ANALYZING STYLE IN CLASSIC MIMBRES
BLACK-ON-WHITE GEOMETRIC POTTERY DESIGNS
AS
am*w
V. 1
A thesis submitted to the faculty of
San Francisco State University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for
the Degree
Master of Arts
in
Anthropology: Archaeology
by
Garrett Lee Trask
San Francisco, California
August 2016
Copyright by
Garrett Lee Trask
2016
PART II
A PRELIMINARY STYLISTIC ANALYSIS OF
CLASSIC MIMBRES GEOMETRIC POTTERY DESIGNS
116
CHAPTER 4
METHODS & MATERIALS
This chapter marks the beginning of the second part of this thesis project: a
preliminary stylistic analysis of the geometric painted designs on Mimbres Classic Blackon-White pottery. The aim of this study is to systematically analyze the stylistic variation
of the pottery designs across space. By breaking down various aspects of the designs and
comparing them across different archaeological sites in the Mimbres region, I hope to
determine whether certain villages are distinct in terms of their ceramic design style. In
other words, do there exist design styles that are specific to smaller social entities within
the Mimbres region that differ from the general Mimbres style of painting geometric
designs on pottery? Further, if there are significant similarities and differences in design
style between sites, are these distinctions indicative of similarities and differences in
social identity or affiliation (e.g., village-level social group, extended family group,
potting ‘school’)? This preliminary analysis is meant to establish a viable methodology
for analyzing Mimbres geometric pottery designs. It is also designed to yield basic results
with which to explore these research questions. As such, this study is necessarily limited
in terms of sample size, the number of design attributes, and additional forms of data or
analysis (e.g., ceramic composition).
In this chapter, I first discuss the database from which images of the Mimbres
pottery were accessed and analyzed. 1 also explain the sample of ceramic bowls that were
117
selected for the study and briefly describe the five archaeological sites from which they
were recovered. Next, I provide some background information about the major
approaches and concepts that informed my stylistic analysis methodology. After this, I
provide a detailed explanation of the specific methods and procedures used for the
stylistic analysis, which was conducted in three phases: (1) the qualitative visual analysis,
(2) the symmetry analysis, and (3) the structural attribute analysis. Lastly, I explain the
particular statistical tests and procedures used for the quantitative analysis of the coded
attribute data.
T he D a t a b a s e , S a m p l e , & S ites
The ceramic design data for this study was collected indirectly from digital
images of Mimbres painted pottery. These images were accessed through the Mimbres
Pottery Images Digital Database or MimPIDD (LeBlanc and Hegmon 2016). MimPIDD
is an online academic research database containing digital images of nearly all the known
decorated Mimbres ceramic vessels (n = 10,500+) with associated descriptive
information (i.e., archaeological context, temporal style, and vessel form and size). The
database was created by Steven LeBlanc and Michelle Hegmon, and is hosted by Arizona
State University and stored permanently on the Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR,
https://core.tdar.org/collection/22070). While some images are available to the public,
much of the data is accessible only through approval by the MimPIDD board, which may
118
be gained by following the procedures detailed on the website (see LeBlanc and Hegmon
2016).
MimPIDD contains images of several different kinds of Mimbres pottery housed
in more than 70 collections and recovered from over 80 archaeological sites. The size and
criteria for the study sample derived from MimPIDD was determined by several factors.
First, for reasons previously discussed, this study focused only on Mimbres Classic (Style
III) Black-on-White painted ceramic bowls with geometric designs. Vessel forms other
than hemispherical bowls (e.g., flared-rim bowls, flower pots, jars) were excluded to
control for possible confounding factors; for example, some researchers have found that
certain design structures tend to be associated with certain vessel forms (e.g., Friedrich
1970; Brody 2004). Vessels were also excluded if the vessel or design was not complete
enough or well enough preserved to infer the full design; however, the vast majority of
vessels in the sample consisted of complete bowls. In addition, the sample consisted of
only those vessels that were professionally excavated, owned or housed in public
institutions, and had at least site-level provenience documentation.
Vessels were also chosen for the study sample based on the archaeological site
from which they were recovered. Vessels were selected from five sites within the
Mimbres River Valley that yielded the largest assemblages of pottery: (1) Galaz Ruin (n
= 100), (2) Mattocks Village (n = 100), (3) Swarts Ruin (n = 100), (4) NAN Ranch Ruin
(.n = 89), and (5) Cameron Creek Village (n = 100) (see fig. 4.1). Since this was a
preliminary study, samples of only 100 vessels were selected from each site (except for
119
Figure 4.1. Map o f Mimbres River Valley marking locations o f five study sites: (1) Mattocks, (2) Galaz,
(3) Swarts, (4) NAN Ranch, and (5) Cameron Creek. Modified from Hegmon (2002, fig. 2, 310).
120
the NAN Ranch sample, which consisted of only 89 vessels, since this represented the
total viable sample from the site). Thus, the total number of bowls for the study sample
was n = 489. This sample represents roughly a quarter of the total potential set of vessels
(N ~ 1870) in MimPIDD, which meets the sample criteria outlined above (including
provenienced vessels from private collections). Images and the associated descriptive
information for each of the vessels used in this study may be accessed online (with
permission) via MimPIDD using the unique MimPIDD ID number. Appendix A provides
a full list of the 489 ceramic bowls used in the study along with the associated MimPIDD
ID, site, museum in which the vessel is housed, museum accession information (provided
by MimPIDD), and the coded design attribute data.
The following is a brief excavation history for each of the five study sites; more
detailed information concerning each site can be found in the site reports referenced in
this section. All of the sites are located in the Mimbres River Valley (see fig. 4.1). The
first site, Galaz Ruin (LA635) is a large (over 100 pueblo rooms) Late Pithouse and
Classic period site with some later occupation. Galaz is located in the upper portion of the
Mimbres River Valley. The first excavations at Galaz were conducted in 1927 by W. E.
Felts (Cosgrove and Felts 1927) and Bruce Bryan (1927a, 1927b, 1931 a, 1931 b, 1931 c)
in association with the Southwest Museum of Los Angeles. Shortly after, Albert Jenks
(1928a, 1928b, 1929a, 1929b, 1930a, 1930b, 1930c) led excavations at the site for the
University of Minnesota. Under the direction of Steven LeBlanc (Anyon and LeBlanc
121
1984; LeBlanc 1983b), the Mimbres Foundation conducted the most recent excavations
at Galaz in 1975 and 1976.
Mattocks Ruin (LA676) is a large Classic period village site with only a minimal
pithouse component, and is located just north of the Galaz site. The site was first
excavated by Paul Nesbitt (1931) from 1929 to 1931. Later, Patricia Gilman and Steven
LeBlanc (Gilman 1990, 2006; LeBlanc 1983b; Gilman and LeBlanc 1993, 2005)
conducted excavations from 1974 to 1977 in association with the Mimbres Foundation.
Swarts Ruin (LA 1691) is a large Late Pithouse and Classic period site. The site
was excavated by Cornelius and Harriet Cosgrove (1932) from 1923 to 1927 under the
patronage of the Harvard Peabody Museum. Swarts is located in the middle portion of the
Mimbres River Valley, south of both Galaz and Mattocks.
NAN Ranch Ruin (LA2465) is another large Late Pithouse and Classic period
site, and is located just south of Swarts. The Cosgroves (see Shafer 2003, 17) led the first,
more limited excavations at the site in 1926. Under the direction of Harry Shafer (2003),
more recent excavations at NAN were carried out by students and staff of the Texas
A&M University archaeological field school from 1978 to 1989 and later in 1990, 1991,
and 1996.
Finally, Cameron Creek Village (LA I90) is a large Late Pithouse and Classic
period site located along the western tributary of the Mimbres River, Cameron Creek.
Wesley Bradfield (1931) carried out excavations at the site from 1923 to 1928 in
affiliation with the School of American Archaeology and the San Diego Museum of Man.
122
M ethodology B ackground
In this section I discuss the major approaches and works that informed my
stylistic analysis methodology. The basic approach I used for the design study is referred
to as hierarchical attribute analysis. More generally, however, I will begin by discussing
attribute analysis, which is essentially a means of systematically characterizing and
comparing variability within sets of artifacts. Attributes are simply the observable traits
or variables that are defined for a given set of artifacts. Each attribute has a number of
different possible states, values, or categories that are expressed by a given artifact (e.g.,
color of paste, diameter of bowl rim, type of primary design element). Other researchers
have defined attributes as “the basic, observable components of artifacts or of any
phenomena” (Redman 1978, 162), or “a logically irreducible character of two or more
states, acting as an independent variable within a specific frame of reference” (Clarke
1968, 139). It is important that the different attribute states, whether nominal or interval,
be a set of alternative, equivalent qualities (Clarke 1968, 145). Also, Redman (1978, 162)
points out that “although the potential number of attributes of an object is theoretically
infinite, in practice this number is limited by methods of measurement, interests of the
researcher, and available effort for defining and recording the attributes.” Within a given
assemblage of artifacts, the various expressions of such attributes, once recorded, can
then be quantified and statistically analyzed to answer various questions concerning
artifact variability.
123
Attribute analysis in one form or another has been used in material culture studies
since the beginning of cultural-historical archaeology in the early twentieth century. As
Plog (1980, 1) explains, the vast majority of attribute studies generally have one of two
major objectives. The first is to examine stylistic change through time in order to date
artifacts. Such studies were crucial to the development of artifact typologies and
chronological sequences, and early examples of this kind of study in the Southwest
include those ofNelson (1916), Kidder (1931), and Haury (1936a). The second objective
is to examine stylistic change through space in order to infer information concerning
social interaction, organization, or identity (as is the main aim of this study). Plog (1980,
1-3) argues that this second mode of study has increased in popularity since the late
1960s as archaeologists have become more concerned with explaining prehistoric culture
change (e.g., Longacre 1964, 1970; Leone 1968; Hill 1970; Whallon 1968; Washburn
1977, 1978; Redman 1978; Braun 1977). Beginning around the 1970s, such methods of
attribute analysis became more explicitly defined and sophisticated (Plog 1980).
Hierarchical attribute analysis, is essentially an artifact analytic system in which
attributes are arranged in reasonably equivalent levels, making them comparable and
allowing for different degrees of variation to be analyzed (Redman 1977, 46; 1978, 170).
As a means to analyze stylistic variation in pottery, this approach has been used
informally by researchers in the Southwest as early as the 1930s (e.g., Amsden 1936;
Kidder and Sheppard 1936; see Hegmon 1995, 159). However, the method was not
explicitly defined nor systematically applied until the 1970s. Margaret Hardin Friedrich
124
(Friedrich 1970; Hardin 1983) was among the first researchers to develop this general
approach in her pioneering ethnoarchaeological study of Tarascan pottery in San Jose,
Mexico.
The hierarchical analytic system Friedrich designed was based on the Tarascan
painters’ own categories of style and painting process, which consisted of two basic
stages: “dividing the part of the vessel’s surface that is to be painted into bounded areas,
and filling the areas defined with designs” (1970, 333). Friedrich (1970, 332) argued that
“the San Jose painting style exhibits a complex structure including: a hierarchically
organized system for subdividing the surface to be painted; and a number of distinct
design elements that can be combined into a much greater number of more complex
arrangements... offering a number of interrelated dimensions along which variation can
be observed.” She outlined three major hierarchical analytical concepts: (1) spatial
divisions, (2) design configurations, and (3) design elements, from the highest to the
lowest level (Friedrich 1970, 333). Design configurations and design elements represent
the levels of organization that define how designs are placed within the spatial divisions.
Friedrich (1970, 335) defined design configurations as “arrangements of design elements
that are of sufficient complexity to fill a spatial division.” She defined design elements as
the smallest self-contained design unit, which may be placed into two classes based on
their function within the configuration: “primary elements are painted
first...[while]...secondary elements are optional and, when they are added, their location
125
in the configuration depends upon the kind of primary element used” (Friedrich 1970,
335).
Around the same time, Charles Redman (1977, 1978) was also developing a
hierarchical approach to stylistic attribute analysis. Redman’s system was a reaction to
the conventional methods of artifact analysis and classification, which he considered to
be outdated and overly reliant on type-variety systems that obscured fine-scaled patterns
of variation (Redman 1978, 160). He argued that attribute analysis should be used in
conjunction with a typological approach, and that attributes should be selected in a
systematic and explicit way in order to delineate meaningful stylistic variation (Redman
1978, 161). Above all, Redman (1978, 169) argued that attributes and attribute values for
any category of variability should be organized into a nested or hierarchical system.
Attributes arranged in reasonably equivalent levels, he argued, makes them comparable
and allows for different degrees of variation to be analyzed (Redman 1977, 46; 1978,
170).
Redman (1977, 46-49) outlined four basic steps for recording design attributes,
each of which considers a different level or category of attributes: (1) defining
technological and functional characteristics, such as vessel form or paint and slip color;
(2) defining design configuration or structural characteristics, like symmetry or field
partitioning; (3) defining design elements at different hierarchical levels, such as “basic
elements” and “bounded shapes,” as well as the treatment of elements and details of
126
design execution; and (4) recording the metric attributes that reflect tools and motor
habits, such as the width of painted lines or the frequency of hatched lines.
In addition to having a hierarchical system, Redman (1978, 163) argued that
attribute recognition and selection is the most crucial aspect of artifact analysis. He
asserted that attribute recognition is not an automatic or universal process, and insisted
that researchers “incorporate all available knowledge of similar artifacts, previous
classificatory systems, insights on the relevance of particular attributes, and initial
observations of the patterning of potential attributes” (Redman 1978, 163). Further, he
recommended that attributes be recorded on the basis of (a) the specific problems being
investigated, (b) insights gained from ethnographic, historical, or other archaeological
information, and (c) measurability (Redman 1978, 172).
The work of Stephen Plog (1980) was also central in the development and
refinement of hierarchical attribute analysis. Plog’s approach was influenced in part by
both Friedrich (1970) and Redman (1977, 1978), and like Redman, he expressed many
concerns about the artifact classification systems of the day. In particular, Plog (1980, 42)
pointed out that the terminology used in classification systems is often undefined and
used inconsistently, making such studies impossible to replicate. He also argued that the
attribute states in most studies were not substitutable or equivalent (Plog 1980, 42). In
other words, the conditions for a given attribute did not represent logical alternative
choices, even though they were analyzed as such.
127
According to Plog’s (1980, 42) classification system, attributes are the most
fundamental component and must first be indentified and explicitly defined before
anything else. He treated attributes as “decisions, whether conscious or unconscious,
made by the artisan during the manufacturing or decorating process” (Plog 1980, 41).
Similar to Redman (1978) Plog (1980, 45) outlines several factors to consider in selecting
design attributes: (1) the problem being studied, (2) attributes that have been shown in
previous studies to vary temporally or spatially, and (3) the major design indicators found
by Friedrich (1970) to be useful in measuring social interaction (i.e., the organization of
spatial divisions, the degree of subclass variation within design configuration classes, and
the function of a design element in a configuration).
