A universal theory of pottery production Irving Rouse, attributes, modes, and ethnography 9780817318987, 9780817389444, 0817318984

Table of contents :
An interactional theory of artifact descriptionA theory of ceramic production : the focal form --
A theory of production steps and stages --
The classification of artifact complexes --
Background for the study of the ceramic sample from Paso del Indio --
The Paso del Indio sample size, morphology, and manufacture --
Modes of appendation --
Decoration, drying, and firing --
Summary and discussion.

Citation preview

A Universal Theory of Pottery Production

CARIBBEAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOHISTORY L. Antonio Curet, Series Editor

A Universal Theory of Pottery Production

IRVING ROUSE, ATTRIBUTES, MODES, AND ETHNOGRAPHY

RICHARD A. KRAUSE

The University of Ala­bama Press Tuscaloosa

The University of Ala­bama Press Tuscaloosa, Ala­bama 35487-­0380 uapress.ua.edu Copyright © 2016 by the University of Ala­bama Press All rights reserved. Inquiries about reproducing material from this work should be addressed to the University of Ala­bama Press. Typeface: Caslon Manufactured in the United States of America Cover image: Taino bat; drawing by Richard A. Krause Cover design: Michele Myatt Quinn ∞ The paper on which this book is printed meets the minimum requirements of Ameri­can National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48–1984. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Krause, Richard A., 1938– Title: A universal theory of pottery production : Irving Rouse, attributes, modes, and ethnography / Richard A. Krause. Description: Tuscaloosa : The University of Alabama Press, 2016. | Series: Caribbean archaeology and ethnohistory | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2015032326| ISBN 9780817318987 (cloth : alkaline paper) | ISBN 9780817389444 (e-book) Subjects: LCSH: Indian pottery—Caribbean Area—Analysis. | Pottery, Prehistoric— Caribbean Area—Analysis. | Rouse, Irving, 1913–2006. | Attribute (Philosophy) | Antiquities—Classification. | Ethnoarchaeology—Philosophy. | Indian pottery—Puerto Rico—Analysis. | Pottery, Prehistoric—Puerto Rico—Analysis. | Indians of the West Indies—Puerto Rico—Antiquities. | Puerto Rico—Antiquities. Classification: LCC F1619.3.P6 K73 2016 | DDC 972.95/01—dc23 LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015032326

Contents

List of Illustrations     vii Introduction     1

1. An Interactional Theory of Artifact Description     7

2. A Theory of Ceramic Production: The Focal Form     26 3. A Theory of Production Steps and Stages     49 4. The Classification of Artifact Complexes     67

5. Background for the Study of the Ceramic Sample from Paso Del Indio     78 6. The Paso Del Indio Sample Size, Morphology, and Manufacture     89 7. Modes of Appendation     123

8. Decoration, Drying, and Firing     161 9. Summary and Discussion     178 Works Cited     199 Index     209

Illustrations

Figures

2.1. Morphological landmarks for vessels with radial symmetry     28

2.2. Morphological landmarks for vessels with bilateral symmetry     29 2.3. Shoulderless vessel morphology     30 2.4. Base and bottom morphology     34

2.5. Rounded shoulder morphology     35 2.6. Angular shoulder morphology     36 2.7. Rim morphology     37 2.8. Lip morphology     38

2.9. Decorating tools     41

2.10. Stamping and engraving tools     43 2.11. Fabric and finger impressing     45 2.12. Modified surfaces     46

3.1. Mass modeling from the bottom up     52 3.2. Coiling from the bottom up     53

3.3. Mass-­modeling from the shoulder     56 3.4. Handle manufacture     57 3.5. Bonfire kiln stack     59

5.1. Map of Puerto Rico     79

6.1. Profile views of extra large shouldered vessels     90 6.2. Profile views of large shouldered vessels     91

6.3. Profile views of medium-­sized shouldered vessels     92 6.4. Profile views of small shouldered vessels     94

6.5. Profile views of extra large shoulderless vessels     94

6.6. Profile views of two large and four medium-­sized shoulderless vessels     96 6.7. Profile views of small shoulderless vessels     96 6.8. Coils and coiling scars     98

6.9. Profile views of slab-­modeled vessels     99

6.10. Bottom and base views of slab-­modeled vessels     101 6.11. Vessel width to height ratios by grouped layer     102 6.12. Bases and bottom shape and construction     110 6.13. Shoulder morphology by grouped layer     116 6.14. Lip morphology by grouped layers     119

6.15. Rim morphology by grouped layers     120 6.16. Flanged lips     121

7.1. D-­and Ω-­shaped handles     127 7.2. Handle distribution     128 7.3. Lugs     130

7.4. Handle frequency by grouped layers at Paso del Indio     132 7.5. Monkey, human, and humanoid adornos     134 7.6. Bat adornos     141

7.7. Bat and bat-­like adornos     145

7.8. Bat and humanoid adornos     148 7.9. Animal head adornos     150

7.10. Animal and animal-­like adornos     155 7.11. Tail, limb, and fin adornos     157

7.12. Frequency of adorno kind     158

7.13. Adorno frequency by grouped layers     159 8.1. Pink and red paint     163

8.2. Area painted by grouped layers     164

8.3. Pink-­and red-­painted vessel parts     165 8.4. Tooled decoration by layers     168 8.5. Tooled designs 1     170

8.6. Tooled designs 2     172

Tables

6.1. Vessel Width to Height Ratios by Grouped Layers     102 6.2. Shoulder Morphology by Grouped Layers     116

6.3. Distribution of Direct, Round, and Flat Lips by Grouped Layers     119

6.4. Distribution of Direct, Everted, and Inverted Lips by Grouped Layers     120 7.1. Handle Distribution by Grouped Layers     128 8.1. Painted Sherds by Grouped Layers     163 8.2. Tooled Decorative Elements     167

8.3. Tooled Decoration by Grouped Layers     167

8.4. Ratio of Painted to Tooled Decoration by Grouped Layers     168

Introduction

This dialogue began as a thought experiment. It was designed to produce an archaeologically derived ethnographic account of pottery production. To achieve this end the meaning assigned the archaeological concepts of attribute, mode, feature, association, site, analy­sis, and classification were explicated. Then the analyst (1) focused upon the evidence left by production and decorative techniques, (2) created a focal form vessel(s) from the sample’s largest fragments, and (3) organized the evidence by production steps and stages. Organizing by steps and stages was important because it led to a theory of pottery manufacture. Thus if the steps and stages used by a site’s potters are derived from an analy­sis of a sample of their products (i.e., the modes of manufacture indicated by potsherds) they constitute a theory of how the pottery was made. This theory may then be used to assess transformations in the procedures of pottery production and examine the sample’s place in a potting tradition. In a final step the samples placed in a potting tradition may be productively classified. The ideas that guided this dialogue were born in the early 1960s in conversations with Irving Rouse and Harold Conklin. They were refined through course work with Irving Rouse, Harold Conklin, and Floyd Lounsbury. Those that survived were forged in the heat of argument with Preston Holder, Raymond Wood, and Donald Lehmer. Still, they remained ideas in need of a body of archaeological materials to which they might be applied. In 1990 this opportunity was supplied by Carlos Solis Magaña, who offered me funding, laboratory space, and the assistance of Elvis Bablonia for work on the ceramics from the site of Paso del Indio in Puerto Rico. Over the years Holder interrogated me by posing questions that I struggled

2 • Introduction

with. When he asked me, “What is archaeology?” I responded, following Rouse, “Archaeology is the science of artifacts.” He retorted, “Tell me, boy, just what science is and what an artifact is.” When I cited White to the effect that science is what scientists do, he found my answer totally unacceptable and advised me to “go back to the drawing board and try again.” He was even more skeptical of my textbook-­inspired claim that an artifact was anything made or modified by man. “Do you really mean to tell me that to practice your science of archaeology I must put soil erosion, air, and water pollution in the same category as pot sherds and projectile points?” When I pointed out that similar phenomena had recently been identified as eco-­facts he was less than impressed. “We have now cluttered the literature with an ill-­defined concept and the moon with footprints and other stuff. Is the moon therefore an eco-­fact? I think not!” “There’s something missing here, boy, and I urge you to find it.” When Holder asked me to define a feature I responded, “A feature is an artifact too large or too fragile to be moved to the laboratory for analy­sis.” Again he scoffed, “Boy, you’re putting the archaeologist ahead of the Indian. Review the term’s use as an archaeological concept. I think you will find that the concept has been used in different ways at different times. The use you reference is a response to the exigencies of archaeological salvage programs conducted by the River Basin Surveys. Can’t you imagine an analytically more useful approach?” When I responded to Holder’s question about archaeological sites as places where artifacts were found, he considered my description inadequate. When I asked him in what way he smirked, “Think relationships, boy, think relationships.” When I told Holder I was intrigued by Rouse’s (1939) mode, he asked me if the mode was not just another and superfluous way to describe an attribute. “Boy, what is an attribute anyway? How does an attribute come into being?” I replied by quoting Rouse, “Attributes are the properties of artifacts.” “All modes are attributes but not all attributes are modes.” Holder replied by telling me that I had better be able to tell my colleagues what the precise difference might be. When I described the Sumpter site ceramics as broad-­shouldered jars with constricted necks and out-­flaring rims, Holder frowned deeply, then responded, “If they’re jars why don’t they resemble the ball jars used to can fruit and vegetables?” To respond I read a dictionary statement: “n {MF jarre fr. OProv. Jarra, fr. Ar Jarrah earthen water vessel] (1592) 1: a wide-­mouthed container made typically of earthenware or glass.” Holder was delighted. He scoffed, “About the only property the Sumpter ceramics and ball jars have in common is that they are containers, eh, boy. Why describe both as jars? You can do better.” “If you think more about the issue of containers the properties you want

Introduction • 3

for an explicit description will become apparent and you will be able to answer my question.” “Once you answer this question I presume you will be more precise in your description of ceramic morphology.” As I struggled to produce a more precise description of ceramic morphology, I referred to a specimen as a neck sherd. Holder scoffed: “Where does the neck begin?” “Where does the neck end?” “Where does the rim begin?” When I showed him what I took to be the neck on a sec­ond specimen from the same excavation, he laughed. “You have showed me different starting points from the same pot. Why?” “How will we be able to describe or measure the neck if we can’t find the starting or ending point?” “What will such measurements mean to future inquiry?” “Imprecision will do more to confuse than clarify.” Holder also sneered at my attempts to classify artifact complexes. He considered them arbitrary efforts to organize the data of prehistory. He challenged me to do better. “Must attempts to classify artifact complexes be purely arbitrary?,” he smirked as only he could. “Can’t we find alternatives that are not grounded in arbitrary criteria?” My response was, “Many previous attempts to classify artifact complexes have misused the taxonomic principles and systems available to us.” I have addressed this issue in several previous publications (Krause 1994, 1998; Jenkins and Krause 1986, 2009). I will try again here. While I was attending classes and participating in graduate seminars at Yale, Ameri­can archaeology was experiencing a dramatic transformation. This transformation was first called the new archaeology. As it grew in popu­larity the new archaeology became processual archaeology. Insofar as processual archaeologists challenged the basic analytic practices of their predecessors, they urged attention to statistical procedures in attribute pattern discrimination and the use of systems theory to interpret the classificatory superstructure produced by cultural historians. Processualists viewed culture as a sys­tem composed of vari­ous interrelated subsystems with human behavior as a point of subsys­tem articulation. Variation in human behavior was considered both a product of subsys­tem restructuring and the means for establishing systemic harmony at a different level or plane. Culture change was thus construed as achieved through variation in one or more of the subsystems that grew, displaced, or reinforced others as systemic balance was challenged by disruptive social, economic, po­liti­cal, or environmental forces. A prime analytic desideratum was the isolation of each subsys­tem and its study as a variable within the matrix of forces to which it was exposed. The ultimate goal was to construct archaeologically testable models of the factors producing variation in prehistoric human behavior. The origi­nality of the systemic approach was questioned and the credibility of its aims and goals was debated (Kushner 1970). It, nevertheless, generated a con-

4 • Introduction

siderable amount of intellectual enthusiasm among a generation of archaeologists and had a large body of adherents. Yet most of them used the basic units of analy­sis, classification, and sequencing practices developed for the study of culture history. David Clarke introduced the only serious challenge to Rouse’s interpretation of attribute. Clarke’s hierarchical arrangement of culture, assemblage, culture group, and techno-­complex rested upon his interpretation of attribute and artifact type. He did not understand his cultural his­tori­cal predecessors’ use of these units making his attempt to redefine them unworkable. Clarke defined an attribute as “a logically irreducible character of two or more states, acting as an independent variable within a specific artifact system” (Clarke 1968:186). If by multistate Clarke meant only presence or absence then his attribute was logically irreducible but was not properly a variable. If Clarke’s character was both variable and repetitive within the population of occurrence, then it was the member of a class of related occurrences. This attribute class was a Boolean-­class product. Any such class can be logically reduced to the necessary and sufficient conditions for class membership. Clarke’s (1968:197) definition of an artifact type as “an homogeneous population of artifacts which share a consistently recurrent range of attribute states within a given polythetic set” was vexing in its ambiguity. Both the range of attribute states and the membership in polythetic sets required a subjective judgment (Read 2007:​ 134–135). Neither Clarke’s construal of attribute nor his definition of artifact type was widely used. The processualist use of systems theory offered the prospect of a truly anthropological archaeology. Flannery (1967), Binford (1962), Deetz (1968), and Long­acre (1970) produced compelling interpretations of archaeological materials that fused ethnographic with archaeological concepts to give social relevance to the cultural his­tori­cal construal of attribute, mode, artifact, artifact type, feature, association, and site. Thompson and Longacre (1966:270) succinctly state the prevailing processualist view of archaeological sites: “All of the material remains in an archaeological site are highly patterned or structured directly as a result of the ways in which the extinct society was organized and the patterned ways in which the people behaved.” Krause and Thorne (1971:​ 245–257) were the first to challenge this view. They urged greater attention to determining precisely which materials in an archaeological site were patterned as a consequence of people’s behavior and which were not. Schiffer (1972:​156– 165) first expanded Krause and Thorne’s challenge then formalized it to create an approach he called behavioral archaeology (Schiffer 1976). The sys­tems approach advocated by the “new archaeologists” and Schiffer’s observations about archaeological site patterning, when combined, led to the widespread

Introduction • 5

implementation of new techniques of site sampling and excavation and the invention and use of more sophisticated artifact recovery techniques. They did not, however, produce a serious modification of cultural his­tori­cal principles of analy­sis and classification. As processualism matured, its limitations, especially a propensity to interpret social transformations as a consequence of technologically and environmentally stimulated modifications of subsistence practices, became more and more apparent. As Rouse puts it, “Where are the people in processual interpretations?” See, for example, Rouse’s 1965 publication “The Place of Peoples in Prehistoric Research.” Holder opined that “prehistoric lifestyles must have provided more than a perpetual quest for efficient food production.” He was not alone in this thought. Processualism generated a “beyond subsistence” (Duke and Wilson, eds. 1995) postprocessual response to the processual interpretation of human behavior. Postprocessualists stress the role of artifacts in the transformation of past human behavior (Hodder 1985). For the postprocessualist, artifacts are more than reflections of human behavior. Artifacts are viewed by postprocessualists as a consequence of human agency and as participants in the transformation of human understanding and action. Postprocessualists distinguish between structures and structuring, between being and becoming (Krause 1995:​ 307–352). Artifacts through human agency participate in structuring social life. Artifacts, if properly interpreted, can be used to create models of the be­ing and the becoming of ancient societies. Postprocessualists produce in­ trigu­ing images of past societies. Yet they and their contemporary rivals, the neo-­Darwinian evolutionists, still used the basic analytic, classificatory, and sequencing constructs developed for the study of culture history. A neo-­Darwinian challenge to processualism attempted to modify the interpretation of attributes and artifacts but did not seriously modify their definition. For the neo-­Darwinians attributes and artifacts are important as participants in and indicators of evolution. To produce a fit between static archaeological evidence and evolutionary dynamism attributes and artifacts are defined as evidence for, and the consequence of, adaptation. Read (2007:​282–283) argues that by this move the neo-­Darwinists reintroduced a formerly discredited biological analogy to archaeological enquiry. The biological construal of adaptation has serious consequences. A biological trait is considered adaptive if it conveys a reproductive advantage. With slowly reproducing species this reproductive advantage can only be measured after the fact. Hence the traits that produced it are introduced as adaptive by virtue of their presumed import in ex-­post-­facto, just-­so stories. The reintroduced biological analogy, even if the archaeologist identifies the artifact traits he thinks are adaptive and even

6 • Introduction

if artifact trait creation or replacement is relatively rapid, makes this biologi­cal problem into an archaeological problem. Simply put, the archaeological propensity to produce just-­so stories is reinforced by dependence upon Darwinian theory. Without significant and appropriate modification the cultural his­ tori­cal construal of attribute and artifact are not compatible with Darwinian theory. In 1980 Holder, shortly before his death, read Dunnell’s (1978) article in Ameri­can Antiquity and noted that the new evolutionists “had yet to solve the problem of defining basic units of artifact production and/or use that provide a reproductive advantage.” Until they do, he opined, “Their approach will generate more heat than light.” In this he was prescient. Holder died before “landscape archaeology,” as Phillip Duke (2008:278) puts it, became the “flavor of the month for the last decade or so.” Landscape archaeologists view their subject as the long-­term study of the intersection of land, place, and people. They construe the landscape as a cultural construction whose interpretation requires reference to the data supplied by knowledge of an area’s topographic, hydrologic, climatic, faunal, and floral composition as well as settlement patterns and site structures. In short, they view landscape archaeology as a holistic study of the way an area’s inhabitants created strategies for negotiating their physical surroundings—a view that requires multiple scales of analy­sis to implement. In doing so they stress the impact of place, the importance of scale, the artificiality of boundaries, the informative potential of the longe durée, and the landscape as reflector and indicator of ethnicity and class. Yet they still use the concepts of attribute, mode, artifact, artifact type, feature, and site developed for the study of culture history (Krause 2010:​249–252). Several of my colleagues in the cohort following my own venture the opinion that culture history is “theory deficient, unimaginative, and uninformative.” I hope I can dispel this view as I discuss Irving Rouse’s basic ideas and create from them a universal theory of hand potting. In sum, since most contemporary archaeologists, whether they are processualists, postprocessualists, neo-­ Darwinian evolutionists, or landscape archaeologists, build their vari­ous approaches upon the analytic and classificatory foundation provided by culture history I consider Rouse’s analytic ideas and practices relevant to contemporary archaeological inquiry. In the chapters 1 through 4 I address the issue of attribute, mode, artifact, artifact type, feature, association, and site as necessary elements of archaeological theory building and answer the questions my mentors have asked me about them. For those with little or no interest in the answers please skip to chapter 6 with the description of the Paso del Indio site and its ceramics. For those who choose to read these chapters, I hope the answers do not vex them.

1 An Interactional Theory of Artifact Description

In class, and in private discussions, Irving Rouse identified archaeology as the science of artifacts. If Rouse’s science of artifacts is to be empirical, it must have three major objectives: (1) to isolate the phenomena of import, (2) to describe the phenomena of import, and (3) to establish the means by which these phenomena can be systematically anticipated and explained. These objectives are complementary and interrelated. As commonly understood the explanatory and predictive principles of a science lie in its theories. Further, it is the role of theory to identify and describe the regularities to which in­di­vidual cases conform. It is precisely these regularities that make it possible to predict (i.e., anticipate an occurrence of the phenomenon in question). Thus, if observed or anticipated regularities are described, they are statements of theory. From this perspective an adequate description is an exercise in concept formation. In archaeology, as in other empirical sciences, concept formation and theory building proceed together. If archaeology is to be the science of artifacts, the term artifact designates a concept with logical and epistemological priority. It warrants a reasonably full and precise explication. But first I must address the tacit confusion between specimens and data. The two are frequently treated as synonyms. This practice engenders questionable results. In archaeology, specimens are usually (although not exclusively) objects. The specimens of greatest import are those identified as artifacts or artifact by-­products. These specimens may be understood as data sources. They are not, in and of themselves, data. To construe them as data confuses the object of an inquiry with the results of that inquiry. Data are not specimens. They are the recorded consequences of observations taken upon specimens.

8 • Chapter 1

At first glance the distinction between specimens and data seems trivial. Upon greater reflection it makes possible several important points. First, any specimen identified as an artifact or artifact by-­product (or any group of specimens so identified) may provide multitudes of data now and in the future. The number and kinds of observations that can be made about any object or set of objects are infinite. The observations taken on those specimens identified as artifacts are a select sample of all possible observations. Second, when an observer selects a particular property as integral to an artifact or artifact by-­ product it may be termed an attribution. Its consequence is an attribute. But attribution may be accomplished from different perspectives. The attributes that result depend upon the perspective taken during attribution. Thus attributes are descriptions of object properties. They are the consequence of an interaction between analyst and object. The analyst observes and selects the properties that are to be attributes according to an implicit or explicit theory of description. During attribution most archaeologists reference West­ern standards of object description. This practice implies that artifacts are objects and may be adequately described as such. Differently put, archaeologists have customarily considered descriptions of artifacts (or groups of artifacts) valid if they adequately reflect West­ern canons of object description. This practice confuses specimens with artifacts. While all artifacts may be specimens, not all specimens are artifacts. Those standards of description applicable to specimens in general may not be precise enough, or explicit enough, to adequately describe that proper subset of specimens that are artifacts. Unfortunately, if one proceeds in the customary manner—that is, using standards of description applicable to specimens in general to choose which of the many properties of things are significant—and renders as a description of artifacts the sum of these properties, then (1) there is no assurance that the description of artifacts or groups of artifacts from one archaeological site will productively apply to artifacts or groups of artifacts from another and (2) there is no assurance that modifications of group membership will not require a modification of group description. There have been attempts to resolve the ambiguity inherent in using West­ ern standards of object description through finer-­grained (i.e., more detailed) observation and measurement. It has become commonplace to seek the aid of computers in this task. It is true that a computer will produce fuller descriptions as it is fed more and more measurements and observations. If properly programmed, the computer will also correlate these measurements and observations to produce statements of association. If desired, strongly cohering measurements and observations may be identified as significant. But what is gained? To be precise, one is given a statement, or set of statements, iden-

Interactional Theory of Artifact Description • 9

tifying those previously taken measurements and observations that are most suitable for efficiently and explicitly remeasuring and reobserving the specimens at hand. One may assume that the previously discussed observations and measurements will apply to yet-­undiscovered specimens. This assumption may not be warranted. In Read’s elegant and comprehensive treatment of artifact classification he (2007) discusses this issue at length. Even if future discoveries are similar, there is no in vacuo assurance that the origi­nal or the expanded sample is, or will be, significant. To rephrase the issue, would the three blind men of parable fame have a better understanding of the elephant if each could take more measurements on his particular part of the beast? No! Then, too, would applying the same procedures to yet another elephant provide a more determinant picture? No! It is for these reasons that we must seek an alternative grounded in an explicit theory of artifact description. I begin with the term artifact. Let us consider an artifact as any culturally salient entity intentionally modi­ fied by man. For a similar point of view see Clarke 1968:145; Fagan 1978:​ 32; and Read 2007:​185. I realize it is customary to use the expression made or modified by man when referring to artifacts (Hester 1976:​26; Hole and Heizer 1969:​44; Jennings 1974:​373; Knudson 1978:​482; Sheerer and Ashmore 1979:​ 560; Thomas 1979:456). To include the term made is redundant. All entities made are modified. Hence, those entities made are a special case, a proper subset, of the set of all entities modified. By modified I mean transformed by the application of external force. By an entity I mean any definably bounded, expectable stable substance which occupies space (for a discussion of this point see Harré 1961:​42–54). For archaeological inquiry it is axiomatic that no two substances can occupy precisely the same space at exactly the same time (Binford 1958:​354). I take the term man as commonly understood in anthropological discourse, that is, as any member of the genus Homo. I would feel comfortable identifying the Australopithecines as men if they are included in the genus Homo. My understanding of intentionally is problematic. It will require additional attention. Inferring intentionality is the part of artifact identification that requires recourse to regularities in human behavior. To begin I presume that all intentional behavior is purposeful. But it would be incorrect to suppose that all purposeful behavior is the product of conscious, rational action. It would also be incorrect to assume that purposeful behavior is understood by actor and analyst in precisely the same way. In archaeology we apprehend what people did, not what they wanted to do, or thought they did (see White and Thomas 1956:​275–308). Nevertheless, if the proposed synonymy between intention-

10 • Chapter 1

ality and purpose is accepted, we may consider it a fact that all purposeful human behavior is patterned. There are good reasons for identifying purposeful behavior as patterned (Deetz 1968:​31–41; Spaulding 1960:60–83). Purposeful behavior is a proper subset of the set of all human behaviors. Now if all human behavior were random, predictability would be impossible. There is, however, a modicum of predictability in the conduct of human affairs (albeit just how much may be debated) indicating that some behavior is not random. We may safely assume that nonrandom behavior is patterned, although the import we may assign to such patterning is a matter to be decided empirically. For the purposes of a given inquiry we may identify instances of patterned behavior as members of that proper subset of nonrandom behavior we identify as purposeful. In fact, we commonly construe patterned behavior as purposeful and assume that it is based in the enactment of those socially contrived and transmitted rules and specifications for proper performance we call culture (Childe 1950:2; Clarke 1968:​19–20; Malinowski 1936:440–449; Taylor 1948:102). We do, nonetheless, need an analytical construct that will allow us to move from a general sense of the import of patterned behavior to a specific and archaeologically appropriate claim (or set of claims) about the relationship between patterned human acts and their observable consequences. It was this consideration that led Rouse (1939) to create the mode. Rouse (1939:313–325) considered the mode to be any standard, custom, or belief to which the artisan conformed when producing, modifying, or using artifacts. Rouse is using customs, standards, and beliefs in the cultural anthropological sense, that is, as socially shared and transmitted rules of and for culturally appropriate behavior. But customs, standards, and beliefs cannot be directly observed. If modes are to be synonymous with customs and so on, they cannot be directly observed either (Taylor 1948:101). It is, however, common ethnographic practice to infer the existence of specific customs, standards, or beliefs from observed and (in some respects) measured patterns of learned-­transmitted behavior (Beattie 1964:​16–33; Firth 1963:1–40; Gluckman 1968:​31–45; Lienhardt 1966:​156–163; Malinowski 1961:​1–25; Pelto and Pelto 1978:​ix–xiii and 1–16; Radcliffe-­Brown 1958:​166–177). Rouse (1939) claims that it is also possible to infer the past existence of archaeologically relevant customs, standards, and so on from their tangible, observable, and measurable consequences as attributes of artifacts. Modes, therefore, are abstractions created by inference from suitably patterned attributes. But judging the adequacy of attribute patterning may be a worrisome problem. Its solution will require recourse to moderately complex epistemological issues.

Interactional Theory of Artifact Description • 11

While sequences of patterned behavior produce those archaeological manifestations we identify as the products of purposeful action (Deetz 1967:2, 1968), these actions are processes in time and space. These processes can, however, be modeled as a sequence of noncommutative acts (see Nadel 1957). By a process I mean a set of interrelated events that produce a reasonably uniform result. By noncommutative I mean those acts whose relatedness is such that variation in their order of occurrence will alter the result achieved (Krause and Thorne 1971). In sociological inquiry sequences of behavior achieve analytic import when the events within them occur in a fixed order (see Nadel 1957). In archaeology, analytically important event sequences must be determined from an analy­sis of the potentials and limitations inhering in the interplay between humanly possible acts and the knowledge, tools, implements, and materials available to an artisan. Thus, purposeful human actions may be experienced as sequences of noncommutative events, but those artifact properties that are the products of purposeful human action are only visible as complexes of static attributes (Clarke 1968:20; Schiffer 1976; Wobst 1978:303–309). The two are by no means identical. The intellectually challenging task of transforming static complexes of artifact attributes into models of the dynamic human acts that produced them is crucial. At this point I introduce criteria that will aid in organizing the knowledge necessary for this task. The first is the criterion of redundancy. In theory there may be as many different ways of acting as there are actors and enactments. I may posit a world in which chaos reigns. I have, however, dismissed this view as incompatible with my experience. I am not concerned with all possibilities. I am interested in ways of acting that are patterned, that is, ways of acting that are governed by rules and, thus, are rendered determinate. One of the first archaeologically relevant things that can be said of such ways of acting is that they must be finite and less numerous than the number of possible actors or enactments (for a similar point of view see Dunnell 1971:​ 123–124; Hester 1976:​78). I, therefore, suspect that purposeful ways of acting are repetitive and that significant artifact attributes will also be repetitive. That behaviors or attributes are repetitive means that they are the de­notata of a set or class of behaviors or attributes. As such each must have properties in common with others in the set or class to which they belong. It is precisely these properties I take as constituting the necessary and sufficient conditions (the significata) for behavior or attribute identification. This may be symbolically stated as follows: (1.1) A1 = A2 ≡ ϕA1 = ϕA2

12 • Chapter 1

where A1 and A2 indicate two instances of the same attribute or behavior and ϕ stands for the significata appropriate to each. If attributes are repetitive, they may be the results of purposeful actions. Yet to assign significance to either behavior or attributes on the basis of repetition alone is risky. Some repetitious human behavior is not customary and not all repetitive artifact attributes can be identified as the products of human action. Some repetitive human actions are genetically determined; some are idiosyncratic. Some artifact attributes are the consequences of natural forces; some are the consequences of the raw materials from which the pieces in question were made. While I may expect that repetitive human acts and repetitive artifact attributes can be understood as members of sets or classes of acts or attributes, it would be unreasonable to assume that all such sets or classes are significant. This fact indicates the need for a sec­ond criterion. I shall call it the condition of relative invariance. The condition of relative invariance is also a consequence of the rule of dependence of purposeful behavior. I may, for example, suppose that rules are centralizing ideas that human beings apply to the perceivable variability in their environment (see Goodenough 1957:167–173). By applying these ideas the continuum of sight, sound, smell, and feel is classified and rendered conceptually manageable. No two sights, sounds, smells, or feels are precisely the same. Nonetheless, human beings, for purposes of organizing objectively different things, identify some of their properties as identical, ignoring for the moment those properties that render each different (Simpson 1961:3–5). It is through this procedure that humans strive to produce order in their social and natural environments (see Kluckhohn and Kelley 1945:26). This perception of order must, of course, organize those ideas that lead to the acts I wish to identify as purposeful. When translated into action purposeful procedures enable an artisan to produce or use artifacts. Nevertheless, even if artisans are attempting to produce or use their wares by the uniform application of customary standards of thought and action, they will achieve a degree of variability forced upon them by a host of forces—the nature of raw materials, the wear on tools, the inability to exactly replicate sequences of behavior, differences in understanding and motivation to name but a few (Clarke 1968:149–152; White and Thomas 1956:​275–308). If I properly measure and graph this variability, I expect a Gaussian distribution. The expected variability will be unimodal because repeated attempts to apply a traditional standard or procedure will constrain the randomizing effects of nonuniform and highly complex external forces (Chang 1968:​4; Taylor 1948:​119). The essential variability in purposeful hu-

Interactional Theory of Artifact Description • 13

man actions should therefore be reflected in some of the attributes displayed by artifacts. If I properly define and measure the attributes of artifacts (carefully accounting for the limiting effects of raw materials while doing so), some of them should vary in a pattern that, if graphed, would approximate a unimodal scatter. These particular attributes should be of great intrinsic interest. If I can reasonably describe them as the results of a single instance of tool, hand, or finger use and/or if I can replicate them through imitative experiment, I may build a case for their import. This point will be developed and illustrated later. For now suffice it to say that I expect the consequences of purposeful human action to vary in an expectable way and I expect the actions that created them to be capable of description. I may summarize the foregoing narrative by stating the criterion of relative invariance in the more parsimonious and precise form of a bilateral reduction sentence (see Hempel 1965 for a discussion of the limitations and potentials inhering in bilateral reduction sentences): (2.1) 01A (IA ≡ 02A), where I stands for intentionality and A indicates an attribute sample, and where 01 stands for proper definition and measurement, and 02 indicates a Gaussian curve as defined by the following: (2.2) [f (x) = σ \/ 2Πσ −­ (X−­U) / 2σ ] (2.1) may be loosely paraphrased as: “If a normal curve of error results then measurement of an attribute sample implies intent” (for a lengthy discussion of this issue see Read 2007). While repetitive and relatively invariant attributes mark purposeful human acts, it would be unreasonable to view them as disconnected. Our common experience and prior observations tell us they are not! They are ordered. Order is, in fact, forced upon the artisan. In both the production and use of artifacts, human beings are affected by the properties of raw materials and by the limitations and potentials of human biology. The properties of the raw materials set limits to the order of acts in artifact fabrication and to the kinds of acts possible in artifact use. The organization of the human body restricts the simultaneity of acts possible in artifact manufacture and use, and limits their duration. I, therefore, may expect a sequencing of acts in either manufacture or use. I shall call the principle that guides this sequencing the condition of linearity. Read (2007:97–101) expresses a similar point of view.

14 • Chapter 1

The condition of linearity implies that the relatedness of acts introduces order to purposeful behavior. Differently expressed, each act in a sequence may have a range of expectable material consequences, but from these I may abstract an invariant set of relations, that is, a sequential linkage. This can be symbolically shown by indicating the repetitive and relatively invariant consequences of human acts by small letters (a . . . n) and the relatedness of acts by the sign for implication (  ). I may further indicate that purposeful behavior rests not on a single enactment but on a series of enactments by the mathematical symbol for summation ( ∑ ). Thus, the general condition of linearity may be expressed as: (3.1) L = ∑ a  b  c  . . . n I shall use ceramics to illustrate this condition. All pottery vessels or parts thereof meet a loose construal of the criterion of linearity because their production entailed a sequence of interrelated events. A hypothetical sequence might run as follows: (a) obtain clay, (b) prepare clay, (c) build the vessel, (d) decorate the vessel, (e) dry the vessel, and (f ) fire the vessel. This may be symbolically charted as: (3.2) L = ∑ (a)  (b)  (c)  (d)  (e)  (f ) The difficulty in obtaining data for modeling the details of the act or acts in each step of this series will vary with the number and completeness of the specimens at hand and the complexity of the potting tradition they reflect. Determining if the raw clay was from an alluvial or residual source or inferring the introduction of an aplastic during clay preparation might be complicated. Nevertheless, I may safely assume that clay was obtained before it was prepared and clay was prepared before it was built into a vessel and so on. Although it may be safe to assume that any pottery vessel fragment will meet a loose construal of the criterion of linearity, a productive interpretation will require a more specific and fuller set of inferences. Consider the internal structure of the series of acts specified by the criterion of linearity. If the way the performance of a specific act affects the finished product is considered, then not all need be considered equally essential. Some acts are noncommutative. They must occur in a fixed order if a uniform result is to be achieved. Other acts may be commutative. Their order of occurrence may vary but these variations will not markedly affect the end-­product. Other acts may be optional. Yet others may admit of alternatives. Optional acts are those that may or may not be performed at the desecration of the maker or

Interactional Theory of Artifact Description • 15

user. Alternatives are those that may be rendered with different tools or hand movements at different times. Thus, a series of acts may admit of both commutative and noncommutative relationships, some (but certainly not all) of which may be expressed as options or alternatives. An example of noncommutative relationships was introduced in (3.2) of the foregoing. The following is an example of a commutative set of relationships. Consider a design composed of four horizontal, incised lines between the shoulder and the lip of a pottery vessel. There can be little doubt that the lines represent four separate acts, no two of which were simultaneous (unless I posit a potter with four hands or a special tool). Further, it matters little whether the potter incised the line nearest the lip first or nearest the shoulder first. In fact, from archaeological evidence it may be impossible to tell where the potter started. Nevertheless, the four incised lines meet the criterion of linearity in a commutative way. Thus, a more realistic representation of the criterion of linearity would include notations that specify which acts are commutative and which are not. This information may be symbolically represented as: (3.3) Let D stand for decoration, I for incised, H for horizontal, x for line and ~ for commutative. Then, D = [I (Hx1) ~ (Hx2) ~ (Hx3) ~ (Hx4)] While options and alternatives may be characterized as either commutative or noncommutative a richer construal is possible. Alternatives are better described as materially different acts that occur at the same position in a series. Options are those acts an artisan may add to or delete from a series. A full rendering of the criterion of linearity should accommodate both these eventualities. To illustrate this point I return to our example of commutative relations. But now let us consider an expanded sample in which the design composed of four horizontal lines is in some cases incised, in others trailed, and in yet others impressed. There can still be little doubt that the lines on each specimen represent four separate acts, no two of which were simultaneous. In fact, nothing has changed except that the lines on an incised specimen are materially different from the lines on a trailed specimen and the lines on an impressed specimen are materially different from the others. This case may be symbolically represented as: (3.4) Let D stand for decoration, I for incised, Im for impressed, T for trailed, H for horizontal x for line, ~ for commutative, and * for choose one. Thus,

16 • Chapter 1

D = {[I*Im*T] [(Hx1) ~ (Hx2) ~ (Hx3) ~ (Hx4)]} Let us expand the sample to include specimens with incised, trailed, or impressed designs and pieces that are not decorated. Let us also stipulate that the choice to decorate or not was part of the potting tradition. This choice may be symbolically indicated by interposing a (+/−­) sign before the appropriate step or act in a series of steps and/or acts performed by artisans working within the tradition. Hence, a final illustration of the condition of linearity might take the following form vis–à–vis decoration: (3.5) L =  (a)  (b)  (c)  +/−­ (d)  (e)  (f ). Where + (d) => {[I*IM*T] [(Hx1) ~ (Hx2) ~ (Hx3) ~ (Hx4]} In sum, the inference of intent can be systematically approached if the sample of specimens has attributes that vary within an expected range (meet the criterion of relative invariance), are redundant (meet the criterion of repetition), and were produced by a series of events (meet the criterion of lin­ earity). Nevertheless, these criteria, while they are necessary, are not sufficient. Consider, for instance, the case of divots and divot holes around a golf tee. Divots and divot holes may be considered attributes of golf courses. I might wonder if they represent modes. If I measured a sample of these divots and divot holes, they would meet the criterion of relative invariance, they would be redundant, and they would be part of an inferable series. Yet few who have observed divots or divot holes being formed would consider them intentional. Divots and divot holes are the unintended consequences of purposeful behavior. They are not to be taken as indicating modes. But, if I have only archaeological evidence, how can I tell the difference between the consequences of intentional acts and their by-­products? Let us suppose there are in fact conscientious golfers who attempt to repair the damage done by filling their own and other player’s divot holes with divots. Careful observation would lead us to the conclusion that in a given sample of divot holes some were filled with divots immediately, or at least very shortly, after they were created. Now, I might infer that the intent was to produce a small hole of uncertain use. If I did this, I would be faced with the prospect of arguing that in some instances humans dug these small holes and then immediately filled them in with the material previously removed. It would be vacuous to argue that the intent was both to dig a hole and to fill it up. If I did this, we would be forced to interpret the archaeological remains either as a mistake or as created by irrational behavior. In either case I would be forced to deny the status of mode to divots and divot holes.

Interactional Theory of Artifact Description • 17

Divots and divot holes are trivial; the problem they illustrate is real. A tentative solution to the problem may, however, be achieved by stipulating that the inference of intentionality must not allow a contradictory interpretation of archaeological materials. Thus, if the mode status of any attribute (A) depends upon an inference of intentionality that introduces a contradiction to the interpretation of archaeological remains, then (A) is better considered an unintended by-­product than a mode. This claim has two implicates: (1) that unintended by-­products have inferential value, hence constitute an important source of archaeological information and (2) that intentionality refers either to the manufacture of (A) or to (A) as a consequence of use but not to both simultaneously. The inference of intentionality in manufacture and intentionality in use must be separately drawn. An example should clarify this point. If the criterion of noncontradictory outcomes is applied, then, in some cases, lithic detritus might be identified as artifactual; in others it might not. This claim seems contradictory. How can lithic debris be both artifactual and nonartifactual? The same lithic debris cannot be both. The apparent contradiction is a product of not separating intentionality in manufacture from intentionality in use. If upon examination no member of a sample of lithic debris shows signs of postproduction use, it would be vacuous to claim that debris production was intentional. If, and only if, all members of a sample show signs of use, might I legitimately infer intent in production and then only if all other evidence for by-­product status was lacking. On the other hand, if some specimens show signs of use and some do not, I may infer nonintentional production but intentional use, and I may do so without fear of a contradiction. A contradiction will depend upon confusing the evidence for production with the evidence for use. Dunnell (1978:192–202) makes a strong case for special treatment of those attributes indicating modes of use. He effectively dismembers traditional analytical practices based on ethnographic analogy. He argues that giving use names to classes of artifacts formed by reference to modes of manufacture or considerations of gross morphology is of little theoretical interest or utilitarian value. “There is simply nothing to suggest that calling an object an axe is more useful in any fashion than noting the attributes of the object which caused the observer to name it” (Dunnell 1978:192–202). I wholeheartedly agree. I also agree that we should develop “archaeological concepts with referents that are empirical,” which will also “decrease greatly the inference and correlation required in functional (use) studies, thereby strengthening their logical structure, their testability and; hopefully, their predictive utility” (Dunnell 1978:192–202). To develop the needed concepts Dunnell provides the following: (1) “Func-

18 • Chapter 1

tion is the relationship that obtains between an object at whatever scale conceived and its environment both artificial and natural; (2) prehistoric function is the artificial relationship that obtains between an object at whatever scale conceived and its environment both natural and artificial; and (3) prehistoric use is a special case.” From these statements he deduces that the prehistoric use of an object is that set of attributes that result from its artificial motion, the set being termed wear. He, thus, departs from the customary construal of wear that is designed to aid in analogistic identification of use, that is, to conclude that a given item by virtue of its pattern of wear is a projectile point, knife, and so on. He substitutes instead a construal of use that equates the properties of wear exhibited by an instance of (x) with the use of (x). The meaning of an instance of wear (x) is therefore equivalent to the properties of wear common to a set of similar instances of wear. In effect, wear equals use in Dunnell’s model, but if, and only if, an instance of wear is part of a properly defined set or class of wear (Dunnell 1978:192–202). Thus in most collections there will be more sets of use than specimens. “Clearly the discrete object is not the appropriate unit of observation for function (use) though it may be for other analy­sis” (Dunnell 1978:192–202). I agree! Modes of use should be defined by reference to the results of use. They should not be predetermined by object categories such as hoe, axe, and so on. There is, nevertheless, a problem. Are all definable instances of use intentional? If not, then how do I separate the properties of intentional use from all others? Could the pattern discrimination criteria previously introduced (i.e., linearity, repetition, relative invariance, and noncontradictory outcomes) be used for this task? With circumscription I presume that they can. I previously characterized an artifact as any entity intentionally modified by man. If I wish to identify modes of use, the term entity must be interpreted as an object’s edge or surface. Such a move is quite common in scientific practice. In effect, as Dunnell (1978:192–202) notes, it amounts to saying that an object may be analyzed into an indefinite number of sets at a reduced scale. One can treat a desk as a desk, as a collection of molecules, as a set of atoms, and so on, depending upon the inquiry at hand. In a practical sense this move merely requires us to set aside preconceived notions about object integrity and focus upon instances of wear as these are found on object edges and surfaces. I am, however, left with disjoint sets of wear to describe and manipulate. Perhaps this is at it should be. Many artifacts are indeed mosaics of wear, that is, multiuse objects. Then too, I can productively compare kinds of use as easily as I can compare kinds of objects. Dunnell (1978) has done this. Nevertheless, it would be desirable to have some kind of higher order organizational unit. For this I may use the unit of use commonly called a tool. But, doing so will

Interactional Theory of Artifact Description • 19

again require a modicum of circumscription vis–à–vis a commonly accepted construal of tools as objects. For me tools are not objects. My tool is the maxi­ mal set of coincident modes of use occurring within the boundaries of an object. As Dunnell (1978:192–202) notes, this construal “eliminates the problems of alternate object uses and multiple object uses as well as reuse toward different tasks.” The number of tools by this construal will rarely equal the number of objects in a collection. Instead, expect the number of tools in most collections to exceed the number of objects. The foregoing explication of the term mode may now be stated with greater parsimony and sufficiency than before. Any attribute that meets the criteria of repetition, relative invariance, linearity, and noncontradictory outcomes may by “real” definition be considered an instance of a mode (for a discussion of real definitions see Hempel (1965:6–14). Symbolically stated: (4.1) X(M) ≡ X(R) . X(RI) . X(L) . X(NC) where X is an attribute, M is a mode, R is the criterion of repetition, RI is the criterion of relative invariance, L is the criterion of linearity, and NC is the criterion of noncontradictory outcomes. This construal does not cover all the meanings, nor all the nuances given to mode in Standard English. My explication is a technical interpretation of the term as it was introduced and used by Rouse. My rational reconstruction is an attempt to assign a restricted meaning to the term when it is used in archaeological discourse. I have belabored the issue of inferring modes because it is central to (1) the mechanics of artifact analy­sis and (2) the fruitful description of artifact manufacture and/or use. Artifacts are entities that exhibit the attributes of modes. It follows that artifacts are to be described as ordered aggregates of modes, either modes of manufacture or modes of use but not both simultaneously. Hence, the analyst must first decide whether he or she wishes to give attention to how an artifact was made or to how it was used. Then the analyst must confront two issues: (1) which attributes indicate modes and (2) by what means these modes are to be organized into a description of the collection at hand. The theoretical basis for facing these issues has been laid. A summary of programmatic considerations follows. If the analyst wishes to identify and describe modes of production, then he or she must produce evidence-­backed claims about the artifact’s morphology and the sequence of manufacturing steps and stages that produced it. Then the analyst must identify artifact focal forms (i.e., describe the modal morphology) and the materials used. He or she must render an account of production steps and stages and describe the artisan’s tools and acts. The analyst

20 • Chapter 1

does this at the expense of properties not indicating modes of production. Yet, if by using nontraditional forms of observation, multiple lines of evidence, and indirect forms of measurement, the analyst can produce an evidence-­backed description of how the item was made and decorated, this information may be used for multiple archaeological and perhaps even ethnological inquiries (Krause 2014:182–200). If the analyst wishes to identify and describe modes of use, then he or she must examine the artifact collection, sorting and resorting the specimens to form groups based upon similarities in patterns of surface and/or edge wear. The members of these groups must then be reexamined to determine the number of tools they represent. After broken items have been removed from the collection, the identification of tools is a reasonably straightforward task. Each object is examined and modes of use are defined. The distribution of modes of use is then mapped vis–à–vis the objects in the collection in an attempt to determine patterns of cooccurrence. The analyst then predicts the occurrence of one mode of use from the presence of another on the same object. If he or she can do this with no error, then the two can be considered components of the same tool; if not, then each mode of use must be considered a separate tool. Specific computer programs have been written for this form of tool discrimination (Dunnell 1978). Many available programs can be used to this end. Although archaeology deals with artifacts of varying magnitude, complexity, and content, all of them may be systematically studied by applying the criteria of repetition, relative invariance, linearity, and noncontradictory outcomes. Irving Rouse understood this and urged their application to the analy­ sis of nonportable artifacts. Krause has used these criteria to describe the construction of a Mississippian Mound (1988:26–48) and the excavation of late Woodland stage lodge remains (2007:94–107). Rouse, however, specifically targeted those artifacts commonly termed features. Thus in his view archaeological phenomena commonly construed as features are amenable to inquiry via the same analytical criteria developed for other artifacts. There is, however, enough of a difference between features and other artifacts to warrant a discussion. The term feature has been used in two different ways. Some have used it to designate a note, that is, to mean any observation about archaeological remains (Champe 1948:18). In this usage the term is ambiguous. It may or may not reference artifacts or artifact by-­products. A more common and more precise customary use may be paraphrased as follows. A feature is any artifact whose size or substance makes it difficult, if not impossible, to move to the laboratory. Examples might include burials, storage chambers, post holes, lodge floors, plazas, palisades, moats, mounds, and so on. This usage was a response to the

Interactional Theory of Artifact Description • 21

time, money, and manpower limits faced by those conducting emergency field researches in the face of imminent site destruction from dam building and inundation. Most artifacts could be bagged, labeled, and sent to the laboratory to be described later. Those artifacts that could not be easily transported to the laboratory became features. They became artifacts requiring field rather than laboratory analy­sis. The customary understanding of feature has considerable merit. Nevertheless, it misses the point by focusing upon the ability of the analyst to transport the artifact, rather than upon an analy­sis of the artifact itself. Following Rouse (personal communication 1962), I prefer to characterize a feature as any artifact whose maker or user did not intend to move it. This construal clearly expresses the analytical perspective inhering in the use of the term and covers most of the phenomena customarily referenced. There are, however, some uses of the term not addressed. The practice of indicating spatial propinquity by labeling a group of cooccurring artifacts or artifact by-­products a feature is an example. Such artifact by-­products or artifact cooccurrences should be termed associations, thus leaving their special inferential standing to be demonstrated, not assumed. Artifact and artifact by-­product cooccurrences called activity areas are associations. Other examples of associations may include the fragments of a shattered pot spread over a house floor, the basketload of garbage in a midden, the contents of a storage chamber previously converted to a garbage dump, the detritus left by a flint knapper as he worked near the perimeter of a house, a leather pouch, now decayed, whose contents are still together as a consequence of confinement and burial, and so on. All of these are instances of patterning. All may have inferential value. Yet none are strictly speaking artifacts in and of themselves. That is to say the pot was not intentionally smashed. The intent was to rid oneself of garbage, not to include certain items with others in a basket load of debris dumped onto a midden or into a pit. The knapper was producing projectile points, scrapers, or knives, not detritus clusters. The leather pouch merely held the objects found together—they may not be related in any other way. Thus by an association I mean an orderly distribution of artifacts or artifact by-­products exclusively on the grounds of their cooccurrence. A fuller explication is possible! An association consists of an area of bounded relationships. It follows that, if the elements of an association are repetitive, the relationships among these elements will be repetitive. In other words, associations should exhibit both element redundancies and relationship redundancies. Further, relationships will occur within each of the like units (associations or parts thereof ) that do not occur outside or between them, disappearing or being replaced by different relationships at unit boundaries. Thus significant artifact or artifact by-­product

22 • Chapter 1

kind or quantity gaps are to be expected at association boundaries. Further, all associations must be justified by demonstrating that they are the tangible results of a behavior or event that was nested in a broader and more meaningful (i.e., intentional) sequence of behaviors, events, or practices. In short, associations are artifact and/or artifact by-­product distributions that have understandable relationships to features or to other associations. Associations must either be parts of features, must relate one feature to another, or must relate one association to another in the context of a feature (Krause 1988:8–10). Features are units of classification. Associations are units of structure that relate separate units of classification (for examples see Krause 1996:54–63 and 2007). Under the proper circumstances associations may also be used to create broader scale units of classification from the smaller scale elements they relate. When attribute, mode, artifact, artifact by-­product, feature, and association are construed as I suggest, they become essential components of Rouse’s “science of artifacts” and instances of import in the most complex specimen of our science—the archaeological site. I consider an archaeological site any artifact and/or artifact by-­product bearing matrix whose information yield depends upon in situ analy­sis. The essential term is matrix. By using matrix I want to emphasize the relationships among artifacts, artifact by-­products, features, and associations. Most of the information attributable to archaeological sites is a consequence of the nonfortuitous horizontal and vertical distributions of the artifacts, artifact by-­products, features, and associations within them. The analogy is imprecise but if I consider artifacts the equivalents of words, artifact by-­products the equivalents of diacriti­cal marks, features the equivalents of idiomatic expressions, and associations the equivalents of conjunctions or connectives, then archaeological sites are much like paragraphs in a book. While words may have meaning in and of themselves, it is the relationships among them that shape them into sentences. Further it is the relationships among sentences that produce the set of claims a paragraph contains. A literate citizen can read a paragraph and glean from it the information it contains. It is likewise possible for a properly trained archaeologist to read the relationships among artifacts, artifact by-­products, features, and associations at a site, that is, to understand the inferential import of their distributions and relationships.

