Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
This volume is a reference work for ceramic analysis for the Proyecto Laguna Costera, La Venta (San Andrés), Tabasco, Mexico.
Navajo Mountain Road Project final report (Vol. 5, p. Chapter 3). onine publication: University of Utah Press.
PAINTED POTTERY: ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION2008 •
This chapter presents an analysis of painted bowl rim sherds undertaken to infer relationships between whiteware and orangeware vessels and their producers, and to address craft specialization, exchange, migration, and aggregation in the northern Kayenta region. Analysis focuses on stylistic similarities and differences between Tusayan White Ware and contemporaneous Tsegi Orange Ware. A final section attempts to explain the predominance of redware bowls and whiteware jars in the late Pueblo II to middle Pueblo III period via symbolic interpretation. Based on burial assemblages that included pottery-making tools and unfired pottery, in the Kayenta area proper, Beals et al. (1945) suggested that Kayenta potters produced both orangeware and whiteware vessels. They studied about 50,000 sherds and vessels from more than 500 sites investigated by the Rainbow Bridge-Monument Valley Expedition in and near Tsegi Canyon in the 1930s. Their ceramic seriation validated the use of Colton and Hargrave's 1937 typology for answering basic questions about chronology and cultural affiliation. They created no new types, but conflated some (such as Betatakin Black-on-white with Tusayan Black-on-white). Nonetheless, they saw a need to examine vessel form and painted pottery decoration in more detail than typological categories provide. In the course of their research, they examined whole vessels in museum collections in addition to ones collected by their expedition. Detailed study of design styles suggested to them that orangeware and whiteware styles were somewhat similar in the Pueblo II period, and highly distinct in the Pueblo III period. Pueblo III orangeware decoration seemed to evolve out of Pueblo II whiteware styles, but Pueblo III whiteware styles seemed to reflect an imported tradition, perhaps, they speculated, from the Flagstaff area. The N16 project attempts to build on the solid foundation left by the Rainbow Bridge-Monument Valley analyses. We have fewer reconstructible vessels to work with, so we focused on rim sherds. Due to time and resource constraints, we initially focused on bowl forms. Our results corroborate those of Beals et al. in many ways but identify some differences between the Kayenta heartland and the Navajo Mountain area, and make some limited comparisons with the western and eastern Mesa Verde areas. We expand on their interpretations by drawing on cross-media comparison (with textiles and baskets), recent studies in ceramic ethnoarchaeology, classic ethnographies, and metaphor theory. RESEARCH QUESTIONS Our first goal was to find out how much variation in rim form is patterned in time to assess the possibility of using bowl rim form for microseriation to help refine site chronologies. Several researchers have demonstrated some success with microstyle chronology of Mesa Verde White Ware (Hegmon 1991) and Mimbres area (Shafer and Brewington 1995) decorated ceramics. LaMotta (2002) has used banding and framing lines on Jeddito Yellow Ware and Winslow Orange Ware bowls to develop a temporal sequence for the Homol'ovi area. Unfortunately, only one N16 project site with an adequate ceramic sample yielded tree-ring dates, and relative chronological placement of assemblages remains imprecise. While we can use ceramic data to suggest relative dates and even date ranges for sites and components, we cannot test this sequence against absolute dates. Therefore, we focused our stylistic analyses on other questions. Second, we wished to know whether the pattern inferred by Beals et al. (1945) for the Tsegi Canyon area holds true in the Navajo Mountain area. Were whiteware and orangeware bowls more likely to have been made by the same potters working with different materials and firing technologies, as in the Tsegi Canyon-Kayenta area? Were these two wares produced by different groups of potters in different areas who then exchanged whiteware for orangeware, and vice versa? Or does some combination of trade and local production account for observed patterns? Examination of materials (Chapter 2) suggests that potters selected different materials (iron-rich vs. iron-poor clay, crushed sherd vs. sand temper, and mineral vs. organic paints) and employed different firing techniques to make whiteware and orangeware
Northeast Historical Archaeology
Pottery Production and Cultural Process: Prehistoric Ceramics from the Morgan Site2013 •
Ceramic materials are one of the most common and informative artifact types found on archaeological sites. Archaeologists use their attributes to explore diverse issues, ranging from site chronology and function to production sequences and technological change, and from economy and exchange to foodways and social identity. This course combines lectures, readings, discussions, lab activities, and research to help students investigate the complex relationship between pots and people. By examining the range of questions that can be tackled using ceramic data, as well as the methods that are appropriate for such investigations, students will prepare themselves to undertake their own independent research projects.
Mcnair Scholars Journal
Understanding Prehistoric Ceramic Technology from the Grand River Valley2003 •
This essay is on pottery as art and archaeology and the role of touch and how we view pottery as artists, archaeologists and as viewers in the gallery or museum. To make pottery, the potter needs to touch and shape clay by hand. The potter uses fire to set those shapes and decoration for all time. People who use pottery touch the object in different ways depending on its purpose. The archaeologists who recover pottery from their sites, touch pottery to recover, conserve and interpret finds. The pottery on display in museums or art galleries moves against the very nature of pottery as storage vessels, serving dishes or cooking vessels and usually cannot be touched.
Journal of Roman Studies 104, 264-262.
Review of C. Orton and M. Hughes (2013) Pottery in Archaeology. Second Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press2014 •
Sub semnul artei. Studii în onoarea academicianului Marius Porumb la 80 de ani, coord. Ciprian Firea, Aurel Rustoiu
Mănăstirile medievale mendicante ale Sibiului și peisajul lacustru din jurul lor2023 •
2021 •
2023 •
Bollettino di Studi Sardi
Lettere inedite di Grazia Deledda alla «Rassegna Nazionale», in "Bollettino di Studi Sardi", 16, giugno 2024, pp. 5-562024 •
Forthcoming
Intellectual Authority in the early Sikh Tradition: A case study of Bhāī Manī Siṅgh Śahīd2025 •
Revista Tempo e Argumento
As concepções de verdade histórica e intersubjetividade no conhecimento histórico de jovens estudantes do ensino médio2014 •
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME
Problem-Based Learning As An Effort To Improve Student Learning Outcomes2020 •
Business and Entrepreneurial Review
Intention to Visit Sustainable Tourism Destination After Covid 19 PandemicInternational Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
Modeling of jointed rock masses using a combined equivalent-continuum and discrete approach2004 •
2014 •
Circulation Journal
JCS 2018 Guideline on Diagnosis of Chronic Coronary Heart Diseases2021 •
AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment
Letting the plants speak: Law, landscape and conservation2023 •