Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-26T06:26:51.016Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New Insights into Hohokam Buff Ware Production and Distribution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Mary F. Ownby ,
James M. Heidke  and
Henry D. Wallace
Mary F. Ownby
Affiliation:
Desert Archaeology, Inc., 3975 N. Tucson Blvd., Tucson, Arizona 85716 (mownby@desert.com)
James M. Heidke
Affiliation:
Desert Archaeology, Inc., 3975 N. Tucson Blvd., Tucson, Arizona 85716 (jheidke@desert.com)
Henry D. Wallace
Affiliation:
Desert Archaeology, Inc., 3975 N. Tucson Blvd., Tucson, Arizona 85716 (hwallace@desert.com)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hohokam buff ware pottery produced in Arizona has been much studied over the last few decades. However, petrographic analysis has been less frequently applied, due in part to mistaken assumptions regarding the raw materials utilized. The current study reexamined the use of petrography for locating the provenance of buff ware pottery from two sites, La Villa in the Phoenix area and Honey Bee Village in the Tucson area. The petrographic results suggest that production occurred in one primary area along the middle Gila River with minor production in a few other locations. The potters in this area supplied both the Tucson and Phoenix basins. Significantly, it was determined that, after the Early Gila Butte phase, potters switched from crushed schist to sand with natural schist. Such a phenomenon is likely related to increased demand developing from a rapidly evolving sociopolitical system and buff ware pottery becoming a socially valued commodity. This study indicates that petrographic analysis focused on relating sand to known sand composition zones, called petrofacies, can be a key tool for identifying production sources for Hohokam buff ware.

Résumé

Résumé

La cerámica ante Hohokam (Hohokam buff ware pottery) producida en Arizona ha recicibo considerable atención en las últimas décadas. Sin embargo, los análisis petrográficos no han sido frecuentemente aplicados, en parte debido a supuestos erroneos respecto a las materias primas utilizadas. El presente estudio reexamina el uso de la petrografia para la identificación de la procedendo de la cerámica ante encontrada en dos sitios, La Villa, en el área de Phoenix y Honey Bee Village, en el área de Tucson. Los resultados petrográficos sugieren que la producción ocurrió mayoritariamente en la cuenca media del ráo Gila y en menor medida en otras localidades. Esto demuestra que los ceramistas de esta área abastecieron de cerámica a las cuencas de Tucson y Phoenix. Los análisis indican que después de la fase temprana Gila Butte, los ceramistas reemplazaron el uso del esquisto molido por arenas con un componente natural de esquisto. Este fenómeno está relacionado con mayor demanda, probablemente como resultado de un sistema sociopolítico en rápidas váas de desarrollo y del nuevo valor social de la cerámica ante Hohokam. Este trabajo indica que los análisis petrográficos enfocados en relacionar las arenas con zonas composicionales de arenas, llamadas fades petrográficos, pueden ser una herramienta substantial para identificar las áreas de fuentes para la producción de la cerámica ante Hohokam.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 80 , Issue 2 , April 2015 , pp. 387 - 396
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Abbott, David R. 2000a Hohokam Buffware Production and Distribution and the Provenance of Decorated Pottery from the BMGR. In Procurement, Processing, and Passing Through, edited by Jerry D. Lyon, pp. 577–620. Cultural Resources Report No. 98–267. SWCA, Tucson.Google Scholar
Abbott, David R. 2000b Ceramics and Community Organization among the Hohokam. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Abbott, David R. 2001a Electron Microprobe Analyses of the GARP Pottery and Raw Clays. In The Grewe Archaeological Research Project: Vol. 2. Material Culture, Part I: Ceramic Studies, edited by David R. Abbott, pp. 47–66. Anthropological Papers No. 99–1. Northland Research, Inc., Flagstaff, Arizona.Google Scholar
Abbott, David R. 2001b Detailed Sherd Analysis. In The Grewe Archaeological Research Project: Vol. 2. Material Culture, Part I: Ceramic Studies, edited by David R. Abbott, pp. 67–106. Anthropological Papers No. 99–1. Northland Research, Inc., Flagstaff, Arizona.Google Scholar
Abbott, David R. 2008 The Process, Location, and History of Hohokam Buff Ware Production: Some Experimental and Analytical Results. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:388–397.Google Scholar