In Plog’s (1980, 47-51) analysis of prehistoric Mogollon pottery from the
Chevelon Canyon area in east-central Arizona, he initially selected 21 design attributes to
record (e.g., primary unit form, primary unit composition, hachure type, appended
secondary unit form, unappended secondary unit form, linearity, line shape, line
interaction, the ways in which units were combined, and several metric attributes, like
primary line width and the width of hachure lines). He conducted a preliminary analysis
on a subsample of sherds to determine which attributes were viable, and found that many
of the attributes were too infrequent on sherds from all sites and pottery classes to
continue recording (Plog 1980, 51-52).
Plog’s (1980, 47) hierarchical system is based primarily on the two levels of
design organization suggested by Friedrich (1970): primary and secondary elements.
128
However, Plog uses Carlson’s (1970, 85) terminology in distinguishing between the two
levels of elements or units: “primary motifs are those combinations of design units which
are the strongest units in the pattern and form the basis thereof. [Secondary] motifs are
those units which are either included within the boundaries or appended to the borders of
a primary motif, or are used to fill an area within the field of decoration which is not
covered by the primary motifs.” Plog (1980, 47) defined design units in terms of unit
forms, or basic geometric shapes, such as scrolls, terraces, circles, triangles, lines, and
nongeometrical forms like animals. To distinguish between primary and secondary units,
he explained that secondary units cannot logically be used without the presence of
primary units and, as such, secondary units never occur in isolation but only in
conjunction with other units (Plog 1980, 48-49).
More recently, Michelle Hegmon (1990, 1995) put forth another hierarchical
analytic approach in her study of ninth century A.D. (Pueblo I period) pottery designs
from the Kayenta and Mesa Verde areas of the northern Southwest. Her approach was
focused more on the structural aspects of the pottery designs and used a definition of
design structure that was broader than previous conventional definitions. Hegmon (1995,
157) defined design structure as a “the organization [system] of designs, including layout,
symmetry, and the use of elements in articular contexts or combinations.” Accordingly,
the aim of her analysis was “to describe various attributes of structure in terms of rules of
design and to compare the uses of rules in different contexts” (Hegmon 1995, 157).
129
Hegmon’s (1995, 165) classification system combines and modifies a variety of
approaches in order “to discover both loose and strict rules of design organization.” First,
is the general hierarchical approach developed by Hardin (1983; Friedrich 1970).
Hegmon (1995, 159) explains that “designs can be described in terms of a hierarchy of
structural components, including the design field as a whole, methods used to divide and
subdivide that field, and means of filling the various areas.” Second, are design grammar
approaches (e.g., Faris 1972; Glassie 1975; Hodder 1982a, 1982b), which systematically
enumerate how designs are organized and explain how new designs of the same style can
be generated (Hegmon 1995, 160). Third, is symmetry analysis (e.g., Washburn 1977;
Washburn and Crowe 1988), which serves as a more standardized method for
characterizing structure, and can be applied to various levels of design organization
(Hegmon 1995, 160). Lastly, are attribute covariation studies (e.g., Deetz 1965; Whallon
1968), which can reveal structural information through the analysis of attribute
association (Hegmon 1995, 160). Based on all of these approaches, Hegmon (1995, 161—
165) designed a classification system consisting of fourteen attributes arranged in eight
sets. These attributes characterized the designs in terms of layout and symmetry as well
as the use of two specific design elements—triangles and multiple parallel lines (Hegmon
1995, 165).
A separate but related method to hierarchical attribute analysis is that of
symmetry analysis. As with this study, many researchers have combined both attribute
and symmetry analysis in studies of pottery designs (e.g., Hegmon 1995; Powell 1996;
130
Bowser 2000; Lyons 2001). The study of pottery design symmetry can be traced back to
the work of Brainerd (1942) and Shepard (1948). However, Dorothy Washburn (1977,
1978; Washburn and Crowe 1988) was responsible for developing a standardized and
detailed methodology for describing and analyzing design symmetry in all kinds of
materials, from pottery to metalwork. Washburn (1978, 101) offered her method as an
alternative to ceramic typology and attribute analysis approaches, and argued that
symmetry analysis is “(1) a basic universal component of all patterned design; (2)
capable of being classified in a standardized, systematic manner; and (3) a sensitive
indicator of specific cultural activities.” The following is an overview of some of the
basic principles of Washburn’s method; however, Washburn and Crowe (1988) offer a
more detailed and clearly defined procedure for symmetry analysis, including flow
charts, diagrams, illustrations, and examples.
According to Washburn (1978, 107), “symmetry describes the spatial relationship
of geometrical figures around a point and or across a line axis.. .If a figure is composed of
only one fundamental part it is asymmetric since it lacks point or line axes of symmetry.”
Her method applies to figures in the plane or plane figures, which are figures or
decorations on surfaces that can, conceptually at least, be flattened out into a plane with
little or no distortion (Washburn and Crowe 1988, 43). All plane figures can be analyzed
in terms of the four basic rigid motions: (1) translation, (2) rotation, (3) reflection, and (4)
and glide reflection (Washburn and Crowe 1988, 44-47). A plane figure is considered
symmetrical if it admits any one or more of these four motions. Washburn (1978, 108)
131
defines these motions as follows: “Translation involves the simple movement of a figure
along a straight line axis. Rotation involves the movement of a figure about a point axis.
Mirror reflection involves the reflection of a figure across a line axis. [Glide reflection]
involves both translation and reflection movements. The figure is first reflected across the
line axis and then it is translated along the line axis.”
In addition to the four motions, Washburn (Washburn and Crowe 1988, 52)
defines three categories of symmetrical designs or patterns. Finite designs are those
designs that do not admit any translations, and thus can only have reflection or rotation
symmetry. One-dimensional designs or patterns are those designs that admit translations
in only one direction or along one axis, and are sometimes referred to as a band, strip, or
frieze. Two-dimensional designs or patterns are those designs that admit translations in
two or more directions. Within each of these three design categories Washburn
(Washburn and Crowe 1988, 57-61) also defines a series of design classes that describe
the combinations of symmetry operations that generate the particular design category.
These classes include both pure or monochrome figures as well as counterchanged or
color reversal patterns, formed by alternating figures of the same shape but different color
(Washburn 1978, 107-108).
Together, these major approaches in both hierarchical attribute analysis (i.e.,
Friedrich 1970; Redman 1977, 1978; Plog 1980; Hegmon 1995) and symmetry analysis
(i.e., Washburn 1977, 1978; Washburn and Crowe 1988) provided the basic guiding
principles, definitions, and procedures that informed my stylistic analysis methodology.
132
In addition to these main approaches, I also consulted more recent pottery design studies
(i.e., Lyons 2001; Clark 2006; Searcy 2010; Peeples 2011). These studies involved
similar geometric ceramic design traditions from the Southwest and were based on some
of the same foundational approaches discussed above. I also referred to the few
previously conducted stylistic analyses of Mimbres geometric pottery discussed in
chapter two (i.e., Brody 2004; Powell 1996, 2000; Hegmon and Kulow 2005; Washburn
1992). I used both the recent studies and the Mimbres specific studies to help determine
(a) the kinds of attributes to record, (b) any potential analytic problems to avoid, and (c)
the kinds of statistical testing that would be most appropriate for my study.
S t y l ist ic A n a l y sis M e t h o d o l o g y
Before conducting the analysis, I randomly selected samples of 100 vessels from
each of the five sites (except for NAN Ranch, which consisted of only 89 vessels) using
an online random number set generator (Haahr 2016). Each vessel was located in
MimPIDD (LeBlanc and Hegmon 2016) using the MimPIDD ID number, and images of
each vessel were downloaded. The stylistic analysis was conducted in three general
phases: (1) qualitative visual analysis, (2) symmetry analysis, and (3) structural attribute
analysis. These phases were complimentary analyses; both of the first two phases
informed the third (i.e., the attribute analysis), which was the primary method of design
analysis and classification. The attribute analysis also yielded the data necessary for the
quantitative or statistical analysis of the designs.
133
P h a s e 1 : Q u a l it a t iv e Vis u a l A n a l y s is
This phase of the analysis was perhaps the least systematic, but served as a
fundamental exploratory investigation that greatly informed the subsequent phases of the
analysis. Thirty vessel images from each of the five sites (n = 150) were randomly
selected and printed out at roughly lA scale on standard printing paper. These images
were spread out in a grid-like fashion so they could be visually assessed together, rather
than in isolation or in small resolution on a computer screen. Printed images laid side-byside facilitated multiple simultaneous visual comparisons, which aided in the recognition
of general patterns of stylistic variation and various structural and design element
relationships. Various different structural categories were tested through the arrangement
and rearrangement of the images in groups. This process forced me to define layout
categories according to explicit sets of criteria or rules, which could accommodate the
full range of stylistic variation in the printed image sample. Ultimately, this phase of the
analysis was essential to familiarizing myself with the general nature of the Mimbres
geometric design style and in determining the attributes and attribute states that would be
used in the next phases of the study.
P h a s e 2 : S ym m e tr y A n a l y s is
The symmetry analysis was based on the principles and procedures outlined by
Washburn and Crowe (1988) mentioned earlier. In addition, this phase was informed by a
134
similar symmetry analysis conducted by Washburn (1992) on Mimbres geometric
pottery. My symmetry analysis deviated in important ways from Washburn’s study, and
the following is a brief description of her analysis to provide context for the ways in
which my methodology differed and why.
Washburn’s (1992) analysis of Mimbres geometric pottery included samples of
Classic (Style III) Black-on-White vessels from both Swarts Ruin (n = 308) and Galaz
Ruin (n = 213), which overlap with this study. In her study, she “classified the symmetry
for both the basic structure—the basic layout of spaces in which the design elements are
placed, as well as the final design—the design after the elements have been placed in the
design fields demarcated by the layout structure” (Washburn 1992, 216). She found that
all of the designs in the sample fell into two symmetry categories (finite and one­
dimensional), explaining that:
The classification of some of the designs as finite or one-dimensional could be
debatable on a few of the bowl patterns. For example, while a bird's eye view
reveals the entire, finite, fourfold rotational design, the fact that the rotating
elements are enclosed in a narrow band makes it appear as if it is a one­
dimensional design... [However]... With the benefit of the bird's eye view
afforded in the illustrations, the center-oriented finite configuration of the
Mimbres designs is very clear. When the repetition of elements exceeds six and
when they occur in narrow bands, the classification of these patterns is one­
dimensional. (Washburn 1992, 217)
Thus, using the standards and procedures outlined in Washburn and Crowe (1988),
Washburn (1992) assigned each vessel a particular symmetry class (e.g., c4, d 2 ,p ll2 ,
pma2) for both structure and designs. The notation for these classes is defined by
135
symmetry category (i.e., finite or one-dimensional), symmetry motion (i.e., rotation,
reflection, translation, glide reflection), and the number of reflection lines or rotational
folds (see Washburn and Crowe 1988, 57-61).
With the insights from Washburn’s (1992) study, I attempted to follow the same
procedures outlined in Washburn and Crowe (1988) for my symmetry analysis. However,
I ran into several problems. The first was in differentiating between the symmetry of
what Washburn (1992, 216) referred to as the “structure” and the “final design.” In some
cases, this distinction was relatively straight forward, but in many other cases the
distinction between the structure and final design was highly subjective and ambiguous.
Mainly, it was difficult to distinguish whether certain design features were structural
dividing lines or just part of the same continuous design. The solution for this problem
was to simply classify the symmetry of the entire design, structure and all. And, while
this tends to have the effect of “reducing” the overall symmetry of the design (Washburn
1992, 219), I found this approach to be far more objective and conservative in terms of
classifying symmetry for Mimbres designs.
The second problem I encountered was in differentiating between what Washburn
and Crowe (1988, 52) call “finite” designs and “one-dimensional” designs. Contrary to
what Washburn (1992, 217) found in her study, I argue that this distinction, at least
within the Mimbres geometric style, is not “very clear” at all. There are simply no
definite or objective criteria to differentiate between those banded designs that should be
classified as finite and those that should be classified as one-dimensional. And, although
136
Washburn (1992, 217) explains that “when the repetition of elements exceeds six and
when they occur in narrow bands, the classification of these patterns is one-dimensional,”
I found these guidelines to be too subjective and arbitrary for my analysis. The solution to
this problem was to treat all of the designs as finite designs. Again, although this reduced
the overall symmetry by limiting the possible analytic units to just one category (finite)
and two motions (reflection or rotation), this was the most objective and conservative
means of classification.
Lastly, my analysis differed from Washburn’s (1992) in that rather than
classifying each vessel into a specific symmetry class, such as bifold rotation (c2) or
fourfold reflection (d4) (Washburn 1992, 217), I chose to separate these classes into
individual variables. So, instead of sorting the vessels into a single combined symmetry
category, I treated the symmetry analysis as an extension of the structural attribute
analysis, where design symmetry was classified by two different attributes: (1) symmetry
(i.e., reflection, rotation, asymmetric, multiple)', and (2) number o f symmetry folds (i.e.,
for reflection symmetry: the number of mirror reflection lines; or, for rotation symmetry:
the number of times a particular design was repeated around its central axis before
returning to the same position) (see fig. 4.2; see table 4.1). This approach allowed for
independent quantitative analysis of the different symmetry aspects or levels of
information. Vessels categorized as multiple had designs in separate fields that displayed
different types of symmetry, while those categorized as asymmetric lacked symmetry (see
fig. 4.2).
137
Figure 4.2. Examples o f symmetry attribute states. Top left, 2-fold, reflection, Swarts, ID 2641; top right,
3-fold rotation, Swarts, ID 2690; bottom left, multiple folds (4 and 8) and symmetries (rotation and
reflection), Galaz, ID 5210; bottom right, asymmetric, Swarts, ID 2184. Top left, top right, and bottom
right, Copyright President and Fellows of Harvard College, Peabody Museum o f Archaeology and
Ethnology, PM# 26-7-10/95806, (digital file# 60740406); PM# 25-11-10/94913, (digital file# 60740381);
PM# 26-7-10/95945, (digital file# 81590110). Bottom left, Mimbres bowl, earthenware with slip and
pigments, 5-3/4 x 13 in. Collection o f the Frederick R. Weisman Art Museum at the University o f
M innesota, Minneapolis. Transfer from the Department of Anthropology. 1992.22.1056.
