Return to Articles

 

Plain pottery may have began as early as 2000 B.C. in the area the Hohokam thrived in and generally consisted of small untempered vessels that had unrestricted openings. These vessels had no necks so the openings were also the vessels greatest diameter. Perhaps not until 800 B.C. did potters add a small restricted vessel form, the "seed jar". However about A.D. 150 potters began making larger mostly sand tempered vessels. Vessel forms included necks although the large seed jar apparently was the most common form. Less than 1% were tempered with micaceous schist and/or gneiss (Wallace 2003:148,168&169). These vessels that are tempered fall into the description for Gila Plain, hence the beginning date for Gila Plain is circa A.D. 150.

There are a number of Hohokam Plain and redware types described by others that I chose not to describe in this guide. My reasoning for this is the first rule in the Rules for Naming Pottery Types and Wares described by Colton. Rule number one states: “The description of a type, or a series, or a ware must be sufficiently clear so that it does not conflict with the published description of another type, series, or ware. The characters separating the type, series or ware from another type, series or ware should be made clear, and if possible a diagnostic character should be indicated.” (Colton, 1953;52).

Two early Pioneer Period types described by Haury, “Vahki Plain” (Gladwin et al. 1965:205-211), and “Vahki Red” (Gladwin et al., 1965:204-205), is easily confused with the described types Gila Plain and Gila Red. I do not know for a fact, however I suspect that when Haury compared “Vahki Plain” and “Vahki Red” to later plain and redwares, was doing so with only those types found at Snaketown. Most of Snaketown was abandoned during the Sedentary Period, so Haury may not have compared “Vahki Plain” and “Vahki Red” to Gila Plain and Gila Red of the Classic Period when designating the “Vahki” types. Respectfully, even if Haury did compare “Vahki Plain” and “Vahki Red” to Gila Plain and Gila Red from Classic Period sites, perhaps back then (in the 1930’s), there may not have been much of the later wares found yet for adequate comparison.

Under the Remarks section for “Vahki Plain”, Haury wrote: “In an examination of individual sherds, separation of Vahki and Gila Plain would be troublesome in only a small number of cases. The thinness, form, finish, and composition of paste are distinctive and thereby create a greater difference between Vahki and Gila Plain than between Gila Plain of any two phases.” (Gladwin et al., 1965:212). Later, in the revised edition of Snaketown, Haury (apparently realizing the difficulty in separating “Vahki Plain” from Classic Period Gila Plain) brings up the point that the type is questionable, based upon taxonomic grounds, and states that “Vahki Plain” is difficult to separate from Gila Plain unless it is in “large lots” (Haury, 1976:225). Considering all of this and more, I believe “Vahki Plain” is early Gila Plain, and choose to call it Gila Plain of the Vahki Phase.

I feel the same way about “Vahki Red” and Gila Red. Because determining any difference between “Vahki Red” sherds (unless grooved) and most Gila Red sherds is next to impossible, it would seem that “Vahki Red” is early Gila Red. The percentage of grooved "Vahki Red" compared to non-grooved is not known, however, it is probably extremely rare as Estrella Red-on-Gray grooved examples totaled to less than 1% of Estrella Red-on-Gray Pottery (Gladwin et al., 1965;202).

Gila Red is known as a Classic Period Redware and indeed most of the Gila Red was produced during this period. However, numerous sherds matching the description of Gila Red, have (personally) been excavated from Rillito and Rincon Phase house floors near Tucson. Redware has also been reported in the Snaketown and Rillito Phases at the Hodges Site ( Kelly,1978 :67). There is also a Sweetwater Phase Gila Red sherd featured in this guide.

One other redware from the “Late Sedentary” or Classic Period has been described also, “Santan Red”. As you can see by the quotation marks around it, I don’t subscribe to “Santan Red” as being a separate type either.