The Role of Observation Reports In the foregoing discussion I made two essential assumptions. First, I assumed that the archaeological specimens of import are the consequences of purposeful human acts. Second, I assumed that if they are properly described, these specimens will be the denotata of sets. Differently put, if I successfully de-

Interactional Theory of Artifact Description • 23

scribe artifacts as the consequences of intentional human acts, then I can appropriately anticipate and account for others of the same kind. Insofar as an archaeological monograph achieves this kind of descriptive accountability it is a statement of theory. It is a statement of theory in the same sense that the description of a language is a theory of that language. To be sure, such a theory will be restricted in its intent. It will apply to a limited domain and will be based upon a sample drawn from it. Hence, a theory of English will be based upon the utterances of a sample of English speakers and will only apply to the English language. Likewise, a theory of a given archaeological manifestation will be created from a sample of artifacts and will only apply to the culture of the people who produced them. Like any empirical theory, mine is based on observations and communicated via observation reports. The language of my observation reports will be essential to the conduct of all previously described tasks, which I will discuss before continuing. At minimum a good observation report requires a language composed of property terms and connectives. Disposition terms and quantifiers are included if a well-­developed and suitably explicit body of theory is available. They will not concern us just yet. Connectives are familiar enough from everyday discourse. They include and, or, if—then, kind of, part of, state of, stage of, and so on. Property terms specify which of the many properties of things are to be taken as meaningful (i.e., they specify the consequences of attribution). Property terms are thus crucial to a reproducible observation report. If ideal conditions are met, property terms will be introduced by nominal, real, or operational definition. Each kind of definition produces a different result. Each different result has a separate range of application. I will briefly characterize each kind of definition before using it. A nominal definition is a stipulation that a specified expression (the de­ finien­dum) is to be synonymous with a certain other expression or expressions (the definiens), whose meaning is precisely determined. To introduce a term by nominal definition requires (1) that the definiendum term not appear in the definiens and (2) that no term appear in the definiens that was previously defined by reference to or with the aid of the definiendum. In other words, all terms should be introduced by reference to previously defined terms. But this may become overly tedious and infinitely regressive. To avoid the ill effects of infinite regress, some terms must be introduced as primitives. Thus, both primitive and defined terms occur in nominal definitions. The primitives should be clearly indicated as givens. The defined terms should be linked to the primitives by a chain of definitions. As a check on adequacy, the terms thus introduced may be eliminated in favor of the chains of primitives embedded in them. To do so for every use would, however, unduly complicate the language. A real definition is a statement specifying a property term’s essential fea-

24 • Chapter 1

tures, nature, or attributes. Unfortunately the concepts of essential nature or essential attributes resist precise description. Thus Hempel’s (1965:6–14) reinterpretation of real definitions seems appropriate. For Hempel a real definition is either a search for an empirical interpretation or a meaning analy­ sis. If an empirical interpretation is rendered, then the terms of the definiens signify those properties that are satisfied only by instances of the phenomena the definiendum term signifies. Thus, a synonymy between the definiendum and definiens is an assertion that claims to be true. It can therefore be refuted by proper inquiry. If, however, a meaning analy­sis is intended, then a semantic synonymy is posited between definiendum and definiens. In this case a real definition purports to characterize the meaning of a term within an analytic system. Validation requires a reflection upon the meanings of the constituent expressions used. I prefer an empirical interpretation. To achieve an operational definition, the analyst must state a synonymy between the definiendum and the successful outcome of a specific set of tests. When performed, the tests constitute the definiens and without them the definiendum lacks meaning. In other words, before a phenomenon can be identified as an instance of the class to which the definiendum term applies, the analyst must (1) specify the observation(s) to be taken and act(s) to be performed and (2) identify the expected results. Operational definitions provide only partial interpretations of the phenomena they identify (Hempel 1965:​ 123–133). Any term introduced in this manner has (1) a semantic restriction affixed to its use (meaning that the test conditions cannot be eliminated in favor of chains of primitives) and (2) a syntactic restriction applied to its interpretation (indicating that the phenomenon to which the test applied cannot be assumed to exist without performing the test). The former limits the systematic import of operational definitions. The latter limits their inferential power. Nevertheless, operational definitions are of considerable value when attempting to deal clearly and precisely with disposition terms that resist real or nominal definition. Then too, operational stipulations, not intended as definitions, are important when rendering an interpretation of previously defined terms. In framing the terms for my observation reports I adopt the following procedures. First, terms signifying the domain of inquiry are introduced by real definition. Then, these terms are used, together with others previously defined, as one of several primitives in a sys­tem of nominally defined terms that subdivide the domain of inquiry into discrete and replicable subsets. Finally, operational criteria are tendered in an attempt to provide an interpretation of those terms previously introduced by nominal definition. An interpretation is deemed important for two reasons: (1) it indirectly confers empirical content

Interactional Theory of Artifact Description • 25

upon the primitives, and (2) it renders hypotheses, which are derived from the sys­tem of terms capable of test. Otherwise stated, real definitions are used to specify a general or cover term’s range of application. Nominal definitions introduce terms whose referents are kinds of, parts of, or stages of the phenomena to which the cover term refers. Operational criteria identify instances of the nominally defined terms. Specifically, artifacts are introduced by real definition, the modes that allow me to interpret them as artifacts are introduced by nominal definition, and the attributes that indicated modes are identified by operational criteria. My intent, of course, is to discern the significant acts in artifact fabrication or use. Read’s (2007:186) description of an artifact as “a material object conceptualized by the members of a social group as belonging to a category that is part of the cultural repertoire for that group” can be used to summarize my point of view.

2 A Theory of Ceramic Production The Focal Form

All handmade pottery vessels are containers that partially enclose space. Here lies the key to their geometry. From a his­tori­cally long and worldwide perspective most vessels are radially symmetrical. Many Caribbean vessels are, however, bilaterally symmetrical. Bilateral symmetry, in fact, is one of the distinctive features of Caribbean traditions of ceramic manufacture. In its extreme expression bilateral symmetry has been described as boat-­like or navicular. Whether bilaterally or radially symmetrical all vessels exhibit top-­to-­bottom asymmetry. Thus they are relatively easily divided into systematically related parts. I will define the 10 morphological units in my theory of production by referencing systematically related imaginary points and lines. I do this because I want to be sure that when the magnitude of one part is altered, the magnitude of others will be affected in a predictable way. To achieve this end I will focus my attention on the topological properties of simple idealized vessels. By simple I mean single orifice forms lacking appendages. By idealized I mean imaginary. I have identified these imaginary containers as focal-­form vessels. To build a theory of pottery production I must also have descriptions that allow me to (1) identify the sequences of acts in traditional ways of making and decorating pottery, (2) isolate the evidence for a given act such that it may be examined and, if necessary, manipulated to assume alternate states and/or values, (3) assign greater or lesser analytical value to the vari­ous acts in a sequence, and (4) create explicit criteria for assigning greater or lesser value to the occurrence order of acts in a sequence. In furthering these ends relevant data may be easily and efficiently segregated into two domains—morphology and decoration. Within the domain of morphology I decided at the outset to examine the number of vessel edges and sides because these properties remain structur-

Theory of Ceramic Production • 27

ally unaltered when a focal-­form vessel is twisted, bent, or stretched. A circular piece of rubber sheeting, for instance, has one edge and two sides. Even if disfig­ured (i.e., twisted, crumpled, or bent into the shape of a pottery vessel), it will always have one edge and two sides. The same is true for a “real world” baked-­clay vessel. It has two sides, outside and inside, and one edge, the lip. This is the case despite the highly variable appearance that bending, stretching, or twisting might produce. It is also the case that any three points about the circumference of a circle will hold their relative position no matter how much the circle is bent, stretched, or twisted: the middle point will remain in the center and the other two on either side. Since the lip of my focal-­form vessel is circular or oval and since all points along it and all points systematically related to it represent topological invariants, I use it as a reference for framing my other morphological landmarks. After deciding that an imaginary circle (Figure 2.1) or oval (Figure 2.2) joining my focal-­form vessel’s inside and outside surfaces will be my starting point, I divide the remainder of the vessel as follows. I introduce the term body to stand for all parts of the vessel but the lip. I then introduce the term shoulder for the maximum circumference of the body and bottom for the minimum circumference of the body. That is, I consider both shoulder and bottom to be systematically related but imaginary circles (see Figure 2.1) or ovals (see Fig­ure 2.2), one of which (the bottom) will be a point. I continue by identifying the surfaces (inner and outer) that join the bottom with the shoulder as the lower part of the pot body and those surfaces (inner and outer) that join the shoulder with the lip as the upper part of the pot body. Finally, I consider an imaginary circle (see Figure 2.1) or oval (see Figure 2.2) as the minimal circumference of the upper body, the mouth. In those cases in which the mouth and lip do not have identical circumferences, I identify the area between mouth and lip as the rim. In sum, after identifying the lip as my entry point, I create a topological partonomy that identifies shoulder and bottom, upper and lower, as parts of a pot and mouth and rim as parts of a pot’s upper body. Nevertheless, these hypothetical lines, points, and relationships although systematic do not account for all the shapes in the universe denoted by my focal-­form concept of vessel. Some imaginary vessels, for example, lack shoulders. For these the defined terms upper, lower, bottom, and mouth make minimal sense. These forms can, however, be accommodated by a single equivalence of circumference rule. A shoulderless form (Figure 2.3) may be analyzed by stipulating that its mouth will be defined as the circumference nearest the lip and its bottom the circumference farthest from the lip. With shoulderless vessels, whose greatest diameter is reached at the lip, angular modifications of wall slope may be identified as inflections described as low, medium, or high with respect to the midpoint between base and lip. For example, a low-­inflected body is one whose

28 • Chapter 2

Figure 2.1. Morphological landmarks for vessels with radial symmetry: (a and b) rim-­ bearing, high-­rounded shouldered vessels; (c and d) rimless high-­rounded shouldered vessels; (e and f ) bowls. (Drawing by Sabrina Simõn, courtesy of Tennessee Valley ­Archaeological Research.)

angular modification of wall slope lies below the midpoint. The body is mid­ inflected if the angular modification of wall slope lies near or at the midpoint and high inflected if it lies above the midpoint. In sum, one may easily and consistently divide focal-­form pots into segments. Nevertheless, to render these segments meaningful will require an estimate of the vessel’s height-­to-­width ratio. Vessels that are taller than they are wide, that is, with a height–to-­width ratio greater than 1 to 1—let us say, 1.5

Theory of Ceramic Production • 29

Fig­ure 2.2. Morphological landmarks for vessels with bilateral symmetry: (a and b) rim-­ bearing, high-­angular shouldered vessels; (c and d) rimless, high-­rounded shouldered vessels; (e and f ) rimless, midrounded shouldered vessels; (g and h) bowls. (Drawing by ­Sabrina Simõn, courtesy of Tennessee Valley Archaeological Research.)

or 2.0 to 1—will appear to be tall or deep and relatively slender. Those vessels with a width-­to-­height ratio greater than 1 to 1—say 2 or 3 times as wide as tall—will be typically viewed as broad and shallow. To avoid confusion when calculating height-­to-­width ratios the greatest magnitude will be stated first. Thus with tall thin vessels height will be stated first. With broad, shallow pots the width will be stated first. A high, rounded or high, angular shoulder on a tall slender pot will look very different from a high, rounded or high, angular shoulder on a broad and shallow vessel.

30 • Chapter 2

Fig­ure 2.3. Shoulderless vessel morphology: (a)broad-­ based vase, (b)narrow-­based vase, (c)bowl, (d)flowerpot, (e)flask. (Drawing by Sabrina Simõn, courtesy of Tennessee Valley Archaeological Research.)

Most real vessels approximate the forms I have discussed, in either the deep and slender or broad and shallow versions. Thus, departures from these forms, additions to it, or transformations of it may be treated as special cases. Differently put, I may consider the previously discussed form as of primary morphological import. Modifications of this form are important but not primary morphological elaborations. Therefore, I may treat flanges, handles, spouts, lugs, legs, annular bases, and feet; effigies that depict animals, gods, humans, or plants; vases and flowerpots; wine, oil, and water bottles; and so on as special cases, namely as modifications of, or addenda to, a more fundamental or focal morphological theme. To be theoretically relevant, these distinctions and the ceramic segments they create will be introduced by nominal definition, that is, by referencing the primitives that define them.

Morphological Units Primitives

Within the domain of morphology I take the following terms as primitives: Pottery (P)—any member of the class of intentionally manufactured objects of prepared and fired clay

Theory of Ceramic Production • 31

Vessel (V)—any member of the class of concave utensils designed to hold any substance Surface (S)—any two-­dimensional locus of points Circumference (C)—as previously defined in geometry Term Definitions

The definitions will consist of terms, symbols, strings, and rules. The terms are lexemes, whose referents are classes: the symbols (A, B, etc.) are signs that stand for terms. The strings are one or more concatenated symbols. Symbols or strings enclosed in parentheses indicate discrete sets. Set complements will be indicated by an exclamation point [!]. A rule is an instruction to rewrite one symbol or string (or two strings) as another symbol or string. Arrows () will be used to indicate this operation. It should be noted that pottery and vessel are straightforward property terms. Surface and circumference have a relational syntactic weighing that is subject to at least two values—greater than (+) and less than (-­). Brackets ([ ]) indicate that the operations they enclose are to be performed before the product can be entered into a longer concatenation. Those terms listed within brackets signify mutually exclusive entities. With these stipulations I turn to the defined terms.

Defined Terms 1. Exterior (Ex)—that surface of a pottery vessel that is proportionally the greater. [(P)(V)(S+)] (Ex) 2. Interior (In)—that surface of a pottery vessel that is proportionally the lesser. [(P)(V)(S-­)] (In) 3. Lip (L)—the intersection of exterior and interior pottery vessel surfaces. [(Ex)(In)] (L) 4. Body (B)—that part of a pottery vessel that does not include the lip. [(P)(V)(L!)] (B) 5. Shoulder (Sh)—that part of a pottery vessel body of maximal circumference. [(B)(C+)] (Sh) 6. Bottom (Bt)—that part of a pottery vessel’s body of minimal circumference. [(B)(C-­)] (Bt) 7. Upper (Ur)—that part of a pottery vessel’s body uniting lip with shoulder. [(Sh)U(L)] (Ur) 8. Lower (Lr)—that part of a pottery vessel’s body uniting shoulder with bottom [(Sh)U(Bt)] (Lr) 9. Mouth (M)—the minimal circumference of the upper part of the body. [(Ur)(C-­)] (M)

32 • Chapter 2

10. Rim (R)—that part of the upper body of a pottery vessel that includes both mouth and lip. (Ur) [(M)U(L)] (R) The interpretation of terms must await a specification of justificatory principles. These will be introduced later. First I must discuss the lexicon to be used in the analy­sis of decoration.

Decorative Units Defined I define decorative units by referencing the inferred manipulations of the artisan and the kind of tools or substances he or she used as I map their distribution on pottery vessel surfaces. I consider any recurrent set of surface alterations systematically linked to the artisan’s use of tools, fingers, or extraneous substances a decorative element. I then identify any part of a vessel bearing a single decorative element as a decorative environment. Once decorative environments have been mapped, I consider those decorative elements that contrast with all others in the same or in complementary decorative environments designs. The arrangement of decorative elements in a design is designated its structure and the arrangement of designs over the surface of a pottery vessel is considered a design configuration. Primitives

Within the domain of decoration I take the following as primitives: 1. Decoration (DEC)—any ornamentation of any surface of a pottery vessel 2. Feature (F)—the ultimate characterization appropriate for the analy­ sis of any decoration that is the empirical result of a behavior or set of behaviors 3. Complement (C)—one of two mutually completing parts 4. Arrange (A)—to put in a replicable order The terms complement and arrange have a relational value. Decoration and feature are property terms. The meaning assigned to decoration is familiar enough from everyday discourse. The term feature warrants the following: the identification of any feature will require logically appropriate arguments linking the inferred manipulations of the artisan and the kind of tool he or she used with their tangible results on a pottery vessel. Examples will be given later. Suffice it to note that feature is to be understood as a minimal unit of analy­sis but is yet to be interpreted. I now turn to the defined terms.

Theory of Ceramic Production • 33 Defined Terms

I take the following as defined terms appropriate for the analy­sis of decoration: 1. Decorative Element (De a)—any recurrence of a set of identical feature values. [(F1a).(F2a) . . . (Fna)] (Dea) 2. Decorative Environment (DE1)—any part of a pottery vessel on which a single decorative element occurs. (DE1) 3. Design (Des) y—a specific set of decorative elements that contrast with all other sets of decorative elements in either the same or in complementary environments. Either [Dea)(DE1) = (Dea!) (DE1)] (Des) y, or < [(Dea) (DE1) = (Dea!)[(Cp) (DE1)]> (Des) y 4. Design Structure (DS) y—the arrangement of members of a set of design elements in the same decorative environment. [(A) (Dea) (DE1)] (DS) y 5. Design Configuration (DC)—the arrangement of designs on a pottery vessel. [(A) (Des)(P)(V)] (DC)

An Interpretation of Defined Terms To this point the morphological and decoration terms reference imaginary points, lines, and relationships. They constitute a deductive sys­tem devoid of empirical import. To achieve a modicum of empirical worth each term must be interpreted by referencing the observable characteristics of a “real world” pottery sample. Morphological Landmarks

To reiterate, all nonlip portions of a vessel are identified as its body. I may thus identify the maximum circumference of the body, whether oval or circular, as its shoulder (see Figures 2.1 and 2.2), and the minimum circumference of the body (which will be a point) as its bottom. Portions adjacent to the bottom may be identified as belonging to the vessel’s base. All portions below the shoulder may be considered the lower body. All portions above the shoulder are the upper body. The minimal circumference of the upper body, whether oval or circular, may be identified as the pot’s mouth. If the mouth and lip are not the same, the portion, between the lip and mouth, is the rim. Base Shape

Any of three production techniques (coiling, molding, and modeling) may be used to produce bases that are convex (Figure 2.4a, b, and d), concave or

34 • Chapter 2

Fig­ure 2.4. Base and bottom morphology: (a)parabolic, (b)rounded, (c)flat, (d)conoidal. (Drawing by Sabrina Simõn, courtesy of Tennessee Valley Archaeological ­Research.)

flat (Figure 2.4c). Three customary interpretations may be given to convex bases, namely conoidal (Figure 2.4d), parabolic (Figure 2.4a), or rounded (Fig­ ure 2.4b). Shoulder Shape

I distinguish between shouldered and shoulderless vessels. Remember that I describe the shoulder as the maximum circumference of the body. If I visualize the body as the part of a vessel between the mouth and bottom, then shoulderless forms achieve their maximum diameter at the mouth, at the base, or in the case of cylindrical pots at both but not in between (see Figure 2.3). Shoul-

Theory of Ceramic Production • 35

Fig­ure 2.5. Rounded shoulder morphology: (a) mid­ rounded shoulder, (b) low-­rounded shoulder, (c) high-­ rounded shoulder. (Drawing by Sabrina Simõn, courtesy of Tennessee Valley Archaeological Research.)

dered forms (vessels whose maximum body circumference lies between mouth and base) may be divided into pots whose maximum circumference lies midway between mouth and base (Figures 2.5a and 2.6a) and those that do not. With respect to the latter I may describe vessels whose maximum circumference lies above the mouth/base midpoint as high shouldered (Figures 2.5c and 2.6c) and those whose maximum circumference lies below it as low shouldered (Figures 2.5b and 2.6b). I use midshouldered to designate vessels whose maximum circumference lies at or near the midpoint between base and mouth (Figures 2.5a and 2.6a). Shouldered vessels, whether high, mid, or-­low shouldered, may be rounded (see Figure 2.5) or angular (see Figure 2.6). Rounded shouldered wares dominate North and South Ameri­can ceramic inventories. Nonshouldered Vessels

Nonshouldered vessels may have curved or straight walls. Those with curved walls assume the form of hemispherical or subhemispherical bowls (see Fig­ ure 2.3c). Those with straight walls may be cylindrical or may expand or contract from base to mouth. In the former the walls may be termed out sloping (see Figure 2.3b, c, and d), in the latter in sloping (see Figure 2.3a and e).

36 • Chapter 2

Fig­ure 2.6. Angular shoulder morphology: (a) midangular shoulder, (b) low-­angular shoulder, (c) high-­angular shoulder. (Drawing by Sabrina Simõn, courtesy of Tennessee Valley Archaeological Research.)

Rim Form

When potters reach the desired minimal circumference of the upper body they can form a lip or build a rim. On rimless vessels the mouth and lip are coterminous. They are separate orifices in vessels with rims. In addition to the issue of rim versus rimless is that of high versus low rim. I reserve the designation high for rims that are taller than one-­quarter the distance between mouth and shoulder. By low I mean rims that are shorter than one-­quarter the distance between mouth and shoulder. Both high and low rims may rise directly from the mouth, slope outward, or slope inward from the mouth. Rims with virtually identical lip and mouth circumferences are customarily called straight or direct. Rims with greater lip than mouth circumference are out-flaring. Those with greater mouth than lip circumference are in-­flaring rims. Thus, when the artisan reaches the desired minimal circumference of the upper body, he or she could (a) stop, (b) build straight upward (Figure 2.7e and f ), (c) build upward and outward, that is, out flare (not illustrated), (d) build upward and out-

Theory of Ceramic Production • 37

Fig­ure 2.7. Rim morphology: (a) collared, (b) S-­shaped, (c) thickened, (d) braced, (e) rounded, (f ) flattened, (g) T-­shaped, (h) inverted L-­shaped; (i) cloistered, (j) colonnaded, (k) pinched. (Drawing by Sabrina Simõn, courtesy of Tennessee Valley Archaeological Research.)

ward, then brace, that is add a fillet of clay to the rim’s outer and upper edge (Figure 2.7d), (e) build upward then brace the upper and outer edge (Fig­ure 2.7c), (f ) build upward and inward, that is , in flare (not illustrated), (g) build upward and inward, that is, in flare, then brace the upper and outer edge (not illustrated), (h) build upward and then outward and back again to form an S-­ shape (Figure 2.7b), (i) build upward, outward, then upward to form a collar (Figure 2.7a), ( j) build upward and outward, attach a rim coil, then press downward to form and inverted T (Figure 2.7g), (k) build upward and outward, attach a rim coil, then press downward to form and inverted L (Figure 2.7h), (l) build upward and outward then attach broader than tall segments of clay from lip to upper body, forming a cloister (Figure 2.7i), (m) build upward and outward then attach narrow, that is, taller than broad, segments of clay from lip to upper body, forming a colonnade (Figure 2.7j), (n) build upward, or upward and outward, then pinch the upper exterior, (i.e., lip adjacent portion) between thumb and index finger to produce a pie crust effect termed wavy (Figure 2.7k), or (o)build upward and dramatically outward (i.e., parallel to the vessel’s bottom) to form a flange (not illustrated). Each of these

38 • Chapter 2

Fig­ure 2.8. Lip morphology: (a) rounded, (b) flattened, (c) in-­beveled, (d) out-­beveled, (e) T-­shaped, (f ) inverted L-­shaped to exterior, (g and h) rounded-­braced, (i and j) angular-­braced, (k) double beveled, (l) inverted L-­shaped to interior. (Drawing by Sabrina Simõn, courtesy of Tennessee Valley Archaeological Research.)

practices, with the exception of (a)—because it produces a rimless vessel—( j), (k), (l), and (m)—because they are created by appendation—may be achieved in several different ways. Each rim type may be formed by pulling, thinning, and scraping the clay used in upper body formation. This procedure is time consuming and tedious and produces a thin and, in its greenware state, brittle rim. It is especially difficult when the rim is high, collared, S-­shaped, or flanged. All rim forms may also be built by adding a roll or strap of clay to the upper and outer surface of the mouth, then manipulating, scraping, and thinning it to the desired shape. The designation unthickened has been used for this single roll, or single strap, approach to rim manufacture. While S-­shaped and collared rims may be made from a single roll or strap, they are most easily fashioned by using two rolls or two straps, the first welded to the upper and outer surface of the mouth, the sec­ond to the upper and outer surface of the first. This two-­roll, or two-­strap, construction of collared or S-­ shaped rims has been described as thickened (Krause 1995:​307–352). Thus rims may be unthickened or thickened, out flared, straight, in flared, braced, collared, S-­shaped, cloistered, colonnaded, or flanged. All have been described or illustrated in ethnographic or archaeological literature.

Theory of Ceramic Production • 39 Lip Form

The lip on both rim-­bearing and rimless forms may be highly variable. The lip itself may be flattened (Figure 2.8b), rounded (Figure 2.8a), beveled to the inside (Figure 2.8d), beveled to the outside (Figure 2.8c), beveled to both inside and outside (i.e., tapered or ⌂ shaped) (Figure 2.8k), capped to the inside (Fig­ ure 2.8j), capped to the outside (Figure 2.8i), inverted L-­shaped (Figure 2.8f and l), T-­shaped (Figure 2.8e), inverted (Figure 2.8g), or everted (Figure 2.8h). All have been reported for West­ern Hemisphere ceramic samples. Most of the lip variability noted in the literature is produced by manipulating a lip coil laid over and joined to the upper edge of the rim or, if the vessel is rimless, to the upper edge of the upper body. The appearance of even greater variability is introduced by varying the diameter of the lip coil and/ or forcing the upper vessel wall or upper rim outward to evert the lip or inward to invert it.

An Interpretation of Decorative Terms Substance Addition

Most vessel decorations may be systematically divided into (1) those that require a substance addition (painting, slipping, or appliqué); (2) those that require the use of a tool, such as floating, polishing, incising, trailing, stab-­and-­ drag trailing, punctating, impressing, stamping, combing, cord roughening, cord-­wrapped-­rod impressing, and fabric impressing; (3) those that require only the use of the fingers such as pinching, finger and fingernail impressing, rim bending; and (4) those that combine some, or perhaps all, of the above. The consequences of these decorative acts, insofar as they are displayed as redundant vessel surface alterations, are decorative elements. By studying them, analysts should be able to describe the inferred manipulations of the artisan and the kind of tools or substances used in these manipulations. Thus any redundant set of surface alterations that can be systematically linked to the artisan’s use of tools, fingers, or extraneous substances is a decorative element. Should the consequences of tool or finger manipulation and substance addition vary in the predicted manner (i.e., express a unimodal pattern of variability), the decorative element is a mode. Most prehistoric and mod­ ern Native Ameri­can pots are decorated by incising, trailing, impressing, cord mark­ing, cord-­wrapped rod impressing, cord roughening, stamping, punctating, polishing, painting, combing, brushing, and/or by adding adornos or appliqué work to them.

40 • Chapter 2

Paint, Wash, Slip, Appliqué, and Pinch Painted pottery is widespread in the world. In the West­ern Hemisphere monochrome and polychrome painted wares are found in west­ern South America, Central America, Mexico, the Caribbean, the south­east­ern and southwest­ ern United States. It is uncommon in the North­east and Great Plains. In the East­ern Hemisphere painted pottery is found in insular and peninsular Europe, Russia, Southwest Asia, and Africa. Af­ri­can artisans commonly applied paint to vessel surfaces with their fingertip, rubbing it on with a back-­and-­ forth movement (Krause 1984:119–121), but the use of a slip, that is, a colloidal suspension of coloring agent and clay, either scrubbed on with a rag or hide or applied as a dip, while rare, has been reported from South Africa (Laidler and Scot 1936:​109). In China fanciful thin-­walled, painted, and burnished earthenwares, some of intricate shapes, were being used in Neolithic rituals in the Yellow River and Yangtze River valleys. Either crushed hematite or magnetite was commonly mixed with water or animal fat to produce a red paint. Mineral and organic paints were used in the southwest­ern United States with the organic paints being used before their mineral counterparts. The Native Ameri­can artisan commonly washed or wiped hematite-­or magnetite-­based paints on vessel surfaces (Krause 1984:119–121). Appliqué

To produce appliqué work, potters affixed a roll, strap, or a blob of moist clay to the pliable vessel surface. They then pushed, pulled, pinched, and/or smoothed it into the desired final shape. Appliqué work and paint or slip were usually applied before firing as frequent firing clouds on appliquéd, slipped, or painted surfaces attest. Paint was of­ten applied after stamping, trailing, or incising as indicated by vari­ous instances of paint slopped over into incising, trailing or impressing troughs. If, for instance, the vessel was to be incised, painted, and polished, then the constituent operations were performed in the following order: incising first, painting sec­ond, and polishing third. In sum, those decorative elements produced by the use of a tool usually preceded those requiring the addition of a substance. Pinching

Pinching was accomplished by squeezing a portion of the vessel surface between the thumb and forefinger (Figure 2.9i). Tool Impressing

Tool impressing was accomplished by pressing a curved-­edged tool down into the clay with a rocking motion that started nearest the artisan’s body (Fig­ure

Theory of Ceramic Production • 41

Fig­ure 2.9. Decorating tools: (a) notched impressing tool, (b) smooth-­surface impressing tool, (c) incising tool, (d) stab-­and-­ drag tool, (e) punctating tool, (f ) trailing tool, (g) brushing tool, (h) combing tool, (i) pinching with fingers as a tool.

2.9b). Tool impressing produces an uneven-­bottomed, U-­shaped trough with no perceivable wake. If notches had been cut from the curved edge of the impressing tool, or if the edge of a shell was used, a linear series of holes described as rouletting are produced (Figure 2.9a). Incising

To incise, the artisan drew a pointed and edged tool over the clay at a high oblique angle leaving an incision with a V-­shaped trough and a marked wake (Figure 2.9c). Trailing

Trailing, both broad and narrow gauge (the former sometimes described as channeling or grooving), is a common element of many North Ameri­can ce-

42 • Chapter 2

ramic decorations. Trailing was done with a flat-­sided, roughly rectangular tool drawn over the pliable clay at a very low, oblique angle, producing an even-­bottomed, U-­shaped trough and a shallow wake (Figure 2.9f ). A broader tool produced a broader trough or channel and a shallower wake; a narrower tool produced a narrower trough and more substantial wake. Stab and Drag Trailing

Like trailing, stab and drag decorations were produced by a flat-­sided, roughly rectangular tool drawn over the pliable clay at a very low, oblique angle, producing an even-­bottomed, U-­shaped trough and a shallow wake. In this case, however, the tool was pointed at one end. It was drawn across (to produce the drag), then pushed back into the clay (to produce the stab). This action created a trough interrupted by stab marks that produced an interrupted trailed line (Figure 2.9d). Combing

The results of combing resemble simple stamping. They may have been misidentified in the past. Clay drag marks rather than paddle compression marks accompany combing and should be readily visible under magnification. These drag marks do not accompany the application of a carved or scored paddle applied at a right or high oblique angle. Combing was accomplished with a notched rectangular wood, bone, or calabash tool. The unnotched edge of the tool was held firmly between the thumb and forefinger while the notched edge was drawn over the clay at a low, oblique angle. This produced a uniform series of U-­shaped flat-­bottomed troughs and flat-­topped ridges (Figure 2.9h). When the notched edge of a combing tool was seriated rather than notched and the tool was applied to a drier clay surface, it is difficult to discriminate between combing and brushing. The troughs produced by combing should, however, be more regular and squared or U-­shaped than irregular and V-­shaped (see Figure 2.12b). Brushing

The tool used for brushing was usually a bundle of straw or grass stems bound together at one end, and cut to uniform length on the other (Figure 2.9g). Sometimes a dried or charred corn cob was used to brush. To score the exterior surface the tool was drawn over a moist clay surface at a high, oblique angle with the wrist rotated back and forth (see Figure 2.12a). Interior brushing seems invariably to be horizontal, that is, at a right angle to the pot’s long axis. Exterior brushing may be either horizontal, vertical, or at a 45-­degree angle to the pot’s long axis.

Theory of Ceramic Production • 43

Fig­ure 2.10. Stamping and engraving tools: (a) simple stamp paddle; (b) engraving tool; (c) check stamp; (d) complicated stamp. (Drawing by Sabrina Simõn, courtesy of Tennessee Valley Archaeological Research.)

Pinching

Pinched designs were produced by squeezing the plastic clay body surface between the thumb and forefinger to form linear or curvilinear rows of pinched­up clay (Figure 2.9i). The technique has a near worldwide distribution. Stamping

Designs carved in wood or bone then pressed into the moist or semimoist clay, traditionally labeled stamping, are reported from the Great Plains, the Southeast, the Southwest, and the North­east of the United States. Simple Stamping

Simple stamping, that is, paddling the vessel exterior with a striated wooden or bone paddle, was common in the post-­1700 central and north­ern plains and in the east­ern and front range areas of Colorado. To produce a simple stamp, parallel flat-­bottomed or U-­shaped grooves were cut into the surface of a wooden or bone paddle that was applied to the vessel exterior horizontally, vertically, or diagonally (Figure 2.10a). Simple, check, and complicated stamping are decorative rather than production techniques.

44 • Chapter 2 Check Stamping

A check-­stamped texture was created by applying a grooved square or rectangular wood or bone stamp (Figure 2.10c) to the exterior of a vessel surface. The horizontal grooves in the stamp were cut at a right angle to the vertical grooves to produce a waffle-­iron pattern that, when applied at a right angle to the semimoist clay, produced a waffle-­like surface. The grooves in most stamps were cut with a chipped-­stone incising or graving tool. The grooves created are straight sided although the bottoms may have been U-­shaped; the upper edges, that is, those at the stamp’s working surface, are squared off (see Fig­ ure 2.12e). Complicated Stamping

Complicated stamp texturing was applied to vessel surfaces with either a carved then baked clay cylinder; a carved, wooden cylinder; or a carved, flat-­sided wooden stamp (Figure 2.10d). Given the size and intricacy of the pattern elements typical of most complicated stamps, the use of a carved, baked clay or wooden cylinder is problematic. Cylinders would have to have been at least 10 cm in diameter to produce the smallest intricate stamped designs. For most complicated stamped designs, the tool used was most likely a flat-­sided carved wooden stamp (Figure 2.10d). Such a stamp would have been carved with chipped-­stone incising and/or graving tools much like its check-­stamped counterparts, but in this case the grooving is far more intricate and delicate, in­clud­ing curvilinear and rectilinear, nested and abutted elements (see Fig­ ure 2.12f ). Engraving

Engraving was achieved by inscribing the greenware dried or fired surface with a sharp and pointed wooden, bone, stone, or metal tool (Figure 2.10b). Since the surfaces to be engraved were relatively hard the process usually exfoliated small chips or fragments of clay from the upper edges of a shallow V-­ shaped trough, giving the composition a scratched appearance. Cord Roughening

Cord-­roughened textures were created by wrapping a double-­strand S or Z twist cord about a rectangular bone or wooden slab or paddle (Figure 2.11b and 2.12d) and then applying it with moderate force to the pot’s moist or semimoist clay surface. In the majority of cases, the cord-­wrapped paddle was applied to the exterior surface of the vessel at a 90-­or 45-­degree angle to its long axis. Note here that I distinguish between cord marking that entails the

Theory of Ceramic Production • 45

Fig­ure 2.11. Fabric and finger impressing: (a) cord-­ wrapped dowel; (b) cord-­wrapped paddle; (c) finger impressing; (d) fabric impressing tool.

use of a single cord to form patterns and cord impressing or roughening that was accomplished by the use of a rectangular, flat-­sided, cord-­wrapped paddle (see Figure 2.11b and 2.12d). Cord-­Wrapped Rod Impressing

Cord-­wrapped rod impressing was accomplished by wrapping a two-­strand Z or S twist cord about a 2 to 5 mm in diameter, flexible, wooden dowel then pressing it down at a 90-­degree angle into moist clay leaving an impression 7.0 +/−­1 mm wide (Figure 2.11a and 2.12c). The cord-­wrapped dowel was, however, pressed down into the clay one horizontal row after the other to produce a texture resembling a woven fabric and has previously been interpreted as such but a careful examination under magnification will not reveal warp threads or fibers joining the parallel horizontal rows of impressions (Fig­ ure 2.12c). The depths of adjacent rows will indicate that the cord-­wrapped rod was pressed down into the clay multiple times rather than rolled over the moist clay surface. Fabric Impressing

Fabric impressing, with a single cord or a mat-­like woven fabric (Fig­ure 2.11d) repeatedly pressed into the clay, is recorded for West­ern Hemisphere wares.

46 • Chapter 2

Fig­ure 2.12. Modified surfaces: (a) brushed; (b) combed; (c) cord-­ wrapped rod impressed; (d) cord roughened; (e) check stamped; (f ) complicated stamped.

Finger and Fingernail Impressing

Finger and fingernail impressing were also practiced in North America. For the former, the artisan pressed a fingertip into the clay at a right or acute angle then withdrew it (Fig­ure 2.11c). For the latter the artisan’s finger was pressed into the clay at an oblique angle leaving only the impression of the fingernail when withdrawn. Floating

Floating required wetting a dried vessel’s surface then, with a wooden or bone tool, gently pressing, pulling, and spreading the paste-­like substance thus created such that it would dry to a thin crust on the pot’s surface. This crust appears in sherd cross-­sections as an egg-­shell thin layer that can be flaked off by inserting a knife tip beneath it and prying upward. Floating was of­ten used

Theory of Ceramic Production • 47

to prepare a surface for painting, polishing, incising, engraving, combing, and cord impressing. Floating has been reported from the Great Plains, the Southwest and the South­east of the United States. Polish

Polishing was accomplished by rubbing a smooth-­surfaced oval or round stone back and forth across the clay until a shiny, compacted surface is produced. Polishing after incising or trailing produced cantilevered edges where clean edges or wakes once stood. Polishing after painting created an attractive lustrous surface. Finger Modification

The most common finger modification occurs on vessel rims. A wavy appearance was produced by bending the rim between thumb and forefinger or between thumb, and sec­ond finger. This gave the rim a pie-­crust appearance (Fig­ure 2.7k). Excising

Excised designs were produced by cutting pieces of the vessel surface away. Decorative Environments

Any part of a vessel bearing a single decorative element is a decorative environment (if monochrome painting and vari­ous forms of texturing and polishing are excluded). The most common prehistoric and modern decorative environments are the lip (see Figures 2.1 and 2. 2), the rim exterior (see Fig­ures 2.1 and 2. 2), the rim interior (see Fig­ure 2.1a and 2.1b), and on vessels with rims, the upper body exterior (see Figures 2.1 and 2.2) and the shoulder (see Figures 2.1a–d and 2.2a–d). If surface treatments are excluded, the lower body exterior and base were less frequently decorated. Designs

Designs are sets of decorative elements that contrast with all others in the same or complementary decorative environments. Both prehistoric and modern Af­ ri­can, Asian, European, and Amerindian tooled designs are composed of multiple rectilinear or curvilinear line sets rendered by incising, trailing, impressing, or punctating. These line sets were typically brought into opposition at a 45-­or 90-­degree angle or intersected at a 45-­or 90-­degree angle. The appearance of variability was achieved by using differing combinations of design elements in a single or in complementary decorative environments and/

48 • Chapter 2

or by enclosing one set of design elements within another in the same or in complementary decorative environments. This arrangement of decorative elements in a design may be described as its structure. Thus the complexity of most designs is realized through structural means, that is, by counterpoising design elements and/or nesting one element within another of like or unlike kind (Krause 1995:307–352).

3 A Theory of Production Steps and Stages

Baked clay containers, of all shapes and sizes, require a multistage, multistep construction effort. A general production sequence will run as follows: (1) obtain clay, (2) prepare clay, (3) build the vessel, (4) decorate the vessel, (5) dry the vessel, and (6) fire the vessel. There are, however, variations in the order of vessel part fabrication and in the results obtained from different production techniques. If, for instance, the way the performance of a specific act affects others in the production sequence, then not all acts need be considered equal. Some will be noncommutative. They must occur in a fixed order if a uniform result is to be achieved. These are listed above and numbered (1) through (6). Others, however, may be commutative. The order of their occurrence may vary without markedly affecting the end product. Production stage (3), build the vessel, is commutative. It may be easily and consistently subdivided as follows: (a) build the bottom, (b) build the lower vessel walls, (c) build the shoulder (if the vessel is shouldered), (d) build the upper vessel walls, (e) build the rim (if the mouth and lip are separate orifices), and (f ) build the lip. The potter might have started at the bottom then built the lower body, shoulder, upper body, rim, and lip. Yet the potter could have started at the shoulder; built the upper body, the lip, the lower body, and then the bottom. The potter could have also started at the shoulder; built the lower body, the upper body, the rim, and finally the lip. Then again, the potter might have begun vessel formation near the lip, built the upper body, the shoulder, the lower body and bottom, and then finished by forming the lip. In short, the fabrication of vessel parts may be commutative, making the order to performance an important aspect of a potting tradition.

50 • Chapter 3

Some potting acts are optional or are alternative means to concordant ends. Optional acts are those that, at the discretion of the potter, may be deleted. Production stage (4), decorate the vessel, is frequently optional. The potter may choose to decorate a vessel surface or leave it as formed. The addition of legs, skirts, spouts, handles, lugs, and adornos may also be optional. The propensity to act upon the options traditionally available is important. Other important acts may admit of alternatives. Alternatives are acts that may be rendered with different tools or hand movements at different times. However, if the option to decorate is chosen, the steps within it can be the subject of alternative means to virtually identical, or at least concordant, ends. Similar decorations may be rendered by incising, trailing, painting, filleting, punctuating, or impressing, depending on the substance and/or the kind of tool used. The relative frequency of the use of alternatives is an important element in the manifestation of a potting tradition. Since the general stages in pottery production and decoration can be systematically detailed, and when necessary can be meaningfully subdivided, I shall use a production stage format, and the subdivisions introduced above to create a ceramic database for the materials from the site of Paso del Indio in north-­central Puerto Rico. For perspective I will first make observations about the broader contours to prehistoric potting practices in the Americas.

Raw Material Acquisition No matter when, where, or how pottery is made the first task is to find and collect suitable clay. Pots are made from either primary or sec­ondary clays. Igneous granites, decomposed by hot gasses into softer feldspar containing rocks, provide the parent materials for both. Decomposition of feldspar-­ containing rocks by sun, rain, wind, and/or ice produces primary clays. All of them are found where they were formed. Primary clays tend to be light colored, usually white gray or light pink, restricted in distribution, large in particle size, relatively aplastic (with the exception of bentonite), and high firing (1200 degrees centigrade or higher). When properly treated primary clays are used to produce light-­colored earthenwares, stone wares, chinas, or porcelains (Casson 1979:​5–6). Nevertheless, the ethnographic observations and archaeological specimens available for most of Africa, Asia, Europe, North and South America indicate the use of sec­ondary rather than primary clays. The sources of sec­ondary clays are primary clay beds. But when primary clays are moved from these sources by wind, water, or ice they pick up in­ organic (iron and other minerals) and organic impurities and are modified in texture and particle size. As a consequence primary clays become sec­ondary

Theory of Production Steps and Stages • 51

clays. Secondary clays are more widely distributed than primaries and, as a consequence of the impurities they contain, tend to be shades of gray, brown, or red. They are also smaller in particle size, have greater plasticity, and are more fusible, that is, they require lower firing (600 to 1200 degrees centigrade) than primaries. Most fusible sec­ondary clays will melt at firing temperatures much higher than 1300 degrees centigrade. They are most suitable for the production of low-­fired and porous earthenwares (Casson 1979:5–6). Fired in oxygen rich environments, sec­ondary clays produce porous red, gray, tan, or buff wares. Fired in oxygen-­poor (i.e., reducing) surroundings, they yield earthenwares in black, grey, or shades thereof. By far the greater number of North and South America’s native potters (both those of the ethnographic and the archaeological record) used sec­ondary clays dug from alluvial deposits (river, creek, and/or pond banks and/or beds) of recent geological origin.

Clay Preparation Once clay was collected and moved to the place of manufacture it was processed and prepared. During processing the potter removed extraneous organic or inorganic matter, crushed, dried, sifted, and/or winnowed the raw clay. After extraneous matter was removed, water was added. The clay was then either set aside to age (i.e., sour) or was immediately kneaded or wedged, with or without the addition of a tempering agent. Some clay requires a tempering agent (an aplastic substance added to the clay body) that allows it to expand or contract to prevent cracking during drying and spalling during firing. Sand (either purposefully added or intentionally included during clay selection), ground-­up pottery fragments (i.e., grog), ground-­up stone of vari­ous kinds (i.e., grit), ground-­up shell, and plant fibers are the most commonly reported clay body inclusions in wares from North and South America.

Techniques of Manufacture After proper preparation and processing the clay in its paste state may be formed into a vessel. If the vessel is to be hand built, as were all wares in prehistoric North and South America and the Caribbean, the hand potter has four basic techniques at his or her disposal, namely mass modeling, slab and/ or strap building, coiling, or molding. If the vessel is mass modeled it is pulled, pinched, punched, pounded, and scraped into the desired shape and size from a lump of prepared clay large enough to supply most, if not all, of the raw material (Fig­ure 3.1a–t). The earliest ceramics in the south­east­ern United States are mass modeled (Sassaman 1992:66–69) as are the prehistoric wares pro-

Fig­ure 3.1. Mass modeling from the bottom up: (a) excavating the bottom/base from prepared cone; (b–j) pulling the bottom, base, and lower body; (k–o) forming the rim and lip; (p–s) shaping, thinning, and floating vessel walls, rim, and lip; (t) finished vessel.

Theory of Production Steps and Stages • 53

Fig­ure 3.2. Coiling from the bottom up: (a) rolling coils; (b) building the bottom/base; (c) coiling lower walls; (d) coiling upper walls; (e) finished vessel. (Drawing by Sabrina Simõn, courtesy of Tennessee Valley Archaeological Research.)

duced in the Central and North­ern Plains (Wedel 1959:542–600; Lehmer 1971:22). Slab and/or strap modeling, a technique in which vessels or vessel parts are constructed by joining or overlapping slabs and/or straps of clay, is a variation on either the theme of modeling or coiling. Single and double strap rims (the latter typically described as collared or S-­shaped) have been reported from the Great Plains of North America (Krause 1995:307–352). Square and rectangular slab-­built forms are found in Mississippian Stage deposits in the south­ east­ern United States and large, round-­bottomed, rounded high-­shouldered vessels formed from overlapping straps of clay are a hallmark of Autaga and Ala­bama River Phase materials in the same region (Mann and Krause, 2009). In the Caribbean, Desrayaud (1999) notes instances of slab building in Cedrosan Saladoid ceramics from the Vive site in Martinique. A cursory examination of Hacienda Grande ceramics (Krause field notes) suggests that the more elaborate forms had slab-­built bodies and strap-­constructed annular bases or base skirts. If the vessel is coiled, the prepared clay mass would have been divided into segments, each of which would have been rolled into a coil. These coils were then either laid one upon another (i.e., stacked) (Fig­ure 3.2a–e) or were spi-

54 • Chapter 3

raled and offset (upper either slightly inside or outside lower) or were flattened and overlapped (upper either slightly inside or outside lower). The coils would have then been pinched, pulled, paddled, and scraped to form a pot of the desired size and shape. Coiling is the predominate technique of vessel formation in the late Gulf formational and post Gulf formational south­east­ern United States ( Jenkins and Krause 1986:48–102). It is also the predominant prehistoric building technique in the northeast­ern (Funk 1978: 335–362), mid­west­ ern (Griffin 1978:256–295), and southwest­ern United States, north­ern South America, and the Caribbean (Rouse 1962:24–47). Some Saladoid and all Ostionoid wares are coiled. If the vessel is molded, prepared clay would have been spread over or within a wooden, stone, or ceramic, vertical or horizontal, partial or half mold. The pieces thus formed were then joined together or joined to coiled or mass modeled sections. Molded bases are reported for Mississippian stage pottery from the south­east­ern United States (van der Leeuw 1982, personal communication) and molded wares are found in the Ameri­can Southwest and Meso-­and South America. A cursory examination of Puerto Rican vessels identified as Huecan indicates they also are molded (Krause field notes). These four basic vessel-­building techniques are not mutually exclusive. Each may have been combined with others to manufacture separate parts of the same pot. Nevertheless, one of them is usually primary because it was used to build the greater part of the vessel. “Patch modeling” is a form of coiling. In fact, rolls, pinches, or patches of clay could have been added during molding, modeling, or coiling. These additions would usually have been ad hoc or are a part of rim and lip formation. They do not change the basic characteristics of the major body-­forming techniques.

Vessel Part Fabrication Beginning at the Lip

When mass modeling, strap building, or coiling a vessel, the artisan may begin by forming the base, the shoulder, or the area near the lip. When mass modeling shouldered vessels, it is difficult (but not impossible) for the potter to start near or at the lip. The major difficulty comes during shoulder manufacture when the weight of the clay between the lip, or near lip, and the shoulder rests on the near lip, and the circumference of the shoulder exceeds the circumference of the near lip. While experiments in mass modeling indicate that building shouldered vessels from the lip down is possible, both the shoulders and bases of such vessels are markedly thinner than near lips, lips, and rims.

Theory of Production Steps and Stages • 55

Beginning near or at the lip is easier if the potter is strap building or coiling. Both shouldered and shoulderless forms may be constructed in this manner. But if the potter begins by strap building or coiling at or near the lip, those portions of the pot are significantly thicker than the portions near the bottom. In such cases, the lower vessel walls are thinner than their near lip counterparts and the base. The base is formed from a concavo-­convex, mass-­modeled, molded, or pancake-­like pad. It is laid on and over the body coil most distant from the lip and is typically thinner than the lower portion of the vessel to which it is attached. Coiling from the near lip to the base has been inferred for bowl-­shaped archaeological specimens from the Cerrillos River Valley of Puerto Rico (Krause 1989:121–123). It has not been reported ethnographically or inferred archaeologically for other Caribbean or North or South Ameri­can specimens. But coiling from the lip down is still, in theory, possible. Beginning at the Shoulder

When the artisan began mass modeling at the shoulder the clay mass was rolled into a solid cylinder. It was then mashed into a flat, rectangular strap, whose free ends were thinned, mated, and welded together to produce a hollow cylindrical “starter strap” from which both the top and base were pulled (Fig­ure 3.3a–i). If the potter started at the shoulder, the shoulder was significantly thicker than the upper or lower body (Krause 1984:​630–631). While this was a common form of vessel building in south­ern Africa (Krause 1997:​ 119) and is used by contemporary potters in parts of Mexico (Beverly Curry, personal communication), there are no ethnographic or archaeological accounts of its use in the Caribbean or in North or South America. If the artisan began slab building or coiling at the shoulder, then proceeded to slab build or coil the upper body and lip, the slabs or coils were usually reduced in length and thickness, or diameter, as the lip was approached. The lip itself was then constructed of a separate coil of clay and allowed to dry before the vessel was turned over and the lower body and base constructed. Thus, unless they are vigorously scraped and compacted, the shoulder will be slightly thicker than the upper body. If, however, the vessel was to have a rim, it was usually built of coils or straps of clay with a separate coil of clay providing material for lip manufacture. If the lower body and base were slab built or coiled, the slabs or coils should diminish in both length and thickness from near shoulder to bottom. The bottom itself may be constructed of either a pancake of mass modeled clay (if flat) or a pinch-­shaped and smoothed slab of clay (if concavo-­convex). In either case the lower body, base, and bottom will be slightly thinner than the shoulder.

56 • Chapter 3

Fig­ure 3.3. Mass-­modeling from the shoulder: (a, b, and c) creating the starter-­strap; (d, e, and f ) building the shoulder and upper body; (g, h, and i) forming the lower body, base, and bottom.

