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

Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive

Theses and Dissertations

2018-08-01

Jessica Simpson Brigham Young University

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

Part of the Anthropology Commons

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]. 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

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.

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

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

Final Thoughts ...... 178 References Cited...... 179 Appendix A: Vessel Attributes ...... 188 Appendix B: Use-Alteration Analysis ...... 220

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

vii

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

viii

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

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

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

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

xii

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

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

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).

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

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

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

6 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. 7

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

8 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.

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).

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

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

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

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)

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 15

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.

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.

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).

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.

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).

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%

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)

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).

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).

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).

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

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

27 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.

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

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

30 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).

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 32

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.

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.

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.

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

36 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

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.

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.

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,

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).

10800

9600

8400

7200 e

m 6000 u l o

V 4800

3600 3031.87 2400 1957.7 2384.55 1498.62 41468.47 1200 1221.4 1004.62 727.65 294.5 387.64 285.86 0 277.2 Bowl Effigy Jar Other Shape

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.

% of Mean Median Minimum Maximum Range Count 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

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.

Total Mean Minimum Maximum Range % 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

Table 4.2. Continued from previous page.

Total Mean Minimum Maximum Range % Count 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.

Total Mean Minimum Maximum Range % Count 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

44 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

Shape 25 Bowl Effigy Jar 20 Other

t 15 h g i e H

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Diameter

Figure 4.2. Plot of vessel height and body diameter, sorted by vessel form.

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.

Shape 25 Bowl Effigy Jar Other 20

t 15 h g i e H

0 0 5 10 15 20 Orifice Diameter

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.

The curve of this plot is fairly simple, indicating that as the vessel diameter increases, the volume

increases as well.

12000 Shape Bowl Effigy 10000 Jar Other 8000 ) L m (

e 6000 m u l o V 4000

2000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Diameter

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.

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

48 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.

Figure 4.6. Abrasion traces seen on lower body and base.

Figure 4.7. Example of pedestalled temper.

70 64.2

20.3 20 14.9

0.6 0 Other Bowl Effigy Jar

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

51 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

30 27.9

20 16.3 15

10 9.4 8.1 5.8 5.4 4.4 4.6 5 3.3 4.2 2.1 2.7 1.7 1.3 1.7 0.2 0.6 0.4 0 l r r l r r l r r l r r l y a e y a e y a e y a e y w ig J h w ig J h w ig J h w ig J h w ig o ff t o ff t o ff t o ff t o ff B E O B E O B E O B E O B E

y k y y e d c d im d s o e o R o a B N B B B er id er p w p M o U L

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

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.

20.2 20 19.6 18.8

15 14.6

11.4 10

6.1 5 2.1 2.3 2.3 1.0 1.1 0.2 0.4 0 e te e te ed e e ed k e re e e m i m i r m m ac m a m m o h o h - o o R l o w o o r w r w n r r s B r n r r h - h - -o h h a s h i h h c n c n k c c ay o c la c c ly -o ly -o c ly ly l ly P ly ly o k o k a o o P m o o o P c P c l P P a P P P la s la B s R s a a a n ra a id B to B r t la o o ad d s li a e e b c m n o a d d rr u i a m o r a a a D b R u c am r m M C a h s o u B A E R C h la A il la V il V

Figure 4.10. Percentage of abrasion trace occurrences for all vessels (n=300) by ceramic type.

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

25 21 21 19.6 20 18.1 18.1 18 16 15 13 11.7 11 10 6.7 6 5 3.5 2.9 2 1.9 2 2 1.3 0.2 1 1 1 0

Interior % Exterior %

Figure 4.11. Percentage of interior and exterior abrasion occurrences by ceramic type.

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

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.

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

70 69.3

20.1 20

10.6 10

0 Effigy Bowl Jar

Figure 4.14. Tabulated statistics for cracks. Contains percentages of occurrences for wear pattern on each vessel zone, divided by vessel form.

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.

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

20.1 20.5 20 17.4 16.7

15 14

5.5 5 3.1 1.4 0.3 0.3 0.7 0 e e e e e d e e e k e m m it it m e m m r c m o o h h o R o o a la o r r w w r s r r w B r h h - - h a h h in s h c c n n c y c c la o c ly ly -o -o ly la ly ly P ly o o k k o P o o m o P P c c P P P a P n a la la s a a R s a d B B a d r o l i et a o m ub nd os da rr m ic a o a a u b R D c am m C h a s R u A B E h a A ill a V ill V

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

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

60.5 60

29.9 30

10 9.6

0 1 2 3

Figure 4.16. Cracking score occurrences for all data. The numbers 1, 2, and 3 on the x-axis refer to the score.

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.

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

50 46

30 28 26.1

0 Effigy Bowl Jar

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.

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

35 30.9 30

25 21.8 20

15 12.7 10.9 10.9 10 5.5 5 3.6 3.6

0 e y y y e y y s d d d im s d d a o o o R a o o B B B B B B B er id er er id p w M p w M Lo U Lo

r r io io er er t xt In E

Figure 4.19. Percentage of soot trace occurrences on effigies by interior/exterior and vessel zone.

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

60 55

11.4 10 10.4 10 3.3 3.3 1.4 2.4 2.8 0 te e e e k e e d re i m m m ac m m e a h ro ro ro l ro ro R w -w h h h B h h s in n c c c s c c a a o ly ly ly o ly ly ay l - o o o m o o l P ck P P P a P P P la a s s R s a B r a o o d s co et lit m a o i rr a a m m ab a rr R u a B C o h R C A la il V

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

66 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

Playas Red have the highest percentage of occurrences of exterior lower body and base sooting traces after Plainware vessels.

50 50

20 14.3 14.3

10 7.1 7.1 7.1

0 e e e d k re m m m e ac a ro ro ro R l w h h h s B in c c c a s a ly ly ly ay o l o o o l m P P P P P a s s a R a o d et m a rr a m a R u C h A la il V

Figure 4.21. Occurrence percentage of interior lower body/base sooting for bowls by ceramic type.

70 66.7

40 33.3 30

0 Villa Ahumada Polychrome Plainware

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

30.8 30.8 30

25 23.1

15.4 15

0 Ramos Polychrome Playas Red Ramos Black Plainware

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

50 47.2

20 12.4 12.4 13.5 10 7.7 3.4 1.1 2.3 0 k e e e d e e re ac m m m e m m a l ro ro ro R ro ro w B h h h s h h in s c c c a c c a o ly ly ly ay ly ly l m o o o l o o P a P P P P P P R s a s s a a r o o d et co lit m a rr i a a m a ab rr R u C B o h C A la il V

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.

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 71

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),

72 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.

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

81 80

20 14 10 5 0 Effigy Bowl Jar

Figure 4.29. Percentage of occurring delamination traces by vessel form.

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.

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 2 3 % % % Total % Mild Moderate Severe 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.

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

30.7 30

20 19 17.3 15 12.3 12.3 10

5 4.5 0.6 1.1 1.1 1.1 0 e e e e d e e k e e m m it it e m m c r m o o h h R o o la a o r r w w s r r B w r h h - - a h h s in h c c n n y c c o la c ly ly -o -o la ly ly P ly o o k k P o o m o P P c c P P a P s s la la a s R a a o B B r o d et it o m a rr al os da ic a m a rr a b R u C o am m a h C R u B A h a A ill a V ill V

Figure 4.30. Occurrence percentage of delamination traces by ceramic type.

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

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.

25.7 25

15 13.4 12.3 12.3 11.2 10 6.7 5 3.9 2.2 2.8 2.8 1.7 1.1 0.6 1.1 1.1 1.1 0 e e e e k e e e e k e e e e ed r c r ed c it it m m m a a m m m a a h m h m R ro ro ro w l ro ro ro w R l ro ro s h h h n B h h h n s B -w h -w h a c c c ai s c c c ai a s n c n c ay ly ly ly l o ly ly ly l ay o o ly o ly l o o o P m o o o P l m k- o k- o P P P P a P P P P a c P c P s a s R a a s R la s la a o d ta d r o B o B d m a e a co lit s m a a a m rr m i a o a d m R u a u ab rr m R a u h C h o a m h A A B C R u A a a h a ill ill A ill V V a V ill V

l y ar ig w J ff o E B

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.

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

70 63.4 60

21.6 20 15

0 Effigy Bowl Jar

Figure 4.33. Percentages of occurrence of discoloration traces sorted by vessel form.

