero, Robert W. Munson, Martha T. McClain, Suzanne M. Wilson, and Anne H. Zier, pp. 171-231. Museum of Northern Arizona Research Paper 11, Flagstaff. 1983 Pots as Tools. In Archaeological Hammers and Theories, edited by James A. Moore and Arthur S. Keene, 107-134. Academic Press, New York. Bray, Alicia 1982 Mimbres Black-on-White, Melamine or Wedgewood? A Ceramic Use-Wear Analysis. Kiva 47(3):133-149.

180

Bray, Tamara L. 2018 Archaeology, Temporal Complexity, and the Politics of Time. In Constructions of Time and History in the Pre-Columbian Andes, edited by Edward Swenson and Andrew P. Roddick, pp. 225-236. University of Colorado, Boulder. Brody, J. J. 2004 Mimbres Painted Pottery. A School of American Research Press Resident Scholar Book, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Brooks, Prudence 1973 An Analysis of Painted Pottery Designs of the Casas Grandes Culture. Awanyu 1(2):11-33. Bullock, Heather Elisabeth 2011 Dirty Talking Cracked Pots: Inferring Function and Use of Decorated Ceramic Bowls at Fourmile Ruin, AZ. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo. Burgett, Jessica P. 2006 El Paso Polychrome in the Casas Grandes Region, Chihuahua Mexico: Ceramic Exchange between Paquimé and the Jornada Mogollon. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, College of Liberal Arts, Pennsylvania State University, State College. Carey, Henry A. 1931 An Analysis of the Northwestern Chihuahua Culture. American Anthropologist 33:325-374. Chapman, Kenneth M. 1923 Casas Grandes Pottery. Art and Archaeology 16(1-2):25-34. Chernela, Janet 1969 In Praise of the Scratch: The Importance of Aboriginal Abrasion on Museum Ceramic Ware. Curator 12(3):174-179. Cordell, Linda S. and Maxine E. McBrinn 2012 Archaeology of the Southwest. 3rd ed. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek. Crown, Patricia L. 1994 Ceramics and Ideology: Salado Polychrome Pottery. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Cruz Antillón, Rafael, Robert D. Leonard, Timothy D. Maxwell, Todd L. VanPool, Marcel Harmon, Christine S. VanPool, David A. Hyndman, and Sidney S. Brandwein 2004 Galeana, Villa Ahumada, and Casa Chica: Diverse Sites in the Casas Grandes Region. In Surveying the Archaeology of Northwest Mexico, edited by Gillian Newell and Emiliano Gallaga, pp. 149-177. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

181

Cruz Antillón, Rafael, and Timothy D. Maxwell 1999 The Villa Ahumada Site: Archaeological Investigations East of Paquimé. In The Casas Grandes World, edited by Curtis F. Schaafsma and Carroll L. Riley, pp. 43-53, The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Dean, Jeffrey S., and John C. Ravesloot 1993 The Chronology of Cultural Interaction in the Gran Chichimeca. In Culture and Contact: Charles C. Di Peso’s Gran Chichimeca, edited by Anne I. Woosley and John C. Ravesloot, pp. 83–103. Amerind Foundation, Dragoon, and University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Di Peso, Charles C. 1974 Casas Grandes: A Fallen Trading Center of the Gran Chichimeca Vol 1-3. Amerind Foundation Publication No. 9. Northland Press, Flagstaff. Di Peso, Charles C., John B. Rinaldo, Gloria J. Fenner 1974 Casas Grandes: A Fallen Trading Center of the Gran Chichimeca, Vol 4-8. Amerind Foundation Publication No. 9. Northland Press, Flagstaff. Duddleson, J. Ryan 2008 Plains Woodland Pottery: A Use-Alteration Perspective. Plains Anthropologist 53(206):179-197. Ellis, Florence Hawley 1968 An Interpretation of Prehistoric Death Customs in Terms of Modern Southwestern Parallels. In Collected Papers in Honor of Lyndon Lane Hargrave, edited by Albert H. Schroeder, pp. 57-76. Papers of the Archaeological Society of New Mexico No. 1. Museum of New Mexico Press, Santa Fe. Fewkes, Jesse Walter 1896 Antiquities of the Upper Verde River and Walnut Creek Valleys, Arizona. Thirteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1891-1892. Report to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, pp. 181-200. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. 1914 Archaeology of the Lower Mimbres Valley, New Mexico. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. Fish, Paul and Suzanne 1999 Reflections on the Casas Grandes Regional System from the Northwestern Periphery. In The Casas Grandes World, edited by Curtis f. Schaafsma and Carroll L. Riley, pp. 27-42, The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Ford, James A. and Julian H. Steward 1954 On the Concept of Types. American Anthropologist 56(1):42-57.

182

Green, Jesse (editor) 1979 Zuñi: Selected Writings of Frank Hamilton Cushing. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Griffiths, Dorothy M. 1978 Use-Marks on Historic Ceramics: A Preliminary Study. Historical Archaeology 12:78 -91. Hally, David J. 1983 Use-Alteration of Pottery Vessel Surfaces: An Important Source of Evidence for the Identification of Vessel Function. North American Archaeologist 4(1):3-26. Hammond, George P., and Agapito Rey (editors and translators) 1928 Obregón’s History of 16th Century Exploration in Western America. Wetzel Publishing, Los Angeles. Hendrickson, Mitchel J. 2003 Design Analysis of Chihuahuan Polychrome Jars from North American Museum Collections. BAR International Series, No. 1125. Archaeopress, Oxford. Henrickson, Elizabeth F., and Mary M. A. McDonald 1983 Ceramic Form and Function: An Ethnographic Search and an Archaeological Application. American Anthropologist 85:630-645. Kelley, Jane H., A. C. MacWilliams, Joe D. Stewart, Karen R. Adams, Jerimy J. Cunningham, Richard E. Garvin, J. M. Maillol, Paula J. Reimer, and Danny Zborover 2012 The View from the Edge: The Proyecto Arqueológico Chihuahua (PAC) 1990 to 2010: An Overview. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 36(1):82-107. Kelley, Jane H. and Michael T. Searcy 2015 Beginnings: the Viejo Period. In Ancient Paquimé and the Casas Grandes World, Chihuahua, Mexico, edited by Paul E. Minnis and Michael E. Whalen, pp.17-40. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Kidder, Alfred V. 1916 The Pottery of the Casas Grandes District, Chihuahua. In Holmes Anniversary Volume: Anthropological Essays Presented to William Henry Holmes in Honor of his Seventieth Birthday, December 1, 1916. J. W. Bryan Press, Washington. King, Daniel James 2016 Reconstructing Prehistoric Human/Plant Relationships at Casas Grandes, Chihuahua, Mexico Through a Microfossil Analysis of Dental Calculus. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo. Krieger, Alex D. 1944 The Typological Concept. American Antiquity 9(3):271-288.

183

LeBlanc, Steven A. 1980 The Dating of Casas Grandes. American Antiquity 45:799–805. Lekson, Stephen H. 1984 Dating of Casas Grandes. Kiva 50:55–60. Lindauer, Owen 1988 A Study of Vessel Form and Painted Designs to Explore Regional Interaction of the Sedentary Period Hohokam. Ph.D. dissertation. Arizona State University, Tempe. University Microforms, Ann Arbor. 1996 The Place of the Storehouses: Roosevelt Platform Mound Study part II. Roosevelt Monograph Series 6, Anthropological Field Studies 35. Arizona State University Press. Minnis, Paul, and Michael Whalen 2004 Forty Years After the Joint Casas Grandes Project. In Identity, Feasting, and the Archaeology of the Greater Southwest, edited by Barbara J. Mills, pp. 261–275. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. 2015 Introduction: The Joint Casas Grandes Expedition in Historical Context. In Amerind Studies in Archaeology: Ancient Paquimé and the Casas Grandes World, edited by Paul E. Minnis and Michael E. Whalen, pp. 3-16. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Noneman, Heidi, Christine VanPool, Andrew Fernandez 2017 Examination of organic residues and tribochemical wear in low-fired Casas Grandes pottery vessels. Poster Presented at the 82nd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Vancouver Canada. Ortiz, Alfonso 1969 The Tewa World: Space, Time, Being, and Becoming in a Pueblo Society. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Pearson, Mike Parker 1999 The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Texas A&M University Anthropology Series 3. Texas A&M University Press, College Station. Phillips, David A., Jr. 1989 Prehistory of Chihuahua and Sonora, Mexico. Journal of World Prehistory 3(4):373-401. 1990 A Re-Evaluation of the Robles Phase of the Casas Grandes Culture, Northwest Chihuahua. Paper presented at the 55th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Las Vegas. 2008 The End of Casas Grandes. Paper presented at the 73rd annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Vancouver.