Beginning at the Bottom

If the artisans began at the bottom, they then either coiled, modeled, or excavated a clay mass and modeled, coiled, or molded a base (see Fig­ure 3.1a and b). If the potter excavated a clay mass then modeled it to form the bottom, the base was thicker than the vessel walls, the shoulder, and the upper body (see Fig­ure 3.1a–c). An excavated base is less uniform than one that is coiled or molded and will not show the attachment seam of the latter. If coiled, a long cylinder wound about itself, or spiraled slightly upward and outward, forms

Theory of Production Steps and Stages • 57

Fig­ure 3.4. Handle manufacture: (a) forming the handle blank; (b) affixing the handle blank to the vessel lip; (c) pulling the handle; (d) affixing the handle to the vessel wall. (Drawing by Sabrina Simõn, courtesy of Tennessee Valley Archaeological Research.)

the base (see Fig­ure 3.2 a–c). Under proper light and magnification these bases will exhibit an ammonite or nautilus-­like spiral. A coiled base is unlikely if the vessel body is mass modeled. A molded base is less likely if the vessel body is previously or subsequently mass modeled, rather than slab built or coiled (Krause 1997:119). When building from the bottom up, the lower body, shoulder (if shouldered), and upper body may be either coiled, slab built, or mass modeled. If coiled or slab built, the coils or slabs are progressively longer and of roughly the same diameter, or very slightly thinner, as the potter proceeded from lower body to shoulder. They will be progressively shorter and slightly thinner as he or she proceeded from shoulder to upper body. Rim (if a rim is present) and lip construction will be accomplished as described above. If mass modeled and built from the bottom up, the lower body walls will be slightly thicker than the shoulder and the upper body walls will be significantly thinner than the lower body walls. Again rim (if present) and lip will probably be constructed as previously described. Adding Appendages

Appendages added to North Ameri­can ceramics include (1) spouts (springing from the shoulder or affixed to a drastically narrowed mouth); (2) loop and strap Ω-­shaped, faux, or D-­shaped handles (Fig­ure 3.4a–d); (3) lugs (tab-­ shaped, oval, or bifurcate; perforated or unperforated), affixed to the shoulder, rim, or lip; (4) annular pedestals, podal supports, or cone-­shaped legs (ap-

58 • Chapter 3

pended to vessel bases); and (5) adornos, modeled images, either solid or hollow, depicting animals, humans, or supernatural creatures appended to vessel lips, shoulders, rims, lugs, or handles. Drying

After pottery vessels are shaped and decorated they must be dried before firing. If insufficiently dried, residual clay body moisture will vaporize within the vessel walls during heating and will cause spalling, shattering, or warping. Then too, uneven or excessively rapid drying will crack the vessels before they reach their greenware state. Therefore, most drying is done in an enclosure of some kind, usually a shed or a dwelling. Firing

Firing is a three-­stage process. In the first stage the vessel is warmed (the slower the better) to drive any remaining moisture from the clay body. If warm­ ing proceeds too rapidly, the clay particles fuse before residual moisture escapes and pockets of steam form within the vessel walls causing them to shatter and spall. During the sec­ond stage organic matter is burned from the clay body and excess oxygen is introduced through circulation drafts. This oxygen reacts with carbonaceous matter in the clay body and soot from the burning fuel to produce carbon dioxide. As carbon in the clay body is removed the iron oxides that remain are oxidized producing shades of red, orange, yellow, gray, or brown. Vitrification is the third and final stage. During vitrification clay constituents sof­ten, stick to each other, and become joined by glass filaments formed from melting and combining silica. If oxidation is incomplete the remaining organic matter will form gas at high vitrification temperatures. The concomitant pressure will cause warping or other forms of wall distortion. Nevertheless, sec­ondary clays are usually of low purity. They contain natural fluxing agents that produce the beginnings of vitrification at a relatively low temperature (600 to 900 degrees centigrade) thus muting the effects of incomplete oxidation. Ameri­can Indian potters both ancient and modern normally open fired their wares using locally available fuels. The following describes the rudiments of this process. A circular or oval area of suitable dimensions is cleared of overburden, that is, grass, sod, earth, or sand and either smoothed to provide a flat surface or dug out to form a shallow concavity. A prepared bed of sticks, grass, and/or bark is lay over the bare soil, or the pots to be burned are set upon stones or potsherds. In either case the unfired vessels are kept off the ground. The underbedding allows a draft to circulate during the early stages of burning. The pots to be fired are either placed mouth up or mouth down and nes-

Theory of Production Steps and Stages • 59

Fig­ure 3.5. Bonfire kiln stack. (Drawing by Sabrina Simõn, courtesy of Tennessee Valley Archaeological Research.)

tled into the prepared bed of sticks and grass or arranged upon stones and/ or potsherds to hold them upright. They are firmed in their upright stance by leaning them together shoulder to shoulder (Fig­ure 3.5). A mouth up or mouth down position may be inferred from the smudge patterns produced by firing. If the interior of the pot bottom is smudged, the vessel was fired mouth up. If the exterior of the bottom or the shoulder exterior is smudged, the vessel was fired mouth down. Smudging on the lip exterior and interior and on near lip portions indicate that the vessel mouth settled into the underbedding hence was fired mouth down. If I assume that locally available materials were used as fuel, then wood, grass, and bark would have been collected from nearby supplies. Firing clouds with a linear configuration whose size and position indicate the use of sticks or logs may be used to infer fuel composition and stacking techniques. A radial distribution of linear firing clouds will indicate a tipi-­like frame of sticks or branches. A lattice or dendritic pattern will indicate stacking of a different kind. If a wood framework was used, it would have been covered over with a thatch of grass and/or bark (see Fig­ure 3.5). If dried dung was also used, it would have been heaped over the thatch. Blotchy irregular firing clouds may indicate this practice. The stack was usually lit on the downwind side to promote a slower, hotter burn. Additional fuel was added as needed during the burn. Most potters allowed their wares to cool before pulling them from the dying fire to prevent undue cracking through rapid heat loss.

60 • Chapter 3

A Theory of Ceramic Production In summary, baked clay containers, of all shapes and sizes, require a multistage, multistep construction effort. A general production sequence will be: (1) obtain clay, (2) prepare clay, (3) build the vessel, (4) +/−­decorate the vessel [A], (5) dry the vessel, (6) +/−­decorate the vessel [B], (6) fire the vessel, (7) +/−­ decorate the vessel, [C] and (8) +/−­refire the vessel. Steps 4, 6, and 7 carry a +/−­value and [A–C] designation to indicate that vessels may be left undecorated or may be [A] decorated after they are formed and before they are dried, [B] decorated after they are dried and before they are fired, or [C] decorated after they are fired. The +/−­value to step 8 indicates that the vessel may or may not be refired. To produce a fuller, more precise description, I will resort to a basic equation that when systematically expanded renders all the basic terms and relationships in full, abbreviated, or symbolic form. The initial PM symbol indicates pottery manufacture and the DEC symbol indicates decoration. Stacked terms separated by (or) indicate choose one. An arrow → indicates a rewrite. Brackets [ ] indicate a general term that will subsume others. Parenthesized terms ( ) indicate specific instances. Adjacent parenthesized terms (A)(B) should be read A or B or both. Other symbol interpretations will be offered later. The theory stated in symbolic form: “PM → {[Obtain Raw Materials] + [Prepare Raw materials] + [Build Vessel] +/−­ [Appendation] +/−­ [Decorate Vessel] + [Dry Vessel] +/−­ [Decorate Vessel] + [Fire Vessel] +/−­ [Decorate Vessel] +/−­ [Re-­fire Vessel].” An expansion and interpretation of the symbolic form follows: + [Obtain Raw Materials] → + (Clay) +/−­ (Temper) + (Clay) → Primary or Secondary + (Temper) → Grit or Grog or Shell or Bone or Fiber or Sponge Specula or

Theory of Production Steps and Stages • 61

Indurated Clay or Moss or Other? + [Prepare Raw Material] → +/−­ Temper + Prepare Clay + Prepare Clay → (Dry)(Pound)(Clean)(Moisten) +/−­ (add Temper) (Knead and/or Wedge) + [Build Vessel] → (Size Selection) + (Symmetry Selection) + (Construction Technique) + (Construction Starting Point) + (Bottom) + (Lower Body) +/−­ (Shoulder) + (Upper Body) + (Mouth) +/−­ (Rim) + (Lip) + (Size Selection) → Extra Large or Large or Medium or Small or Miniature + (Symmetry Selection) → Radial or Bilateral + (Construction Technique) → Coiled or Slab Modeled or Mass Modeled or Mold Made + (Construction Starting Point) → (Bottom) + (Shoulder) + (Upper Body) or (Shoulder) + (Upper Body) + (Bottom) or (Shoulder) + (Bottom) + (Upper Body) or

62 • Chapter 3

(Upper Body) + (Shoulder) + (Bottom) + (Bottom) → Flat or Ex-­curvate → Conoidal or Rounded or Parabolic or In-­curvate → Conoidal or Rounded or Parabolic + (Lower Body) → Direct or Ex-­Curvate or In-­Curvate or Inflected + (Shoulder) → Angular → High or Medial or or Low Rounded → High or Medial or Low In-­sloping + (Upper Body) → or Direct or Inflected + (Mouth) → Constricted → Oval or or

Theory of Production Steps and Stages • 63

Wide → Oval Round or Round Out-­Slope → +/−­ Braced + (Rim) → Direct → or Folded or or In-­Slope → +/−­ Braced or Folded or Straight → +/−­ Braced or Folded Indirect → Collared → +/−­ Braced or or Folded S-­Shaped → +/−­ Braced or Folded or Cloistered → +/−­ Braced or or Folded Colonnaded → +/−­ Braced or or Folded Castellated or Flanged + (Lip) → Rounded or Flat or Beveled → In-­Beveled → or or T-­Shaped Out-­Beveled or or Inverted L-­Shaped Double Beveled

64 • Chapter 3

+ Adorno → Mammal → Human → Head → Hollow or or or or Nonhuman → Bat Figure Solid Nonmammal → Reptile or or Manatee Amphibian or or Monkey Avian or or Bear Fish or or Dog Other? or Other? or Lug → Tab → Rectangular or Square or Triangular or Bifurcate (Fish-­tail) or D-­shaped or or Nipple or Cylindrical Coil built Annular Ring → or Strap built or Podal Supports → Rolled and Tapered or Rectangular Tab or Square Tab or Spout → From Shoulder or From Upper Body

Theory of Production Steps and Stages • 65

or Double Spout → or Skirt

With Bridge or Without Bridge

+ [DEC] → [Decorative Area] + [Design] + [Design Configuration] + [Decorative Area] → +/−­ (Lip) +/−­ (Rim) +/−­ (Body) + (Body) → +/−­(Upper Body) +/−­ (Shoulder) +/−­(Lower Body) + (Rim) → (Exterior)(Interior) + (Lip) → (Exterior)(Upper Surface)(Interior) + [Design Configuration] → (Distribution of Designs on Vessel) + [Design] → (Decorative Element) + (Design Structure) + [Design Structure] → Curvilinear → → Concentric or or Rectilinear → Parallel → → Horizontal Sinuous or or or Converge→ Abut Vertical Converge or or Intersect Diagonal or Nest + (Decorative Element) → Substance Addition→ → → Paint or or Tooled → → Incised Wash or or or Finger → Impressed Trailed Slip or or or Pinched Punctate Appliqué or or Fingernail Stab and Drag

66 • Chapter 3



or Simple Stamp or Check Stamp or Complicated Stamp or Cord-­wrapped Rod or Fabric Impressed or Combed or Brushed or Excised or Floated or Polished

+ [Dry] +/−­ [Decorate] +­ [Fire] +/−­ [(Decorate)] +/−­ [Refire]

4 The Classification of Artifact Complexes

When I was a graduate student, essays on classification irritated, confused, and bored me. Fifty years later they still do. Nevertheless in classes with Irving Rouse, Harold Conklin, and Floyd Lounsbury, I became aware of the way classification affects what we think and what we believe. All humans classify their sense experiences every day. If we did not there would be little or no predictability in our lives. Every sight, every sound, every smell, every touch, and every taste would be a totally different experience. If we interpreted the perceptions of our senses as they really are and reacted accordingly, we would be insane. Social interaction and social life would be impossible. So would the production or use of artifacts. But we do not interpret the perceptions of our senses as they really are and we do not react accordingly. Instead, we manage our sense experiences by classifying them. In short, as infants and children we all learn to use the principles of classification typical of the language we use to communicate our understanding of the world. Once we learn them, we use them every time we think, talk, or act. They are at the very core of the meanings we assign to the stuff of our world. We all manage our sense experiences by classifying them. Just how we do this, however, may vary from time to time and place to place. In essence, what we do in millisec­onds is group together those experiences that seem to us to be alike. What we produce is a group of entities that in our judgment belongs together. These entities may be objects, sounds, or ideas. When the properties used to group them are explicitly identified and listed, they become the criteria for membership in a class or set. Thus by the time we are finished classifying, we have managed three different entities: (1) the objects, sounds, or ideas to be classified (these exist in the world whether we encounter them or

68 • Chapter 4

not), (2) the properties we use to classify objects, sounds, or ideas (these we select according to principles we learn), and (3) the groups or classes of things, sounds, or ideas we create (these we form as we order our sense experience). Differently put, by classifying the experiences of our other five senses we use our sixth sense—the human imagination. Early multisite and multicomplex taxonomic discussions were fueled by the data gathered by works progress (WPA) archeologists in the1920s and 1930s. The accumulating body of data was ordered within the Mid­west­ern Taxonomic System (MTS)—a five-­taxon, content-­based hierarchy organized on the logical principle of strict set inclusion (Kay 1971:868). The taxa within the MTS, from least to most inclusive, are the focus, aspect, phase, pattern, and base (McKern 1939:301–313). In practice only focus and aspect were used with any frequency. These were arranged so that one proceeds from taxa of greatest specificity and least inclusiveness (focus and aspect) to those of least specificity and most inclusiveness (phase, pattern, and base). Because its most inclusive units have the least replicated content and its least inclusive units have the most, the MTS obscures content variability. Then too, when using the MTS, considerations of time and space are excluded from taxon formation because they cannot be handled with the same logic applied to content— a limitation that ultimately led North Ameri­can archaeologists to abandon the MTS for a more “flexible” competitor—the Willey and Phillips Phase, Tradition, Horizon system. The Willey and Phillips (1962) scheme is based on taxa created through the interaction of time, space, and content. The basic units are the phase, horizon, and tradition. The phase is a classificatory taxon and the horizon and tradition are integrative taxa. Phases are the basic content units, and their relationship to traditions and horizons may be summarized as follows: 1. Phases must have the greatest content. 2. Traditions must have the greatest time depth. 3. Horizons must have the greatest spatial spread. 4. Traditions must have less content than phases. 5. Traditions must have less spatial spread than horizons. 6. Horizons must be less durable than traditions. In 1971 Don Lehmer introduced the variant to the Willey and Phillips system. He described the variant as: “A unique and reasonably uniform expression of a cultural tradition which has a greater order of magnitude than a phase and is distinguished from other variants of the same tradition by its geographic distribution, age and/or cultural content” (Lehmer 1971:32). If

Classification of Artifact Complexes • 69

Lehmer had described the variant as he used it, he would have called it a midrange integrative taxon with less content, greater time span, and greater spatial spread than a phase, less time span than a tradition and less spatial spread than a horizon. Thus described, the variant fits securely within the logic of the Willey and Phillips system. The most inclusive units in the Willey and Phillips sys­tem are stages. In its origi­nal form the sys­tem had five stages: Lithic, Archaic, Formative, Classic, and Post Classic. These stages were content units that formed a quasi-­serial order. Therefore representatives of two or more stages could occupy adjacent spaces at the same time. Ameri­can archaeologists transformed the Willey and Phillips stages into periods termed Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippian. Periods however are not the same as stages. Periods form a strict serial order such that period A must precede period B. The two cannot overlap to form period AB. Materials belonging to the Woodland period and those belonging to the Mississippian period cannot occupy the same or adjacent space at the same time. The AB solution is untenable. In sum the organization of multisite materials into periods requires a unilinear logic on the part of the classifier. In the 1930s Rouse organized the Caribbean materials into three ages, namely Lithic, Archaic, and Ceramic. It is clear from his use of these units and from his class presentations that his ages are parts of a quasi-­serial order. They are in effect the logical equivalents of Willey and Phillips’s stages. In sum, the AB solution is tenable. His Archaic age can and does overlap with his Ceramic age in Cuba. Rouse further divided his ages into a sys­tem of series and subseries that have proved to be elegant and useful tools. By a series Rouse means a set or group of archaeological cultures related by a coherent temporal and spatial continuum to the performance of tasks that characterize the day-­ to-­day behavior of those who share a common set of customs, standards, and beliefs. Implied is a set of related populations whose members participate in a common social architecture. It is clear that Rouse (1986:31–37) considers the series to be the broadest and most inclusive subunit in his scheme. What is not as clear is how his subseries are related to his series. Are his vari­ous subseries to be construed as parts of, kinds of, or stages of his broader classificatory unit? Does his classification proceed by the logical principle of multiple set intersections, multiple set additions, or multiple set inclusions? Differently put is Rouse’s scheme a stageonomy, a partonomy, or a taxononomy? (For a full discussion of these distinctions see Kay (1971:866–886.) If Rouse intended his scheme to be a stageonomy, then there should be a clear and recognizable progression from one subseries to the next as the series is spread through the Caribbean. If he intended a partonomy, then dif-

70 • Chapter 4

ferent subseries should be confined to different parts of the Caribbean. If he intended a taxonomy, then each subseries should be a variation of the series found wherever and whenever the series is present. Even a cursory inspection of Rouse’s (1992) presentation in The Tainos indicates that his scheme is a stageonomy. The classifier using Rouse’s scheme must proceed by the logical principle of multiple set intersection. In this respect Rouse’s scheme uses the same logical integrator as the Willey and Phillips formulation. Rouse’s classification has a paradigmatic structure, a logical order in which each taxon is created by contrasting values along one or more of the salient dimensions of its predecessor. In his 1960 Ameri­can Antiquity article on the classification of artifacts in archaeology Rouse (1960a:313–323) uses the term genetic to describe this relationship. The lesson here is simple and straightforward. Each multisite classificatory scheme has its own internal logic. This logic must be understood prior to taxon formation because it defines the system’s potentials. But taxonomic systems have only potentials. Taxonomic meaning is achieved through use. Even if a taxonomic sys­tem is compatible with the aims of an inquiry it must be empiricized through use. In sum, a full account of the meaning assigned to taxonomic units like stage, phase, variant, tradition, horizon, age, series, or subseries must be derived from three sources: (1) the logical structure of the taxonomic sys­tem it serves (in the case at hand a paradigmatic logic), (2) the body of theory that guides and informs the archaeologist producing the system, and (3) the interpretation the archaeologist gives the system’s taxa. In my attempts to classify archaeological remains I use a cultural his­tori­cal approach. To do so I must identify those internal forces maintaining sys­tem balance and those external pressures promoting change. The major problem with this construal is its atomism, its propensity to see motion as a consequence of the interaction of two or more entities, rather than an integral part of the sys­tem it represents. There thus tends to be an emphasis upon being rather than becoming and upon structure rather that structuring (for a more detailed criticism see van der Leeuw 1982). I suspect that some of these analytical drawbacks may be sof­tened (if they cannot be avoided) by interpreting external and internal forces as being at one and the same time both entities and flows of information, matter, and energy (see Prigogine 1978). But if I do so, I must account for the fact that matter and energy are subject to the law of conservation, while information is not. Information is therefore analytically primary. It can be responsible for the creation and maintenance of dynamism, whereas energy and matter cannot. Traditional knowledge about how things should be done is an essential balance-­maintaining force. When construed as entities, traditional bodies of

Classification of Artifact Complexes • 71

knowledge take the form of institutions (kinship ties, burial rituals, manufacturing techniques, subsistence practices, etc.). When construed as information flows, they take the form of transgenerational inter-­and/or-­intracultural idea exchanges (i.e., information routes or channels). Let us assume that essential parts of a traditional body of knowledge can be understood through the analy­sis of artifacts and artifact by-­products In other words let us assume that archaeologists can read from artifacts the traditional standards, customs, and beliefs that guided raw material acquisition, manufacturing steps and stages, and forms of use. Finally, let us stipulate that external forces can be interpreted as environmental whether they are social or natural. When construed as entities, sys­tem external forces take the form of useable resources (natural foods, climate, soils, timber, mineral deposits, etc.). When interpreted as flows, they may be considered energy, matter, and information exchange networks (routes of travel, trade and commerce, pathways of stimulus diffusion, or avenues of population growth and dispersal). External forces can, therefore, be inferred from an understanding of the distribution of particular kinds of artifacts and artifact by-­products. I interpret Rouse’s series and subseries in the light of these stipulates. Rouse’s subseries must be intelligible units for studying the interplay among sociocultural variations and definable external forces. If I construe components as synonymous with communities, Rouse’s subseries are multicommunity information, matter, and energy exchange nets. They are entities that are the results of intense energy, matter, and information flows. Information, matter, and energy flows at the subseries level are, however, funneled through social institutions that are more than mere conduits. These social institutions both constrain the flows and are shaped by them. Hence I expect a degree of varia­ bility among the components of a subseries as the flows that give them their coherence wax and wane. Nevertheless, the spatial dimensions for a subseries should fit with our understanding of the geographical maxima for maintaining intensity in energy and matter exchange. The temporal dimensions should concur with our best judgment of the intensity in information exchange read from similarities in the details of artifact manufacture and use. If his subseries are to represent sys­tem states whose information, matter, and energy flows are constrained by institutions, then Rouse’s series may be interpreted as long-­term, suprainstitutional information exchange routes that temporally integrate his subseries. Put differently, series may be understood as time-­ordered and durable sequences of artifact manufacture and use created by the unfolding of an underlying, albeit limited, body of knowledge. They express the information contained in but a few of the technologies found in a given complex and are free of the dissipative effects of entropy-­producing

72 • Chapter 4

events and processes because they represent almost pure information. It is this aspect that gives them their long-­term temporal force and makes them efficient broad range integrative tools. Further, it is the ideological and social constraints contained in the limited information constituting series that give them a conservative force, a persistence against which the dynamics of other energy and matter constrained bodies of knowledge may be profitably understood. Rouse’s regional sequence for the West Indies begins with a Lithic age Casimirian series dating to 4,000 b.c. (Rouse 1986:129). Casimirian remains are typified by used but otherwise unmodified chunks and flakes of flint, prismatic cores, and unmodified micro blades. A Casimirian occupation is most evident in the west­ern end of the Greater Antilles, that is, Cuba and Hispaniola, where it seems to have been spread by migration from the Yucatán Peninsula (MacNeish and Nelken-­Turner 1983:38–39). A posited extension into Jamaica and west­ern Puerto Rico has received little empirical support (Rouse 1986:129). A subsequent Archaic age occupation of the Greater Antilles is indicated by ground-­stone, bone, and shell tools. Although classification of Archaic age materials is a matter of dispute, Rouse (1986:132) divides them into an Ortoiroid and Casimiroid series. Rouse’s Ortoiroid series, which is characterized by unformed flint chips and flakes, bone projectile points, and shell refuse is most evident on the South Ameri­can mainland and continental islands. Similar materials found in the Lesser Antilles, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico (Veloz-­Maggiolo 1980) lead him to suggest a migration of Ortoiroid peoples from mainland South America through the Lesser Antilles westward to the Mona Passage (Rouse 1986:132). To the west of the Ortoiroid expansion the developmental sequence was different. In the West Indies, Rouse (1986:132–133) posits a Lithic age Casimirian mother culture that diverged into two Archaic age subseries, Courian in Hispaniola and Redondan in Cuba. The Courian subseries is typified by ground stone and shell bowls, some of them engraved with complex rectilinear designs; single-­and double-­bitted axes; beads, pendants, and balls of ground stone; dagger-­shaped knives and steeply trimmed scrapers of chipped flint. In the Redondan subseries a more restricted range of ground-­and chipped-­stone tools is combined with the use of shell gouges rather than ground-­stone axes (Rouse 1986:132–134). Agriculture, Zemi worship, and ceramics were introduced during the Ceramic age. They were spread by the growth of yet another population first to the Lesser and then to the Greater Antilles. Rouse (1986:134) describes their culture as Saladoid. The Saladoid series generated three sequent subseries— Ronquinian, Sombran, and Cedrosan. Of the three only the latest, or Cedrosan, is found in the Lesser Antilles, Puerto Rico, and the east­ern tip of

Classification of Artifact Complexes • 73

Hispaniola. It was brought to these areas by a Cedrosan radiation from the Guineas that began about the time of Christ and reached Puerto Rico a century later (Rouse 1986:134–139).

The Classification of Artifacts Rouse’s multisite, multicomplex classification that created ages, series, and sub­ series was a response to the multisite taxonomic systems developed for the study of culture history in the Mississippi River drainage. Sites here, however, were ordered by virtue of the ceramics they contained. Ford’s Louisiana ceramic classification is typical of early attempts. His continuing contact with Gordon Willey, Preston Holder, Antonio Waring, Jesse Jennings, and Charles H. Fairbanks led him to conclude that pottery classification could be used to sequence archaeological sites and site components. He used decoration to define seven Louisiana ceramic complexes. Marksville, the oldest, was spread through­out the state. Coles Creek was introduced as an intermediate complex in the south, and Deasonville as an intermediate complex in the north. The state’s youngest prehistoric ceramic complexes were identified as Choctaw, Natchez, Tunica, and Caddo. In 1936 he published a summary of his work and a synthesis of lower Mississippi Valley prehistory (Ford 1936). Ford’s pottery complexes were subsequently transformed into a sys­tem of types and varieties that proved useful in organizing archaeological materials from the south­east­ ern, mid­west­ern, great plains, and southwest­ern United States. Lehmer (1951:3) introduced the concept of ceramic wares as “groups of types which share such fundamental characteristics as the fabric of the pottery itself, the surface finish, the general form, and the basic rim form.” Types in Lehmer’s view are to be determined by differences in decoration and lip shape. “The types themselves have all the characteristic features of the ware but are distinguished by the decorative treatment and sometimes variation in form.” Lehmer (personal communication 1965) understood the expression “fabric of the pottery itself ” to include the procedures of clay selection, collection, and preparation and the technique(s) of vessel fabrication. He includes bottom, lower body, shoulder, and upper body morphology in the expression general form. Surface treatment references the vessel body finishing techniques. Basic rim form describes the procedure of rim manufacture. These elements of vessel construction are not commutative operations. The order of their performance is fixed by the properties of the raw materials used and/or traditional canons of manufacture. In sum, to create ceramic wares, types, and varieties the classifier must form sets whose defining properties have been selected for their ar­ chaeo­logi­cal rather than their mode of production significance (Krause 1994:​

74 • Chapter 4

28). In most cases ar­chaeo­logi­cal significance means chronological (i.e., his­ tori­cal), functional (i.e., use), or archeologically defined ethnic identity. I have previously detailed the distinction that should be drawn among descriptive, his­tori­cal, and use types (Krause 1994:27–28). For economy of exposition I will summarize them. To form descriptive types, the classifier should confine him-­or herself to those, and only those, properties that have significance for manufacture, surface treatment, and decoration. To form use types, the classifier should confine him-­or herself to those, and only those, properties that reflect use. To form his­tori­cal types, the classifier should confine him-­ or herself to those, and only those, properties of manufacture, surface treatment, and decoration that have a known or suspected temporal and/or spatial distribution. If descriptive types are well done (i.e., are rich in detail), historic types and perhaps even use types may be drawn from them. The following should be considered when attempting a ware/type classification. First, the techniques of clay selection and preparation affect the success of all other manufacturing and decorating practices. They should therefore be modified with reluctance if new information or materials became a part of the potter’s ceramic regime. I may therefore expect that the new will co­exist with the old as potters experimented with and evaluated both. A potter’s use of multiple tempers is a case in point. Second, if potters customarily built from the bottom up, the size and shape of the bottom and base will set limits to the size and shape of lower body, shoulder, and upper body. Then too, body-­ manufacturing techniques and practices must accommodate the stresses and strains entailed by the desired body size and shape, thus affecting mouth size, shoulder position, and shoulder shape. Rim and lip construction, while constrained by all the previous acts, do not set limits to any other morphological practice. They are the terminal links in the chain of concepts and operations, the chaîne opératoire that created a vessel (Read 2007:188–240; Sellet 1993:​ 106–112). I may therefore expect them to be subject to fewer constraints on experimentation and innovation. In sum, rim and lip modification pose a low risk of failure hence may have been more easily shaped by artisan and consumer approval than morphological constraint. Finally, decoration and texturing practices are virtually risk free. I may expect their growth or decline would have responded most dramatically to potter and consumer preferences. Rouse’s ceramic series and subseries are designed to perform the classificatory tasks assigned to the use of wares, types, and varieties elsewhere in North America. Rouse considered his ceramic series and subseries logical isomorphs of his cultural series and subseries. Thus if I am to use his classification I must proceed as he did. I must organize my ceramic data into his classes and do so using the logical principle of set intersection. In other words my ceramic clas-

Classification of Artifact Complexes • 75

sification must have a paradigmatic structure. My ceramic series must be the logical and empirical equivalent of his cultural series. I must identify those portions of ceramic manufacture that are most conservative. My ceramic subseries must be the logical and empirical equivalent of his cultural subseries. They must be based on those portions of ceramic manufacture that respond readily to external forces. Thus when attempting to assess the information flows that lead to dynamism in ceramic production the analyst should consider the following: The procedures of clay selection and preparation should be considered first. Was the raw clay drawn from a primary or sec­ondary clay bed? Was the clay dried, pounded, and sifted or otherwise treated before the addition of water to produce its paste state? Was the clay cleaned of organic and inorganic inclusions and was it tempered before it was kneaded or wedged? The basic manufacturing techniques and the steps and stages entailed in the production of vessel morphology should be considered next. Major modifications of vessel symmetry and any modification of the basic technique of vessel manufacture (i.e., coiled, mass modeled, or slab modeled) would have affected the success of all other manufacturing and decorating practices. They should be modified with reluctance if new information or materials became a part of the potter’s ceramic regime. Therefore I may expect that the new will coexist with the old as potters experimented with and evaluated both. The coexistence of vessels with radial and those with bilateral symmetry may be a case in point. If potters customarily coiled or mass modeled from the bottom up, the size and shape of the bottom and base would set limits to the size and shape of the lower body, the shoulder, and the upper body. Then too, body-­manufacturing techniques and practices must accommodate the stresses and strains of the desired body size and shape thus affecting mouth size, shoulder position, and shoulder shape. In any case of ceramic modification I expect these elements to be most conservative. Finally, rim and lip construction while constrained by all the previous acts do not in and of themselves set limits to any other morphological practice. They are the terminal links in the chain of concepts and operations, the chaîne opératoire that created a vessel. I may therefore expect them to be subject to fewer constraints on experimentation and innovation. Rim and lip modification pose a low risk of failure hence may have been more easily shaped by artisan and consumer approval than morphological constraint. Finally, decorations, surface texturing, handle, and adorno appendation practices are virtually risk free. I may expect their growth or decline to respond most dramatically to exigencies of potter and consumer preferences. My ceramic series must be marked by a temporal and spatial continuum in the performance of the most basic manufacturing practices (i.e., those that en-

76 • Chapter 4

tail the highest risk of product loss). Differently put, I want my ceramic series to be based on continuity in raw material selection and preparation, technique or techniques of manufacture, and modes of size and shape. With respect to the latter I consider modes of bottom, base, wall, and shoulder manufacture to be of more import to series determination than modes of rim and lip construction or than modes of appendation such as handle, lug, or adorno production. If I strictly follow Rouse’s approach then my ceramic subseries should be composed of those nonbasic modes of manufacture and those modes of appendation and decoration that constitute a temporally and spatially restricted segment of the continuum my ceramic series represents. Remember, however, that the relationship between the vari­ous subseries within a series must be one of multiple set intersections and must be defined by contrasting values along the dimensions of nonbasic modes of production, appendation, and decoration. Note too that a given ceramic subseries must have a more limited distribution in time and space than the series that subsumes it. Differently put a ceramic subseries is a temporally and spatially restricted expression of the nonbasic modes of production, appendation, and decoration that are subsumed within a ceramic series. Caribbean archaeologists have used the concept of style as a yet more restricted unit of ceramic classification. It is a taxon that may be used to organize the ceramic variability within a subseries. While a style may be characterized as a cluster of modes that are temporally and spatially more restricted than those found in either a series or subseries, reference to the previous distinction between modes in general and those that are options and/or alternatives make a more precise description possible. Remember, an option is a manufacturing or decorative practice that may be omitted at the discretion of the potter. Alternatives are different means to similar or at least concordant ends. Let us then restrict the term style to temporally and spatially restricted mode clusters that express redundancies in the potter’s selection of options and alternatives during manufacture and/or decoration. Rouse’s Saladoid Series of potteries is typified by radially and bilaterally symmetrical, white-­on-­red painted wares, some with modeled and incised embellishments. Saladoid pottery, which Rouse (1986:134–139) derives from the Orinoco River Valley via the plains of Guyana and Venezuela, exhibits most of the techniques of manufacture, shape, and decoration found in all subsequent potteries. It is the best candidate for the region’s Ur ceramic complex. It generated three sequent subseries—Ronquinian, Sombran, and Cedrosan. Only the latest, or Cedrosan, is found in the Lesser Antilles. Puerto Rico’s Cedrosan Saladoid series of potteries has been divided into an earlier (a.d. 100–400) Hacienda Grande and a later (a.d. 400–600) Cuevas expression. In the course

Classification of Artifact Complexes • 77

of this sequence Cedrosan Saladoid potters first stopped modeling and incising, then dropped polychrome painting and finally abandoned white painted designs, a series of events that ultimately transformed the Cedrosan Saladoid series into a new Ostionoid series (Rouse 1986:139–144). Midway through the first millennium, perhaps a century later, Cedrosan Saladoid pottery was replaced by the Elanan subseries of the Ostionoid Series in the Leeward Islands and Vieques Sound areas and by the Ostionen Ostionoid subseries in the Mona Passage area. The potters producing both the Ostionen and Elenan subseries retained the technology, some of the vessel shapes, and tabular lugs of their Cedrosan ancestors but ceased producing modeled-­incised fig­ures, radially symmetrical wares, and white-­on-­red painted designs. As a consequence, early Elenan and Ostionen potteries tend to be plain or a monochrome red. In west­ern Puerto Rico the Ostionen subseries is divided into an earlier pure (a.d. 600 to 900) and later modified (a.d. 900– 1200) Ostionen. In east­ern Puerto Rico the Elenan subseries is divided into an earlier (a.d. 600–900) Tibes and later (a.d. 900–1200) Santa Elena Ostionoid. Each subseries had its own trajectory to change, its own internal dynamic. Elenoid potters made an increasingly thicker, coarser ware and simplified its shapes. Ostionen potters continued to produce a traditional range of shapes that were relatively thin, fine, and smooth, gradually extending red painted surfaces into the equivalent of a polished slip. Later the potters producing each subseries added modeled and incised animal adornos, but Elenan artisans produced simpler and cruder images than their Ostionen counterparts (Rouse 1986:​143). Later I shall apply my understanding of Rouse’s approach to the analy­sis and classification of a ceramic sample from Pilaster VI at the site of Paso del Indio. Before I do so, however, I will provide information on the history of Puerto Rican archaeology, Paso del Indio’s physical background, and my ceramic research aims.

5 Background for the Study of the Ceramic Sample from Paso Del Indio

Natural Background Puerto Rico is a relatively small island, 3,668 square miles in extent, roughly 500 square miles smaller than Jamaica (Fig­ure 5.1). The low and broken slopes of the Cordillera Central form the island’s backbone. The core of these mountains, which extend from the west­ern cape of Cerdina to the northeast corner of the island, is volcanic. The highest peak is the Cerro de Punta, which rises 4,388 ft above mean sea level (Macpherson 1963). The Caujas River separates the Cordillera Central from a smaller companion, the Sierra de Luguilo. The island’s mountains are flanked by limestone beds. Where the limestone has eroded, conical buttresses, separated from one another by pockets of fertile lowland, rise dramatically above the surrounding landscape. A coastal plain, composed of bedded limestone in places blanketed with alluvium, surrounds the volcanic slopes and eroded limestone buttresses of the highlands. This landscape of peaks, hills, fertile plains, and flowing streams hosts a lush vegetation of palms and evergreens (Hill 1898). The hilly, 95-­mile long, 35-­mile wide island of Puerto Rico has no fringing reefs. It lies alone and unaccompanied, surrounded by sea, a parallelogram of land at the northwest­ern most tip of the Antillean uplift (Hill 1898). The Atlantic Ocean responds slowly to heating and cooling. In consequence, there are few seasonal changes in the islands of the Caribbean. Temperature variations are the results of differences in elevation or amount of sunlight. The greater temperature variation is diurnal. Sun blistering days may exceed 90 degrees F. Cool nights, occasionally as cool as 65 degrees F, occur in the Greater Antilles. Then, too, the temperature falls about 1 degree F for each assent of

Ceramic Sample from Paso Del Indio • 79

Fig­ure 5.1. Map of Puerto Rico. (Map by Kevin Cowert, courtesy of Tennessee Valley Archaeological Research.)

300 ft above mean sea level. Only the lowest areas are relentlessly hot, and only the highest experience frost (Macpherson 1963). Elsewhere, the trade winds exert a moderating influence that tends to level such extremes. Both the hottest and the coolest days bring predominantly blue skies with white puffs of cumulus clouds. Beating tropical rains, the result of temperature disturbances and moisture-­laden trade winds, may fall any time of the year. When they do, they are unpredictable and localized. The Caribbean does have one season that is rainy and one that is usually dry, but the contrast between them is not pronounced. The trade winds and the prevailing ocean currents move clockwise around the Caribbean such that in February and March the easterly trade winds are strongest; in August and Sep­tem­ber they are weakest. During the hotter months, the trade winds have a drying effect and monthly rainfall may drop accordingly. When monthly precipitation drops below 4 in, serious drought follows (Macpherson 1963).

Archaeological Background Systematic investigations in Caribbean archaeology have been prevalent in the last eight decades of the twentieth century and the first 14 years of the twenty-­ first century. They were preceded by the work of curiosity seekers, some with scholarly interests, who made desultory inquiries of ar­chaeo­logi­cal deposits in Jamaica, Cuba, Hispaniola, and Puerto Rico. This early digging was done by

80 • Chapter 5

planters and government officials, who were guided by a tradition of gentlemanly antiquarianism. On occasion however, it lapsed into arrant vandal­ism. Those who were more “intellectual” than the rest did credible work by the standards of their time as illustrated by Agustin Sthal’s analy­sis of plaza construction and use and Padre Nazario’s reports of excavations (Alegria 1983:59). As a general rule the specimens acquired by avocational digging were described by material of manufacture and then were stored or privately displayed. In the early twentieth century, museums, government agencies, and private philanthropists sponsored the earliest systematic work on West Indian antiquities (Fewkes 1922:49–50). At the turn of the century the Smithsonian Institution’s Bureau of Ameri­can Ethnology sponsored several excavations in the Caribbean. The New York Academy of Science funded research in the area during World War I (Mason 1941) and the government of Puerto Rico supported post–World War I work (Hostos 1941). Yale University’s Peabody Museum personnel worked in the region just before World War II (Rouse 1939). Harvard’s Peabody Museum sponsored several post–World War II excavations. For economy of exposition I shall arbitrarily divide this first half century of research into an earlier culture area and a later culture history episode of inquiry. The early (i.e., pre– and post–World War I) museum-­sponsored work in the Caribbean was guided by the culture area approach. It replaced an earlier focus on a worldwide and unilinear succession of material traits by emphasizing the regional expression of locally developed social and manufacturing practices. The emphasis was still on traits as markers of significant aspects of social and material life, but these were now to be organized in a spatially restricted and fieldwork documented order rather than a universal and temporally speculative order. It was this perspective that guided the contributions of Fewkes (1907), Gower (1927), Hatt (1924), and Josselin de Jong (1924). In sum, the early decades of the twentieth century witnessed the emergence of the Caribbean as a distinct culture area with its own social themes and practices that were to be understood in an explicitly his­tori­cal format. While Caribbean ethnologists were refining the social and material dimensions of their culture area, many of their ar­chaeo­logi­cal colleagues were creating their own version of an aerially restricted and explicitly his­tori­cal approach. Their goal was to identify spatially restricted and, if possible, stratigraphically sequent prehistoric trait complexes as “ar­chaeo­logi­cal cultures.” Many of these “ar­chaeo­logi­cal cultures” were later reclassified by North Ameri­can archaeologists as foci or aspects of the Midwest­ern Taxonomic System or as phases in the Willey and Phillip’s taxonomic system. Whether construed as cultures, foci, aspects, or phases, these units became the subjects of analytical attention. Correlating them in time and space became the sine qua non of ar­chaeo­logi­

Ceramic Sample from Paso Del Indio • 81

cal interpretation (Taylor 1948:53). To promote this program of inquiry, the evidence provided by ceramic, lithic, bone, and shell tools was used for chronology building. Changes in the popu­larity of artifact types or of modes and attributes of use or manufacture, and sometimes a combination of the three, were used to infer the temporal relatedness of vari­ous cultures, phases, aspects, or foci (Phillips et al. 1951; Rouse 1939, 1960a; Spaulding 1956). As I noted earlier, a similar emphasis led Rouse to order Caribbean materials into ages, series and sub-­series. In short, culture history, as this approach was called, stressed systematic attempts to order ar­chaeo­logi­cal remains into local and regional sequences (Willey and Sabloff 1974:64). Caribbean archaeologists participated fully in the theoretical currents of the pre– and post–World War II era as indicated by the work of Loven (1935), Rouse (1939, 1941, 1942, 1948, 1952, 1953a, 1953b, 1960a), Rainey (1940), Mason (1941), Hostos (1941), Osgood (1942), Rouman (1943), Kidder (1944), Cosculluela (1946), Stern (1949), Pinchon (1952), Vescelius (1952), Mcku­sick (1960), and others. Their published results made a substantial contribution to knowledge. Some of it, Osgood’s (1942) Ciboney Culture of Cayo Redundo and Rouse’s (1939) Prehistory in Haiti: A Study in Method, redirected and refined the theoretical concerns of a generation of archaeologists. The analytical potential and conceptual subtlety of Rouse’s mode have yet to be fully realized (as I hope this book will indicate) and have provided a much needed alternative to the typological approaches used in other regions of North and South America. Then too, his use of ceramic series and subseries and his division of the Caribbean sequence into a series of ages have proved to be elegant and useful tools. The pace of fieldwork seems to have slowed a bit in the 1950s but quickened in the 1970s. In the interim, Ameri­can archaeology had undergone yet another paradigm modification; a shift from an interest in culture history to a form of inquiry its adherents called a new or processual archaeology. To the most virulent processualists the culture history done by the previous generation of archaeologists had the interpretative appeal of a series of artifacts, traits, attributes, or modes hung on the clothesline of time. They preferred instead a perspective in which culture itself was considered a sys­tem (i.e., an interconnected set of parts or subsystems with human behavior as the point of subsys­tem articulation). It soon became clear that processual interests would require a broadened research effort that required an expansion of archaeology’s financial and intellectual base. The aims and goals of processual research stimulated the collaboration of experts who studied past environments. It also promoted the invention of new recovery procedures, new techniques of analy­sis, and new sampling strategies that required an expanded field of expertise with greater financial backing. Federal enabling legislation provided a financial base for these efforts

82 • Chapter 5

and brought agencies of the U.S. government, the U.S. Army and Air Force, the National Park Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Bureau of Reclamation into the research arena as brokers of and for ar­chaeo­logi­cal inquiry. It was no accident that a substantial portion of the post-­1970s work in Puerto Rico was sponsored by the Centro de Investigaciones Indigenas de Puerto Rico or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Centro de Investigaciones Indigenas de Puerto Rico funded work at the Maisabel site, 30 kilometers west of San Juan on Puerto Rico’s north coast. In keeping with the processualist emphasis Siegel combined the results of his field work with demographic inferences to build a model of po­liti­cal centralization in the early period of the Caribbean Ceramic Age. U.S. Army Corps of Engineer’s attempts to control drainage in central and south central Puerto Rico focused ar­chaeo­logi­cal research on the drainage basins of the Portuguese, Bucana, and Cerrillos Rivers. El Bronce, a small eighth-­century settlement on a low terrace of the Bucana River was tested by Robinson et al (1981, 1983, and 1985) in the summer and fall of 1981. The south­ern portion of the site had been destroyed by previous channelization, but the north­ern portion yielded a stone-­lined, burial-­containing ball court surrounded by house ruins. Following a Corps-­sponsored survey by Pantel (l979), Oakley, Solis and Mistovich’s (OSM), Carlos Solis Magaña excavated historic and prehistoric sites in the Cerrillos River Valley. The prehistoric remains included the domestic debris and ruins of a domestic structure at PO23 and the domestic debris and ruins of a rectangular ball court or batey at PO27. Reasonably large ceramic and smaller lithic samples were drawn from both sites and analyzed by OSM laboratory researchers. The prehistoric ceramics from PO23, together with radiometric analyses of associated charcoal samples, indicate an Ostionen Ostionoid occupation early in Rouse’s period III (i.e., a mid-­to late fifth-­ century placement). Radiometric age determinations indicating an eleventh-­ century occupation and the Chican Ostionoid pottery from PO27 place it early in Rouse’s period IV. Krause (1989) presents the details of OSM fieldwork and laboratory work on both prehistoric and historic components. In addition to Antonio Curet’s dissertation (1992a) and multiple papers detailing the organization of Puerto Rican chiefdoms (1992b, 1996, 2002, 2003, and 2005), he and Lisa M. Stringer (2009) published a volume that describes work at the site of Tibes on the island’s south coast. This work is a prime example of recent attempts to integrate the empirical results and theoretical concerns of multiple specialists in the examination of ar­chaeo­logi­cal remains. In it, 10 specialists examine the geophysical, faunal, lithic, ontological, nutritional, and social implications of prehistoric life at the site. They provide a comprehensive analy­sis of the evidence for local modifications of house-

Ceramic Sample from Paso Del Indio • 83

hold economy and internal organization in a stratified society. In Caribbean Paleodomography Curet (2005) integrates the diverse theories of Greater Antilles island populations with the social and po­liti­cal forces governing their growth. In yet an additional work of note Oliver (2005) presents a comprehensive study of Zemis in Puerto Rico and Hispaniola. His is a well-­done example of a recent theoretical trend that some have called archaeoethnography (Krause 2011). Oliver (2005) argues that Zemis are embodiments of spiritual force that transform both portable artifacts and persons into numinous beings suffused with supernatural power. In 1993, Carlos Ayes Suarez alerted authorities that the Paso del Indio site, located on the west bank of the Rio Indio near the north central coast of Puerto Rico, was being impacted by bridge construction. The Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation authority responded by initiating a phase III evaluation during which soil borings were used to determine the horizontal and vertical site limits. This work was followed by a phase IV data recovery excavation directed by Osvaldo Garcia Coyco and Adalberto Mauras Casillas. Jeff Walker of the National Forest Service was asked to develop a research design and provide technical assistance during this fieldwork. Large-­scale excavations began in 1993 and lasted until 1995. Responsibility for the analy­sis and description of the artifacts was contracted to Law Environmental where the work was administered by Carlos Solis Magaña Paso del Indio is the deepest, best-­stratified site in Puerto Rico. It contains 30 strata spread over 11 distinct occupational zones each with lighter flood deposited sediments sandwiching darker cultural debris bearing layers. The strata include Archaic, Cuevas style Cedrosan Saladoid, Elenan Ostionoid, and Chican Ostionoid components. The site has a plethora of post molds, hearths, burials, and other features. The 40 radiocarbon determinations range from 2580 b.c. to a.d. 1655. Raniel Rodriguez Ramos (2005:1–55) has produced an innovative, well-­reasoned, and provocative account of the lithics from the site’s Archaic component. A detailed description of the site, its environment, summaries of its artifact contents, and its place in Puerto Rican prehistory can be found in Walker’s (2005:55–87) contribution to Ancient Borinquen: Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Native Puerto Rico.

A Statement of Problem Background

Most Caribbeanists agree that the Saladoid ceramic series was transformed into its Ostionoid successor. Yet there is little quantative evidence bearing on how the transformation was accomplished. There is also a considerable diver-

84 • Chapter 5

gence of opinion about the circumstances that may have fostered it. The divergence of opinion about the circumstances of transformation is in part a consequence of a lack of detailed quantative information on the transformation itself. It is to the issue of how the Saladoid to Ostionoid ceramic transition took place that an analy­sis of the ceramics from the site of Paso del Indio may contribute. The deposits at Paso del Indio contain 2 aceramic-­and 20 ceramic-­bearing occupation layers, each in sealed stratigraphic superposition. Thus one has materials at hand that if properly analyzed can be used to chart the dynamics of ceramic change from a local expression of the Saladoid ceramic series to local expressions of the Ostionoid Ceramic Series and its subsequent transformations. Sample Selection

A preliminary inspection of the large sample of ceramics from all excavated portions of Paso del Indio indicated considerable redundancy in aspects of vessel shape and size and techniques of manufacture and decoration. Since a fine-­scale analy­sis of all ceramic specimens would be both time and cost prohibitive, I decided to restrict my analy­sis to a sample drawn from the most extensively and systematically excavated portion, namely Pilaster VI. According to the excavator’s records, photographs, and notes, Pilaster VI contained at least 20 separate ceramic-­bearing strata, each one separated from its familiar neighbors by floodwater deposits and each containing stains and/or discontinuous artifact distributions identified and sequentially numbered as elementos (i.e., features). I further limited my sample to those specimens that lay within a single stratum or within elementos that were restricted to a single stratum. Differently put, specimens from elementos that crosscut strata (i.e., specimens from multistratum elementos) were excluded. It should be noted here that ceramic vessels accompanying burials were, by this criteria, excluded since the burial pits crosscut strata. My selection procedures left me with a sample of 32,658 ceramic vessel fragments unevenly distributed through 20 systematically excavated strata. The number of specimens per stratum ranged from a low of 59 (from stratum 4A) to a high of 6,397 (from stratum 18). The lower strata contained the greater number of specimens. Moving down­ ward from top to bottom there were 4 distinct low yield strata one at 4A (59 specimens), one at 8B (520 specimens), one at 10C (437 specimens), and one at Ph3 (108 specimens). These 4 distinct low-­yield strata were used to further segregate the sample into 5 units labeled from top to bottom groups A–E. Stratum 4A and those strata above 4A (i.e., strata 1–4) were labeled group [A]. Stratum 8B and those above 8B (i.e., 7, 8, and 8A) were labeled group [B].