25.8 25

20.2 20.7 20

15 11.3 10 7.5 8

5 4.2 1.4 0.5 0.5 0 e d e e e d e e e k m e it m m e m ar m c o R h o o R o o la r n w r r s r w r B h o - h h a h in h s c n c c y c la c o ly k -o ly ly la ly P ly o ac k o o P o o m P l c P P P P a s B la a s a s R o a B r a d o lit er s co et a m a d o i rr m a rr a m ab a u R o M a B C h C R A la il V

Figure 4.34. Percentages of occurrence of discoloration traces sorted by ceramic type.

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.

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

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.

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.

Count % Jar 290 65.5 Bowl 90 20.3 Effigy 63 14.2 Other 0 0 Total 443 100

70 65.5

20.3 20 14.2

0 Effigy Bowl Jar

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

50 48.3

20 15.6 10.8 10 8.4 9 4.5 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.1 0 e d e e k d e e e e m e it m c e m m m ar o R h o la R o o o r n w r B s r r r w h o - h s a h h h in c n c o y c c c la ly k -o ly la ly ly ly P o ac k o m P o o o P l c P a P P P s B la n R a a s a a B a d r o et er s bl a co m rr d o u m i a a a m D u ab R C M a h B R A la il V

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.

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.

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

50 47

34.8

20 18.3

0 Bowl Effigy Jar

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

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

35 31.1 30 28.7

15 11.6 10 6.7 5.5 5.5 5.5 5 1.8 2.4 0.6 0.6 0 e re te e d d k e e e e m a i m e e ac m m m m ro w h ro R R l ro ro ro ro h in -w h n s B h h h h c a n c o a s c c c c ly l o ly k ay o ly ly ly ly o P - o c l m o o o o P ck P la P a P P P P la a B R a s s a an d a r a o d l B i r o t a b s d e ic re am m u o n d b r u D m o a a a R h a sc M B C R E A la il V

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

93 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.

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

60 55.8

30 25

20 19.2

0 Bowl Effigy Jar

Figure 4.46. Percentage of occurrence of indeterminate traces by vessel form.

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

35 30.8 30 28.8

20 15.4 15 13.5

10 5.8 5 1.9 1.9 1.9 0 e e d d k e re e m m e e ac m a m ro ro R R l ro w ro h h n s B h in h c c o a s c a c ly ly k ay o ly l ly o o c l m o P o P P la P a P P a s B R a s r a a d o co et er a m i rr d m a ab a a u R B C M h A la il V

Figure 4.47. Percentage of occurrence of indeterminate traces by ceramic type.

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

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

70 66.7

40 33.3 30

0 Bowl Jar

Figure 4.49. Percentage of occurrence of mend hole traces by vessel form.

70 66.7

33.3 30

0 Corralitos Polychrome Babicora Polychrome

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.

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.

100

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

61.3 60

33.8

10 5

0 Bowl Jar Effigy

Figure 4. 52. Percentage of occurrence of missing piece traces by vessel form.

101

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

40 40

20 18.8

11.3 10 10 5 6.3 3.8 5

0 e e d e d k e e e e c r m m R m -r la m a ro ro ro n ro w h h s h o B h in c c a c - s c a ly ly ay ly k o ly l o o l o c m o P P P P P la a P a s s B R a r a o ra d co et m e a i rr a d m ab a R a u B C M h A la il V

Figure 4.53. Percentage of occurrence of missing piece traces by ceramic type.

102

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.

103

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

81.7 80

20 12.7 10 5.6

0 Bowl Effigy Jar

Figure 4.55. Percentage of occurrence of modern repair traces by vessel form.

104

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

30 26.8 25 23.9 21.1 20

15 12.7 11.3 10

5 4.2

0 e re e e k e m a m m ac m ro w ro ro l ro h in h h B h c a c c s c ly l ly ly o ly o P o o m o P P P a P a a R s an d r o bl a co m u m i a D u ab R h B A la il V

Figure 4.56. Percentage of occurrence of modern repair traces by ceramic type.

105

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.

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.

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

107

60 57.9

20.4 20.6 20

1.1 0 Other Effigy Bowl Jar

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

108

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

109

30.3 30

25 23.9

15 12.7 10.8 10 9.3

5 4.1 1.9 2.7 1.1 1.6 0.2 0.6 0.8 0 e e e e e d e d e e e e k m it m m it e m e m m m r c o h o o h -r o R o o o a la r w r r w n r s r r r w B h - h h - o h a h h h in s c n c c n k- c y c c c la o ly -o ly ly -o c ly la ly ly ly P o k o o k a o P o o o m P c P P c l P P P P a a la s n la B s a s a R d B a a B ra o r o d i et l e it o m a nd da rr ub os d al ic a m o a a D m a rr ab R u c m C a M o h s u R C B A E h a A ill a V ill V

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.

110

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

111

4.5

3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

0 Interior Interior Interior InteriorExterior Exterior Interior InteriorExterior Ramos Black Plainware Villa Ramos Polychrome Carretas Babicora Playas Red Ahumada Polychrome Polychrome Polychrome

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).

112

0 Interior Interior Interior Interior Exterior Exterior Exterior Exterior Exterior Exterior Combos Combos Combos Combos Combos Babicora Plainware Ramos black Villa Playas Red Ramos Dublan Ramos Polychrome Ahumada Polychrome black on Polychrome white

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.

2.5

1.5

0.5

0 Interior Exterior Exterior Exterior Exterior Exterior Exterior Combos Ramos Polychrome Villa Madera Black Plainware Dublan Ramos Black- Carretas Ahumada on Red Polychrome on-white Polychrome Polychrome

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

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.

114

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.

Count % Jar 6 60 Bowl 4 40 Effigy 0 0 Other 0 0 Total 10 100

60 60

40 40

0 Bowl Jar

Figure 4.65. Occurrence percentage of oxidation traces by vessel form.

115

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

60 60

40 40

0 Plainware Ramos Polychrome

Figure 4.66. Percentage of occurrences of oxidation traces by ceramic type.

116

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.

117

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

60 58

30 27.8

20 14.2

0 Effigy Bowl Jar

Figure 4.68. Percentage of occurrence of patch traces 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.

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

119

50 47.6

20 14.6 9.7 10 7.6 8.3

2.1 2.4 2.8 3.1 0.3 0.3 0.7 0 0.3 e e e e e d d e e e e e k m m it it m e e m m m m r c o o h h o -r R o o o o a la r r w w r n s r r r r w B h h - - h o a h h h h in s c c n n c k- y c c c c la o ly ly -o -o ly c la ly ly ly ly P o o k k o a P o o o o m P P c c P l P P P P a s a la la s B n a a s R o d B B a ra a r d o it i et e l o a m al nd da os rr d ub ic m a rr o a m a a D ab u R o c m a C M h C s u R B A E h a A ill a V ill V

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.

120

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%.

121

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

122

61.5 60

40 38.5

0 Bowl Jar

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

123

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

35 30.8 30

25 23.1 20 15.4 15.4 15

10 7.7 7.7 5

0 e k re e e e m ac a m m m ro l w ro ro ro h B in h h h c s a c c c ly o l ly ly ly o m P o o o P a P P P s R a s a o d o r lit a m co a m a i rr u R ab o h B C A la il V

Figure 4.72. Percentage of occurrence of perforation traces by ceramic type.

124

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.

125

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

80 74.3 70

20 12.5 13 10

0.2 0 Other Effigy Bowl Jar

Figure 4.74. Percentage of pitting traces occurring 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.

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

127 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

128

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 e ll e ll e ll e ll ll e ll rg um a rg um a rg um a rg um a um a rg um a a i m a i m a i m a i m i m a i m l ed s l ed s l ed s l ed s ed s l ed s m m m m m m

se y y k m y a d d ec i d B o o R o B B N B er id er w p o M p L U

r o ri te In

s it P

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).

129

0 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 Base Lower Body Mid Body Neck Rim Upper Body Interior Pits

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

130

21.3 20.4 20.5 20

15.8 15

10 9.3

4.8 5 2.8 2.3 1.0 0.1 0.8 0.8 0 e d e e e e d e e k e e m e it m m it e m m c m r o -r h o o h R o o la o a r n w r r w s r r B r w h o - h h - a h h s h in c k- n c c n y c c o c la ly c -o ly ly -o la ly ly ly P o a k o o k P o o m o P l c P P c P P a P a B la s s la a s R a d ra B o a B r o d i e it et o m a nd d os al rr da ic a m o a m rr a a ab R u c M a o C m h s R C u B A E h a A ill a V ill V

Figure 4.77. Percentage of occurrences of pitting traces by ceramic type.

