Examining the Production and Distribution of Shivwits Ware Pottery

Ceramics found at Ancestral Puebloan sitesin the Virgin Branch region show thetransport of remarkable quantities of ves-

sels from the Colorado Plateau uplands to agri-cultural communities in lowland areas, particu-larly to those within the Moapa Valley of southernNevada. One component of this distribution sys-tem involved the movement of Moapa Gray andWhite Wares produced in the vicinity of MountTrumbull, Arizona (Allison 2000). This essaydemonstrates that a second pottery type alsomoved through this system; this pottery is Shiv-wits Ware, produced on the Shivwits Plateau ofnorthwestern Arizona (Figure 1). During thePueblo II period, Shivwits Ware and Moapa GrayWare sherds make up more than half of the ce-ramics recovered from Moapa Valley sites (Lyneis

2008:Figure 6).1 Although studies have recentlydocumented substantial trade in utilitarian waresin more complex settings such as Chaco Canyon(Toll 1991) and the Hohokam area (Abbott 2000;Abbott et al. 2007), this is an extraordinary levelof transported pottery for a middle-range society.

In this essay we present the results of the firstcompositional study undertaken on Shivwits Warepottery. The study, which includes both chemicaland mineralogical analyses, was undertaken toevaluate the hypothesis that Shivwits Ware potteryrecovered in the Moapa Valley was produced onthe Shivwits Plateau. Following the presentationof the compositional results, we investigate ce-ramic data obtained from Shivwits Plateau sites inan attempt to pinpoint where on the plateau thepottery was produced. We conclude that Shivwits

EXAMINING THE PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF SHIVWITSWARE POTTERY IN THE AMERICAN SOUTHWEST

Karen G. Harry, Timothy J. Ferguson, James R. Allison, Brett T. McLaurin, Jeff Ferguson, and Margaret Lyneis

Compositional analyses were undertaken to evaluate the hypothesis that Shivwits Ware pottery found in southern Nevadawas not produced in that area but, instead, manufactured on the Shivwits Plateau. The evidence supports this hypothesisand indicates that large quantities of Shivwits Ware jars moved through a distribution system linking the upland areas ofthe western Arizona Strip with the lowlands of southeastern Nevada. This long-distance movement of utilitarian pottery isunusual for precontact North America, in that it occurred in the apparent absence of any centralized distribution mecha-nisms and between what would have been small, kin-based communities. The nature and the causes for the development ofthis distribution system are discussed.

Una composición de análisis se llevo al cabo para evaluar la hipótesis sobre cerámica Shivwits que fue encontrada en el Surde Nevada, sin embargo su producción se llevo al cabo en la Meseta Shivwits. La evidencia que soporta esta hipótesis, indicaque grandes cantidades de jarras Shivwits Ware se movieron a través de un sistema de distribución conectando las zonas altasdel Oeste de Arizona con las zonas bajas del Sureste de Nevada. Este movimiento sobre larga distancia de cerámica utilita-ria es inusual en la época pre-contacto hispano indígena en Norteamérica, en que ocurre una aparente ausencia de un meca-nismo de.

Karen G. Harry � Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 89154-5003([email protected])Timothy J. Ferguson and Jeff Ferguson � University of Missouri Research Reactor Center, Columbia, MO 65211-0001James R. Allison � Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602-4700Brett T. McLaurin � Department of Geography and Geosciences, Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, Bloomsburg,PA 17815-1301Margaret Lyneis � Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 89154-5003

American Antiquity 78(2), 2013, pp. 385–396Copyright © 2013 by the Society for American Archaeology

385

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 131

.216

.73.

197

M

onda

y, J

une

17, 2

013

6:37

:19

PM

386 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 78, No. 2, 2013]

Ware pottery found in the Moapa Valley was in-deed produced on the Shivwits Plateau, mostlikely near its southern end. This area would havebeen more than 70 mi (113 km) distant from theMoapa Valley settlements to which the potterywas distributed. Although archaeologists nowknow that such long-distance movement of potterywas not uncommon in the prehispanic Southwest,most documented cases involved either the circu-lation of decorated ceramics or the movement ofonly limited numbers of utilitarian vessels. Themovement of Shivwits Ware pottery from the Ari-zona Strip uplands to the lowlands of southernNevada, in contrast, involved the regular circula-tion of large, undecorated utilitarian jars.

Shivwits Ware PotteryShivwits Ware is a sherd-tempered, dark-firingutilitarian pottery found at Virgin Branch Pueblo(VBP) sites of the far northwestern Southwest.Occurring almost exclusively in jar form, it can beeither plain or corrugated, though it is always un-

slipped and unpainted. Initially identified in col-lections recovered from the Moapa Valley ofsouthern Nevada, the type was first defined byMargaret Lyneis in 1992. Despite the frequency ofthe pottery in the Moapa Valley, Lyneis hypothe-sized that it was not locally produced but, in-stead, made on the Shivwits Plateau. This con-clusion was based on the dark reddish browncolor of the pastes (typical refired colors rangefrom brown [5YR 5/4] to reddish brown [7.5YR4/4]), which indicates that they were made ofdark-firing clays such as those available on theShivwits Plateau and a grog temper includingcrushed Moapa Gray Ware sherds, a ceramic typefound in relative abundance in that area.