Ceramic Sample from Paso Del Indio • 85

Stratum 10C and those above 10C (i.e., 10 and 10A) were labeled group [C]. Stratum PH3 and those above PH3 (i.e., PH1 and PH2) were labeled group [D]. Stratum 18 and those above 18 (i.e., 16, 17, and 17A) were labeled group [E]. Group [A] yielded from 66 to 547 specimens each with a mean of 224.4 +/−­ 211.3. Group [B] contained from 2,322 to 5,595 specimens each with a mean of 4,123 +/−­1,661. Group [C] contained from 1,888 to 2,431 specimens each with a mean of 2,307 +/−­284, and group [D] yielded from 1,051 to 2,731 specimens each with a mean of 1670 +/−­922. Finally, group [E] contained 443 to 3,599 specimens with a mean of 1,616 +/−­ 1,464. Differently put, the strata from group [A] yielded 1,063 specimens (3.3 percent of the total sample), group [B] contained 12,371 specimens (38 percent of the total sample), group [C] yielded 6,623 specimens (20.3 percent of the sample total). Group [D] contained 5,012 specimens (15 percent of the sample total), and group [E], yielded 6,465 specimens (20 percent of the sample total). Stratum 4A contained 59 specimens (0.2 percent of the sample total), 8B yielded 520 specimens (1.6 percent of the sample total), 10C contained 437 specimens (1.3 percent of the sample total), and Ph3 yielded 108 specimens (0.3 percent of the sample total). The morphological landmarks previously introduced were used to segregate this sample into the following sets: (1) lip (4,270 specimens, 10.786 percent of all specimens), (2) rim (1 specimen, .003 percent of all specimens), (3) upper body (4,808 specimens, 12.145 percent of all specimens), (4) shoulders (538 specimens, 1.359 percent of all specimens), (5) lower body (538 specimens, 1.359 percent of all specimens), (6) bases (57 specimens, 0.144 percent of all specimens), (7) appendages (220 specimens, 0.556 percent of all specimens), and general body fragments (29,155 specimens, 73.648 percent of all specimens). I strongly suspect that at least 500 and probably 600 or more of the specimens identified as general body fragments (i.e., from 1.26 to 1.57 percent of all specimens) were broken from nonshouldered vessels. While it is highly speculative to do so, I shall estimate the number of pots represented by the sample at between 900 and 1,100 vessels (i.e., an average of 35 to 43 sherds per vessel). Laboratory Procedures

The identification of vessel parts (i.e., rim, upper body, shoulder, etc.) was easily and precisely accomplished on reconstructed whole, half, and quarter vessels. These specimens represented less than 20 percent of the ceramic sample from each of the 20 ceramic-­bearing levels. Rendering a precise and replicable identification of smaller specimens was a more difficult task. It was accomplished

86 • Chapter 5

by creating iconographic models of separate vessel shapes and sizes. These models were constructed by drawing all full, half, and quarter vessel cross-­ sections to specimen size, then cutting them out and combining them to produce composite two-­dimensional profiles. The same procedure was repeated to produce cross-­section views of all other sherds large enough to unequivocally identify their former position. The cross-­section views were then matched to the composite profiles of vessel shapes and sizes as a check on the range of sample variability. To begin the analy­sis, Elvis Bablonia sorted the sherds from each occupation layer into lip and nonlip groups by using the criterion in the nominal definition of lip. This criterion, the juncture of exterior with interior surface, is not sample dependent. It can be consistently applied without reference to other considerations. All fragments categorized as lip sherds were set aside and divided into those with only the lip and those with other surfaces. All that failed to meet the criterion for lip and those that included the lip and other surfaces were identified as body sherds. The group of body sherds was sorted into those pieces judged to include the maximal circumference of the pottery vessel body (i.e., the shoulder) and “all others.” This judgment was made by matching the curve of each specimen against the expected curve indicated by a specially constructed iconograph. When a reasonably close match was obtained, and if the sherd included the maximal circumference point of the iconograph, the piece was identified as a shoulder fragment and set aside to be further examined together with all other sherds similarly identified. All those sherds in the nonmaximal circumference group were then divided into two subgroups, “bases” and “all others.” Like those pieces identified as maximal circumference body fragments, pieces included in the class “base sherd” were expected to fulfill the criteria stipulated in the nominal definition, as judged by reference to an iconograph. After the sherd sample had been divided into lip, maximal body circumference, base, and “all others,” an equivalence of circumference rule was applied to the “all other” group and to all the lip sherds. Hence the lip and remaining body fragments were segregated into two groups, those for which the rule required a transformation of morphological categories and those for which it did not. Next, all the sherds were combined then divided into upper and lower body pieces. With sherds large enough to include the maximum body circumference and additional running surfaces, the division into upper and lower was easy. Elvis identified as “upper” that portion of the piece that lay between the maximum circumference and the lip. All other surfaces, except the maximal circumference itself, were identified as “lower.” Then, too, an examination of

Ceramic Sample from Paso Del Indio • 87

the Paso del Indio’s ceramics indicated that decoration could be used to identify upper body fragments. In the pieces examined, decorations were confined to the areas between the maximum body circumference and the lip on all the whole vessels and on those body fragments large enough to unequivocally identify their former provenience. Hence all decorated pieces, not large enough to be identified as broken from the upper body might still be identified as upper body fragments. The sherds categorized as “upper body” were inspected and matched against the iconograph in an attempt to identify those that contained the point of minimal upper body circumference. These sherds and those lip sherds that contained a similarly identified circumference were grouped together and iden­ tified as “mouth” sherds rather than “upper body fragments” or “lip fragments.” Finally, those pieces identified as being “mouth sherds” were separated into those with running surfaces between mouth and lip and those without lips. The former were categorized as rim sherds, and the latter as mouth sherds. Thus, the sorting generated the following groups: lip, rim, mouth, upper body, shoulder, lower body, and base sherds. These classes did not exhaust the sample. Many smaller specimens resisted precise assignment. They formed an additional class of “indeterminate fragments.” In the last step of the morphological analy­sis the groups of specimens from each category and class were reexamined. All those identified as members of a class were grouped into subclasses on the basis of significant morphological criteria. The specimens within the subclasses were then measured to assess the group’s nearness of fit to an expected normal curve of error. If the fit was reasonably close, then the subclass represented by the group was identified as a mode. If not, new subclass inclusion criteria (significata) were created, new groups were formed, and the measurement of variability was repeated. After the sherds were assigned to classes Elvis and I attempted to sketch interclass relationships. For this task we imposed a “procedural” perspective by determining the order and the content of the steps used by Ostionoid and Sala­doid potters as they transformed a lump of prepared clay into a pottery vessel. For economy of presentation we summarized, (1) the steps in our inquiry, (2) the antecedent knowledge required, (3) the observations taken, and (4) the inferences drawn under appropriate headings and subheadings. Among these were (1) the selection of raw materials, (2) the preparation of raw materials, (3) the method of manufacturing the base, (4) the method of forming the vessel walls, (5) the method of forming the rim and lip, (6) the method of forming appendages and the means of appendage application, (7) the steps in final shaping, drying, and firing. A shaped vessel might be decorated or left plain. If decorated the decora-

88 • Chapter 5

tion was described as composed of decorative elements belonging to one or a combination of two or more decorative element classes. They include those requiring a substance addition (painting, appliqué, etc.), those requiring the use of a tool (incising, punctating, excising, trailing, etc.), and/or those that depend on finger manipulation (pinching, etc.). Instances of each were described by stating the steps that created them. Decorative element frequencies and distributions were used to determine the number and kind of decorative environments and designs. Finally, the structure of the vari­ous designs was explored, and the design configurations were described. To a description of the results of these efforts and an explication of the analytical ideas that created them I now turn.

6 The Paso Del Indio Sample Size, Morphology, and Manufacture

Fifty-­four sherds are large enough to provide estimates of vessel shape and size. Thirty-­five (65 percent) are broken from shouldered and 19 (35 percent) from shoulderless vessels. Four (7 percent) are broken from vessels with radial symmetry (see Fig­ure 2.1). All of these are derived from layer 18 of stratum group [E]. All are slab constructed with inflected body walls. Three additional sherds (6 percent) from group [E] are oval mouthed and coil built. Twenty-­ eight fragments (52 percent) from the remaining groups [D-­E] are from vessels with bilateral symmetry (see Fig­ure 2.2). All of them are broader than they are tall and are oval-­mouthed vessels. Nineteen sherds (35 percent) come from broad, shallow, oval-­mouthed, shouldered vessels (width to depth ratios varied from 2:1 to 3.6:1). Nine are broken from broad, shallow, oval-­mouthed, nonshouldered pots (width to depth ratios varied from 2:1 to 4.7:1). Measurements of the mouths, shoulders, and heights of these sherds indicate that they represent vessels of four size classes. These are (1) extra large (7 percent of sample), (2) large (29 percent of sample), (3) medium (35 percent of sample), and (4) small (20 percent of sample).

Shouldered Vessels Extra Large (4 Percent)

I classify a single undecorated vessel as extra large. It is bilaterally symmetrical and oval mouthed. Its mouth is 42 by 40 cm. Its shoulder is 44 by 42 cm. It is 14 cm tall. This vessel has a high, rounded shoulder, a flat, 11 mm thick direct lip, a rounded bottom (10 mm thick), and in-­sloping upper body walls from 8 to 9 mm thick (Fig­ure 6.1a and b).

90 • Chapter 6

Fig­ure 6.1. Profile views of extra large shouldered vessels: (a) photo interpretation of vessel with high shoulder; (b) scale drawing of vessel cross-­section.

Large (32 Percent)

Six oval-­mouthed, shouldered pots that range in mouth length from 36 to 22  cm (mean 27.66 +/−­5.43 cm), and in mouth width from 20 to 28 cm (mean 23.83 +/−­3.37 cm) are large. They range in shoulder length from 23 to 37 cm (mean of 31.33 +/−­5.16) and in shoulder width from 21 to 34 cm (mean of 28.0 +/−­4.29 cm). They vary in height from 10 to 13 cm with a mean of 11.0 +/−­1.22 cm. Four of the six have high, rounded shoulders (Fig­ ure 6.2a–d), and two have high, angular shoulders (Fig­ure 6.2e–f ). Both of the high, angular shouldered pots are decorated on the exterior surface between shoulder and lip. One has a trailed curvilinear design, the other a trailed linear motif. Two of the four high, round, shouldered vessels have also been decorated between shoulder and lip. One of them has an incised curvilinear design. The other has a line of finger-­pinched nodes on the shoulder and an additional line of pinched nodes midway between the shoulder and the lip. The two remaining large vessels are undecorated. Three of the large vessels have rounded bottoms that curve gently upward and outward to out-­sloping lower bodies

Paso Del Indio Sample Size, Morphology, and Manufacture • 91

Fig­ure 6.2. Profile views of large shouldered v­ essels: (a and b) cross-­section drawing of high-­rounded shouldered vessel form; (c and d) cross-­section draw­ing of high-­angular shouldered vessel form; (e and f ) cross-­ section drawing of midangular shouldered vessel form.

(Fig­ure 6.2a–c). Three have flat bottoms with a marked and angular 30-­degree junction of bottom with curved out-­sloping base (Fig­ure 6.2d–f ). These vessels range in basal thickness from 9 to 13 mm with a mean of 10.7 +/−­1.5 mm. The same specimens range in upper body thickness from 8 to 12 mm with a mean of 9.6 +/−­1.5 mm. Three have direct round lips 8 to 13 mm thick with a mean of 10.3 +/−­2.5 mm (see Fig­ure 6.2a, e, and f ). Two have flat direct lips (see Fig­ure 6.2b, d). One has a flat inverted lip (see Fig­ure 6.2c). The flat-­ lipped specimens are 10 to 11 mm thick with a mean of 10.7 +/−­0.6 mm. Medium (44 Percent)

The six medium-­sized oval-­mouthed vessels (Fig­ure 6.3a–f ) range in mouth length from 19 to 16 cm (mean 17.28 +/−­1.25 cm) and in mouth width from 17 to 14 cm (mean 15.28 +/−­1.25 cm). In shoulder length these pieces range

92 • Chapter 6

Fig­ure 6.3. Profile views of medium-­sized shouldered ­vessels: (a–d) cross-­section drawing of midangular shouldered vessel form; (e and f ) cross-­section drawing of high-­rounded shouldered vessel form.

from 19 to 18 cm (mean 18.44 +/−­0.52 cm) and in shoulder width from 17 to 16 cm (mean of 16.44 +/−­0.52 cm). These vessels vary in height from 9 to 8 cm with a mean of 8.55 +/−­0.52 cm. Two of the six have high, rounded shoulders (Fig­ure 6.3e, f ), four have high, angular shoulders (Fig­ure 6.3a–d). One of the high, angular-­shouldered vessels has at least one, and if a symmetrical arrangement is assumed, two triangular tab lugs (Fig­ure 6.3c). One of these was affixed to each end of the shoulder’s long axis. All of the angular shouldered pots are decorated on the exterior between the shoulder and lip. One specimen carries an incised rectilinear design. A sec­ond is painted red. Two carry curvilinear trailed designs in the same area as their painted counterparts. One of the two high, rounded shouldered vessels is painted red between the shoulder and lip. The remaining high, rounded shouldered pot has an incised rectilinear design in this area. Four of the medium-­sized vessels have rounded bottoms that smoothly join gently curved out-­sloping bases (Fig­ure 6.3a, d, e,

Paso Del Indio Sample Size, Morphology, and Manufacture • 93

and f ). Two have flat bottoms that join out-­sloping bases, one at an angle of 24 degrees. Two join out-­sloping bases at an angle of 35 degrees (Fig­ure 6.3b and c). Four of the six medium-­sized vessels have rounded, direct lips (Fig­ure 6.3a, c, e, and f ), one has a rounded in-­beveled lip (see Fig­ure 6.3d), and one a flat flanged lip (Fig­ure 6.3c and e). Lips range in thickness from 7 to10 mm, with a mean of 8.16 +/−­1.4 mm. Bases range in thickness from 8 to 11 mm with a mean of 9.0 +/−­1.5 mm. Upper bodies range in thickness from 7 to 10 mm with a mean of 8.0 +/−­1.5 mm. Small (22 Percent)

Six small oval-­mouthed, shouldered specimens (Fig­ure 6.4a–f ) range in mouth length from 15 to 6 cm with a mean of 11.66 +/−­3.72 cm. They vary in mouth width from 12 to 4 cm with a mean of 9.16 +/−­3.48 cm. The shoulders of these small vessels range from 16 to 9 cm in length with a mean of 14.0 +/−­ 3.36 cm. Five have high, angular shoulders (6.4b–f ); one has a midrounded shoulder (see Fig­ure 6.4a). Four of the five high, angular shouldered pots are decorated on the exterior between the shoulder and the lip. One has an incised rectilinear design; one has an incised zig-­zag design. Two have trailed decorations: one with a trailed rectilinear design; the other a trailed design that combines rectilinear with curvilinear elements. The mid, rounded shouldered vessel has two triangular lugs affixed to the outer surface of the shoulder, a single lug on each side of the vessel, at either end of the shoulder’s long axis (see Fig­ure 6.4a). Five specimens have rounded direct lips (see Fig­ure 6.4a–d, f ); one has a rounded and inverted lip (see Fig­ure 6.4d). Three of the six small vessels have flat bottoms that join out-­sloping bases at an angle approximating 40 degrees (see Fig­ure 6.4c–f ). Three vessels have rounded bottoms with gently out-­sloping rounded bases (see Fig­ure 6.4a, b, and e). These small vessels vary in base thickness from 7 to 10 mm with a mean of 8.5 +/−­1.0 mm, and in upper body thickness from 6 to 9 mm with a mean of 7.7 +/−­1.0 mm. Their lips vary in thickness from 6 to 9 mm with a mean of 7.8 +/−­1.2 mm.

Shoulderless Vessels Nine large sherds from broad, shallow, oval-­mouthed pots lacking shoulders (width to depth ratios vary from 2:1 to 4.7:1) can be consistently described as broken from extra large, large, medium, or small vessels. Extra Large (12 percent)

The single extra large shoulderless vessel has an 11 mm thick, rounded direct lip, a mouth/lip length of 38 cm, and a mouth/lip width of 36 cm. The 11 mm

Fig­ure 6.4. Profile views of small shouldered vessels: (a) cross-­section drawing of high-­rounded shouldered vessel form; (b, c, and e) cross-­section drawing of high-­angular shouldered vessel form; (d and f ) cross-­section drawing of mid-­ angular shouldered vessel form.

Fig­ure 6.5. Profile views of extra large shoulder­less vessels: (a) scale drawing of shoulderless vessel cross-­section; (b) photo interpretation of shoulderless vessel.

Paso Del Indio Sample Size, Morphology, and Manufacture • 95

thick bottom and base of this specimen is rounded; the body walls average 10 mm thick. The vessel measures 12 cm from bottom to lip. It is not decorated (Fig­ure 6.5a and b). Large (22 Percent)

Two large nonshouldered vessels have rounded bottoms and bases and rounded direct lips. They vary in mouth/lip length from 30 to 32 cm with a mean of 30.5 +/−­1.0 cm. They vary in mouth/lip width from 21 to 31 cm with a mean of 27.0 +/−­4.24 cm. Lip thickness varies from 8 to 9 mm and body wall thickness from 7 to 9 mm. The thinner portions of each pot occur at or near the bottom; the thickest at or near the mouth. These vessels vary in height from 6 to 10 cm with a mean of 8.5 +/−­1.73 cm (Fig­ure 6.6a and b). Neither is decorated. Medium (44 Percent)

There are four medium-­sized oval-­mouthed and shoulderless vessels all with rounded bottoms and bases (Fig­ure 6.6c–f ). One of them has a rounded direct lip (see Fig­ure 6.6f ). One has a modeled adorno, whose upper surface depicts a bat and whose lower surface depicts a turtle, affixed to the lip interior (see Fig­ure 6.6d). The other two have flat and flanged lips constructed by adding a strap of clay to the upper and outer surface of the mouth (see Fig­ure 6.6c and e). On one pot, a portion of the lip flange has been worked into a double-­ scalloped lug. The upper surface of both lip flanges are decorated with rectilinear trailed and punctated designs. These medium-­sized specimens all are 7 cm tall and all have 28 cm long mouths. They vary in mouth width from 20 to 26 cm (mean of 24.5 +/−­3.0 cm) and in wall thickness from 8 to 9 mm. Base and near base portions of the body wall are slightly thicker than those nearer the lip. Small (22 Percent)

The two small, shoulderless, oval-­mouthed vessels are 5 and 7 cm tall (Fig­ ure 6.7a and b). Both have rounded direct lips (see Fig­ure 6.7a and b). One of them is 6 mm and the other 8 mm thick. Both have rounded bottoms and bases with body walls (8 mm and 6 mm thick) that curve gently outward from base to lip. One of them has a mouth 16 cm long, the other a mouth 18 cm long. One has a mouth 14 cm wide, the other a mouth 16 cm wide. Neither has been decorated. Summary

In sum, 12 of the shouldered pots have high, angular shoulders, 7 have high, rounded shoulders and one (piece not illustrated) is broken from a rounded,

Fig­ure 6.6. Profile views of two large and four medium-­sized shoulderless vessels: (a–d) cross-­section drawings of large shoulder­ less vessels; (e and f ) cross-­section drawings of medium-­sized shoulderless vessels.

Fig­ure 6.7. Profile views of small shoulderless vessels: (a and b) cross-­section drawings of small shoulderless vessels.

Paso Del Indio Sample Size, Morphology, and Manufacture • 97

midshouldered vessel. Those with angular shoulders have lower body walls that curve gently upward and outward from base to shoulder. They have upper body walls that are reasonably straight to very gently inward curved from shoulder to mouth. Those with rounded shoulders have lower body walls that curve more dramatically outward from base to shoulder and inward from shoulder to mouth than their angular shouldered counterparts. The high, rounded shouldered forms have more dramatically in-­curved upper body walls and more gently out-­curved lower body walls than the rounded, midshouldered vessels. Eight of the shouldered pots have flat bottoms made of oval clay discs, or pancakes. All of them have a marked angular junction at the intersection of bottom with base. Eleven shouldered vessels have rounded bottoms made from oval clay discs, pinched and modeled to shape. Fourteen of the 20 shouldered vessels (70 percent) are decorated on the exterior surface between the shoulder and the lip. Five have incised designs (36 percent), six carry trailed designs (43 percent), two are painted red (14 percent), and one has two rows of pinched nodes (7 percent). Three of the nine nonshouldered vessels (27 percent) are decorated. One has a multiple image adorno affixed to the inner and upper lip surface (25 percent). Two others carry trailed and punctated designs on the upper surface of flanged lips (75 percent). The bases, lower and upper walls, of all but one of the oval-­mouthed shouldered and nonshouldered vessels are constructed of stacked coils indicated by -­or-­ shaped coil fractures along their upper or lower extremities (Fig­ ure 6.8a and c) and/or clay body discontinuities in sherd cross-­sections (Fig­ ure 6.8e, f, and g). These specimens have lower body walls that thicken a bit as they approach the shoulder and become yet a bit thicker above the shoulder. This is a consequence of applying slightly thinner coils as the potter built the vessel from mouth to base. If cross-­section clay body discontinuities did not clearly indicate the presence of coils, the piece was examined under illuminated magnification for indications of smoothed over coil junctures. When the piece in question exhibited both cross-­section clay body discontinuities and corresponding body wall surface irregularities, it was considered coiled (Fig­ure 6.8a–h). If any doubt remained, both near and far cross-­sections and surface irregularities were viewed at once. This was accomplished by using a dental mirror to reflect the far cross-­ section while observing the body wall surface and near cross-­section under illuminated magnification. Although it was repeatedly examined under illuminated magnification, one high, angular shouldered, oval-­mouthed specimen yielded no evidence of coiled construction (Fig­ure 6.9a). This specimen’s provenience (i.e., stratum 17), its highly uniform 7 mm thickness, its tab-­like projection from the angu-

98 • Chapter 6

Fig­ure 6.8. Coils and coiling scars: (a and c) lip coil scars; (b and d) broken coils, (e, f, and g) cross-­section photos of coiling visible in vessel bodies; (h) near lip coil scar.

lar shoulder, and the fact that it was virtually identical in cross-­section to four, circular-­mouthed, body wall–inflected specimens from stratum 18 led us to conclude that it had been slab and/or strap built. It was an early slab and/or strap built analogue of contemporary and later coiled specimens. Two flat-­bottomed, shoulderless, strap-­and/or slab-­built vessels with out-­ sloping base and body walls have circular mouths (Fig­ure 6.9c and d). The flat bottoms of both vessels are composed of circular clay discs 10 cm in diameter and 6 mm thick. On one specimen the base and body walls slope upward and outward at a 40-­degree angle from the flat bottom (see Fig­ure 6.9c). The base and body walls of the other slope upward and outward at a 60-­degree angle (see Fig­ure 6.9d). One vessel has a mid-­body-­wall inflection that modifies the

Paso Del Indio Sample Size, Morphology, and Manufacture • 99

Fig­ure 6.9. Profile views of slab-­modeled vessels: (a and b) cross-­ section drawings of medium-­sized slab-­modeled vessels; (c) cross-­ section drawing of large slab-­modeled vessel; (d) photo of large upper body cross-­section of slab-­modeled vessel.

outward and upward slope of the vessel walls by 30 degrees (i.e., from an up-­ slope of 40 to an up-­slope of 70 degrees) (see Fig­ure 6.9d). The other has a high-­body-­wall inflection that modifies the outward and upward slope of the walls by 20 degrees (i.e., from an up-­slope of 60 to an up-­slope of 80 degrees) (see Fig­ure 6.9c). The mid-­body-­wall-­inflected piece was broken from the taller and broader of the two vessels. Both vessels reach their greatest diameter at a circular mouth/lip (i.e., were shoulderless) and both have flat, splayed lips. The larger of the two vessels has a 1.5 cm thick flat, direct lip with a lip/mouth diameter of 30 cm (see Fig­ure 6.9d). The smaller has a 1.6 cm thick flat, out-­ beveled lip with a lip/mouth diameter of 21 cm (see Fig­ure 6.9c). Both ves-

100 • Chapter 6

sels have very uniform, 6 mm thick bottoms, bases, and body walls. The upper, (i.e., flat, splayed surface) of the smaller vessel’s lip is painted red. Button-­like (i.e., disk shaped) adornos were affixed to the upper surface of the larger vessels splayed and flat lip before it was painted red (see Fig­ure 6.9d). The smaller vessel is 10 cm tall; its larger counterpart is 14.7 cm tall. A third large vessel is broken from the bottom, base, and wall of a slab-­or strap-­built, lower-­ body-­inflected, flat-­bottomed vessel that lacks a shoulder (see Fig­ure 6.9a). This piece has a 7 mm thick, flat, circular, bottom that is 8 cm in diameter. The base of the piece slopes upward and outward from the bottom at a 20-­degree angle to the lower-­body-­inflection that alters the up-­slope of the body wall by 55 degrees (i.e., from a 20-­degree up-­slope to a 75-­degree up-­slope) (see Fig­ ure 6.9a). The bottom, base, and body walls of this piece are a very uniform 7 mm thick. The interior surface is painted red. A fourth piece that resembles a bottom and base sherd is probably a lid or cover. It has a flat 8 mm thick central portion with an estimated diameter of 10 cm (Fig­ure 6.10a and b). Half of the piece is broken off. The half that remains has seven circular perforations through its upper surface (Fig­ure 6.10c). These perforations were made while the clay body was still moist to judge by the thin, ragged rings of clay that encircle each hole on its inside (i.e., underside). This vessel cover’s flat portion is itself supported by a 5 mm thick, 6 mm tall strap of clay affixed to its outer and underside (i.e., by a strap-­built annular ring) (see Fig­ure 6.10b). Strap-­and/or slab-­built basal walls that slope outward and downward at a 29-­degree angle are affixed to the lower and outer side of the lid or cover (see Fig­ure 6.10a and b). This piece represents a fourth strap-­or slab-­built ceramic piece that I presume is a lid or cover for a vessel. The perforations have led some to suggest that similar pieces are incensarios, but the absence of dark gummy deposits from incense use are absent. I therefore suspect the piece is a strainer used for removing water from foods during cooking or washing. These specimens, all of them derived from stratum 18, contrast with the other specimens by (1) having virtually circular mouths; (2) having flat virtually circular bottoms; (3) having slabbed and/or strap-­built bodies; and (4) having high-­, mid-­, or low-­body-­wall inflections. A cursory examination of the other lip and body sherds from stratum 18 indicates that these strap-­ and/or slab-­built, circular-­mouthed, body wall–inflected, flat-­bottomed vessels are part of a ceramic assemblage that also included coiled, flat-­or round-­ bottomed, high angular, and high rounded shouldered, oval-­mouthed vessels. The extra large vessels came from two strata (10A and 10). The large pots came from four strata (PH1, 8A, 8, and 7). The medium-­sized specimens came from six strata (17, 16, 10B, 10A, 8A, and 7), and the small pots from four

Paso Del Indio Sample Size, Morphology, and Manufacture • 101

Fig­ure 6.10. Bottom and base views of slab-­modeled vessels: (a) pancake-­constructed slab-­modeled bottom and base; (b) perforated bottom of slab-­modeled vessel with annular ring; (c) photo of perforated bottom of slab-­modeled vessel. (Drawing by Sabrina Simõn, courtesy of Tennessee Valley Archaeological Research.)

strata (10A, 10, 8, and 7). Shouldered specimens came from seven strata (10B, 10A, 10, 8A, 8, 7, and 6). Angular shouldered vessels came from five strata (10A, 10, 8, 7, and 6); rounded-­shouldered specimens from five strata (10B, 10A, 8A, 8 and 7). Nonshouldered vessels were recovered from six strata (16, 10A, 10, PH1, 8A, and 7). In sum, sherds large enough to estimate size and shape came from half (10 of 20) of the separate and distinct strata of pilaster VI. When width to length ratios are displayed by stratum, shouldered vessels become a bit wider from stratum 18 (ratio of 2:1) to stratum 10A (ratio of 2.3:1). This slight widening is interrupted in stratum 10 (ratio of 1.5:1) then resumes from stratum 10 (1.5:1) to stratum 7, whose vessels have a width to length ratio of 3.0:1. A similar trend can be noted in the nonshouldered vessels in this instance a widening from 2:1 in stratum 18 to 4.2:1 in stratum 7. All came from below stratum 6. The uppermost of the strata at the site (strata 6 to 1) are not represented by large specimens. Displayed by grouped layers [B] through [E] the width to height ratios of specimens large enough to infer vessel dimensions indicate a trend for all vessels to become shallower and wider from early to late with the most dramatic modification of width to height ratios among nonshouldered specimens (Table 6.1, Fig­ure 6.11).

102 • Chapter 6

Table 6.1. Vessel Width to Height Ratios by Grouped Layers Layers 7–8B [B] 8B–10C [C] 10CPH3[D] PH3–18 [E]

Overall

Shouldered

Nonshouldered

3.9 3.0 3.0 2.3

3.0 2.6 2.0 2.0

4.2 3.3 3.0 2.47

Fig­ure 6.11. Vessel width to height ratios by grouped layer. Series 1=overall; Series 2=shouldered; Series 3=nonshouldered; 1=grouped layers [B]; 2=grouped layers [C]; 3=grouped layers [D]; 4=grouped layers [E].

Most specimens are not suitable for vessel, length, width, or height estimates. However, they do provide evidence for method of manufacture and decoration. A production stage approach will present this evidence best. I will describe the processes of manufacture and decoration by determining the or­ der and the content to the vari­ous steps used by Paso del Indio’s potters as they transformed a lump of prepared clay into a pottery vessel. For economy of presentation I will treat each separately and will summarize (1) the steps in my inquiry, (2) the antecedent knowledge required, (3) the observations taken and (4) the inferences drawn. An equation drawn from my theory of production will introduce the summary of each production stage. The applicable portions are indicated in bold type.

Paso Del Indio Sample Size, Morphology, and Manufacture • 103

Raw Material Acquisition [Obtain raw material]) + (Clay) +/−­ (Temper) + (Clay) → Primary or Secondary Antecedent Knowledge

Ceramic vessels may be fashioned from primary or sec­ondary clays. Secondary clays are more widely distributed than primaries. They tend to be shades of grey, brown, or red as a consequence of the impurities they contain. Observations

All sherds (32, 658 specimens broken from an estimated 900 to 1,100 pots) are shades of red, buff, grey, or black. All fit the criteria for porous low-­fired (600 to 900 degrees centigrade) earthenware. Inferences

Paso del Indio’s potters used sec­ondary clays (probably alluvials) dug from local deposits and transported to the preferred workplace in skin or fiber containers.

Raw Material Preparation + [Prepare Raw Material] → +/−­ Temper + Preparation Procedures + (Temper) → Grit and/or Grog and/or Sand

or Shell or Bone or Fiber or Sponge Specula or Indurated Clay or Other ?

104 • Chapter 6 Antecedent Knowledge

Secondary clays must be cleaned of extraneous materials, moistened, and stored to sour or dried and pounded, then moistened, to proper plasticity before they are worked. After this initial preparation aplastics may be mixed with raw clay as the clay body is worked into its paste state. Observations

Two thousand three-­hundred and fifty-­three specimens were examined under magnification. All of them contained a mixture of sand and grog. Inferences

Paso del Indio’s potters customarily tempered their raw alluvial clays with a mixture of sand and crushed baked clay. The sand may have been an intentional by-­product of clay selection. The crushed, baked clay inclusions are a consequence of mixing pounded and ground griddle fragments with the clay as temper. All griddle fragments are grit and sand tempered with the infrequent inclusion of grit in some (fewer than 700). + Preparation Procedures → (Dry) + (Pound) + (Clean) +/−­ (Sour)

Preparation of Raw Materials Antecedent Knowledge

The clay mass must be either kneaded and/or wedged to free it of air pockets before it is ready for further work. A poorly kneaded or wedged clay body, no matter how dry it is in its greenware state, will crack and/or spall when fired. Observations

There are no spalled or cracked specimens in the Paso del Indio collection of 32,658 specimens. Inferences

Paso del Indio’s potters thoroughly cleaned, kneaded, and/or wedged their clay before beginning a pot.

Symmetry Selection + Symmetry Selection → Radial or Bilateral

Paso Del Indio Sample Size, Morphology, and Manufacture • 105 Antecedent Knowledge

Radial and bilateral symmetry are the only options available to hand potters. Observations

Thirty-­two sherds are large enough to provide estimates of vessel shape and size. Four are broken from vessels with radial symmetry. All of these are from layer 18 of stratum group [E]. All are slab constructed with inflected body walls. Three additional sherds from group [E] are oval mouthed and coil built. Twenty-­eight fragments from the remaining groups [D-­E] are from vessels with bilateral symmetry. All of them are coil constructed, broader than they are tall, oval-­mouthed vessels. Inferences

The vessels produced by Paso del Indio’s earliest potters are either radially or bilaterally symmetrical. All later wares are bilaterally symmetrical.

Size Selection Size Selection → Extra Large or Large or Medium or Small

or

Miniature

Antecedent Knowledge

Upper and lower size limits are set by the properties of the material of fabrication, the producer’s ability, and the communities’ concepts of appropriate size to use ratios. Within these limits, which vary from community to community, vessel sizes are in theory free to vary as members of a size continuum. In practice the vessels produced by a community’s potters fall into fewer than seven discrete groups or size cohorts. The number of these may vary from community to community. The numerical dimensions of members belonging to each cohort may also vary from community to community. Observations

A single bilaterally symmetrical specimen has an oval mouth 42 by 40 cm. Its shoulder is 44 by 42 cm. It is 14 cm tall. This vessel has a high, rounded

106 • Chapter 6

shoulder, a flat, 11 mm thick direct lip, a rounded bottom (10 mm thick), and upper body walls that vary from 8 to 9 mm thick (see Fig­ure 6.1a and b). A shoulderless vessel has an 11 mm thick, round direct lip, a mouth/lip length of 38 cm, and a mouth/lip width of 36 cm. The 11 mm thick bottom and base of this specimen is rounded, the body walls average 10 mm thick. The vessel measures 12 cm from bottom to lip. It is not decorated (see Fig­ure 6.5a and b). Six oval-­mouthed, shouldered pots range in mouth length from 36 to 22 cm (mean 27.66 +/−­5.43 cm) and in mouth width from 20 to 28 cm (mean 23.83 +/−­3.37 cm). They range in shoulder length from 23 to 37 cm (mean of 31.33 +/−­5.16) and in shoulder width from 21 to 34 cm (mean of 28.0 +/−­4.29 cm). They vary in height from 10 to 13 cm with a mean of 11.0 +/−­1.22 cm. Two nonshouldered vessels have rounded bottoms and bases and rounded direct lips. They vary in mouth/lip length from 30 to 32 cm with a mean of 30.5 +/−­1.0 cm. They vary in mouth/lip width from 21 to 31 cm with a mean of 27.0 +/−­4.24 cm. Lip thickness varies from 8 to 9 mm, and body wall thickness from 7 to 9 mm. The thinner portions of each pot occur at or near the bottom; the thickest at or near the mouth. These vessels vary in height from 6 to 10 cm with a mean of 8.5 +/−­1.73 cm. Neither is decorated. There are four oval-­mouthed and shoulderless vessels with rounded bottoms and bases (see Fig­ure 6.6c–f ). These specimens are 7 cm tall and have 28 cm long mouths. They vary in mouth width from 20 to 26 cm, (mean of 24.5 +/−­3.0 cm) and in wall thickness from 8 to 9 mm. Base and near base portions of the body wall are slightly thicker than those nearer the lip. Six high, rounded shouldered oval-­mouthed vessels (see Fig­ure 6.6a–f ) range in mouth length from 19 to 16 cm (mean 17.28 +/−­1.25 cm), and in mouth width from 17 to 14 cm (mean 15.28 +/−­1.25 cm). In shoulder length these pieces range from 19 to 18 cm (mean 18.44 +/−­0.52 cm) and in shoulder width from 17 to 16 cm (mean of 16.44 +/−­0.52 cm). These vessels vary in height from 9 to 8 cm with a mean of 8.55 +/−­0.52 cm. Six oval-­mouthed, shouldered specimens (see Fig­ure 6.4a–f ) range in mouth length from 15 to 6 cm with a mean of 11.66 +/−­3.72 cm. They vary in mouth width from 12 to 4 cm with a mean of 9.16 +/−­3.48 cm. The shoulders of these vessels range from 16 to 9 cm in length with a mean of 14.0 +/−­3.36 cm. Five have high, angular shoulders (see Fig­ure 6.4b–f ); one has a midrounded shoulder (see Fig­ure 6.4a). Two shoulderless, oval-­mouthed vessels are 5 and 7 cm tall (see Fig­ure 6.7a and b). Both have rounded direct lips (Fig­ure 6.7a and b). One of them is 6 mm and the other 8 mm thick. Both have rounded bottoms and bases with body walls (8 mm and 6 mm thick) that curve gently outward from base to lip. One of them has a mouth 16 cm long, another a mouth 18 cm long. The sec­ond has a mouth 14 cm wide, the third a mouth 16 cm wide.

Paso Del Indio Sample Size, Morphology, and Manufacture • 107 Inferences

Measurements of Paso del Indio’s full, quarter, and half pots indicate that they represent vessels of four size classes. These are (1) EXTRA LARGE: Vessels with oval mouths 38 to 42 cm long, 36 to 40 cm wide, with shoulders 42 to 44 cm long. These specimens are 12 to 14 cm tall. (2) LARGE: Oval-­mouthed vessels 22 to 36 cm long and 20 to 31 cm wide, with shoulders 23 to 37 cm long and 21 to 34 cm wide. These large vessels are 6 to 13 cm tall. (3) MEDIUM: Vessels with an oval mouth 16 to 28 cm long and 14 to 26 cm wide that are 7 to 9 cm tall. (4) SMALL: Oval-­mouthed specimens 6 to 15  cm long and 4 to 12 cm wide with shoulders 9 to 16 cm long and 8 to 12 cm wide that are 5 to 7 cm tall. A comparison of the metric values of EXTRA LARGE with LARGE vessels yields a t score of – 13.2476413 indicating a significant difference. A similar comparison of LARGE with MEDIUM vessels yields a less dramatic but still significant t score of – 3.894011271. A t score of -­14.31422193 indicates a significant difference between MEDIUM and SMALL vessels.

Construction Technique + (Construction Technique → Coiled or Slab Modeled

or Mass Modeled or Mold Made

Antecedent Knowledge

Pottery vessel bodies may be built by slab and/or strap building, coiling, modeling, molding, or any combination of the four. I consider “patch modeling” an adjunct to coiling. Rolls, pinches or patches of clay may be added during strap and/or slab building, molding, modeling, or coiling. These minor additions, insofar as they are ad hoc, do not change the basic characteristics of the four major body-­forming techniques. Observations

None of the 29,155 body fragments exhibit molding seams. More than 1,000 specimens have clear and dramatic  or -­shaped coil fractures (see Fig­ure 6.8a–d). Several thousand more have slight but clearly observable and measurable coil ridges and troughs (see Fig­ure 6.8d–g). Measured coil diameters for small vessels range from 3 to 6 mm, for medium sized pots from 6

108 • Chapter 6

to 9 mm, for large specimens from 7 to 10 mm, and for extra large pots from 10 to 12 mm. Twenty specimens from strata 17, 17A, and 18 are clearly strap and/or slab built (see Fig­ure 6.9a–d and Fig­ure 6.10a–c). The remainder of the ceramics from these strata are coiled. Slab-­and/or strap-­built vessels are not represented in the strata above 17. Inferences

To build vessel walls, Paso del Indio’s potters rolled lumps of prepared, tempered, and kneaded clay between the palms of their hands or between the palm of one hand and a relatively unyielding surface to form coils. To judge by the central indentation and lateral lips on some coil breaks and the central protrusion and lateral indentations on others, these coils were stacked one atop another (see Fig­ure 6.8a–d).The stacked coils were joined on the exterior and interior by a push-­pull motion, using the thumb alone, the thumb and forefinger, or the forefinger alone. Then, both interior and exterior body walls were scraped with a wood, bone, or calabash scraper to further thin and compact them (indicated by the more dramatic -­shaped and -­shaped coil fractures). This task was accomplished by supporting one surface of the vessel walls with the rigid palm-­side surfaces of one hand while scraping the opposing surface with a scraper held in the other. The slab-­and/or strap-­built vessels are constructed of rectangular segments of clay that have been pressed flat, sized, and trimmed before being bent into an open circle or oval. To close the circle or oval the two shorter ends of the rectangular strap were thinned, one on the inside, the other on the outside. The thinned portions were then overlapped and pressed together. All the vessels that are slab and/or strap built also have angular body wall inflections or high, angular shoulders where formerly separate slabs of clay were joined one to the other during body wall construction (see Fig­ure 6.9b–d).

Procedure of Manufacture Antecedent Knowledge

When coiling a vessel the artisan may begin by forming the bottom or the mouth. There are advantages to beginning at the mouth. If coils are laid atop one another and if the vessel bottom is smaller than the mouth, the combined coil weight and pressure on the walls is more efficiently distributed if the potter proceeds from larger to smaller circumferences (i.e., from top to bottom). Insofar as the upper shoulder is thicker and the lower thinner and the bottom is formed from a pancake of clay, this will be so, even with sharply shouldered forms. If a pancake bottom is applied to a minimally dried vessel rest-

Paso Del Indio Sample Size, Morphology, and Manufacture • 109

ing on its mouth, the potter may score the inner surface of the lowest body coil and the inner surface of the pancake to adequately seal them. Minimizing pressure is desirable at this juncture to avoid body wall distortion. After a bit of drying, during which a moist flat bottom may sag, the lower and inner edge of the pancake may be sealed at its junction with the base, and a lip may be fabricated from the upper vessel edge. If the vessel has been resting on its mouth, this portion (thanks to the effects of gravity) will dry more slowly, thus remaining workable longer. If, on the other hand, the artisan begins at the bottom, she may use a separately fabricated pancake, either coiled or mass modeled, or a molded bottom in which clay is spread evenly in or over a form or may excavate a clay mass to form the bottom. If a coiled or mass-­modeled bottom is used, expect it to be less uniform and as thick, or thicker, than the vessel’s basal walls. Unless extensively scraped and thinned the interiors of excavated bottoms will carry finger-­scrape or finger-­pressure marks. If a mold formed pancake is used it may or may not be as thick as the lower vessel walls but it will be reasonably uniform and accompanied by an attachment seam at its juncture with the lowest body coil. Observations

The Paso del Indio sample contains 57 complete or reconstructible bottom/ base fragments. Fifty-­two of these are reasonably uniform, flat-­sided, oval, or circular mass-­modeled pancakes, broken from flat-­bottomed vessels (Fig­ure 6.12a, b, and g). Several of these have upper, or interior, surfaces that have been combed around their perimeter prior to affixation (Fig­ure 6.12h). Some of the lower coil surfaces also show the effects of combing. Twenty-­six bottom sherds (50 percent) exhibit the gravity-­induced irregular bottom concavity expected of vessels dried mouth down (see Fig­ure 6.12a, b, and g). These pieces were carefully examined for any evidence that the bottom concavities were intentionally formed. None show the finger-­scrape scars or the symmetry expected of an intentionally manipulated surface. Mean body wall thickness for 22,060 specimens is 9.6 +/−­1.4. Mean bottom thickness for 57 specimens is 8.32 +/−­0.4. A student t score of -­121.65 indicates a negligible probability this difference is due to chance. Point measurements taken above and below the shoulder on 569 fragments indicate a below shoulder mean of 7.38 +/−­2.6 and an above shoulder mean of 7.61 +/−­ 2.7. A student t score of -­1.32 indicates this difference is not statistically significant. Nevertheless, over half of the shouldered specimens (57 percent) are thicker above than below the shoulder, suggesting a preference for a decrease in coil size from lip proximal to lip distal portions of shouldered vessel bodies. In sum, the bottom is usually thinner than the body, the top of the body is

110 • Chapter 6

Fig­ure 6.12. Bases and bottom shape and construction: (a and b) flat pancake-­formed bottoms; (c) base with podal supports; (d) base with annular ring; (e) base with strap skirt; (f ) double-­ pancake bottom; (g) flat bottom with gravity sag; (h) scored-­ bottom proximal body wall coil.

usually thicker than the bottom of the body and the upper shoulder is usually thicker than the lower shoulder. The difference in upper and lower shoulder thickness may indicate either (1) coiled construction of the vessel beginning with the mouth and upper shoulder and continuing with smaller coils below the shoulder; or (2) separate construction of upper and lower vessel walls with the mouth and upper shoulder formed of larger coils than the lower shoulder and bottom. If, however, upper and lower shoulder is separately constructed, I expect scoring or combing on the joined surfaces. A careful examination of vessels previously

Paso Del Indio Sample Size, Morphology, and Manufacture • 111

broken at the suspected point of upper and lower shoulder junction and of a sample broken at this point failed to reveal a single case of combing or scoring. Inferences

The available data may be used to support two distinct body-­building descriptions. In one the potter began nonshouldered forms by coiling a mouth then adding coils one atop another, each of diminishing diameter and length, until a suitable body was formed. In the other the potter began nonshouldered forms by coiling a lower base then adding coils one atop another, each of increasing diameter and length, until a suitable body was formed. For flat-­bottomed vessels, a separate molded or mass-­modeled pancake was made. This task would have been accomplished by pressing a small ball of clay into a flat-­sided disk of uniform thickness. In either vessel-­building strategy this pancake was sized, presumably by gently laying it over the opening formed by the lip distal vessel wall coil. Any excess clay would be then trimmed away. After sizing and trimming the pancake would have been removed and one side of its periphery scored, as is the upper edge of the lip distal body coil. The pancake would be next placed, scored surface to scored surface, on and over the lip distal vessel coil, and gently pressed into position (see Fig­ure 6.12h). The exterior portion of the seam between the bottom and lower body wall was sealed with a slurry weld (see Fig­ure 6.12a and b) and the interior sealed with a small roll of clay pressed into place at the junction of bottom and base and smoothed in with the tip of a finger. Finally the vessel was placed mouth down to dry. For rounded-­bottomed vessels the potter using strategy one (start at the mouth) continued to coil, slightly shortening, thinning and overlapping each coil, until the bottom was closed. After closing the bottom the coils were welded together on the exterior by dragging the pad of a finger, or several fingers, over the surface of the coil joints, then wetting, scraping, smoothing, and shaping with a wood, bone, or calabash scraper. The potter using strategy two (starting at the base) formed rounded-­bottomed vessels by turning the partially formed pot over upon its lip and adding a molded or mass-­modeled concavo-­convex pancake to form the bottom. In either strategy the vessel would be held in the potter’s lap while the interior was scraped and shaped. The vessel would be placed mouth down to dry. Shouldered vessels were similarly constructed, but in strategy one (i.e., working from near lip to base) the coils between mouth and shoulder were slightly lengthened as each was laid atop, but a bit to the outer edge of its predecessor, until the maximum desired extension was reached. From this point to

112 • Chapter 6

the base, thinner and shorter coils were added, each placed atop but a bit toward the inner edge of its predecessor. In strategy two (i.e., working from base to lip) the coils between base and shoulder were slightly lengthened as each was laid atop but a bit to the outer edge of its predecessor until the maximum desired extension was reached. From this point to the near lip slightly thicker and shorter coils were added, each laid atop but a bit toward the inner edge of its predecessor until the mouth was formed. For shouldered flat-­bottomed vessels a separate pancake was added in the same manner as for nonshouldered forms. Rounded-­bottomed shouldered forms were constructed in the same manner as their nonshouldered counterparts. During body formation, episodes of coiling were interspersed with bouts of wetting, scraping, thinning, and the ad hoc addition of bits, pinches, patches, and small rolls of clay. In strategy one, the vessel rested on its mouth through­out wall and bottom formation and was only later, after a bit of drying, turned over so the bottom interior could be sealed and the vessel’s lip formed. In strategy two the vessel rested on its lower base through­out wall formation, was turned over to add the bottom, then after a bit of drying was set upright so the interior could be sealed and the lip formed.

Bottom Construction + (Bottom) → F lat or Ex-­curvate → Conoidal or

Rounded or

Parabolic



or In-­curvate → Rounded

or Parabolic

Antecedent Knowledge

See preceding discussion of manufacturing practices. Observations

The Paso del Indio sample contains 57 bottom/base fragments. Fifty-­five of them are flat bottomed. Two are from rounded-­bottomed vessels. Fifty of these base/bottom sherds are complete enough to be measured. The flat-­bottomed

Paso Del Indio Sample Size, Morphology, and Manufacture • 113

forms sort into those broken from large, medium, or small shouldered vessels. They are oval. Those broken from large, medium, or small nonshouldered vessels are circular. The two specimens (4 percent of the measurable bottom sherd sample) from large shoulderless vessels have a mean diameter of 9.5 +/−­ 0.7 cm and mean thickness of 8.9 +/−­0.8 mm. The four pieces broken from medium-­sized shoulderless vessels (8 percent of the measurable bottom sherd sample) have a mean diameter of 6.1 +/−­0.3 cm and mean thickness of 6.82 +/−­0.7 mm. The three pieces broken from small shoulderless vessels (6 percent of the measurable bottom sherd sample) have a mean diameter of 4.88 +/−­ 0.3 cm and a mean thickness of 5.20 +/−­0.2 mm. The eight (16 percent of the measurable bottom sherd sample) bottom fragments from large shouldered vessels have a mean length of 12.2 +/−­1.4 cm, a mean width of 9.8 +/−­ 1.1 cm, and a mean thickness of 8.91 +/−­0.9 mm; those broken from medium-­ sized shouldered vessels (18 specimens, 36 percent of the measurable bottom sherd sample) have a mean length of 8.55 +/−­1.3 cm, a mean width of 6.50 +/−­1.7 cm and a mean thickness of 6.74 +/−­0.6 mm. The bottom/base sherds from small shouldered vessels (13 cases or 26 percent of the measurable bottom sherd sample) have a mean length of 6.26 +/−­1.4 cm, a mean width of 4.42 +/−­0.78 cm, and a mean thickness of 5.1 +/−­0.1 mm. Two flat-­sided oval bottom fragments each 5.5 cm wide and 8 cm long are joined to form a double bottom (Fig­ure 6.12f ). This practice may be interpreted as either preparing the vessel for the addition of an annular skirt or as an attempt to correct a mistake. In either case it constitutes reasonable evidence for separate bottom construction. It strengthens my inference that vessel walls were constructed before the bottom was affixed. Two round-­bottom fragments exhibit the -­or-­ shaped coil fractures and/or clay body discontinuities that accompany coiling. Thus, for rounded-­bottomed hemispherical vessels, the potter coiled from base to bottom, slightly shortening, thinning, and overlapping each coil until the bottom was closed. After closing the bottom the coils were welded together on the exterior by dragging the pad of a finger, or several fingers, over the surface of the coil joints, then wetting, scraping, smoothing, and shaping with a wood, bone, or calabash scraper. The vessel was held in the potter’s lap while the interior was scraped and shaped. The vessel was placed mouth down to dry. Inferences

Paso del Indio’s potters fabricated flat bottoms from flat-­sided pancakes. To begin pancake formation, an appropriately sized wad of clay was detached from a prepared clay mass and rolled into a small ball, which was then flattened by placing one hand over the other and pressing firmly downward with the rigid palmer surface of the upper hand on the dorsal surface of the lower.

114 • Chapter 6

Several bouts of pressure directed to slightly different points were needed to bring the pancake to a proper form and a suitable size. This pancake was then gently draped over the opening to be covered and excess clay cut away. The bottom piece thus formed was removed and its circumference of attachment was scored or combed. The upper surface of the most recently added body coil was likewise scored or combed and the bottom reapplied, scored area to scored area, and pressed into place. A slurry weld, whose raw material comes from a very thin coil of clay, completed the exterior seal after which the pot was allowed to dry for a while, still resting on its mouth. After the pot dried a bit, the bottom sealing was completed by placing a thin rat-­tail coil of clay about the interior lower wall/bottom junction and slurry welding it. Very rarely is a tripod of podal supports added to flat-­or rounded-­bottomed vessels (Fig­ure 6.12c). Podal supports were formed by rolling wads of clay into cylinders or truncated cone-­shaped pieces. These are 20 mm thick at the uppermost point of attachment. The desired podal support shape was achieved by rolling a roughly cylindrical wad of clay between a hard unyielding flat surface and the pads, of the first and sec­ond fingers while applying greater pres­ sure with the index finger than with the sec­ond finger. The legs thus formed were affixed by first combing the end of the leg to be attached and then combing the surface to which it was to be attached. Afterwards the two were firmly pressed together. To complete the attachment a thin roll of clay was laid around and over the junction of bottom with leg and pressed into place with pressure from the tip of the fore-­or index finger (see Fig­ure 6.12c).