0 e e e d e d k e e e e e e e e d e d k e e e e e ar e c it it e ar e c i t it m m m R R la h m h m m m m m R R la h m h m ro ro ro w w ro w ro ro ro ro ro w w ro w ro h h h n in as B - h - h h h h h n in as B - h - h c c c o la y s n c n c c c c c o la y s n c n c ly ly ly k P la o -o ly -o l y ly ly ly ly k P la o -o ly -o ly o o o ac P m k o k o o o o o ac P m k o k o P P P l a ac P ac P P P P P l a ac P ac P ra as s B R l s l a ra as s a B R l s l a o t to a B o B ad o t to id a B o B ad ic re li er s m a i c re li d er s m a b ar ra d o a d m b ar ra n d o a d m a r a m R a u a r o a m R a u B C o M a m h B C o sc M a m h C R u A C E R u A h la h la A i l A il la V la V il il V V

or or ri ri te te n x I E

Figure 4.78. Occurrences of pitting traces for dataset (n=300) by ceramic type and interior/exterior location.

131

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.

132

Table 4.61. Tabulated statistics for scratches. Contains counts and percentage of occurrence for wear pattern by vessel form.

Count % Jar 184 74.2 Bowl 42 16.9 Effigy 22 8.9 Other 0 0 Total 248 100

80 74.2 70

20 16.9

10 8.9

0 Effigy Bowl Jar

Figure 4.80. Percentage of occurrence of scratch traces 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.

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

134

30.6 30

25 21.8 20 16.1 16.1 15 11.3 10

5 0.8 1.6 1.6 0 e e d e e re e k m m e m m a m ac ro ro R ro ro w ro l h h s h h in h B c c a c c a c s ly ly ay ly ly l ly o o o l o o P o m P P P P P P a s a a s R o an d r o lit bl a co m a u m i a rr D u ab R o h B C A la il V

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.

135

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

136

91.3 90

10 8.7

0 Effigy Jar

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

137

35 32.5 30

25 22.5 20 20 17.5 15

10 6.3 5 1.3 0 te e re e k e i m a m ac m h ro w ro l ro -w h in h B h n c a c s c o ly l ly o ly - o P o m o ck P P a P la a a R s B d r o s a co m o m i a m u ab R a h B R A la il V

Figure 4.84. Percentage of occurrence of spalling traces by ceramic type.

138

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.

139

Table 4.66. Tabulated statistics for stirring. Contains counts of occurrence for wear pattern on each vessel zone, divided by vessel form.

Count % Jar 5 50 Bowl 3 30 Effigy 2 20 Other 0 0 Total 10 100

50 50

30 30

20 20

0 Effigy Bowl Jar

Figure 4.86. Percentage of occurrence of stirring traces by vessel form.

140

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

50 50

30 30

10 10 10

0 Babicora Polychrome Carretas Polychrome Ramos Polychrome Ramos Black

Figure 4.87. Percentage of occurrence of stirring traces by ceramic type.

141

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.

142

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

12 12 11.9 10.2 10.2 10 9.4 8.1 8

6 5.6 4.9 5.2 4 4 2.9 1.8 2.1 1.9 2 1.5 1.2 1.2 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.5 0. 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.30.1 0.30 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0 7 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

e e e d e e d e k e e e m m it e m it e m c m m ar o o h R o h R o la o o w r r w n r w s r B r r n h h - o h - a h s h h i c c n c n y c o c c la ly ly -o k ly -o la ly ly ly P o o c o P o m o o ck la ck a P P a B P a P R P P as n l a s l ra s a t la B r to B o d e b s e li a co m a rr u o d a d i a m a D m a rr a ab R u C a M o m B h R C u A h la A il la V il V

Figure 4.88. Percentage of occurrence of severity scores for jars by ceramic type.

143

30 27.1 25

15 12 10.8 10.3 10 9 7.7

5 3.7 2.1 2.7 2.1 2.5 1.9 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.2 0.8 0.7 0.90.4 0.6 0.9 0.3 0 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

e e e e d e e e k m m m m e m m ar c o o o o R o o w la r r r r as r r n B ch ch ch ch y ch ch ai s y y y y a y y l o l l l l l l l P m o o o o P o o a P P P P P P R a s ra as a s id to t d o d li co e a m n a i rr m a o rr ab a u R sc o B C h E C A la il V

Figure 4.89. Percentage of occurrence of severity scores for bowls by ceramic type.

13.7 14 13.1

10 9.6

8 7.7 6.5 6 4.8 4.7 4.8 3.9 4 3.4 3 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.3 1.9 2 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 0.8 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.7 0 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

e e d e k d e e e e it m e m c e m m m ar h o R o la R o o o w w r n r B s r r r n - h o h s a h h h i n c c o y c c c la -o ly k ly la ly ly ly P o c o m P o o o ck la a a P B P R P P P l ra a n as a s B r la t d o s co e b e a m o i d u rr m a m ab a D a u R a B M C h R A la il V

Figure 4.90. Percentage of occurrence of severity scores for effigies by ceramic type.

144

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.

145

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

146

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.

147

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.

148

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

149

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.”

150

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

151

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.

152

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

153 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

154 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

155 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

156 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

157

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.

158

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

159 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

160

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

161

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

162 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

163

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

164 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).

165

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

166

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.

167

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

168 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-

169 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.

170

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

171 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.

172

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.

173

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

174

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

175 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

176

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.

177

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.

178

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.

179

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.

180

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.

181

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.

182

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.

183

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.

184

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.

185

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.

186

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.

187

Appendix A: Vessel Attributes

Bowl

Type Form Notes Height Orifice Handles Polished Diameter Diameter (specifics) RimHoles Max.Body CatalogNo. Volume(mL) Reconstructed

Babicora 1977.193.135.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 9 14.1 11.4 848.9 Y Bead Weight: 490g Polychrome Carretas 1977.193.128.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 10.8 20.4 19.12 2208.94 Y Bead Weight: 1275g Polychrome Carretas semi-flare rim reconstructed 1977.193.143.1 6.6 19.5 18.8 883.6 Y Bead Weight: 510g Polychrome hemispherical whole vessel Corralitos reconstructed 1977.193.132.1 incurved bowl 12.5 20.8 16.4 2364.9 Y Bead Weight: 1365g Polychrome whole vessel Escondida 1986.18.23.1 hemispherical Whole vessel 5.5 10.2 9.4 259.87 Y Bead Weight: 150g Polychrome Plainware 1976.17.1.1 hemispherical Whole vessel 6.3 11.1 9.4 294.53 N Bead Weight: 170g Bead Weight: 350g Plainware 1976.17.2.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 6.4 14.2 12 606.4 Y two finger pinches on opposing sides of rim Bead Weight: 580g Rough rim-almost Plainware 1977.193.196.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 9.5 15.2 11.1 1004.9 N 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 reconstructed Plainware 1977.193.204.1 incurved bowl 6.3 14.1 12.7 519.75 Y Bead Weight: 300g whole vessel Plainware 1977.193.281.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 10.9 16.4 12.36 1334.02 Y Bead Weight: 770g Bead Weight: 215g partial depositional accretion Plainware 1977.193.292.1 hemispherical reconstructed 7.5 11.8 10.2 372.49 N does mask wear >50% surface

188

Bowl

Type Notes Height Handles Polished Diameter RimHoles Max.Body CatalogNo. Volume(mL) Reconstructed Form(specifics) OrificeDiameter Bead Weight: 10g Miniature bowl, Plainware 1977.193.374.1 hemispherical Whole vessel 2.06 4.85 4.1 17.32 Y 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

Bead Weight: 10g Plainware 1977.193.385.1 hemispherical Whole vessel 2.6 4.8 4 17.3 Y Miniature bowl incurved bowl, Plainware 1986.18.18.1 low Whole vessel 8.1 14 10.18 788.29 Y Bead Weight: 455g shouldered Bead Weight: 95g Plainware 1986.18.24.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 5.3 9.4 4.6 164.6 N 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

Bead Weight: 1490 Playas Red 1977.193.271.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 11 22.9 19.2 2581.4 Y 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