Table 1 summarizes the data available regard-ing the distribution of Shivwits Ware pottery onthe Shivwits Plateau, in the Moapa Valley, and inthe Mt. Trumbull vicinity. This table includesdata for all sites for which there exist systemati-cally collected ceramic samples of at least 100sherds. The temporal designations, while admit-tedly approximate, derive from the proportion of

Figure 1. Locations discussed in the text.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 131

.216

.73.

197

M

onda

y, J

une

17, 2

013

6:37

:19

PM

corrugated ceramics in the sample. This procedurerelies on the fact that corrugation first appears inthe VBP region in the Middle Pueblo II period(i.e., at about A.D. 1050), after which time itsteadily increases in frequency (Allison 2005;Lyneis 1995:209). For the purposes of this study,sites having no corrugated pottery in their col-lections were assigned to the Pueblo I or EarlyPueblo II period; those having between 1 and 10percent were assigned to the Middle Pueblo II;those with between 11 and 39 percent were as-signed to the Late Pueblo II; and those with morethan 40 percent corrugated ceramics were as-signed to Pueblo III. Although this technique isless than ideal and is expected to work well onlyfor single-component sites that were occupiedfor short periods of time, a paucity of diagnosticsherds and chronometric dates for most of thesites precludes the use of other dating methods. Asa practical matter, we suspect that our temporalassignments are fairly accurate, since previousstudies have demonstrated a close correlation be-tween the percentage of corrugated ceramics andradiocarbon dates in the VBP area (Allison 2005)and since most of the Shivwits Plateau habitationsites lack the dense artifact concentrations thatwould be expected if they had been occupied formore than a generation or two.

The data in Table 1 suggest that Shivwits Warepottery was produced primarily from the MiddlePueblo II to the Pueblo III period and that it either

was not produced at all or was made only in lim-ited quantities prior to that time. The highest fre-quencies are found on the Shivwits Plateau, whereit first appears in any quantity during the MiddlePueblo II and where it substantially increases infrequency during the following periods (Figure 2).

Compositional AnalysesNeutron activation analysis (NAA) was used tochemically analyze 52 sherds (Table 2). In addi-tion, petrographic analysis was conducted on 38of the Shivwits Ware sherds. The Shivwits Waresamples come from both Shivwits Plateau andMoapa Valley sites. Nine sites are represented inthe Shivwits Plateau samples, all of which are inthe Mt. Dellenbaugh vicinity near the southernend of the plateau. These sites were selected forsampling both because we suspected (based onthe widespread availability of basaltic clays in thisregion) that this is the region where the ShivwitsWare ceramics were most likely produced and forthe pragmatic reason that at the time of this studysherds were not available from other areas of theplateau. The ceramics from the Moapa Valleycome from 12 sites.

In addition to the Shivwits Ware sherds, 10Tusayan Gray Ware ceramics from the MoapaValley were analyzed using NAA. Although clas-sified as a grayware, these sherds are dark gray orbrown in color;2 after refiring, their colors range

REPORTS 387

Table 1. Percentage of Shivwits Ware Ceramics Recovered from Moapa Valley and Shivwits Plateau Sites.

% ShivwitsRegion and Time Period No. of Sites Mean Low HighShivwits PlateauPueblo I/Early Pueblo II 6 .7 .0 2.0Middle Pueblo II 5 11.8 .1 45.4Late Pueblo II 3 44.6 28.0 67.2Pueblo III 7 67.2 50.0 80.0

Moapa ValleyPueblo I/Early Pueblo II 1 .0 .0 .0Middle Pueblo II 26 14.4 1.4 30.3Late Pueblo II 19 6.7 .0 29.5Pueblo III 2 1.2 .7 1.7

Mt. TrumbullPueblo I/Early Pueblo II 2 .0 .0 .0Middle Pueblo II 3 1.4 .0 3.0Late Pueblo II 3 4.0 1.5 8.6

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 131

.216

.73.

197

M

onda

y, J

une

17, 2

013

6:37

:19

PM

from light reddish brown (2.5YR 6/4) to red (10R5/6). They represent a recently recognized sub-type that Lyneis (2008:176) has informally termed“Very Local Gray Ware,” or “VLGW.” This pot-tery is tempered with distinctive Pleistocene sandsthat can be matched to lenses in the Moapa Val-ley; the presence of these sands ties the pottery’sproduction location to the valley.