Lower Body Construction + (Lower Body) → Direct

or

Ex-­Curvate

or In-­Curvate or Inflected

Antecedent Knowledge

See preceding discussion of manufacturing practices. Observations

See preceding discussion of manufacturing practices.

Paso Del Indio Sample Size, Morphology, and Manufacture • 115 Inferences

All 569 lower body sherds were ex-­curvate with a mean lower wall thickness of 7.18 +/−­0.80 mm.

Shoulder Construction + Shoulder → Angular → High or Medial or or Low

Rounded → High

or Medial or Low

Antecedent Knowledge

See preceding discussion of manufacturing practices. Observations

The Paso del Indio sample contains 538 (49 to 68 percent of the estimated vessel sample) shoulder fragments. One hundred and thirty eight (25.7 percent of the shoulder sherd sample) have a high and angular (angle of inflection 90 to 120 degrees between upper and lower shoulder) shoulder. Point measurements taken on upper (i.e., lip proximal) and lower (i.e., base proximal) portions of each shoulder indicate a statistically insignificant difference in thickness, with a mean upper wall thickness of 7.43 +/−­1.2 mm, and mean lower wall thickness of 7.17 +/−­1.2 mm. A careful examination of vessels previously broken at the shoulder inflection point (eight specimens) and a sample (eight specimens) broken at this point by the analyst fail to reveal a single case of combing or scoring. Three hundred and ninety-­eight specimens (74 percent of the shoulder sherd sample) have high and rounded shoulders. Point measurements taken on upper (i.e., lip proximal) and lower (i.e., base proximal) portions of each of these again indicated a statistically insignificant difference in thickness, with a mean upper wall thickness of 7.71 +/−­0.84 mm and a mean lower wall thickness of 7.18 +/−­0.80 mm. Two specimens (0.3 percent of the shoulder sherd sample) indicate the presence of angular midshouldered pots in grouped layers [E]. Like their high, angular, shouldered counterparts these pieces are slightly thicker above than below the shoulder.

116 • Chapter 6

Table 6.2. Shoulder Morphology by Grouped Layers Layers 1–7 [A] 7–8B [B] 8B–10C [C] 10C–PH3 [D] PH3–18 [E]

High Rounded

High Angular

65.0% 79.4% 73.3% 83.6% 51.3%

35.0% 20.6% 26.7% 16.4% 48.7%

Fig­ure 6.13. Shoulder morphology by grouped layer: Series 1=high-­rounded shoulder; Series 2=high, angular shoulder; 1=grouped layers [A]; 2=grouped layers [B]; 3=grouped layers [C]; 4=grouped layers [D]; 5=grouped layers [E].

The popu­larity of the high and angular and high and rounded shoulder forms may be graphically displayed as follows with series 1 indicating the frequency of high, rounded, shouldered specimens, and series 2 indicating high, angular, shouldered forms (Table 6.2, Fig­ure 6.13). The relative frequency of shouldered vessels by grouped layers indicates that high, rounded shoulders were the most popu­lar through­out and that high, angular forms decreased in popu­larity from group [E] to [B], then increased slightly in the upper levels of the site (i.e., in group [A]).

Paso Del Indio Sample Size, Morphology, and Manufacture • 117 Inferences

The potter began both shouldered and nonshouldered forms by coiling the mouth or by coiling the lower base. Each new coil was joined to its predecessor on exterior and interior surfaces by downward pressure with the pad of the thumb, forefinger, or index finger and with repeated bouts of wetting and scraping. High, rounded shoulders were preferred. High, angular shoulders are a significant component of the sample. Midvessel angular shoulders are an oddity.

Upper Body Construction + (Upper Body) → In-­sloping or

Direct

Antecedent Knowledge

See preceding discussion of manufacturing practices. Observations

Five hundred sixty-­nine upper body fragments are in-­sloping. The mean upper wall thickness is 7.71 +/−­0.84 mm. Inferences

All of Paso del Indio’s shouldered pots have in-­sloping upper bodies.

Rim Formation Forming the Rim

By definition the rim is the portion between the vessel’s mouth and lip. In all but one of Paso del Indio’s specimens lip and mouth are coterminus. The sample is therefore virtually rimless.

Lip Formation Forming the Lip

+ (Lip) → Rounded or Flat or

→

Everted or Inverted?

118 • Chapter 6

Beveled → → In-­Beveled or or T-­Shaped Out-­Beveled or or Inverted L-­Shaped Double Beveled or Flanged Antecedent Knowledge

The lip is potentially a highly variable part of a pot. It may be flattened, rounded, beveled to the inside, beveled to the outside, beveled to both inside and outside (i.e., tapered), L-­shaped, T-­shaped, or pinched (i.e., wavy). Most lips are direct extensions of the uppermost body coil (i.e., affixed in the same plane as the body wall). Some however are combined with an inward or outward bending of the mouth proximal coil. The former are inverted, the latter are everted. The combination of a particular lip form with an intrusion or extrusion produces a compound lip structure that may be described as inverted or everted, round, flat, in-­beveled, out-­beveled, tapered, and so on. A horizontally applied clay strap may be present in the uppermost (i.e., mouth proximal) coil, which produces a flange whose outer surface may be flat or rounded giving a flanged-­flat or flanged-­rounded lip. Observations

The 4,124 lip sherds in the Paso del Indio sample contain (1) rounded direct (2,200 examples, 53.31 percent of the lip sherds) (see Fig­ure 6.5a and b and Fig­ure 6.8h), (2) flat direct (908 cases, 22.03 percent of the lip sherds) (see Fig­ure 6.1a and b), (3) inverted rounded ( 101 examples, 2.45 percent of the lip sherds) (Fig­ure 6.8a), (4) inverted flat (739 examples, 17.92 percent of the lip sherd sample) (see Fig­ure 6.6c), (5) everted rounded (8 examples, 0.2 percent of the lip sherds), (6) everted flat (166 specimens, 4.04 percent of the lip sample) (see Fig­ure 6.6e ), and (7) flanged flat-­lipped specimens (2 examples, .05 percent of the lip sherds) (Table 6.3). The overall trend in the pilaster VI sample is for round lips to decrease in frequency from grouped levels [E] to [B] then to slightly increase in popu­larity from grouped levels [B] to [A]. The popu­larity of flat-­lip production is complementary (i.e., an increase from grouped levels [E] to [B] then a slight decrease from [B] to [A]). The distribution of direct, inverted and everted lips is similar (Fig­ure 6.14). Direct lips decreased in popu­larity from grouped layers [E] to [B] then increased slightly in popu­larity from grouped layers [B] to [A]. Inverted lips increased in popu­larity from grouped layers [E] to [B] then decreased slightly

Paso Del Indio Sample Size, Morphology, and Manufacture • 119

Table 6.3. Distribution of Direct, Rounded, and Flat Lips by Grouped Layers Layers 1–4A [A] 4A–8B [B] 8B–10C [C] 10C–PH3 [D] PH3–18 [E]

Rounded Lip

Flat Lip

49.6% 47.9% 56.5% 61.6% 66.3%

50.4% 52.1% 43.5% 38.4% 33.7%

Fig­ure 6.14. Lip morphology by grouped layers: Series 1=rounded; Series 2=flat; 1=grouped layers [A]; 2=grouped layers [B]; 3=grouped layers [C]; 4=grouped layers [D]; 5=grouped layers [E].

in frequency from grouped layers [B] to [A]. The frequency of everted lips increased from grouped layers [E] to [B] before production, or at least deposition, ceased (Table 6.4, Fig­ure 6.15). All but the flanged specimens and extreme examples of round everted and round inverted lips are variations on a common form of lip construction in which a coil was laid over and joined to the upper edge of the vessel wall (see Fig­ure 6.8a–d). In the extreme examples of round inverted lips, a relatively thick coil of clay was added to the upper and inner edge of the vessel’s mouth

120 • Chapter 6

Table 6.4. Distribution of Direct, Everted, and Inverted Lips by Grouped Layers Layers 1–4A [A] 4A–8B [B] 8B–10C[C] 10C–PH3[D] PH3–18 [E]

Inverted

Everted

Direct

25.2% 28.8% 21.0% 16.1%  7.8%

0.0% 6.4% 3.9% 3.9% 2.6%

74.8% 64.8% 75.1% 80.0% 89.6%

Fig­ure 6.15. Rim morphology by grouped layers: Series 1=inverted; Series 2=everted; Series 3=direct; 1=grouped layers [A]; 2=grouped layers [B]; 3=grouped layers [C]; 4=grouped layers [D]; 5=grouped layers [E].

(see Fig­ure 6.8h). The extreme examples of round everted lips are produced by adding a relatively thick coil of clay to the upper and outer edge of the vessel’s mouth. The evidence for lip coils in the Paso del Indio sample comes from several coils that have been broken away from the mouth (see Fig­ure 6.8b and d), leaving U-­shaped coil breaks at the juncture of mouth with lip (Fig­ure 6.8a and c), and from coil-­junction disconformities visible in most lip sherd cross-­sections.

Paso Del Indio Sample Size, Morphology, and Manufacture • 121

Fig­ure 6.16. Flanged lips: (a) decorated flanged lip; (b) plain-­flanged lip.

Inferences

To form the lip, Paso del Indio’s potters detached a wad of prepared clay from a moist clay mass or collected it from the scrapings rendered during wall thinning and smoothing. This was then rolled, either between the palms or between the palm and a relatively unyielding flat or near flat surface, to produce a coil. The potter then placed this coil over the uppermost edge of the vessel body and joined it to the upper portion of the body wall. For this she placed the upper portion of the body wall between her thumb and forefinger while drawing her hand toward her. Downward strokes of the thumb tip, or of the forefinger pad, were used where and when needed. Less frequently the potter affixed a larger coil of clay to the upper outer or upper inner edge of the vessel body. Once the lip coil was joined to the upper body, the potter had six options. In option one she pressed gently downward on the top of the upper surface of the lip coil to produce a direct flat lip (954 examples, 22 percent of the lip sherd sample). In option two the potter pulled a leather patch, or the palmer surface of a fingertip, gently over the upper surface of the lip coil to produce a rounded direct lip (2,226 examples, 53 percent of the lip sherd sample). In option three, the potter shaped a flat lip as described in option one, then ran the palm-­side surface of her forefinger or a scraper about the outer and upper edges of the mouth with enough pressure to force it inward, producing a flat inverted lip (763 examples, 18 percent of the lip sherd sample). In option four the potter shaped a flat lip as described in option one, then with the palmer

122 • Chapter 6

surface of a forefinger, or a scraper, bent the upper mouth coil outward to produce a flat everted lip (169 examples, 4.1 percent of the lip sherd sample). In option five the potter shaped a rounded lip as described in option two and then bent the upper mouth coil inward as previously described to produce a rounded inverted lip (113 examples, 2.7 percent of the lip sherd sample). In option six the potter shaped a rounded lip as described in option two and then bent the upper mouth coil outward to produce a rounded everted lip (9 examples, 0.2 percent of the lip sherd sample). Rarely and only when making shallow bowl or plate-­like forms did she affix a strap of clay to the upper edge of the mouth to produce a flanged lip (two examples are shown in Fig­ ure 6.16a and b).

7 Modes of Appendation

+ [Appendation] → Coil → Modified → Podal support or or or Unmodified Ring Skirt or Handle → Coil or Strap → D-­Shaped or Ω-­Shaped or Faux → Horizontal or Diagonal or Vertical or Lug → Tab → Oval or or Spike Rectangular or Fish-­Tail or Cylinder or

124 • Chapter 7

D-­Shaped or Nipple or Coil or Adorno → Mammal → Human → Hollow → Head or or or Full Solid Figure Nonhuman → Bat or Manatee Nonmammal → Reptile or or Monkey Amphibian or or Other Avian or Fish or Other Podal Supports: (One Example)

The Pilaster VI ceramic sample contains a single, slightly curved, and cylindrical podal support. It is 17 mm in diameter at the point of affixation and 15 mm in diameter at its distal end (see Fig­ure 6.12c). It was formed from a small wad of clay rolled between the palms of the hands or between the palm of one hand and a flat unyielding surface. From its point of affixation the support is bowed slightly outward then inward. Its upper (i.e., affixation) surface has been scored and I presume the base/bottom to which it was affixed would have also been scored before affixation. Annular Skirts: (One Example)

A flat-­bottomed sherd carries the fragment of an annular skirt affixed to the outer and vessel exterior edge at the junction of its bottom with its base. This addition was formed from a single rectangular strap of clay 2 cm wide and 8 mm thick. One end was thinned on the inside and the other on the outside. The two have been scored and pressed together to form an oval. The annular base formed from this strap slopes gently outward from its bottom/base proximal to its bottom/base distal edge (see Fig­ure 6.12e). The skirt or annular

Modes of Appendation • 125

base at its bottom/base proximal edge is 5 cm wide and 6 cm long. At its distal edge it is 7 cm wide and 8 cm long. The outer edge and exterior surface of the flat bottom has been scored as has the upper (i.e., bottom proximal) edge. The strap was then bent to form an oval. While the vessel rested on its mouth, this skirt was added to the vessel’s bottom at its junction with the base. Annular Rings (One Example)

One flat-­bottomed specimen has an annular ring attached to its exterior surface at the junction of base and bottom. This was accomplished by simply adding a 5 mm in diameter coil to the outer perimeter and exterior surface of the vessel bottom while the still moist pot rested on its mouth (see Fig­ure 6.12d). Handles (126 Examples) Antecedent Knowledge

Strap handle blanks are formed by (1) flattening a coil, (2) cutting a piece from a prepared clay pancake, or (3) pulling the blank from a solid clay cone. A handle formed from a flattened coil is uneven, relatively thick, and rectangular. A handle cut from a prepared clay pancake is uniformly thick and varies in shape from rectangular to hourglass. To form a handle from a solid clay cone the clay is pulled between the thumb and first or forefinger with greater pressure applied to the thicker portion of the cone than to the cone’s apex. When pulled the clay is drawn between the distal or pad proximal, the medial or joint proximal, or the upper or palm proximal, portions of thumb and forefinger. A flatter surface and a more uniform thickness is produced by drawing the clay between the distal portion of thumb and forefinger (see Fig­ure 3.4a– d). In either case, pulling a clay cone, or pressing a clay coil, produces a thicker, less uniform handle than cutting a blank from a clay pancake. Handles were attached to a vessel wall by welding or riveting. To weld a handle the surfaces to be joined were usually scored or combed (see Fig­ure 6.12h for an example of a comb-­marked surface) then wet and pressed together. The seam thus created was sealed with a slurry lute by pressing a wet rat-­tail coil into the seam and smoothing it over with a fingertip. To rivet a handle, the body wall was perforated with a linear incision and the end of the handle forced through the perforation and bent over and worked into the inner surface of the vessel wall. Observations

The Paso del Indio sample includes 84 D-­shaped (Fig­ure 7.1a and b), three Ω-­shaped (Fig­ure 7.1d), and 39 “faux” strap handles (Fig­ure 7.1c). Fifteen of

126 • Chapter 7

the 84 D-­shaped handles are measurable. Those remaining are too fragmentary to measure. Two of the three Ω-­shaped handles are measurable and two “faux” handles could be measured. Eleven to 14 percent of the vessels carried pairs of handles. I estimate 7 to 10 percent of them were D-­shaped, 3 to 4 percent were “faux” (see Fig­ure 7.1c), and approximately 0.2 to 0.5 percent were Ω-­shaped (see Fig­ure 7.1d). The sample contains large (7 examples) and small (8 examples) D-­shaped handles. The large handles vary in length from 5 to 7 cm with a mean of 5.8 +/−­0.9 cm. They vary in width from 3.5 to 5.7 cm with a mean of 4.1 +/−­1.1 cm and in thickness from 6 to 11 mm with a mean of 8.9 +/−­1.9 mm. The small D-­shaped handles vary in length from 3 to 4 cm with a mean of 3.3 +/−­0.44 cm. They vary in width from 2 to 4 cm with a mean of 2.5 +/−­0.75 cm, and in thickness from 6 to 10 mm with a mean of 6.6 +/−­1.4 mm. The upper ends of all D-­shaped specimens were welded to the inner lip and the lower edge to the exterior surface of the vessel wall 3 to 7 cm below (see Fig­ure 7.1a and b). In vessels with high, angular shoulders, the lower portion of the handle was bent to align with and was affixed to, then blended with, the shoulder inflexion point. There are 15 clear D-­shaped handle attachment scars. Seven of these indicate that scored rat-­tail coils 5 to 7 mm in diameter had been affixed to the inner surface and the lower edge of D-­shaped handles. When the handle was broken off, the coil that joined them to the vessel wall and the coil at the distal portion of the handle were left in place. Those specimens that include the inner surface of the handle between the handle and vessel wall were marked with crescent-­shaped depressions made by a slim cylindrical tool. Point measurements of D-­shaped handles reveal considerable variability that does not correlate with size. The thickness of the combined sample of small and large handles varies from 6 mm to 11 mm. This range of variability is found on the same specimen over half the time. The combined sample was, however, measured and a mean of 7.66 +/−­2.0 mm determined. Ninety percent of the specimens (76 cases) have a shallow centrally located groove in their long axis (see Fig­ure 7.1a). All of the 39 “faux” handles have deep centrally located grooves (see Fig­ure 7.1c). The grooves on several of these specimens are so deep that I assumed the potter had adjusted to a handle collapse, by turning D-­shaped handles into lugs. In other words I thought an accidental handle collapse was reworked to salvage the piece. Subsequent observations led to a different conclusion. They persuaded me to identify the results as intentional, hence the “faux” handle descriptor. Most of the pseudo-­or faux handles are applied to the vessel wall exterior from lip directly downward. Some, however, are affixed diagonally and some horizontally. Some curve gently downward to either left or right.

Modes of Appendation • 127

Fig­ure 7.1. D-­and Ω-­shaped handles: (a and b) D-­ shaped handles; (c) vertical faux handle; (d) Ω-­shaped handle.

All show the centrally located trough common to handles made from solid clay cones but none are bent for attachment to lip and upper vessel wall. They have been pressed into place against the exterior surface of the vessel along their full length. One rather imaginative example resembles a truncated cornucopia (i.e., has been gathered to a near point at one edge leaving the other trumpet-­shaped). The three Ω-­shaped handles (see Fig­ure 7.1d) have shallow linear central grooves but unlike their D-­shaped counterparts are affixed to the inner and the outer surface of the lip or lip proximal portion of a vessel. The two measurable examples are 3.5 and 4.0 cm long, 2.0 and 1.0 cm wide. Both are 5 mm thick. The distribution of handles by grouped layers indicates that D-­shaped handles were manufactured and deposited through­out but in variable numbers. They are most popu­lar in grouped layers [E] and [B]. Ω-­shaped handles were de-

128 • Chapter 7

Table 7.1. Handle Distribution by Grouped Layers Layers 1–7 [A] 7–8B [B] 8B–10C [C] 10C–PH3 [D] PH3–18 [E]

D Shape

W Shape

2.4% 44.0% 9.5% 11.9% 32.2%

0.00% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 0.00%

False 0.00% 61.5% 18.0% 20.5% 0.00%

Fig­ure 7.2. Handle distribution. Series 1=D-­shaped; Series 2=W-­shaped; Series 3=faux; 1=grouped layers [A]; 2=grouped layers [B]; 3=grouped layers [C]; 4=grouped layers [D]; 5=grouped layers [E].

posited in the layers combined to form groups [B], [C], and [D] but not in [E] or [A]. False handles were introduced in the layers combined to form group [D]. They decreased slightly in the layers grouped as [C], increased dramatically in group [B], and declined dramatically in group [A] (Table 7.1, Fig­ ure 7.2). Inferences

Eleven to 14 percent of the vessels carry pairs of handles. These are affixed to opposite ends of the long axes of oval-­mouthed, rimless pots. Seven to 9 percent of these handles are D-­shaped, 3.5 to 4.3 percent are faux handles, and

Modes of Appendation • 129

0.2 to 0.3 percent are Ω-­shaped. To judge by their variable thickness and their long axis grooving Paso del Indio’s potters manufactured handle blanks from suitably sized solid clay cones. At least half of the time these cones were drawn between the upper (i.e., wrist distal portions) of thumb and forefinger. The rest were drawn between the wrist proximal portions of thumb and forefingers. The upper edge of each D-­shaped handle was welded to the inner lip. The lower edge was welded to the exterior surface of the vessel’s body. To achieve the weld a small rat-­tail coil (5 mm to 7 mm in diameter) was scored on one surface then bent into a half-­loop with legs down and arch up. It was then pressed onto a suitably scored portion of the lower and inner surface of the handle-­to-­be. The outer (i.e., upper) surface of the half-­loop of clay and the vessel’s exterior surface were then combed or scored at the intended point of affixation. The handle was bent around and pressed into place then affixed to the vessel’s exterior by pressure from the finger tips. To judge by the roughly half-­cylindrical depressions on several specimens a wooden dowel was used to smooth and seal the inner handle edge at the vessel wall. Ω-­shaped handles were welded to lip interior and exterior with combing and finger pressure. Faux handles were attached by combing then pressing them into place on the vessel’s exterior surface along their entire length.

Lugs (47 Examples) Antecedent Knowledge

Lugs vary considerably in size, shape, and method of manufacture. They were fabricated by pulling, pinching, and/or squeezing portions of the clay used in lip construction; or they were built by adding balls, rolls, pinches, coils, slabs, wedges, or wads of clay to the lip or vessel wall. Given the number of ways lugs can be manufactured and the opportunities they offer for the free play of imagination, the limited variability expressed by most samples is significant. It indicates a utilitarian rather than a decorative role for lugs. Thus, I have chosen to include them in the domain of manufacture. Observations

Seven morphological classes account for the variability in Paso del Indio’s 47 lugs. These are identified as (1) tab (19 examples, 40.4 percent of the lug sample) (Fig­ure 7.3c), (2) spike (6 examples, 12.8 percent of the lug sample) (Fig­ure 7.3a), (3) fish-­tail (3 examples, 6.4 percent of the lug sample) (not illustrated), (4) cylinder (4 examples, 8.5 percent of the lug sample) (Fig­ure 7.3b and d), (5) D-­shaped (5 examples, 10.6 percent of the lug sample) (not illustrated), (6) nipple (3 examples, 6.4 percent of the lug sample) (Fig­ure 7.3f ), and (7) coil (7 examples, 14.9 percent of the lug sample) (Fig­ure 7.3e) lugs.

130 • Chapter 7

Fig­ure 7.3. Lugs: (a) spike lug; (b) cylindrical lug; (c) rectangular tab lug; (d) cylindrical lug; (e) coil lug; (f ) nipple lug.

Tab Lugs (Oval and Rectangular) (10 Examples)

Tab lugs are (1) affixed at a right angle to and project outward from the lip, (2) rectangular or oval in shape, and (3) regular in thickness with straight or curved edges. Three measurable tab lugs are rectangular (see Fig­ure 7.3c); seven are oval. All of the oval specimens are over 50 percent wider than long with an average width of 2.83 +/−­0.5 cm and an average length of 1.66 +/−­ 0.5 cm. All of the rectangular specimens are over 20 percent longer than wide having a mean length of 2.13 +/−­0.6 cm and a mean width of 1.7 +/−­ 0.6 cm. Four of the seven oval tab lugs are deeply incised on their upper surfaces with two to five parallel lines that extend from the vessel’s lip to the maximum extension of the lug giving them the appearance of animal feet. Spike Lugs (Seven Examples)

All of the spike lugs are nonhorizontal extensions of the lip. Most are near vertical lip extensions, (1) triangular in outline with the base of the triangle lip proximal, the apex lip distal, and (2) always thicker at the base than at the apex (see Fig­ure 7.3a). All are measurable. The overall mean base width is 2.88

Modes of Appendation • 131

+/−­0.88 cm. The mean apex height is 2.05 +/−­0.67 cm. The mean base thickness is 7.65 +/−­.90 mm. All spike lugs thin to 2.0 mm or less at their apex. Only one is painted. Fish-­Tail Lugs (Three Examples)

The three fish-­tail lugs are parallel-­sided for at least half their length and affixed at a right angle to the exterior of the lip or near lip. All are splayed outward for the lip distal third of their length into two, flat-­sided, angular to gently rounded “wings,” with a shallow or gentle notch between them (not illustrated). One specimen has a centrally located 7 mm in diameter hole that runs through its length making it suitable for use as an inhaler. The others have no central perforation. All are too fragmentary to provide meaningful measurements. Cylindrical Lugs (Four Examples)

The four cylindrical lugs are the vessel proximal portions of fish-­tail lugs. They are, however, too fragmentary to determine their former provenience or to provide reasonable measurements. Two of the four are hollow (i.e., are the tube-­like projections frequently identified as snuffing tubes) (see Fig­ure 7.3b and d). D-­Shaped Lugs (Five Examples)

Five, uniformly flat-­sided, D-­shaped lugs are made by cutting them from rectangular or square sheets of clay (not illustrated). All have a curved vessel wall distal edge and a flat vessel wall proximal edge. To judge by the attachment scars along their flat edge all have been scored then pressed against and slurry welded to the upper outer vessel surface below but at a right angle to the lip. Four of the five have centrally located perforations that are 3 to 5  mm in diameter. They range in length from 2.5 to 3.2 cm with a mean length of 2.75 +/−­0.33 cm. They range in width from 1.5 to 2.2 cm with a mean width of 1.8 +/−­0.35  cm and vary in thickness from 6 to 8  mm with a mean of 6.4 +/−­ 0.9 mm. Nipples (Three Examples)

Pinched-­up and smoothed-­over clay nipples on the upper exterior surface of vessels are either lugs or parts of an appliquéd decoration (see Fig­ure 7.3e). These specimens are 2 cm in diameter at vessel wall proximal end and 1 cm in diameter at their rounded tip or wall distal end. Each of the three projects outward at a 90 degree angle for 1 to 1.2 cm.

132 • Chapter 7

Fig­ure 7.4. Handle frequency by grouped layers at Paso del Indio. 1=grouped layers [A]; 2=grouped layers [B]; 3=grouped layers [C]; 4=grouped layers [D]; 5=grouped layers [E].

Coils (Seven Examples)

Like their clay nipple counterparts, coils of clay added to the upper exterior vessel surface are either lugs or parts of an appliquéd decoration. The seven specimens are constructed of coils of clay that vary in diameter from 0.7 to 1.5 cm with a mean of .89 +/−­.30 cm. Each has an upper end affixed to the upper surface of the vessel lip or just below it, and a lower end affixed to the exterior surface of the upper body 5 to 8 cm below the lip. All are joined to the exterior surface of the vessel for their entire length (see Fig­ure 7.3e). Five of the seven slope downward and very gently to the right of their junction with lip or near lip, two slope downward and very gently to the left. Inferences

Between 4.3 and 5.2 percent of the vessels carry lugs. The majority of these are shallow bowls, or small to medium-­sized, high, round-­shouldered pots. Over 40 percent (40.4 percent) of the vessels with lugs carry tab lugs, 14.9 percent coil lugs, 12.8 percent spike lugs, 10.6 percent D-­shaped lugs, 8.5 percent cylinder lugs, 6.4 percent fish-­tail lugs, and 6.4 percent nipple lugs. The distribution of lugs by grouped layers is uneven. Grouped layers [A] produce a single lug (2.2 percent of the lug sample). Grouped layers [B] produce 13 lugs (28.8 percent of the lug sample), grouped layers [C] produce 12

Modes of Appendation • 133

lugs (26.7 percent of the lug sample), and grouped layers [D] produce only 2 lugs (4.5 percent of the lug sample). Grouped layers [E] produce 17 lugs (37.8 percent of the lug sample) (Fig­ure 7.4).

Adorno Production Monkey Head? Effigies (Four Examples)

Three fragmentary and one nearly complete effigy heads bare a distinct resemblance to specimens from site PO27 in the Cerrillios River Valley. In their facial features and the positioning of arms and hands the PO27 specimens resemble howler monkeys. All depict markedly prognatious faces with prominent supraorbital ridges, closely set and sunken eyes, projecting snouts, prominent nostrils, and thin mouths. All have weakly developed or back-­sloping chins (Krause 1989:​Plate 20d–g).The largest elongate oval-­faced specimen (59 mm long, 30 mm wide, and 35 mm thick) from Paso del Indio (25 mm wide, 8 mm long, and 3 mm thick) has a supraorbital ridge sculpted from the base of a modeled forehead (Fig­ure 7.5a). The eye orbits below are formed from a loaf-­shaped ridge of clay incised vertically at its midlength to create two separate units each 9 mm tall, 10 mm wide, and 3 mm thick. Eyes were rendered by inserting a 4 mm in diameter, flat-­ended, round dowel into the center of each separated and flattened, loaf-­shaped unit to leave a deep, flat-­ bottomed but round punctation. The nose was formed by adding clay to an elevated protuberance. A round, flat-­ended, dowel 4 mm in diameter was inserted into either side of the protuberance’s highest point then withdrawn to leave flat-­bottomed holes for nostrils. The mouth and chin have been broken away. The head is flanked by a stylized representation of the lower arm, wrist, and hand as if the animal was holding his/her head between its hands at ear level. The lower arm is indicated by an elongate oval clay mass 27 mm long, 7 mm wide, and 3 mm thick affixed to either side of the head and bearing a single 20 mm long, 2 mm wide, tool-­impressed line (perhaps indicating the bone) midway between the sides and along the long axis. The wrist is indicated by a 4 mm in diameter circular punctation between the distal end of the lower arm and the proximal end of the hand. The hands are formed of four parallel incised lines cut into an affixed oval clay mass positioned on either side of the head. A series of five oval clay masses, each 10 mm long, 5 mm wide, and 3  mm thick, with a centrally located oval tool impression (5  mm long and 3 mm wide) lies over the hands and extends from wrist to wrist. The sec­ond of Paso del Indio’s monkey-­head-­like specimens is roughly diamond shaped in front view with upper-­head sides each 20 mm long, lower-­ head sides each 30 mm long, and two of the four angles at eye level, a third at

134 • Chapter 7

Fig­ure 7.5. Monkey, human, and humanoid adornos: (a–d) monkey head representations; (e–j) human head representations; (k and l) humanoid head representations; (m and n) composite zoomorphic representations. (From Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and Public Works. Redrawing by Sabrina Simõn, courtesy of Tennessee Valley Archaeological Research.)

the top of the head, the fourth at the chin (Fig­ure 7.5c). An indistinct 30 mm wide, 10 mm tall, supraorbital ridge was formed by sculpting it from the base of the forehead. Two 8 mm in diameter, 2 mm deep depressions, one on either side of the nose, indicate eye orbits. The eyeballs are formed from 7 mm in diameter 3 mm thick, flattened nipples of clay set within each orbit. Pupils were rendered by inserting a 3 mm in diameter, flat-­ended, round dowel into the center of each flattened clay nipple. The nose was formed by scraping clay up into a teardrop-­shaped protuberance (15 mm long, 10 mm wide, and

Modes of Appendation • 135

5 mm thick). Nostrils were indicated by inserting a 3 mm in diameter, round dowel into either side of the tear-­drop-­shaped protuberance’s highest point and at an upward (i.e., toward the eye orbit) angle. The mouth is indicated by a short, 5 mm long, 1 mm wide, horizontal incision across the lower portion of the tear-­drop-­shaped protuberance, slightly below and at a right angle to the nostrils. A 6 mm long and 6 mm wide receding chin joins the head to the forward portion of the neck. The head is flanked by a stylized representation of the lower arm, wrist, and hand, as if the animal were holding his/her head between its hands with each wrist at ear level. The lower arms are composed of 25 mm long, 8 mm wide, elongate oval clay masses sculpted from either side of the head and separated from it by 1 mm wide tool-­impressed lines. A 3 mm in diameter, circular perforation between the distal end of the lower arm and the proximal end of the hand indicates the wrist. The left hand is broken off leaving only a scar to mark its position. The right hand was formed by two 20 mm long and 3 mm wide, parallel, incised lines cut into a 20 mm long, 12 mm wide, and 3 mm thick, affixed oval clay mass attached to the right side of the head. A 40 mm wide, 30 mm tall, and 24 mm thick fragment, broken from the top of a monkey-­like head, has a sculpted supraorbital ridge 30  mm wide, 6  mm tall, and 4  mm thick (Fig­ure 7.5b). The eye orbits below this supra­ orbital ridge were formed from a loaf-­shaped ridge of clay incised vertically at its midlength to create two separate units each 10 mm tall, 10 mm wide, and 3 mm thick. Eyes were rendered by inserting a 4 mm in diameter, flat-­ended, round dowel into the center of each separated and flattened, loaf-­shaped unit. The affixed and sculpted facial features are broken away from the fourth monkey-­like image (Fig­ure 7.5d) but stylized arms on either side of the head and hands at the top of the head mark the piece as similar to the other three. The arms are formed of 8 mm wide, 20 mm long, and 4 mm thick rolls of clay each with a 15 mm long, 3 mm wide, and 3 mm deep linear incision midway between the long edges. The hands on the top of the head are formed of 20 mm long, 5 mm wide, and 5 mm thick blobs of clay each bearing three 10 mm long, 2 mm wide, and 2 mm deep, parallel, linear incisions that divide the piece into four digit-­like units. The hands are separated from a prominent 15 mm wide, 5 mm tall, supraorbital ridge by an incised 2 mm wide and 2 mm deep groove. The affixed and sculpted facial features below this supraorbital ridge are missing. Nevertheless, the bottoms of two 3 mm in diameter, flat-­bottomed, circular punctations that formerly marked pupils and the bottom of a 6 mm long, 2 mm wide, horizontal incision that previously marked a mouth can be discerned. A 5 mm wide, 3 mm long segment of a back-­sloping chin remains in place 3 mm below the incision that formerly marked a mouth.

136 • Chapter 7

All of the monkey-­like effigies are affixed to and stood upright about the lip at one end of an elongate, oval-­mouthed vessel with flat-­bottom and out-­ sloping sides. Human and Anthropomorphic Effigy Heads (Eight Examples)

One of the distinctly human images is hollow, the other is solid. The hollow image came from stratum 18. It looked slightly upward and outward from the lip of an oval vessel (Fig­ure 7.5e). Roughly one-­third of the upper left portion of the face and two-­thirds of the forehead and head are missing. The face itself is oval (50 mm long and 45 mm wide) with a prominent, aquiline nose, bulbous cheeks, an oval mouth, a prominent chin, and rectanguloid eyes. The 30 mm long, 10 mm tall, and 3 mm wide clay nose is joined at the forehead to 20 mm long, 2 mm wide, and 8 mm tall eyebrows that arch over the rectanguloid eyes. From its junction with the eyebrows the nose drops downward and below the cheeks begins a gentle outward flare, more prominent on the left than the right side, to reach a nostril width of 12 mm. The left eye is missing. The right eye was formed from a rectangular clay mass 11 mm long, 5 mm wide, and 3 mm tall with an 8 mm long, 2 mm wide, 3 mm deep, centrally located tool impression. Beneath the eyes and on either side of the nose are 20 mm in diameter bulbous cheeks formed by pressing the interior of the face outward for 14 mm. The mouth lies at a right angle to and 4 mm below the tip of the nose. It has been formed from an affixed and sculpted oval clay mass, 18 mm long, 5 mm wide, and 4 mm thick with a centrally located 10 mm long, 3 mm wide, and 4 mm deep, oval tool impression. A distinct and prominent 10 mm tall and 25 mm wide chin drops downward and inward to a slightly narrower, 20 mm wide neck. The solid human image came from stratum 8A. The elongate oval face of this image looks upward and outward from a thick, 20 mm in diameter, 15 mm tall, vertical neck that has been affixed to the lip of a ceramic vessel (Fig­ ure 7.5f ). This piece is 42 mm long from the top of the head to the chin and 35 mm wide from cheek to cheek. The prominent upper head and forehead is 25 mm tall and 30 mm wide. Between the eyes, the upper nose is 3 mm wide and 2 mm tall. It curves gently outward and upward to a maximum thickness of 10 mm and height of 5 mm at the nostrils. The closely set eyes are indicated by deep horizontal tool impressed slits, each 7 mm long and 2 mm wide, with the nose proximal portion of each being slightly deeper and wider than the nose distal portion. Two 20 mm long, 1 mm wide, and 2 mm deep, out-­ flaring, gently curved, incised lines, one on either side of the nose midpoint, mark the inner edge of each cheek. The outer edge of each cheek is implied by a gentle outward flare to the edge of the face, below the eyes, but above the

Modes of Appendation • 137

incised lines that form the inner cheek. An oval 15 mm long, 3 mm wide, and 2 mm deep, horizontal tool impression 6 mm below the tip of the nose indicates a mouth. A prominent rounded chin, 20 mm wide and 9 mm long, lies immediately below the mouth and slopes 10 mm downward to join the neck. A third human-­like head has been rendered on the upper surface of a 40 mm long, 30 mm wide tabular lug that projects outward and slightly upward from the lip of an elongate, oval-­mouthed vessel (Fig­ure 7.5g). The piece has been affixed to a 40  mm long, 14  mm wide, and 5  mm thick false handle. The modeled and sculpted face on the upper surface is 25  mm tall and 30  mm wide. A pronounced, curved ridge of clay, 25 mm long, 5 mm wide, and 4 mm thick, demarcates the forehead. From the base of this ridge a softly rounded 10 mm long, 10 mm wide, and 5 mm tall nose slopes gently upward and outward. Two mm in diameter, flat-­bottomed, circular punctations depicts nostrils. Two horizontal, but gently arched excised troughs, each 10  mm long, 2 mm wide, and 2 mm deep, one on either side of the upper nose, form eyes. Modeled clay lips 10 mm long and 3 mm thick at their midpoints, separated by a 10 mm long, 1 mm wide, and 2 mm deep incision, depict a mouth 3 mm below the nose. A prominent, 12 mm wide and 3 mm tall, rounded chin, immediately below the mouth, curves backward and inward for 5 mm to join a short (10 mm long, 20 mm wide) neck. A 25 mm wide, 20 mm tall, ovaloid, human-­like face has been sculpted and modeled from the upper surface of a 50 mm tall, 45 mm wide, and 20 mm thick clay mass affixed to the upper and outer edge of an oval-­mouthed vessel (Fig­ure 7.5h). This piece has also been affixed to a 30 mm long, 10 mm wide, and 5 mm thick false handle. The forehead of the image is separated from a broader, wider, flange-­like projection of the upper head by two tool-­impressed, parallel, arched lines. A nose, 10 mm long, 5 mm wide, and 4 mm tall, projects from the forehead. Tool-­impressed, elongated, oval eyes, 4 mm long, 3 mm wide, and 2 mm deep, lie on either side of the upper nose. Two 1 mm wide, 1 mm deep, tool-­impressed lines, one either side of the nose, originate at the forehead, 5 mm above each eye, curve inward to run between the nose and eye then below eye level turn dramatically outward and downward for 10 mm to terminate at the edge of the face. A sculpted, 20 mm wide and 5 mm tall, lower face and chin project outward for 3 mm immediately below the nose. An oval and horizontal excision, 5 mm long, 3 mm wide, and 3 mm deep, 1 mm beneath the nose, forms a mouth. A pair of vertical, parallel, 2 mm wide, 4 mm long, and 2 mm deep, tool-­impressed lines, 3 mm below the mouth, mark the chin. Two 6 mm long, 2 mm wide, and 2 mm deep, vertical, tool-­impressed lines, one on either side at eye level but 3 mm beyond the outer of the arched parallel lines that separate the face from the wider and taller flange-­like pro-

138 • Chapter 7

jection of the head, complete the composition. All in all, the piece resembles a human head adorned with a headdress and with painted stripes on the forehead, on either side of the nose, and on the chin. A smaller, 22 mm long, 20 mm wide, oval, and distinctively human head, with a prominent 9 mm high, 15 mm wide cranial vault and 9 mm long, 4 mm wide modeled ears, looks inward, upward, and slightly over the lip of an oval-­ mouthed vessel (Fig­ure 7.5i). A 9 mm long, 2 mm wide, and 3 mm tall modeled and sculpted nose extends downward and outward from the forehead to reach a height of 4 mm at nose tip. The nose is splayed outward at nostril level to a width of 6 mm. Sculpted 5 mm in diameter and 2 mm deep oval depressions on either side of the nose form eye sockets. The eyes themselves are formed from 5 mm long, 4 mm wide, and 2 mm thick oval blobs of clay that slant downward from nose proximal to nose distal end. Pupils are indicated by 3 mm long, 1 mm wide, and 1 mm deep incisions in the center of each down-­ slanted eye. The mouth is indicated by a 4 mm long, 1 mm wide, and 1 mm deep horizontal incision 3 mm below the tip of the nose. A distinct 10 mm wide, 3 mm tall, chin lies immediately below the mouth. A long, narrow, twisted human face is modeled and sculpted from the upper surface of a 30 mm long, 6 mm wide, deeply grooved false handle (Fig­ure 7.5j). The false handle’s lower edge has been affixed to the upper exterior vessel surface such that the image-­bearing portion stood above and looked inward over the vessel’s lip. The 30 mm tall image is 20 mm wide at eye level but narrows to 15 mm immediately below and continues the narrowing to a near pointed chin. A 2 mm wide, 3 mm tall supraorbital ridge widens to 5 mm slightly above and between the eye orbits, then slopes downward and inward, then downward and outward, to form a 15 mm long nose. The eye orbits on either side of the nose slant downward from upper left to lower right as do the eyes that are indicated by 8 and 5 mm long and 1 and 2 mm wide incised slits. The mouth is indicated by a 5 mm long, 2 mm wide horizontal slit 3 mm below the nose. An 8 mm long, 9 mm wide chin that narrows from mouth level to a near pointed tip completes the sinister-­looking image. Two fragmentary and eroded specimens complete the list of human-­like images. The first of the two has a 25 mm tall, 15 mm wide, long, narrow face with a distinct chin, low forehead, and prominent eyes and mouth (Fig­ure 7.5k). The 5 mm long and 3 mm wide oval eyes are formed by the insertion of a round-­ended cylindrical dowel into the clay near the nose at an upward and outward diagonal. The dowel was then withdrawn to leave oval upward-­ and outward-­slanting holes with the deepest portions farthest from the nose. The nose is broken off and the surface beneath it eroded but two evenly spaced

Modes of Appendation • 139

pinpoint punctations, 5 mm below the eyes, are the remnants of nostrils. A 10 mm long, 5 mm wide, and 1 mm thick, oval, eroded patch of clay, 3 mm below the nostrils and at a slight upper right to lower left diagonal to them, marks the position of the mouth. A centrally positioned horizontal tool impression 7 mm long, 2 mm wide, and 2 mm deep depicts a mouth. A prominent, 15 mm wide and 5 mm tall, chin with a slight upper right to lower left tilt lies immediately below the mouth. The sec­ond fragmentary human-­like effigy consists of two circular, forward-­ looking eyes and an oval-­slit mouth rendered in a long oval pinched-­up clay protrusion on the upper exterior surface of a ceramic vessel (Fig­ure 7.5l). The 20 mm long, 12 mm wide, and 10 mm thick clay protrusion forms a head that has a low, 12 mm wide and 4 mm tall, forehead beneath which two evenly spaced, 3 mm in diameter and 3 mm deep, flat-­bottomed circular punctations form eyes. An 8 mm long, 2 mm wide, and 2 mm deep, horizontal oval slit, 3 mm below the eyes, forms a mouth. A rounded chin 4 mm below the mouth completes the composition. Composite Zoomorphic Forms (Two Examples)

By a composite I mean two juxtaposed images of human-­like or animal-­like form on opposing surfaces of a single adorno. The sample contained two of these, one nearly complete and one fragmentary. The more complete of the two depicts a frog draped over the back of the head and neck of a douroucouli (an owl or night monkey) or similar monkey-­like image (Fig­ure 7.5m). The monkey-­like face has a short (5 mm tall), broad (30 mm wide) forehead above large (7 mm in diameter) circular and widely spaced (6 mm from inside edge to inside edge) forward-­looking eyes. Each eye is set toward the inner edge of a 15 mm tall, 12 mm wide, and 2 mm deep, oval depression on either side of the nose. The eye balls are constructed on, 7 mm in diameter and 3 mm thick, domes of clay each with a 3 mm in diameter, 3 mm deep centrally located, and flat-­bottomed punctation for a pupil. Between the eyes the nose is 3 mm wide and 2 mm tall. Below the eyes the nose broadens and projects dramatically outward to produce a 9 mm wide, 9 mm tall snout with a pair of 2 mm in diameter, 3 mm deep, flat-­bottomed punctations, 2 mm above the tip of the nose for nostrils. A 10 mm long, 8 mm wide, and 5 mm thick, oval projection 2 mm beneath the nose has a centrally positioned oval hole (4 mm long, 3 mm wide, and 3 mm deep) for a mouth. The top and back of the head, as well as the back of the neck, is covered with a modeled image that in profile clearly resembles a frog with folded forelimbs. The 40 mm long, 30 mm wide, and 20 mm tall frog at one time had two, 4 mm tall, 5 mm wide, blobs of clay

140 • Chapter 7

set upright on either side of the piece 6 mm behind its curved forward edge. One of these has been broken off; the other carries a 1 mm in diameter, centrally positioned, flat-­bottomed punctation indicating an eye. A 14 mm long, 8 mm wide, and 5 mm thick, oval blob of clay has been affixed to either side of the piece 5 mm below each eye. A 10 mm long, 2 mm wide, and 2 mm deep incision, midway between the upper and lower edges of each affixed oval, divides it into segments that resemble folded forelimbs. The sec­ond composite effigy requires a minor stretch of the imagination to see. It appears to be two faces, one atop the other, displayed on and over a roughly triangular, 28 mm wide, 37 mm tall mass of clay whose base forms the adorno’s top and whose apex its bottom (Fig­ure 7.5n). The upper of the two putative faces is composed of two eyes, a nose, and an open mouth. The lower is nestled in the mouth of the upper and consists of two eyes beneath scars that indicate the remainder (presumably composed of an additional nose and mouth) is broken away. The upper image has a short, (8 mm tall) broad (28 mm wide), and flat-­topped forehead. Beneath the forehead are two forward-­looking eyes formed from oval blobs of clay 11 mm long, 8 mm wide, and 4 mm thick, each with a 7 mm long, 3 mm wide, and 3 mm deep, centrally located slit. A relatively flat, broad, 8 mm wide, 6 mm tall, and 2 mm thick upper nose lies between the eyes and directly above a 12 mm long, 4 mm wide, and 3 mm thick, oval blob of clay that forms the lower nose. The upper portion of an open mouth is formed from a 25 mm long, 3 mm wide, and 3 mm thick, affixed roll of clay that dips gently downward beneath the nose then rises to form a corner on each end. On the right side a 20 mm long, 3 mm wide, and 3 mm thick, affixed clay roll drops dramatically downward and inward from the corner to bound the right side of an image below. If the left side was similarly constructed the mouth surrounded the image within it. Unfortunately the portion below the left corner of the mouth has eroded away. If I assume that the mouth was origi­nally symmetrical, it was trapezoidal, with a 25 mm long base (i.e. the longest parallel side of the trapezoid) forming its upper edge and the 10 mm long shortest parallel side its lower edge. The mouth itself is separated from the lower nose by a 23  mm long, 1  mm wide, and 1  mm deep, tool-­ impressed groove. Immediately below the mouth’s upper lip are two forward-­ looking eyes with prominent ovaloid eyeballs formed from 7 mm in diameter affixed balls of clay each with a 2 mm in diameter, 2 mm deep, centrally located, circular, and flat-­bottomed punctation for a pupil. These eyes are separated by a 3 mm wide and 2 mm tall, pinched-­up ridge of clay that forms the upper nose beneath which the remainder of the nose and the lower face is broken away.

Modes of Appendation • 141

Fig­ure 7.6. Bat adornos: (a–f ) realistic bat effigy adornos. (From Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and Public Works. Redrawing by Sabrina Simõn, courtesy of Tennessee Valley Archaeological Research.)

Bat Representations (18 Examples)

The most elaborate bat effigy is trailed, modeled, and incised on the upper exterior surface of an oval-­mouthed vessel (Fig­ure 7.6b). It includes a triangu­lar modeled and incised face, flanked by folded hind limbs above trailed, incised, punctated, and gathered forelimbs. The 40  mm long base of the triangu­lar head forms a forehead with the basal angles being squared to represent tab-­ like ears each with two short, deep, parallel incisions. The top of the head is pinched upward midway between the ears into a topknot that carries curvilinear incisions. The apex of the triangle forms a chin 30 mm below. The eyes are formed from two oval blobs of clay each 10 mm long and 5 mm wide. Each eye is emphasized by a centrally located 7 mm long, deeply incised, horizontal slit. A gently curved incised line 2 mm above each eye serves to emphasize them. A small circular and centrally perforated disc of clay 8 mm in diameter is affixed to the nose distal end of each of these incised lines beneath each ear.