189

Bowl

Type Notes Height Handles Polished Diameter RimHoles Max.Body CatalogNo. Volume(mL) Reconstructed Form(specifics) OrificeDiameter Ramos 1976.17.13.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 5.7 13 11.2 381.15 Y Bead Weight: 220g Black partial Ramos 1976.17.14.1 incurved bowl reconstructed 6.2 10.3 11.4 563.1 Y Bead Weight: 325g Black >50% Ramos 1976.17.15.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 9.9 19 16.29 1550.59 Y Bead Weight: 895g Black Ramos 1977.193.180.2 incurved bowl Whole vessel 10 20.7 17.5 1992.4 Y Bead Weight: 1150g Black Bead Weight: 395g Ramos Kind of cruddy 1977.193.230.1 hemispherical Whole vessel 7 15 13.9 684.3 Y Black looking exterior-pits, cracks, bumps Bead Weight: 405g Ramos Huge amount of 1977.193.365.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 7.3 15.1 11.4 701.66 Y Black pitting on exterior mid and lower body. Ramos reconstructed 1977.193.368.1 incurved bowl 10 21.4 16.16 2018.4 Y Bead Weight: 1165g Black whole vessel Bead Weight: 235g Rim has decoration- Ramos reconstructed four sets of 4-5 1977.193.372 incurved bowl 6 13 11.21 407.14 Y Black whole vessel notches, one set on each of the four "sides" Ramos reconstructed 1977.193.43.1 10 21.5 20.6 2139.6 Y Bead Weight: 1235g Black whole vessel Ramos 1977.193.44.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 8.3 17.4 14.9 1195.4 Y Bead Weight: 690g Black

190

Bowl

Type Notes Height Handles Polished Diameter RimHoles Max.Body CatalogNo. Volume(mL) Reconstructed Form(specifics) OrificeDiameter Ramos 1977.193.48.1 hemispherical Whole vessel 7.5 17 15.8 900.9 Y Bead Weight: 520g Black Ramos 1977.193.49.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 6.7 13.1 10.4 528.4 Y Bead Weight: 305g Black Ramos 1977.193.50.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 7.7 15 12.2 788.29 Y Bead Weight: 455g Black Ramos 1977.193.51.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 7.3 15.3 13.5 753.64 Y Bead Weight: 435g Black Bead Weight: 330g Ramos all scratches appear 1977.193.52.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 6.6 13.5 10.9 571.7 Y Black to be relatively modern Ramos reconstructed 1977.193.53.1 incurved bowl 5.1 13.3 11.4 389.8 Y Bead Weight: 225g Black whole vessel Ramos flare-rim, 1977.193.54.1 Whole vessel 8 14.2 10.4 667.01 Y Bead Weight: 385g Black outcurved Ramos reconstructed 1977.193.56.1 hemispherical 5.5 11 9.5 259.9 Y Bead Weight: 150g Black whole vessel Bead Weight: 185g rim has a pinched Ramos 1986.18.17 hemispherical Whole vessel 5 11.7 10.4 320.51 Y decoration-two Black pinches, one on each opposing side Ramos 1986.18.26.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 11.4 21.2 18.8 2442.8 Y Bead Weight: 1410g Black partial Ramos 1986.18.28.1 incurved bowl reconstructed 6.8 13.4 10.9 580.4 Y Bead Weight: 335g Black >50%

191

Bowl

Type Notes Height Handles Polished Diameter RimHoles Max.Body CatalogNo. Volume(mL) Reconstructed Form(specifics) OrificeDiameter partial Ramos 6580 incurved bowl reconstructed 10.7 21.8 19.97 2182.95 Y Bead Weight: 1260g Black >50% Ramos 6595 incurved bowl Whole vessel 9.4 18 15.04 1420.65 Y Bead Weight: 820g Black Ramos 7490-b incurved bowl Whole vessel 8.6 17.2 13.95 1178.1 Y Bead Weight: 680g Black Ramos 18.1 9194 incurved bowl Whole vessel 10.6 18.83 2269.6 Y Bead Weight: 1310g Black 3 partial Ramos 1976.17.24.1 incurved bowl reconstructed 9 14.3 11.6 857.59 Y Bead Weight: 495g Polychrome >50% Ramos 1977.193.12.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 9.9 15.4 11.6 1195.4 Y Bead Weight: 690g Polychrome hemispherical, Ramos incurved bowl, 1977.193.126.1 Whole vessel 10 19 17.06 1680.53 Y Bead Weight: 970g Polychrome semi-flare rim incurved Ramos reconstructed 1977.193.131.1 incurved bowl 9 14.3 11.6 961.5 Y Bead Weight: 555g Polychrome whole vessel Ramos 1977.193.396.1 Whole vessel 2.3 4.9 4.3 17.3 Y Bead Weight: 10g Polychrome Ramos reconstructed 1977.193.564.1 incurved bowl 10.5 17.8 13.4 1481.3 Y Bead Weight: 855g Polychrome whole vessel Ramos 1986.18.20.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 6.3 9.5 9.2 355.2 Y Bead Weight: 205g Polychrome Ramos 1986.18.22 incurved bowl Whole vessel 5.5 10.7 9.1 285.86 Y Bead Weight: 165g Polychrome

192

Bowl

(mL)

Type Notes Height Handles Polished Diameter RimHoles Max.Body CatalogNo. Volume Reconstructed Form(specifics) OrificeDiameter Bead Weight: 185g Reconstructed, but there are chipped partial Ramos pieces in between 2017.1.1.1 incurved bowl reconstructed 5.8 11.4 10.27 320.51 Y Polychrome reconstructed pieces, >50% and there is dried glue oozing out of cracks. Ramos 3367 incurved bowl Whole vessel 8.4 15.6 13.95 987.52 Y bead weight: 570g Polychrome Ramos hemispherical, bead weight 470g 6279 Whole vessel 8.9 14.3 11.03 814.28 Y Polychrome incurved bowl only slightly incurved Ramos 9131 hemispherical Whole vessel 11.4 19 17.8 2130.97 Y Bead weight: 1230g Polychrome Villa partial Ahumada 1976.17.30.1 incurved bowl reconstructed 6.5 12 9.08 381.15 Y Bead Weight: 220g Polychrome >50% Villa Ahumada 1976.17.31.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 8 14 11.4 727.7 Y Bead Weight: 420g Polychrome Villa Ahumada 1977.193.125.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 10.5 22.6 19.6 2607.4 Y Bead Weight: 1505g Polychrome Villa reconstructed Ahumada 1977.193.129.1 incurved bowl 6.6 13.6 12.2 554.4 Y Bead Weight: 320g whole vessel Polychrome Villa Bead Weight: 925g reconstructed Ahumada 1977.193.130.1 other 6.8 20.1 16.98 1602.6 Y Flat bottom, so no whole vessel Polychrome lower body…odd

193

Bowl

Holes

Type Notes Height Handles Polished Diameter Rim Max.Body CatalogNo. Volume(mL) Reconstructed Form(specifics) OrificeDiameter Villa Ahumada 1977.193.136.1 incurved bowl Whole vessel 8.4 14.8 9.96 831.6 Y Bead Weight: 480g Polychrome Villa Ahumada 6376 hemispherical Whole vessel 4.5 9.3 7.91 121.27 Y Bead weight: 70g Polychrome Villa Ahumada 6379 incurved bowl Whole vessel 5.2 12.2 10.14 502.43 Y Bead Weight: 290g Polychrome

194

Effigy

Type Notes Form Height Orifice Handles Polished Diameter Diameter (specifics) RimHoles Max.Body CatalogNo. Volume(mL) Reconstructed

animal- Height with Hood: Babicora 1977.193.72.1 nonbird-fish, Whole vessel 12.2 15.5 8.4 1126.13 Y 16.8 Polychrome Hooded, jar Bead Weight: 650g Hooded, Carretas 1986.18.57 human-male, Whole vessel 20 19 13.5 3854.8 Y Bead Weight: 2225g Polychrome jar Bead Weight: 405g Hood Height: 16.5 Modern repair is pretty nasty-dirt animal- mixed with glue to Dublan 1977.193.77.1 nonbird-fish, Whole vessel 11.7 12.8 6.7 701.66 Y fill in cracks, and not Polychrome Hooded, jar sure all pieces belong to vessel Abrasion on edges of reconstructed pieces have exposed core. Madera animal- reconstructed Black on 1977.193.183.1 nonbird-fish, 12.6 25.7 10.1 1706.51 Y Bead Weight: 985g whole vessel Red jar animal- partial Plainware 1977.193.193.1 nonbird-fish, reconstructed 15.7 19.6 10.7 1923.08 N Bead Weight: 1110g jar >50% animal- Plainware 1977.193.295.1 nonbird-fish, Whole vessel 12.4 18.7 15.3 1914.4 Y Bead Weight: 1105g bowl human body Plainware 1977.193.73.1 part, human- Whole vessel 7.7 10.3 8.2 355.16 Y Bead Weight: 205g male, jar