184

Phillips, David A., Jr., and John P. Carpenter 1999 The Robles Phase of the Casas Grandes Culture. In The Casas Grandes World, edited by Curtis F. Schaafsma and Carroll L. Riley, pp. 78–83. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Phillips, David A., Jr., and Eduardo Gamboa 2015 The End of Paquimé and the Casas Grandes Cultures. In Amerind Studies in Archaeology: Ancient Paquimé and the Casas Grandes World, edited by Paul E. Minnis and Michael E. Whalen, pp. 148-171. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Pitezel, Todd A. 2008 Fire and Other Abuses on Three Ceramic Types from the Casas Grandes Region. Manuscript on file, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. Pitezel, Todd A. and Michael T. Searcy 2013 Understanding the Viejo Period: What are the Data? In Collected Papers from the 17th Biennial Mogollon Archaeology Conference, edited by Lonnie C. Ludeman. Edwards Brothers Malloy, Silver City. Plog, Stephen 1997 Ancient Peoples of the American Southwest. Thames and Hudson, London. Rakita, Gordon F. M. 2008 Ramos Black, Cults of the Dead, and Ritual Practices at Casas Grandes, Mexico. In Touching the Past: Ritual, Religion, and Trade of Casas Grandes, edited by Glenna Nielsen-Grimm and Paul Stavast, pp. 15-28. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Popular Series 5, Brigham Young University, Provo. 2009 Ancestors and Elites: Emergent Complexity and Ritual Practices in the Casas Grandes Polity. AltaMira Press, New York. Rakita, Gordon, and Gerry R. Raymond 2003 The Temporal Sensitivity of Casas Grandes Polychrome Ceramics. Kiva 68(3):153–184. Ravesloot, John C. 1988 Mortuary Practices and Social Differentiation at Casas Grandes, Chihuahua, Mexico. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No. 49. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Rice, Glen E. 2016 Sending the Spirits Home: The Archaeology of Hohokam Mortuary Practices. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Rice, Prudence 2015 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. University of Chicago Press.

185

Sayles, Edwin B. 1936 An Archaeological Survey of Chihuahua Mexico, Medallion Papers No. 22. Gila Pueblo, Globe, Arizona. Searcy, Michael T. 2010 Symbols and Sociopolitical Organization: Mesoamerican Iconography in the U.S. Southwest-Northwest Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oklahoma, Norman. 2014 Cultural and Contextual Differentiation of Mesoamerican Iconography in the U.S. Southwest/Northwest Mexico. In Building Transnational Archaeologies: 11th Southwest Symposium, edited by Elisa Villalpando and Randal H. McGuire, pp. 53-73. Arizona State Museum, Tucson. Searcy, Michael T. and Todd A. Pitezel 2017 Explorations in Viejo Period Archaeology at the Vista del Valle Site in Chihuahua, Mexico. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Chacmool Archaeology Conference. University of Calgary. Shafer, Harry J. and Anna J. Taylor 1986 Mimbres Mogollon Pueblo Dynamics and Ceramic Style Change. Journal of Field Archaeology 13(1):43-68. Shephard, A. O. 1976 Ceramics for the archaeologist. Washington D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington. Silva, Fabiola 2012 The Plundering of Paquimé: The History of Looting in Northwestern Chihuahua, Mexico. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Oklahoma, Norman. Silva, Fabiola and Jane H. Kelley 2016 Hechizas: A History of Looting and Ceramic Fakes in Northwest Chihuahua. Paper presented at the 48th Annual Chacmool Conference, University of Calgary, Calgary. Skibo, James M. 1992 Pottery Function: A Use-Alteration Perspective. Plenum Press, New York. Smith, Marian J. Jr. 1983 The study of ceramic function from artifact size and form. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon.

186

Sprehn, Maria 2006 The Specialist Potters of Casas Grandes. In Secrets of Casas Grandes: Precolumbian Art and Archaeology of Northern Mexico, edited by Melissa S. Powell, pp. 39-54. Museum of New Mexico Press, Santa Fe. Stoner, Julie 2008 Sources of Impact Holes in Ancient Pottery. Manuscript on file, Museum of Peoples and Cultures, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Manuscript number: 2012MS.007.08.01, accessed March 1, 2017. Triadan, Daniela, Eduardo Gamboa Carrera, M. James Blackman, and Ronald L. Bishop 2018 Sourcing Chihuahuan Polychrome Ceramics: Assessing Medio Period Economic Organization. Latin American Antiquity 29(1):143-168. Tyler, Hamilton A. 1975 Pueblo Animals and Myths. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. 1986 Pueblo Gods and Myths. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. VanPool, Christine S. 2002 Flight of the Shaman: Exquisite Painted Pots from the Casas Grandes Region Depicts Journeys to the Spirit World. Archaeology 55:40–43. 2003 The Shaman-Priests of the Casas Grandes Region, Chihuahua, Mexico. American Antiquity 68(4):696-717. VanPool, Christine S., Gordon F. M. Rakita, Rafael Cruz Antillón, and Robert D. Leonard 2009 Field Guide to the Ceramic Types of the Casas Grandes Region. In Touching the Past: Ritual, Religion, and Trade of Casas Grandes, edited by Glenna Nielsen-Grimm and Paul Stavast, pp. 59-67, Popular Series No. 5, Museum of Peoples and Cultures, Brigham Young University, Provo. VanPool, Christine S., and Todd L. VanPool 2007 Signs of the Casas Grandes Shamans. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. VanPool, Christine S., Todd L. VanPool, and Marcel Harmon 2008 Plumed and Horned Serpents of the American Southwest. In Touching the Past: Ritual, Religion, and Trade of Casas Grandes, edited by Glenna Nielsen-Grimm and Paul Stavast, pp. 47-58. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Popular Series 5, Brigham Young University, Provo. VanPool, Christine S., Todd L. VanPool, and David A. Phillips Jr., editors 2006 Religion in the Prehispanic Southwest. AltaMira Press, New York.

187

Vint, J.M. 2000 Functional Aspects of the TCAP Ceramics. In Tonto Creek Archaeological Project: Artifact and Environmental Analyses. Volume 1: A Tonto Basin Perspective on Ceramic Economy, edited by J.M. Vint and J.M. Heidke, pp. 224-271. Anthropological Papers No. 23. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson. Whalen, Michael E. and Paul E. Minnis 1999 Investigating the Paquimé Regional System. In The Casas Grandes World, edited by Curtis F. Schaafsma and Carroll L. Riley, pp. 54-62. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2001 Casas Grandes and its Hinterland: Prehistoric Regional Organization in Northwest Mexico. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 2009 The Neighbors of Casas Grandes: Excavating Medio Period Communities of Northwest Chihuahua, Mexico. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 2012 Ceramics and Polity in the Casas Grandes Area, Chihuahua, Mexico. American Antiquity 77:403-24. Whalen, Michael E. and Todd A. Pitezel 2015 Settlement Patterns of the Casas Grandes Area. In Amerind Studies in Archaeology: Ancient Paquimé and the Casas Grandes World, edited by Paul E. Minnis and Michael E. Whalen, pp. 103-125. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

188

Appendix A: Vessel Attributes

Bowl T

ype

Cat

alog

No.