138
P h a s e 3 : S t r u c t u r a l A t t r ib u t e A n a l y s is
Similar to Hegmon’s (1995) study, my attribute analysis focused only on the
structural aspects of the pottery designs, and followed Hegmon’s (1995, 157) broader
definition of design structure: “the organization [system] of designs, including layout,
symmetry, and the use of elements in articular contexts or combinations.” My
preliminary analysis did not include a detailed attribute analysis of individual design
elements (e.g., triangles, scrolls, hachure lines), such as those studies by Clark (2006) or
Searcy (2010). Altogether, the final attribute set for the analysis consisted of 12 structural
attributes relating to either (a) symmetry (discussed in previous section), (b) design
layout, or (c) framing lines. Each attribute or variable consisted of two or more attribute
states or categories (see table 4.1). Each vessel, where applicable, was classified into one
particular attribute state for each attribute using an Excel spreadsheet (see appendix A for
the coded attribute data for all vessels in the sample). Each attribute and their respective
states (except for the two symmetry attributes already described) are explained in detail
below. There were also several attributes that were discarded, because they (a) didn’t
apply to enough of the vessel designs, resulting in sample sizes that were too small for
statistical testing; (b) had too many possible attribute states, resulting again in small
sample sizes; or (c) were too subjective in terms of their classifying criteria.
139
General Layout
Two of the structural attributes (i.e., general layout and specific layout)
characterize the arrangement of design fields or bounded spaces, and thus the designs that
fill them. These attributes were intended to characterize the structural variation not
Table 4.1. List o f attributes and attribute states used in the analysis.
A ttrib u tes
A ttrib u te States
1. Symmetry
a. Rotation
b. Reflection
c. Asymmetric
d. Multiple
2. No. o f symmetry fo ld s
a. 1-9+
3. General layout
a. Reserved
b. Reserved\ motifs
c. Reserved, fille d
d .Non-reserved
4. Specific layout
a. Circular
b. Square
c. Converging, two-part
d. Converging, multi-part
e. Quartered
f. Figurative star, circular
g. Figurative star, square
h. Figurative star, quartered
i. Other
5. Design band width
a. 1-4 (in half unit increments)
6. Rim band presence
a. Present
b. Absent
7. No. o f rim bands
a. 0-15
8. Rim band type
a. Thick
b. Thin
c. Combination
9. No. o f thick rim bands
a. 0-4
10. Base band presence
a. Present
b. Absent
11. No. o f base bands
a. 0-9
12. Line form
a. Rectilinear
b. Curvilinear
c. Combination
140
captured by the symmetry attributes. They describe the design composition or the
alternative ways in which designs are organized in the Mimbres geometric style.
Brody ([1977] 2004, 128, fig. 131, layouts 1-10) proposed a set of 10 layout
categories, which, according to his analysis, characterized the bulk of Mimbres black-onwhite (Styles I—III) geometric pottery designs. Later, Hegmon and Kulow (2005, 324,
table 2, layouts 1-10, 17, 20, 22, 25) modified and expanded Brody’s categories,
suggesting a set of 14 different layouts. These previous layout sets served as an important
starting point in developing the layouts for my analysis, and some overlap exists in layout
types I used. Ultimately, however, I found that the previously suggested categories did
not adequately capture the diversity of the layouts I observed in my sample nor the
structural relationships I found to be the most important.
The general layout attribute describes the most basic structural relationship I
defined in my assessment of the sample. In general, the attribute classifies designs based
on whether or not there is a separate bounded space reserved in the center of the vessel
(see fig. 4.3). Brody (2004, 122, 129) also discusses this general structural pattern in
Mimbres designs. The attribute states describe whether the central space is completely
blank (i.e., reserved; see fig. 4.3, top left), reserved but with some isolated motifs within
the space (i.e., reserved, motifs', see fig. 4.3, top right), reserved but completely filled
with designs (i.e., reserved\ fdled', see fig. 4.3, bottom left), or whether the design has no
central space reserved at all, implying a completely different layout structure (i.e., non-
141
Figure 4.3. Examples o f general layout attribute states. Top left, reserved, circular, Swarts, ID 2209; top
right, reserved-motifs, converging-multi-part, Swarts, ID 2506; bottom left, reserved-filled, convergingtwo-part, Swarts, ID 2699; bottom right, non-reserved, quartered, Galaz, ID 3371. Top left, top right, and
bottom left, Copyright President and Fellows o f Harvard College, Peabody Museum o f Archaeology and
Ethnology, PM# 24-15-10/94462, (digital file# 80250051); PM# 24-15-10/94505, (digital file# 80280086);
PM# 25-11-10/94766, (digital file# 60742796). Bottom right, Mimbres bowl, earthenware with slip and
pigments, 4 x 8 in. Collection o f the Frederick R. Weisman Art Museum at the University o f Minnesota,
Minneapolis. Transfer from the Department o f Anthropology. 1992.22.1040.
142
reserved', see fig. 4.3, bottom right). All of the vessels in the sample were reasonably
classified into one of these four general layout categories.
Specific Layout
The specific layout attribute describes the particular shape or organization of the
general design layout, where the attribute states represent subtypes of either the reserved
or non-reserved layouts types. The circular category (see fig. 4.4, left) or attribute state
describes those designs that have a reserved central space shaped like a circle, creating a
banded design running horizontally around the walls of the bowl (corresponding to
Brody’s #10 layout (2004, 128, fig. 131)). The square category (see fig. 4.4, right)
Figure 4.4. Examples o f specific layout attribute states. Left, reserved, circular, Galaz, ID 5131; right,
reserved, square, Galaz, ID 5125. Mimbres bowls, earthenware with slip and pigments, 5 x 12-1/2 in. {left)
and 5 x 10-3/4 in. {right). Collection o f the Frederick R. Weisman Art Museum at the University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis. Transfer from the Department of Anthropology. 1992.22.301 {left) and
1992.22.385 {right).
143
describes designs that have a reserved central space shaped like a square or rectangle,
often creating four offset quartered design fields or wedges (corresponding to Brody’s #4
layout (2004, 128, fig. 131)).
Figure 4.5. Examples o f specific layout attribute states. Top left, reserved, converging-two-part, Swarts, ID
2325; top right, reserved, converging-two-part, Swarts, ID 10056; bottom left, reserved, converging-multi­
part, Swarts, ID 2454; bottom right, reserved, converging-multi-part, Swarts, ID 2204. Copyright President
and Fellows o f Harvard College, Peabody Museum o f Archaeology and Ethnology, PM# 25-11-10/94874,
(digital file# 81600054); PM# 26-7-10/95961.1, (digital file# 26230153); PM# 26-7-10/95848, (digital file#
80280054); PM# 26-7-10/95851, (digital file# 81590131).
144
The two converging specific layout categories (converging, two-part and
converging, multi-part) are both reserved layout subtypes, and describe a structural
characteristic of many Mimbres designs where different shaped parts, often pointed but
sometimes irregular or blocky, appear to originate from the rim of the vessel and
converge inward toward the center or base. These converging designs were separated into
two categories, two-part and multi-part, because the two-part designs were more
cohesive in terms of their structural organization and were treated differently from the
multi-part designs in how the reserved central space was filled with designs. The two-part
designs often create an S-shaped or hourglass-shaped space in the center of the bowl (see
fig. 4.5, top), while the multi-part designs often created star-, clover-, propeller-, or cross­
shaped designs in the center of the bowl that were usually left blank (see fig. 4.5, bottom).
Figure 4.6. Examples o f specific layout attribute states. Left, non-reserved, quartered, Swarts, ID 2552;
right, non-reserved, quartered, Swarts, ID 10034. Copyright President and Fellows o f Harvard College,
Peabody Museum o f Archaeology and Ethnology, PM# 24-15-10/94453, (digital file# 80290024); PM# 2415-10/94709, (digital file# 20750076).
145
These layout categories do not correspond well with any of Brody’s (2004, 128, fig. 131)
proposed layouts.
The quartered specific layout category (see fig. 4.6) is a non-reserved layout type,
and describes those designs that are simply quartered through the middle of the bowl by
two bisecting lines or quartered parts (corresponding to Brody’s #1-3 layouts (2004, 128,
% 131)).
The three figurative star categories, (1) figurative star, circular, (2) figurative
star, square', and (3) figurative star, quartered, refer to a group of designs that differ
distinctly from the rest in terms of structural organization. They consist of an isolated
star-like motif in the center of the bowl with blank space around the outside of the design
(see fig. 4.7). They are labeled “figurative,” because the structure of the designs more
closely resembles that of the Mimbres figurative designs. These designs fell into both the
reserved and non-reserved general layout categories, since some had reserved central
spaces (i .z., figurative star, circular and figurative star, square) and others did not (i.e.,
figurative star, quartered). Similar to the converging designs, these figurative star
designs do not correspond to any of Brody’s (2004, 128, fig. 131) layouts.
The other category simply refers to those designs that could not be reasonably
classified into the specific layout types. These designs included those that were bisected,
asymmetric, composed of multiple different layout types, or just completely unique in
terms of organization (see fig. 4.7, bottom right, fig. 2.1, bottom left). Some of these
146
Figure 4.7. Examples o f specific layout attribute states. Top left, reserved-filled, figurative star-circular,
Galaz, ID 3380; top right, reserved-filled, figurative star-square, Swarts, ID 2211; bottom left, non­
reserved, figurative star-quartered, Swarts, ID 2206; bottom right, non-reserved, other, Galaz, ID 6242. Top
left, Mimbres bowl, earthenware with slip and pigments, 3 x 7-1/2 in. Collection o f the Frederick R.
Weisman Art Museum at the University o f Minnesota, Minneapolis. Transfer from the Department of
Anthropology. 1992.22.1050. Top right and bottom left, Copyright President and Fellows o f Harvard
College, Peabody Museum o f Archaeology and Ethnology, PM# 26-7-10/95873, (digital file# 81590138);
PM# 25-11-10/94880, (digital file# 81590133).
147
designs correspond to Brody’s ‘overall wallpaper’ layout and ‘division along vertical
axes layout’ (2004, 128, fig. 131, layouts 6, 9).
Design Band Width
The design band width attribute applies only to those vessels classified as
reserved {general layout) and circular (,specific layout), which was the most frequent
layout category. The attribute is a measure of the relative width of these banded designs.
This measure represents the approximate ratio of the width of the design band to the
width of the reserved circular space, where the sum of these two measures is equivalent
to the radius of the bowl divided into 5 equal units. It was possible to take this measure,
because the vast majority of the vessel images were taken from a position directly above
the bowl. The attribute is a relative measure in the sense that (a) all the vessel images
were resized to an equal dimension and (b) the measure does not represent an absolute
physical distance on the curved surface of the bowl, but a relative width of a flattened
image.
The measure was obtained by using a clear plastic stencil or ruler with a circular
outline measuring 10 cm in diameter and two ruled lines bisecting the circle marking
each centimeter and half-centimeter. This ruler was laid over each digital image on a
computer screen and each image was resized to fit within the 10 cm circular outline. The
design band was then measured in terms of its radius from the rim toward the center of
the bowl, and this measure was rounded to the nearest half-centimeter. Thus, the attribute
148
states ranged from 0-5 with half unit intervals. This attribute was the only scale variable
in the attribute set, but was still treated as a categorical variable in the analysis. Those
images that were taken at an angle not directly above the bowl were excluded from the
analysis.
Framing Line Attributes
Framing lines have been used by other researchers as a key attribute in defining
the Mimbres black-on-white ceramic chronological seriation and typology (i.e., Anyon
and LeBlanc 1984; Scott 1983; Shafer and Brewington 1995). The presence or absence of
framing lines and the occurrence of thick and/or thin framing lines help distinguish
between Late Style II, Style II/III, and Early, Middle, and Late Style III (Shafer and
Brewington 1995). However, few studies have been conducted to determine whether
variations in framing lines within one design style (Style III) or time period (Classic
period) are site specific.
There were six attributes that related to framing lines. Framing lines refer to the
thick and/or thin lines painted immediately below the rim of the bowl (i.e., rim bands', see
fig. 4.7) and sometimes around the interior base just below circular banded designs (i.e.,
base bands', see fig. 4.4, left). These lines serve as a framing device, defining the banded
design space around the wall of a bowl (Brody 2004, 122). For this analysis, framing
lines were only counted or considered framing lines if they were free-floating lines with
149
some space between the lines and the bounded designs. Those lines that came in direct
contact with the designs or the painted lip of the bowl were not counted as framing lines.
The rim band presence attribute describes whether rims bands are present or
absent on a vessel. Based on the qualitative visual analysis, it was apparent that rim bands
could be applied to any vessel, since all vessels had a rim under which a rim band could
be theoretically placed between the rim and the design. As such, this attribute applies to
all vessels, and vessels were simply classified as present or absent in terms of the rim
band.
The number o f rim bands attribute is a simple count of the specific number of rim
bands (including both thick and thin types) that are painted on a given vessel.
The rim band type attribute describes the type of rim bands painted on a given
vessel, whether thick (see fig. 4.5, top right), thin (see fig. 4.5 bottom right), or a
combination of both (see fig. 4.7). Thick framing lines are virtually always
distinguishable from thin framing lines, because thick lines are generally several times
wider than the thin lines, which match the thickness of the hachure lines. In addition,
thick and thin framing lines are usually painted together on the same vessel, enhancing
their relative difference in thickness (see fig. 4.7).
The number o f thick rim bands attribute is a count of the number of thick rim
bands that are painted on a given vessel. Although the number of thin framing lines was
also recorded, there were too few vessels that possessed thin lines and too many different
150
frequencies of thin lines on these vessels, which made for sample sizes that were too
small to reasonably test.
The base band presence attribute describes whether base bands are present or
absent on a vessel. Unlike the rim band attributes, the base band attributes do not apply to
every vessel, because not all designs are banded and not all structural layout types could
feasibly permit the use of base bands (see fig. 4.7, bottom right', see fig. 4.6).
The number o f base bands attribute is a count of the number of base bands
(including both thick and thin types) that are painted on a given vessel. The specific
number of thick and think base bands were also recorded for each vessel, however these
categories yielded sample sizes that were too small to include in the analysis.
Line Form
The line form attribute simply describes whether the painted lines that make up
the designs are strictly curvilinear (see fig. 4.3, top left) or rectilinear (see fig. 4.3,
bottom right), or a combination of both (see fig. 4.3, bottom left). This is the only
attribute in the set that deals with the specific design aspects rather than the structural
aspects of the designs. Framing lines, which are by definition circular or curvilinear, were
not considered in the classification of line form; only the designs contained within the
framing lines were classified.
151
S t a t ist ic a l A n a ly sis M e t h o d o l o g y
To determine whether there was a significant relationship between design style
and site (i.e., whether any of the stylistic attributes varied significantly by site, indicating
the presence of distinct design styles specific to certain sites), quantitative or statistical
testing was conducted using IBM SPSS, version 24. The data recorded for the attribute
analysis in Excel was imported into SPSS. Majority of the attributes or variables in the
analysis were either categorical (e.g., general layout, base band presence) or discrete
interval (e.g., number o f symmetry folds, number o f rim bands) variables. The only
continuous interval variable was design band width. Regardless of the type, all variables
were treated as categorical and numerically coded in SPSS. The values for several of the
discrete interval variables were combined into a smaller number of categories in order to
create large enough sample sizes for statistical testing. Several variables were also
recoded and recombined in order to test the attributes and categories in different ways.