195

Effigy

Type Notes Height Handles Polished Diameter RimHoles Max.Body CatalogNo. Volume(mL) Reconstructed Form(specifics) OrificeDiameter Bead Weight: 185g bird, bowl, reconstructed Plainware 1977.193.75.1 7.1 11.1 9.8 320.51 N Height with Hood: Hooded whole vessel 10.3 animal- Plainware 1986.18.5.1 nonbird-fish, Whole vessel 11 21.4 10 1992.4 Y Bead Weight: 1150g bowl Hooded, Height with hood: human- Playas Red 1977.193.71.1 Whole vessel 12 15.5 8.1 1091.48 Y 18.1 indeterminate, Bead Weight: 630g jar animal- Ramos 1977.193.61.1 nonbird-fish, Whole vessel 7.9 11.7 2.6 129.94 Y Bead Weight: 75g Black jar, legged Bead Weight: 885g Ramos opposing 1977.193.68.1 bird, jar Whole vessel 11.2 18 8.67 1533.26 Y Height with effigy Black pair protuberances: 12.7 Ramos opposing Black-on- 1986.18.53.1 bird, jar Whole vessel 8.2 11 3 285.86 Y Bead Weight: 165g pair white Ramos Bead Weight: 670g 1972.37.2.1 human-female Whole vessel 13 14.1 8.4 1160.8 Y Polychrome Hood Height: 18cm human- Ramos opposing 1977.193.78.1 indeterminate, Whole vessel 16.8 17.6 9.3 2356.2 Y Bead Weight: 1360g Polychrome pair jar Hooded, Bead Weight: 745g Ramos human- reconstructed Oppsing 1977.193.82 12.8 15.3 8.95 1290.71 Y Height with Hood: Polychrome indeterminate, whole vessel single 18.7 jar

196

Effigy

Type Notes Height Handles Polished Diameter RimHoles Max.Body CatalogNo. Volume(mL) Reconstructed Form(specifics) OrificeDiameter animal- Ramos 1986.18.14.1 nonbird-fish, Whole vessel 12.3 26 10.9 2217.6 Y Bead Weight: 1280g Polychrome jar Ramos opposing 2001.9.2.1 bird, jar Whole vessel 12.6 18.3 9.3 1576.58 Y Bead Weight: 910g Polychrome pair Villa animal- opposing Ahumada 1976.17.33.1 nonbird-fish, Whole vessel 13.3 17.2 9.2 1619.9 Y Bead Weight: 935g pair Polychrome jar Hooded, Villa human- reconstructed Ahumada 1977.193.76.1 13 16.2 9.5 1394.7 Y Bead Weight: 805g indeterminate, whole vessel Polychrome jar Villa animal- partial Ahumada 1977.193.79.1 nonbird-fish, Opposing reconstructed 14.5 17.2 8.6 3213.8 N Bead Weight: 1855g Polychrome jar >50% Villa partial human-female, Ahumada 1977.193.80.1 reconstructed 15.5 18.1 10.32 1836.45 Y Bead Weight: 1060g jar Polychrome >50% Villa opposing Ahumada 1994.16.4.1 bird, jar Whole vessel 9.3 12 2.3 363.83 Y Bead Weight: 210g pair Polychrome

197

Jar

(cm) (cm)

(cm)

Type Notes Form Orifice Handles Polished (specifics) RimHoles Max.Body CatalogNo. Height Volume(mL) Reconstructed Diameter Diameter

Babicora opposing 1976.17.34.1 other Whole vessel 13.2 18 9.4 1827.79 Y Bead Weight: 1055g Polychrome pair Babicora opposing 1976.17.35.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 14.3 17.7 9.2 1871.1 Y Bead Weight: 1080g Polychrome pair Babicora reconstructed 1977.193.100.1 flare-rim 18.3 21.1 11.91 3283.1 N Bead Weight: 1895g Polychrome whole vessel Bead Weight: 1595g Babicora reconstructed 1977.193.104.1 14 20.4 12.9 2763.3 Y Rim has been cut off Polychrome whole vessel Paquime variant Babicora opposing 1977.193.105.1 straight neck Whole vessel 14 15 8.7 1273.4 N Bead Weight: 735g Polychrome pair partial Babicora 1977.193.172.1 flare-rim Opposing reconstructed 12 15 8.12 1082.81 Y Bead Weight: 625g Polychrome >50% Babicora opposing 1977.193.83.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 10 13.2 8.1 719 Y Bead Weight: 415g Polychrome pair partial Babicora flare-rim, 1977.193.85.1 reconstructed 12 15 8.4 1004.8 Y Bead Weight: 580g Polychrome straight neck >50% Babicora reconstructed Bead Weight: 610g 1977.193.86.1 flare-rim Opposing 13.5 14.4 7.6 1056.8 Y Polychrome whole vessel Interior blackened Bead Weight: 1395g Babicora Possibly fake? Poorly 1977.193.87.1 straight neck Whole vessel 13 16 10.2 2416.8 Y Polychrome made. Has an unexplained red rim Babicora reconstructed opposing 1977.193.88.1 flare-rim 8.4 10 5.7 320.51 N Bead Weight: 185g Polychrome whole vessel pair Babicora opposing 1977.193.94.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 18.2 24 10.8 2711.4 Y Bead Weight: 1565g Polychrome pair

198

Jar

(cm)

(cm) Type Notes Handles Polished RimHoles Max.Body CatalogNo. Height Volume(mL) Reconstructed Diameter Form(specifics) OrificeDiameter Babicora 1986.18.30.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 24.2 26.2 14.1 7891.55 Y Bead Weight: 4555g Polychrome Babicora reconstructed opposing 2987 flare-rim 15.2 17.8 9.93 2113.65 Y Bead Weight: 1220g Polychrome whole vessel pair

Babicora opposing 3426 Whole vessel 17.2 19.7 10.3 2468.81 Y Bead Weight: 1425g Polychrome pair

Bead Weight: 785g Two pairs of Babicora opposing 6364 Whole vessel 13.5 16.1 8.36 1360.01 Y mending holes-how Polychrome pair to record beyond their existence? Babicora Bead Weight: 875g 6417 flare-rim Opposing Whole vessel 13.7 16.5 9.1 1515.94 Y Polychrome Paquime Variety Bead Weight: 990 Babicora Paquime Variety 6420 flare-rim Opposing Whole vessel 14.4 17.9 8.8 1715.2 Y Polychrome Exterior rim is pretty sloppy

Babicora opposing Bead Weight: 1015g 6421 flare-rim Whole vessel 13.5 17.8 10.04 1758.49 Y Polychrome pair Paquime Variety

Bead Weight: 965g Babicora One handle still has 6422 Opposing Whole vessel 14.6 17.7 8.9 1671.86 Y Polychrome hanging rope inside, so awesome! Babicora angle collared, Bead Weight: 1095g 6425 Opposing Whole vessel 14.3 18.2 8.73 1897.1 Y Polychrome flare-rim, other Paquime Variety

199

Jar

(cm)

(cm) Type Notes Handles Polished RimHoles Max.Body CatalogNo. Height Volume(mL) Reconstructed Diameter Form(specifics) OrificeDiameter partial Babicora Bead Weight: 800g 6443 flare-rim, other Opposing reconstructed 13.3 16.9 9.16 1386 Y Polychrome Paquime Variety >50% Babicora opposing Bead Weight: 790g 6445 flare-rim Whole vessel 12.5 16 10.04 1368.67 Y Polychrome pair Paquime Variety Babicora angle collared, Bead Weight: 1400g 6446 Whole vessel 15.9 19 9.53 2425.5 Y Polychrome flare-rim Paquime Variety Babicora Bead Weight: 1470g 6463 flare-rim Opposing Whole vessel 12.2 17.2 8.47 2546.77 Y Polychrome Paquime Variety Babicora opposing Bead Weight: 1500g 6464 Whole vessel 15 20.5 9.3 2598.75 Y Polychrome pair Paquime Variety

Babicora Bead Weight: 2105g 7256 flare-rim Opposing Whole vessel 14.7 19 9.5 3646.92 Y Polychrome Paquime Variety Babicora Bead Weight: 1105 7460 flare-rim Whole vessel 14.8 17.8 9.04 1914.41 Y Polychrome Paquime Variety Carretas reconstructed 1977.193.92.1 flare-rim 19.5 20.5 10.7 3092.5 Y Bead Weight: 1785g Polychrome whole vessel Corralitos opposing 1976.17.22.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 9.4 12.1 7.5 563.06 Y Bead Weight: 325g Polychrome pair partial Corralitos 1977.193.171.1 flare-rim reconstructed 15.5 19.5 10.86 2503.47 Y Bead Weight: 1445g Polychrome >50% Corralitos 1986.18.120 flare-rim Whole vessel 26 32 15.7 11174.6 Y Bead Weight: 6450 Polychrome Dublan 1976.17.36.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 13 14.5 7.6 1048.2 Y Bead Weight: 605g Polychrome

200

Jar

(cm)