Form

(s

peci

fics)

Han

dles

Rec

onst

ruct

ed

Rim

Hol

es

Hei

ght

Max

. Bod

y D

iam

eter

Ori

fice

Dia

met

er

Vol

ume

(mL

)

Polis

hed

Not

es

Babicora Polychrome 1977.193.135.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 9 14.1 11.4 848.9 Y Bead Weight: 490g

Carretas Polychrome 1977.193.128.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 10.8 20.4 19.12 2208.94 Y Bead Weight: 1275g

Carretas Polychrome 1977.193.143.1 semi-flare rim

hemispherical reconstructed whole vessel 6.6 19.5 18.8 883.6 Y Bead Weight: 510g

Corralitos Polychrome 1977.193.132.1 incurved bowl reconstructed

whole vessel 12.5 20.8 16.4 2364.9 Y Bead Weight: 1365g

Escondida Polychrome 1986.18.23.1 hemispherical Whole vessel 5.5 10.2 9.4 259.87 Y Bead Weight: 150g

Plainware 1976.17.1.1 hemispherical Whole vessel 6.3 11.1 9.4 294.53 N Bead Weight: 170g

Plainware 1976.17.2.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 6.4 14.2 12 606.4 Y Bead Weight: 350g

two finger pinches on opposing sides of rim

Plainware 1977.193.196.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 9.5 15.2 11.1 1004.9 N

Bead Weight: 580g Rough rim-almost looks like no rim.

Rim wasn’t smoothed Plainware 1977.193.199.1 hemispherical Whole vessel 5.8 12.8 11.23 372.49 Y Bead Weight: 215g

Plainware 1977.193.204.1 incurved bowl reconstructed whole vessel 6.3 14.1 12.7 519.75 Y Bead Weight: 300g

Plainware 1977.193.281.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 10.9 16.4 12.36 1334.02 Y Bead Weight: 770g

Plainware 1977.193.292.1 hemispherical partial

reconstructed >50%

7.5 11.8 10.2 372.49 N

Bead Weight: 215g depositional accretion

does mask wear surface

189

Bowl T

ype

Cat

alog

No.

Form

(spe

cific

s)

Han

dles

Rec

onst

ruct

ed

Rim

Hol

es

Hei

ght

Max

. Bod

y D

iam

eter

Ori

fice

Dia

met

er

Vol

ume

(mL

)

Polis

hed

Not

es

Plainware 1977.193.374.1 hemispherical Whole vessel 2.06 4.85 4.1 17.32 Y

Bead Weight: 10g Miniature bowl,

catalog says "used as a child's toy or for

storing pigments, etc"

Plainware 1977.193.381.1 hemispherical Whole vessel 1.8 4.5 3.9 17.3 Y Bead Weight: 10g

Plainware 1977.193.385.1 hemispherical Whole vessel 2.6 4.8 4 17.3 Y Bead Weight: 10g Miniature bowl

Plainware 1986.18.18.1 incurved bowl,

low shouldered

Whole vessel 8.1 14 10.18 788.29 Y Bead Weight: 455g

Plainware 1986.18.24.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 5.3 9.4 4.6 164.6 N Bead Weight: 95g Tecomate bowl

Plainware 3272 incurved bowl Whole vessel 8.8 17.4 15 1100.14 Y Bead Weight: 635g

Plainware 6678 incurved bowl Whole vessel 10.3 19.5 16.62 1602.56 Y Bead Weight: 925g

Plainware 6700 incurved bowl Whole vessel 10.6 18.7 14.7 3222.45 Y Bead Weight: 1860g

Plainware 6710 hemispherical Whole vessel 10.3 20.6 18.95 2156.96 N Bead Weight: 1245g

Playas Red 1977.193.271.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 11 22.9 19.2 2581.4 Y Bead Weight: 1490 Playas Red-on-brown

Playas Red 1986.18.121.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 5.5 10.5 10 251.2 Y Bead Weight: 145g

190

Bowl T

ype

Cat

alog

No.

Form

(spe

cific

s)

Han

dles

Rec

onst

ruct

ed

Rim

Hol

es

Hei

ght

Max

. Bod

y D

iam

eter

Ori

fice

Dia

met

er

Vol

ume

(mL

)

Polis

hed

Not

es

Ramos Black 1976.17.13.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 5.7 13 11.2 381.15 Y Bead Weight: 220g

Ramos Black 1976.17.14.1 incurved bowl

partial reconstructed

>50% 6.2 10.3 11.4 563.1 Y Bead Weight: 325g


Ramos Black 1977.193.180.2 incurved bowl Whole vessel 10 20.7 17.5 1992.4 Y Bead Weight: 1150g

Ramos Black 1977.193.230.1 hemispherical Whole vessel 7 15 13.9 684.3 Y

Bead Weight: 395g Kind of cruddy

looking exterior-pits, cracks, bumps

Ramos Black 1977.193.365.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 7.3 15.1 11.4 701.66 Y

Bead Weight: 405g Huge amount of

pitting on exterior mid and lower body.

Ramos Black 1977.193.368.1 incurved bowl reconstructed

whole vessel 10 21.4 16.16 2018.4 Y Bead Weight: 1165g

Ramos Black 1977.193.372 incurved bowl reconstructed

whole vessel 6 13 11.21 407.14 Y

Bead Weight: 235g Rim has decoration-

four sets of 4-5 notches, one set on

each of the four "sides"

Ramos Black 1977.193.43.1 reconstructed


Ramos Black 1977.193.44.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 8.3 17.4 14.9 1195.4 Y Bead Weight: 690g

191

Bowl T

ype

Cat

alog

No.

Form

(spe

cific

s)

Han

dles

Rec

onst

ruct

ed

Rim

Hol

es

Hei

ght

Max

. Bod

y D

iam

eter

Ori

fice

Dia

met

er

Vol

ume

(mL

)

Polis

hed

Not

es

Ramos Black 1977.193.48.1 hemispherical Whole vessel 7.5 17 15.8 900.9 Y Bead Weight: 520g




Ramos Black 1977.193.52.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 6.6 13.5 10.9 571.7 Y

Bead Weight: 330g all scratches appear

to be relatively modern

Ramos Black 1977.193.53.1 incurved bowl reconstructed


Ramos Black 1977.193.54.1 flare-rim,

outcurved Whole vessel 8 14.2 10.4 667.01 Y Bead Weight: 385g

Ramos Black 1977.193.56.1 hemispherical reconstructed

whole vessel 5.5 11 9.5 259.9 Y Bead Weight: 150g

Ramos Black 1986.18.17 hemispherical Whole vessel 5 11.7 10.4 320.51 Y

Bead Weight: 185g rim has a pinched

decoration-two pinches, one on each

opposing side Ramos Black 1986.18.26.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 11.4 21.2 18.8 2442.8 Y Bead Weight: 1410g

Ramos Black 1986.18.28.1 incurved bowl


>50% 6.8 13.4 10.9 580.4 Y Bead Weight: 335g

192

Bowl T

ype

Cat

alog

No.

Form

(spe

cific

s)

Han

dles

Rec

onst

ruct

ed

Rim

Hol

es

Hei

ght

Max

. Bod

y D

iam

eter

Ori

fice

Dia

met

er

Vol

ume

(mL

)

Polis

hed

Not

es

Ramos Black 6580 incurved bowl


>50% 10.7 21.8 19.97 2182.95 Y Bead Weight: 1260g

Ramos Black 6595 incurved bowl Whole vessel 9.4 18 15.04 1420.65 Y Bead Weight: 820g

Ramos Black 7490-b incurved bowl Whole vessel 8.6 17.2 13.95 1178.1 Y Bead Weight: 680g

Ramos Black 9194 incurved bowl Whole vessel 10.6 18.1

3 18.83 2269.6 Y Bead Weight: 1310g

Ramos Polychrome 1976.17.24.1 incurved bowl


>50% 9 14.3 11.6 857.59 Y Bead Weight: 495g

Ramos Polychrome 1977.193.12.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 9.9 15.4 11.6 1195.4 Y Bead Weight: 690g

Ramos Polychrome 1977.193.126.1

hemispherical, incurved bowl, semi-flare rim

incurved

Whole vessel 10 19 17.06 1680.53 Y Bead Weight: 970g

Ramos Polychrome 1977.193.131.1 incurved bowl reconstructed


Ramos Polychrome 1977.193.396.1 Whole vessel 2.3 4.9 4.3 17.3 Y Bead Weight: 10g

Ramos Polychrome 1977.193.564.1 incurved bowl reconstructed


Ramos Polychrome 1986.18.20.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 6.3 9.5 9.2 355.2 Y Bead Weight: 205g

Ramos Polychrome 1986.18.22 incurved bowl Whole vessel 5.5 10.7 9.1 285.86 Y Bead Weight: 165g

193

Bowl T

ype

Cat

alog

No.