These additional tests are detailed in chapter five.
A series of chi-square tests (of independence) was conducted to determine the
significance between site and design style. The chi-square test o f independence, or
Pearson’s chi-square test, examines whether there is an association between two (or
more) categorical variables or whether the variables are independent of each other (Davis
2013, 105). In essence, the test determines whether the frequency proportions of one
variable (i.e., site) are different for the various categories of another variable (e.g.,
symmetry) (McDonald 2014, 59-67). This test is also referred to as a crosstabulation,
152
because it compares the differences between the observed and expected frequencies for
each category of the two variables in a table of rows and columns, known as a
contingency table or an R
x
C table (McDonald 2014, 59-67). The null hypothesis for a
Pearson’s chi-square test is that “the relative proportions of one variable are independent
of the second variable; in other words, the proportions at one variable are the same for
different values of the second variable” (McDonald 2014, 59-67).
In order for the chi-square test to accurately determine the significance of a
relationship two key assumptions must hold true. First, the variables being tested should
consist of two or more mutually independent categorical groups. This means that the
value of one observation does not affect the value of other observations, or that each
subject (or vessel) falls into only one category count or cell (e.g., the number of bowls at
the Galaz site with reflection symmetry) (McDonald 2014, 131-132). This assumption
holds true for all of the variables tested in the analysis.
The second assumption, which is more a rule of thumb, is that for larger
contingency tables, all expected cells should be greater than 1, and no more than 20% of
expected counts should be less than 5 (Field 2000, 63). Large cell counts are important,
because significance levels for the Pearson’s chi-square test are estimated according to a
standard chi-square distribution model (Hinton 2014, 240). SPSS calculates the
significance levels using the asymptotic method, where “p values are estimated based on
the assumption that the data, given a sufficiently large sample size, conform to a
particular distribution. However, when the data set is small, sparse, contains many ties, is
153
unbalanced, or is poorly distributed, the asymptotic method may fail to produce reliable
results” (Mehta and Patel 2013, 1).
While some of the tests in the analysis met this assumption, several did not. As a
solution to this problem, the Monte Carlo method was used. This procedure is a function
in SPSS, which repeatedly samples a specified number of possible observed contingency
tables to obtain an unbiased estimate of the true p value (Mehta and Patel 2013, 3-4).
Although exact p values would provide the most accurate measure of significance, the
data set in this analysis was too large for exact p value computations, which makes the
Monte Carlo method the best choice (Mehta and Patel 2013, 3). For this analysis, the
Monte Carlo estimated p value was based on a sample of 10,000 tables.
Chi-square testes were conducted for each of the 12 design attributes, where the
categories for each attribute were compared by site as the second variable. As mentioned
above, some of the attribute categories were combined, reclassified, and retested,
resulting in more than 12 different chi-square tests (the potential problem of a multiple
comparisons error is discussed in chapter six). The association between site and a
particular design attribute was considered significant (i.e., the null hypothesis was
rejected) if the estimated Pearson chi-square p value (whether asymptotic or Monte Carlo
p value) was less than a significance level or alpha of 0.05. If the p value was greater than
0.05, then the association was considered not statistically significant.
Cramer’s V was used to measure the size of the effect or the strength of the
association between the variables since all of the contingency tables in the analysis were
154
larger than 2 x 2. The Cramer’s V effect size value was interpreted according to the
guidelines recommended by Rea and Parker (2014, exhibit 10.2), where .00 to .10 is
considered negligible', .10 to .20 is weak', .20 to .40 is moderate', .40 to .60 is relatively
strong', .60 to .80 is strong', and .80 to 1.00 is very strong.
If a test was found to be significant, a post-hoc analysis was conducted using
standardized residuals to determine precisely which categories for which sites had
observed values that differed significantly from the expected values. A standardized
residual is essentially a ratio based on the difference between the observed and expected
counts for each cell (see Agresti 2013, 80-81). With a significance level of 0.05, cells
with residuals greater than 1.96 (either negative or positive) were considered to have a
significant difference between the observed and expected values for that particular site
and attribute category.
155
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS
This chapter is organized by design attribute; and, the statistical results for each of
the 12 attributes are given in terms of (a) the percentage of vessels from each site
distributed by design attribute category, and (b) the statistical significance of the Pearson
chi-square test(s). The valid sample for each attribute test is also discussed in terms of
which vessels were included or excluded and why. There is also a brief discussion in the
specific layout section concerning the nature of structural variation and diversity of
Mimbres geometric design layouts. See appendix A for the raw coded attribute data with
which the statistical analysis was conducted.
A total of 23 chi-square tests were conducted between site and the 12 design
attributes. All but 2 of these tests (i.e., symmetry and number o f symmetry folds) found
that there was no significant association between site and the design attribute; that is,
except for two instances, the relative frequencies of vessels for each design attribute
category did not differ significantly across the five sites.
Sym m etry
All of the vessels in the study sample (n = 489) were classified into one of the
four symmetry categories. A large majority of the vessels (77.3%, n = 378) had rotation
symmetry, while 15.1 % (n - 74) had reflection symmetry, 6.3% (n = 31) were
156
asymmetric, and 1.2% (n = 6) had multiple different symmetries. Figure 5.1 shows that
NAN Ranch had roughly twice the percentage of reflection vessels than the other sites;
otherwise, the category percentages appear relatively similar across the sites.
Symmetry
Figure 5.1. Percentage of vessels from each site, classified by symmetry.
The chi-square test of independence between the variables of symmetry and site
yielded a Pearson chi-square value of x2 = 19.943, with an asymptotic significance value
o fp = 0.068. However, 5 cells (25.0%) had expected counts less than 5; so, the Monte
Carlo method was used, yielding a significance value of p = 0.060. With a significance
level of a = 0.05, the test indicates that while close, there is no significant association
between symmetry and site; that is, design symmetry does not differ significantly by site
Thus, the distribution differences noted in figure 5.1 were not great enough in relation to
the total range of differences to be statistically significant.
157
A second chi-square test was conducted without those vessels classified as
multiple. This category was excluded because the total frequency (n = 6, 1.2%) was low
and resulted in small cell counts. With the exclusion of the multiple category, no cells had
expected counts less than 5; and, while the Monte Carlo method was not necessary, it was
still used as a cross reference. A Pearson chi-square value of x2 = 15.958 and significance
values o fp = 0.043 (asymptotic) and p = 0.040 (Monte Carlo) indicate a significant
association between symmetry and site. In particular, the post-hoc analysis revealed that
NAN Ranch, with a standard residual of 2.6, had a significantly higher proportion of
reflection vessels. Overall however, a Cramer’s V value of 0.13 suggests that the
relationship between symmetry and site is weak.
N um ber of S ym m etry F olds
The total valid sample for the symmetry fold analysis was n = 441 (90.2%), which
means that 48 vessels were not included. The vessels were excluded because they had
either (a) asymmetric designs (n = 31), (b) multiple different design structures with
different fold numbers (n = 10), or (c) simple concentric ring designs that did not have
folds (n = 5). The 1-fold category was excluded from the analysis, because only 2 designs
had bilateral symmetry (see Washburn and Crowe 1988, 57). Lastly, designs that had 9
or more folds were combined into one category to avoid small cell counts.
Figure 5.2 shows that the vast majority of Mimbres designs had either 2-fold
(37.6%, n = 166), 3-fold (12.5%, n = 55), or 4-fold (36.1%, n = 159) symmetry designs,
158
with 2-fold and 4-fold being the most frequent. The combined frequency percentages for
the remaining categories are as follows: 1.8% (n = 8) for 5; 2.3% ( n - 10) for 6; 1.4% (n
= 6) for 7; 2.0% (n = 9) for 8; and 6.3% (n = 28) for 9+. The most obvious differences
illustrated in figure 5.2 are: (a) Cameron Creek having substantially more 3-fold designs;
and (b) NAN Ranch having more 4-fold designs; otherwise, the proportions appear
relatively similar across the sites.
Site
SiGaJaz
HI Mattocks
□Swarts
UNAN Ranch
■ Cameron Creek
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9+
Number of Symmetry Folds
Figure 5.2. Percentage of vessels from each site, classified by number o f
symmetry folds.
The chi-square test between number o f symmetry folds and site yielded a Pearson
chi-square value of x = 34.899, with significance values of/? = 0.173 (asymptotic) andp
= 0.172 (Monte Carlo). Twenty-one cells (52.5%) had expected counts less than 5. The
results indicate that there is no overall significant difference in the number of symmetry
159
folds across the sites. A second chi-square test was conducted with the 5-, 6-, 7-, and 8fold vessels combined into a single category (i.e., 5-8, n = 33, 7.5%) in order to reduce
the number of cells with counts under 5. The second test yielded a Pearson chi-square
value of x2 = 25.137, withp = 0.067 (asymptotic) andp = 0.068 (Monte Carlo). Only 1
cell (4.0%) had an expected count less than 5. This test, though closer, still showed no
significant association.
A third chi-square test was conducted with only the three most frequent categories
(2-, 3-, and 4-fold), yielding a chi-square value of x2 = 20.377, with p = 0.009
(asymptotic) and p = 0.008 (Monte Carlo). No cells had counts less than 5. The results of
the third test indicate a significant association between site and the three most common
symmetry fold categories. A Cramer’s V of 0.16 suggests that this association is weak,
and the post-hoc analysis revealed that only Cameron Creek had significantly more 3-fold
designs (see fig. 5.2), with a standard residual of 3.1.
G eneral L ayout
Only 2 vessels were excluded from the analysis, making the total valid sample n 487 (99.6%). These vessels were excluded because the central portion of the vessels’
designs was not well enough preserved to characterize their layout structure. Figure 5.3
shows that the vast majority of the vessels fell into the reserved layout category (74.3%,
n = 362). The combined frequency percentages for the other three categories are as
follows: 13.7% (n = 67) for reserved, filled', A .\% (n = 20) for reservedmotifs', and 7.8%
160
(n = 38) for non-reserved. Surveying the bar chart, the site percentages for each category
do not appear to differ substantially.
Site
■ G a la z
□ M atto cks
□ S w arts
UN AN Ranch
■C am eron Creek
Reserved
Reserved, filled
Reserved, m otifs
Non-reserved
General Layout
Figure 5.3. Percentage of vessels from each site, classified by general layout.
The chi-square test between general layout and site yielded a chi-square value of
X2 = 15.310, with significance values ofp = 0.225 (asymptotic) and p = 0.221 (Monte
Carlo). Five cells (25.0%) had expected counts less than 5. The results indicate that there
is no significant difference in the distribution of general layout types across the five sites.
A second chi-square test was conducted with the three reserved categories combined into
a single category in order to reduce the number of cells with counts under 5. The
resulting combined reserved category made up 92.2% (n = 449) of the sample. The
second test yielded a chi-square value of %2 = 2.717, with p = 0.606 (asymptotic) and p =
0.610 (Monte Carlo). No cells had expected counts less than 5. The second test was
161
consistent with the first, indicating no significant association between general layout and
site.
A third chi-square test was conducted where vessels were reclassified as having
either a totally blank central reserved space or not. This effectively left the reserved
category the same, while combining the other three categories (i.e., reserved, filled',
reserved, motifs', non-reserved) into one. The resulting categories, blank and not blank,
characterized 74.3% (n = 362) and 25.7% (n = 125) of the sample, respectively (see fig.
Site
IlG a ia z
U Mattocks
□ Swarts
U N AN Ranch
M Cameron Creek
C
uV
im
<y
CL
Non-reserved (not blank)
Reserved (blank)
General Layout
Figure 5.4. Percentage of vessels from each site, classified by general layout
in terms of having a reserved central space as either blank or not blank.
5.4). The test yielded a chi-square value of x2 = 4.105, withp = 0.392 (asymptotic) and p
= 0.399 (Monte Carlo). No cells had expected counts less than 5. This third test showed
no significant association between the reconfigured general layout categories and site.
162
S p e c ific L a y o u t
The two layout attributes, general and specific, are perhaps the most subjective of
all the attributes in the study. The difficulty in defining discrete layout categories for
Mimbres Classic Black-on-White pottery stems from the extraordinary structural
diversity in geometric designs, also noted by other researchers (e.g., Cosgrove and
Cosgrove 1932, 89; LeBlanc 1983b, 188-119; Scott 1983, 56-67). Insights into the
nature of this diversity were revealed during the qualitative visual analysis of this study.
In general, it appears that there are no hard and fast rules governing the structural
organization of Mimbres geometric designs, and no repertoire of standardized layouts.
Rather, the layouts seem to subtly grade into one another along multiple dimensions that
make them difficult to categorize. There are, of course, general trends and similarities in
design structure (e.g., the use of 2- and 4-fold symmetry, the use of banded designs with a
circular space reserved in the center); however, any attempt to force the designs into a
single, distinct layout type was met with resistance. Often, the designs would violate the
type criteria in one way or another, or the designs would be a perfect hybrid between two
types. The design structures seemed to relate to one another like members of a family
tree— branching off in different ways (possibly a result of emulation, reinterpretation, or
innovation), creating more or less coherent groups of varying sizes or dead ends. Overall,
the structural variation appeared to be more coincidental or organic than systematic.
Nonetheless, the general and specific layout categories used here were found to be the
163
most reasonable means of organizing this diversity for quantitative analysis.
The same 2 vessels excluded from the general layout analysis were also excluded
in the specific layout analysis due to the poor preservation of the central portion of the
designs. This resulted in a valid sample of n = 487 (99.6%). Figure 5.5 shows that the
Site
60-
Galaz
HI Mattocks
□ Swarts
NAN Ranch
■ Cameron Creek
50«
40-
0c)
a
£ 3020~
10 “
O\
%y.
°o
X
%
^
%
^
>,
V,
X \
*> \
%
%
%
V,.
%
% % \
X X
%
Specific Layout
Figure 5.5. Percentage of vessels from each site, classified by specific layout.
circular layout category was by far the most frequent with 55.6% {n = 271) of the
vessels. The combined frequency percentages for the other categories are as follows:
12.5% (n = 61) for converging, two-part, 13.3% (n = 65) for converging, multi-part',
5.3% (n = 26) for quartered', 4.7% (n = 23) for quartered, square’, 3.9% (n= 19) for the
three combined figurative star categories; and 4.5% in = 22) for other. The bar chart does
164
not display any major differences in the frequency distributions of the layout categories
across sites.
The chi-square test yielded a value of x2 = 23.972, with significance values ofp =
0.845 (asymptotic) and p = 0.866 (Monte Carlo). Twenty-six cells (57.8%) had expected
counts less than 5. The results indicate that there is no significant difference in the
specific layout types across sites. A second chi-square test was conducted with the three
figurative star categories combined into a single category in order to reduce the number
of cells with counts under 5. The second test yielded a chi-square value of x = 12.808,
withp = 0.969 (asymptotic) andp - 0.970 (Monte Carlo). Sixteen cells (45.7%) had
expected counts less than 5. The second test was consistent with the first, indicating no
significant association between specific layout and site. A third test was conducted with
just two categories: (1) circular and (2) all of the remaining layout categories combined.
