Ceramic Technology and Social Distance across the Cibola World: A.D. 1150-1325
presented at the 75th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology
in St. Louis, Missouri
Cibola region of Arizona and New Mexico is frequently considered a bounded
archaeological region marked by the distribution of a suite of related
decorated ceramic wares (e.g., Kintigh 1996). At the same time, the
Cibola region spans the boundary between two more broadly defined archaeological
cultures; the Ancestral Puebloan culture to the north and the Mogollon
culture to the south. One distinction frequently used to attribute sites
to either of these archaeological constructs is the presence of either
gray ware or brown ware corrugated ceramics typically interpreted as
Ancestral Puebloan and Mogollon respectively. In this poster, I examine
the technology of corrugated ceramic production across the Cibola region
during the Pueblo III and early Pueblo IV periods in order to develop
a method of measuring relative technological similarity among ceramic
assemblages across the region. I argue that this method of ceramic characterization
provides a better proxy for social interaction at regional scales than
binary oppositions between traditionally defined archaeological entities.
Corrugated ceramic vessels in the Cibola region consist of unpainted and unslipped ceramic containers primarily used for food preparation, serving, and storage. Although the general technology of pottery production was relatively uniform across the region, specific production steps involved varying technological decisions by potters (Figure 1). The goal of this analysis is to define groups of corrugated vessels that were produced by individuals operating within similar technological frameworks. Evidence for similarities in technological practice is interpreted as evidence for frequent interaction (or common historical origins) among producers. The methods used here are based on techniques developed by quantitative morphologists for defining groups among hybridized or closely related biological species (Dibble et al. 1998; Hawkins et al. 1999; Moeller and Schaal 1999; see also Edgar 2004).
|Measuring Technological Similarity|
Figure 1. (top) John Olsen demonstrating the production of corrugated ceramics at the 2009 Leupp Kiln Conference in Snowflake, Arizona. (bottom) Examples of indentation styles found on corrugated vessels from the Cibola region (illustrations by Will Russell)
A series of metric, nominal, ordinal, and presence/absence variables
were coded for a random sample of ~50-100 sherds or vessels from 38
sites across the greater Cibola region (Table 1; Figure 2).
• The coded attributes were converted into an n x n matrix of relative similarity/distance among all samples using Gower’s Coefficient of similarity (transformed to a distance matrix). This measure of similarity was selected because it can be calculated based on multiple classes of data and can incorporate cases with missing data (Gower 1971; see Drennan 2009)
• The transformed distance matrix was then subjected to principal coordinates analysis (PCoA) to produce a low-dimensional representation of the data that highlights the strongest associations among samples (Figure 3).
• Technological clusters were defined using K-means cluster analysis on the coordinates of all samples of the first three principal dimensions of the PCoA.
• A relative measure of similarity among sites (and sub-regions) was then defined by calculating Brainerd-Robinson similarity coefficients (B-R) based on the proportions of the ceramic technological clusters in each site sample (Brainerd 1951; Robinson 1951).
Figure 2. Map of the Cibola region showing each of the 38 sites for which corrugated ceramic samples were included in this study. The red outlined areas represent sub-regions defined to simplify the presentation of the ceramic data. The pie charts for each sub-region represent the proportions of the 8 ceramic technological clusters defined in this analysis (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Principal coordinates plots based on the distance matrix for all samples and all recorded attributes. The colors represent the K-means technological clusters defined based on the PCoA.
Sites that are spatially proximate tend to have corrugated vessels produced
using similar techniques (Figure 4). Exceptions to this pattern, along
with other lines of evidence, may suggest the presence of migrants and
their potential origins (see Conclusions).
• Relative patterns of technological similarity among the sub-regions are consistent across the Pueblo III to Pueblo IV transition. This suggests that the formation of nucleated communities in the Pueblo IV period likely took place along the lines of social groups that were already frequently interacting.
• The patterns of interaction suggested by this analysis are robust to the inclusion or exclusion of individual variables (or classes of variables). This suggests that the groups of corrugated vessels defined here are a product of a consistent suite of technological practices from forming through finishing.
• Although several of the technological clusters defined here cross-cut traditional ware categories (particularly in the Upper Little Colorado and Carrizo Wash districts), the techniques used to produce gray ware and brown ware vessels were fairly distinct.