The chemical analyses were conducted at theUniversity of Missouri Research Reactor. Ele-mental concentrations were obtained for 33 ele-ments, though Ni was omitted from the analysesdue to excessive missing values. Data for the re-maining 32 elements were analyzed using stan-dard University of Missouri Research Reactorprocedures described in previous reports (Glas-cock 1992; Neff 2002). Ceramic thin sectionswere analyzed by Brett McLaurin with a petro-graphic microscope using point-counting tech-niques described by Galehouse (1971). For eachsection, 300 points were counted to quantify theproportion of mineralogical constituents present.

NAA Results

To aid in the interpretation of the chemical data,our results were compared against those obtainedfrom previous NAA studies conducted on VBPceramics. Those studies, based on the analysis of143 Tusayan Gray Ware sherds, resulted in theidentification of four compositional groups la-beled Virgin River 1 through 4 (Larson et al.2005; Sakai 2001). Our present study has resultedin the identification of one additional group forthe now enlarged VBP data set; this group is re-ferred to as the Shivwits Compositional Group.Probabilities of group memberships were calcu-lated for each of the analyzed sherd and clay sam-ples. These probabilities are based on the Maha-lanobis distance between each specimen and thecentroid of each group and were calculated usingthe jackknife statistical technique.Comparison of Shivwits Ware Pottery Between

Regions. Table 3 lists the probabilities that theShivwits Ware sherds belong to each of the fivedefined VBP compositional groups. These datashow a clear separation between the ShivwitsWare sherds and the other groups. All of the Shiv-wits Ware sherds— regardless of whether theywere collected from the Shivwits Plateau or theMoapa Valley— fall within the Shivwits Compo-sitional Group. The similarity of the ceramics inthis group combined with their clear separationfrom the other groups (Figure 3) strongly suggeststhat all of the analyzed Shivwits Ware sherds


Figure 2. Proportions of Shivwits Ware pottery found over time in ceramic collections from the Shivwits Plateau, MoapaValley, and Uinkaret Plateau.

Table 2. Number of Samples Submitted for NeutronActivation Analysis.

Shivwits MoapaMaterial Plateau Valley TotalTusayan Gray Ware, Very Local Gray Ware – 10 10Shivwits Ware pottery 22 20 42Total 22 30 52

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 131

.216

.73.

197

M

onda

y, J

une

17, 2

013

6:37

:19

PM

were produced in the same general area using thesame basic paste recipe.Comparison of Shivwits Ware with the “Very

Local Gray Wares.” Membership probabilitiesfor the 10 VLGW sherds indicate that these ce-ramics are chemically distinct from the ShivwitsWare sherds (Table 4). These results, combinedwith the information presented in Table 3, reveal

that the Shivwits Wares were not produced usingthe same clays as those used to manufacture theVLGW pottery. As discussed above, the miner-alogical data indicate that the VLGW ceramicswere made locally in the Moapa Valley. Thus, theuse of different clays to manufacture the ShivwitsWare sherds is consistent with the interpretationthat they were not made in the Moapa Valley.

REPORTS 389

Table 3. Membership Probabilities for Shivwits Ware Sherds Based on Chemical Compositional Data.

Compositional GroupVirgin Virgin Virgin Virgin

Sample Provenience Shivwits River 1 River 2 River 3 River 4KHS-001 Shivwits Plateau 66.53 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-002 Shivwits Plateau 16.84 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-003 Shivwits Plateau 38.04 .00 .00 .00 .03KHS-004 Shivwits Plateau 11.29 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-005 Shivwits Plateau 6.07 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-006 Shivwits Plateau 91.89 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-007 Shivwits Plateau 44.82 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-008 Shivwits Plateau 82.31 .00 .00 .00 .01KHS-009 Shivwits Plateau 68.48 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-010 Shivwits Plateau 71.11 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-011 Shivwits Plateau 79.96 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-012 Shivwits Plateau 57.97 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-013 Shivwits Plateau 23.75 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-014 Shivwits Plateau 32.01 .00 .00 .00 .01KHS-015 Shivwits Plateau 66.14 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-016 Shivwits Plateau .32 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-017 Moapa Valley 58.28 .00 .00 .00 .01KHS-018 Moapa Valley 64.14 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-019 Moapa Valley 19.37 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-020 Moapa Valley 15.82 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-021 Moapa Valley 11.95 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-022 Moapa Valley 46.87 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-023 Moapa Valley 57.24 .00 .00 .00 .01KHS-024 Moapa Valley 4.06 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-025 Shivwits Plateau 19.16 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-026 Shivwits Plateau 95.68 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-027 Shivwits Plateau 63.36 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-028 Shivwits Plateau 9.11 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-029 Shivwits Plateau 89.43 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-030 Moapa Valley 48.31 .00 .00 .00 .02KHS-031 Shivwits Plateau 93.09 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-032 Moapa Valley 56.05 .00 .00 .00 .01KHS-033 Moapa Valley 75.23 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-034 Moapa Valley 72.86 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-035 Moapa Valley 73.08 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-036 Moapa Valley 2.79 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-037 Moapa Valley 83.74 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-038 Moapa Valley 92.52 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-039 Moapa Valley 34.13 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-040 Moapa Valley 99.44 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-041 Moapa Valley 30.83 .00 .00 .00 .00KHS-042 Moapa Valley 8.00 .00 .00 .00 .00Note: Calculations are based on the first eight principal components.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 131

.216

.73.

