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 support@jstor.org.

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

.

...