Technical differences in the painted decoration of Anasazi and Hohokam pottery Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Leavitt, Ernest Eastman, 1930- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 01/10/2021 15:10:52 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/551584 TECHNICAL DIFFERENCES IN THE PAINTED DECORATION OF ANASAZI AND HOHOKAM POTTERY by Ernest E. Leavitt, Jr. A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1962 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of require­ ments for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is de­ posited in The University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in their judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholar­ ship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. SIGNED: APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR This thesis has been approved on the date shown below: -3, / f '2—- EMIL W. HAURY Date Professor of Anthropology TECHNICAL DIFFERENCES IN THE PAINTED DECORATION OF ANASAZI AND HOHOKAM POTTERY by Ernest E. Leavitt, Jr. ABSTRACT Pottery is one of the most useful tools in Southwestern archae­ ology. If fully used, it may be an indicator of cultural relationships, movements, contacts, and developments. Better utilization may be achieved if comparative studies are conducted within traditions through time, and cross-culturally, through space. The thesis proposes a sys­ tem for establishing comparable classes of data formulated on a study of total decoration, using whole or restorable vessels. Pottery types prior to A. D. 1300 found in the Mesa Verde Branch of the Anasazi cul­ ture and the River Branch of the Hohokam culture are analyzed and com­ pared to illustrate the operation of the method. Decorations are analyzed and recorded following the approach of the painter in decoration construc­ tion through an understanding of the internal mechanics of geometric de­ sign. It is concluded that no direct relationship is exhibited in the pottery ii decoration of the two areas. Qualities which are inherent to design and those which are culturally determined or selected are discussed. The basic tenet of the paper is that similarities between ceramic groups, not through individual traits but through like complexes of traits, will suggest relationships which should be followed up by further archae­ ological investigations. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express appreciation for the assistance received in gathering the material on which this study has been based. I am grate­ ful for the time and guidance of Dr. Emil W. Haury, who first encour­ aged the study, and of Prof. Clara Lee Tanner and Dr. Raymond H. Thompson, members of the thesis committee. My wife, Virginia, who has assisted through many long hours in the production of the manu­ script, acted as co-worker in the commercial enterprise which initially exposed the problem and as advisor in its formulation and solution. Dr. Haury, Director of the Arizona State Museum, and Jean Pinkley of the Mesa Verde Museum, and the members of their respec­ tive staffs assisted me in many ways and made available the collections which form the basis of this study. Mrs. Earl H. Morris of Boulder, Colorado, permitted me to photograph the collection of her late husband. Dr. Earl H. Morris. The staff at Aztec National Monument aided in the gathering of information at the monument. Dr. Edward B. Danson, Director of the Museum of Northern Arizona, made it possible for me to study the collection at that institution. CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................ 1 2. METHOD OF ANALYSIS........................................ 4 Field of Decoration ..................................................................... 7 Layout............................................................................................ 10 Primary Layout ....................................................... •.......... 11 Secondary Layout............................................................... 17 Tertiary Layout .................................................... 19 Design........ ...... ............................................................................. 21 Elements ........... 22 U n its....................................................................................... 24 M o tifs..................................................................................... 24 Additional Qualities of Decoration ........................................... 37 Style ....................................................................................... 38 Motor Habit............................... 39 Size and Shape of the Vessel ............................................. 44 Filling of Space..................................................................... 45 Components............................................... 45 Space Other Than Components.................................... 47 S trictness............................................................................... 50 Complexity............................................................................. 51 C o n trast................................................................................. 52 Application of the M ethod........................................................... 53 3. ANALYSIS OF THE MESA VERDE TRADITION ...................... 56 v Page The Mesa Verde— Geography and Chronology.......................... 56 Mesa Verde Black-on-W hite.......................................................... 57 Mancos Black-on-W hite............................................................... 80 Cortez Black-on-White................................................................. 90 Piedra Black-on-White................................................................. 97 Chapin Black-on-White........................................................ 102 Summary of the Mesa Verde Tradition..................................... 103 4. ANALYSIS OF THE RIVER HOHOKAM TRADITION ............... 123 The River Hohokam—Geography and Chronology.................... 123 Sacaton Red-on-Buff..................................................................... 125 Santa Cruz Red-on-Buff ..................... 140 Gila Butte Red-on-Buff................................................................. 147 Snaketown Red-on-Buff................................................................. 149 Sweetwater Red-on-G ray......................................•...................... 155 Estrella Red-on-Gray........................... 157 Summary of the River Hohokam Tradition ...... ......................... 157 Casa Grande Red-on-Buff ............. 174 5. COMPARISON OF THE MESA VERDE AND HOHOKAM TRADITIONS..................... 179 6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS............... 184 A GLOSSARY OF TERMINOLOGY.USED IN THIS STUDY---- 189 REFERENCES........................................... 194 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1. The stages of design construction ......................................... 6 2. Components of a typical Southwestern pottery design ........ 6 3. Some of the usual fields of decoration on Southwestern pottery vessels ..................................................................... 9 vi Figure Page 4. Characteristics of bands and bordering................................ 12 5. Types of sectioned lay o u t....................................................... 14 6. Types of centered layout.................................................... 16 7. Types of lateral layout........................................................ 16 8. Examples of problems encountered in distinguishing lay­ out types............................................................................ 18 9. Internal division of bands and sections . i ............................ 18 10. Secondary layout or internal organization of sections .... 20 11. Some internal organizations of band panels ......................... 20 12. The common elements of Southwestern geometric design . 23 13. Basic units in Southwestern geometric design .................... 25 14. Examples of design representing the nature of motif interaction.......................................................................... 29 15. Examples of design representing the types of interaction. 29 16. Common motifs in Southwestern geometric design ...... 32 17. Design units illustrating the relationship of symmetry and interaction •.................. .................................................. 36 18. Designs illustrating motifs with similar shapes using different design u n its............................................... 36 19. Examples of the varying characteristics of m otifs...... 36 20. The development