197

M

onda

y, J

une

17, 2

013

6:37

:19

PM

Petrographic Results

The petrographic analysis indicates the presenceof seven types of aplastic inclusions in ShivwitsWare sherds (Table 5). The most abundant aresherd fragments, which reflect the use of groundpottery as the primary tempering agent. The sec-ond most abundant inclusion is quartz, which oc-curs as sand- and silt-size monocrystalline grains.These grains almost certainly derive from sand-tempered ceramics being pulverized to create thegrog temper, a process that would have resulted inthe dislodging of sand grains. The olivine and py-

roxene likewise reflect the use of grog temper— in this case, the use of ground Moapa Gray Wareceramics. Moapa Gray Wares are tempered withcrushed xenoliths that contain olivine and pyrox-ene phenocrysts and which are found in the vicin-ity of Mt. Trumbull (see Figure 1). The plagio-clase feldspars, volcanic pieces, and opaquefragments (probably an Fe-oxide magnetite andFe-Ti oxides such as ilmenite [Wenrich et al.1995]) derive from the basalts that occur overmuch of the Arizona Strip; these grains likely re-flect a combination of natural aplastic inclusionsin the clays and dislodged grains from the crushed


Figure 3. Bivariate plot of chromium vs. iron showing the separation of the Shivwits Ware group from the other compo-sitional groups.

Table 4. Membership Probabilities for Tusayan Very Local Gray Ware Sherds Based on Chemical Compositional Data.

Compositional GroupVirgin Virgin Virgin Virgin

Sample Provenience Shivwits River 1 River 2 River 3 River 4KHS-052 Moapa Valley .00 .00 .00 9.56 .00KHS-053 Moapa Valley .00 .00 .00 .00 50.20KHS-054 Moapa Valley .00 .00 .00 9.68 .00KHS-055 Moapa Valley .00 .00 .00 17.28 .00KHS-056 Moapa Valley .00 .00 .01 42.14 .24KHS-057 Moapa Valley .00 .00 .00 4.93 .01KHS-058 Moapa Valley .00 .00 .00 41.23 .16KHS-059 Moapa Valley .00 .00 .00 15.92 52.44KHS-060 Moapa Valley .00 .00 .00 55.18 .22KHS-061 Moapa Valley .00 .00 .00 61.29 .09Note: Calculations are based on the first eight principal components.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 131

.216

.73.

197

M

onda

y, J

une

17, 2

013

6:37

:19

PM

xenolithics used to make the Moapa Gray Wareceramics.

A discriminant function analysis was con-ducted to determine whether the petrographic in-clusions differed between the sherds recoveredfrom the Moapa Valley and those from the Shiv-wits Plateau. As with the chemical data, no pat-terned differences in the mineralogical con-stituents could be discerned between the twoareas. The resulting function was not statisticallysignificant (Wilks’ lambda = .109; �2 = 14.3; df =9; p = .11), and only 57.9 percent of the cross-val-idated grouped cases were correctly classified.

This classification rate is only marginally betterthan the 50.0 percent correct classification rate ex-pected by chance alone, indicating that the twogroups cannot be distinguished mineralogically.

Pinpointing the Production Location of Shivwits Wares

The compositional and mineralogical data supportthe hypothesis that Shivwits Ware sherds wereproduced in a single production locale. Neitherthe paste chemistry nor the aplastic inclusionsvary between the Shivwits sherds recovered from

REPORTS 391

Table 5. Results of Petrographic Analysis.