Form

(spe

cific

s)

Han

dles

Rec

onst

ruct

ed

Rim

Hol

es

Hei

ght

Max

. Bod

y D

iam

eter

Ori

fice

Dia

met

er

Vol

ume

(mL

)

Polis

hed

Not

es

Ramos Polychrome 2017.1.1.1 incurved bowl


>50% 5.8 11.4 10.27 320.51 Y

Bead Weight: 185g Reconstructed, but there are chipped pieces in between

reconstructed pieces, and there is dried glue oozing out of

cracks. Ramos

Polychrome 3367 incurved bowl Whole vessel 8.4 15.6 13.95 987.52 Y bead weight: 570g

Ramos Polychrome 6279 hemispherical,

incurved bowl Whole vessel 8.9 14.3 11.03 814.28 Y bead weight 470g only slightly incurved

Ramos Polychrome 9131 hemispherical Whole vessel 11.4 19 17.8 2130.97 Y Bead weight: 1230g

Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 1976.17.30.1 incurved bowl


>50% 6.5 12 9.08 381.15 Y Bead Weight: 220g

Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 1976.17.31.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 8 14 11.4 727.7 Y Bead Weight: 420g

Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 1977.193.125.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 10.5 22.6 19.6 2607.4 Y Bead Weight: 1505g

Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 1977.193.129.1 incurved bowl reconstructed


Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 1977.193.130.1 other reconstructed

whole vessel 6.8 20.1 16.98 1602.6 Y Bead Weight: 925g Flat bottom, so no lower body…odd

194

Bowl T

ype

Cat

alog

No.

Form

(spe

cific

s)

Han

dles

Rec

onst

ruct

ed

Rim

Hol

es

Hei

ght

Max

. Bod

y D

iam

eter

Ori

fice

Dia

met

er

Vol

ume

(mL

)

Polis

hed

Not

es

Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 1977.193.136.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 8.4 14.8 9.96 831.6 Y Bead Weight: 480g

Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 6376 hemispherical Whole vessel 4.5 9.3 7.91 121.27 Y Bead weight: 70g

Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 6379 incurved bowl Whole vessel 5.2 12.2 10.14 502.43 Y Bead Weight: 290g

195

Effigy T

ype

Cat

alog

No.

Form

(s

peci

fics)

Han

dles

Rec

onst

ruct

ed

Rim

Hol

es

Hei

ght

Max

. Bod

y D

iam

eter

Ori

fice

Dia

met

er

Vol

ume

(mL

)

Polis

hed

Not

es

Babicora Polychrome 1977.193.72.1

animal-nonbird-fish, Hooded, jar

Whole vessel 12.2 15.5 8.4 1126.13 Y Height with Hood:

16.8 Bead Weight: 650g

Carretas Polychrome 1986.18.57

Hooded, human-male,

jar Whole vessel 20 19 13.5 3854.8 Y Bead Weight: 2225g

Dublan Polychrome 1977.193.77.1

animal-nonbird-fish, Hooded, jar

Whole vessel 11.7 12.8 6.7 701.66 Y

Bead Weight: 405g Hood Height: 16.5 Modern repair is pretty nasty-dirt

mixed with glue to fill in cracks, and not sure all pieces belong

to vessel Abrasion on edges of reconstructed pieces have exposed core.

Madera Black on

Red 1977.193.183.1

animal-nonbird-fish,

jar reconstructed


Plainware 1977.193.193.1 animal-

nonbird-fish, jar

partial

reconstructed >50%

15.7 19.6 10.7 1923.08 N Bead Weight: 1110g


nonbird-fish, bowl

Whole vessel 12.4 18.7 15.3 1914.4 Y Bead Weight: 1105g

Plainware 1977.193.73.1 human body part, human-

male, jar Whole vessel 7.7 10.3 8.2 355.16 Y Bead Weight: 205g

196

Effigy T

ype

Cat

alog

No.

Form

(spe

cific

s)

Han

dles

Rec

onst

ruct

ed

Rim

Hol

es

Hei

ght

Max

. Bod

y D

iam

eter

Ori

fice

Dia

met

er

Vol

ume

(mL

)

Polis

hed

Not

es

Plainware 1977.193.75.1 bird, bowl, Hooded reconstructed

whole vessel 7.1 11.1 9.8 320.51 N Bead Weight: 185g Height with Hood:

10.3


nonbird-fish, bowl

Whole vessel 11 21.4 10 1992.4 Y Bead Weight: 1150g

Playas Red 1977.193.71.1

Hooded, human-

indeterminate, jar

Whole vessel 12 15.5 8.1 1091.48 Y Height with hood:

18.1 Bead Weight: 630g

Ramos Black 1977.193.61.1

animal-nonbird-fish, jar, legged

Whole vessel 7.9 11.7 2.6 129.94 Y Bead Weight: 75g

Ramos Black 1977.193.68.1 bird, jar Whole vessel opposing

pair 11.2 18 8.67 1533.26 Y Bead Weight: 885g Height with effigy

protuberances: 12.7

Ramos Black-on-

white 1986.18.53.1 bird, jar Whole vessel opposing

pair 8.2 11 3 285.86 Y Bead Weight: 165g

Ramos Polychrome 1972.37.2.1 human-female Whole vessel 13 14.1 8.4 1160.8 Y Bead Weight: 670g

Hood Height: 18cm


human-indeterminate,

jar Whole vessel opposing

pair 16.8 17.6 9.3 2356.2 Y Bead Weight: 1360g

Ramos Polychrome 1977.193.82

Hooded, human-

indeterminate, jar

reconstructed whole vessel

Oppsing single 12.8 15.3 8.95 1290.71 Y

Bead Weight: 745g Height with Hood:

18.7

197

Effigy T

ype

Cat

alog

No.

Form

(spe

cific

s)

Han

dles

Rec

onst

ruct

ed

Rim

Hol

es

Hei

ght

Max

. Bod

y D

iam

eter

Ori

fice

Dia

met

er

Vol

ume

(mL

)

Polis

hed

Not

es



jar Whole vessel 12.3 26 10.9 2217.6 Y Bead Weight: 1280g

Ramos Polychrome 2001.9.2.1 bird, jar Whole vessel opposing


Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 1976.17.33.1


jar Whole vessel opposing


Villa Ahumada


Hooded, human-

indeterminate, jar

reconstructed whole vessel 13 16.2 9.5 1394.7 Y Bead Weight: 805g

Villa Ahumada



jar Opposing


>50% 14.5 17.2 8.6 3213.8 N Bead Weight: 1855g

Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 1977.193.80.1 human-female,

jar partial

reconstructed >50%

15.5 18.1 10.32 1836.45 Y Bead Weight: 1060g

Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 1994.16.4.1 bird, jar Whole vessel opposing

pair 9.3 12 2.3 363.83 Y Bead Weight: 210g

198

Jar T

ype

Cat

alog

No.