The third test yielded a chi-square value of x = 1.734, with p - 0.784 (asymptotic). No
cells had expected counts less than 5. The results of the third test also indicate no
significant association between specific layout and site.
D e sig n B a n d W idth
A total of 228 vessels were excluded from this analysis, making the valid sample
n = 261 (53.4%). Vessels were excluded because they either (a) did not have a banded
design layout with a circular reserved central space (n = 218); or (b) could not be
accurately measured due to the angle of the photo (n = 10). Figure 5.6 shows a roughly
165
Site
UCalaz
EHMattocks
□ Swarts
SI NAN Ranch
■ Cameron Creek
E
CD
U
V.
O
Q,
Design Band Width
Figure 5.6. Percentage of vessels from each site, classified by design band
width.
normal bell-curve distribution of the vessels. The combined frequency percentages for
each category are as follows: 4.2% (n= 11) for 7; 12.3% (n = 32) for 7.5; 21.5% (n = 56)
for 2; 22.2% (n = 58) for 2.5; 23.0% (n = 60) for 3; 14.2% (n = 37) for 3.5; and 2.7% {n =
7) for 4. Comparing the site distributions within each category, figure 5.6 shows some
noticeable differences, particularly for categories 7.5, 2, 2.5, and 3.5.
The chi-square test yielded a value of %2 = 30.993, with significance values o fp =
0.154 (asymptotic) and p = 0.150 (Monte Carlo). Ten cells (28.6%) had expected counts
less than 5. The results indicate that there is no significant difference in design band
width across the five sites. A second chi-square test was conducted without categories 7
and 4 to reduce the number of cells with counts under 5. The second test yielded a chisquare value of % =18.184, with p = 0.313 (asymptotic) and p = 0.310 (Monte Carlo).
166
No cells had expected counts less than 5. The second test was consistent with the first,
indicating no significant association. Thus, establishing that the relative differences in the
frequency distributions observed in the bar chart are not statistically significant.
R im B a n d P r e s e n c e
No vessels were excluded from this analysis, making the valid sample n = 489
(100.0%). At 67.1% (n = 328), majority of the vessels in the sample had rim bands, while
the remaining 32.9% (n = 161) did not. Figure 5.7 does not show any major differences in
the site percentages for each category. The chi-square test yielded a value of x2 = 7.895,
Site
UGalaz
□ Mattocks
□ Swarts
j^N AN Ranch
■ Cameron Creek
Absent
Present
Rim Band Presence
Figure 5.7. Percentage of vessels from each site, classified by rim band
presence.
with a significance of p = 0.095 (asymptotic). No cells had expected counts less than 5.
167
The results indicate that there is no significant difference in the presence or absence of
rim bands across the five sites.
N um ber
of
R im B a n d s
The valid sample for this analysis was n = 487 (99.6%). Two vessels were
excluded, because the total number of rim bands could not be counted due to poor image
quality. Figure 5.8 shows that three categories that contained the bulk: 0 (33.1%, n =
161), 7 (24.6%, n = 120), and 2 (22.2%, n = 108). The remaining category percentages
are as follows: 3.1% (n = 15) for 3; 1.6% (n = 8) for 4; 1.8% (n = 9) for 5; 4.1% (n = 20)
for 6; 3.7% (n = 18) for 7; 1.6% (n = 8) for 5; 1.4% (n = 7) for 9; 0.8% (n = 4) for 10;
Number o f Rim Bands
Figure 5.8. Percentage of vessels from each site, classified by number o f
rim bands.
168
0.6% (n = 3) for 11; 0.2% (n = 1) for 72; 0.2% (n = 1) for 13; 0.6% (n = 3) for 14; and
0.2% (n = 1) for 15. Comparing the site distributions within each category, figure 5.8
shows some noticeable differences, particularly for categories 0 ,1 ,5 , 6, and 7.
The chi-square test yielded a value of x2 = 56.975, with significance values ofp =
0.587 (asymptotic) and p = 0.620 (Monte Carlo). Sixty-five cells (81.3%) had expected
counts less than 5. The results indicate that there is no significant difference in the
number of rim bands across the five sites. A second chi-square test was conducted where
vessels from categories 3 through 15 were combined into a single category (n = 98,
20.1%) in order to reduce the number of cells with counts under 5 (see fig. 5.9). The
second, combined category test yielded a chi-square value of x2 = 14.381, with
Site
B G alaz
fUMattocks
□ Swarts
SlNAN Ranch
■ Cameron Creek
0
1
2
3- 15
Number of Rim Bands
Figure 5.9. Percentage of vessels from each site, classified by number o f
rim bands with categories 3-15 combined.
169
significance values o fp = 0.271 (asymptotic) and p = 0.279 (Monte Carlo). No cells had
expected counts less than 5. The second test was consistent with the first, indicating no
significant differences in the distribution of the number of rim bands among the sites.
R im B a n d T y p e
Vessels without rim bands {n= 161, 32.9%) were excluded from this analysis,
making the valid sample n = 328 (67.1%). Figure 5.10 shows that the majority of the
vessels had thick rim bands (74.4%, n = 244), while only 10.7% (n = 35) of the vessels
had thin rim bands, and 14.9% (n = 49) had both. Within each category, the only major
site differences apparent in the bar chart are that (a) Mattocks has considerably fewer
vessels with thin rim bands, while (b) Swarts has considerably more.
Site
fllGaiaz
H Mattocks
□Swarts
H NAN Ranch
■ Cameron Creek
100 -
a;
a.
Thick
Thin
Combination
Rim Band Type
Figure 5.10. Percentage of vessels from each site, classified by rim band type.
170
The chi-square test yielded a value of x2 = 11 -840, with significance values ofp =
0.158 (asymptotic) and p = 0.154 (Monte Carlo). No cells had expected counts less than
5. The results indicate that there is no significant difference in the type of rim bands
across the five sites.
N um ber
of
T h ick R im B a n d s
No vessels were excluded from this analysis, making the valid sample n = 489.
Figure 5.11 shows that the bulk of the vessels had either 0 (40.1%, n = 196), 1 (30.5%, n
= 149), or 2 (25.4%, n = 124) thick rim bands, while only 3.5% (n = 17) had 3, and 0.6%
(n = 3) had 4. Other than Mattocks having considerably fewer vessels with no thick rim
Site
UGalaz
fUMattocks
H Swarts
UNAN Ranch
■ Cameron Creek
CL
0
1
2
3
4
Number of Thick Rim Bands
Figure 5.11. Percentage of vessels from each site, classified by number o f
thick rim bands.
171
bands, the bar chart shows that the site distributions within each category appear to be
relatively similar.
The chi-square test yielded a value of %2 = 25.233, with significance values ofp =
0.066 (asymptotic) and p = 0.057 (Monte Carlo). Ten cells (40.0%) had expected counts
less than 5. The results indicate that there is no significant difference in the number of
thick of rim bands across the five sites. A second chi-square test was conducted where the
vessels from category 4 (n = 3) were excluded in order to reduce the number of cells with
counts under 5. The second combined category test yielded a chi-square value of x2 =
19.849, with significance values o fp = 0.070 (asymptotic) and p = 0.069 (Monte Carlo).
Five cells (25.0%) had expected counts less than 5. The second test was consistent with
the first, indicating no significant differences in the distribution of the number of thick
rim bands among the sites.
B ase B a n d P r e sen c e
The valid sample for this analysis was n = 266 (54.4%). Vessels were excluded
for either (a) having a design layout that does not permit base bands (n = 219, 44.8%); or
(b) being poorly preserved in the central portion of the design, making it impossible to
assess (n = 4, 0.8%). Figure 5.12 shows that the majority of vessels (73.3%, n = 195)
permitting base bands had them, while 26.7% {n - 71) did not. According to the bar
chart, there do not appear to be any major differences in the site distributions of vessels
172
Site
SG alaz
I I Mattocks
Swarts
NAN Ranch
Cameron Creek
100 '
8 0-
s
aV
CL
60-
40-
h
_
n-----£■%
&£—1-^v.
iig ■
Sill
llii
illll
Absent
Present
Base Band Presence
Figure 5.12. Percentage of vessels from each site, classified by base band
presence.
9
with and without base bands. The chi-square test yielded a value of x = 5.860, with a
significance o fp = 0.210 (asymptotic). No cells had expected counts less than 5. The
results indicate that there is no significant difference in the presence or absence of base
bands across the five sites.
N u m b e r of B ase B a n d s
The valid sample for this analysis was n = 266 (54.4%), matching that of the base
band presence analysis. Figure 5.13 shows that the bulk of the vessels had either 0
(26.7%, n = 71), 1 (47.0%, n = 125), or 2 (18.8%, n = 50) base bands. The remaining
category percentages are as follows: 3.0% (n = 8) for 3; 0.8% (n = 2) for 4; 0.8% (n = 2)
for 5; 1.1 % (n = 3) for 6; 1.1 % (n = 3) for 7; 0.4% (n= 1) for 8; and 0.4% (n = 1) for 9.
173
The bar chart reveals substantial differences in site distributions for categories 0 and 2,
with Mattocks having considerably fewer vessels with 0 base bands and considerably
more with 2.
Site
Galaz
H Mattocks
Swarts
NAN Ranch
Cameron Creek
3
4
5
6
Number of Base Bands
Figure 5.13. Percentage of vessels from each site, classified by number o f base bands.
The chi-square test yielded a value of %2 = 44.969, with significance values ofp =
0.145 (asymptotic) and p = 0.095 (Monte Carlo). Thirty-five cells (70.0%) had expected
counts less than 5. The results indicate that there is no significant difference in the
number of base bands across the five sites. A second chi-square test was conducted where
vessels from categories 3 through 9 were combined into a single category (n = 20, 7.5%)
in order to reduce the number of cells with counts under 5. The second combined
category test yielded a chi-square value of % =10.315, with significance values of p =
174
0.588 (asymptotic) andp = 0.596 (Monte Carlo). Five cells (25.0%) had expected counts
less than 5. The second test was consistent with the first, indicating no significant
differences in the distribution of the number of base bands among the sites.
L ine F o r m
No vessels were excluded from this analysis, making the valid sample n = 489.
Figure 5.14 shows that the majority of designs in the sample were rectilinear (67.3%, n =
329), while only 3.5% (n = 17) of the designs were curvilinear, and 29.2% (n = 143) of
the designs consisted of both line forms. The bar chart does not show any major
differences in the site distributions of each line form category. The chi-square test yielded
Site
iGalaz
!□ Mattocks
!□ Swarts
NAN Ranch
Cameron Creek
Rectilinear
Curvilinear
Combination
Line Form
Figure 5.14. Percentage of vessels from each site, classified by line form .
175
2
a value of x = 8.559, with significance values ofp = 0.381 (asymptotic) andp = 0.375
(Monte Carlo). Five cells (33.3%) had expected counts less than 5. The results indicate
that there is no significant difference in the distribution of line form types across the sites.
176
CHAPTER 6
INTERPRETATION & DISCUSSION
The previous chapter detailed the results of the stylistic analysis, where just two
of the twenty-three chi-square tests showed a significant association. This chapter seeks
to explain what these results mean (or could mean) within the context of the initial
research questions of this thesis project. That is, are there meaningful differences in
Mimbres geometric ceramic designs across sites; and if so, what do these differences
mean in terms of social identities and social networks within the Mimbres region?
This chapter consists of four sections. The first section addresses the results in
terms of statistical significance and power, and offers a narrow interpretation of the
results, based strictly on the significance of the chi-square tests. The second section
brings in relevant research regarding ceramic production and distribution in the Mimbres
region. In light of this research and insights from other relevant studies, the third section
provides some possible interpretive models that attempt to bring together these different
strands of evidence. Finally, the last section explains some of the limitations of this study
and offers some suggestions for future research.
I n t e r p r e t in g t h e C h i- S q u a r e T e st R e su l t s
Overall, the results from the Pearson chi-square tests indicate that there is no
strong association between site and design type. Only two of the twenty-three chi-square
177
tests found a significant difference in the relative frequencies of design types across the
five sites. First, the symmetry attribute test found a weak association between site and
symmetry type, with only NAN Ranch having a significantly higher proportion of
reflection vessels. Second, one of the three symmetry folds tests also found only a weak
association between site and the number of symmetry folds, with only Cameron Creek
having significantly more 3-fold designs. This test was one of three for the symmetry
folds attribute, and only included the three most frequent categories. The other two tests,
which were more inclusive of the full sample and range of variation within the category,
did not find a significant association.
Perhaps, it is important that the only significant results came from the symmetry
analysis. This might lend some credit to Washburn’s (1978, 101) argument that
“symmetry is...a sensitive indicator of specific cultural activities.” Also, these results
might suggest that a more extensive symmetry analysis of Mimbres geometric pottery
designs would be a worthwhile pursuit. Flowever, as I shall explain, it is probably more
likely that these results are simply coincidental.
This study tested the research (or alternative) hypothesis that different sites would
have differences in their types (or at least proportions of their types) of pottery designs.
However, this hypothesis was tested with twenty-three separate chi-square tests for the
twelve design attributes. The use of several separate statistical tests to answer the same
research question can lead to what is known as a multiple comparisons problem or a
familywise error (McDonald 2014, 254-260). That is, the more tests you run the more
178
likely you are to get a significant result, even if the your research hypothesis is actually
incorrect (or the null hypothesis is correct). McDonald provides a clear illustration of this
problem:
If you do 100 statistical tests, and for all of them the null hypothesis is actually
true, you'd expect about 5 of the tests to be significant at the P<0.05 level, just due
to chance. In that case, you'd have about 5 statistically significant results, all of
which were false positives. (McDonald 2014, 254-260)
Besides having only a weak association with significant differences among only
one site for one category, the problem of multiple comparisons suggests that it is
probably best to take these two significant results with a grain of salt. If there were truly a
strong association between site and design type we would expect to see many more
significant test results. Also, in terms of the data represented in the clustered bar charts
(figures 5.1-5.14), we would expect to see much larger differences between the relative
frequencies of vessels from each site for each attribute category. Instead, we see
relatively similar vessel percentages across the board (e.g., fig 6.4).
At the surface, the majority of the results from the chi-square tests seem to
support the null hypothesis that there is no association between site and design type. This
would suggest that there are no site-specific geometric design styles by which to identify
smaller social entities, but rather a relatively cohesive general style shared across the
Mimbres region. However, research concerning ceramic production and exchange in the
179
Mimbres region complicates the interpretation of these results, and begs for more
nuanced explanations.