Sample Provenience Paste Pore Quartz Sherd Plagioclase Pyroxene Olivine Volcanic OpaqueKHS-001 Shivwits Plateau 72 3 4 18 1 1 0 0 0KHS-004 Shivwits Plateau 89 4 2 5 0 0 0 0 0KHS-005 Shivwits Plateau 83 4 9 3 0 0 0 0 0KHS-006 Shivwits Plateau 78 2 8 11 1 0 0 0 0KHS-007 Shivwits Plateau 76 3 3 16 1 1 1 0 0KHS-008 Shivwits Plateau 81 2 6 8 1 1 0 0 0KHS-009 Shivwits Plateau 77 4 4 11 1 0 0 1 1KHS-010 Shivwits Plateau 79 2 6 11 0 1 0 0 0KHS-011 Shivwits Plateau 70 3 4 16 0 2 2 2 0KHS-012 Shivwits Plateau 77 3 5 9 1 2 0 2 0KHS-013 Shivwits Plateau 83 5 3 9 0 0 0 1 0KHS-014 Shivwits Plateau 85 1 4 8 0 2 0 0 0KHS-015 Shivwits Plateau 82 3 5 8 0 0 0 1 0KHS-017 Moapa Valley 71 1 3 18 0 3 3 0 0KHS-018 Moapa Valley 68 4 2 22 0 2 3 1 0KHS-019 Moapa Valley 86 2 2 9 – – – – –KHS-020 Moapa Valley 80 2 3 11 – 2 2 – –KHS-021 Moapa Valley 77 2 5 13 – 1 1 – –KHS-022 Moapa Valley 82 2 6 9 – – – – –KHS-023 Moapa Valley 74 2 9 11 – 1 1 – –KHS-024 Moapa Valley 77 1 2 11 1 1 1 – 1KHS-025 Shivwits Plateau 71 2 2 19 – 2 2 – –KHS-026 Shivwits Plateau 89 2 2 4 – 1 1 1 –KHS-027 Shivwits Plateau 83 1 3 9 – 1 1 1 –KHS-028 Shivwits Plateau 74 1 1 20 – 1 1 – –KHS-029 Shivwits Plateau 84 1 7 5 – – – 1 –KHS-030 Moapa Valley 83 1 6 8 1 – – – –KHS-031 Shivwits Plateau 81 1 9 8 – – – 1 –KHS-032 Moapa Valley 92 2 2 3 – 1 1 – –KHS-033 Moapa Valley 87 6 3 4 – – – – –KHS-034 Moapa Valley 83 3 4 8 – – – – –KHS-035 Moapa Valley 81 2 2 13 – 1 1 – –KHS-036 Moapa Valley 68 4 2 20 – 1 1 2 1KHS-037 Moapa Valley 75 3 7 13 – 1 2 1 –KHS-038 Moapa Valley 83 2 3 8 – 1 2 1 –KHS-039 Moapa Valley 80 2 5 7 – – 4 – –KHS-040 Moapa Valley 79 5 2 11 – – 3 – –KHS-041 Moapa Valley 87 1 4 5 – – 1 1 –Note: Numbers represent the proportion of times that each entity was encountered in a 300-grain count.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 131

.216

.73.

197

M

onda

y, J

une

17, 2

013

6:37

:19

PM

the two regions, as we might expect if the wareswere produced in both areas. Further, the lack offit between the pastes of the Shivwits Ware sherdsand the VLGW sherds indicates that the formerwere not made of the Moapa Valley clay that hadbeen used to produce the latter ceramics. This sup-ports, though it certainly does not prove, the hy-pothesis that the Shivwits Ware sherds were notmade in the Moapa Valley.

Under the “criterion of abundance” postulate(Bishop et al. 1982:301), we can identify the areacontaining the highest proportions of ShivwitsWare sherds as the probable production location.As the data contained in Table 1 indicate, that areais the Shivwits Plateau. On the plateau, we can

further predict that the production location is nearone (or more) of the four areas (Mt. Dellenbaugh,Grassy Mountain, Poverty Mountain, and WolfHole Mountain; Figure 4) that contain basalticclays. Figure 4 illustrates that, for every time pe-riod on the plateau in which Shivwits Ware is pre-sent, the highest concentrations are found in theMt. Dellenbaugh area. This points to the Mt. Del-lenbaugh vicinity as the likely production area, aconclusion further supported by the fact that dur-ing the Middle Pueblo II period, when ShivwitsWare ceramics are most abundant in the MoapaValley, the southern end of the plateau containsthe only site in our database to yield any ShivwitsWare pottery.


Figure 4a (Pueblo I/Early Pueblo II) and 4b (middle Pueblo II). Percentage of Shivwits Ware sherds in ceramic collec-tions from sites on the Shivwits Plateau: open circles <10 percent; half circles = 25–40 percent; three-quarter circles =50–74 percent; full circles > 75 percent.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 131

.216

.73.

197

M

onda

y, J

une

17, 2

013

6:37

:19

PM

Admittedly, our database is far from complete,and the picture may change as additional dataare accumulated. Our site data disproportionatelycome from the Hidden Hills and the Mt. Dellen-baugh areas, where the greatest amount of re-search has been conducted. Other areas are poorlyrepresented or, as in the case of the Wolf Holearea, not represented at all. Thus, while the south-ern end of the plateau currently represents themost likely location for the production of theShivwits Ware pottery found in the Moapa Valley,additional research on the plateau is needed toconfirm this hypothesis.