Form

(s

peci

fics)

Han

dles

Rec

onst

ruct

ed

Rim

Hol

es

Hei

ght (

cm)

Max

. Bod

y D

iam

eter

(cm

)

Ori

fice

Dia

met

er (c

m)

Vol

ume

(mL

)

Polis

hed

Not

es

Babicora Polychrome 1976.17.34.1 other Whole vessel opposing


Babicora Polychrome 1976.17.35.1 flare-rim Whole vessel opposing


Babicora Polychrome 1977.193.100.1 flare-rim reconstructed

whole vessel 18.3 21.1 11.91 3283.1 N Bead Weight: 1895g

Babicora Polychrome 1977.193.104.1 reconstructed

whole vessel 14 20.4 12.9 2763.3 Y Bead Weight: 1595g Rim has been cut off

Paquime variant Babicora

Polychrome 1977.193.105.1 straight neck Whole vessel opposing pair 14 15 8.7 1273.4 N Bead Weight: 735g

Babicora Polychrome 1977.193.172.1 flare-rim Opposing


>50% 12 15 8.12 1082.81 Y Bead Weight: 625g


pair 10 13.2 8.1 719 Y Bead Weight: 415g

Babicora Polychrome 1977.193.85.1 flare-rim,

straight neck partial

reconstructed >50%

12 15 8.4 1004.8 Y Bead Weight: 580g

Babicora Polychrome 1977.193.86.1 flare-rim Opposing reconstructed

whole vessel 13.5 14.4 7.6 1056.8 Y Bead Weight: 610g Interior blackened

Babicora Polychrome 1977.193.87.1 straight neck Whole vessel 13 16 10.2 2416.8 Y

Bead Weight: 1395g Possibly fake? Poorly

made. Has an unexplained red rim

Babicora Polychrome 1977.193.88.1 flare-rim reconstructed

whole vessel opposing

pair 8.4 10 5.7 320.51 N Bead Weight: 185g



199

Jar T

ype

Cat

alog

No.

Form

(spe

cific

s)

Han

dles

Rec

onst

ruct

ed

Rim

Hol

es

Hei

ght (

cm)

Max

. Bod

y D

iam

eter

(cm

)

Ori

fice

Dia

met

er

(cm

)

Vol

ume

(mL

)

Polis

hed

Not

es

Babicora Polychrome 1986.18.30.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 24.2 26.2 14.1 7891.55 Y Bead Weight: 4555g

Babicora Polychrome 2987 flare-rim reconstructed



Babicora Polychrome 3426 Whole vessel opposing



pair 13.5 16.1 8.36 1360.01 Y

Bead Weight: 785g Two pairs of

mending holes-how to record beyond their existence?

Babicora Polychrome 6417 flare-rim Opposing Whole vessel 13.7 16.5 9.1 1515.94 Y Bead Weight: 875g

Paquime Variety

Babicora Polychrome 6420 flare-rim Opposing Whole vessel 14.4 17.9 8.8 1715.2 Y

Bead Weight: 990 Paquime Variety

Exterior rim is pretty sloppy

Babicora Polychrome 6421 flare-rim Whole vessel opposing

pair 13.5 17.8 10.04 1758.49 Y Bead Weight: 1015g Paquime Variety

Babicora Polychrome 6422 Opposing Whole vessel 14.6 17.7 8.9 1671.86 Y

Bead Weight: 965g One handle still has hanging rope inside,

so awesome!

Babicora Polychrome 6425 angle collared,

flare-rim, other Opposing Whole vessel 14.3 18.2 8.73 1897.1 Y Bead Weight: 1095g Paquime Variety

200

Jar T

ype

Cat

alog

No.

Form

(spe

cific

s)

Han

dles

Rec

onst

ruct

ed

Rim

Hol

es

Hei

ght (

cm)

Max

. Bod

y D

iam

eter

(cm

)

Ori

fice

Dia

met

er

(cm

)

Vol

ume

(mL

)

Polis

hed

Not

es

Babicora Polychrome 6443 flare-rim, other Opposing


>50% 13.3 16.9 9.16 1386 Y Bead Weight: 800g

Paquime Variety

Babicora Polychrome 6445 flare-rim Whole vessel opposing

pair 12.5 16 10.04 1368.67 Y Bead Weight: 790g Paquime Variety

Babicora Polychrome 6446 angle collared,

flare-rim Whole vessel 15.9 19 9.53 2425.5 Y Bead Weight: 1400g Paquime Variety

Babicora Polychrome 6463 flare-rim Opposing Whole vessel 12.2 17.2 8.47 2546.77 Y Bead Weight: 1470g

Paquime Variety


pair 15 20.5 9.3 2598.75 Y Bead Weight: 1500g Paquime Variety

Babicora Polychrome 7256 flare-rim Opposing Whole vessel 14.7 19 9.5 3646.92 Y Bead Weight: 2105g

Paquime Variety

Babicora Polychrome 7460 flare-rim Whole vessel 14.8 17.8 9.04 1914.41 Y Bead Weight: 1105

Paquime Variety

Carretas Polychrome 1977.193.92.1 flare-rim reconstructed


Corralitos Polychrome 1976.17.22.1 flare-rim Whole vessel opposing


Corralitos Polychrome 1977.193.171.1 flare-rim


>50% 15.5 19.5 10.86 2503.47 Y Bead Weight: 1445g

Corralitos Polychrome 1986.18.120 flare-rim Whole vessel 26 32 15.7 11174.6 Y Bead Weight: 6450

Dublan Polychrome 1976.17.36.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 13 14.5 7.6 1048.2 Y Bead Weight: 605g

201

Jar T

ype

Cat

alog

No.

Form

(spe

cific

s)

Han

dles

Rec

onst

ruct

ed

Rim

Hol

es

Hei

ght (

cm)

Max

. Bod

y D

iam

eter

(cm

)

Ori

fice

Dia

met

er

(cm

)

Vol

ume

(mL

)

Polis

hed

Not

es

Madera Black on

Red 1977.193.184.1 flare-rim reconstructed


Madera Black on

Red 1977.193.91.1 flare-rim


>50% 19.3 21.4 12.8 4080 Y Bead Weight: 2355g

Plainware 1976.17.12.1 Whole vessel 12 15 8.2 1004.8 Y Bead Weight: 580g

Casas Grandes Incised Corrugated

Plainware 1976.17.3.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 11 14 8.4 918.2 Y Bead Weight: 530g

Plainware 1976.17.4.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 13.5 14 7.5 1091.5 Y Bead Weight: 630g

Plainware 1976.17.5.1 flare-rim Whole vessel opposing pair 12.9 13.5 7.8 1186.8 Y

Bead Weight: 685g there is a third rim

hole on one side…odd

Plainware 1976.17.6.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 13 17.7 10.6 1689.2 N Bead Weight: 975g


Plainware 1977.193.138.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 12.8 15 8 1178.1 Y Bead Weight: 680g Incised variety

Plainware 1977.193.139.1 angle collared, flare-rim Whole vessel 10.2 15 8.7 1056.83 Y Bead Weight: 610g

Plainware 1977.193.185.1 flare-rim reconstructed whole vessel 15.8 19.2 12.1 2590.1 N Bead Weight: 1495g

202

Jar T

ype

Cat

alog

No.

Form

(spe

cific

s)

Han

dles

Rec

onst

ruct

ed

Rim

Hol

es

Hei

ght (

cm)

Max

. Bod

y D

iam

eter

(cm

)

Ori

fice

Dia

met

er

(cm

)

Vol

ume

(mL

)

Polis

hed

Not

es

Plainware 1977.193.188.1 flare-rim, other Whole vessel 9 10.3 7.1 398.5 N

Four protruding appendages coming out of exterior upper

body Bead Weight: 230g

Ugly uglyl ugly vessel

Plainware 1977.193.191.1 flare-rim Opposing Whole vessel 11.3 12.7 6.87 718.9 N Bead Weight: 415g

Plainware 1977.193.194.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 25 26.4 14 6765.4 N Bead Weight: 3905g

Plainware 1977.193.195.1 neckless jar, other Whole vessel 13.7 18.2 10.7 1879.8 Y

Lip not original; cut and abraded until relatively smooth

Bead Weight: 1085g

Plainware 1977.193.197.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 18 17.5 10.4 2148.3 N Bead Weight: 1240g

Plainware 1977.193.198.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 13.6 17.4 10.1 1706.51 Y Bead Weight: 985g


203

Jar T

ype

Cat

alog

No.