142 • Chapter 7

These discs represent the joints, and the two short parallel incisions on each ear above them represent the claws at the distal end of a folded hind limb. The remainder of the two folded hind limbs is indicated by downward-­ trending, 23 mm long, curved, trailed lines with punctations 2 mm below them. The punctation on one side of the piece is central to a roughly hemispherical projection carved from the vessel surface to represent a joint. This portion of the other side of the piece is broken away but the downward-­trending, curved, trailed line remains. On the unbroken side a straight, trailed line 3 mm below the curved downward-­trending, trailed line and a series of six trailed indentations 3 mm above it form the upper and lower boundary of the folded hind leg. A straight, trailed line and a series of six trailed indentations also mark the boundary of the folded hind leg on the broken side. On both sides the lower boundary of the folded hind leg forms the upper boundary of a wing. A pinched-­up ridge of clay 15 mm long forms a nose that is narrow (2 mm wide) between the eyes but splayed outward and upward from eye proximal to a snout-­like eye distal end. The eye distal end of the nose and the upper surface of the mouth below it is broken away. Nevertheless, the bottom of an incision indicates that a short, deeply incised, horizontal slit, 2 mm above the chin, represented a mouth. Immediately below the chin, on either side of the face, the rectilinear, trailed lines that form the lower boundary of folded hind limbs outline bat wings. Within these bat wings curved, trailed lines indicate forelimbs with punctations serving as joints. In overall effect the composition is a realistic representation of a bat with folded wings and tucked forelimbs clinging upright by folded hind limbs to the exterior of a pottery vessel. The most life-­like bat representation has an ovaloid head, 35 mm long and 40 mm wide, with a full face that narrows gently to a wide and full yet pointed chin (Fig­ure 7.6a). Bilobed ears, 20 mm wide, each with four parallel, trailed lines, project upward and outward for 15  mm from the forehead. The top of the head curves gently upward, between the ears, to a small pinched-­up topknot. A deeply incised, 17  mm long, horizontal line lies below the top­ knot. This line bounds the base of a roughly triangular protruding forehead below the apex of which the protrusion slopes gently downward and inward for 5 mm between the eyes, where it is 3 mm wide, then outward and upward for 10 mm to form a 9 mm wide pug nose. The relatively wide-­set eyes (20 mm from pupil to pupil) on either side of the upper nose are circular giving the face a startled look. A circular ridge of clay, 10 mm in diameter from outside edge to outside edge and 3 mm thick, outlines each of the circular eye orbits. A pinched-­up nipple of clay, 5 mm in diameter, forms each eyeball and a centrally placed circular punctation, 2 mm in diameter, each pupil. A deeply incised groove 1 mm below the pug nose forms a mouth that curves gently up-

Modes of Appendation • 143

ward from its midpoint to each corner. A receding chin curves downward and inward for 10 mm to a relatively broad (25 mm wide) neck, whose downward slope joins the image to the lip of an oval-­mouthed vessel. Each of the three bat head effigies is pentagonal in outline. The largest (45 mm long and 45 mm wide) of the three faces inward from a vessel lip (Fig­ure 7.6c). Two ridges of clay, each 10 mm tall and 2 mm thick, originate at the back of the head, near a small, indistinct topknot and sweep downward and outward over the upper outer surface of the vessel exterior. In both position and configuration these ridges resemble bat wing attachments. The 35 mm wide and 25 mm long neck is flanked on either side by 15 mm long, 7  mm wide, pinched-­up, oval clay nipples each with a deep linear incision along its long axis representing claws or hooks. The face of the image is trape­ zoidal with one angle of the trapezoid forming a forehead that is flanked on either side by 20 mm long, 8 mm wide, tab-­like, rectangular ears. The ears, extended ovaloid cheeks, and round chin give the piece a pentagonal outline. Each ear is separated from the forehead by a gently curved (2 mm wide and 14 mm long) incision. A small mound of pinched-­up and smoothed-­over clay, 10 mm in diameter, forms the forehead proper. Immediately below is a narrow (4 mm wide) ridge of clay that forms the upper nose. The eye orbits are tangent to the upper nose. They are indicated by 1 mm wide, incised circles each 12 mm in diameter. Centrally located, deep, horizontal incisions, 1 mm wide and 6 mm long, form the eye pupils. The outer edge of each eye orbit is flanked by a 20 mm long, 9 mm wide, teardrop-­shaped projection with a centrally located round punctation. Below the eye orbits the nose is splayed gently upward and dramatically outward to form a pug nose with two deep, circular punctations for nostrils in a central ridge of clay representing the septum. A horizontal slit (2 mm wide and 9 mm long) below the nose represents the mouth. A protruding (10 mm by 5 mm) bulbous chin originating 2 mm below the mouth completes the facial composition. The sec­ond of the pentagonal effigy heads has an inward-­looking, triangular face, 20 mm tall and 25 mm wide, with the 25 mm wide base of the triangle forming the forehead and the basal angles forming ears (Fig­ure 7.6d). Two cheek-­like, semicircular projections and a nearly pointed chin form the roughly pentagonal outline to the piece. The angular ears project inward and each has a narrow (10 mm long, 5 mm wide) D-­shaped trough along its outer edge. A 10 mm long, 5 mm tall, oval topknot, between but slightly behind the ears, is masked from the front by the ears themselves. The eyeballs are formed of 5 mm thick, circular lumps of clay, 5 mm in diameter. They are positioned inward and forward of the ears. Centrally located, 1 mm in diameter, circular punctations in each eyeball indicate the pupils. The eyeballs sit above, and

144 • Chapter 7

on either side of, a loaf-­shaped protuberance, 5 mm wide and 10 mm long, that forms a projecting nose. Two circular punctations in the anterior end of the nose indicate nostrils. Two cheek-­like semicircular projections, one on either edge of the face at nose level, carry centrally located circular punctations. A slight ridge 2 mm below the nose forms a receding chin. To judge by the attachment scar along its base the third pentagonal bat head effigy also sat upon and looked inward from the vessel’s lip (Fig­ure 7.6e). Two adjacent, roughly triangular ears along the top of the piece, two triangular projections at eye level, each with a centrally positioned circular punctation, and an indistinct but near pointed chin give the image a pentagonal outline. The face is triangular with the 25 mm base of the triangle forming the forehead and the 19 mm apex below it forming the chin. It is modeled from a 10 mm thick, roughly triangular blob of clay pressed on and over an upward extension of the lip. Widely spaced, oval eye sockets, 10 mm long and 6 mm wide, are indented in the blob of clay that forms the face, before the eyeballs made of oval fragments of clay were affixed within them. Pupils are indicated by centrally located, incised, horizontal lines, 5 mm long and 1 mm wide. The mouth is similarly formed with a horizontal oval indentation, 15 mm long and 6 mm wide, immediately below the eye sockets and an oval clay mass affixed within the indentation. The mouth is indicated by a centrally positioned, horizontal incision 11 mm long and 1 mm wide. Two bat effigies have elongate, trianguloid faces with the base of the triangle forming the top of the head, its vertex the chin. One of them lacks ears but has a forehead and nose sculpted from a 64 mm long, 33 mm wide, and 22 mm thick, finger-­like column of clay affixed vertically to a vessel lip (Fig­ure 7.6f ). The forehead and nose form a T-­shaped protuberance near the lip distal end of the clay column. Eyes are indicated by 8 mm long, slit-­like tool impressions that slope upward and outward from either side of the nose beginning at its midpoint and ending 2 mm below the forehead. A deep, horizontal tool impression, 5 mm long, and 2 mm below the nose, forms the mouth of a face that looks inward, slightly downward, and over the vessel it decorates. The sec­ond, shorter but triangular, face, 35 mm wide from ear-­tip to ear-­ tip and 30 mm long from forehead to chin, looks outward from the vessel that bares it (Fig­ure 7.7a). The basal angles and roughly one-­third of each side of the upper head indicate ears. The forehead and nose are formed from an affixed and sculpted clay mass, 30 mm wide, 20 mm long, and 20 mm thick, that slopes gently outward from forehead to nose tip then dramatically inward to mouth. Eyes are indicated by 6 mm long, slit-­like tool impressions that slope upward and outward from the midpoint of the nose toward the base of each ear. A deep, linear tool impression, 7 mm long, forms the mouth, which lies

Modes of Appendation • 145

Fig­ure 7.7. Bat and bat-­like adornos: (a, b, and c) bat effigy adornos; (d) crude bat effigy adorno. (From Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and Public Works. Redrawing by Sabrina Simõn, courtesy of Tennessee Valley Archaeological Research.)

midway between nose tip and a receding chin 6 mm below. Portions of the forehead and chin are missing. The dorsal side of each ear is marked with three 7 to 9 mm long, parallel, linear tool impressions. The dorsal side of the neck carries a gently in-­curved then out-­curved (hourglass-­shaped) ridge of clay, flanked on either side by shallow, gently curved troughs that run from the back of the head to the base of the neck. These depict bat wing attachments. One oval-­faced bat effigy rests on the vessel lip and looks inward over the vessel to which it is attached (Fig­ure 7.7b). Two 7 mm wide, 5 mm tall ridges of clay that join at the back of the head sweep outward and downward from this junction along the back of the 40 mm tall and 30 mm wide neck to form wing attachments. Two oval, loaf-­shaped masses of clay, 20 mm long and 7 mm wide, affixed to either side of the forehead, each with two parallel, 15 mm long and 1 mm wide, vertical tool impressions, illustrate folded wings held against

146 • Chapter 7

the sides of the head. The 25 mm wide and 8 mm tall forehead be­tween them slopes gently outward and downward, narrowing to the upper nose, then projects sharply outward for 5 mm and widens to form a short, flat, 10 mm wide, upturned lower nose. Two roughly circular, 10 mm in diameter, sculpted depressions, one on either side of the upper nose, form forward-­looking eye orbits. A single centrally located, 5 mm long and 2 mm wide, oval tool impression in each orbit indicates pupils. Two small, 2 mm in diameter, closely set, circular punctations in the upturned lower nose, one of which has eroded, illustrate nostrils. An oval open mouth, 10 mm long and 7 mm wide, formed from two slender straps of clay joined at one end but open at the other, lie just below the pug nose. The oval face (30 mm long and 25 mm wide) has an 8 mm long, 30 mm wide, receding chin. The final roughly triangular (50  mm wide, 40  mm long) bat-­face effigy looks over and inward from the lip of an oval-­mouthed pot (Fig­ure 7.7c). Two centrally grooved, 70 mm long, 10 mm wide, and 7 mm tall, parallel ridges of clay affixed to the back of the neck are separated by an elongate oval depression 50 mm long and 15 mm wide. The upper ends of both ridges are concave. One ridge projects above the back of the head, the other terminates just below it. These ridges depict folded bat wings held against the back of the head, one higher than the other. Two raised ovals of clay, each 18 mm long and 15 mm wide, flank either side of the chin. One of them is complete and marked with 3 parallel tool impressions, each 7 mm long and 2 mm wide. The other is broken and marked with a single tool impression. The position of these clay masses and their division into four toe-­like sections represent feet. The face itself has a broad forehead, 45 mm wide and 10 mm long, separated from the top of the head by a 25 mm long, 1 mm wide, curved, horizontal tool impression. The forehead slopes outward and downward over two indistinct but circular, 18 mm in diameter, depressions forming eye sockets. The forehead narrows between the eye sockets to form an outward projecting nose. The eyeballs are formed from 10 mm long, 8 mm wide, and 3 mm thick, oval blobs of clay affixed to the eye sockets. Pupils are indicated by centrally positioned, teardrop-­ shaped tool impressions, 6 mm long and 4 mm wide, in each eyeball. An oval blob of clay, 18 mm long, 12 mm wide, and 5 mm thick, with a centrally located oval depression (10 mm long, 5 mm wide, and 3 mm deep), affixed to the side of the head at eye level, forms an ear. A flange-­like projection, 15 mm long and 5 mm wide, marks the position of an ear on the opposite side of the head. Below eye level the nose broadens and flares outward. Viewed from the front the lower nose is triangular, measuring 10 mm from apex to base and 15 mm wide at the base. In side view the tip of the nose projects for 8 mm out from and over the mouth and chin. A horizontal, tool-­impressed line, 16 mm long

Modes of Appendation • 147

and 2 mm wide, positioned 4 mm below the tip of the nose, forms a mouth. A 20 mm wide, 4 mm long receding chin, a portion of which is broken off, lies below the mouth. A crude, generally oval head, 31 mm wide by 21 mm tall, with the long axis of the oval parallel to but above the vessel lip, may be a bat effigy (Fig­ure 7.7d). The face of this piece is divided in half by a projecting, 3 mm high, upper left to lower right curving, 15 mm long, nose that in front view is triangular with the apex of the triangle at the forehead, and the 19 mm wide base forms the nose tip. Two 4 mm in diameter, flat-­bottomed, circular punctations, one on either side of the nose, represent forward-­looking eyes. The right eye is flanked by an oval, ear-­like projection, 10 mm long, 20 mm wide, and 8 mm thick, that along its edge bares two tool incisions, one above and at a near 90-­degree angle to the other. The left ear is implied, rather than illustrated, by a widening of the face. A horizontal tool impression, 10 mm long and 3 mm wide, immediately below the tip of the nose indicates a mouth. An indistinct and gently back-­sloping chin lies 3 mm below the mouth. Two ridges of clay, 40 mm long, 4 mm wide, and 5 mm tall, join at the back of the head immediately below the left ear then sweep outward and downward to form a wing fold. A small, 20 mm by 20 mm, neckless bat head effigy rests with its chin directly on the outer edge of a vessel lip. It is pentagonal in outline (Fig­ure 7.8a). The head’s pentagonal appearance is the consequence of a prominent topknot, two projecting circular ears, and the basal angles that join the chin to the lip exterior. The prominent topknot is 15 mm wide and 9 mm tall. It is separated from the forehead by a gently undulating but deeply incised 1 mm wide line. A 1 mm wide, 10 mm in diameter incised circle, surrounding a 2 mm in diameter, circular punctation marks the topknot’s upper surface. Eye sockets, composed of 6 mm wide, 5 mm tall, oval indentations on either side of the narrow upper nose are nearly filled with 5 mm wide, 4 mm tall, and 2 mm thick oval blobs of clay that form eyeballs. A centrally positioned, 2 mm in diameter, circular punctation in each eyeball indicate pupils. A nearly circular, 5 mm in diameter, projection that bore a 2 mm in diameter, circular punctation had flanked each eye, but the left projection was broken off. The lower nose is formed from a 6 mm long, 4 mm in diameter cylinder of clay attached at a right angle to the face. Two side-­by-­side, 2 mm in diameter, circular punctations in the projecting end of the nose form nostrils. Two images, both of which looked outward from the upper exterior surface of a pottery vessel, are included in the bat head category because they have a roll of clay, 5 mm in diameter, that runs over the head and down either side of the face. On both sides below the face they spread downward and outward, then curve upward and outward again (Fig­ure 7.8b and c). These rolls repre-

148 • Chapter 7

Fig­ure 7.8. Bat and humanoid adornos: (a) pentagonal bat effigy; (b, c, and e) pseudo bat effigies; (d) realistic bat effigy. (From Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and Public Works. Redrawing by Sabrina Simõn, courtesy of Tennessee Valley Archaeological Research.)

sent the forward edge of bat wings. In similar bat representations from sites in the Cerrillos Valley, the outward and upward curving roll of clay terminates in oval clay masses affixed to the upper and outer surface of the rim. The uppermost portion of each clay mass is smoothed into and becomes a high point on the lip giving it a scalloped, bat wing appearance. Then too, the oval portion of each forelimb has a single centrally located and linear incision representing a claw-­like bat thumb (Krause 1989). Unfortunately, the Paso del Indio specimens are too fragmentary to determine if the uppermost portions of the clay rolls and the lip were treated in a similar manner. The most complete of the two Paso del Indio images has a roughly triangular face, 17 mm wide at the forehead and 15 mm long from forehead to chin, with a short (6 mm long), broad (5 mm wide), upturned (3 mm tall) nose (see Fig­ure 7.8b). On either side of the upper nose, and 3 mm from it, are oval (5 mm long, 2 mm wide, and 2 mm deep) forward-­looking eyes, each of which slants markedly downward from upper left to lower right. An oval, 5 mm long, 3 mm wide, and 3 mm deep, horizontal slit-­like mouth lies immediately below the nose and

Modes of Appendation • 149

3 mm above a dramatically back-­sloping chin. The 20 mm wide and 20 mm long remnant of a face on the less complete image is badly eroded, giving it a ghost-­like appearance (see Fig­ure 7.8c). Judging from the portions that remain, it has a broader (15 mm wide and 5 mm tall), rounder chin, a broader, (4 mm wide), longer (8 mm long), and more oval mouth, and broader (5 mm wide) oval eyes that slope gently downward from upper right to lower left. Three additional effigy heads vaguely resemble bats. In front view one of the three has a projecting triangular face, 25 mm wide and 30 mm long, and 15 mm thick, with the base of the triangle at the forehead and the apex at a nearly pointed chin (Fig­ure 7.8d). This part of the image is set apart by a 2 mm wide, 2 mm deep grooved line that runs across the forehead, down each side of the face, and under the chin. The lower left portion of the face is broken away beneath the nose. Two forward-­looking eyes, one on either side of a short, 6 mm long, 6 mm wide, 3 mm high, pug nose, are formed from affixed, 10 mm in diameter, 3 mm thick, blobs of clay with 3 mm in diameter and 3 mm deep, centrally located, flat-­bottomed punctations. Ears are indicated by a 30 mm wide, 10 mm tall, back-­sloping projection of the forehead that is divided into two peaks by a centrally located, 15 mm long, 3 mm wide, and 3 mm deep, excised trough. The right peak carries two parallel diagonal tool impressions, the lowermost 7 mm long, 2 mm wide, and 2 mm deep, the uppermost 11 mm long, 2 mm wide, and 2 mm deep that slope from upper right to lower left. The left peak is marked with a single tool-­impressed line, 10 mm long, 2 mm wide, and 2 mm deep, that slopes from upper left to lower right. In front view a sec­ond bat-­like image has a 24  mm wide, 22  mm long, short, oval face that looks out from beneath two feet affixed to the upper head (not illustrated). Each foot is formed from an oval clay mass (11 mm long, 10 mm wide, and 4 mm thick) that thins to a 5 mm in radius, 10 mm long, semicylindrical arm or leg that runs down either side of the back of the head. Two scooped-­out, 10 mm in diameter, 2 mm deep, circular eye sockets (4 mm below the forward edge of each foot) are nearly filled with 8 mm in diameter, 4 mm thick circular blobs of clay indicating eyeballs. Each eyeball has a 2 mm in diameter, 2 mm deep, flat-­bottomed, centrally located punctation for a pupil. A circular, flat-­bottomed punctation (3 mm in diameter and 3 mm deep) in line with the space between but 2 mm below the eye orbits depicts a nose. A horizontal, 10 mm long, 2 mm wide, and 2 mm deep incision that is 3 mm below the nose forms a mouth. A 15 mm wide, 4 mm tall, rounded chin completes the composition. To judge by the configuration of the scarred portion that remains, the third pseudo-­bat image looked inward over the lip of an oval-­mouthed vessel (Fig­ ure 7.8e). Only the ears and eyes are intact, the rest of the image is broken

150 • Chapter 7

Fig­ure 7.9. Animal head adornos: (a and b) pseudo–bat effigies; (c, d, and f ) manatee effigies, (e and h); turtle effigies; (g) toad or frog effigy; (i) bird head effigy. (From Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and Public Works. Redrawing by Sabrina Simõn, courtesy of Tennessee Valley Archaeological Research.)

away. Two tab-­like projections, each 5 mm long and 5 mm wide, resemble ears. An oval eye, formed from an affixed blob of clay (8 mm long, 6 mm wide, and 3 mm thick) with a centrally located, deep, slit-­like incision (5 mm long, 3 mm wide, and 3 mm) lies at the base of each ear. The fourth pseudo-­bat image has been modeled, sculpted, and tool impressed at the base of a faux handle (Fig­ure 7.9a). In front view the facial portion of this piece has a broad, squat (35 mm wide, 25 mm tall) appearance with a reasonably prominent 30 mm wide, 10 mm tall forehead and broad but slim (30 mm wide, 1 mm tall) and flat chin. The widely spaced, 7 mm from inner edge to inner edge, eyes lie immediately below the forehead. The right eye has an excised, 6 mm long, 5 mm wide, and 3 mm deep, oval slit that slants from upper left to lower right. The left eye has an excised 10 mm long, 3 mm wide,

Modes of Appendation • 151

and 3 mm deep slit that slants downward from upper right to lower left. The 2 mm tall pinched up portion of the nose between the eyes is 2 mm wide and 7 mm long. Below the eyes, the lower nose turns upward and outward into a 4 mm long, 5 mm wide, and 3 mm thick, bulbous projection that gives it a pug-­like appearance. A horizontal, 25 mm long, 2 to 3 mm wide, and 3 mm deep, excised slit 2 mm below the tip of the nose forms a wide mouth that parallels the broad chin 1 mm below. I included a fifth piece with the bat effigies because it has two folded wings, hook or claw-­like portions above the head, and two ribs that run along and down the back of the head and neck (Fig­ure 7.9b). The 25 mm long, 20 mm wide, modeled and sculpted oval face has two 5 mm long, 2 mm wide, horizontal incisions that form forward-­looking slit-­like eyes. These are enclosed within a 1 mm wide and 1 mm deep, continuous incised line that curves over the eyes then at eye-­level drops downward and inward to curve then recurve, forming a lobe beneath each eye. A short, 4 mm long, 3 mm wide, and indistinct pinched-­up nose lies between and beneath the eyes. The nose is separated from the mouth by a 21 mm long, 1 mm wide, and 1 mm deep, down-­ curved, incised line. The mouth is constructed of a 7 mm tall, 12 mm wide, and 4 mm thick oval blob of clay with an 8 mm long, 1 mm wide, and 1 mm deep, centrally located slit. A 10 mm wide, 10 mm long, down-­sloping extension of the neck lies immediately below the mouth. Fifteen mm long, 14 mm wide, and 3 mm thick tab-­like ears, each bearing a pair of 10 mm long, 1 mm wide, and 1 mm deep, parallel, tool-­impressed lines, project from either side of the face at eye level. A short (4 mm tall, 21 mm wide) forehead is separated by a 20 mm long, 1 mm wide, and 1 mm deep, curved, incised line from the two 10 mm long, 10 mm wide, and 5 mm thick, tab-­like projections atop the head. Each tab-­like projection carries pairs of parallel, vertical, tool-­impressed lines (8 mm long, 2 mm wide and 2 mm deep) that represent the claw-­like portions of a bat wing. A 40 mm long and 5 mm in diameter roll of clay affixed to the back side, and outer edge, of each of these tab-­like projections runs down the edge and back side of the neck. These, together with the funnel-­shaped trough (20 mm wide at the top, 10 mm wide at the bottom, and 5 mm deep) that runs between them down the back of the neck, resemble other representations of bat wings. To judge by the affixation scars at the base of the piece, the image looked inward and over the lip of an oval-­mouthed vessel. Manatee Effigies (Three Examples)

Two effigies that resemble manatee heads look inward over vessel lips (Fig­ure 7.9c and d). In front view, the most realistic of the two has a roughly diamond shaped head 30 mm wide and 20 mm tall (see Fig­ure 7.9c). Two 6 mm in di-

152 • Chapter 7

ameter balls of clay—one affixed to either side of the forehead proximal end of a 17 mm long, 10 mm wide, 8 mm thick, downward-­sloping, loaf-­shaped nose—form eyeballs. Each eyeball has a 3 mm in diameter, 3 mm deep, centrally located punctation for a pupil. The tip of the nose is marked with a pair of 2 mm wide, 2 mm deep punctations for nostrils. The face is set off from the remainder of the image by a diamond-­shaped and deeply grooved line. Two modeled, tool-­impressed, and sculpted, flipper-­like appendages, one on either side of the face and abutted at the midpoint of the back of the head, complete the composition. In front view, the sec­ond manatee-­like adorno is less angular (Fig­ure 7.9d). It is diamond shaped in outline. The 33 mm long, 28 mm wide face is set apart from the rest of the composition by a deeply grooved line. Unlike its counterpart this piece has a protuberant forehead 15 mm wide, 10 mm tall, and 9 mm thick. Two prominent forward-­looking eyes lie immediately below this protuberance, one on either side of the narrow portion of an expanding, bulbous nose. The eyeballs are formed from balls of clay 7 mm in diameter, which are affixed to 14 mm in diameter, 2 mm deep circular depressions each emphasized by a 1 mm wide, 1 mm deep, encircling groove. The pupils are depicted by circular 2 mm in diameter punctations in the center of each eyeball. Between the eyes the ridge of the upper nose is only 3 mm tall and 4 mm wide, but below the eyes it expands dramatically into a 10 mm long, 10 mm thick, and 13 mm wide, bulbous projection with a pair of evenly spaced, 2 mm in diameter and 2 mm deep, punctations for nostrils. A third manatee effigy is fragmentary consisting of only the nose and mouth of the larger hollow image from which it was broken (Fig­ure 7.9f ). Like the hollow human image, this fragment was recovered from stratum 18. I will describe it as manatee-­like because of a 20 mm long, 18 mm wide, and 15 mm tall, projecting, bulbous nose with two 4 mm in diameter, 4 mm deep punctations forming prominent nostrils. The nose projects 15 mm upward and over a 25 mm long, thin (less than 1 mm wide) mouth that in turn lies 6 mm above a pronounced, 35 mm wide and 7 mm tall, dramatically back-­sloping chin. Turtle Effigies (Two Examples)

Two effigy lugs represent turtles. Both face outward; the smaller of the two from the vessel’s lip (Fig­ure 7.9e), the larger from the exterior of the upper body (Fig­ure 7.9h). The larger of the two has a 15 mm long and 20 mm wide head that extends from a 20 mm long and 25 mm wide neck (Fig­ure 7.9h). A pinched-­up ridge of clay 10 mm long, 5 mm wide, and 4 mm tall forms a nose that projects from the tip of the head. Two deep (5 mm long, 2 mm wide) incisions, one on either side of the nose, depict slit-­like eyes. A 20 mm

Modes of Appendation • 153

long, 2 mm wide tool impression, that runs around the end of the piece from eye slit to eye slit, 4 mm below the nose, indicates a mouth. The neck projects from an oval (45 mm long, 25 mm wide, and 4 mm thick) pad of clay affixed to the upper vessel wall exterior. In front view, the composition distinctly resembles a turtle with its neck projecting from its shell. The smaller image is only vaguely turtle-­like (see Fig­ure 7.9e). In front view the piece does not resemble a turtle at all. The head is triangular, 15 mm tall and 20 mm wide, with the apex at the top of the head and the base at the chin. Two roughly circular, 8 mm in diameter and 2 mm thick, blobs of clay resemble eyeballs that are set into circular depressions, 10  mm in diameter and 3 mm deep, that represent eye sockets. Circular, 3 mm in diameter, flat-­ bottomed punctations in the center of each eyeball form pupils. These flank either side of a narrow (6 mm long, 3 mm wide, and 3 mm tall) ridge-­like nose with a single 3 mm in diameter circular punctation in its anterior end. A 6 mm by 2 mm horizontal tool impression below and on either side of this punctation resembles a mouth. In side view the piece looks like a turtle because the head is attached to a narrow, 18 mm long and 10 mm in diameter, outward projecting neck. Toad or Frog Effigy (One Example)

This rather enigmatic piece resembles a domestic rabbit with floppy ears folded over its back (Fig­ure 7.9g). It is probably a crested toad. Since the latter seems far more likely than the former, I have tentatively identified it as an amphibian. In front view the image has a 25 mm wide, 20 mm long, roughly triangular face with a broad forehead, and a 10 mm wide, 5 mm tall, rounded chin. A deep oval excised mouth (7 mm wide, 4 mm tall, and 4 mm long) lies immediately below a 5 mm long, 5 mm wide, and 4 mm tall, rounded snub nose. On either side of the snub nose are large, 9 mm in diameter, circular but not forward-­looking eyes with prominent—5 mm wide, 3 mm tall, and 10 mm long—arched crests above them. Viewed from behind, the piece has two large, 30 mm long and 20 mm wide, lobes that splay outward from the upper neck. These lobes run down and over the neck and the back of the piece. Bird Head Effigy (One Example)

A realistic bird head image has a solid clay, roughly spherical, head that is 10 mm in diameter (Fig­ure 7.9i). A rectangular (4 mm tall, 10 mm long, and 7 mm thick) strap of clay was added to the top of the sphere to form a crest that runs the length of the head. This crest has been divided into three 4 mm wide, 3 mm tall, evenly spaced lobes by two 3 mm deep, 2 mm wide incisions. A small, 7 mm in diameter, spherical ball of clay affixed to the left side of the

154 • Chapter 7

head below the crest, but slightly forward of its center, forms an eyeball. The right side of the head is severely eroded but a 2 mm deep, 10 mm in diameter scar marks the former position of an eyeball here. The left eyeball carries a 5 mm long, 2 mm wide, and 2 mm deep central incision that slopes downward from front to back indicating a pupil. A down-­curved 10 mm long projection from the forward base of the crest narrows from a width of 10 mm at its upper edge to a width of 2 mm near its downward edge to form a hooked tip. This projection forms a hook-­ended, downward-­and inward-­curved beak, whose lower edge is separated from the remainder of the image by a 14 mm long, 1 mm wide, trailed line. Sea Horse Effigy? (One Example)

A 55 mm tall, 40 mm wide, and 23 mm thick effigy resembles a sea horse (Fig­ ure 7.10a). The piece has a broad (25 mm wide, 22 mm thick, and 55 mm long) gracefully curved neck and a horizontally projecting (15 mm long, 12 mm tall, and 13 mm wide) horse-­like muzzle. Two oval punctations (4 mm long, 2 mm wide, and 2 mm deep), one on either side of the nose, form prominent nostrils. A deeply incised (14 mm long, 1 mm wide, and 3 mm deep) slit that runs from one end of the muzzle to the other depicts a mouth. The portion of the face above the nose is broken away leaving only an oval scar that is 20 mm wide, 15 mm tall, and 2 mm deep and a pair of pinpoint holes that mark the termini of two circular punctations that indicate eyes. A 54 mm long and 2 mm tall ridge of clay that runs along the dorsal surface of the neck gently widens from 5 mm at the lower to 10 mm at the upper neck. This clay ridge is divided into three 3 mm wide and 4 mm tall lobes by two 5 mm deep cross incisions, one of them 2 mm, the other 3 mm wide. These incisions lie near the junction of the head with the scar that marks the former position of the upper face. Zoomorphic Rim and Lug Effigies (5 Examples)

One zoomorphic rim adorno (20 mm long and 25 mm wide) has a flat oval face with two closely set forward-­facing eye orbits, 10 mm in diameter and 2 mm deep, each with a centrally located, 5 mm in diameter and 2 mm thick, affixed nipple of clay for eyeballs (Fig­ure 7.10b). Each eyeball has a 2 mm in diameter, 2 mm deep flat-­bottomed central perforation for a pupil. The piece lacks either a sculpted or affixed nose, but a mouth is suggested by an 11 mm long, 2 mm wide, and 2 mm deep horizontal tool impression 1 mm below the eye orbits. The face of the image peers outward from a broad, 10 mm wide and 10 mm long, back-­sloping neck affixed to the vessel lip. A 6 mm wide, 20 mm long, and 3 mm thick, amphibian-­like-­arm curves backward and downward from the right side of the head but is separated from it by a 13  mm long, 2 mm wide, and 2 mm deep, crescent-­shaped incision. A 9 mm long, 5 mm

Modes of Appendation • 155

Fig­ure 7.10. Animal and animal-­like adornos: (a) sea horse ­effigy; (b–f ) zoomorphic effigies. (From Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and Public Works. Redrawing by ­Sabrina Simõn, courtesy of Tennessee Valley Archaeological Research.)

wide, and 2 mm thick oval lump of clay 1 mm beyond the upper portion of this incision may depict a tympanic membrane. The outer surface of a 30 mm tall, 20 mm wide, and 15 to 20 mm thick, thumb-­shaped tab-­lug that stood upright on the vessel lip has been modified to resemble a face (Fig­ure 7.10c). This piece is perforated with a 5 mm in diameter hole, 4 mm below its uppermost edge. Two oval (10 mm long, 8 mm wide, and 3 mm), thick pods of clay on either side of this perforation are each marked with a centrally located, 5 mm in diameter, 3 mm deep, flat-­bottomed punctation. A 6 mm long, 5 mm wide ridge of clay forms a nose that is broader at the forehead and narrower at the tip. The eyeballs affixed to either side of the nose are formed from 8 mm in diameter, 4 mm thick clay discs, each of which carries a centrally located, 4 mm in diameter, 3 mm deep, flat-­bottomed punctation for a pupil. A 5 mm long, 2 mm wide, and 2 mm deep, incised, horizontal slit at the maximum projection of the face, and 4 mm below the tip of the nose, indicates a mouth. A 10 mm wide, 4 mm long, back-­sloping chin, which is 4 mm below the mouth, completes the image. The 40  mm long, 30  mm wide, and 25 to 30  mm thick, oval image on

156 • Chapter 7

the next piece is difficult to describe (Fig­ure 7.10d). The face has a prominent and projecting forehead 30 mm wide, 10 mm tall, and 25 mm thick. A scooped-­out area that is 20 mm wide, 15 mm tall, and 4 mm deep and immediately below the forehead holds two circular, forward-­looking eyes. Each eye is formed from a 9 mm in diameter, 4 mm thick blob of clay that carries a centrally positioned, 3 mm in diameter, 3 mm deep, flat-­bottomed punctation. A ridge of clay, 3 mm wide and 2 mm tall, that broadens from the forehead to a 10 mm wide, 20 mm long, and 10 mm tall, bulbous nose separates the eyes. A pair of 20 mm long, 2 mm wide, and 2 mm deep, parallel, vertical slits just below the maximum projection of the nose represent nostrils. A 25 mm long, 3 mm wide, and 2 mm deep, crescent-­shaped excision immediately below the nose marks a mouth. A 10 mm in diameter, 6 mm thick, dome-­shaped clay mass is affixed to the right side of the face just below eye level. This clay dome depicts a joint that separates a lower arm from a paw formed from a 20 mm long, 15 mm wide, and 8 mm thick, tab-­like extension of the upper right forehead but separated from it by a 15 mm long, 1 mm wide, and 1  mm deep, tool-­impressed line. The 15  mm long, 13  mm wide, roughly oval segment of clay above this line derives its paw-­like appearance from two, 10 mm long, 3 mm wide, and 3 mm deep, parallel excisions that divide it into three lobes. The upper surface of an oval (35 mm long, 40 mm wide, and 10 mm thick) tab-­lug is modeled and sculpted into a long narrow face, flanked on either side by hands, one with four, the other with six fingers (Fig­ure 7.10e). The hands are formed from 20 mm wide, 10 mm long, and 5 mm thick, fan-­like slabs of clay that are divided into lobes at their face proximal edge by 5 mm deep and 3 mm broad incisions, three on the right side and five on the left. The mouth lies between the lower ends of these presumed hands. It is formed from a 12 mm long, 7 mm wide, and 4 mm thick, oval clay mass with a centrally located, 9 mm long, 2 mm wide, and 3 mm deep, horizontal incision. Although the space between lacks a nose, two closely spaced circular, forward-­looking eyes are positioned 11 mm above the mouth and between the upper ends of the hands. The eyes are formed from 1 mm in diameter, 5 mm thick domes of clay, each with a centrally positioned, 3 mm in diameter, punctated, flat-­ bottomed pupil. A pair of parallel, horizontal slits above the eyes, each 10 mm long, 2 mm wide, and 2 mm deep, delineates the forehead. The outer surface of yet another 35 mm long, 25 mm wide, and 16 mm thick, oval tab-­lug has been modeled and sculpted to resemble an animal-­like face (Fig­ure 7.10f ). This image has a 20 mm wide and 7 mm tall, prominent, back-­sloping forehead. Below the forehead are two, 8 mm wide, 9 mm long, and 3 mm deep, roughly triangular scooped-­out zones with the apex of each triangle nearest and slanting inward toward the forehead and the base far-

Modes of Appendation • 157

Fig­ure 7.11. Tail, limb, and fin adornos: (a) effigy tails; (b and c) amphibian foot; (d) amphibian joint; (e) amphibian folded limb; (f ) amphibian flipper. (From Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and Public Works. Redrawing by Sabrina Simõn, courtesy of Tennessee Valley Archaeological Research.)

thest away and slanting outward and away from the forehead. Each of these scooped-­out zones has a 5 mm in diameter and 2 mm thick, centrally located, oval clay nipple with an indistinct but centrally positioned, circular punctation. The area between the scooped-­out eye zones and the area below them slopes gently outward and downward to form a snout with a single centrally positioned, 1 mm in diameter punctation that indicates a nose.

Filleted Decorative Elements The filleted decorative elements are, for the most part, broken from bas-­relief representations of animal parts. They include tails, folded amphibian limbs (Fig­ure 7.11e), folded bat wings, amphibian joints (Fig­ure 7.11d), amphibian fins or flippers (Fig­ure 7.11c and f ), and representations of amphibians with splayed three-­toed feet (Fig­ure 7.11b). Tails are indicated by an affixed roll of clay on the upper surface of the lip that is bent upward and outward then

158 • Chapter 7

Fig­ure 7.12. Frequency of adorno kind: series 1=adorno frequency, 1=monkey; 2=human and anthropomorphic; 3=zoomorphic; 4=bat; 5=manatee; 6=turtle; 7=toad; 8=bird; 9=sea horse.

downward to weld its inner surface to the outer surface of the upper vessel wall (Fig­ure 7.11a). Folded amphibian limbs were created by bending a clay coil into an equal armed -­shape then appending it to the exterior surface of the upper body tangent to the vessel lip or by dangling an unequal armed  at a 30-­degree angle to the lip (see Fig­ure 7.11e). Lip pendant paired coils of clay affixed to upper and outer vessel surfaces sweep outward and downward to end in trumpet-­like knobs with two or three parallel incisions in their trumpet-­like surface. They strongly resemble folded bat wings (not illustrated). Solid clay cylinders (with or without centrally located, circular punctations or circular incisions) between bas-­relief limb or wing representations indicate joints (see Fig­ure 7.11d). Fin-­or-­foot-­like projections, created by affixing flat sided, D-­shaped, or oval wedges of clay and whose upper surface is marked with a series of three to six parallel, incised lines, indicate feet (see Fig­ure 7.11c). Projections resembling flippers were formed from triangular clay masses divided into segments by incised lines gathered at the triangle’s apex and splayed outward at its base (see Fig­ure 7.11f ).

Modes of Appendation • 159

Fig­ure 7.13. Adorno frequency by grouped layers: (series 1=adorno frequency), 1=grouped layers [A]; 2=grouped layers [B]; 3=grouped layers [C]; 4=grouped layers [D]; 5=grouped layers [E].

In sum, adornos are affixed to handles, faux handles, lugs, and vessel lips. The subjects include monkey heads and faces (4 examples), human and anthropomorphic heads and faces (8 examples), zoomorphic forms (7 examples), bat heads, bat faces, upper bodies and folded wings (18 examples), manatee heads and upper bodies (2 examples), turtle heads (2 examples) , toads (1 example), bird heads (1 example), and sea horses (1 example). If grouped into human and nonhuman categories the sample contains 8 examples of human or at least anthropomorphic representations and 29 examples of nonhuman representations. Twenty-­two percent of the adornos depict human or anthropomorphic subjects and 78 percent depict animals of several different kinds. Bats are the most common animal depicted (62 percent), monkeys are sec­ ond (14 percent), manatees and turtles are third in popu­larity at 6.9 percent each, and toads, birds, and sea horses fourth with 3.4 percent each. Differently stated, 80 percent of the adornos depict mammals and 20 percent are devoted to nonmammals (Fig­ure 7.12). Adornos are absent from the layers grouped as category [D] but are found with variable frequency in all other grouped layers. Slightly over 6 percent of the adornos from the Pilaster VI sample are derived from grouped layers [E]. Production or at least deposition seems to have ceased for the duration of the

160 • Chapter 7

layers grouped together as [D] then began again in the layers grouped together as [C], where they constituted 16.7 percent of the sample. Adorno production grew dramatically in grouped layers [B], where they constituted 73 percent of the sample and then declined to a mere 4 percent in grouped layers [A] (Fig­ure 7.13). It is interesting and perhaps significant to note that human or anthropomorphic representations are found in all layers that produced adornos. Zoomorphic and humanoid representations are found in grouped layers [C]. Monkey and humanoid representations are found in grouped layers [A], and all forms are found in grouped layers [B]. Grouped layers [E] contain only human and humanoid representations, two of them solid and one of them hollow.

8 Decoration, Drying, and Firing

(Decorative Element) Substance Addition → → → Paint or or Tooled → → Incised Wash or or or Finger → Impressed Trailed Slip or or Pinched Cord Impressed or or Fingernail Punctate or or Other Stab and Drag or Simple Stamp or Check Stamp or Complicated Stamp or Cord-­wrapped Rod or Fabric Impressed

162 • Chapter 8

Decoration Antecedent Knowledge

I consider any intentional modification of a vessel, lug, or handle surface a decorative act. The consequences of decorative acts are redundant vessel surface alterations termed decorative elements. By studying them, analysts should be able to describe the inferred manipulations of the artisans and the kind of tools or substances they used in these manipulations. In general, decorative elements are easily and systematically divided into (1) those that require a substance addition, such as painting, slipping, filleting, or adorno production; (2) those that require the use of a tool, such as incising, trailing, punctating, impressing, and so on; (3) those that require only the use of the fingers, such as pinching, fingertip, and fingernail impressing, and rim bending; and (4) those that combine some or all of the above. Observations

Category 1, namely those surface modifications that require a substance addition, are the most frequent decorative elements in the Paso del Indio sample. They include the addition of a red or pink paint to vessel, lug, or handle surfaces and to blobs, rolls, strips, or pinches of clay as fillets, adornos, or elements of bas-­relief compositions to the upper body, rim, or lip exterior. The Paso del Indio sample contains 369 painted body sherds (1.3 percent of the body sherd sample) and 127 painted lip sherds (2.98 percent of the lip sherd sample). Sixty-­three and three-­tenths of the painted body sherds carry a pink-­ hued paint, fewer than 33.7 percent are a deep red or crimson. When color preference is considered by grouped layers, red is the most popu­lar in grouped layers [E] and [A], pink in grouped layers [D], [C], and [B]. A preference for pink paint increased dramatically from grouped layers [E] to [D], declined a bit in grouped layers [C], then increased to its greatest popu­ larity in grouped layers [B] after which it declined dramatically in grouped layers [A]. A preference for red paint declined precipitously in grouped layers [D], increased dramatically in [C], declined dramatically in [B], and increased to its greatest popu­larity in [A] (Table 8.1, Fig­ure 8.1). Sixty-­four of the body sherds (17.3 percent) are painted only on the exterior, 60 are painted only on the interior (16.3 percent), and 245 (66.4 percent) are painted on both exterior and interior. Of those pieces painted only on the exterior 33 (51.6 percent) are pink and 31 (48.4 percent) are red. Twenty-­nine of the body sherds are painted only on the interior. Forty-­eight and three-­ tenths percent are pink and 51.7 percent are red. One hundred and ninety-­

Decoration, Drying, and Firing • 163

Table 8.1 Painted Sherds by Grouped Layers Grouped Layers 1–7 [A] 7–8B [B] 8B–10C [C] 10C–PH3[D] PH3–18 [E]

Exterior

Interior

Exterior & Interior

Lip

42.1%  8.6%  8.4% 10.3% 22.4%

 5.3% 10.3% 14.5%  5.6% 18.4%

26.3% 61.3% 52.7% 60.3% 22.4%

26.3% 19.8% 24.4% 23.8% 36.8%

Fig­ure 8.1. Pink (series 1) and red (series 2) paint; 1=grouped layers [A]; 2=grouped layers [B]; 3=grouped layers [C]; 4=grouped layers [D]; 5=grouped layers [E].

seven of the sherds painted on both the exterior and interior (80.4 percent) are pink and 48 (19.6 percent) are red. One hundred twenty seven of the 4,270 lip sherds (2.98 percent) are painted only on the lip. Sixty-­eight of the 127 painted lips (53.5 percent) are pink, 59 (46.5 percent) are red. There are no pink-­red combinations. When the area painted is calculated and the strata are grouped, a rather complex pattern emerges. The frequency of painting only the body exterior declined from grouped strata [E] to grouped strata [B] then increased dramatically in grouped strata [A]. The frequency of painting only the body inte-

164 • Chapter 8

Fig­ure 8.2. Area painted by group layers: series 1=body exterior only; series 2=body ­interior only; series 3=both body exterior and interior; series 4=lip only; 1=grouped layers [A]; 2=grouped layers [B]; 3=grouped layers [C]; 4=grouped layers [D]; 5=grouped ­layers [E].

rior declined from grouped strata [E] to [D], increased in grouped strata [C], declined slightly in grouped strata [B], and continued to decline in grouped strata [A]. The frequency of painting both the body exterior and interior increased from grouped strata [E] to grouped strata [D], then declined a bit in grouped strata [C], increased in grouped strata [B], then declined in grouped strata [A]. The frequency of painting only the lip declined from grouped strata [E] to grouped strata [B], then increased in grouped strata [A] (see Table 8.1) (Fig­ure 8.2). Pink-­or red-­painted bands confined to lips are uniformly clear (i.e., are not smudged or smeared). Several painted lip sherds are marked by reduction burns, and reduction burn splotches occur on the painted exteriors of body sherds. Red and pink paint was applied to the surfaces of handles, lugs, and adornos as well as to vessel lips and bodies. Also noted are multiple instances of red or pink paint intruding into or covering the incised, trailed, or punctated decorative elements of adornos, bas-­reliefs, or tool-­rendered decorations. The painted surfaces of most body and lip sherds exhibit post-­painting, back-­ and-­forth rub marks made by the surface of a smooth stone or other hard, unyielding surface, a feature the painted surfaces of handles, adornos, and lugs lack.

Decoration, Drying, and Firing • 165

Fig­ure 8.3. Pink-­and red-­painted vessel parts: (a) pink-­ painted handle; (b) red-­painted upper body, rim, and lip; (c) red-­painted lip.

Inferences

If I apply the same criteria I used to estimate the number of pots in the sample, then between 139 and 147 of the 900 to 1,100 vessels are painted (92 to 97 of them pink and 47 to 50 of them red). Since I did not include handles, lugs, or adornos in my origi­nal vessel estimates this fig­ure may be low. It should be treated as conjectural. However, I do not think my estimate is drastically misleading. I can say with far greater confidence that pink paint (Fig­ure 8.3a) was used more frequently than red (Fig­ure 8.3b), that painting vessel exteriors and interiors was the most common approach, and that painting only the lip (Fig­ ure 8.3c) was preferred over painting only the vessel exterior or interior. I may also infer with reasonable confidence that the paint, a crushed iron oxide mixed with water, was applied to vessel surfaces with the tip of the finger, a cotton patch, or in the case of lip painting (see Fig­ure 8.3c) a soft-­bristled

166 • Chapter 8

brush of some kind. Paint is applied after incising, trailing, or punctating and after adorno, handle, fillet, or lug affixation, but before the vessel has reached a greenware state as indicated by the rub marks on many painted surfaces. It is also clear that these tasks are accomplished before firing as suggested by the firing clouds partially covering painted surfaces.

Tooling The tooled decorative elements in the sample include incising, stab and drag marking, trailing, and punctating. To incise, the artisan drew a pointed and edged tool over the clay at a high oblique angle leaving an incision with a V-­ shaped trough and a marked wake (see Fig­ure 2.9c). To stab-­and-­drag mark, the flat side of a single-­edged and pointed tool was held against the clay surface, and the point of the tool pushed forward and into the clay at about a 10-­degree angle. The tool is then pulled back and reinserted in line with, and a short distance from, the first insertion (see Fig­ure 2.9d). Trailing was done with a flat-­sided, roughly rectangular tool drawn over the pliable clay at a very low, oblique angle, producing an even-­bottomed, U-­shaped trough and a shallow wake (see Fig­ure 2.9f ). A broader tool produces a broader trough, or channel, and a shallower wake, a narrower tool produces a narrower trough and more substantial wake. To produce punctations the artisan pressed the square, triangular (see Fig­ure 2.9e), or round end of a flat-­ended or pointed wood or bone tool into the clay at a 90-­degree angle, then withdrew it, leaving a hole. If I eliminate the instances of tool use in the production of adornos and if I count multiple instances of tooling on a single surface as a single case, then there are 54 cases of incising, 30 cases of trailing, 7 cases of punctuating, and 3 cases of stab and drag marking in the sample. As far as I can discern, neither punctating nor stab and drag marking are used alone or in combination as the sole elements in the production of Paso del Indio’s tooled ceramic designs. Punctating or stab and drag marking are always combined with either incising or trailing. Differently put, Paso del Indio’s potters always combined punctating or stab and drag marking with either straight or curved incised or trailed lines to decorate their wares. With this caveat in place I note that incising is the most popu­lar decorative technique occurring in 57.4 percent of the cases. Trailing, sec­ond in popu­larity, was used in 31.9 percent of the cases. Punctating cooccurs with trailing or incising in only 7.5 percent of the cases and stab and drag marking cooccurs with trailing or incising in only 3.2 percent of the cases (Table 8.2). When displayed by grouped layers, incising declined from group [E] to group [A]. It spiked in popu­larity in grouped layers [C] and [B]. Trailing was

Decoration, Drying, and Firing • 167

Table 8.2. Tooled Decorative Elements Tooled Element

% of Tooled Decoration

Incised Trailed Punctate Stab and Drag

57.4 31.9  7.5  3.2

Table 8.3 Tooled Decoration by Grouped Layers Grouped Layers

Incised

Trailed

Punctate

Stab and Drag

[A] [B] [C] [D] [E]

 46.2%  60.6%  57.2%  40.0% 100.0%

15.4% 33.3% 42.8% 40.0%  0.0%

23.0%  4.6%  0.0% 20.0%  0.0%

15.4%  1.5%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%

not present in grouped layers [E]. It first appeared in grouped layers [D], grew a bit in popu­larity from grouped layers [D] to [C], and then declined in popu­ larity from grouped layers [C] to [A]. Punctating first occurred in grouped layers [D], was not present in grouped layers [C], reappeared as a distinct minority in grouped layers [B] then increased dramatically in popu­larity in grouped layers [A]. Stab and drag marking was most popu­lar in grouped layers [A], was a very minor element in grouped layers [B], and absent elsewhere (Table 8.3, Fig­ure 8.4). When decorations are displayed as a ratio of painted to tooled, an interesting and coherent pattern emerges. Painting declined in popu­larity from grouped layers [E] to [A] and tooled decorations increased in popu­larity from grouped layers [E] to [A] (Table 8.4). Tooled Designs

To systematically describe the tooled designs I divide them into classes. To facilitate this task I distinguish between focal and peripheral elements of composition. I identify focal elements as those that are both redundant and centrally located in a given design. I identify peripheral elements as those that complement focal elements and are separated by repetitions thereof. It should be noted that I attach no emic value to this distinction. It is thoroughly etic. Note too that focal elements may stand alone, but peripheral elements always

168 • Chapter 8

Fig­ure 8.4. Tooled decoration by layers. Series 1=incising; series 2=trailing; series 3=punctating; series 4=stab and drag; 1=grouped layers [A]; 2=grouped layers [B]; 3=grouped layers [C]; 4=grouped layers [D]; 5=grouped layers [E].

Table 8.4 Ratio of Painted to Tooled Decoration by Grouped Layers Grouped Layers

% Painted

% Tooled

[A] [B] [C] [D] [E]

40.0% 63.9% 94.4% 96.2% 98.0%

60.0% 36.1%  5.6%  3.8%  2.0%

occur in combination with focal elements. With the focal/peripheral distinction in hand I divide the sample into 12 classes, 9 of which have members. Class 1 is composed of designs having only linear focal elements. Class 2 has designs with only curvilinear focal elements. Class 3 designs have both curvilinear and linear focal elements. None of these designs contain peripheral elements. Class 4 is composed of designs with curvilinear focal and curvilinear peripheral elements. Class 5 designs have linear focal and curvilinear pe-

Decoration, Drying, and Firing • 169

ripheral elements, and class 6 designs have linear focal and linear peripheral elements. Class 7 designs have linear focal elements and both linear and curvilinear peripheral elements, and class 8 designs have both linear and curvilinear focal elements and curvilinear peripheral elements. Class 9 designs have both curvilinear and linear focal elements and both linear and curvilinear peripheral elements. All of the tooled designs are context restricted. When describing them, I will note the restrictions that apply.

Tooled Design Classes Class 1 Designs (Four Examples)

Focal element linear includes (A) a bounded, triple-­line zig-­zag; (B) an unbounded, double-­line zig-­zag; and (C) an unbounded succession of parallel vertical lines. Class 1A: Bounded, Triple-­Line Zig-­Zag (One Example).

The focal element consists of three incised, parallel diagonal lines, sloping upward from left to right, abutted against three incised parallel diagonal lines, sloping downward from right to left (Fig­ure 8.5b). There are no peripheral elements in this design. Instead the focal element is nested within an upper and lower vessel-­encircling, incised line and repeated about the circumference of the upper vessel exterior, an area to which the design is restricted. Class 1B: Unbounded, Double-­Line Zig-­Zag (Two Examples)

The focal element consists of two incised, parallel, diagonal lines, sloping upward from left to right, abutted against two incised, parallel, diagonal lines, sloping downward from right to left (Fig­ure 8.5a). This design is not bounded nor does it contain peripheral elements. Instead the focal element is simply repeated about the circumference of the upper vessel exterior, an area to which it is restricted. Class 1C: Unbounded Succession of Parallel Vertical Lines (One Example)

This design consists of a series of incised and parallel vertical lines that encircle the upper exterior or rim exterior of the vessel (Fig­ure 8.5c). Class 2 Designs (Four Examples) Class 2: Focal Element Curvilinear Consists of (a) Walking Spirals and (b) Nested Multiple Scrolls

Class 2A: Walking Spirals (One Example) The repetitive focal element in this composition is a free-­standing, incised or

170 • Chapter 8

Fig­ure 8.5. Tooled designs 1: (a) unbounded, double-­line zig-­zag; (b) bounded, triple-­line zig-­zag; (c) unbounded succession of parallel verticals; (d) walking ­spirals; (e) nested multiple scrolls; (f ) upright, double-­line arches and parallel, vertical lines; (g) inverted, single-­line arches and parallel verticals; (h) sunburst. (Drawing by Sabrina Simõn, courtesy of Tennessee Valley Archaeological Research.)

trailed upper left to lower right spiral with the lowermost portion resting upon a vessel-­encircling, incised or trailed line (Fig­ure 8.5d). This design is restricted to the area between the shoulder and lip on angular, high-­shouldered vessels Class 2B: Nested Multiple Scrolls (Three Examples) The repetitive focal element in this design consists of two incised or trailed and interlinked spirals created by a single continuously curved line that spirals outward on the left then upward over and inward on the right to form an open scroll (Fig­ure 8.5e). Each open scroll is, however, nested in an incised or trailed curved line that runs beneath the lower portion of the scroll and curves upward at either end to join the lip. This design is restricted to the upper vessel exterior. Class 3 Designs (Five Examples)

Class 3 consists of (a) upright, double-­line arches and parallel vertical lines, (b) inverted, single-­line arches and parallel vertical lines, (c) sunbursts, and (d) nested, curved lines above and below parallel vertical lines.