C e r a m i c P r o d u c t i o n & D i s t r i b u t i o n in t h e M i m b r e s R e g i o n
Since the mid-1990s, a considerable number of studies have examined the
composition of Mimbres ceramics (using primarily instrumental neutron activation
analysis or INAA) to identify pottery production sites and to understand pottery
movement throughout the Mimbres region (i.e., Gilman, Canouts, and Bishop 1994;
James, Brewington, and Shafer 1995; Brewington, Shafer, and James 1996; Brewington
and Shafer 1999; Shafer 2001; Powell 2000; Powell-Marti and James 2006; Chandler
2000; Creel et al. 2002; Dahlin 2003; Dahlin et al. 2007; Schriever 2008; Speakman
2013). And, while the conclusions of these studies differ in various ways, they all agree
that Mimbres Classic (Style III) painted pottery was produced at several sites across the
Mimbres region and beyond. The majority of these studies also agree that a good portion
of the pottery produced at these sites was exchanged among other sites within and outside
the Mimbres region.
In one of the most recent and comprehensive studies on Mimbres pottery
production, Speakman (2013) identified (using INAA data from previous studies as well
as new analyses) roughly 35 different ceramic compositional groups, based on some 2900
pottery samples from 165 sites across New Mexico, Texas, Arizona, and northern
Mexico. These composition groups are linked to specific sites that span the entire
180
Mimbres region (and beyond), suggesting that decorated pottery was produced locally at
a number of sites (Speakman 2013, 178-183). Among the various estimated production
locales, Speakman (2013, 178-183) found that Mimbres Classic pottery was likely
produced at all of the sites tested in this study, except for NAN Ranch (i.e., Galaz,
Mattocks, Swarts, Cameron Creek). Contrary to other studies (e.g., Powell 2000; Dahlin
et al. 2007), this suggests that most, if not all, of the Style III pottery recovered at NAN
(and analyzed in this study) was produced non-locally at another Mimbres site
(Speakman 2013, 195).
Speakman (2013, 71-173) also discusses the distribution of these various
compositional groups, many of which are scattered across several sites in the Mimbres
region. Concerning the five sites included in this study, he found that: (a) pottery
presumably produced at Galaz was found at 43 sites located mostly in the Mimbres
Valley; (b) pottery produced at Swarts was found at 40+ sites mostly in the lower and
middle Mimbres Valley; (c) pottery produced at Mattocks was found at 27 sites mostly in
the upper valley; (d) pottery produced at Cameron Creek was found at 5 sites in the near
vicinity; and (e) there was virtually no Style III pottery produced at NAN, as mentioned
earlier. Similar patterns of widespread pottery exchange for some of these sites and others
were also noted by Dahlin et al. (2007, 465, table 4).
In another INAA ceramic composition study, Powell-Marti and James (2006; see
Powell 2000) analyzed 152 sherds from 5 sites in the Mimbres region: Galaz, NAN
Ranch, Old Town, Cameron Creek, and Saige-McFarland. They found that from AD
181
970-1140, around 20-58% of the analyzed sherds represented exchange vessels, meaning
they were produced at a different site from where they were found (Powell-Marti and
James 2006, 157-158). Further, they found that patterns of exchange between the sites
(i.e., preferred exchange directions and partners) changed over time, and that after AD
1060, Galaz assumed a central role in this network, exporting vessels to other sites in the
Mimbres Valley (i.e., NAN Ranch and Old Town) while importing none (Powell-Marti
and James 2006, 161).
P o ssib l e E x p l a n a t io n s fo r t h e R e su l t s
The studies discussed above, all support the argument that Mimbres pottery was
both widely produced and exchanged across sites within and even outside the Mimbres
region. For this study, this implies that while much of the pottery recovered from the five
test sites was locally produced (except perhaps for NAN Ranch), a considerable
proportion of the bowls was made elsewhere and imported. Nonetheless, according to the
research discussed in the last section, the proportion of locally produced pottery for most
large village sites would still be greater than the proportion of pottery imported from any
single non-local production source (with the possible exception of NAN). Further, it is
also possible that imported pottery, depending on the circumstances of exchange, could
have been preferentially selected according to design style. Thus, even with the added
factor of imported pottery, it is theoretically possible for the sample of vessels analyzed
in this study to have displayed similarities in (or covariation of) design attributes, which
182
were site-specific. However, as indicated by the quantitative analysis of the attribute data,
this was not the case.
Instead, the results indicate that, based on 12 structural design attributes recorded
for 489 vessels from 5 sites, the style of painting geometric pottery designs is more or
less homogenous across sites in the Mimbres Valley during the Classic period (AD 10001150). Hypothetically, the presence of site-specific design variations may have provided
evidence supporting the existence of distinct social entities within the greater Mimbres
region and ‘culture.’ On the other hand, the lack of such village-level design distinctions,
as seen in this study, does not necessarily mean that there were no subregional social
groups in the Mimbres region. In fact, researchers have demonstrated that social identities
and group affiliation can be expressed in a variety of different and unexpected ways,
whether it be through material culture, language, or numerous other means (Hodder
1982b; Wiessner 1983). At the same time, it is possible that there were some site-specific
patterns of design variation present in the study sample that were masked or distorted by
the presence of exchanged or imported vessels (discussed above). However, it is also
possible that the homogeneity of designs across sites is not the product of random
distribution or error from confounding factors, but the result of social mechanisms that
ensured a consistent general design style across the Mimbres region.
At a general level, the consistency and standardization of Mimbres painted pottery
is not only well recognized among archaeologists it is what makes its typology possible.
The distinctive black-on-white painted pottery produced during the Classic period is
183
defined by a suite of technological and stylistic traits (as detailed in chapter one). Pottery
recovered from sites across the Mimbres region can be accurately typed as Mimbres
Black-on-White Style III by simple observation of these diagnostic features. Such
consistency in manufacture across several production sites requires a certain degree of
standardization. Based on archaeological and ethnographic evidence, researchers argue
that this standardization was achieved through communal learning and apprenticeship.
Within Mimbres communities, researchers argue that young children learned how to
make pottery through observation and practice under the instruction of more experienced
family members (Brody 2004, 102; Crown 2001; Shafer 2003, 176). Brody (2004, 102)
points out that Mimbres ceramic decorative systems, like many in Southwest and beyond,
would have been largely tradition bound and fortified by conservative attitudes with
socially understood rules and limitations.
Yet, despite the conservative nature and limitations of ceramic design traditions
the Mimbres Classic period is marked by an incredible diversification of design layouts
and motifs (Cosgrove and Cosgrove 1932, 89; LeBlanc 1983b, 188-119; Scott 1983, 5667; Shafer 2003, 177), a phenomenon that was also observed in this study and discussed
in chapter five. Brody (2004, 136) argues that “the limitations and constraints of [the
Mimbres] tradition were a guarantee of consistency, and the superficial visual
conservatism that seems to be so alien to the creative process was, instead, an essential
protective device that made pictorial invention possible.” Similarly, Shafer (2003, 176—
177) asserts that “Mimbres potters followed contemporary rules for basic style, but each
184
potter executed these rules applying [his or] her own interpretation.” Further, Crown
(2001, 464-465) argues that the social context of learning to make pots within Mimbres
communities encouraged exploration and freedom of expression at a young age, which
led to more creative and diverse designs.
Perhaps more remarkable than the degree of diversity achieved within the
confines of a conservative craft tradition, is that the specific nature of this diversity is
shared across sites in the Mimbres region. That is, according to this study, the distribution
of the various different symmetry and layout types, for example, or even the number of
rim bands, is relatively consistent across Mimbres villages. I argue that this could be
explained by the large amount of pottery exchange between sites during the Classic
period.
Researchers have suggested that the exchange of goods within the Mimbres
region, including pottery, increased during the Classic period (Minnis, 1985, 172-181);
and, with the exchange of pottery comes the exchange of ideas. Thus, it is entirely
possible that local potters would have been inspired to emulate, recapitulate, or compete
with the designs imported from other villages. Thus, the homogeneity of geometric
designs during the Classic period, characterized by a diverse repertoire of structural
attributes, may have been the result of a design tradition that encouraged diversity but
ensured uniformity through mechanisms of social learning within sites and the sharing of
ideas and vessels across sites.
185
This homogeneity in design style across the region is also consistent with
arguments suggesting that there was a general move toward regional unity during the
Classic period (Powell-Marti and James 2006, 172-173; Shafer 2003, 222; Schriever
2006, 177). Based on their study, Powell-Marti and James (2006, 172-173) argue that
there was “a strong move at all levels of social life reinforcing ‘Mimbres consciousness’
toward a stronger sense of community as opposed to loosely associated groups.” Thus,
the lack of even subtle differentiation in design style across the Mimbres region, as seen
in this study, may also be associated with a larger move toward regional unity or
“Mimbresness” (Powell-Marti and James 2006, 173) during the Classic period. In
addition, the homogeneity in geometric designs during the Classic period also seems to
be consistent with the distribution of Mimbres figurative pottery designs.
In a study similar to this one, Hegmon et al. (2015) conducted a stylistic analysis
of 977 (mostly Classic period) Mimbres black-on-white vessels with figurative depictions
of animals. They wanted to know whether certain kinds of naturalistic designs were
clustered at particular sites, which might signal the existence of group or kinship
affiliations (Hegmon et al. 2015, 4-5). However, after conducting numerous quantitative
analyses at various scales, they found no spatial differentiation in the distribution of the
motifs, but rather a homogeneous division among the sites (Hegmon et al. 2015, 14).
These results are similar to the patterning of Mimbres geometric designs observed in this
study; and, much like this study, they concluded that “the even distribution of the motifs
186
suggests they - and the pottery painting in general - were meaningful at a general social
level...[and]...signaled membership in Mimbres society (Hegmon et al. 2015, 14).
L im it a t io n s & D ir e c t io n s fo r F u t u r e R e se a r c h
The interpretative model proposed here is largely speculative in that it relies on
certain assumptions not fully substantiated by the results. In addition, because this study
was meant to be a preliminary analysis, it is necessarily limited in terms of scope and
size. Clearly, there are still many unanswered questions. More research is required to
better understand how stylistic variation in geometric pottery designs relates to other
social aspects of Mimbres communities.
One of the challenges with this study was the limited number of sites and vessels
included in the analysis. The study sample consisted of 489 vessels from 5 sites in the
Mimbres River Valley. This represents roughly 25% of the total set of vessels in
MimPIDD that met the sampling criteria (N= 1870). A larger number of vessels and sites
would not only increase statistical power for quantitative analysis, it would create a more
representative sample and allow for comparisons across a greater portion of the Mimbres
region, beyond the Mimbres River Valley (i.e., Upper Gila River area, eastern Mimbres
area).
Another component of this study that could be expanded or refined is the attribute
analysis. The attributes recorded for the study focused primarily on the structural aspects
of the designs (e.g., symmetry, layout, framing lines). A detailed attribute analysis of the
187
primary and secondary design elements, such as those conducted by Clark (2006) or
Searcy (2010), would paint a fuller picture of the design variation, and might reveal
important differences not captured by the structural aspects of the designs. It would also
be worth revisiting some of the structural attributes defined in this study. In particular,
further experimentation and refinement of the layout categories could prove to be
productive. Additionally, the recording of various metric attributes would also capture
other aspects of stylistic variation not covered in this study. This would require first-hand
observation and measurement of the vessels, but would yield additional information
concerning both the designs (e.g., line width) and technology (e.g., bowl diameter, height,
wall thickness).
Lastly, the area of research that could benefit this project the most is ceramic
composition. As I have alluded to, ceramic production and distribution is essential to
understanding who made these vessels, where they ended up, and why. The study
conducted by Powell-Marti (Powell 2000; Powell-Marti and James 2006), discussed
earlier, combined both ceramic stylistic and compositional (INAA) analyses. Besides
providing a model for combining these two modes of ceramic analysis, her study yielded
important insights regarding the social significance, production, and exchange of
Mimbres painted pottery. However, Powell’s study focused only on Mimbres figurative
pottery designs, and some have identified serious problems with her INAA statistical
methodology (i.e., Speakman 2013, 37-38). In addition, her study relied on
compositional data taken from other sherds, not directly sampled from the whole vessels
188
used for the stylistic analysis. This means that the compositional and stylistic data were
indirectly associated.
Currently, minimally destructive forms of ceramic compositional analysis
include: XRF (X-ray fluorescence), LA-ICP-MS (Laser Ablation Inductively Coupled
Plasma Mass Spectrometer), and INAA (Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis).
INAA, in particular, has attracted the attention of many Mimbres researchers in the last
two decades, and there are now more than 3,600 INAA samples of Mimbres pottery and
over 35 compositional groups that have been identified (Speakman 2013, 1). Moreover,
at least 450 whole or nearly intact Mimbres bowls have undergone INAA analysis, with
research underway to analyze an additional 800-1000 vessels (Speakman 2013, 197).
Such a large dataset of whole, INAA analyzed vessels would help directly source
and track the movement of pottery included as part of a stylistic analysis. Ultimately,
future studies interested in questions of stylistic variation in Mimbres geometric pottery
designs should include (a) a representative sample of vessels from sites across the
Mimbres region; (b) a comprehensive hierarchical attribute analysis, including aspects of
symmetry, structure, and design elements, as well as continuous measurements of the
designs and the vessel itself; and (c) an INAA ceramic compositional analysis that draws
on both new and preexisting data (e.g., Speakman 2013).
189
SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
Stylistic choice is “read” by others—it is interpreted in relation to one of several
general “wholes.” But it is also an event with concrete effects in the world.
Indeed, it adds to that world and in so doing alters it. Any action thus changes the
context in which it, and any further stylistic reference to it, is interpreted.
Meaning is always “running on,” unstoppable because of the dualities of event
and interpretation, particular and general, object and subject.
—Ian Hodder, The Uses o f Style in Archaeology
This concluding chapter focuses on the specific contributions of this thesis project
as well as its broader implications both within Mimbres studies and beyond. The first
section describes the contributions of part I of this thesis, including: (a) the analytical
insights gained from the critical review of Mimbres design research in chapter two; and
(b) the theoretical model of style developed in chapter three. The second section of this
chapter summarizes the results of the preliminary stylistic analysis, as well as the
interpretation of these results, given the research on Mimbres ceramic production and
exchange and other relevant studies. Lastly, I finish this chapter with a brief statement
describing, in broad terms, what I hope this thesis has accomplished both within the field
of Mimbres archaeology and beyond.
C o n t r ib u t io n s o f P a r t
I
The contributions of the first part of this thesis are primarily analytical and
theoretical. Chapters two and three provided background research and laid out the
190
theoretical foundation for my study. The conclusions I provide in these chapters are based
on a critical analysis and synthesis of large bodies of research pertaining to Mimbres
pottery designs and the major theoretical models of style in archaeology.