The Shivwits Distribution SystemThe data presented here support Lyneis’s (1988:6)reasoning, advanced more than 20 years ago, thatShivwits Ware pottery was produced on the Shiv-wits Plateau. This pottery, however, is only one oftwo ceramic types that moved from the upland ar-eas of the western Arizona Strip to settlements insoutheastern Nevada. The second pottery type tohave moved through this system is Moapa Ware,believed to have been produced near Mt. Trumbull(see Figure 1) on the Uinkaret Plateau locatedsome 50 km (ca. 30 mi) northeast of Mt. Dellen-baugh (Allison 2000; Lyneis 1992). Betweenabout A.D. 1000 and 1150, at the height of the dis-

REPORTS 393

Figure 4c (Late Pueblo II) and 4d (Early Pueblo III). Percentage of Shivwits Ware sherds in ceramic collections fromsites on the Shivwits Plateau: open circles <10 percent; half circles = 25–40 percent; three-quarter circles = 50–74 per-cent; full circles > 75 percent.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 131

.216

.73.

197

M

onda

y, J

une

17, 2

013

6:37

:19

PM

tribution system, more than one-half of the ce-ramics discarded in the Moapa Valley were fromone of these wares. Of these two nonlocally pro-duced ceramics, about a third were Shivwits Ware.

With rare exceptions, virtually all of the Shiv-wits Ware vessels appear to have been jars. Ourbest information about the sizes and shapes ofthese vessels comes from the Moapa Valley,where large-scale excavations in the early twen-tieth century resulted in the recovery of numerouswhole and reconstructible pots. In 2007, the seniorauthor analyzed whole vessels from these exca-vations, including 20 Shivwits Ware vessels. Ofthose, 19 were jars, and one was a canteen. Thecapacities of those jars averaged 8.1 liters, with arange of .75 to 17.0 liters. Although whole-vesselcollections are lacking from the more recent workin the Moapa Valley (Lyneis 1992) and ShivwitsPlateau (unpublished data on file, Brigham YoungUniversity and University of Nevada, Las Ve-gas), the analysis of rim sherds recovered fromthese areas supports the conclusion that mostShivwits Ware vessels were wide-mouthed jars.

The precise number of Shivwits Ware vesselsthat flowed into the Moapa Valley each year cannotbe determined; however, it seems almost certain thatthe number was, at best, in the low 100s. Based onaccumulations research, Allison (2000:129) has es-timated that households in the Moapa Valley im-ported between one and five upland vessels eachyear. These upland vessels, of course, included bothShivwits Ware and Moapa Ware pots; if we consideronly the number of Shivwits Ware jars, a reasonableestimate is that the average household acquiredperhaps one to two vessels per year. This “average,”however, masks substantial interhousehold vari-ability; for example, at the height of the distribution,the proportion of Shivwits Ware sherds in site as-semblages varies from 1.4 to 30.3 percent (seeTable 1). These patterns indicate that some house-holds and settlements received far more ShivwitsWare pottery than did others, suggesting that thehouseholds obtained the pottery through decentral-ized mechanisms. This situation is quite differentfrom that of the Hohokam, where the large quanti-ties of exchanged vessels are believed to haveflowed through marketplaces centered at ballcourtsites (Abbott et al. 2007).

Although the sheer number of upland vesselsentering the Moapa Valley may not have been

large compared with some other areas of theAmerican Southwest where pottery was regularlytransported (Abbott 2009; Toll 1991), the distri-bution of the vessels nonetheless represents a sig-nificant level of effort. If the vessels were madeon the southern end of the plateau, as suggestedby the findings presented in this essay, this meansthat they arrived in the Moapa Valley from areasmore than 70 mi (113 km) away. In addition to thedistance, transportation of the vessels would havebeen made difficult by the nature of the interven-ing landscape, which is rugged and lacks de-pendable watercourses, and by the large sizes andshapes of the jars, which would have meant thatno more than a few vessels could be transportedat one time.

Upland ware ceramics were distributed pri-marily to the west of their production zones. Thispattern has been amply demonstrated for theMoapa Gray Wares (Allison 2000), and the in-formation presented in this essay suggests that theShivwits Wares followed a similar pattern. For ex-ample, Mount Trumbull is closer than the MoapaValley to the presumed production locale, yetMiddle Pueblo II settlements in the former areaappear to have received less than one-tenth ofthe Shivwits Ware pottery that settlements of asimilar age in the Moapa Valley did. This direc-tionality raises the possibility that differing envi-ronmental conditions between the upland andlowland regions fostered the development of thedistribution system. Harry (2005:311) and Allison(2000:201) have both suggested that a shortage offuelwood in the Moapa Valley would have madethe firing of pottery difficult and that this factormay have contributed to the development of thedistribution system. The Moapa Valley is situ-ated in the Mojave Desert where, outside the nar-row strip of floodplain where riparian vegetationpredominates, vegetation is sparse and dominatedby low-lying brush such as creosote bush andbur sage. In this setting, access to fuelwood wouldhave been limited. The plateaus, in contrast, aredominated by pinyon and juniper, and fuelwoodwould have been more abundant.