Form

(spe

cific

s)

Han

dles

Rec

onst

ruct

ed

Rim

Hol

es

Hei

ght (

cm)

Max

. Bod

y D

iam

eter

(cm

)

Ori

fice

Dia

met

er

(cm

)

Vol

ume

(mL

)

Polis

hed

Not

es

Plainware 1977.193.299.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 7.7 8.7 4.3 207.9 N Bead Weight: 120g

Plainware 1977.193.346.1 Whole vessel 8 11.5 6.1 355.2 N Bead Weight: 205g

Plainware 1977.193.395.1 Whole vessel 4.1 4.9 2.77 17.3 N Bead Weight: 10g

Plainware 1977.193.563.1 flare-rim reconstructed whole vessel 14.1 16.7 8.45 1498.61 Y Bead Weight: 865g

Plainware 1986.18.118.1 angle collared, flare-rim reconstructed


Plainware 1986.18.19.1 flare-rim, other Whole vessel opposing pair 13.2 18.7 8.7 1801.8 Y

Bead Weight: 1040g Squash shape, ribbed like a gourd. Catalog

says it's a Mesoamerican design

that made it's way eventually to the Mogollon area.

Plainware 1986.18.25.1 seed jar Whole vessel Oppsing single 5.3 9.3 4.3 181.9 N

Listed in the catalog as a tecomate jar

Bead Weight: 105g

204

Jar T

ype

Cat

alog

No.

Form

(spe

cific

s)

Han

dles

Rec

onst

ruct

ed

Rim

Hol

es

Hei

ght (

cm)

Max

. Bod

y D

iam

eter

(cm

)

Ori

fice

Dia

met

er

(cm

)

Vol

ume

(mL

)

Polis

hed

Not

es

Plainware 3289 seed jar Whole vessel 10.8 15.2 8.86 935.55 Y Bead Weight: 540g

Plainware 4708 flare-rim,

other, straight collared

Opposing reconstructed whole vessel 12.4 15.6 8.43 1134.79 Y Bead Weight: 655g

Lug Handles

Plainware 4710 flare-rim Whole vessel 15.4 19.3 11.3 2295.56 N Bead Weight: 1325g

Plainware 4794 seed jar Whole vessel 8.1 11.9 6.1 424.46 Y Bead Weight: 245g seed jar???

Plainware 6765 flare-rim Whole vessel 12.3 15.5 9.2 1143.45 Y Bead Weight: 550g

Plainware 6772 flare-rim, other Opposing partial

reconstructed >50%

14.2 15.6 9.85 1507.28 N Bead Weight: 870g

weird looking handles (see photo)

Plainware 6790 Whole vessel opposing pair 13.8 17 10.1 1862.44 Y Bead Weight: 1075g



Plainware 7506 flare-rim, other Opposing Whole vessel 13.8 15.7 9.04 1360.01 Y

Bead Weight: 785g Majorly ugly

construction defect-large dent in upper body (looks like a dented aluminum

can)

205

Jar T

ype

Cat

alog

No.

Form

(spe

cific

s)

Han

dles

Rec

onst

ruct

ed

Rim

Hol

es

Hei

ght (

cm)

Max

. Bod

y D

iam

eter

(cm

)

Ori

fice

Dia

met

er

(cm

)

Vol

ume

(mL

)

Polis

hed

Not

es



Plainware 9279 other Whole vessel 19.2 16.5 11.92 2815.32 N

Bead Weight: 1625g Bilobed (will use

bottom lobe as mid body, just like the

others)

Plainware 9280 double, flare-rim, other Whole vessel 16.2

5 18 9.55 2070.34 N Bead Weight:1195g Double Mouth Jar

Playas Red 1976.17.10.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 13.4 15 7.9 1186.8 Y Bead Weight: 685g

Playas Red-on-Brown

Playas Red 1976.17.11.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 13.3 16.7 9.3 1472.63 Y Bead Weight: 850g Textured Variant

Playas Red 1976.17.23.1 straight collared reconstructed

whole vessel 15.6 18.3 10.4 2295.56 Y Bead Weight: 1325g Corralitos Variant

Playas Red 1976.17.38.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 14.8 20.2 11.5 2598.7 Y Bead Weight: 1500g

206

Jar T

ype

Cat

alog

No.

Form

(spe

cific

s)

Han

dles

Rec

onst

ruct

ed

Rim

Hol

es

Hei

ght (

cm)

Max

. Bod

y D

iam

eter

(cm

)

Ori

fice

Dia

met

er

(cm

)

Vol

ume

(mL

)

Polis

hed

Not

es

Playas Red 1977.193.298.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 11 14 5.2 1914.4 Y

Bead Weight: 1105g Missing rim, so

volume is an approximation

Playas Red 1977.193.305.1 flare-rim, neckless jar Opposing Whole vessel 10.3 11.3 6.5 502.43 Y Bead Weight: 290g

Playas Red 1977.193.345.1 flare-rim Whole vessel opposing pair 10.7 13.3 7.4 779.6 Y Bead Weight: 450g

Playas Red 1977.193.347.1 flare-rim partial

reconstructed >50%

11.1 12.7 6.88 684.3 Y Bead Weight: 395g

Convento Cord type??

Playas Red 1991.79.34.1 flare-rim Whole vessel opposing pair 3.5 3.5 1.4 8.66 Y

Bead Weight: 5g Catalog says

"possibly a child's toy or a burial object"

Ramos Black 1976.17.16.1 flare-rim Opposing Whole vessel 14 18.3 8 1472.6 Y Bead Weight: 850g

Ramos Black 1976.17.17.1 flare-rim,

neckless jar Whole vessel 13.3 16.7 8.4 1524.6 Y Bead Weight: 880g

Ramos Black 1976.17.18.1 flare-rim


>50% 19.5 24 10.97 4400.55 Y Bead Weight: 2540g

Ramos Black 1976.17.19.1 flare-rim


>50% 12.5 15 8.6 1160.8 Y

Bead Weight: 670g vessel is only

partially reconstructed at top,

so volume is not maximum

207

Jar T

ype

Cat

alog

No.

Form

(spe

cific

s)

Han

dles

Rec

onst

ruct

ed

Rim

Hol

es

Hei

ght (

cm)

Max

. Bod

y D

iam

eter

(cm

)

Ori

fice

Dia

met

er

(cm

)

Vol

ume

(mL

)

Polis

hed

Not

es

Ramos Black 1976.17.20.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 16.2 18.9 10.9 2408.18 Y Bead Weight: 1390g

Ramos Black 1976.17.21.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 17.2 20 11.2 2884.62 Y Bead Weight: 1665g

Ramos Black 1977.193.55.1 flare-rim Opposing Whole vessel 10 13.4 7.3 736.31 Y Bead Weight: 425g

Ramos Black 1977.193.57.1 flare-rim reconstructed


pair 13 16.1 8.4 1429.31 Y Bead Weight: 825g

Ramos Black 1977.193.58.1 flare-rim reconstructed


pair 14.2 18.7 9.46 1888.43 Y

Bead Weight: 1090g Depositional

accretion masks most of interior wear

Ramos Black 1977.193.59.1 straight neck Whole vessel 15.8 19.5 9.95 2529.5 Y Bead Weight: 1460g

Ramos Black 1977.193.60.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 14.5 17.1 8.66 1637.21 Y

Bead Weight: 945g Depositional

accretion masks much of interior wear

Ramos Black 1977.193.62.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 12 15.2 7.3 1013.5 Y Bead Weight: 585g

Ramos Black 1977.193.63.1 flare-rim Whole vessel opposing


Ramos Black 1977.193.64.1 flare-rim Opposing Whole vessel 13.7 16.7 9.66 1472.63 Y Bead Weight: 850g

208

Jar T

ype

Cat

alog

No.