M im b r e s D e s ig n R e s e a r c h
In chapter two, I conducted an extensive review of Mimbres ceramic design
literature, spanning from the very beginning of Mimbres research in the late 19th century
to the present day. I analyzed this large and diverse corpus of research and organized the
studies into two general categories based on their analytical approach— iconographic and
stylistic. By tracing their historical development and critically engaging with the major
works, I identified the significant contributions and problems of these studies, as well as
those research areas that have been overlooked.
I found that the iconographic studies have contributed much to our understanding
of Mimbres prehistory and aspects of Mimbres social behavior (e.g., daily activities,
dress, social networks, gender dynamics, social organization). These studies have also
established compelling connections between the imagery and ideology of the Mimbres
region and that of Mesoamerica and Puebloan regions. Further, these studies show the
potential of Mimbres designs to carry a multiplicity of meanings, ranging from the literal
to the metaphorical and supernatural. Lastly, iconographic studies have demonstrated the
value of an art historical approach to understanding these painted bowls as coherent
191
whole artworks conceived by artists, rather than just arbitrary, isolated shapes and layouts
adorning artifacts.
On the other hand, the stylistic studies have identified associations between
certain design attributes and certain social and spatial entities within the Mimbres region,
providing insights into ceramic production and specialization, as well as social identity,
organization, and interaction. Stylistic studies have also demonstrated that these
associations are more likely to be complex than simple. In addition, these studies have
helped develop and refine more objective and systematic means of stylistic analysis (e.g.,
attribute analysis, symmetry analysis), which allow researchers to breakdown, quantify,
and statistically analyze ceramic designs in order to address specific research questions.
I also found that Mimbres design studies have suffered from several
methodological and interpretive problems, including: (a) an overall lack of rigor,
including highly subjective interpretations and poorly defined methodological and
theoretical frameworks; (b) an uncritical application and misuse of ethnographic
comparisons or ethnographic evidence; (c) the use of highly subjective or arbitrary design
categories and attributes; (d) the lack of explicitly defined design terms, analytical units,
or concepts; (e) the use of small, unrepresentative or biased study samples; (f) the use of
unprovenienced bowls from private collections, which may have altered or forged
designs; and (g) the lack in use of provenience information or spatial context in analyses.
Lastly, I identified several major gaps in Mimbres ceramic design research,
including: (a) the examination of associations between vessel design and vessel form; (b)
192
the study of stylistic relationships between Mimbres designs and those of neighboring
regions or culture-areas; and most pressing, (c) the analysis of Mimbres geometric
pottery designs. There have also been no studies that explore the complex relationships
between geometric and figurative designs in terms of how they (a) interact on the same
vessel, (b) stylistically covary, or (c) grade into one another, as stylized figurative motifs
or as abstract geometric representations of real life phenomena.
A p p r o a c h e s to S t y l e in A r c h a e o l o g y
In chapter three, I sought to answer two main questions: What is style? and, What
does style do? I identified five major theoretical approaches to these issues: (1) style as
ethnicity, (2) style as secondary function, (3) style as isochrestic choice, (4) style as
communication, and (5) style as a relational property. The first model (style as ethnicity)
was more or less implicit, and was espoused by culture-historians, like Childe (1956), to
characterize and define ‘cultures’ or supposed ethnic groups. The second approach (style
as secondary function) was proposed by Binford (1962, 1965), who saw style as a
byproduct of artifact manufacture and function, or those formal qualities of artifacts that
crosscut but do not directly relate to the functional artifact categories. The third approach
(style as isochrestic choice) was developed by Sackett (1966, 1973, 1977, 1985, 1990),
who argued that style represents the isochrestic choices made by artisans out of a
selection of more or less equally valid alternatives. The fourth theory (style as
communication) was proposed by Wobst (1977), Conkey (1978a, 1978b, 1982, 1990),
193
and Wiessner (1983, 1990), and held that style was a means of active communication
whereby objects and people are engaged in various processes of information exchange.
Lastly, the fifth model (style as a relational property) was developed by Hodder (1982a,
1982b, 1982c, 1990), who defined style as “both an objective way of doing... and... the
subjective and historically evaluated referral of an individual event to an interpreted
general way of doing” (1990, 51).
I drew on concepts from nearly every major approach, and especially that of
Hodder’s (1990), to develop my own model of style. In answering the first question
(What is style?), I defined style as the formal manifestation of a particular way of doing
something in the production of material culture, which is: (a) both distinct from but
related to a general way of doing; (b) formed by both conscious decisions and automatic
responses of individuals influenced by social, individual, and environmental factors; (c)
specific to a social group (or an individual), time, and place; and (d) inherently associated
with social and individual identity. In answering the second question (What does style
do?), I argued that style has a variety of social functions that relate to identity, and,
depending on the particular context, style can be passive or active, conscious or
unconscious.
Furthermore, my model of style was designed to provoke a series of questions; I
insisted that for any given style or stylistic element of material culture, researchers should
aim to answer: (a) What is the particular and general style in question? (b) How is the
particular style distinct from and similar to the general style? (c) How and why was it
194
done in such a manner? (d) Who, when, and where is it specific too? and, (e) What role(s)
did it play regarding identity?
C o n t r i b u t i o n s o f P a r t II
The second part of this thesis focused on the preliminary stylistic analysis of
Mimbres Classic geometric pottery designs. Chapters four, five, and six detailed the
methodology and results of the analysis, as well as an interpretation and discussion of the
findings. The primary goals of the preliminary study were to (a) establish a
methodological framework for analyzing Mimbres geometric pottery designs, (b) yield
exploratory results, and (c) identify the most relevant and important research questions
concerning the designs. As such, the major contributions of part II are primarily
methodological. Nonetheless, the data and findings of the stylistic analysis are certainly
worth consideration. More research is needed, however, to substantiate the interpretive
model I proposed for the results.
M ethods
The methodology I employed for the stylistic analysis was based largely on the
hierarchical attribute analysis approaches developed by Friedrich (Friedrich 1970; Hardin
1983), Redman (1977, 1978), Plog (1980), and Hegmon (1990, 1995), as well as the
symmetry analysis method developed by Washburn (1977, 1978; Washburn and Crowe
1988). In addition, my methods were also informed by other stylistic studies of Mimbres
195
pottery (i.e., Brody 2004; Powell 1996, 2000; Hegmon and Kulow 2005; Washburn
1992), as well as recent studies of pottery designs in the greater Southwest (i.e., Lyons
2001; Clark 2006; Searcy 2010; Peeples 2011). Based on all of these works, I developed
a three-phased approach for the stylistic analysis of Mimbres Classic geometric pottery.
The first phase consisted of a qualitative visual analysis in which individual
images of the vessels were printed out, so they could be visually assessed together, rather
than in isolation or in small resolution on a computer screen. Printed images laid side-byside facilitated multiple simultaneous visual comparisons, which aided in the recognition
of general patterns of stylistic variation and various structural and design element
relationships.
The second phase consisted of a symmetry analysis, and was essentially an
extension of the attribute analysis in the third phase. Departing from Washburn’s (1992)
study, all of the designs were treated as finite, and only the symmetry of the layout
structure was classified. Further, rather than classifying design symmetry by a single
symmetry class, like Washburn, I classified symmetry according to two separate
attributes: symmetry type and number o f symmetry folds.
The third phase consisted of an attribute analysis, similar to that of Hegmon
(1995), which focused on the structural aspects of the designs. The final attribute set
consisted of 12 structural attributes relating to either (a) symmetry (discussed above), (b)
design layout, or (c) framing lines. Each attribute or variable consisted of two or more
attribute states or categories (see table 4.1), and each vessel, where applicable, was
196
classified into one particular attribute state for each attribute. Most of these attributes
were designed specifically for Mimbres geometric designs, and were developed after
much trial and error to capture or characterize those design aspects deemed to be the most
meaningful or sensitive.
R e s u l t s & I n t e r p r e t a t io n
Twenty-three chi-square tests of independence were conducted with the twelve
design attributes for a sample of 489 vessels from five sites in the Mimbres River Valley.
For each chi-square test, site was tested against a particular design attribute to see
whether the two variables were independent or dependent; that is, whether the relative
frequencies of vessels in each attribute category differed significantly by site. This study
found that only two of the twenty-three tests (for symmetry and number o f symmetry
folds) were statistically significant. However, these associations were found to be weak,
with significant differences among only one site for one attribute category for each test.
In addition, the problem of multiple comparisons suggests that these two significant
results may have been coincidental or false positives. Ultimately, the chi-square tests
suggest that there is no significant difference in geometric design structure across the five
sites, but rather a homogenous distribution of design styles.
Research on ceramic production and distribution in the Mimbres region, using
INAA compositional analysis, suggests that (a) painted pottery was locally produced at
several, mostly large, village sites across the Mimbres region, and (b) a large portion of
197
the painted pottery recovered at the sites was exchanged or imported from other Mimbres
sites. Thus, it is possible that there were some site-specific patterns of design variation
present in the study sample that were masked or distorted by the imported vessels.
However, depending on the nature of the stylistic variation and degree of pottery
exchange, it is still feasible that this analysis could have still detected strong site-specific
design styles even if they were present.
It is also possible that the homogeneity of geometric designs during the Classic
period, characterized by a diverse repertoire of structural attributes, may have been the
result of a regional design tradition, which encouraged diversity but ensured uniformity
through mechanisms of social learning within sites and the sharing of ideas and vessels
across sites. This explanation is also consistent with arguments that there was increasing
regional social unity during the Mimbres Classic period (Powell-Marti and James 2006,
172-173; Shafer 2003, 222; Schriever 2006, 177).
The possible explanations for the results of this study are largely speculative, and
more research is needed to better understand how stylistic variation in geometric pottery
designs relates to Mimbres social dynamics. Recommendations for future research
include: (1) the use of a large sample of vessels (e.g., n = 1800) from sites across more of
the Mimbres region (i.e., beyond the Mimbres Valley); (2) a more extensive hierarchical
attribute analysis, including structural attributes, as well as design element attributes and
metrics characterizing both the designs and vessel form; and, most importantly (3) a
198
combined INAA compositional analysis of the vessels that draws on both new and
preexisting INAA data.
P a r t in g T h o u g h t s
This study offers no certain answers to questions concerning the geometric
pottery designs and social dynamics of the Mimbres region. In fact, it seems that we are
still far from knowing how these designs relate to social identity and interaction, if at all.
Nonetheless, this study is one of only a handful that have attempted to analyze Mimbres
geometric designs. Thus far, the vast majority of Mimbres design studies have focused on
the figurative images. But, in order to paint a fuller picture of how these designs relate to
aspects of social affiliation and interaction in the Mimbres region, it is vital that both
design genres be thoroughly investigated.
Besides providing a theoretical and methodological framework with which to
analyze style in Mimbres pottery designs, this study presents some preliminary results
suggesting that, much like that of the figurative designs (see Hegmon et al. 2015), the
stylistic variation of geometric designs is relatively homogenous across sites in the
Mimbres region. This supposed homogeneity in pottery designs across such a large area
suggests that there were certain factors ensuring consistency in ceramic imagery during
the Classic period. Whether this was a strong sense of regional identity, a rigid set of craft
norms, or a steady exchange of ideas, is uncertain. However, this study brings us one step
closer to answering these questions.
199
Beyond the Mimbres region, this study has broader implications for
archaeological research. At the heart of this thesis project is the concept of style. What is
style? What can it tell us about the things it describes and the people who made these
objects? How and why do certain choices in the manufacturing process result in stylistic
expression? How is style related to various social dynamics? And, what is the best way to
analyze and interpret stylistic variation? These are some of the larger issues I have
explored in this project.
Understanding the particular ways in which things are done or made is essential to
material culture studies. In terms of decorative imagery, Hodder (1982b) and Wiessner
(1983) have illustrated how understanding style is necessary to understanding how and
why objects symbolize, and how and why they were chosen to symbolize. Further, they
have demonstrated that style and material culture can play active roles in social and
economic strategies through the creation and manipulation of social rules, relationships,
ideologies, and economic practices. Style has power in communicating information and
in controlling ways of acting.
Ultimately, the intersection of style, material culture, and social behavior is an
incredibly complex tangle of relationships. Even so, archaeologists can and have
analyzed style to reveal important information concerning various temporal and spatial
relationships of past societies. The theoretical model of style I present here as well as the
methodological recommendations I offer in terms of stylistic analysis have practical
applications across all fields of archaeological research. For example, stylistic attribute
200
analysis can be applied to virtually any component of material culture, from pottery and
stone tools to hearths and architecture.
Ultimately, it is clear from this study that style is only one piece of the puzzle. In
order to untangle the complex social relationships style is wrapped up in, more kinds of
information are needed. In the end, rather than offering groundbreaking results or a
wealth of new data, this thesis is meant to provide a reliable travel guide for researchers
seeking to explore the unchartered territory that is Mimbres geometric designs (or
ceramic designs in general). It is my hope that the analytical, theoretical, and
methodological insights I share here will help researchers tackle the most pressing
problems, ask the most relevant questions, and attempt to answer them with the most
effective approaches possible.
201
REFERENCES CITED
Agresti, Alan. 2013. Categorical Data Analysis. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Amsden, Charles Avery. 1936. An Analysis ofHohokam Pottery Design. Medallion
Papers, no. 23. Globe, AZ: Gila Pueblo.
Anyon, Roger, Patricia A. Gilman, and Steven A. LeBlanc. 1981. “A Reevaluation of the
Mogollon-Mimbres Archaeological Sequence.” Kiva 46 (4): 209-225.
Anyon, Roger, and Steven A. LeBlanc. 1980. “The Architectural Evolution of MogollonMimbres Communal Structures.” Kiva 45 (3): 253-277.
--------- . 1984. The Galaz Ruin: A Prehistoric Mimbres Village in Southwestern New
Mexico. Albuquerque, NM: Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, University of
New Mexico Press.
Bandelier, Adolph F. A. 1884. “Appendix: Reports by A. F. Bandelier on His
Investigations in New Mexico During the Years 1883-1884,1—II.” In Fifth
Annual Report o f the Executive Committee, and Third Annual Report o f the
Committee on the American School o f Classical Studies at Athens, 1883-1884,
Archaeological Institute o f America, 55-98. Cambridge, MA: John Wilson and
Son, University Press.
--------- . 1892. Final Report o f Investigations Among the Indians o f the Southwestern
United States, Carried on Mainly in the Years from 1880 to 1885, Part II. Papers
of the Archaeological Institute of America, American Series 4. Cambridge, MA:
John Wilson and Son, University Press.
Binford, Lewis R. 1962. “Archaeology as Anthropology.” American Antiquity 28 (2):
217-225.
--------- . 1964. “A Consideration of Archaeological Research Design.” American
Antiquity 29 (4): 425-441.
1965. “Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Process.” American
Antiquity 31 (2, pt. 1): 203-210.
202
. 1973. “Interassemblage Variability - The Mousterian and the 'Functional'
Argument.” In The Explanation o f Culture Change: Models in Prehistory, edited
by Colin Renfrew, 227-254. London, UK: Duckworth.