(cm) Type Notes Handles Polished RimHoles Max.Body CatalogNo. Height Volume(mL) Reconstructed Diameter Form(specifics) OrificeDiameter Madera reconstructed Black on 1977.193.184.1 flare-rim 15 16.5 10.5 1819.1 Y Bead Weight: 1050g whole vessel Red Madera partial Black on 1977.193.91.1 flare-rim reconstructed 19.3 21.4 12.8 4080 Y Bead Weight: 2355g Red >50% Bead Weight: 580g Plainware 1976.17.12.1 Whole vessel 12 15 8.2 1004.8 Y 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

Bead Weight: 685g opposing there is a third rim Plainware 1976.17.5.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 12.9 13.5 7.8 1186.8 Y pair 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 1976.17.8.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 14.2 15 8.9 1264.73 Y Bead Weight: 730g

Bead Weight: 680g Plainware 1977.193.138.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 12.8 15 8 1178.1 Y Incised variety angle collared, Plainware 1977.193.139.1 Whole vessel 10.2 15 8.7 1056.83 Y Bead Weight: 610g flare-rim reconstructed Plainware 1977.193.185.1 flare-rim 15.8 19.2 12.1 2590.1 N Bead Weight: 1495g whole vessel

201

Jar

(cm)

(cm) Type Notes Handles Polished RimHoles Max.Body CatalogNo. Height Volume(mL) Reconstructed Diameter Form(specifics) OrificeDiameter Four protruding appendages coming out of exterior upper Plainware 1977.193.188.1 flare-rim, other Whole vessel 9 10.3 7.1 398.5 N 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

Lip not original; cut neckless jar, and abraded until Plainware 1977.193.195.1 Whole vessel 13.7 18.2 10.7 1879.8 Y other 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

Plainware 1977.193.260.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 10.7 13 6.7 710.32 Y Bead Weight: 410g

202

Jar

(cm)

(specifics) (cm) Type Notes Handles Polished RimHoles Max.Body CatalogNo. Height Volume(mL) Reconstructed Diameter Form OrificeDiameter

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

reconstructed Plainware 1977.193.563.1 flare-rim 14.1 16.7 8.45 1498.61 Y Bead Weight: 865g whole vessel

angle collared, reconstructed Plainware 1986.18.118.1 19.3 22 9.1 3430.3 Y Bead Weight: 1980g flare-rim whole vessel

Bead Weight: 1040g Squash shape, ribbed like a gourd. Catalog opposing says it's a Plainware 1986.18.19.1 flare-rim, other Whole vessel 13.2 18.7 8.7 1801.8 Y pair Mesoamerican design that made it's way eventually to the Mogollon area.

Listed in the catalog Oppsing Plainware 1986.18.25.1 seed jar Whole vessel 5.3 9.3 4.3 181.9 N as a tecomate jar single Bead Weight: 105g

203

Jar

(cm)

(cm) Type Notes Handles Polished RimHoles Max.Body CatalogNo. Height Volume(mL) Reconstructed Diameter Form(specifics) OrificeDiameter Plainware 3289 seed jar Whole vessel 10.8 15.2 8.86 935.55 Y Bead Weight: 540g flare-rim, reconstructed Bead Weight: 655g Plainware 4708 other, straight Opposing 12.4 15.6 8.43 1134.79 Y whole vessel Lug Handles collared Plainware 4710 flare-rim Whole vessel 15.4 19.3 11.3 2295.56 N Bead Weight: 1325g Bead Weight: 245g Plainware 4794 seed jar Whole vessel 8.1 11.9 6.1 424.46 Y seed jar??? Plainware 6765 flare-rim Whole vessel 12.3 15.5 9.2 1143.45 Y Bead Weight: 550g partial Bead Weight: 870g Plainware 6772 flare-rim, other Opposing reconstructed 14.2 15.6 9.85 1507.28 N weird looking >50% handles (see photo) opposing Plainware 6790 Whole vessel 13.8 17 10.1 1862.44 Y Bead Weight: 1075g pair Plainware 6857 flare-rim Whole vessel 16.8 18.3 8.8 2191.61 Y Bead Weight: 1265g

Plainware 7499 flare-rim Whole vessel 21.8 24.7 11.5 5102.22 N Bead Weight: 2945g

Bead Weight: 785g Majorly ugly construction defect- Plainware 7506 flare-rim, other Opposing Whole vessel 13.8 15.7 9.04 1360.01 Y large dent in upper body (looks like a dented aluminum can)

204

Jar

(cm)

(specifics) (cm) Type Notes Handles Polished RimHoles Max.Body CatalogNo. Height Volume(mL) Reconstructed Diameter Form OrificeDiameter Plainware 7520 flare-rim Whole vessel 23.7 26.8 15.28 7363.13 Y Bead Weight: 4250g

18.7 Plainware 9277 flare-rim Whole vessel 17.7 9.1 2564.1 N Bead Weight: 1480g 5

Bead Weight: 1625g Bilobed (will use Plainware 9279 other Whole vessel 19.2 16.5 11.92 2815.32 N bottom lobe as mid body, just like the others) double, flare- 16.2 Bead Weight:1195g Plainware 9280 Whole vessel 18 9.55 2070.34 N rim, other 5 Double Mouth Jar

Bead Weight: 685g Playas Red 1976.17.10.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 13.4 15 7.9 1186.8 Y Playas Red-on- Brown Bead Weight: 850g Playas Red 1976.17.11.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 13.3 16.7 9.3 1472.63 Y Textured Variant straight reconstructed Bead Weight: 1325g Playas Red 1976.17.23.1 15.6 18.3 10.4 2295.56 Y collared whole vessel Corralitos Variant

Playas Red 1976.17.38.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 14.8 20.2 11.5 2598.7 Y Bead Weight: 1500g

205

Jar

(cm)

(cm) Type Notes Handles Polished RimHoles Max.Body CatalogNo. Height Volume(mL) Reconstructed Diameter Form(specifics) OrificeDiameter Bead Weight: 1105g Missing rim, so Playas Red 1977.193.298.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 11 14 5.2 1914.4 Y volume is an approximation flare-rim, Playas Red 1977.193.305.1 Opposing Whole vessel 10.3 11.3 6.5 502.43 Y Bead Weight: 290g neckless jar opposing Playas Red 1977.193.345.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 10.7 13.3 7.4 779.6 Y Bead Weight: 450g pair partial Bead Weight: 395g Playas Red 1977.193.347.1 flare-rim reconstructed 11.1 12.7 6.88 684.3 Y Convento Cord >50% type?? Bead Weight: 5g opposing Catalog says Playas Red 1991.79.34.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 3.5 3.5 1.4 8.66 Y pair "possibly a child's toy or a burial object" Ramos 1976.17.16.1 flare-rim Opposing Whole vessel 14 18.3 8 1472.6 Y Bead Weight: 850g Black Ramos flare-rim, 1976.17.17.1 Whole vessel 13.3 16.7 8.4 1524.6 Y Bead Weight: 880g Black neckless jar partial Ramos 1976.17.18.1 flare-rim reconstructed 19.5 24 10.97 4400.55 Y Bead Weight: 2540g Black >50% Bead Weight: 670g vessel is only partial Ramos partially 1976.17.19.1 flare-rim reconstructed 12.5 15 8.6 1160.8 Y Black reconstructed at top, >50% so volume is not maximum

206

Jar

(cm)

(cm) Type Notes Handles Polished RimHoles Max.Body CatalogNo. Height Volume(mL) Reconstructed Diameter Form(specifics) OrificeDiameter Ramos 1976.17.20.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 16.2 18.9 10.9 2408.18 Y Bead Weight: 1390g Black Ramos 1976.17.21.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 17.2 20 11.2 2884.62 Y Bead Weight: 1665g Black Ramos 1977.193.55.1 flare-rim Opposing Whole vessel 10 13.4 7.3 736.31 Y Bead Weight: 425g Black

Ramos reconstructed opposing 1977.193.57.1 flare-rim 13 16.1 8.4 1429.31 Y Bead Weight: 825g Black whole vessel pair

Bead Weight: 1090g Ramos reconstructed opposing Depositional 1977.193.58.1 flare-rim 14.2 18.7 9.46 1888.43 Y Black whole vessel pair accretion masks most of interior wear

Ramos 1977.193.59.1 straight neck Whole vessel 15.8 19.5 9.95 2529.5 Y Bead Weight: 1460g Black