Form

(spe

cific

s)

Han

dles

Rec

onst

ruct

ed

Rim

Hol

es

Hei

ght (

cm)

Max

. Bod

y D

iam

eter

(cm

)

Ori

fice

Dia

met

er

(cm

)

Vol

ume

(mL

)

Polis

hed

Not

es

Ramos Black 1977.193.67.1 flare-rim Opposing


>50% 11 18 8.8 1611.2 Y Bead Weight: 930g

Ramos Black 1977.193.69.1 flare-rim Opposing


>50% 14.2 18.1 9.4 1845.1 Y Bead Weight: 1065g

Ramos Black 1977.193.70.1 other Whole vessel 14.4 10 1.9 372.49 Y

Bead Weight: 215g Bi-lobed jar. Will use bottom lobe as mid

body. Ramos Black 1986.18.116.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 17.2 25 12.5 4097.37 Y Bead Weight: 2365g

Ramos Black 2448 flare-rim reconstructed



Ramos Black 2986 double, flare-

rim, other reconstructed whole vessel 15.9 23 11.22 3031.87 Y Bead Weight: 1750g

Double mouth

Ramos Black 3353 flare-rim, other Whole vessel 17.8 21 10.12 2919.26 Y

Bead Weight: 1685g Body has

a.....horizontal fluting? Bulbous shape? Double

shoulder? I consider the bottom "lump" to

be the diagnistic shoulder--bi-lobed

Ramos Black 4698 flare-rim Whole vessel 22.8 25.6 12.1 5864.52 Y Bead Weight: 3385

209

Jar T

ype

Cat

alog

No.

Form

(spe

cific

s)

Han

dles

Rec

onst

ruct

ed

Rim

Hol

es

Hei

ght (

cm)

Max

. Bod

y D

iam

eter

(cm

)

Ori

fice

Dia

met

er

(cm

)

Vol

ume

(mL

)

Polis

hed

Not

es

Ramos Black 6638 flare-rim Opposing Whole vessel 11.8 13.9 7.66 1786.9 Y

Bead Weight: not recorded, volume

approximated from vessel 1977.193.63.1

which is similar in height, diamter,

orifice diameter, and shape (and type).

Bead weight estimated to be

1031.4g

Orifice Diameter approximated in Adobe Illustrator

Ramos Black 6645 flare-rim Whole vessel 19.7 21.4 9.27 3439.02 Y Bead Weight: 1985g


Ramos Black 6649 flare-rim


>50% 22.9 27.5 14.33 6808.73 Y Bead Weight: 3930g


Ramos Black 6664 flare-rim Opposing Whole vessel 12.1 16.1 8.53 1160.77 Y Bead Weight: 670g

Ramos Black 7061 double, flare-

rim, other Whole vessel 14.2 14.3 6.54 848.93 Y Bead Weight: 490g Double orifice jar

210

Jar T

ype

Cat

alog

No.

Form

(spe

cific

s)

Han

dles

Rec

onst

ruct

ed

Rim

Hol

es

Hei

ght (

cm)

Max

. Bod

y D

iam

eter

(cm

)

Ori

fice

Dia

met

er

(cm

)

Vol

ume

(mL

)

Polis

hed

Not

es

Ramos Black 7481 flare-rim Whole vessel 17.9 22.1 10.66 3491 Y Bead Weight: 2015g

Ramos Black 7490 flare-rim reconstructed


Ramos Black 9204

flare-rim, neckless jar,

other Opposing Whole vessel 13.7

5 15.8 8.8 1567.91 Y Bead Weight: 905g

Ramos Black-on-

white 1977.193.101.1 flare-rim reconstructed

whole vessel 20 23 11.6 4825.02 Y Bead Weight: 2785g

Ramos Polychrome 1976.17.25.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 12.5 13.7 8.6 1221.4 Y Bead Weight: 705g

Ramos Polychrome 1976.17.26.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 16.5 18.7 10.46 2546.77 Y

Bead Weight: 1470g "scratches" on

interior lower and mid body-trying to

clean off depositional accretion

Whole vessel exterior is darker than

normal-probaby from firing

Ramos Polychrome 1976.17.27.1 flare-rim reconstructed


Ramos Polychrome 1976.17.28.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 22 24.1 13.7 8316.01 Y Bead Weight: 4800g

211

Jar T

ype

Cat

alog

No.

Form

(spe

cific

s)

Han

dles

Rec

onst

ruct

ed

Rim

Hol

es

Hei

ght (

cm)

Max

. Bod

y D

iam

eter

(cm

)

Ori

fice

Dia

met

er

(cm

)

Vol

ume

(mL

)

Polis

hed

Not

es

Ramos Polychrome 1977.193.113.1 straight

collared partial

reconstructed >50%

17.3 18.5 7.9 2416.84 Y Bead Weight: 1395g


collared Whole vessel 21.2 23 11.63 4773.04 Y Bead Weight: 2755g

Ramos Polychrome 1977.193.117.1 reconstructed




collared Whole vessel 23.2 24.9 12.1 6505.54 Y Bead Weight: 3755g

Ramos Polychrome 1977.193.122.1 flare-rim reconstructed


Ramos Polychrome 1977.193.124.1 reconstructed



collared Whole vessel 18.9 21.9 10.8 3672.9 Y Bead Weight: 2120g

Ramos Polychrome 1977.193.89.1 flare-rim


>50% 17 19 9.3 2477.5 Y Bead Weight: 1430g

Ramos Polychrome 1977.193.90.1 flare-rim


>50% 15.7 19.4 9.2 2416.8 Y Bead Weight: 1395g


212

Jar T

ype

Cat

alog

No.

Form

(spe

cific

s)

Han

dles

Rec

onst

ruct

ed

Rim

Hol

es

Hei

ght (

cm)

Max

. Bod

y D

iam

eter

(cm

)

Ori

fice

Dia

met

er

(cm

)

Vol

ume

(mL

)

Polis

hed

Not

es


neckless jar, straight collared

partial

reconstructed >50%

19.2 22.7 9.8 4149.34 Y

Bead Weight: 2395g Black-on-white

variant Vessel looks wholly reconstructed, but

some holes have been filled and painted in during conservation.


neckless jar, straight collared

Whole vessel 13.8 16 9.26 1481.29 Y Bead Weight: 855g Most of black paint

has faded away

Ramos Polychrome 1986.18.117 flare-rim Whole vessel 20.7 23.3 11.1 4833.7 Y Bead Weight: 2790g


Ramos Polychrome 1986.18.52.1 flare-rim, other Whole vessel opposing

pair 14.2 15.9 8.85 1715.2 Y

Bead Weight: 990g Two appliqued

snakes alternating diagonally upward on

body of jar.

Ramos Polychrome 1994.16.3.1 flare-rim Opposing Whole vessel 11.4 14 9.07 1048.16 N Bead Weight: 605g

Ramos Polychrome 3372 flare-rim,

neckless jar Whole vessel 15.6 13.4 8.6 1325.36 Y Bead weight: 765g

Overall appears to be little to no wear

213

Jar T

ype

Cat

alog

No.

Form

(spe

cific

s)

Han

dles

Rec

onst

ruct

ed

Rim

Hol

es

Hei

ght (

cm)

Max

. Bod

y D

iam

eter

(cm

)

Ori

fice

Dia

met

er

(cm

)

Vol

ume

(mL

)

Polis

hed

Not

es



Ramos Polychrome 3383 straight

collared Whole vessel 20.4 22.9 11.95 4331.25 Y Bead weight: 2500g



Ramos Polychrome 6261


short


>50% 16.1 21.1 10.13 2988.6 Y

bead weight is 1725g Small hole in bottom

repaired with a random piece from

another vessel entirely.

Vessel still dirty from deposition, general

acccretions from that






neckless jar Whole vessel 15 18.7 10.56 2269.58 Y Bead weight: 1310g

Ramos Polychrome 6301 flare-rim Whole vessel 17.7 20.8 11.2 3257.1 Y Bead weight: 1880g


neckless jar Whole vessel opposing pair 14.5 17.4 9.36 1923.08 Y Bead weight: 1110

214

Jar T

ype

Cat

alog

No.