Decoration, Drying, and Firing • 171 Class 3A: Upright, Double-­Line Arches and Parallel, Vertical Lines (Two Examples)

The repetitive focal element in this design consists of an upright, double-­line, incised or trailed arch over a series of short parallel, vertical, incised or trailed lines, with the arch closed at the bottom by a straight incised or trailed horizontal line (Fig­ure 8.5f ). Class 3B: Inverted, Single-­Line Arches and Parallel, Vertical Lines (One Example)

The repetitive focal element consists of an inverted, single-­line, trailed or incised arch under a series of short vertical-­and parallel-­incised or trailed lines with the inverted arch closed at the top by a single, incised or trailed, straight horizontal line (Fig­ure 8.5g). Class 3C: Sunburst (One Example)

The repetitive focal element in this design consists of an incised or trailed circle, whose circumference carries a series of abutted but straight and outward-­ radiating incised or trailed lines (Fig­ure 8.5h). Class 3D: Nested, Curved Lines above and below Parallel, Vertical Lines (One Example)

The focal element in this composition is an incised or trailed, upward arch paired with a trailed or incised, downward arch—the two of them enclosing a series of short-­incised, parallel, vertical lines (Fig­ure 8.6a). This repetitive focal element is bounded top and bottom by incised or trailed horizontal lines that encircle the upper exterior surface of high, angular shouldered vessels. Class 4 Designs (Four Examples)

Class 4 designs (both focal and peripheral element curvilinear) consist of (a) punctated and parenthesized lazy spirals and (b) punctated and parenthesized circles and double-­line arches. Class 4A: Punctated and Parenthesized Lazy Spirals (Three Examples)

The focal point of this design is an incised or trailed lazy outward spiral with a long lower left to upper right-­trending arm and a central spiral and flat-­ bottomed, circular punctation (Fig­ure 8.6b). The lower portion of each spiral element is flanked right and left (i.e., parenthesized by three or four parallel, incised or trailed, curved lines). The peripheral element consists of two incised or trailed, parallel, curved lines that slope upward from left to right. The lower of the two lines is less than half as long as its companion and at its upper extremity curves dramatically downward to parallel a series of three ver-

172 • Chapter 8

Fig­ure 8.6. Tooled designs 2: (A) nested curved lines above and below verticals; (B) punctated and parenthesized lazy spirals; (C) punctated parenthesized circles and double-­line arches; (D) pendant triangles, punctations, and stab and drag verticals; (E) pendant triangles with stab and drag inclusions; (F) pendant triangles and punctations; (G) enclosed pendant triangles and punctated tooled ovals; (H) horizontal lines nested in rectangles; (I) abutted horizontal and verticals. (Drawing by Sabrina Simõn, courtesy of Tennessee Valley Archaeological Research.)

tical, curved lines that lie directly beneath the uppermost of the lower left to upper right sloping line pair. This design is restricted to the area between the lip and shoulder on angular, high shouldered vessels. Class 4B: Punctated, Parenthesized Circles and Double-­Line Arches (One Example)

The repetitive focal element in this design is composed of two incised or trailed, parallel, curved lines that arch upward and over then downward to cover an incised or trailed circle with a centrally positioned circular, flat-­bottomed punctation (Fig­ure 8.6c). A series of five to eight parallel and vertical, curved lines under the double-­line arch and flanking the left and right sides of the incised or trailed circle completes the focal element. The peripheral element consists of a curved, horizontal line that terminates at one end in a circular, flat-­bottomed punctation, and at the other, curves dramatically downward to parallel one side of an incised or trailed circle with a centrally positioned circular and flat-­bottomed punctation. A series of five curved vertical and parallel, incised or trailed lines immediately above the upper line of the two-­line arch

Decoration, Drying, and Firing • 173

in the focal element and beneath the punctation-­terminated, curved, horizontal line complete the peripheral element. A vessel-­encircling, horizontal, trailed or incised line separates the lip from the upper edge of the design. The angular vessel shoulder bounds its lower edge. Class 5 Designs (One Example)

Class 5 Designs consist of (a) a linear focal element and (b) a curvilinear peripheral element. The design combines pendant zig-­zag with punctations and stab and drag marking. Class 5: Pendant Zig-­Zag, Punctations and Stab and Drag Marking (One Example)

In this design the repetitive focal element is an incised or trailed, double-­ line, elongate zig-­zag pendent to a vessel-­encircling trailed or incised, horizontal line enclosing three zig-­zag-­central, vertical and parallel stab and drag marks (Fig­ure 8.6e). The peripheral element is composed of a single circular, flat-­bottomed punctation in the center of the open-­bottomed zig-­zag space formed when each pendent zig-­zag was incised or trailed about the upper exterior of a high, angular shouldered vessel. Class 6 Designs (One Example)

Class 6 designs (both focal and peripheral elements linear) are composed of pendant triangles with stab and drag marking. Class 6: Pendant Zig-­Zag with Stab and Drag Marking (One Example)

The focal element in this design is composed of an incised or trailed, double-­ line, elongate zig-­zag pendant to a vessel-­encircling incised or trailed, horizontal line and bearing two parallel, vertical, and zig-­zag-­central stab and drag marks (see Fig­ure 8.6e). The peripheral element consists of two parallel, vertical stab and drag marks central to the open-­bottomed, triangular space formed when each pendant zig-­zag is incised or trailed about the upper exterior of a high, angular shouldered vessel. Class 7 Designs (Two Examples) Class 7 Focal Element Linear and Peripheral Element Both Linear and Curvilinear

Class 7 designs are composed of (a) abutted horizontal and vertical lines and (b) horizontal lines nested in rectangles. Class 7A: Abutted Horizontal and Vertical Lines (One Example) The repetitive focal element is two or three relatively long, incised or trailed, parallel, horizontal lines interrupted by a peripheral element consisting of six

174 • Chapter 8

shorter parallel, incised or trailed, vertical lines, surrounded by circular, flat-­ bottomed punctations (Fig­ure 8.6i). This design is restricted to flanged lips with outward projecting B-­shaped lugs. The focal element is applied to the upper surface of the flanged lip and the peripheral element to the upper surface of the B-­shaped lug. Class 7B: Horizontal Lines Nested in Rectangles (One Example) The repetitive focal element is formed of two parallel, horizontal, incised or trailed lines, which are nested within an incised or trailed rectangle (Fig­ure 8.6h). Each rectangle is separated from a succession of similar rectangles by a peripheral element consisting of a single vertical, incised or trailed line with a flat-­bottomed, circular punctation at its top and bottom. This design encircles either the upper vessel exterior or the upper surface of flanged lips. Class 8 Designs (One Example) Class 8 Designs Focal Element Both Linear and Curvilinear and Peripheral Element Curvilinear

This design is composed of pendant triangles and punctations. Class 8: Pendant Zig-­Zag and Punctations (One Example)

The repetitive focal element is composed of an incised or trailed, double-­ line, elongate zig-­zag with a centrally located, circular, flat-­bottomed punctation (Fig­ure 8.6f ). Each centrally punctated zig-­zag is itself pendant to a lip-­encircling, trailed or incised, horizontal line. The peripheral element is a circular, flat-­bottomed punctation in the center of the open-­bottomed, triangular space formed when each pendant zig-­zag is incised or trailed about the upper vessel exterior. Class 9 Designs (One Example) Class 9 Designs Focal Element Both Linear and Curvilinear and Peripheral Element Both Linear and Curvilinear

This design is formed from pendant triangles and punctated, tooled ovals. Class 9: Enclosed Pendant Triangles and Punctated, Tooled Ovals (One Example)

The repetitive focal element is composed of an incised or trailed, double-­line, elongate triangle pendent to a vessel-­encircling trailed or incised, horizontal line, enclosing a double-­line, incised or trailed oval with a centrally located, circular, flat-­bottomed punctation (Fig­ure 8.6g). The double-­line oval is itself flanked on upper left and upper right with three short, parallel and vertical

Decoration, Drying, and Firing • 175

stab and drag marks. The peripheral element is applied to the triangular space formed when each pendant triangle of the focal design is formed. It consists of an incised or trailed, double-­line oval with a centrally located, circular, flat-­ bottomed punctation. It too is flanked on upper left and upper right by three short, parallel and vertical stab and drag marks. A vessel-­encircling, double-­ incised or -­trailed line beneath the triangles completes the composition. This design is restricted to the area between a high, angular vessel shoulder and the vessel lip. Of the 23 designs complete enough to identify their component parts, 8 are derived from stratum 7, 12 from stratum 8, 2 from stratum 8A, and one from stratum 10. When considered as the products of grouped layers, all but one of the identifiable tooled designs came from [B]. The single exception is a class 2A design from the uppermost level of grouped layers [C]. All of the identifiable designs are applied to the exterior surface between shoulder and lip on high, angular shouldered vessels. While the evidence is fragmentary, the effigy adornos, when combined with the tails, folded wings, dangling limbs, joints, feet, fin and flipper representations affixed to the exterior surfaces of upper body and lip sherds, suggest that whole pot compositions are a part of prehistoric Puerto Rican ceramic practices. That at least some prehistoric Puerto Rican vessels are three-­dimensional compositions is indicated by the bat and bird effigy vessels illustrated in Fewkes (1922:​Plates xxviii and lxxix). The fact that whole pot compositions were not alien to Paso del Indio’s prehistoric potters is confirmed by several of the vessels that accompany burials. Then too, incised and painted design elements were combined with effigy adornos and bas-­relief legs and feet on several of the largest upper body sherds in the Paso del Indio sample.

Drying Antecedent Knowledge

After pottery vessels are shaped they must be dried before firing. If insufficiently dried, residual clay body moisture will vaporize in the vessel’s walls during heating causing spalling, shattering, and/or warping. Then, too, uneven or excessively rapid drying will crack pots before they reach a true green­ ware state. Observations

None of the specimens from Paso del Indio are spalled. Nor are any of them shattered or warped. If there were failures, they were discarded elsewhere or were so few in number they are not included in the sample. I suspect the lat-

176 • Chapter 8

ter. This suggests an adequate drying period, which, unless I assume a drastically different past climate, would have been difficult to achieve in the Caribbean without a shelter of some kind. Inferences

Pottery vessels may have been manufactured outside, or inside, but were usually dried inside. Some may also have been warmed near a hearth until most of the moisture was driven from them, then stored in the rafters or in another peripheral portion of a dwelling until a convenient firing was arranged.

Firing Antecedent Knowledge

Firing is a three-­stage process. In the first stage the vessel is warmed (the slower the better) to remove residual moisture from the clay body. If warming proceeds too rapidly, the clay particles fuse before residual moisture escapes and pockets of steam form within the vessel walls causing them to shatter or spall. During the sec­ond stage, organic matter is burned from the clay body and excess oxygen is introduced through circulation drafts. This oxygen reacts with carbonaceous matter in the clay body and soot from the burning fuel to produce carbon dioxide. As carbon in the clay body is removed, the iron oxides that remain are oxidized, producing shades of red, orange, yellow, grey, or brown. Vitrification is the third and final stage. During vitrification clay constituents sof­ten, stick to each other, and become joined by glass filaments formed from melting and combining silica. If oxidation is incomplete, as it of­ ten is with sec­ondary clays, the remaining organic matter will form gas at high vitrification temperatures and the concomitant pressure will cause warping or other forms of wall distortion. Nevertheless, sec­ondary clays are usually of low purity and contain natural fluxing agents. These produce the beginnings of vitrification at a relatively low temperature (600 to 900 degrees centigrade), thus muting the effects of incomplete oxidation. Observations

Many of the vessel fragments have splotchy, irregular smudges commonly called firing clouds. They are the results of reduction burns created when fuel falls against the pot during firing. Irregular splotches are found on the exterior surfaces of 50 bases but never on base interiors. Splotches are noted on the exterior basal surfaces of a reconstructed vessel as are smudged areas along the vessel’s lip on both exterior and interior. Linear firing clouds are observed on the exterior surfaces of many of the larger specimens in the collection. One particularly clear example, a reconstructed pot, has both linear firing clouds, 22

Decoration, Drying, and Firing • 177

to 24 mm long and 10 to 12 mm wide, on its exterior surfaces and splotchy clouds along the lip and about handle proximal portions of both its exterior and interior surface. A third reconstructed pot has well marked nonlinear firing clouds on the base exterior combined with smudges on both exterior and interior handle proximal surfaces. A fourth reconstructed vessel has the same patterning as do over a hundred examples of firing cloud–smudged sherds I ­examined before discontinuing this observation. The splotchy, irregu­ lar smudges are created by burning wads or clumps of grass or bark, the more regular and darker oval to circular stains by burning chunks of wood. The clear black linear smudges are created by sticks. Nonsmudged, oxidation-­burned surfaces are reasonably uniform shades of tan, red, brown, yellow, or grey. Irregularities in temperature, draft and gas circulation are indicated by the burn out pattern observable in many sherd cross-­sections. They have a darker core sandwiched between lighter exterior and interior surfaces. Inferences

Paso del Indio’s potters customarily used a bonfire kiln constructed of locally available materials. The following is a speculative account of kiln construction. The sod or other overburden was removed from a circular or oval area of suitable dimensions to provide a flat surface or a shallow concavity. A prepared bed of sticks, grass and/or bark was then laid over the bare soil to keep the unfired vessels off the ground and to allow for a draft during the early stages of burning. The pots to be fired were placed mouth down on the prepared bed of sticks and grass and nestled down into it to hold them upright. The mouth-­ down position is inferred from the smudge patterns noted on the exterior but not the interior of pot bottoms and by the smudges on handle proximal exterior and interior surfaces. It is presumed that the handle on vessels placed lip down propped the lip up to expose interior handle proximal vessel surfaces. Splotches along both exterior and interior lip surfaces were caused by the disintegration of the burning stick, bark, and grass underbedding. Obviously, fuel was stacked over the pots before the heap was fired. We presume that Paso del Indio’s potters used locally available materials for this task. Therefore, it seems reasonable to suppose that wood, grass, or bark was collected from supplies nearby. Given the size and position of those linear and unequivocally wood-­produced firing clouds, I suggest that a tipi-­like frame of sticks was first placed over the pots. This wood frame was then covered with a thatch of dry grass, leaves, and/or bark. The kiln was probably lit on the downwind side of the stack to promote a slower and hotter burn, with additional fuel being added as the burn proceeds. Paso del Indio’s potters probably allowed their wares to cool before pulling them from the dying fire, thus preventing undue cracking through rapid heat loss.

9 Summary and Discussion

I analyzed 32,658 ceramic vessel fragments unevenly distributed through 20 systematically excavated strata. The specimen count per stratum ranges from a low of 59 (from stratum 4A) to a high of 6,397 (from stratum 18). The number of specimens per stratum exhibits a marked downward skewing. The lower strata contain the greater number. Moving downward from top to bottom there are four distinct low-­yield strata: one at 4A (59 specimens), one at 8B (520 specimens), one at 10C (437 specimens), and one at Ph3 (108 specimens). The four low-­yield strata are used to segregate the sample into five units, from top to bottom, labeled groups A–E. Stratum 4A and those strata above 4A are labeled group [A]. Stratum 8B and those immediately above 8B are labeled group [B]. Stratum 10C and those immediately above 10C are labeled group [C]. Stratum PH3 and those immediately above PH3 are labeled group [D]. Stratum 18 and those immediately above 18 are labeled group [E]. The strata in group [A] yielded 1,063 specimens (3. 3 percent of the total sample), the strata in group [B] contained 12,371 specimens (38 per­ cent of the total sample). The strata in group [C] yielded 6,623 specimens (20.3 per­cent of the sample total). The strata in group [D] contained 5,012 specimens (15 percent of the sample total), and the strata in group [E] yielded 6,465 specimens (20 percent of the sample total). The four strata that lie between these groups contained 1,124 specimens (3.4 percent of the sample ­total) Key morphological landmarks were used to segregate the grouped sample into the following sets: (1) lip (4,270 specimens, 10.786 percent of all specimens), (2) rim (1 specimen, .003 percent of all specimens), (3) upper body (4,808 specimens, 12.145 percent of all specimens), (4) shoulders (538 speci-

Summary and Discussion • 179

mens, 1.359 percent of all specimens), (5) lower body (538 specimens, 1.359 percent of all specimens), (6) bases (57 specimens, 0.144 percent of all specimens), (7) appendages (220 specimens, 0.556 percent of all specimens), and general body fragments (29,155 specimens, 73.648 percent of all specimens). Note that some specimens were counted more than once since they exhibit more than one landmark and that 32 specimens considered large (i.e., half, third or quarter vessels) exhibit all or at least 90 percent of the landmarks. I estimate the number of pots at between 900 and 1,100 vessels (i.e., an average of 35 to 43 sherds per vessel). Of the 34 specimens large enough to provide accurate estimates of vessel shape and size, four are broken from vessels with radial symmetry, all of them slab built, all with flat bases and body wall inflections, and all of them from stratum group [E]. The large sherd sample also contains 30 specimens from vessels with bilateral symmetry, all but one of them coiled, all of them shallow, oval-­mouthed vessels, 19 or them shouldered, and 11 shoulderless. Seven of the shouldered vessels have high, round shoulders, 12 have high, angular shoulders, and 1 has a midrounded shoulder. Eight of the shouldered specimens have flat bottoms, 11 have rounded bottoms. All 11 of the shoulderless vessels have rounded bottoms. Fourteen of the 20 shouldered pots and 3 of the 11 shoulderless pots have been decorated. These specimens were spread through stratum groups [E], [D], [C], and [B]. Measurements of the mouths, shoulders, and heights of these sherds allowed us to group them into four size classes, namely: (1) Extra Large, (2) Large, (3) Medium, and (4) Small. When organized by grouped layers [E] through [B] the width-­to-­height ratios of these specimens illustrate a trend for all vessels to become shallower and wider from early to late with the most dramatic modification of width–to-­height ratios among the nonshouldered examples. In sum grouped layers [E] contain slab-­built, tall body wall, inflected, radially symmetrical rimless vessels not found elsewhere. These vessels are, however, a minority ware accompanied by a coiled majority ware that is shallower, broader, round or flat-­bottomed, shouldered or shoulderless, rimless oval-­mouthed and bilaterally symmetrical. This majority ware was spread through­out grouped layers [E], [D], [C], and [B], where it exhibits a distinct early-­to-­late trend in the production of broader, shallower vessels. By far the greater numbers of specimens are not suitable for vessel size estimates but can provide evidence for method of manufacture and decoration. To present this evidence I attempt to determine the order and the content to the vari­ous steps used by Paso del Indio’s potters as they transform a lump of prepared clay into a pottery vessel. For economy of presentation I will summarize the results by manufacturing stage and step starting with raw material

180 • Chapter 9

acquisition and ending with firing and in the process discuss the persistence and transformations in each by grouped layers. Since the sherds in the sample are shades of red, buff, grey, or black and fit the criteria for a porous, low-­fired earthenware, I assume that Paso del Indio’s potters used sec­ondary clays that, given my examination of 2,353 specimens, were tempered with a mixture of sand and grog. There are no spalled or cracked specimens in the collection, leading me to suspect that Paso del Indio’s potters thoroughly cleaned, kneaded, and/or wedged the tempered clay before beginning a pot. The sample contains evidence for two body-­building techniques; coiling and slab modeling. More than 1,000 specimens have clear and dramatic -­ or -­shaped coil fractures, and several thousand more have slight but clearly observable and measurable coil ridges and troughs. Then too, 20 specimens from grouped strata [E] had clearly been strap or slab built. Given this evidence I assume that in most cases Paso del Indio’s potters built their vessel walls by rolling lumps of prepared, tempered, and kneaded clay between the palms of their hands or between the palm of one hand and a relatively unyielding surface to form appropriately sized coils. To judge by the central indentation and lateral lips on some specimens and the central protrusion and lateral indentations on others, these coils are stacked one atop another. The stacked coils are joined on the exterior and interior by a push-­pull motion, using the thumb alone, the thumb and forefinger, or the forefinger alone. Then, both interior and exterior body walls are scraped with a wood, bone, or calabash scraper to further thin and compact them (indicated by the more dramatic -­ shaped and -­shaped coil fractures). This task is most probably accomplished by supporting one surface of the vessel walls with the rigid palmer surfaces of one hand while scraping the opposing surface with a scraper held in the other. The slab-­and/or strap-­built vessels are constructed of rectangular segments of clay that have been pressed flat then sized and trimmed before being bent into an open circle or oval. To close the circle or oval the two shorter ends of the rectangular strap are thinned, one on the inside, the other on the outside. The thinned portions were overlapped and then pressed together. All the vessels that are slab or strap built also have angular body wall inflections or high, angular shoulders, where separate slabs of clay were joined one atop the other during body wall construction. That all but one of the slab-­built vessels has radial symmetry seemed to be significant. The single slab-­built vessel from level 17 in grouped layers [E] was the last attempt to use the technique. Differently put, as vessels assumed a broader, shallower, and more dramatically bilateral symmetry, slab modeling was abandoned in favor of coiling. When coiling a vessel the potter might have begun with the coil nearest

Summary and Discussion • 181

the base and worked from here to form the rest of the body. Alternatively he or she might have begun with the coil nearest the lip and worked from here to form the remainder of the vessel walls. The data generated by our analy­sis vis– à–vis the starting point in vessel manufacture is not definitive. It can be used to support either of the two distinct vessel body-­building strategies. In one the potter would begin nonshouldered forms by coiling a mouth then adding coils one atop another, each of diminishing diameter and length, until a suitable body is formed. In the other the potter would begin nonshouldered forms by coiling a near bottom (i.e., a lower base) then adding coils one atop another, each of increasing diameter and length, until a suitable body is formed. Shouldered vessels could have been similarly constructed, but in strategy one (i.e., working from near lip to base) the coils between mouth and shoulder must be slightly lengthened as each is laid atop but a bit to the outer edge of its predecessor until the maximum desired extension is reached. From this point to the base, thinner and shorter coils must be added, each placed atop but a bit toward the inner edge of its predecessor. In strategy two (i.e., working from base to lip) the coils between base and shoulder must be slightly lengthened as each is laid atop but a bit to the outer edge of its predecessor until the maximum desired extension is reached. From this point to the near lip slightly thicker and shorter coils must be added, each put atop but a bit toward the inner edge of its predecessor until the mouth is formed. If coils are placed atop one another and if the vessel bottom is smaller than the mouth, there are certain advantages to beginning at the mouth. As coil is laid upon coil the combined weight will be more firmly supported and the weight of the walls more efficiently distributed if the potter proceeded from larger to smaller circumferences (i.e., from top to bottom). In my attempts to determine the starting point in coiled vessel production I assumed that a potter starting near the bottom and working upward would produce thinner body walls as she proceeded and a potter starting near the mouth and working from here (i.e., with the prospective vessel inverted) would do likewise. Therefore, if the starting point was near the bottom, the lower body should be significantly thicker than the upper body. If the starting point was near or at the mouth, the upper body should be significantly thicker than the lower body. My analy­sis indicates that point measurements of upper and lower body thickness taken on 569 fragments show a lower body mean of 7.38 +/−­2.6 and an upper body average of 7.61 +/−­2.7. A student t score of 1.32 indicates that this difference is not statistically significant. Nevertheless, slightly over half (57 percent) of the specimens have thicker upper than lower bodies suggesting a least a preference for a decrease in coil size from lip proxi­ mal to lip distal portions during vessel construction.

182 • Chapter 9

Whether using a bottom-­up or top-­down strategy, the Paso del Indio potter had two options at her command, namely the option to produce a shoulder or to produce a shoulderless vessel. The option of producing a shoulder was acted upon about two-­thirds of the time, the option of producing a shoulderless vessel about one-­third of the time. If she chose to produce a shoulder the potter had three alternatives, (1) a high, angular shoulder, (2) a high, rounded shoulder, or (3) a midrounded shoulder. The third option is exceedingly rare being represented by only 2 examples (0.3 percent of the shoulder sherd sample). The sec­ond, a high, rounded shoulder, was most popu­lar in all grouped layers. The first, a high, angular shoulder experienced its greatest popu­larity in grouped layers [E] then declined in popu­larity to grouped layers [B] and increased slightly in popu­larity from [B] to grouped layers [A]. My analy­sis produces clear evidence that for flat-­bottomed vessels, a separate molded or mass-­modeled pancake was made. The Paso del Indio sample contains 57 complete or reconstructed bottom/base fragments. Fifty-­two of them are reasonably uniform, flat-­sided, oval or circular, mass-­modeled pancakes broken from flat-­bottomed vessels. Seven of these have upper, or interior, surfaces that have been combed around their perimeter prior to affixation. The bottom proximal surfaces of several of the lowest coils on body sherds also show the effects of combing. Two flat-­sided, oval-­bottomed fragments, each 5.5  cm wide and 8  cm long, were constructed by pressing one 4  mm thick pancake over another of similar size and thickness to form a double bottom. Twenty six of these bottom fragments (50 percent) also exhibit the gravity-­ induced and irregular bottom concavity expected of vessels dried mouth down. This evidence led me to suspect that pancake formation began when an appropriately sized wad of clay was detached from a prepared clay mass and rolled into a small ball. This ball was then flattened, probably by placing one hand over the other and pressing firmly downward with the rigid palmer surface of the upper hand on the dorsal surface of the lower. Several bouts of pressure directed to slightly different points would be needed to bring the pancake to a proper form and to suitable size. This pancake would then gently be draped over the opening to be covered and the excess clay cut away to size it. The bottom piece thus formed would be removed and its circumference of attachment scored or combed. The upper surface of the most recently added body coil is likewise scored or combed and the bottom reapplied, scored area to scored area, and pressed into place. A slurry weld whose raw material came from a very thin coil of clay, would complete the exterior seal after which the pot would be allowed to dry for a while, still resting on its mouth. The bottom sealing would be completed after the pot had dried a bit and would be accom-

Summary and Discussion • 183

plished by laying a thin rat-­tail coil of clay about the interior lower wall and bottom junction and slurry welding it. Two round-­bottomed fragments exhibit the -­ or-­-­shaped coil fractures and/or the clay body discontinuities that accompany coiling. Thus, I suppose, that for round-­bottomed vessels that are hemispherical the potter continued to coil from base to bottom, slightly shortening, thinning, and overlapping each coil until the bottom is closed. After closing the bottom the coils were probably welded together on the exterior by dragging the pad of a finger or several fingers over the surface of the coil joints, then wetting, scraping, smoothing, and shaping with a wood, bone, or calabash scraper. The vessel was then probably held in the potter’s lap while the interior was similarly scraped and shaped. Here again the vessel was probably placed mouth down to dry. Very rarely was a tripod of podal supports added to flat-­or rounded-­ bottomed vessels. The podal supports themselves were formed by rolling wads of clay either into cylinders or truncated cone-­shaped pieces that are 20 mm thick at the uppermost (i.e., largest and point of attachment) end. The desired podal support shape would have been easily achieved by rolling a roughly cylindrical wad of clay between a hard, unyielding, flat surface and the palmer distal portions (i.e., pads of the index and second fingers, while applying greater pressure with the index finger than with the second finger). The legs thus formed would be then affixed by first combing the end of the leg to be attached and then combing the surface to which it was attached and afterwards firmly pressing the two together. To complete the attachment a thin roll of clay would be placed around and over the junction of the bottom with the leg and pressed into place with pressure from the tip of the forefinger. The 4,124 lip sherds in the Paso del Indio sample contain round direct (2,200 examples, 53.31 percent of the lip sherds), flat direct (908 cases, 22.03 per­cent of the lip sherds), inverted round ( 101 examples, 2.45 percent of the lip sherds), inverted flat (739 examples, 17.92 percent of the lip sherd sample), everted round (8 examples, 0.2 percent of the lip sherds), everted flat (166 specimens, 4.04 percent of the lip sample), and flanged, flat-­lipped specimens (2 examples, .05 percent of the lip sherds). All but the flanged specimens and extreme examples of round everted and round inverted lips are variations on shaping a common form of lip construction in which a coil is put over and joined to the upper edge of the vessel wall. In the extreme examples of round inverted lips, a thick coil of clay was added to the upper and inner edge of the vessel’s mouth. The overall trend in the sample is for round lips to decrease in frequency from grouped layers [E] to [B] then to slightly increase in popu­larity from

184 • Chapter 9

grouped layers [B] to [A]. The popu­larity of flat lip production is complementary. Flat lip production increased from grouped layers [E] to [B] then slightly decreased from [B] to [A]. The distribution of direct, inverted, and everted lips is similar. Direct lips decreased in popu­larity from grouped layers [E] to [B], then increased slightly in popu­larity from grouped layers [B] to [A]. Inverted lips increased in popu­larity from grouped layers [E] to [B] then decreased slightly in frequency from grouped layers [B] to [A]. The frequency of everted lips increased from grouped layers [E] to [B] before production, or at least deposition, ceased. The Paso del Indio sample includes 84 D-­shaped, three Ω-­shaped, and 39 strap handles identified as “faux.” The upper end of all D-­shaped specimens was welded to the inner lip; the lower edge was welded to the exterior surface of the vessel wall 3 to 7 cm below. If the vessel has a high, angular shoulder, the lower portion of the handle is bent to align with, is affixed to, and is blended in with the shoulder’s inflexion point. There are 15 clear D-­shaped handle attachment scars. Seven of these indicate that scored rat-­tail coils, 5 to 7 mm in diameter, were affixed to the inner surface and the lower edge of D-­shaped handles. When the handle was subsequently broken off, the coil that joins them to the vessel wall, and in several cases the coil and extreme distal portion of the handle, was left in place. Those specimens that include the inner surface of the handle between the handle and vessel wall are marked with half-­ cylindrical depressions. Point measurements of D-­shaped handle thickness reveals considerable variability that does not correlate with handle size. The thickness of a combined sample of small and large handles varies from 6 mm to 11 mm, but this range of variability is frequently (over 50 percent of the time) found on the same specimen. Ninety percent of the specimens (76 cases) also have a shallow, centrally located groove along their long axis. I conclude that the irregular thickness together with the centrally located grooves indicate D-­shaped handle production from solid clay cones. Like their D-­shaped counterparts the three Ω-­shaped handles have shallow linear central grooves but unlike them were affixed one end to the inner and the other end to the outer surface of the lip or lip proximal portion of a vessel. All of the 39 “faux” handles have deep centrally located grooves along their long axis. When I first encountered them, the grooves on several of these specimens are so deep that they led me to assume that the potter had adjusted to handle collapse by turning what were intended as D-­shaped handles into lugs. Subsequent observations led me to a different conclusion. They persuaded me to identify the results as intentional, hence the “faux” handle descriptor. While most of the pseudo-­handle were applied to the vessel wall vertically (i.e., from the lip directly downward), some were affixed diagonally and some horizon-

Summary and Discussion • 185

tally. Some curve gently downward to either left or right. While all of them show the centrally located trough expected of handles made from solid clay cones, none of them were bent for attachment to lip and upper vessel wall. Instead all of them were pressed into place against the exterior surface of the vessel wall for the complete distance of their length. One rather imaginative example resembles a truncated cornucopia (i.e., it was gathered to a near point at one long edge leaving the other open and trumpet shaped). The distribution of handles by grouped layers indicates that D-­shaped handles were manufactured and deposited through­out the sequence but in variable numbers being most popu­lar in grouped layers [E] and [B]. Ω-­shaped handles were deposited in the layers combined to form groups [B], [C], and [D] but not in [E] or [A]. False handles were introduced in the layers combined to form group [D], decreased slightly in those combined into group [C], then increased dramatically in popu­larity in group [B] from where they declined dramatically in group [A]. Seven morphological classes account for all the variability in Paso del Indio’s 47 lugs. These are identified as tab (19 examples, 40.4 percent of the lug sample), spike (6 examples, 12.8 percent of the lug sample), fish tail (3 examples, 6.4 percent of the lug sample), cylinder (4 examples, 8.5 percent of the lug sample), D-­shaped (5 examples, 10.6 percent of the lug sample), nipple (3 examples, 6.4 percent of the lug sample), and coil (7 examples, 14.9 percent of the lug sample). All tab lugs are (1) affixed at a right angle to and project outward from the lip, (2) rectangular or oval in shape, and (3) regular in thickness with straight or curved edges. All of the spike lugs are (1) nonhorizontal extensions of the lip with most being near vertical lip extensions, (2) triangular in outline with the base of the triangle lip proximal, the apex lip distal, and (3) always thicker at the base than at the apex. The four cylindrical lugs in the sample are most probably the vessel proximal portions of fish-­tail lugs but are too fragmentary to determine their former provenience or to provide reasonable measurements. Two of the four are, however, hollow, tube-­like projections frequently identified as snuffing tubes. Five uniformly flat-­sided, D-­shaped lugs were made by cutting them from rectangular or square sheets of clay. All have one curved vessel wall distal and one flat vessel wall proximal edge. All of them, to judge by the attachment scars along their flat edge have been scored, then pressed against and slurry welded to the upper outer vessel surface below but at a right angle to the lip. Four of the five have 3 to 5 mm in diameter centrally located perforations. Pinched-­up and smoothed-­over clay nipples on the upper exterior surface of vessels are either lugs or parts of an appliquéd decoration. Like their clay nipple counterparts, coils of clay added to the upper exterior vessel surface are either lugs or parts of an appliquéd decoration.

186 • Chapter 9

The distribution of lugs by grouped layers is uneven. Grouped layers [A] produce a single lug (2.2 percent of the lug sample). Grouped layers [B] produce 13 lugs (28,8 percent of the lug sample), grouped layers [C] produce 12 lugs (26.7 percent of the lug sample), grouped layers [D] produce only 2 lugs (4.5 percent of the lug sample), and grouped layers [E] produce 17 lugs (37.8 percent of the lug sample). The Paso del Indio sample contained 369 painted body sherds (1.3 percent of the body sherd sample) and 127 painted lip sherds (2.98 percent of the lip sherd sample). Slightly over 66 percent (66.3 percent) of the painted body sherds carry a pink-­hued paint, fewer than 34 percent (33.7 percent) are a deep red or crimson. Red or pink paint was applied to the surfaces of handles, lugs, and adornos as well as to vessel lips and bodies. Also noted are multiple instances of red or pink paint intruding into or covering the incised, trailed, or punctated decorative elements of adornos, bas-­reliefs, or tool-­rendered decorations. The painted surfaces of most body and lip sherds exhibit post painting, back-­and-­forth rub marks made by a smooth stone, a feature the painted surfaces of handles, adornos, and lugs lack. When color preference is calculated by grouped layers, red was the most popu­lar in grouped layers [E] and [A], pink in grouped layers [D], [C], and [B]. A preference for pink paint increased dramatically from grouped layers [E] to [D], declined a bit in grouped layers [C] then increased to its greatest popu­ larity in grouped layers [B] after which it declined dramatically in grouped layers [A]. A preference for red paint declined precipitously in grouped layers [D], increased dramatically in [C], declined dramatically in [B], and increased to its greatest popu­larity in [A]. Sixty-­four of the body sherds (17.3 percent) are painted only on the exterior, 60 are painted only on the interior (16.3 percent), and 245 (66.4 percent) are painted on both exterior and interior. Of those pieces painted only on the exterior 33 (51.6 percent) are pink and 31 (48.4 percent) are red. Twenty-­nine of the body sherds painted only on the interior (48.3 percent) are pink and 31 (51.7 percent) are red. One hundred and ninety-­seven of the sherds painted on both the exterior and interior (80.4 percent) are pink and 48 (19.6 percent) are red. One hundred twenty-­seven of the 4,270 lip sherds (2.98 percent) are painted. Sixty-­eight of the 127 painted lips (53.5 percent) are pink, 59 (46.5 percent) are painted red. There are no pink-­red combinations. The frequency of painting only the body exterior declined from grouped strata [E] to grouped strata [B] then increased dramatically in grouped strata [A]. The frequency of painting only the body interior declined from grouped strata [E] to [D], increased in grouped strata [C], declined slightly in grouped strata [B], and continued to decline in grouped strata [A]. The frequency of

Summary and Discussion • 187

painting both the body exterior and interior increased from grouped strata [E] to grouped strata [D] then declined a bit in grouped strata [C], increased in grouped strata [B], then declined in grouped strata [A]. The frequency of painting only the lip declined from grouped strata [E] to grouped strata [B] then increased in grouped strata [A]. Adornos are affixed to handles, faux handles, lugs, and vessel lips. The subjects depicted include monkey heads and faces (4 examples), human and anthropomorphic heads and faces (8 examples), zoomorphic forms (7 examples), bat heads, faces , upper bodies, and folded wings, (18 examples), manatee heads and upper bodies (2 examples), turtle heads (2 examples), toads (1 example), bird heads (1 example), and sea horses (1 example). When grouped into human and nonhuman categories the sample contains 8 examples of human or at least anthropomorphic representations and 29 examples of nonhuman representations. Twenty-­two percent of the adornos depict human or anthropomorphic subjects and 78 percent depict animals of several different kinds. Bats are the most common animal depicted (62 percent), monkeys are sec­ond (14 percent), manatees and turtles are third in popu­larity at 6.9 percent each, and toads, birds, and sea horses fourth with 3.4 percent each. Adornos are absent from the layers grouped as category [D] but were found with variable frequency in all other grouped layers. Slightly over 6 percent of the adornos from the Pilaster VI sample are derived from grouped layers [E]. Production, or at least deposition, ceased for the duration of the layers grouped together as [D] then began again in the layers grouped together as [C], where they make up 16.7 percent of the sample. Adorno production grew dramatically in grouped layers [B], where they constitute 73 percent of the sample, then declined to a mere 4 percent in grouped layers [A]. It is interesting and perhaps significant to note that human or anthropomorphic representations are found in all layers that produced adornos. Zoomorphic and humanoid representations are found in grouped layers [C]. Monkey and humanoid representations are found in grouped layers [A] and all forms are found in grouped layers [B]. Grouped layers [E] contain only human and humanoid representations, two of them solid and one of them hollow. The tooled decorative elements include incising, stab and drag marking, trailing, and punctating. If I eliminate the instances of tool use in the production of adornos and if I count multiple instances of tooling on a single surface as a single case, then there are 54 cases of incising, 30 cases of trailing, 7 cases of punctuating, and 3 cases of stab and drag marking. As far as I could discern, neither punctating nor stab and drag marking was used alone or in combination as the sole elements in the production of Paso del Indio’s ceramic designs. Punctating or stab and drag marking were always combined with either

188 • Chapter 9

incising or trailing. Differently put, Paso del Indio’s potters always combined punctating or stab and drag marking with either straight or curved, incised or trailed lines. With this caveat in place I note that incising is the most popu­lar decorative technique, occurring in 57.4 percent of the cases. Trailing is sec­ond in popu­larity, being used in 31.9 percent of the cases. Punctating cooccurred with trailing or incising in only 7.5 percent of the cases, and stab and drag marking cooccurred with trailing or incising in only 3.2 percent of the cases. Incising declined from grouped layers [E] to grouped layers [A] with a spike in popu­larity in grouped layers [C] and [B]. Trailing is not present in grouped layers [E]. It first appears in grouped layers [D], grows a bit in popu­ larity from grouped layers [D] to [C], and then declined in popu­larity from grouped layers [C] to [A]. Punctating first occurs in grouped layers [D], is absent from grouped layers [C], reappears as a distinct minority in grouped layers [B], then increases dramatically in popu­larity in grouped layers [A]. Stab and drag marking is most popu­lar in grouped layers [A], is a very minor element in grouped layers [B], and is absent elsewhere. When decorations are displayed as a ratio of painted to tooled, an interesting and coherent pattern emerges in which painting declined in popu­larity from grouped layers [E] to [A] and tooled decorations increased in popu­larity from grouped layers [E] to [A]. In an attempt to systematically describe the tooled designs rendered by Paso del Indio’s potters I divide them into sets or classes. To facilitate this task I first distinguish between focal and peripheral elements of composition. I identify focal elements as those that are both redundant and centrally located within a given design. I identify peripheral elements as those that complement the elements identified as focal and separate repetitions thereof. It should be noted, too, that focal elements can stand alone, but peripheral elements always occur in combination with focal elements. With the focal/peripheral distinction in hand I was able to systematically divide the sample into 12 classes, 9 of which have members. Class 1 is composed of designs having only linear focal elements. Class 2 has designs with only curvilinear focal elements. Class 3 designs have both curvilinear and linear focal elements. It should be noted here that none of these designs contain peripheral elements. Class 4 is composed of designs with curvilinear focal and curvilinear peripheral elements. Class 5 designs have linear focal and curvilinear peripheral elements, and class 6 designs have linear focal and linear peripheral elements. Class 7 designs have linear focal elements and both linear and curvilinear peripheral elements, and class 8 designs have both linear and curvilinear focal elements and curvilinear peripheral elements. Class 9 designs have both curvilinear and linear focal elements and both linear and curvilinear peripheral elements.

Summary and Discussion • 189

Class 1 designs include (a) a bounded, triple-­line zig-­zag; (b) an unbounded, double-­line zig-­zag; and (c) an unbounded succession of parallel, vertical lines. Class 2 designs consist of (a) walking spirals and (b) nested, multiple scrolls. Class 3 designs consists of (a) upright, double-­line arches and parallel, vertical lines; (b) inverted, single-­line arches and parallel, vertical lines; (c) sunbursts; and (c) nested, curved lines above and below parallel, vertical lines. Class 4 designs consist of (a) punctated and parenthesized lazy spirals and (b) punctated and parenthesized circles and double-­line arches. Class 5 designs consist of pendant triangles, punctations, and stab and drag marking. Class 6 designs consist of pendant triangles with stab and drag marking. Class 7 designs consist of (a) abutted, horizontal and vertical lines and (b) horizontal lines nested in rectangles. Class 8 designs consist of pendant triangles and punctations. Class 9 designs consist of pendant triangles and tooled ovals (Fig­ ure 8.6d, e, and f ). Of the 23 designs complete enough to unequivocally identify their component parts, 8 are derived from stratum 7, 12 from stratum 8, 2 from stratum 8A, and 1 from stratum 10. When considered as the products of grouped layers all but one of the identifiable tooled designs come from [B]. The single exception is a class 2A design from the uppermost layer of grouped layers [C]. All of the identifiable designs are applied to the exterior surface between shoulder and lip on high, angular shouldered vessels. While the evidence is fragmentary and in many respects equivocal, the effigy adornos, when combined with the tails, folded wings, dangling limbs, joints, feet, fin and flipper representations affixed to the exterior surfaces of upper body and lip sherds, suggest that whole pot compositions were a part of prehistoric Puerto Rican ceramic traditions. That at least some prehistoric Puerto Rican vessels are three-­dimensional compositions is indicated by the bat and bird effigy pots illustrated in Fewkes (Plates xxviii and lxxix). The fact that whole pot compositions were not alien to Paso del Indio’s prehistoric potters is confirmed by several of the vessels accompanying burials. Then too, incised and painted design elements were combined with effigy adornos and bas-­relief legs and feet on several of the largest upper body sherds in the sample. None of the specimens from pilaster VI are spalled, nor are any shattered or warped. If there were failures, they were discarded elsewhere or were so few in number they were not drawn when the sample was collected. I suspect the latter. This suggests an adequate drying period that, unless I assume a drastically different past climate, would have been difficult to achieve without a shelter of some kind. Pottery vessels may have been manufactured out-­of-­doors, or in-­, but were most probably dried inside. Some, if not all, pots also may have been warmed near a hearth until most of the moisture was driven from them. They

190 • Chapter 9

then may have been stored in the rafters or in the peripheral portions of domestic dwellings until a convenient firing was arranged. Many of the vessel fragments carry splotchy, irregular smudges commonly called firing clouds. These, I presume, are the results of reduction burns created when fuel fell against the pot during firing. Irregular splotches are observed on the exterior surfaces of 50 bases but never on base interiors. Such splotches are also noted on the exterior basal surfaces of a reconstructed vessel together with smudged areas along the vessel’s lip exterior and interior. Linear firing clouds are also observed on the exterior surfaces of many of the larger specimens. One particularly clear example, a reconstructed pot, has both linear firing clouds 22 to 24 mm long and 10 to 12 mm wide on its exterior surfaces and splotchy clouds along the lip and about handle proximal portions of both its exterior and interior surface. A third reconstructed pot has well marked non-­linear firing clouds on the base exterior combined with smudges on both exterior and interior handle proximal surfaces. A fourth reconstructed vessel has the same patterning as did over a hundred examples of firing cloud-­smudged sherds I noted before discontinuing the observation. The splotchy, irregular smudges are created by burning wads or clumps of grass or bark, the more regular and darker oval to circular stains by burning chunks of wood. The clear black linear smudges are created by burning sticks. Nonsmudged, oxidation-­burned surfaces are reasonably uniform shades of tan, red, brown, yellow or grey. Irregularities in temperature, draft and gas circulation are indicated by the burn out pattern observable in many sherd cross-­sections. These pieces have a darker core sandwiched between lighter exterior and interior surfaces. The evidence adduced concerning firing led me to suspect that Paso del Indio’s potters customarily used a bonfire kiln constructed of locally available materials. The following is a highly speculative account of kiln construction. The sod or other overburden is first removed from a circular or oval area of suitable dimensions to provide a flat surface or a shallow concavity. A prepared bed of sticks, grass, and/or bark is then put over the bare soil to keep the unfired vessels off the ground and to allow for a draft during the early stages of burning. The pots to be fired are placed mouth down on the prepared bed of sticks and grass and nestled down into it to hold them upright. The mouth-­ down position is inferred from the smudge patterns noted on the exterior but not the interior of pot bottoms and by the smudges on handle proximal exterior and interior surfaces. It is presumed that the handle on vessels placed lip down propped the lip up to expose interior handle proximal vessel surfaces. Splotches along both exterior and interior lip surfaces lead me to suspect some shifting and sinking of the pots during the burn, most probably caused by the disintegration of the stick, bark and grass underbedding.

Summary and Discussion • 191

Obviously, fuel is stacked over the pots before the heap is fired. I presume locally available materials are used for this task. Therefore, it seems reasonable to suppose that wood, grass, or bark is collected from supplies nearby. Given the size and position of those linear and unequivocally wood produced firing clouds, I suggest that a tipi-­like frame of sticks is first placed over the pots. This wood frame is then covered with a thatch of dry grass, leaves, and/or bark. The stack is probably lit on the downwind side to promote a slower and hotter burn, with additional fuel being added as the burn proceeds. Paso del Indio’s potters probably allowed their wares to cool before pulling them from the dying fire thus preventing undue cracking through rapid heat loss.

Discussion To fit the data generated by my ceramic analy­sis into the series and subseries scheme of cultural classification proposed by Irving Rouse (1939) and used by the majority of Caribbean archaeologists is a bit problematic. It is abundantly clear that Rouse (1992, 31–37) created his scheme to classify ar­chaeo­logi­cal cultures, not isolated ceramic traits or even ceramic trait complexes. There is, however, a continuity to ceramic manufacturing and decorative practices that mirrors his cultural classification. Nevertheless, if I wish to fit my ceramic data into his scheme, I must conform to its logical structure. By a series Rouse means a group of ar­chaeo­logi­cal cultures whose members share a common set of culturally salient customs, standards, and beliefs. Implied is a set of related populations whose members participate in a common social architecture. He further argues that two series of cultures, namely the Saladoid and the Ostionoid will account for the majority, if not all, prehistoric Caribbean pottery-­ producing cultures. The two series of cultures can, however, be divided into vari­ous subseries that are themselves temporally and spatially bounded segments of the broader continuum represented by the series of which they are an integral part. It is clear that Rouse (1992, 31–37) considers the series to be the broadest and most inclusive unit in his scheme. What is not as clear is how his subseries are related to his series. Are his vari­ous subseries to be construed as parts of, kinds of, or stages of his broader classificatory unit? Does his classification proceed by the logical principle of multiple set intersections, multiple set additions, or multiple set inclusions? Differently put is Rouse’s scheme a stageonomy, a partonomy, or a taxononomy? (See Kay, 1971, 866–886, for a discussion of these distinctions.) If Rouse intended his scheme to be a stageonomy, then there should be a clear and recognizable progression from one subseries to the next as migration proceeded. If he intended a partonomy then different subseries should be con-

192 • Chapter 9

fined to different parts of the Caribbean and persist there for the duration of the series. If he intended a taxonomy, then each subseries should be a variation of the series found wherever and whenever the series is present. Even a cursory inspection of Rouse’s (1992) presentation in The Tainos indicates that his scheme is a stageonomy. The classifier using Rouse’s scheme is to proceed by the logical principle of multiple set intersection. His scheme thus has a paradigmatic structure, a logical order in which each taxon is created by contrasting values along one or more of the salient dimensions of its predecessor and its successor. In his 1960 Ameri­can Antiquity article on the classification of artifacts in archaeology Rouse (1960a, 313–323) uses the term genetic to describe this relationship. If prehistoric Caribbean pottery production mirrors Rouse’s cultural classification and if I want to classify it as such, then my classification must proceed as Rouse proceeded. I must organize my data into series and subseries and do so by using the logical principle of set intersection. In other words, my ceramic classification must have a paradigmatic structure. My ceramic series must be the logical and empirical equivalent of Rouse’s cultural series and my ceramic subseries must be the logical and empirical equivalent of his cultural subseries. To accomplish this task I shall stipulate that my ceramic series is marked by a temporal and spatial continuum in the performance of the most basic manufacturing practices (i.e., those that entail the highest risk of product loss). Differently put, I want my ceramic series to be based on continuity in raw material selection and preparation, technique or techniques of manufacture, and modes of size and shape. With respect to the latter I consider modes of bottom, base, wall, and shoulder manufacture to be of more import to series determination than modes of rim and lip construction or than modes of appendation such as handle, lug, or adorno production. If I strictly follow Rouse’s approach, then my ceramic subseries will be composed of those nonbasic modes of manufacture and those modes of appendation and decoration that constitute a temporally and spatially restricted segment of the continuum his ceramic series represents. Remember, however, that the relationship between the vari­ous subseries within a series must be one of multiple set intersections, must be defined by contrasting values along the dimensions of nonbasic modes of production, appendation, and decoration. Note too that a given ceramic subseries must have a more limited distribution in time and space than the series that subsumes it. Differently put a ceramic subseries is a temporally and spatially restricted expression of the nonbasic modes of production and decoration that are subsumed within a ceramic series. Caribbean archaeologists have used the concept of style as a yet more re-

Summary and Discussion • 193

stricted unit of ceramic classification; a taxon that may be used to organize the ceramic variability within a subseries. While a style may be characterized as a cluster of modes that are temporally and spatially more restricted than those found in either a series or subseries, reference to the previous distinction between modes in general and those that are options and/or alternatives will make a more precise description possible. Remember, an option is a manufacturing or decorative practice that may be omitted at the discretion of the potter, and alternatives are different means to similar or at least concordant ends. Let me then restrict the term style to temporally and spatially restricted mode clusters that express redundancies in the potter’s selection of options and alternatives during manufacture and/or decoration.