Bead Weight: 945g Ramos Depositional 1977.193.60.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 14.5 17.1 8.66 1637.21 Y Black accretion masks much of interior wear Ramos 1977.193.62.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 12 15.2 7.3 1013.5 Y Bead Weight: 585g Black Ramos opposing 1977.193.63.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 13.5 14 8.3 2044.4 Y Bead Weight: 1180g Black pair Ramos 1977.193.64.1 flare-rim Opposing Whole vessel 13.7 16.7 9.66 1472.63 Y Bead Weight: 850g Black

207

Jar

(cm)

(cm) Type Notes Handles Polished RimHoles Max.Body CatalogNo. Height Volume(mL) Reconstructed Diameter Form(specifics) OrificeDiameter partial Ramos 1977.193.67.1 flare-rim Opposing reconstructed 11 18 8.8 1611.2 Y Bead Weight: 930g Black >50% partial Ramos 1977.193.69.1 flare-rim Opposing reconstructed 14.2 18.1 9.4 1845.1 Y Bead Weight: 1065g Black >50% Bead Weight: 215g Ramos Bi-lobed jar. Will use 1977.193.70.1 other Whole vessel 14.4 10 1.9 372.49 Y Black bottom lobe as mid body. Ramos 1986.18.116.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 17.2 25 12.5 4097.37 Y Bead Weight: 2365g Black Ramos reconstructed opposing 2448 flare-rim 11.2 11.5 7.76 909.56 Y Bead Weight: 525g Black whole vessel pair

Ramos double, flare- reconstructed Bead Weight: 1750g 2986 15.9 23 11.22 3031.87 Y Black rim, other whole vessel Double mouth

Bead Weight: 1685g Body has a.....horizontal fluting? Bulbous Ramos 3353 flare-rim, other Whole vessel 17.8 21 10.12 2919.26 Y shape? Double Black shoulder? I consider the bottom "lump" to be the diagnistic shoulder--bi-lobed Ramos 4698 flare-rim Whole vessel 22.8 25.6 12.1 5864.52 Y Bead Weight: 3385 Black

208

Jar

(cm)

(cm) Type Notes Handles Polished RimHoles Max.Body CatalogNo. Height Volume(mL) Reconstructed Diameter Form(specifics) OrificeDiameter Bead Weight: not recorded, volume approximated from vessel 1977.193.63.1 which is similar in height, diamter, orifice diameter, and Ramos 6638 flare-rim Opposing Whole vessel 11.8 13.9 7.66 1786.9 Y shape (and type). Black Bead weight estimated to be 1031.4g

Orifice Diameter approximated in Adobe Illustrator Ramos 6645 flare-rim Whole vessel 19.7 21.4 9.27 3439.02 Y Bead Weight: 1985g Black Ramos 6646 flare-rim Whole vessel 22.3 24.1 11.07 5128.21 Y Bead Weight: 2960g Black partial Ramos 6649 flare-rim reconstructed 22.9 27.5 14.33 6808.73 Y Bead Weight: 3930g Black >50% Ramos 6661 flare-rim Whole vessel 14.7 16.4 8.4 1593.9 Y Bead Weight: 920g Black Ramos 6664 flare-rim Opposing Whole vessel 12.1 16.1 8.53 1160.77 Y Bead Weight: 670g Black Ramos double, flare- Bead Weight: 490g 7061 Whole vessel 14.2 14.3 6.54 848.93 Y Black rim, other Double orifice jar

209

Jar

(cm)

(cm) Type Notes Handles Polished RimHoles Max.Body CatalogNo. Height Volume(mL) Reconstructed Diameter Form(specifics) OrificeDiameter Ramos 7481 flare-rim Whole vessel 17.9 22.1 10.66 3491 Y Bead Weight: 2015g Black Ramos reconstructed 7490 flare-rim 14.4 17.5 8.3 1758.49 Y Bead Weight: 1015g Black whole vessel flare-rim, Ramos 13.7 9204 neckless jar, Opposing Whole vessel 15.8 8.8 1567.91 Y Bead Weight: 905g Black 5 other Ramos reconstructed Black-on- 1977.193.101.1 flare-rim 20 23 11.6 4825.02 Y Bead Weight: 2785g whole vessel white Ramos 1976.17.25.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 12.5 13.7 8.6 1221.4 Y Bead Weight: 705g Polychrome

Bead Weight: 1470g "scratches" on interior lower and mid body-trying to Ramos clean off depositional 1976.17.26.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 16.5 18.7 10.46 2546.77 Y Polychrome accretion Whole vessel exterior is darker than normal-probaby from firing

Ramos reconstructed 1976.17.27.1 flare-rim 20.5 25 11.6 4972.3 Y Bead Weight: 2870g Polychrome whole vessel Ramos 1976.17.28.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 22 24.1 13.7 8316.01 Y Bead Weight: 4800g Polychrome

210

Jar

(cm)

(cm) Type Notes Handles Polished RimHoles Max.Body CatalogNo. Height Volume(mL) Reconstructed Diameter Form(specifics) OrificeDiameter partial Ramos straight 1977.193.113.1 reconstructed 17.3 18.5 7.9 2416.84 Y Bead Weight: 1395g Polychrome collared >50% Ramos straight 1977.193.115.1 Whole vessel 21.2 23 11.63 4773.04 Y Bead Weight: 2755g Polychrome collared Ramos reconstructed opposing 1977.193.117.1 11.7 15.3 8.8 1273.4 Y Bead Weight: 735g Polychrome whole vessel pair Ramos straight 1977.193.121.1 Whole vessel 23.2 24.9 12.1 6505.54 Y Bead Weight: 3755g Polychrome collared Ramos reconstructed 1977.193.122.1 flare-rim 22 24.6 12.75 5838.53 Y Bead Weight: 3370g Polychrome whole vessel Ramos reconstructed 1977.193.124.1 21 28 13.3 5128.2 Y Bead Weight: 2960g Polychrome whole vessel Ramos straight 1977.193.559.1 Whole vessel 18.9 21.9 10.8 3672.9 Y Bead Weight: 2120g Polychrome collared partial Ramos 1977.193.89.1 flare-rim reconstructed 17 19 9.3 2477.5 Y Bead Weight: 1430g Polychrome >50% partial Ramos 1977.193.90.1 flare-rim reconstructed 15.7 19.4 9.2 2416.8 Y Bead Weight: 1395g Polychrome >50%

Ramos 1977.193.95.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 15.1 17.7 8.7 1871.1 Y Bead Weight: 1080g Polychrome

211

Jar

(cm)

(cm) Type Notes Handles Polished RimHoles Max.Body CatalogNo. Height Volume(mL) Reconstructed Diameter Form(specifics) OrificeDiameter Bead Weight: 2395g Black-on-white variant neckless jar, partial Ramos Vessel looks wholly 1977.193.97.1 straight reconstructed 19.2 22.7 9.8 4149.34 Y Polychrome reconstructed, but collared >50% some holes have been filled and painted in during conservation.

neckless jar, Bead Weight: 855g Ramos 1977.193.99.1 straight Whole vessel 13.8 16 9.26 1481.29 Y Most of black paint Polychrome collared has faded away Ramos 1986.18.117 flare-rim Whole vessel 20.7 23.3 11.1 4833.7 Y Bead Weight: 2790g Polychrome Ramos 1986.18.15.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 18.5 17.8 9.6 2390.85 Y Bead Weight: 1380g Polychrome

Bead Weight: 990g Two appliqued Ramos opposing 1986.18.52.1 flare-rim, other Whole vessel 14.2 15.9 8.85 1715.2 Y snakes alternating Polychrome pair diagonally upward on body of jar.