Form

(spe

cific

s)

Han

dles

Rec

onst

ruct

ed

Rim

Hol

es

Hei

ght (

cm)

Max

. Bod

y D

iam

eter

(cm

)

Ori

fice

Dia

met

er

(cm

)

Vol

ume

(mL

)

Polis

hed

Not

es


neckless jar reconstructed whole vessel 18 20.2 9.3 3031.88 Y Bead weight: 1750g

Ramos Polychrome 9118 flare-rim Whole vessel 20.3 24 12.08 5093.55 Y

bead weight 2940g From what I could tell on interior and exterior however, there appears to be

insignificant amounts of wear apart from

depositional wearing of paint, accretions,

etc


neckless jar reconstructed whole vessel 18 19 9.93 2546.77 Y

bead weight: 1470g few spots where red and/or black paint

have faded.


neckless jar Whole vessel 15 16.6 9.7 1810.46 Y Bead weight: 1045g

Ramos Polychrome 9342 flare-rim, short reconstructed

whole vessel 18.7 19.4 9.54 3153.15 Y bead weight 1820g

Villa Ahumada Black-on-

white

1977.193.112.1 flare-rim, other Whole vessel opposing pair 14.9 17.5 8.7 1749.83 Y

Bead Weight: 1010g Bulging neck, almost

bi-lobed, but not quite

215

Jar T

ype

Cat

alog

No.

Form

(spe

cific

s)

Han

dles

Rec

onst

ruct

ed

Rim

Hol

es

Hei

ght (

cm)

Max

. Bod

y D

iam

eter

(cm

)

Ori

fice

Dia

met

er

(cm

)

Vol

ume

(mL

)

Polis

hed

Not

es

Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 1977.193.102.1 Opposing Whole vessel 15.5 16 8.5 1515.9 Y Bead Weight: 875g

Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 1977.193.106.1 straight

collared partial

reconstructed >50%

17 19.2 10 2737.35 Y Bead Weight: 1580g Paquime Variant

Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 1977.193.107.1 straight neck reconstructed

whole vessel Oppsing

single 11 14.7 8.9 1030.8 Y Bead Weight: 595g

Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 1977.193.109.1 flare-rim Whole vessel opposing

pair 13 15 8.8 1221.4 Y Bead Weight: 705g

Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 1977.193.110.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 13.3 15.6 8.2 1429.3 Y Bead Weight: 825g

Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 1977.193.114.1 flare-rim Opposing


>50% 16 18.2 8.3 2113.65 Y Bead Weight: 1220g

Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 1977.193.116.1 flare-rim Opposing


>50% 13 15.4 8.4 1212.7 Y Bead Weight: 700g

Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 1977.193.118.1 flare-rim


>50% 20 24 10.13 4565.14 Y Bead Weight: 2635g

216

Jar T

ype

Cat

alog

No.

Form

(spe

cific

s)

Han

dles

Rec

onst

ruct

ed

Rim

Hol

es

Hei

ght (

cm)

Max

. Bod

y D

iam

eter

(cm

)

Ori

fice

Dia

met

er

(cm

)

Vol

ume

(mL

)

Polis

hed

Not

es

Villa Ahumada



>50% 12.5 16.1 9.2 996.2 Y

Bead Weight: 575g(most of neck

and rim are missing, so volume is not

maximum) With snake applique

Villa Ahumada


flare-rim, straight collared

reconstructed whole vessel 22.1 24.5 10.72 5448.72 Y

Bead Weight: 3145g Almost straight

collared, almost flare-rim

Villa Ahumada



>50% 11.5 16.3 8.5 1256.1 Y Bead Weight: 725g

Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 1977.193.84.1 flare-rim Opposing Whole vessel 10.5 13.2 7.6 719 Y Bead Weight: 415g

Villa Ahumada



>50% 19 24.4 9.8 7285.2 Y Bead Weight: 4205g

Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 2001.9.1.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 19 22.1 10.8 3785.52 Y

Bead Weight: 2185g Capulin Variant

Heavy depositional accretion on this one-

interior

217

Jar T

ype

Cat

alog

No.

Form

(spe

cific

s)

Han

dles

Rec

onst

ruct

ed

Rim

Hol

es

Hei

ght (

cm)

Max

. Bod

y D

iam

eter

(cm

)

Ori

fice

Dia

met

er

(cm

)

Vol

ume

(mL

)

Polis

hed

Not

es

Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 3420 flare-rim Whole vessel 22 24.8 12.57 5032.92 Y

Bead Weight: 2905g Black-on-White

variety

Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 4611 flare-rim,

neckless jar Whole vessel opposing pair

12.88

15.22 7.91 1195.43 Y Bead Weight: 690g

Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 4712


other Opposing reconstructed


Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 4714


other Opposing Whole vessel 13.3 14.7 8 1108.8 Y Bead Weight: 640g

Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 6215 angle collared,

flare-rim, other Whole vessel opposing pair 14.9 19 8.37 1749.83 Y Bead Weight: 1010g

Square body

Villa Ahumada


neckless jar reconstructed whole vessel

opposing pair 15.4 17.1 9.04 1871.1 Y Bead weight: 1080g

Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 6338


other Opposing Whole vessel 14 16.8 9 1628.55 Y Bead Weight: 940g

Capulin Variety

Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 6340


other Opposing Whole vessel 13.3 16.5 8.95 1403.33 Y Bead Weight: 810g

Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 6342 flare-rim, other Opposing Whole vessel 14.4 14.9 8.76 1334.03 Y Bead Weight: 770g

Capulin Variety

218

Jar T

ype

Cat

alog

No.

Form

(spe

cific

s)

Han

dles

Rec

onst

ruct

ed

Rim

Hol

es

Hei

ght (

cm)

Max

. Bod

y D

iam

eter

(cm

)

Ori

fice

Dia

met

er

(cm

)

Vol

ume

(mL

)

Polis

hed

Not

es

Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 7330 flare-rim, other Opposing Whole vessel 13.2 15.1 8.35 1195.43 Y Bead Weight: 690g

Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 7335 angle collared,

flare-rim Whole vessel 19.2 21.5 10.8 3638.25 Y

Bead weight: 2100g Deposition has worn

away painted decoration in some places over exterior

of vessel Villa

Ahumada Polychrome

7340 flare-rim, neckless jar Whole vessel 20.7 23.1 10.84 4547.82 Y Bead weight: 2625g

Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 9132 flare-rim Opposing Whole vessel 13.2 17 9.18 1645.88 Y Bead Weight: 950

Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 9318 flare-rim reconstructed


Villa Ahumada


neckless jar partial

reconstructed >50%

18.5 24 11.41 3179.14 Y Bead Weight:1835g

Villa Ahumada

Polychrome 9330 flare-rim Whole vessel 16.2

5 18 9.24 2278.24 Y

Bead Weight: 1315g Body diameter,

height, and orifice diameter

approximated from Adobe Illustrator

219

Other T

ype

Cat

alog

No.

Form

(s

peci

fics)

Han

dles

Rec

onst

ruct

ed

Rim

Hol

es

Hei

ght

Max

. Bod

y D

iam

eter

Ori

fice

Dia

met

er

Vol

ume

(mL

)

Polis

hed

Not

es

Playas Red 1986.18.16.1 double, flare-rim Single Whole vessel 7.4 18.3 4.8 294.53 Y

Bead Weight: 170g Textured variant Diameter of one

vessel on its own is 8.4

Ramos Black 1986.18.55.1 Whole vessel 9.2 10.5 8.5 277.2 Y

Bead Weight: 160g Goblet or similar

shape

220

Appendix B: Use-Alteration Analysis

Due to the volume of data I collected, the entire table will not be physically attached to

this thesis. However, the data can be easily accessed at the following locations:

Contact the Museum of Peoples and Cultures at Brigham Young University. A copy of

my thesis and all the data I collected, as well as photographs of the objects, and any other

information regarding my thesis can be found in the archives of the museum upon request. The

manuscript number is 2019MS.01. The data is available digitally as well as in printed form.

Visit academia.edu and search for my name, “Jessica Simpson”. Brigham Young

University is listed with my name, as well as the list of my advisor, “Michael T. Searcy”. Both

Appendix A and Appendix B are available for download there as Excel tables.

exploring ceramic vessel use at casas grandes, chihuahua

Documents