Allison (2000:129, 212–215) further suggeststhat the upland people may have relied on the ear-lier harvests available in the Moapa Valley to tidethem over until their own crops on the plateau hadripened. He proposes that the upland people may


Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 131

.216

.73.

197

M

onda

y, J

une

17, 2

013

6:37

:19

PM

have gained access to such foods during earlysummer harvest festivals held in the Moapa Val-ley; these festivals would also have provided theopportunity for commodities— including pottery— to be exchanged between the people ofthe two regions.

Whatever the cause of the development of thepottery distribution system, by the Late Pueblo II period— that is, within about 100 years of its peak— it appears to have dissolved. The factorsthat caused its demise are even less understoodthan those that led to its development. Althoughthe Puebloan people would largely abandon theVBP region within another 100 years or so, at theonset of the Pueblo III period the Moapa Valleyand the plateau regions were both still occupied.Indeed, on the plateaus the proportion of ShivwitsWare pottery reaches its peak at the same time thatits presence is declining in the Moapa Valley, andthe pottery continued to be traded to areas to theeast (see Table 1).

ConclusionsPrior to the last quarter of the twentieth century,many archaeologists assumed that most prehis-toric Southwestern households made their ownceramics and that few ceramics were transportedfar across the Southwestern landscape. As a resultof advances in techniques to determine ceramiccomposition, we now know that this view was in-correct. The study presented here joins a growingnumber of studies indicating not only that deco-rated and high-valued vessels were regularlytransported between prehispanic settlements butthat undecorated utilitarian vessels were as well.For example, we now know that large quantitiesof utilitarian vessels were exchanged betweensettlements in the Phoenix Basin (Abbott 2000,2009; Van Keuren et al. 1997), the Tonto Basin(Miksa and Heidke 1995), and the Chaco Canyonregion (Toll 1991).

The distribution of Shivwits Ware (and MoapaWare) pottery, however, differs from all thesecases in that the social system in which they wereproduced and distributed was far less complex.Most settlements in the upland area were fairlysmall (usually 16 rooms or less, including store-rooms), suggesting that the pottery was producedby settlements inhabited by extended families or

even smaller social groups. Additionally, the VBPconsumer settlements, which lack public archi-tectural features, appear to have been less so-cially complex than the consumer settlements ofthe Phoenix Basin, Tonto Basin, and ChacoCanyon region, all of which contain evidence ofintegrative architecture such as ballcourts, plat-form mounds, or great kivas. But despite the rel-atively small social scale and the lack of other ev-idence for social complexity, the economic tiesthat linked upland and lowland parts of the VirginBranch region included routinely transportingpottery vessels distances of 70–100 km or more.With the exception of the Chacoan region, themovement of abundant utilitarian ceramics acrossequally long distances rarely, if ever, occurred inSouthwestern societies, even those of larger scaleand greater social complexity. The present study,therefore, provides an unusual example of surpluspottery production and its long-distance distribu-tion within small-scale societies of the prehis-panic Southwest.Acknowledgments. This project was supported by NationalScience Foundation grant no. 0802757 and by the staffs of theLake Mead National Recreation Area (LAKE) and theParashant National Monument (PARA). In particular, we thankSteve Daron of LAKE and David Van Alfen of PARA formaking this work possible; Sharlyn Anderson and Nancy Greyfor assisting in the whole-vessel study; the students of theBrigham Young University and University of Nevada, LasVegas, field schools; and the LAKE archaeological surveyteam for helping to collect the ceramics. Finally, we would liketo thank David Abbott and two anonymous reviewers for theircomments, which have greatly improved the essay.

References CitedAbbott, David R.

2000 Ceramics and Community Organization Among the Ho-hokam. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

2009 Extensive and Long-Term Specialization: HohokamCeramic Production in the Phoenix Basin, Arizona. Amer-ican Antiquity 74:531–557.

Abbott, David R., Alexa M. Smith, and Emiliano Gallaga2007 Ballcourts and Ceramics: The Case for Hohokam Mar-

ketplaces in the Arizona Desert. American Antiquity72:461–484.

Allison, James R.2000 Craft Specialization and Exchange in Small-Scale So-

cieties: A Virgin Anasazi Case Study. Unpublished Ph.D.dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Arizona StateUniversity, Tempe.

2005 Virgin Anasazi Radiocarbon Chronology. Paper pre-sented at the Three Corners Conference, Las Vegas.

Bishop, Ronald L., Robert L. Rands, and George R. Holley1982 Ceramic Composition Analysis in Archaeological

REPORTS 395

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 131

.216

.73.