Abbott, David R. 2009 Extensive and Long-Term Specialization: Hohokam Ceramic Production in the Phoenix Basin, Arizona. American Antiquity 74:531–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, David R. 2011a Chemical Analyses of the Clay Fractions in the Crismon Ruin Buff Ware Pottery. In Crismon Ruin: A Hohokam Settlement at the Head of the Lehi Canal System, edited by T. Kathleen Henderson, pp. 243–248. Anthropological Papers No. 44. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Abbott, David R. 2011b A Provenance Analysis of Buff Ware Pottery from Four Villages in the Lower Salt River Valley. In Crismon Ruin: A Hohokam Settlement at the Head of the Lehi Canal System, edited by T. Kathleen Henderson, pp. 249–267. Anthropological Papers No. 44. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Abbott, David R., Lack, Andrew D., Smith, Alexa M., and Wallace, Henry D. 2012 A Manual and Graphical Guide for Hohokam Decorated Ceramics from the Middle Gila River Valley: Towards a Systematic Approach to Hohokam Pottery Classification. Journal of Arizona Archaeology 2:51–79.Google Scholar
Abbott, David R., Stinson, Susan L., and Keuren, Scott Van 2001 The Economic Implications of Hohokam Buff Ware Exchange during the Early Sedentary Period. Kiva 67:7–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, David R., Watts, Joshua, and Lack, Andrew D. 2007 The Provenance and Concentrated Production of Hohokam Red-on-Buff Pottery. Journal of Anthropological Research 63:331–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway, Clay M., and Silver, Leon T. 1989 Early Proterozoic Rocks (1710–1615 Ma) in Central to Southeastern Arizona, in Geologic Evolution of Arizona, edited by J. P. Penney and S. J. Reynolds, pp. 165–186. Digest No. 17. Arizona Geological Society, Tucson.Google Scholar
Costin, Cathy L. 1991 Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting, and Explaining the Organization of Production. Archaeological Method and Theory 3:1–56.Google Scholar
Crown, Patricia L. 1991 The Role of Exchange and Interaction in Salt-Gila Basin Hohokam Prehistory. In Exploring the Hohokam, edited by George J. Gumerman, pp. 383–415. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Charles A., and Skotnicki, Steven J. 1996 Bedrock Geology of the Santan Mountains, Pinal and Maricopa Counties, Arizona. Open-File Report 96–9. Arizona Geological Survey, Tucson.Google Scholar
Haury, Emil W. 1965 Pottery Types at Snaketown. In Excavations at Snaketown: Material Culture, edited by Harold S. Gladwin, Emil W. Haury, E. B. Sayles, and Nora Gladwin, pp. 169–229. Reprinted. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Originally published 1937, Medallion Papers No. 25. Gila Pueblo, Globe, Arizona.Google Scholar
Haury, Emil W. 1976 The Hohokam: Desert Farmers and Craftsmen, Excavations at Snaketown, 1964–1965. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heidke, James M. 2012 Prehistoric Pottery from Honey Bee Village: Dating, Provenance, Typology, and function. In Life in the Valley of Gold: Archaeological Investigations at Honey Bee Village, A Prehistoric Hohokam Ballcourt Village, edited by H. D. Wallace, pp. 183–321. Anthropological Papers No. 48. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Heidke, James M., and Miksa, Elizabeth J. 2000 Correspondence and Discriminant Analyses of Sand and Sand Temper Compositions, Tonto Basin, Arizona. Archaeometry 42:273–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heidke, James M., and Ownby, Mary F. 2014 Prehistoric Pottery from La Villa, AZ T:12:148 (ASM): Dating, Technology, Provenance, Design, and function with a Consideration of Ceramic Variability and a Model of Buff Ware Production. In Excavations at La Villa: Continuity and Change at an Agricultural Village (Draft), edited by Michael W. Lindeman. Technical Report No. 12-08. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Kelly, Sophia E. 2013 A Multi-Factor Analysis of the Emergence of a Specialist-Based Economy among the Phoenix Basin Hohokam. Ph.D. dissertation, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
Annick, Lascaux 1993 Excavation Results and Feature Descriptions. In The Maricopa Road Site: A Pre-Classic Hohokam Village, AZ T:16:13 ASU, Pinal County, Arizona, edited by John C. Ravesloot and Annick Lascaux, pp. 49–118. Anthropological Field Studies No. 28. Office of Cultural Resource Management, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
Michael, Lindeman (editor) 2014 Excavations at La Villa: Continuity and Change at an Agricultural Village (Draft). Technical Report No. 12-08. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Matthew, Anthony J., Woods, Ann J., and Oliver, Chad 1991 Spots Before the Eyes: New Comparison Charts for Visual Percentage Estimation in Archaeological Material. In Recent Developments in Ceramic Petrology, edited by Andrew P. Middleton and Ian C. Freestone, pp. 211–264. British Museum Occasional Paper No. 81. British Museum Press, London.Google Scholar
Miksa, Elizabeth J. 1995 Petrology of Sand and Rock Samples from the Gila Butte, Santan Mountains Area, Central Arizona. Technical Report No. 95–7. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Miksa, Elizabeth J. 1998 Pinal Schist as a Temper Source for Hohokam Plain Ware Pottery. Manuscript on file, Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Miksa, Elizabeth J. 2001a Temper Provenance Studies. In Grewe Archaeological Research Project: Vol. 2. Material Culture: Part I. Ceramic Studies, edited by David R. Abbott, pp. 7–45. Anthropological Papers No. 99–1. Northland Research, Inc., Flagstaff, Arizona.Google Scholar