Ramos 1994.16.3.1 flare-rim Opposing Whole vessel 11.4 14 9.07 1048.16 N Bead Weight: 605g Polychrome

Bead weight: 765g Ramos flare-rim, 3372 Whole vessel 15.6 13.4 8.6 1325.36 Y Overall appears to be Polychrome neckless jar little to no wear

212

Jar

(cm)

(cm) Type Notes Handles Polished RimHoles Max.Body CatalogNo. Height Volume(mL) Reconstructed Diameter Form(specifics) OrificeDiameter Ramos flare-rim, 3377 Whole vessel 20.4 19.8 10.06 3439.02 Y Bead weight: 1985g Polychrome neckless jar Ramos straight 3383 Whole vessel 20.4 22.9 11.95 4331.25 Y Bead weight: 2500g Polychrome collared Ramos flare-rim, 6247 Whole vessel 21.2 23.3 9.92 3776.85 Y Bead weight: 2180g Polychrome neckless jar

bead weight is 1725g Small hole in bottom repaired with a flare-rim, partial random piece from Ramos 6261 neckless jar, reconstructed 16.1 21.1 10.13 2988.6 Y another vessel Polychrome short >50% entirely. Vessel still dirty from deposition, general acccretions from that

Ramos flare-rim, 6268 Whole vessel 20.5 22.4 11.58 4478.52 Y Bead weight: 2585g Polychrome neckless jar Ramos flare-rim, 6291 Whole vessel 21.3 21.7 10.43 4175.33 Y Bead weight: 2410g Polychrome neckless jar Ramos flare-rim, 6293 Whole vessel 15 18.7 10.56 2269.58 Y Bead weight: 1310g Polychrome neckless jar Ramos 6301 flare-rim Whole vessel 17.7 20.8 11.2 3257.1 Y Bead weight: 1880g Polychrome Ramos flare-rim, opposing 6312 Whole vessel 14.5 17.4 9.36 1923.08 Y Bead weight: 1110 Polychrome neckless jar pair

213

Jar

(cm)

(cm) Type Notes Handles Polished RimHoles Max.Body CatalogNo. Height Volume(mL) Reconstructed Diameter Form(specifics) OrificeDiameter Ramos flare-rim, reconstructed 7463 18 20.2 9.3 3031.88 Y Bead weight: 1750g Polychrome neckless jar whole vessel bead weight 2940g From what I could tell on interior and exterior however, Ramos there appears to be 9118 flare-rim Whole vessel 20.3 24 12.08 5093.55 Y Polychrome insignificant amounts of wear apart from depositional wearing of paint, accretions, etc

bead weight: 1470g Ramos flare-rim, reconstructed few spots where red 9331 18 19 9.93 2546.77 Y Polychrome neckless jar whole vessel and/or black paint have faded.

Ramos flare-rim, 9341 Whole vessel 15 16.6 9.7 1810.46 Y Bead weight: 1045g Polychrome neckless jar

Ramos reconstructed 9342 flare-rim, short 18.7 19.4 9.54 3153.15 Y bead weight 1820g Polychrome whole vessel

Villa Bead Weight: 1010g Ahumada opposing Bulging neck, almost 1977.193.112.1 flare-rim, other Whole vessel 14.9 17.5 8.7 1749.83 Y Black-on- pair bi-lobed, but not white quite

214

Jar

(cm)

(cm) Type Notes Handles Polished RimHoles Max.Body CatalogNo. Height Volume(mL) Reconstructed Diameter Form(specifics) OrificeDiameter

Villa Ahumada 1977.193.102.1 Opposing Whole vessel 15.5 16 8.5 1515.9 Y Bead Weight: 875g Polychrome Villa partial straight Bead Weight: 1580g Ahumada 1977.193.106.1 reconstructed 17 19.2 10 2737.35 Y collared Paquime Variant Polychrome >50% Villa reconstructed Oppsing Ahumada 1977.193.107.1 straight neck 11 14.7 8.9 1030.8 Y Bead Weight: 595g whole vessel single Polychrome Villa opposing Ahumada 1977.193.109.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 13 15 8.8 1221.4 Y Bead Weight: 705g pair Polychrome Villa Ahumada 1977.193.110.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 13.3 15.6 8.2 1429.3 Y Bead Weight: 825g Polychrome

Villa partial Ahumada 1977.193.114.1 flare-rim Opposing reconstructed 16 18.2 8.3 2113.65 Y Bead Weight: 1220g Polychrome >50% Villa partial Ahumada 1977.193.116.1 flare-rim Opposing reconstructed 13 15.4 8.4 1212.7 Y Bead Weight: 700g Polychrome >50% Villa partial Ahumada 1977.193.118.1 flare-rim reconstructed 20 24 10.13 4565.14 Y Bead Weight: 2635g Polychrome >50%

215

Jar

(cm)

Diameter (cm) Type Notes Handles Polished RimHoles Max.Body CatalogNo. Height Volume(mL) Reconstructed Diameter Form(specifics) Orifice

Bead Weight: 575g(most of neck Villa partial and rim are missing, Ahumada 1977.193.189.1 flare-rim reconstructed 12.5 16.1 9.2 996.2 Y so volume is not Polychrome >50% maximum) With snake applique

Bead Weight: 3145g Villa flare-rim, reconstructed Almost straight Ahumada 1977.193.560.1 straight 22.1 24.5 10.72 5448.72 Y whole vessel collared, almost flare- Polychrome collared rim Villa partial Ahumada 1977.193.81.1 flare-rim reconstructed 11.5 16.3 8.5 1256.1 Y Bead Weight: 725g Polychrome >50% Villa Ahumada 1977.193.84.1 flare-rim Opposing Whole vessel 10.5 13.2 7.6 719 Y Bead Weight: 415g Polychrome

Villa partial Ahumada 1977.193.96.1 flare-rim reconstructed 19 24.4 9.8 7285.2 Y Bead Weight: 4205g Polychrome >50%

Bead Weight: 2185g Villa Capulin Variant Ahumada 2001.9.1.1 flare-rim Whole vessel 19 22.1 10.8 3785.52 Y Heavy depositional Polychrome accretion on this one- interior

216

Jar

(cm)

(cm) Type Notes Handles Polished RimHoles Max.Body CatalogNo. Height Volume(mL) Reconstructed Diameter Form(specifics) OrificeDiameter

Villa Bead Weight: 2905g Ahumada 3420 flare-rim Whole vessel 22 24.8 12.57 5032.92 Y Black-on-White Polychrome variety Villa flare-rim, opposing 12.8 15.2 Ahumada 4611 Whole vessel 7.91 1195.43 Y Bead Weight: 690g neckless jar pair 8 2 Polychrome Villa flare-rim, reconstructed Ahumada 4712 neckless jar, Opposing 14.8 16.9 9.08 1810.46 Y Bead Weight: 1045g whole vessel Polychrome other Villa flare-rim, Ahumada 4714 neckless jar, Opposing Whole vessel 13.3 14.7 8 1108.8 Y Bead Weight: 640g Polychrome other Villa angle collared, opposing Bead Weight: 1010g Ahumada 6215 Whole vessel 14.9 19 8.37 1749.83 Y flare-rim, other pair Square body Polychrome Villa flare-rim, reconstructed opposing Ahumada 6337 15.4 17.1 9.04 1871.1 Y Bead weight: 1080g neckless jar whole vessel pair Polychrome Villa flare-rim, Bead Weight: 940g Ahumada 6338 neckless jar, Opposing Whole vessel 14 16.8 9 1628.55 Y Capulin Variety Polychrome other Villa flare-rim, Ahumada 6340 neckless jar, Opposing Whole vessel 13.3 16.5 8.95 1403.33 Y Bead Weight: 810g Polychrome other Villa Bead Weight: 770g Ahumada 6342 flare-rim, other Opposing Whole vessel 14.4 14.9 8.76 1334.03 Y Capulin Variety Polychrome

217

Jar

(cm)

(cm) Type Notes Handles Polished RimHoles Max.Body CatalogNo. Height Volume(mL) Reconstructed Diameter Form(specifics) OrificeDiameter

Villa Ahumada 7330 flare-rim, other Opposing Whole vessel 13.2 15.1 8.35 1195.43 Y Bead Weight: 690g Polychrome

Bead weight: 2100g Deposition has worn Villa angle collared, away painted Ahumada 7335 Whole vessel 19.2 21.5 10.8 3638.25 Y flare-rim decoration in some Polychrome places over exterior of vessel Villa flare-rim, Ahumada 7340 Whole vessel 20.7 23.1 10.84 4547.82 Y Bead weight: 2625g neckless jar Polychrome Villa Ahumada 9132 flare-rim Opposing Whole vessel 13.2 17 9.18 1645.88 Y Bead Weight: 950 Polychrome Villa reconstructed Ahumada 9318 flare-rim 21 23 9.84 4114.69 Y Bead Weight: 2375g whole vessel Polychrome

Villa partial flare-rim, Ahumada 9327 reconstructed 18.5 24 11.41 3179.14 Y Bead Weight:1835g neckless jar Polychrome >50%

Bead Weight: 1315g Body diameter, Villa 16.2 height, and orifice Ahumada 9330 flare-rim Whole vessel 18 9.24 2278.24 Y 5 diameter Polychrome approximated from Adobe Illustrator

218

Other

Type Form Notes Height Orifice Handles Polished Diameter Diameter (specifics) RimHoles Max.Body CatalogNo. Volume(mL) Reconstructed

Bead Weight: 170g Textured variant double, flare- Playas Red 1986.18.16.1 Single Whole vessel 7.4 18.3 4.8 294.53 Y Diameter of one rim vessel on its own is 8.4 Bead Weight: 160g Ramos 1986.18.55.1 Whole vessel 9.2 10.5 8.5 277.2 Y Goblet or similar Black shape

219

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.

220