197

M

onda

y, J

une

17, 2

013

6:37

:19

PM

Perspectives. In Advances in Archaeological Method andTheory, Vol. 5, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 275–330.Academic Press, New York.

Galehouse, J.1971 Point Counting. In Procedures in Sedimentary Petrol-ogy, edited by Robert E. Carver, pp. 385–408. Wiley, NewYork.

Glascock, Michael1992 Neutron Activation Analysis. In Chemical Charac-terization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology, edited by Hec-tor Neff, pp. 11–26. Monographs in World Archaeology No.7. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.

Harry, Karen G.2005 Ceramic Specialization and Agricultural Marginality:

Do Ethnographic Models Explain the Development of Spe-cialized Pottery Production in the Prehistoric AmericanSouthwest? American Antiquity 70:295–320.

Larson, Daniel O., Sachiko Sakai, and Hector Neff2005 Laser Ablation-Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass

Spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) as a Bulk CharacterizationTechnique: Comparison of LA-ICP-MS, Digestion ICP-MS,and INAA Data on Virgin Branch Anasazi Ceramics. InLaser Ablation-ICP-MS in Archaeological Research, edit-ed by Jeff Speakman and Hector Neff, pp. 95–102. Uni-versity of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Lyneis, Margaret M.1988 Ceramic Production and Exchange Among the Virgin

Anasazi. Paper presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of theSociety for American Archaeology, Phoenix.

1992 The Main Ridge Community at Lost City: Virgin AnasaziArchitecture, Ceramics, and Burials. University of Utah An-thropological Papers No. 117. University of Utah Press, SaltLake City.

1995 The Virgin Anasazi, Far Western Pueblos. Journal ofWorld Prehistory 9:199–241.

2008 The Socioeconomic Context of Changing MiddlePueblo II Pottery Frequencies at the Yamashita Sites, Moa-pa Valley, Southern Nevada. In Proceedings of the 2007Three Corners Conference, edited by Mark C. Slaughter,Steven Daron, Eva Jensen, and Kathleen A. Sprowl, pp.163–184. Nevada Archaeological Association, Boulder City.

Miksa, Elizabeth, and James M. Heidke1995 Drawing a Line in the Sands: Models of Ceramic Tem-

per Provenance. In The Roosevelt Community DevelopmentStudy, Vol. 2: Ceramic Chronology, Technology, and Eco-nomics, edited by James M. Heidke and Miriam Stark, pp.133–206. Anthropological Papers No. 14. Center forDesert Archaeology, Tucson.

Neff, Hector2002 Quantitative Techniques for Analyzing Ceramic Com-

positional Data. In Ceramic Production and Circulation in

the Greater Southwest: Source Determination by INAA andComplementary Mineralogical Investigations, edited byDonna M. Glowacki and Hector Neff, pp. 15–36. CotsenInstitute of Archaeology, Monograph 44. University of Cal-ifornia, Los Angeles.

Sakai, Sachiko2001 Explaining Changes in Subsistence Strategies and Set-

tlement Patterns Among the Virgin Branch AnasaziThrough Ceramic Provenance Study Using Inductively Cou-pled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry. Unpublished Master’s the-sis, Department of Anthropology, California State University,Long Beach.

Toll, H. Wolcott1991 Material Distributions and Exchange in Chaco Canyon.

In Chaco and Hohokam: Prehistoric Regional Systems inthe American Southwest, edited by Patricia L. Crown andW. James Judge, pp. 77–108. School of American Research,Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Van Keuren, Scott, Susan L. Stinson, and David R. Abbott1997 Specialized Production of Hohokam Plain Ware Ce-

ramics in the Lower Salt River Valley. Kiva 63:155–175.Wenrich, K. J., G. H. Billingsley, and B. A. Blackerby

1995 Spatial Migration and Compositional Changes ofMiocene–Quaternary Magmatism in the Western GrandCanyon. Journal of Geophysical Research100(B7):10417–10440.

Notes1. The production locations of the other half of the sherds

are unknown. Except for a small proportion of red- and white-wares originating in the Kayenta region, most of these sherdsare sand-tempered white- and graywares. The majority of thesands have not been matched to any locally known sands, andwe suspect that they were not made locally. However, addi-tional research is needed to resolve this issue.

2. In the VBP region, brownwares are typically associatedwith Paiute pottery. By convention, Puebloan pottery is clas-sified within the gray- or whiteware series. Accordingly, dark-colored Puebloan ceramics such as those identified as ShivwitsWare or the “Very Local Gray Ware” are nonetheless referredto as “graywares.”

Submitted February 25, 2012; Revised May 23, 2012;Accepted August 12, 2012.


Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 131

.216

.73.

197

M

onda

y, J

une

17, 2

013

6:37

:19

PM

Examining the Production and Distribution of Shivwits Ware Pottery

Documents

Transcript of Examining the Production and Distribution of Shivwits Ware Pottery