The Saladoid Series Cedrosan Saladoid Ware

Given the previously introduced taxonomic distinctions, I classify the ceramics in grouped layers [E] as representing the Cedrosan subseries of the Saladoid series, a segment of the Saladoid continuum that in Puerto Rico seems to have spanned the years between 300 b.c. and a.d. 800. In doing so I take the existence of certain properties to be definitive. There are two manufacturing techniques, namely slab modeling and coiling. In the production of wares there are two kinds of symmetry, radial and bilateral, and two alternatives for bottom shape, round and flat. In making the body the potters produced a rimless body wall inflected and a rimless high, round or high, angular shouldered vessel. There are five alternatives for lip shape, round direct, round everted, round inverted, flat direct, flat everted, and flat inverted. There are appended D-­shaped tabs; spikes; fish tails; hollow, cylindrical nipple; or button lugs. The production of pairs of D-­shaped handles that include modeled and incised; solid or hollow human faces applied to lips, lugs, or upper body walls; base-­encircling annular skirts or annular rings; base-­supporting podal supports with the use of a red or pink paint applied to the body exterior, the body interior, to both body exterior and interior or to the lip alone; and incising applied to the upper body exterior or lip are definitive.. Cuevas Style Cedrosan Ware

I may further classify some of the ceramics (approximately 11 percent) from grouped layers [E] as belonging to the Cuevas style of Cedrosan Saladoid wares by the presence of relatively tall, radially symmetrical, flat-­bottomed, low, mid, or high bodywall–inflected, slab-­modeled vessels bearing a solid red rather than white-­on-­red painted decoration. Button and nipple lugs on flat

194 • Chapter 9

and direct vessel lips, D-­shaped handles welded to the upper body exterior and lip, hollow and solid human faces affixed to the upper exterior or interior of vessel walls, and incised decorations on upper exterior surfaces of slab-­ built vessels can also be identified as elements of the Cuevas style pottery in grouped layers [E]. Unnamed Cedrosan Saladoid Styles

The vast majority of the ceramics (roughly 89 percent) from grouped layers [E], however, could not be identified as Cuevas without redefining the taxon. The majority of the specimens from grouped layers [E] seem instead to represent an as yet unnamed style or styles of the Cedrosan subseries that seem to be prefiguring the emergence of early wares belonging to the Elenan subseries of the Ostionoid series. These include the production of coiled, rimless, flat or rounded lipped, bilaterally symmetrical, oval-­mouthed, shoulderless vessels and coiled, rimless, flat or rounded lipped, bilaterally symmetrical, oval-­mouthed vessels with either, high angular or high rounded shoulders and rounded bottoms. When decorated these vessels bear incised or trailed designs on the upper exterior surface or are painted a monochrome red or pink on the interior, the exterior, the interior and exterior, or the lip. When appendages are added to shouldered forms they are pairs of D-­shaped handles or lugs without modeled and incised adornos. To proceed with my classification I shall divide the non-­Cuevas style ceramic materials into those having and those lacking shoulders. For economy of discussion I shall identify the former as members of provisional style A and the latter as members of provisional style B. Provisional style A therefore incorporates four morphological alternatives, namely a rounded or angular shoulder and a flat or rounded lip, one decorative option (to decorate or not), three decorative alternatives (tooled decorations, red-­painted or pink-­painted decoration), one appendation option (to append or not), and two appendation alternatives (D-­shaped handles or lugs). Provisional style B incorporates two morphological alternatives (namely flat and rounded lips), one decorative option (to decorate or not), and three decorative alternatives (tooled decorations, red-­painted or pink-­painted decoration). It should be noted too, that provisional style A may express 20 stylistically salient mode combinations and B may express 8 stylistically salient mode combinations, each of which may be identified as a variety of the style in question. If the ceramics from grouped layers [D] and [C] are any indication, then both styles continued to be produced and became key components of the ceramic manufacturing practices that produced wares identified as members of the Elenan subseries of the Ostionoid series.

Summary and Discussion • 195

The Ostoinoid Series Elenan Ostionoid Ware

From grouped layers [D] to [C] the production of a high, rounded shoulder increased from 51 to 86.3 percent then declined to 79.4 percent, while the production of a high, angular shoulder declined from 48.7 percent to 16.4 percent then increased to 26.7 percent. Over the same span the production of rounded lips decreased from 66 percent to 56 percent, while flat lip production increased from 33 percent to 43.5 percent. Then too, in grouped layers [E] 98 percent of the decorated vessels were painted and 2 percent were tool decorated. From grouped layers [E] through [D] to [C], painting declined from 98 percent to 94.4 percent, while tooled decorations increased from 2 percent to 5.6 percent. The use of a pink paint, however, increased from 33 percent to 58 percent as the choice of a red paint declined from 66 percent to 42 percent. Thirty-­two percent of the D-­shaped handles are found in grouped layers [E], 11.9 percent in [D] and 9.5 percent in [C]. Ω-­shaped and faux handles first appear in grouped layers [D] and continued to be produced through grouped layers [B]. No adornos are found in the sample of ceramics from grouped layers [D] but 16.7 percent of the adorno sample came from ceramics in grouped layers [C]. Adorno production may, of course, have ceased for the temporal span represented by [D]. I suspect, however, that adorno production continued at a diminished level since they grew in popu­larity slightly later. With the exception of a marked preference for pink rather than red paint and the introduction of Ω-­shaped and faux handles, the ceramics from grouped layers [D] and [C] may be described as oscillating around the norms for shoulder and lip form, adorno production, handle affixation, and decoration that typify provisional styles A and B. I therefore, view them as Elenan Ostionoid, as expressing norms of production and decoration that dominate the manufacture of ceramics in east­ern Puerto Rico from the eight to the twelfth centuries. Chican Ostionoid Ware

Grouped layers [B] produced a full-­blown and vigorous expression of the twelfth-­to fourteenth-­century Chican subseries of the Ostionoid series of ceramics. The rimless, coiled, shouldered and shoulderless, round-­bottomed vessels reach their greatest breadth to height ratio of 3.0 to 1 for shouldered forms and 4.2 to 1 for nonshouldered forms. Differently expressed, bilateral symmetry reached its greatest extreme in oval-­mouthed, oval-­bodied specimens. Approximately 79 percent of the shouldered forms are high and rounded, 21 percent are high and angular. The popu­larity of flat lips grew to 52.1 percent and the production of rounded lips declined to 47.9 percent. Esperanza style

196 • Chapter 9

incised, trailed, punctated, and stab-­drag-­marked compositions adorn 36 percent of the decorated vessels from grouped layers [B]. The rest of the decorated specimens (64 percent) are painted, 89.7 percent of them pink and 10.3 percent of them red. Forty-­four percent of the D-­shaped handles, 61.5 percent of the faux handles and 33.3 percent of the Ω-­shaped handles come from grouped layers [B]. Approximately 29 percent of the lugs also come from grouped layers [B]. Then too, by far the greater numbers of adornos are affixed to the handles, lugs, and lips of vessels from [B]. Adorno production, or at least deposition, ceased for the duration of the layers grouped together as [D] then began again in the layers grouped together as [C], where they constitute 16.7 percent of the sample. Adorno production grows dramatically in grouped layers [B], where they constitute 73 percent of the sample. Note too that human or anthropomorphic representations are found in all layers that produced adornos: zoomorphic and humanoid representations are found in grouped layers [C], monkey and humanoid representations are found in grouped layers [A], but all forms are found in grouped layers [B]. The specimens from grouped layers [A] represent a drift away from, or perhaps better said, a redirection of the Chican norms exemplified in grouped layers [B]. The production of rounded lips, which increased from grouped layers [D] through [B], declined from 79.4 percent to 65 percent, and the manufacture of flat lips, which declined through the same span, increases from 20 to 35 percent. Then too, a relatively long-­term increase in the production of high, round shoulders halted with a decline from 79.4 percent to 65 percent, and a long-­term decrease in high, angular shoulders was altered by a preference for them (61.3 percent). This preference was accompanied by a preference for painting only the exterior (42.1 percent) or only the lip (26 percent). With respect to tooled decorative elements there is a dramatic decrease in the use of incising and trailing and a complementary increase in the use of punctating and stab-­and-­drag marking. The ratio of tooled to painted decorations is modified from a grouped layers [B] ratio of approximately 64 percent painted to 36 percent tooled to a new balance of 40 percent painted and 60 percent tooled. From a classificatory perspective I see these trends as a simplification of ceramic manufacturing and decorative practices traditionally termed Chican Ostionoid. In sum, I am positing a late fifth-­to eighth-­century Cedrosan Saladoid occupation of grouped layers [E], represented by what seems to be the last gasp of Cuevas style pottery production. The production techniques that created rimless, flat-­lipped, radially symmetrical, rounded mouthed, flat-­bottomed, slab-­built vessels with high, mid-­, or low body wall inflections were on the

Summary and Discussion • 197

wane. They were being replaced by the manufacture of a few slab-­modeled and many more coiled, bilaterally symmetrical oval-­mouthed, round-­bottomed, shoulderless, and high angular or high rounded, shouldered vessels. In sum, the potters who produced Cedrosan Saladoid wares coiled more bilateral and slab modeled fewer and fewer radially symmetrical vessels until the former replaced the latter and my provisional styles A and B became the norm. Styles A and B prefig­ure the production techniques, modes of appendation, and decoration that later become the cornerstones of the Elenan subseries of the Ostionoid series of ceramic wares. The production of these forms, persists, from the eighth to the twelfth century, albeit with some oscillation about the norms of lip, mouth and body construction, and more dramatic variations in the popu­larity of options and alternatives in appendation and decoration. They become a part of the Elenan portion of a new Ostionoid series. From approximately the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries (i.e. through grouped layers [B]) Paso del Indio’s potters produced wares that are typically attributed to the Chican subseries of the Ostionoid series of ceramics, in­clud­ ing some decorated with Espranza style tooled designs. The Paso del Indio ceramic sequence terminated with a fourteenth-­to sixteenth-­century simplification of Chican Ostionoid forms of appendation and decoration.

Works Cited

Alegria, Ricardo E. 1983 Ball Courts and Ceremonial Plazas in the West Indies. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 79. Yale University Press, New Haven. Binford, Lewis R. 1958 Method and Theory in Ameri­can Archaeology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. Ameri­can Antiquity 28:217–225. 1964. A Consideration of Archaeological Research Design. Ameri­can Antiquity 29(4):​ 425–441. Beattie, John 1964 Other Cultures: Aims, Methods and Achievements in Social Anthropology. Free Press, New York. Casson, Michael 1979 The Craft of the Potter. 1st U.S. ed. Barron’s Educational Series, New York. Champe, John L. 1948 A is for Apple. Plains Archaeological Newsletter 1 (3):17–19. Chang, Kwang Chi 1968 Settlement Archaeology. National Press Books, Palo Alto. Childe Vere G. 1950 Prehistoric Migrations in Europe. Instatutet for Sa  mmenlignende Kulturferskuling. Fourlesninger 20(5). Clarke, David L. 1968 Analytical Archaeology. Methuen, Lon­don. Cosculluela, J. A. 1946 Prehistoric Cultures of Cuba. Ameri­can Antiquity 12(1):10–18. Curet, L. Antonio 1992a The Development of Chiefdoms in the Greater Antilles: A Regional Study of the

200 • Works Cited Valley of Maunabo, Puerto Rico. Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1992b House Structure and Cultural Change in the Caribbean: Three Case Studies from Puerto Rico. Latin Ameri­can Antiquity 3:160–174. 1996 Ideology, Chiefly Power, and Material Culture: An Example from the Greater Antilles. Latin Ameri­can Antiquity 7:114–131. 2002 The Chief Is Dead, Long Live . . . Who? Descent and Succession in the Proto­ historic Chiefdoms of the Caribbean. Ethnohistory 49:259–280. 2003 Issues on the Diversity and Emergence of Middle Range Societies of the Ancient Caribbean: A Critique. Journal of Archaeological Research 11:1–42. 2005 Caribbean Paleodemography: Population, Culture History and Sociopo­liti­cal Process in Ancient Puerto Rico. University of Ala­bama Press, Tuscaloosa. Curet, Antonio L., and Lisa M. Stringer 2009. Tibes: People, Power, and Rituals at the Center of the Cosmos. University of Ala­ bama Press, Tuscaloosa. Deetz, James 1967 Invitation to Archaeology. Ameri­can Museum of Natural History. Natural History Press, New York. 1968 Cultural Patterning of Behavior as Reflected by Archaeological Materials. In Settlement Archaeology, edited by K. C. Chang, pp. 31–42. National Press Books, Palo Alto. Desrayaud, Gilles 1999 Typo-­Morphological Methodology Applied to Cedrosan Saladoid Ceramics (circa I– IVth c. A.D.) at the Vive Site Martinique. S.R.A.Martinique, Fort-­de-­France. Duke, Phillip 2008 Places in the Heartland: Landscape Archaeology on the Plains. In Archaeological Landscapes on the High Plains, edited by Laura L. Scheiber and Bonnie J. Clark, pp. 277–285: University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Duke, Phillip, and Michael C. Wilson, eds. 1995 Beyond Subsistence: Plains Archaeology and the Postprocesual Critique. University of Ala­bama Press, Tuscaloosa. Dunnell, Robert C. 1971 Systematics in Prehistory. Free Press, New York. 1978 Style and Function: A Fundamental Dichotomy. Ameri­can Antiquity 43:​192–202. Fagan, Bryan M. 1978 Archaeology: A Brief Introduction. Little Brown, Boston. Fewkes, J. Walter 1902 Prehistoric Porto Rico. Proceedings of the Ameri­can Association for the Advancement of Science 51(394):94–109. 1903 Prehistoric Puerto Rican Pictographs. Ameri­can Anthropologist, n.s., 6(5):441–467. 1907 The Aborigines of Porto Rico and Neighboring Islands. Annual Report of the Bureau of Ameri­can Ethnology 25. U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash­ing­ ton, D.C.

Works Cited • 201 1922 A Prehistoric Island Culture Area of America. Annual Report of the Bureau of Ameri­can Ethnology, 34. U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash­ing­ton, D.C. Firth, Raymond 1963 Elements of Social Organization. 3rd ed. Beacon Press, Boston. Flannery, Kent V. 1967 Culture History versus Culture Process: A Debate in Ameri­can Archaeology. Scientific Ameri­can 217:119–122. Ford, James A. 1936 Analysis of Indian Village Site Collections from Louisiana and Mississippi. Louisiana Geological Survey, Anthropological Study (2):1–285, Baton Rouge. Funk, Robert E. 1978 The Northeast­ern United States. In Ancient North Ameri­cans, edited by Jesse D. Jennings pp. 303–373. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco. Gluckman, Max 1968 The Difficulties, Achievements and Limitations of Social Anthropology. In Theory in Anthropology, edited by R. Manners and B. Kaplin, pp.139–156 Aldine, Chicago. Goodenough, Ward H. 1957 Cultural Anthropology and Linguistics. In Report of the 7th Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language, edited by P. Garvin, pp.167–173. Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, no. 9. Institute of Languages and Linguistics, Georgetown University Wash­ing­ton, D.C. Gower, Charlotte 1927 The North­ern and South­ern Affiliations of Antillean Culture. Memoirs of the Ameri­can Anthropological Association, no. 35. Menasha. Griffin, James B. 1978 The Midlands. In Ancient North Ameri­cans, edited by Jesse D. Jennings, pp. 243– 303 . W. H. Freeman, San Francisco. Harré, H. Rom 1961 Theories and Things. Sheed and Ward, Lon­don. Hatt, Gudmund 1924 Archaeology of the Virgin Islands. Proceedings of the 21st International Congress of Ameri­canists, pt. 1:29–42. The Hague. Hempel, Carl G. 1965 Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. Mac­millan, New York. Hester, J. J. 1976 Introduction to Archaeology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. Hill, Robert T. 1898 Cuba and Puerto Rico with the Other Islands of the West Indies: Their Topography, Climate, Flora, Products, Industries, City, People, Po­liti­cal Conditions, Etc. T. Fisher Unwin, Lon­don.

202 • Works Cited Hodder, Ian 1985 Postprocessual Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 8, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 1–26. Academic Press, New York. Hole, Fredrick, and R. F. Heizer 1969 An Introduction to Prehistoric Archeology. 2nd ed. Reinhardt and Winston, New York. Hostos, Alfredo de 1941 Notes on West Indian Hydrography in Its Relation to Prehistoric Migrations. Anthropological Papers: Papers Based Principally on Studies of the Prehistoric Archaeology and Ethnology of the Greater Antilles. Government of Puerto Rico, Office of the Historian, San Juan. Jenkins, Ned J., and Richard A. Krause 1986 The Tombigbee Watershed in Southeast­ern Prehistory. University of Ala­bama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2009 The Woodland-­Mississippian Interface in Ala­bama, Ca., a.d. 1075–1200: An Adaptive Radiation? Southeast­ern Archaeology 28(2):202–219. Jennings, Jesse N. 1974 Prehistory of North America. 2nd ed. McGraw-­Hill, New York. Josselin de Jong, J. P. B. de. 1924 A Natural Prototype of Certain Three-­Pointed Stones. Proceedings of the Twenty-­ first International Congress of Ameri­canists, pt. 1:43–55. The Hague. Kay, Paul 1971 Taxonomy and Semantic Contrast. Language 47(4):866–887. Kidder, Alfred 1944 Archaeology of Northwest­ern Venezuela. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Ameri­ can Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 26, no. 1. Harvard University, Cambridge. Kluckhohn, Clyde, and W. H. Kelley 1945 The Concept of Culture. In Man in the World Crisis, edited by R. Linton, pp. 78–107 .Columbia University Press, New York. Knudson, S. J. 1978 Culture in Retrospect: An Introduction to Archaeology. Rand McNally, Chicago. Krause, Richard A. 1984 Modelling the Making of Pots: An Ethnoar­chaeo­logi­cal Approach. In The Many Dimensions of Pottery: Ceramics in Archaeology and Anthropology, edited by Sander van der Leeuw and Alison Prichard, pp. 615–699 . University of Amsterdam, Albert Egges van Giffen Instituut voor Prae-­en Protohistorie. Cingula VII. 1988 The Snodgrass Small Mound and Middle Tennessee Valley Prehistory. Tennessee Valley Authority Publications in Anthropology, no. 52. 1989 Coffee, Sugar and Baked Clay. Report Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mobile District. Mobile, Ala­bama. 1994 Paper Sacks, Paste-­Board Boxes and Intellectual Bins:The River Basin Salvage Program and Archaeological Classification. In 40 Something: The River Basin Sur-

Works Cited • 203 veys, edited by Kimball Banks, pp. 27–38. North Dakota Archaeology, Bismarck, vol. 5. 1995 Attributes, Modes and 10th Century Potting Practices in Northcentral Kansas. Plains Anthropologist 40(154):307–352. 1996 Artifacts, Features and Associations: Observations on the Excavation of a Mississippian Mound. Mounds, Embankments and Ceremonialism in the Midsouth, edited by Robert Manifort and Richard Walling, pp. 54–63. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series no. 46, Fayetteville. 1997 Pottery Manufacture. In Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa: Archaeology, History, Languages, Cultures, and Environments, edited by Joseph O. Vogel, pp. 115–125 AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek. 1998 The History of Great Plains Prehistory. In Archaeology on the Great Plains, edited by W. R. Wood, pp. 49–86. University of Kansas Press, Lawrence. 2007 At the Interface: The Role of the Red Fox Site in Our Understanding of Tennessee Valley Prehistory. Journal of Ala­bama Archaeology 53(1&2):85–110. 2010 Review of Archaeological Landscapes on the High Plains. Journal of Field Archaeology 35(2):249–252. 2011 An Inventory and Analysis of Ceramics from Sites on the Fort Carson Military Base. Plains Anthropologist 56(2):305–322. 2014 The Pottery Vessel from Site 5LA3189: A Possible Navajo Vessel. Plains Anthropologist 59(30):182–200. Krause, R. A., and R. M. Thorne 1971 Toward a Theory of Archaeological Things. Plains Anthropologist 16(54):245–257. Kushner, G. 1970 A Consideration of Some Processual Designs for Archaeology as Anthropology. Ameri­can Antiquity 35:125–32. Laidler, P. W., and F. S. A. Scot 1936 South Af­ri­can Native Ceramics: Their Characteristics and Classification. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa 26(2):93–172. Lehmer, Donald J. 1951 Pottery Types from the Dodd Site, Oahe Reservoir South Dakota. Plains Archaeological Conference News Letter 4(2):3–15. 1971 Introduction to Middle Missouri Archeology. National Park Service, Anthropological Papers 1. Wash­ing­ton, D.C. Lienhardt, Gregory 1966 Social Anthropology. 2nd. ed. Oxford University Press, New York. Longacre, William A. 1970 Reconstructing Prehistoric Pueblo Societies. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Loven, Sven 1935 Origin of the Tainan Culture, West Indies. Elanders Bokfryckeri Akfiebolag, Goteborg.

204 • Works Cited Macpherson, J. 1963 Caribbean Islands: Geography of the West Indies. Longmans, Green, Lon­don. Malinowski, Bronislaw 1936 Culture as a Determinant of Behavior. Scientific Monthly 63:440–449. 1961 Argonauts of the West­ern Pacific. Dutton, New York. MacNeish, Richard S., and Antoinette Nelken-­Turner 1983 Final Annual Report of the Belize Archaic Archaeological Reconnaissance. Center for Archaeological Studies, Boston University, Boston. Mann, Jason, and Richard A. Krause 2009 Plain Pots: A Study of Late Woodland Pottery in Central Ala­bama. Ala­bama Museumof Natural History, bulletin 27, Tuscaloosa. Mason, J. Alden 1941 A Large Archaeological Site at Capa, Utuado, with Notes on Other Puerto Rican Sites Visited in 1914–15. Scientific Survey of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, vol. 18, pt. 2. New York Academy of Sciences, New York. McKern, W. C. 1939 The Midwest­ern Taxonomic Method as an Aid to Archaeological Culture Study. Ameri­can Antiquity 4:301–313. McKusick, Marshall 1960 Distribution of Ceramic Styles in the Lesser Antilles, West Indies. Ph.D. diss., Yale University, New Haven Nadel, Siegfried F. 1957 The Theory of Social Structure. Free Press, Glencoe. Oliver, José R. 2005 The Proto-­Taino Monumental Cemis of Caguana: A Po­liti­cal-­Religious “Mani­ festo”. In Ancient Borinquen: Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Native Puerto Rico, edited by Peter E. Siegel, pp. 230–284. University of Ala­bama Press, Tuscaloosa. Osgood, Cornelius 1942 The Ciboney Culture of Cayo Redondo, Cuba. Yale University Press, New Haven. Pantel, Agamemnon Gus 1979 Portuguese and Bucana Rivers, Puerto Rico: Cultural Resources Survey. La Fundacion Arquelogica, Anthropologica e Historia de Puerto Rico, San Juan. Pelto, P., and G. H. Pelto 1978 Anthropological Research: The Structure of Inquiry. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Phillips, P., J. A. Ford, and J. B. Griffin 1951 Archaeological Survey in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 1940–1947. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Ameri­can Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 25. Harvard University, Cambridge. Pinchon, Robert. 1952. Introduction a l’archeologie Martiniquaise. Journal de la Societe des Ameri­canistes (Paris) 41(2):305–352. Prigogine, I. 1978 Time, Structure and Fluctuations. Science 291:777–785.

Works Cited • 205 Radcliffe-­Brown, A. R. 1958 Method in Social Anthropology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Rainey, Froelich G. 1940 Porto Rican Archaeology. Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands, vol. 18, pt. 1. New York Academy of Sciences, New York. Ramos, Raniel Rodriguez 2005 The Crab-­Shell Dichotomy Revisited: The Lithics Speak Out. In Ancient Borin­ quen: Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Native Puerto Rico, edited by Peter E. Siegel, pp. 1–55. University of Ala­bama Press, Tuscaloosa. Read, Dwight W. 2007 Artifact Classification: A Conceptual and Methodological Approach. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek. Robinson, Linda Sickler, Emily Lundburg, and Jeffery B. Walker 1981 Archaeological Data Recovery at El Bronce, Puerto Rico, Interim Report. Archaeological Services, San Juan. 1983 Archaeological Data Recovery at El Bronce, Puerto Rico, Phase 1. Archaeological Services, San Juan. 1985 Archaeological Data Recovery at El Bronce, Puerto Rico, Phase 2. Archaeological Services, San Juan. Rouman, Jacques 1943 L’outillage Lithic des Ciboney d’Haiti. Bulletin du Bureau d’Ethnology, Republique d’Haiti 2:22–27. Rouse, Irving B. 1939 Prehistory in Haiti: A Study in Method. Publications in Anthropology, no. 21. Yale University, New Haven. 1941 Culture of the Ft. Liberte Region, Haiti. Publications in Anthropology, no. 24. Yale University, New Haven. 1942 Archaeology of the Maniabon Hills, Cuba. Publications in Anthropology, no. 26. Yale University, New Haven. 1948 The Arawak. In Handbook of South Ameri­can Indians, vol. 4, edited by Julian H. Steward, pp.507–546.Smithsonian Institution, Wash­ing­ton, D.C. 1952 Porto Rican Prehistory. Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands, vol. 18. New York Academy of Sciences, New York. 1953a The Circum-­Caribbean Theory, an Archaeological Test. Ameri­can Anthropologist 55(2):188–200. 1953b Indian Sites in Trinidad. On the Excavation of a Shell Mound at Palo Seco Trinidad, by J. A. Bullbrook, pp. 91–111. Publications in Anthropology, no. 50. Yale University, New Haven. 1960a The Classification of Artifacts in Archaeology. Ameri­can Antiquity 25:313–323. 1960b The Entry of Man into the West Indies. In Papers in Caribbean Anthropology, compiled by Sidney W. Mintz. Publications in Anthropology, no.61. Yale University, New Haven. 1962 Southwest­ern Archaeology Today. In An Introduction to the Study of South­west­

206 • Works Cited ern Archaeology, by Alfred Vincent Kidder, pp. 24–47 Yale University Press, New Haven. 1965 The Place of Peoples in Prehistoric Research. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 95(1):1–15. 1986 Migrations in Prehistory: Inferring Population Movement from Cultural Remains. Yale University Press, New Haven. 1992 The Tainos: Rise and Decline of the People Who Greeted Columbus. Yale University Press, New Haven. Sassaman, Kenneth E. 1992 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology. University of Ala­bama Press, Tuscaloosa. Schiffer, Michael B. 1972 Archaeological Context and Systemic Context. Ameri­can Antiquity 37:156–165. 1976 Behavioral Archaeology. Studies in Archaeology Series. Academic Press, New York. Sellet, R. 1993 Chaine Operatoir: The Concept and its Application. Lithic Technology 18: 106–112. Sheerer, R. J., and Wendi Ashmore 1979 Fundamentals of Archaeology. Benjamin-­Cummings, Menlo Park. Simpson, C. G. 1961 Principles of Animal Taxonomy. Columbia University, New York. Spaulding, Albert C. 1956 The Arzberger Site, Hughes County, South Dakota. Museum of Anthropology Occasional Contributions no. 16. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 1960 Statistical Description and Comparison of Artifact Assemblages. In The Application of Quantative Methods in Archaeology, edited by Robert Heizer and S ­ herborne Cook, pp. 60–92 . Viking Fund Publications in Archaeology, Chicago. Stern, Theodore 1949 The Rubber Ball Games of the Americas. Monographs of the Ameri­can Ethnological Society, no. 17. New York. Taylor, Walter W. 1948 A Study of Archeology. Ameri­can Anthropologist 50. Thomas, D. H. 1979 Archaeology. Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York. Thompson, R. H., and W. A. Longacre 1966 The University of Arizona Archaeological Field School at Grasshopper, East Central Arizona. Kiva 31:255–275. van der Leeuw, Sander 1982 How Objective Can We Become? Some Reflections on the Nature of the Relationship between the Archaeologist, His Data, and His Interpretations in Renfrew. In Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, edited by M. Roland and B Se­ graves, pp. 431–457. Academic Press, New York.

Works Cited • 207 Veloz-­Maggiolo, Marcio 1980 Las Sociedades Arcaicos de Santo Domingo. Museo del Hombre Dominicano, Serie Investigaciones Anthropologicas, no. 16, Fundacion Garcia Arevalo, Serie Investigaciones, no. 12. Santo Domingo. Vescelius, Gary S. 1952 The Cultural Chronology of St. Croix. Unpublished senior honor thesis, Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven. Walker, Jeff 2005 The Paso del Indio Site, Vega Baja Puerto Rico: A Progress Report. In Ancient Borinquen: Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Native Puerto Rico, edited by Peter E. Siegel, pp. 55–88. University of Ala­bama Press, Tuscaloosa. Wedel, Waldo R. 1959 An Introduction to Kansas Archeology. Bureau of Ameri­can Ethnology, Bulletin 174, Wash­ing­ton D. C. White, J. P., and D. H. Thomas 1956 What Mean These Stones? Ethnotaxonomic Models and Archaeological Interpretations. In Models in Archaeology, edited by D. Clarke, pp. 201–229. Methuen, Lon­don. Willey, G. R., and Phillip Phillips 1962 Method and Theory in Ameri­can Archaeology. University of Chicago Press, Phoenix Books, Chicago. Willey, G. R., and J. A. Sabloff 1974 A History of Ameri­can Archaeology. University of Chicago Press, Phoenix Books, Chicago. Wobst, Martin W. 1978 The Archaeo-­Ethnology of Hunter-­Gatherers or the Tyranny of the Ethnographic Record in Archaeology. Ameri­can Antiquity 45:303–309.

Index

Adorno, 50, 58, 64, 75–77, 95, 96, 100, 124, 133, 134, 139–141, 145, 148, 150, 152, 154, 155, 157, 158–160, 162, 164–166, 175, 186, 187, 189, 194–196 Age, 68, 69 Alegria, Ricardo E., 80, 189 Alternative, 9, 50, 81 Ameri­can archaeology, 3, 6, 68, 69, 80–81 Antiquarianism, 80 Appendage, 26, 57, 85, 87, 152, 179, 194 Appliqué, 39, 40, 65, 88, 131, 132, 185 Archaeology, 2–4, 6, 7, 9, 20, 70, 77, 79, 81, 142, 199 Archaic, 69, 72, 83 Artifact, 2–9, 11–13, 18–22, 25, 67, 71, 81, 83, 84, 205–206 Artifact by–product, 8, 17, 21–22, 104 Ashmore, Wendi, 9 Aspect, 49, 68, 72 Association, 1, 4, 6, 21–22 Attribute, 2–6, 13, 17, 19 Bablonia, Elvis, 1, 86 Base, 27, 33–35, 47, 50, 52, 53, 55–57, 68, 74, 75, 81, 86, 87, 91, 93, 95, 97, 98, 100, 101, 106, 109–113, 115, 124, 125, 130, 133, 134, 137, 140–147, 149, 150, 153, 154, 156, 158, 176, 177, 181–183, 185, 190 Bat, 64, 95, 124, 141, 143–151, 157, 158, 175, 187, 189

Behavior, 3–5, 9–12, 14, 16, 22, 32, 69, 81 Behavioral archaeology, 4 Bettie, John, 10 Binford, Lewis, 4 Bird, 150, 153, 158–159, 187, 189 Body, 1, 4, 13, 23, 27, 25, 31–40, 43, 47, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55–58, 61, 62, 64, 65, 70, 73, 75, 80, 85–87, 89, 91, 93, 95, 97–100, 104–115, 117, 118, 121, 125, 129, 132, 152, 158, 162, 164, 165, 175, 176, 178– 183, 186, 187, 189, 193, 194, 196, 197; ­exterior, 31, 37, 38, 42–44, 47, 59, 65, 86, 90– 93, 105, 111, 113, 114, 117, 124–126, 129, 131, 132, 138, 139, 142, 143, 147, 152, 153, 158, 162–164, 169–171, 173– 177, 183–187, 189, 190, 193, 194; interior, 31, 38, 42, 47, 59, 86, 95, 108, 112–114, 117, 129, 136, 162 Bottom, 26, 27, 31, 33–34, 37, 41–44, 49, 52, 53, 55–57, 59, 61, 62, 73–76, 84, 89, 90–93, 95, 97, 98, 100, 101, 106, 108, 109, 110–114, 124, 125, 133, 135–137, 140, 142, 147, 149, 151, 153–156, 166, 171, 172–175, 177–179, 181–183, 190, 193–197; conoidal, 34, 62, 112; flat, 34, 91, 93, 97, 98–100, 109, 110–113, 124, 125, 133, 135–140, 147, 149, 153–155, 171–175, 179, 182, 193, 196; rounded, 29, 34, 35, 89, 90, 92, 93, 95, 97, 106, 179, 194

210 • Index Caddo complex, 73 Capped, 139 Casimirian, 72 Casson, Michael, 3, 51 Cedrosan, 72, 73, 76, 77, 83, 88, 193, 194, 196, 197 Ceramic, 3, 26, 31, 35, 39, 50, 60, 73, 78, 81, 85, 100, 124, 136, 139, 160, 175, 178, 187, 189, 191–194, 196, 197; complex, 73, 76; series, 74–76, 81, 83, 84, 192; series as energy flow, 70–72; series as information flow, 70–72, 74, 75; subseries, 76, 192 Ceramic Age, 82 Chang, Kwang Chi, 129 Childe, Vere G., 10 Choctaw, 73 Clark, David L., 4, 9–12, 199 Class, 4, 11, 18, 24, 30, 31, 67, 69, 86, 87, 168, 169, 175, 188, 189 Classification, 4, 5, 22, 67, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 191–194 Classify, 3, 67–68, 70, 89, 191–193 Clay, 14, 37, 38, 40–45, 47, 49–51, 53–56, 58, 60, 61; cleaned, 44, 46, 51, 58–60, 75, 104, 108, 109, 114, 175, 176, 182, 189; coil, 39, 55, 89, 97, 98, 105, 107–109, 111, 113, 114, 117, 119, 121, 122; dried, 44, 46, 58, 60, 75, 104, 108, 114, 175, 176, 183, 189; hydrated, 51, 75; kneaded, 51, 75, 104, 108, 180; pounded, 51, 75, 104; prepared, 14, 30, 51–54, 75, 87, 102, 108, 113, 121, 125, 179, 180, 182; primary, 50, 60, 75, 103; sec­ondary, 50, 51, 60, 75, 103, 176, 180; sifted, 51, 75; soured, 104; wedged, 51, 75, 104, 180 Cloistered rim, 37, 38 Coiled, 33, 37, 39, 51, 53–57, 61, 64, 75, 89, 97, 98, 100, 105, 107–112, 114, 117–126, 129, 130, 132, 158, 179, 180–185, 193– 195, 197 Cole’s creek, 73 Collared rim, 38, 53, 63 Colonnaded rim, 37 Combed, 42, 46, 66, 109, 114, 125, 129, 187 Commutative, 11, 15, 73 Component, 20, 71, 73, 82, 83, 117, 175, 189, 194

Computer, 8, 20 Conklin, Harold, 1, 67 Conoidal, bottom, 34, 62, 112 Container, 2, 26, 49, 60 Cord: cord-­wrapped rod impressed, 39, 45, 46, 66, 161; impressed, 47; marked, 39; roughened, 39, 44, 46 Cosculluela, J. A., 81 Criterion, 12–17, 19, 86; of linearity, 13–16, 18, 20; non-­contradictory outcomes, 17, 19; of redundancy, 11, 18, 84; of relative invariance, 12, 13, 16, 18–20 Cuevas, 76, 83, 193–194, 196 Cultural detritus, 3–6, 10, 25, 68, 70, 74, 75, 83, 191, 192 Culturally salient, 9 Culture: area, 80; history, 4–6, 73, 80–81 Curet, L. Antonio, 82, 83 Curry, Beverly, 55 Cylinder, 44, 56, 129, 147, 185 Data, 3, 6–8, 14, 26, 50, 68, 74, 83, 111, 181, 191, 192 Deasonville, 73 Decoration, 15, 16, 26, 32, 33, 39, 42, 60, 73, 74, 76, 84, 87, 102, 131, 132, 161, 162, 164 Decorative, 1, 32, 33, 39, 40, 43, 47, 48, 73, 76, 88, 157, 162, 164, 166, 167, 186, 187, 188; element, 21, 32, 33, 39, 41, 47, 48, 50, 88, 167, 169, 170–175; environment, 32, 33, 47, 48; structure, 14, 22, 32, 33, 70, 82, 88, 118, 204; unit, 32 Deetz, James, 4 Define, 2, 4, 5, 13, 18, 20, 23–27, 29–33, 70, 74, 76, 192 Definition: nominal, 23–25, 30, 86; operational, 24, 25; real, 19, 23–25, 30 Design, 15, 32, 33, 48, 83, 85, 92, 93, 169, 170–175, 189 Desrayaud, Giles, 53 Detritus, 17, 21 Direct lip, 63, 91, 93, 95, 99, 106, 118, 121, 183, 184, 198 Divot, 16–17 Drying, 51, 58, 79, 175, 176, 189 D–shaped, 57, 123–127, 129, 131, 132, 143, 152, 184, 185, 193–195

Index • 211 Duke, Phillip, 36 Dunnell, Robert, 6, 11, 17–20 Elanan subseries, 77 Entity, 9, 18, 19, 31, 67, 70, 71 Everted, 39, 118, 119, 122, 183, 184 Explain, 7 Explicate, 1, 7, 19, 21, 88 Fabric impressed, 45 Fagan, Brian, 9 Fairbanks, Charles, 73 Feature, 2, 20–22, 32, 33, 164, 186 Feet, 149, 157, 158, 175, 189 Fewkes, J. Walter, 80, 175, 189 Fillet, 157 Finger impressed, 46, 66, 136, 140 Fingernail impressed, 46 Finger pinched, 37, 40, 43, 51, 54, 90, 97, 118, 140–143, 151, 152, 185 Fins, 51, 60, 66, 157 Firth, Raymond, 10 Fish–tail, 64, 123 Flanged, 121 Flannery, Kent, 4 Flattened, 37, 39, 118, 133–135, 182 Flipper, 157, 158 Floated, 39, 46, 47, 52, 66 Focal form, 1, 19, 26 Focus, 1, 18, 26, 68, 80, 82 Ford, James A., 73 Formative, 69 Funk, Robert E., 54 Garcia–Coyco, Osvaldo, 83 Gluckman, Max, 10 Goodenough, Ward, 12 Government, 80, 82 Gower, Charlotte, 80 Griffin, James B., 73 Group, 8, 21, 25, 67, 69, 84, 85–89, 105, 116, 128, 164, 166, 178, 179, 185, 191 Hacenda Grande, 53, 76 Handle, 30, 50, 57, 58, 68, 75, 76, 125–29, 132, 137, 138, 150, 159, 162, 164–166, 177, 184–187, 190, 192–196

Harre, H. Rom, 9 Hatt, Gudmund, 80 Heizer, Robert F., 9 Hempel, Carl G., 13, 19, 24 Hester, J. J., 11 Hill, Robert T., 78 Hodder, Ian, 5 Holder, Preston, 1–3, 5–6, 73 Hole, Fred, 9 Horizon, 68 Hostos, Alfredo, 81 Human, 158–160, 187, 193–94, 196 Incised, 15, 16, 40, 41, 76, 77, 90, 92, 93, 97, 130, 133, 135, 136, 138, 141–144, 147, 151, 154, 155, 158, 164, 166, 169–175, 186, 188, 189, 193, 194 Inference, 10, 14, 16, 17, 82, 87, 102, 113; of intent, 9, 13, 16–18, 21–23, 30, 51, 109, 126, 162, 184; of use, 3–6, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17–21, 23, 24, 32, 35, 39, 40, 44, 45, 50, 55, 59, 67–72, 74, 80, 81, 88, 100, 105, 109, 131, 162, 166, 180, 187, 193, 196 Inflected, 27, 28, 89, 98, 100, 105, 179, 193 Intentional, 9, 13, 16–18, 21–23, 30, 51, 109, 126, 162, 184 Inverted, 37–39, 93, 118–122, 171, 183; L– shaped, 37–39, 55, 63, 118, 151 Jenkins, Ned, 3 Jennings, Jesse, 9, 73 Joints, 111, 113, 125, 142, 156–158, 175, 183, 189 Josselin de Jong, 80 Kay, Paul, 68, 69, 191 Kelley, W. H., 12 Kidder, Alfred, 81 Kiln, 59, 177, 190 Kluckhohn, Clyde, 12 Knudson, S. J., 9 Krause, Richard A., 3–6, 11, 20, 22, 38, 40, 48, 53–55, 57, 73, 74, 82, 83, 133, 148 Kushner, Gilbert, 3 Laboratory, 2, 20, 21, 82 Laidler, Paul W., 40

212 • Index Landscape archaeology, 6 Leg, 30, 50, 57, 144, 129, 142, 149, 175, 183, 189 Lehmer, Donald J., 1, 53, 68, 69, 73 Lienhardt, Gregory, 10 Limbs, 141, 142, 157, 158, 175, 189 Lip, 15, 27, 31–33, 36–39, 47, 49, 52, 54, 55, 58, 59, 73–76, 85–93, 95, 97, 98; exterior, 59, 147, 162, 190; interior, 95, 129 Lithic Age, 72 Lithic detritus, 17, 72, 82 Longacre, William A., 4 Lounsbury, Floyd G., 1, 67 Loven, Sven, 81 Lower body, 33, 47, 49, 52, 55–57, 73–75, 85–87, 97, 111, 115, 179, 181 Lug, 30, 50, 57, 58, 64, 76–77, 92–93, 95, 125–126, 129–133, 137, 152, 154 Macpherson, J., 78, 79 Malinowski, Bronislaw, 10 Mammal, 64, 124, 159 Manatee, 124, 150–52, 158–59, 187 Mann, Jason, 53 Manufacture, 1, 13, 17, 19, 30, 38, 51, 54, 55, 57, 60, 71, 73–76, 80, 81, 84, 89, 102, 108, 127, 129, 176, 179, 181, 185, 189, 192, 193, 195, 197 Marksville, 73 Mason, J. Alden, 80, 81 Mass–model, 55, 56, 109, 111, 182 Matrix, 3, 22 McKern, W. C., 68 McKusick, Marshall, 81 Midwest­ern taxonomic system, 68, 73, 80 Mississippian, 20, 52, 54, 69 Mode, 2, 10, 16, 17, 19, 20, 73, 76, 81, 193, 194 Modeling, 14, 33, 51–56, 77, 107, 180, 193 Molded, 54–57, 109, 111, 182 Molding, 33, 51, 54, 107 Monkey, 64, 124, 133–136, 139, 158, 159, 187, 196 Morphology, 3, 17, 19, 26, 30, 34–38, 73, 75, 89, 116, 119, 120 Mouth, 27, 33–36, 58, 59, 74, 75, 87, 89–91, 93, 95, 97, 105–107, 109–113, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 125, 133, 135–140, 142–

144, 146, 148, 151–154, 156, 177, 181– 183, 190, 197 Museum, 80 Nadel, Siegfried, F., 11 Natchez, 73 Navicular, 26 Neck, 3, 136, 139, 143, 145, 146, 151–154 New archaeology, 3, 81 Nipple, 64, 124, 129, 130, 132, 142, 154, 157, 185, 193 Noncommutative, 11, 14, 15, 49 Nonhuman, 64, 124, 159, 187 Nonmammal, 64, 124, 159 Nonrandom, 10 Nonshouldered, 35, 85, 89, 95, 97, 101, 102, 106, 111, 112, 117, 179, 181, 195 Observation, 4, 7, 9, 13, 16, 18, 20, 22–24, 50, 87, 102, 126, 177, 184, 190 Oliver, Jose R., 83 Optional, 50, 76, 121, 122, 182, 193, 194 Ortoiroid, 72 Osgood, Cornelius, 81 Ostinoid, 82–84, 87, 194–197 Ostionen subseries, 77, 82 Ostionoid series, 77, 82, 83, 84, 87, 194, 195 Out–sloping, 90–93 Painted, 39, 40, 47, 50, 65, 76, 92, 97, 100, 131, 138, 162–168, 186, 187–189, ­193–196 Paleo–Indian, 69 Pantel, Agamemnon Gus, 82 Parabolic bottom, 34, 62, 112 Paso del Indio, 1, 6, 50, 77, 78, 83, 84, 87, 89, 102–105, 107–109, 112, 113, 115, 117, 118, 120, 121, 125, 129, 132, 133, 148, 162, 166, 175, 177, 175, 180, 182– 191, 197 Patterned, 3, 4, 10, 11, 13, 18, 39, 44, 59, 163, 167, 177, 190 Pedestal, 57 Pelto, G. H., 10 Period, 69, 82, 176, 189 Phase, 53, 68–70, 80, 81, 83 Phase, 53, 68, 83 Phillips, Phillip, 68–70

Index • 213 Pinched, 37, 39–41, 43, 51, 54, 55, 90, 97, 107, 112, 118, 129, 139, 140–143, 151, 152, 162, 185 Pinchon, Robert, 81 Polished, 39, 40, 47, 66, 77 Postprocessual archaeology, 5, 6 Pottery, 1, 14, 15, 26, 27, 30–33, 40, 50, 51, 54, 58, 69, 73, 76, 77, 82, 86, 87, 102, 107, 142, 147, 175, 176, 179, 189, 191, 192, 194, 196 Predictable, 26 Prigogine, Iya, 70 Primitives, 23–25, 30, 32 Processual archaeology, 3–5, 4, 6, 81, 82 Production, 1, 5, 6, 13, 17, 19, 20, 26, 33, 43, 49–51, 60, 70, 73, 75, 76, 102, 118, 119, 133, 162, 166, 179, 184, 187, 192, ­193–197 Production sequence, 49, 60 Puerto Rican archaeology, 77 Puerto Rico, 1, 50, 55, 72, 73, 76, 77, 78–80, 82, 83, 134, 141, 145, 148, 150, 155, 157, 193, 195 Purposeful, 9–14, 16, 51 Radcliffe–Brown, A. R., 10 Rainey, Froelich G., 81 Ramos, Raniel–Rodriguez, 83 Read, Dwight W., 4, 5, 9, 13 Repetition, 12, 18, 19, 20, 167, 188 Rim, 2, 3, 27–29, 33, 36–39, 47, 49, 52–55, 57, 58, 73–76, 85, 87, 117, 120, 154, 162, 169, 178, 192; exterior, 47, 169; ­interior, 47 Robinson, Linda S., 82 Ronquinian, 72, 76 Rouman, Jacques, 81 Rounded, 29, 34, 35, 39, 62, 89, 90, 92, 93, 95, 97, 100, 106, 112, 115–118, 121, 131, 137, 139, 149, 153, 179, 182, 194–196 Rouse, Irving B., 1, 2, 4–7, 10, 19–22, 54, 67, 69, 70–74, 76, 77, 80–82, 191, 192 Sabloff, Jeremy A., 81 Saladoid, 53, 54, 72, 76, 77, 82, 84, 85, 191, 193, 197 Sample, 1, 8, 9, 13, 15, 17, 23, 33, 39, 77, 78, 82, 84, 87, 89, 109, 171, 112, 113, 115,

117, 118, 120–122, 124–126, 129, 132, 133, 139, 159, 160, 162, 165, 166, 168, 175, 178–189, 195, 196 Sassman, Kenneth E., 51 Schiffer, Michael B., 4, 11 Science, 2, 7, 22, 80 Scot, F. S. A., 40 Seahorse, 154–155, 158, 159, 187 Sellet, R., 74 Series, 14–16, 69, 70–77, 81, 83, 84, 102, 116, 119, 120, 128, 133, 142, 158, 164, 168, 169, 171, 172, 191–195, 197, 199 Shearer, 9 Shoulder, 15, 27–31, 33, 34–36, 47, 49, 54– 59, 64, 73–75, 85–98, 100, 101 Simple stamped, 42, 43 Simpson, C. G., 12 Site, 1, 2, 4–6, 8, 21, 22, 24, 50, 53, 68–70, 73, 77, 82–84, 101, 116, 133, 148 Skirt, 50, 53, 65, 110, 113, 123–125, 193 Slab–model, 99, 101, 193, 197 Slip, 39, 40, 65, 77, 161 Solis, Carlos Magana, 1, 82, 83 Sombran, 72, 76 Spaulding, Albert, C., 10, 81 Specimens, 7–9, 14, 16, 18, 22, 50, 55, 80, 84, 85, 87, 91, 93, 95, 97, 98, 100, 101, 102 Spout, 30, 50, 57, 64, 65 S–shaped rim, 37, 38, 53 Stab–and–drag, 42, 166, 172, 173, 175, 187, 188, 189 Stage, 1, 19, 20, 23, 25, 49, 50, 54, 58, 60, 69– 71, 75, 102, 176, 177, 179, 190–192 Stahl, Carlos, 80 Stamp, 43, 44, 66, 161 State, 4, 23, 24, 51, 166 Stern, Theodore, 81 Strap–model, 53 Strata, 83–85, 100, 101, 108, 163, 164, 178, 180, 186, 187 Stringer, Lisa, 82 Structure, 69–72, 74–77, 191–195, 197 Style, 76, 83, 192–197 Subseries, 69, 70–72, 74–77, 191–195, 197 Substance, 9, 20, 31, 32, 39, 40, 46, 50, 51, 65, 88, 161, 162 Symmetry, 26, 28, 29, 61, 75, 89, 104, 105, 109, 179, 180, 193

214 • Index System, 3, 4, 7, 16, 20, 24–27, 32, 33, 39, 60, 68–70, 73, 79–81, 84, 162, 167, 178, 188 Tails, 15, 16, 39–42, 47, 50, 88, 90, 92, 93, 95, 97, 129, 131, 132, 141, 142, 154, 162, 164, 166, 170–175, 186, 187, 188, 194, 196 Tapered, 39 Taylor, Walter W., 10, 12, 81 Temper, 51, 58, 60, 61, 74, 75, 78, 103, 104, 176, 177, 180, 190 Theory, 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 23, 26, 55, 70, 102, 105 Thickened rim, 37, 38 Thomas, David H., 9, 12 Thompson, Raymond, 4 Thorne, Robert M., 4, 11 Toad, 150, 153, 158, 159, 187 Tool, 11, 13, 15, 18–20, 32, 39–41, 42–47, 50, 65, 69, 72, 81, 88, 126, 133, 135–137, 139, 140, 144–147, 149, 150–154, 156, 161, 162, 164, 166, 167, 169, 170, 172, 174, 175, 186–188, 189, 194–197 Tradition, 1, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20, 26, 43, 49, 50, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 77, 80, 189, 196 T–shaped, 37–39, 118, 144 Tunica, 73 Turtle, 95, 150, 152, 153, 158–159, 187 Type, 4, 6, 38, 73, 74, 81

Upper body, 27, 32, 36, 38, 39, 47, 49, 55–57, 64, 73–75, 85, 87, 89, 91, 93, 97, 99, 106, 117, 121, 132, 152, 158, 162, 165, 175, 178, 181, 189, 193, 194 Vacelus, Gary, 81 Van der Leeuw, Sander, 54, 70 Variant, 13, 14, 68, 69, 70 Veloz–Maggiolo, Marcio, 72 Vessel, 1, 2, 14, 15, 26, 27–40, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49–55, 57–61, 65, 73–75, 84–87, 89, 90– 103, 105–115, 117, 119, 120, 121, 124– 132, 136–139, 141–147, 149, 151–154, 155, 158, 159, 162, 164–166, 169–187, 189, 190, 193, 194, 196, 197 Walker, Jeff, 83 Ware, 73, 77, 175, 179 Warring, Antonio, 73 Wash, 40, 65, 100, 161 Wear, 12, 18, 20 White, Leslie, 2, 9, 12 Willey, Gordon R., 68, 69, 73, 80, 81 Wilson, Michael, 5 Wing, 143, 145, 147, 148, 158 Wobst, Martin, 11 Wood, W. Raymond, 1 Woodland, 20, 69