The Distribution of Pottery Types in Northwest Mexico Author(s):
Donald D. Brand Source: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol.
37, No. 2, Part 1 (Apr. - Jun., 1935), pp. 287-305 Published by:
Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological
Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/662265 .
Accessed: 22/01/2011 22:52Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates
your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available
at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp.
JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire
issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use
content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial
use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this
work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same
copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such
transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps
scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a
wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use
information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association
are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to American Anthropologist.
http://www.jstor.org
THE DISTRIBUTION OF POTTERY TYPESIN NORTHWEST MEXICO By DONALD
D. BRAND
Mexico," paper, comprises only THE states of Sonora and
Chihuahua. The peninsula of Baja California the is as yet little
known archaeologically. Parties from the University of California,
California Academy of Sciences, San Diego. Museum and a few other
institutions have carried on varied scientific investigations which
have incidentally indicated the presence of kitchen middens
throughout most of the coastlands, but the actual archaeology is
still unworked.1 Coahuila is also terra incognita for the
archaeologist, as little more is known than that there are mummy
caves in the northern portion, especially in the Sierra de Oballos,
to the north of Monclova. Mummy caves are known to exist also in
the Sierra San Lorenzo, east of Torreon. Sites with painted pottery
have been reported, but these reports have never been verified.2
The prehistoric or archaeologic cultures of Northwest Mexico are
definitely Southwestern in affiliation. Legged metates, tripod
ware, complex ceramic forms, cloisonn6 ware, metal working,
obsidian knives, pyramids-to mention only a few of the items
typical of Central Mexican culture-were lacking in the Sonoran and
Chihuahuan cultures.3 The prevailing trough or scoop type of
legless metate seems to have a distribution from Arizona to
Michoacan, as does the large and rather crude three quarter grooved
axe; but these are the only important types of artifacts common to
Northwest Mexico and the so-called Toltec-Tarascan cultures which
extended from Sinaloa and Durango to Michoacan and Guerrero. Legged
metates are erroneously attributed to Chihuahua, mainly on the
basis of a sketch by Bartlett, who served as the authority for
Bandelier,1 See Proceedings, California Academy of Sciences, Series
4, Vol. 16. Also, the writings of Paul Rivet and Leon Diguet; and
Herman F. C. ten Kate, Reizen en onderzoekingen in Noord-Amerika
(Leiden), 1885. Since writing the above the author made a brief
reconnaissance of Baja California, as far south as Muleg6, but
found only kitchen middens with a scant representation of stone
artifacts and no pottery. 2 The locations of the mummy caves were
given the writer by an educated native of Monclova. H. H. Bancroft
(The Native Races of the Pacific States, Vol. 4: Antiquities, San
Francisco, 1882, pp. 597-600) summarized most of the literature on
Coahuilan archaeology. V. Alessio Robles (Bibliografia de Coahuila,
historica y geografica, Mexico, 1927) gives additional references.
3 A. L. Kroeber (Native Culture of the Southwest, University of
California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol.
23, No. 9, 1928) gives a concise comparison of Southwestern and
Central Mexican cultures.
term "Northwest
as used in this
287
288
AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST
[N. s., 37, 1935
Lumholtz and other authors who perpetuated this misinformation.4
Simple olla and bowl forms, typical of the Southwest, predominate
in Northwest Mexico, although effigy ware reaches a high frequency
in Chihuahua. However, the Chihuahuan hooded effigy jar has no
counterpart in Central Mexico and should be regarded as a local
development, just like the pictorial designs so characteristic of
the Mimbres culture.5 Not a single shard of southern provenience
has yet been found in the prehistoric sites of Sonora and
Chihuahua. Not a piece of tripod ware or cloisonn6 ware has been
turned up, and pottery from even nearby Durango and Sinaloa is
nonexistent. This accords with the findings of reconnaissance
parties from the University of California in 1929-1931. It was
determined that an archaeologic hiatus existed between Central
Mexican and Southwestern cultures, in a zone between the Yaqui and
Sinaloa Rivers and extending eastward from the Gulf of California
into southern Chihuahua.6 The only items that predicate southern
contacts, in the period after the postulated spread of agriculture
from a Mexican center, are a few spindle whorls, metal trinkets,
and terra cotta figurines. Four double cone spindle whorls of the
Mexican type, but lacking characteristic decoration, have been
found in the Papagueria. Also, a few undecorated hemispherical
spindle whorls are known from Chihuahua.' Several copper bells have
been reported from Chihuahuan sites, as well as several animal
effigies in copper and silver.8 At Nogales, on the American side,
several figurines were unearthed, a few years ago, that closely
resemble the "monos" from prehistoric sites in Sinaloa.9 That
concludes the list of items of possible southern provenience, with
the exception of sea shells from the Gulf of Mexico, which were
probably traded by nomadic Texas and Coahuila tribes.SJ. R.
Bartlett, Personal Narrative (New York), 1856, plate on p. 362; A.
F. Bandelier, Final Report, Pt. 2 (Cambridge), 1892, p. 553; C.
Lumholtz, Unknown Mexico (New York), 1902, Vol. 1, p. 88. 5 G. C.
Vaillant, Some Resemblances in the Ceramics of Central and North
America (Globe), 1932, pp. 16, 33-37 illustrates the similarities
and differences. 6 C. Sauer and D. Brand, Aztatlin
(Ibero-Americana: 1, 1932), pp. 1-6, 16, 30-38, 49, 61; C. Sauer
and D. Brand, Prehistoric Settlements of Sonora (University of
California Publications in Geography, Vol. 5, No. 3, 1931), pp. 73,
106, 107, 115-17. 7 C. Sauer and D. Brand, Prehistoric Settlements
of Sonora, pp. 111-12; C. Lumholtz, New Trails in Mexico (New
York), 1912, p. 142. Mexican type spindle whorls have also been
found by Fewkes at Eldon Pueblo and by Kidder at Pecos. 8 B. de
Obregon, Historia, edited by Cuevas (Mexico), 1924, p. 185; E.
Guillemin Tarayre, Exploration Mineralogique des Regions Mexicaines
(Paris), 1869, p. 176. 9 C. Sauer and D. Brand, Prehistoric
Settlements of Sonora, p. 79. Similar figurines have been found in
the Gila valley of Arizona.
AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST, N. S., VOL. 37
[BRAND] FIGURE
1
11 5
1J4*
113 '*
*1160
080 ,o*
1
Io10*
105*
104o
103*
33,. r
rA.
v a'orONx +A+ncorIA
.++
k 1,of a* % 4 of
J,*I.Y---
n A48` TRINC
C G R A1 ?
E CLRMCM -
Ai *
*
.
O
i*
.
c.
26,
"0)277
?MCICL9
ZACftC ???;i P
27t
CHTricheras purple-or -red
HUA
U
ran.n Trimckera3 poltck-ron\.eCkikuakua r.ncompiex 000 .2
PARWA
Carrmen red-oN-9rgL,-
00000ooSmal~l ston~e hose 9** Rio 3oerA.r Sauda + ++ Criiz
coIIplex polijckiowne
.
...