• The patterns of
similarity among sites/sub-regions defined for corrugated pottery
coincide well with patterns of similarity in other realms of low contextual
visibility such as domestic architecture (Figure 5). The patterns
of relative similarity in corrugated pottery DO NOT, however, coincide
well with patterns of similarity in painted ceramic wares and public
architecture (Peeples 2009). This issue is a major focus of my on-going
Figure 4. Scatter plot of the distance between sub-regions against their ceramic similarity (B-R coefficient scaled from 0-100% of possible similarity). Several outliers displayed in red were not included in the calculation of the regression line shown here (Without outliers r = - 0.67; With outliers r = - 0.23).
multivariate method of characterizing corrugated pottery developed for
this analysis provides an interpretable relative scale of technological
similarity that can be used to make socially meaningful interpretations
of the archaeological record. As Figure 4 illustrates, potters tended
to make vessels that were technologically similar to vessels made by
their closest neighbors. There were, however, several comparisons that
did not fit this general trend. Seven out the eight outliers highlighted
in Figure 4 include the Mariana Mesa sub-region. Corrugated vessels
from the Mariana Mesa district were more similar to the Mogollon Highlands
and Vernon Area samples than to the spatially closer Pescado Basin and
El Morro Valley samples. This is particularly interesting because decorated
ceramics were apparently regularly circulating between the El Morro
Valley/Pescado Basin districts and Mariana Mesa (Schachner 2007;table
Interestingly, there is substantial architectural and ceramic evidence to suggest that the Mariana Mesa district may have been occupied, in part, by migrants from the south, west, and northwest (i.e., adobe brick architecture, specialized mealing rooms, and the prevalence of western design styles; see Danson 1957:68-75; McGimsey 1980; Smith et al. 2009). The patterns of interaction suggested by this analysis demonstrate that characterizations of corrugated pottery can be used to provide evidence for regional scale population movements. Importantly, the results of this study suggest that this method provides evidence for a potential instance of migration within an area that is traditionally considered a bounded archaeological region.
1951 The Place of Chronological Ordering in Archaeological Analysis. American Antiquity 16(4):301-313. Danson, Edward Bridge
1957 An Archaeological Survey of West Central New Mexico and East Central Arizona. Papers of the Peabody Museum, Harvard University 44. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Dibble, Alison C., Wesley A. Wright, Christopher S. Campbell and Craig W. Greene
1998 Quantitative Morphology of the Amelanchier Agamic Complex (Rosaceae) at a Maine Site. Systematic Botany 23(1):31-41.
Drennan, Robert D.
2009 Similarities Between Cases. In Statistics for Archaeologists: A Common Sense Approach, pp. 280-283. Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology. Springer, New York. Edgar, Heather Joy Hecht
2004 Dentitions, Distance, and Difficulty: A Comparison of Two Statistical Techniques for Dental Morphological Data. Dental Anthropology 17(2):55-61.
Everitt, Brian S., Sabine Landau and Morven Leese
1971 A General Coefficient of Similarity and Some of Its Properties. Biometrics 27(4):857-871.
Hahsler, Michael, Kurt Hornik and Christian Buchta
1999 Investigation and Documentation of Hybridization between Parkinsonia aculeata and Cercidium praecox (Leguminosae: Caesalipinioideae). Plant Systematics and Evolution 216(1-2):49-68. Kintigh, Keith W.
1996 The Cibola Region in the Post-Chacoan Era. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150-1350, edited by M. Adler, pp. 131-144. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. McGimsey, Charles R., III
1980 Mariana Mesa: Seven Prehistoric Settlements in West-Central New Mexico. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 72. Harvard University, Cambridge. Moeller, D. A. and B. A. Schaal
1999 Genetic relationships among Native American maize accessions of the Great Plains assessed by RAPDs. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 99:1061-1067.
Peeples, Matthew A.
1951 A Method for Chronologically Ordering Archaeological Deposits. American Antiquity 16(4):293-301.
2009 Techado Spring Pueblo: West-Central New Mexico. Texas Archeological Society, Dallas, TX.
|This project was supported by the NSF DDIG program (#09043134), a Wenner-Gren Foundation dissertation fieldwork grant (#09094295), the Arizona State University Museum of Anthropology, the School of Human Evolution & Social Change at ASU, and the SAA Fred Plog Memorial Fellowship. Access to collections was provided by the Arizona State Museum, the Arizona State University Museum of Anthropology, the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History, the Harvard Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, the Museum of Northern Arizona, SWCA Environmental Consultants, the Tarrant County Archaeological Society, the Texas Archaeological Research Lab, and the Zuni Heritage and Historic Preservation Office at Zuni Pueblo. Thanks to Will Russell for the illustrations. Garrett Trask, Katie Whitmore, and Ashley Bitowf helped with the ceramic attribute recording. Thanks especially to Keith Kintigh, Michelle Hegmon, and Kate Spielmann for their help and support in this research.|