Miksa, Elizabeth J. 2001b Provenance Characterization of Schist-Tempered Buff Ware Pottery. Petrographic Report No. 99–6. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Miksa, Elizabeth J. 2011 Half Million Points and Counting: Two Decades of Petrofacies Modeling in the Greater Tucson Basin and Avra Valley. In Craft Specialization in the Southern Tucson Basin: Archaeological Excavations at the Julian Wash Site, AZ BB:13:17 (ASM), edited by Henry D. Wallace, pp. 553–617. Anthropological Papers No. 40. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Miksa, Elizabeth J., and Castro-Reino, Sergio F. 2001 An Updated Sand Petrofacies Model for the Middle Gila River Basin. Petrographic Report No. 2001-02. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Miksa, Elizabeth J., and Castro-Reino, Sergio F. 2011 Petrographic Provenance Analysis of Buff Ware Sherds from Crismon Ruin. In Crismon Ruin: A Hohokam Settlement at the Head of the Lehi Canal System, edited by T. Kathleen Henderson, pp. 447–459. Anthropological Papers No. 44. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Miksa, Elizabeth J., Castro-Reino, Sergio F., and Lavayen, Carlos 2004 A Combined Petrofacies Model for the Middle Gila and Phoenix Basins, with Application to Pottery from the Dutch Canal Ruin. In Hohokam Farming on the Salt River Floodplain: Refining Models and Analytical Methods, edited by T. Kathleen Henderson, pp. 7–44. Anthropological Papers No. 43. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson, Arizona. Pueblo Grande Museum Anthropological Papers No. 10. City of Phoenix Parks and Recreation Department, Phoenix, Arizona.Google Scholar
Mills, Barbara J., and Crown, Patricia L. 1995 Introduction. In Ceramic Production in the American Southwest, edited by Barbara J. Mills and Patricia L. Crown, pp. 1–29. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Ownby, Mary F. 2012 Hohokam Buff Ware from Honey Bee Village: Petrographic Analysis to Reveal Aspects of Technology and Provenance. Petrographic Report No. 2012-03. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Ownby, Mary F. 2014 Petrographic Analysis of Pottery from La Villa. In Excavations at La Villa: Continuity and Change at an Agricultural Village (Draft), edited by Michael W. Lindeman . Technical Report No. 12-08. Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Ownby, Mary F., Ownby, Charlotte L., and Miksa, Elizabeth J. 2004 Use of Scanning Electron Microscopy to Characterize Schist as a Temper in Hohokam Pottery. Journal of Archaeological Science 31:31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kevin, Rafferty 1982 Hohokam Micaceous Schist Mining and Ceramic Craft Specialization: An Example from Gila Butte, Arizona. Anthropology 6:199–222.Google Scholar
Richard, Stephen M., Reynolds, Stephen J., Spencer, Jon E., and Pearthree, Philip A. 2000 Geologic Map of Arizona 1:1,000,000. United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Wallace, Henry D. 2001 Time Seriation and Typological Refinement of the Middle Gila Buffware Sequence: Snaketown through Soho Phases. In Grewe Archaeological Research Project: Vol. 2. Material Culture: Part I. Ceramic Studies, edited by David R. Abbott, pp. 177–261. Anthropological Papers No. 99–1. Northland Research, Inc., Flagstaff, Arizona.Google Scholar
Wallace, Henry D. 2004 Update to the Middle Gila Buff Ware Ceramic Sequence . In Hohokam Farming on the Salt River Floodplain: Refining Models and Analytical Methods, edited by T. Kathleen Henderson, pp. 54–124. Anthropological Papers No. 43. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson, Arizona. Pueblo Grande Museum Anthropological Papers No. 10. City of Phoenix Parks and Recreation Department, Phoenix, Arizona.Google Scholar
Wallace, Henry D. 2012 Honey Bee Village and the Valley of Gold in the Scheme of Things Hohokam. In Life in the Valley of Gold: Archaeological Investigations at Honey Bee Village, A Prehistoric Hohokam Ballcourt Village: Part 2, edited by Henry D. Wallace, pp. 783–827. Anthropological Papers No. 48. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Mary-Ellen, Walsh-Anduze 1993 The Sourcing of Hohokam Red-On-Buff Ceramics Using Inductively Coupled Plasma Spectroscopy. “Schist Happens.” Unpublished Master’s thesis. Department of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff Google Scholar
Wentworth, Chester K. 1922 A Scale of Grade and Class Terms for Clastic Sediments. Journal of Geology 30:377–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ian, Whitbread 1989 A Proposal for the Systematic Description of Thin Sections Towards the Study of Ancient Ceramic Technology. In Archaeometry: Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium, edited by Y. Maniatis, pp. 127–138. Elsevier, New York.Google Scholar
Woodson, M. Kyle 2011 Hohokam Pottery Production Areas and the Organization of Ceramic Production and Exchange in the Phoenix Basin. Journal of Arizona Archaeology 1:128–147.Google Scholar