"Santan Red" has been described as being a late Sedentary type, but because a Santan Phase hasn’t been adequately established, and more importantly "Santan Red" is essentially the same as Gila Red of the Classic Period, a Santan type cannot be justified. Wood wrote this about Santan Red: “For the most part, this type is essentially indistinguishable from much of Gila Red and thus is ordinarily subsumed under that name.” (Wood, 1987;28).

Although I used to feel the same way about Sacaton Red this type may be justified. Sacaton Red is essentially Gila Red that is only slipped red on the interior of the bowls, exteriors are not slipped thus are usually brown. This treatment is rare in the Classic Period as Classic Period Gila Red is usually slipped red on interior and exterior bowl surfaces and Gila Red Smudged is slipped red on exteriors with smudged black interiors.

Redware from the Tucson and nearby areas seems to be plagued with the same problems. Beginning with "Tortolita Red" (A.D. 475-700), according to Heidke in Wallace;2003,166 the most notable diagnostic attribute is that "Tortilita Red" has no observable mica-schist in the temper and "Rincon Red" usually has a small amount. Rincon Red had previously been described as generally non-micaceous (Greenleaf;1975,59 and Kelly;1978,67). Vessel #1Y in the Rincon Red section of this guide shows a  shouldered seed jar with generally no observable mica schist showing on the surface, but if you put it under a bright light and look closely you can see tiny sparkles here and there. The same holds true for the three redware shards #1Y Gila Red of the Estrella Phase (A.D. 650-675). The deeply grooved coil junctures of these three shards are diagnostic and likely date early in the Estrella Phase, which is within the time period given for Tortolita Red. Sherd 1Y in the Gila Red of the Sweetwater Phase section of this guide shows a shard that is both thickly slipped and highly micaceous inside and out and dates from A.D. 675 to 700. This sherd also dates at the end of the range determined for Tortolita Red. "Tortolita Red" is most commonly slipped on interiors as well as exteriors of vessels like "Rincon Red" is. Sherds #1Y in the Gila Red of the Rincon Phase section of this guide are highly micaceous like most Gila Red of the Classic Period.  These sherds were found in association with sherd #2Y in the Rincon Polychrome section of this guide which also has a highly micaceous red interior. Vessel 1Y in the Rincon Black-on-Red section of this guide shows a vessel that has an exterior identical to later Classic Period Gila Red, thinly slipped and highly micaceous. It seems that the diagnostic attributes that are supposed to define specific redware "types" from at least the Tucson area, crosscut redware "types" from other time periods or phases. There are also many vessels photographed in this guide in the Gila Red section that if it were not for the polishing striations, would be listed in the Salt Red section because they are not highly micaceous.

Haury describes Gila Red and Gila Plain as having abundant mica (Haury;1945,81 & 102). Danson describes a less micaceous "Tucson Variety" of Gila Plain and states that Gila Plain (Salt and Gila River areas) has more mica. He also states in the remarks section for Gila Plain (Tucson Variety) that "This type represents but one part of an unbroken continuum of plainwares found in the Tucson area." (Hayden;1957,299-231). Both redware and plainware from the Tucson Basin and adjacent areas were made with varying amounts of micaceous temper throughout most of its history.

Please don't take me wrong, I have the utmost respect and commend the work done by all of the researchers mentioned. However, I believe the plainware as well as the Redware produced by the Hohokam basically changed very little over time, and that temper is not always the best diagnostic attribute when naming a type that was produced with a variety of tempers over a large regional area. Researchers can certainly sort plain and redwares by the temper or paste recipes much more than they currently have been. They can group plainwares by percentages such as one group may have 10% mica in the temper, another may have 20%, etcetera. They could group the percentages of quartz, feldspar, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Basically varying amounts and different temper choices are varieties of a common type. A vanilla cake sweetened with splenda instead of sugar is still a vanilla cake. See article titled "General Pottery Descriptions" in this guide.

 

 


This page last revised: 05/04/2012

Copyright: 2005 - 2014 All Rights Reserved.

We welcome your linking to our site, however all documents, webpages, photographs and images are the property of www.rarepottery.info. Written permission is required to copy, download or use any text, photographs or image files.