. 1980. “Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and
Archaeological Site Formation.” American Antiquity 45 (1): 4-20.
Bettison, Cynthia Ann, Roland Shook, Randy Jennings, and Dennis Miller. 1999. “New
Identifications of Naturalistic Motifs on Mimbres Pottery.” In Sixty Years o f
Mogollon Archaeology: Papers from the Ninth Mogollon Conference, Silver City,
New Mexico, 1996, edited by Stephanie M. Whittlesey, 119-125. Tucson, AZ:
SRI Press.
Bordes, Francois, and Denise de Sonneville-Bordes. 1970. “The Significance of
Variability in Paleolithic Assemblages.” World Archaeology 2 (1): 61-73.
Bowser, Brenda J. 2000. “From Pottery to Politics: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of
Political Factionalism, Ethnicity, and Domestic Pottery Style in the Ecuadorian
Amazon.” Journal o f Archaeological Method and Theory 7 (3): 219-248.
Bradfield, Wesley. 1925. “A Day’s Work on the Mimbres.” El Palacio 19 (8): 170-172.
. 1927. “Notes on Mimbres Culture.” El Palacio 22 (26): 550-559.
--------- . 1931. Cameron Creek Village: A Site in the Mimbres Area in Grant County,
New Mexico. Monographs of the School of American Research 1. Santa Fe, NM:
School of American Research.
Brainerd, George W. 1942. “Symmetry in Primitive Conventional Design.” American
Antiquity 8 (2): 164-166.
Braun, David P. 1977. “Middle Woodland-(Early) Late Woodland Social Change in the
Prehistoric Central Midwestern U.S.” PhD diss., University of Michigan.
Bray, Alicia. 1982. “Mimbres Black-on-White, Melamine or Wedgwood? A Ceramic
Use-Wear Analysis.” Kiva 47 (3): 133-149.
Brewington, Robbie L., and Harry J. Shafer. 1999. “The Ceramic Assemblages of Ojasen
and Gobernadora.” In Archaeology o f the Ojasen (41EP289) and Gobernadora
(41EP321) Sites, El Paso County, Texas, edited by Harry J. Shafer, J. E. Dockall,
and Robbie L. Brewington, 149-197. Reports of Investigations no. 2, Center for
203
Ecological Archaeology, Texas A&M University, College Station; and Report no.
13, Archaeology Studies Program, Environmental Affairs Division, Texas
Department of Transportation, Austin.
Brewington, Robbie L., Harry J. Shafer, and William D. James. 1996. “Production and
Distribution of Mimbres Black-and-White Ceramics: Evidence from Instrumental
Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA).” Paper presented at the 61st annual meeting
of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans, Louisiana, April 10-14.
Brody, J. J. [1977] 2004. Mimbres Painted Pottery. Rev. ed. Santa Fe, NM: School of
American Research Press.
. 1978. “Mimbres Painting and the Northern Frontier.” In Across the Chichimec
Sea: Papers in Honor o f J. Charles Kelley, edited by Carroll L. Riley and Basil C.
Hedrick, 11—21. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
--------- . 1983. “Mimbres Painting.” In Mimbres Pottery: Ancient Art o f the American
Southwest, edited by Paul Anbinder, 69-125. New York, NY: Hudson Hills Press.
Brody, J. J., and Rina Swentzell. 1996. To Touch the Past: The Painted Pottery o f the
Mimbres People. New York, NY: Hudson Hills Press.
Bryan, Bruce. 1927a. “The Galaz Ruin in the Mimbres Valley.” El Palacio 23 (12): 323337.
. 1927b. “The Mimbres Expedition.” The Masterkey 1 (4): 19-30.
--------- . 1931a. “Excavation of the Galaz Ruin, Mimbres Valley, NM.” The Masterkey 4
(6): 179-189.
. 1931b. “Excavation of the Galaz Ruin, Mimbres Valley, NM.” The Masterkey 4
(7): 221-226.
--------- . 1931c. “Excavation of the Galaz Ruin, Mimbres Valley, NM.” J r / and
Archaeology 32 (1-2): 35-42.
. 1961. “Initial Report on Galaz Sherds.” The Masterkey 35 (1): 13-18.
. 1962. “An Unusual Mimbres Bowl.” The Masterkey 36 (1): 29-32.
. 1978. “A Possible Clue to Mimbres Mythology.” The Masterkey 52 (2): 63-66.
204
Carlson, Roy L. 1970. White Mountain Redware: A Pottery Tradition o f East-Central
Arizona and Western New Mexico. Anthropological Papers of the University of
Arizona, no. 19. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
. 1982. “The Mimbres Kachina Cult.” In Mogollon Archaeology: Proceedings o f
the 1980 Mogollon Conference, edited by Patrick H. Beckett, 147-155. Ramona,
CA: Acoma Books.
Carr, Patricia. 1979. Mimbres Mythology. Southwestern Studies, Monograph 56. El Paso,
TX: Texas Western Press, University of Texas.
Chandler, Shari Louise. 2000. “Sourcing Three Circle Phase Ceramics from Old Town
(LA 1113), Luna County, New Mexico.” Master’s thesis, New Mexico State
University.
Childe, V. Gordon. 1956. Piecing Together the Past: The Interpretation o f
Archaeological Data. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Chippindale, Christopher. 1992. “Grammars of Archaeological Design: A Generative and
Geometric Approach to the Form of Artifacts.” In Representations in
Archaeology, edited by J. C. Gardin and C. Peebles, 251-276. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Press.
Clark, Tiffany C. 2006. “Production, Exchange, and Social Identity: A Study of
Chupadero Black-on-White Pottery.” PhD diss. Arizona State University.
Clarke, David L. 1968. Analytical Archaeology. London, UK: Methuen.
Conkey, Margaret W. 1978a. “An Analysis of Design Structure: Variability Among
Magdalenian Engraved Bones from Northcoastal Spain.” PhD diss., University of
Chicago.
--------- . 1978b. “Style and Information in Cultural Evolution: Toward a Predictive Model
for the Paleolithic.” In Social Archaeology: Beyond Subsistence and Dating,
edited by Charles L. Redman, Mary Jane Berman, Edward V. Curtin, William T.
Langhorne, Jr., Nina M. Versaggi, and Jeffery C. Wanser, 61-85. New York, NY:
Academic Press.
205
--------- . 1982. “Boundedness in Art and Society.” In Symbolic and Structural
Archaeology, edited by Ian Hodder, 115-128. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
. 1990. “Experimenting with Style in Archaeology: Some Historical and
Theoretical Issues.” In The Uses o f Style in Archeology, edited by Margaret W.
Conkey and Christine A. Hastorf, 5-17. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Cosgrove, Cornelius B. 1923. “Two Kivas at Treasure Hill.” El Palacio 15 (2): 19-21.
Cosgrove, Cornelius B., Jr., and W. E. Felts. 1927. “At Work on the Mimbres: News
from the Second Expedition of 1927.” The Masterkey 1 (3): 21-24.
Cosgrove, Harriet S., and Cornelius B. Cosgrove. 1932. The Swarts Ruin, A Typical
Mimbres Site in Southwestern New Mexico. Papers of the Peabody Museum of
American Archaeology and Ethnology 15. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum,
Harvard University.
Creel, Darrell, and Charmion McKusick. 1994. “Prehistoric Macaws and Parrots in the
Mimbres Area, New Mexico.” American Antiquity 59 (3): 510-524.
Creel, Darrell, Matthew Williams, Hector Neff, and Michael D. Glascock. 2002. “Black
Mountain Phase Ceramics and Implications for Manufacture and Exchange
Patterns.” In Ceramic Production and Circulation in the Greater Southwest:
Source Determination by INAA and Complementary Mineralogical Investigations,
edited by Donna M. Glowacki and Hector Neff, 37^16. Monograph 44. Los
Angeles, CA: Costen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA Press.
Crimmins, Col. M. L. 1930. “Some Indian Illustrations, Prehistoric and Historic.”
Bulletin o f the Texas Archeological and Paleontological Society 2: 69-75.
Crown, Patricia L. 2001. “Learning to Make Pottery in the Prehispanic American
Southwest.” Journal o f Anthropological Research 57 (4): 451 —469.
Dahlin, Eleanor S. 2003. “INAA and Distribution Patterns of Classic Mimbres Black-onWhite Vessels During the Classic Period.” Master’s thesis, Texas A&M
University.
Dahlin, Eleanor S., D. L. Carlson, William D. James, and Harry J. Shafer. 2007.
“Distribution Patterns of Mimbres Ceramics Using INAA and Multivariate
206
Statistical Methods.” Journal o f Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 271 (2):
461-466.
Davis, Cole. 2013. SPSS Step by Step: Essentials fo r Social and Political Science. Bristol,
UK: Policy Press.
Deetz, James. 1965. The Dynamics o f Stylistic Change in Ankara Ceramics. Illinois
Studies in Anthropology, no. 4. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Dickey, Roland. 1957. “Potters of the Mimbres Valley.” New Mexico Quarterly 27 (1-2):
45-51.
Duff, U. Francis. 1902. “The Ruins of the Mimbres Valley.” American Antiquarian 24
(5): 397-400.
Espenshade, Christopher T. 1997. “Mimbres Pottery, Births, and Gender: A
Reconsideration.” American Antiquity 62 (4): 733-736.
Faris, James C. 1972. Nuba Personal Art. London, UK: Duckworth.
Fewkes, J. Walter. 1914. “Archeology of the Lower Mimbres Valley, New Mexico.”
Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 63 (10): 1-53.
--------- . 1915. “Prehistoric Remains in New Mexico. Explorations and Field-work of the
Smithsonian Institution in 1914.” Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 65 (6):
62-72.
. 1916. “Animal Figures on Prehistoric Pottery from Mimbres Valley, New
Mexico.” American Anthropologist, New Series 18 (4): 535—545.
--------- . 1923. “Designs on Prehistoric Pottery from Mimbres Valley, New Mexico.”
Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 74 (6): 1-47.
--------- . 1924. “Additional Designs on Prehistoric Mimbres Pottery.” Smithsonian
Miscellaneous Collections 76 (8): 1-46.
Field, Andy. 2000. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS fo r Windows. London, UK: SAGE
Publications.
207
Fitting, Janies E. 1971a. The Burris Ranch Site, Dona Ana County, New Mexico.
Department of Anthropology, Southwestern New Mexico Research Reports 1.
Cleveland, OH: Case Western Reserve University.
--------- . 1971b. Excavations at M C 110, Grant County, New Mexico. Department of
Anthropology, Southwestern New Mexico Research Reports 2. Cleveland, OH:
Case Western Reserve University.
--------- . 1971c. The Hermanas Ruin, Luna County, New Mexico. Department of
Anthropology, Southwestern New Mexico Research Reports 3. Cleveland, OH:
Case Western Reserve University.
. 1972. “Preliminary Notes on Cliff Valley Settlement Patterns.” The Artifact 10
(4): 15-30.
Friedrich, Margaret Hardin. 1970. “Design Structure and Social Interaction:
Archaeological Implications of an Ethnographic Analysis.” American Antiquity
35 (3): 332-343.
Gerald, Rex E. 1968. The Mimbres Indians. El Paso, TX: El Paso Centennial Museum,
University of Texas at El Paso.
Giammattei, Victor Michael, and Nanci Greer Reichert. 1975. Art o f a Vanished Race:
The Mimbres Classic Black-On-White. Woodland, CA: Dillon-Tyler.
Gilman, Patricia A. 1990. “Social Organization and Classic Mimbres Period Burials in
the SW United S t a t e s Journal o f Field Archaeology 17 (4): 457-469.
--------- . 2006. “Social Differences at the Classic Period Mattocks Site in the Mimbres
Valley.” In Mimbres Society, edited by Valli S. Powell-Marti and Patricia A.
Gilman, 66-81. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
Gilman, Patricia A., Veletta Canouts, and Ronald L. Bishop. 1994. “The Production and
Distribution of Classic Mimbres Black-on-White Pottery.” American Antiquity 59
(4): 695-709.
Gilman, Patricia A., and Steven A. LeBlanc. 1993. “The Mattocks Site and Mimbres
Pueblos in Southwestern New Mexico.” Unpublished manuscript, Department of
Anthropology, University of Oklahoma, Norman.
208
. 2005. “Early Aggregation and Painted Pottery at the Mattocks Site, Mimbres
Valley, New Mexico.” Unpublished manuscript, on file with the authors.
Gilman, Patricia A., Marc Thompson, and Kristina C. Wyckoff. 2014. “Ritual Change
and the Distant: Mesoamerican Iconography, Scarlet Macaws, and Great Kivas in
the Mimbres Region of Southwestern New Mexico.” American Antiquity 79 (1):
90-107.
Glassie, Henry. 1975. Folk Housing in Middle Virginia: A Structural Analysis o f Historic
Artifacts. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.
Graves, Michael. 1985. “Ceramic Design Variation within a Kalinga Village: Temporal
and Spatial Processes.” In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by Ben Nelson,
5-34. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Graybill, Donald A. 1975. Mimbres-Mogollon Adaptations in the Gila National Forest,
Mimbres District, New Mexico. U.S. Forest Service, Southwestern Region,
Archaeological Report 9.
Greenfield, Patricia Marks. 1978. “Structural Parallels between Language and Action in
Development.” In Action, Gesture and Symbol: The Emergence o f Language,
edited by Andrew Lock, 415—445. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Haahr, Mads. 2016. “Random Integer Set Generator.” RANDOM.ORG. Randomness and
Integrity Services, Ltd. Accessed May 16, 2016. https://www.random.org/integersets/.
Hardin, Margaret A. 1979. “Cognitive Basis of an Art Style.” In Ethnoarchaeology,
edited by Carol Kramer, 75-102. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
--------- . 1983. “The Structure of Tarascan Pottery Painting.” In Structure and Cognition
in Art, edited by Dorothy K. Washburn, 8-24. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Hastorf, Christine A. 1990. “Preface.” In The Uses o f Style in Archaeology, edited by
Margaret W. Conkey and Christine A. Hastorf, vii-viii. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Haury, Emil W. 1936a. The Mogollon Culture o f Southwestern New Mexico. Medallion
Papers 20. Globe, AZ: Gila Pueblo.
209
--------- . 1936b. Some Southwestern Pottery Types, Series IV. Medallion Papers 19.
Globe, AZ: Gila Pueblo.
Hawley, Florence M. 1936. Field Manual o f Prehistoric Southwestern Pottery Types.
University of New Mexico Bulletin 291. Anthropological Series 1, vol. 4.
Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico.
Hegmon, Michelle. 1990. “Style as a Social Strategy: Dimensions of Ceramic Stylistic
Variation in the Ninth Century Northern Southwest.” PhD diss. University of
Michigan.
. 1992. “Archaeological Research on Style.” Annual Reviews o f Anthropology 21:
517-536.
. 1995. The Social Dynamics o f Pottery Style in the Early Puebloan Southwest.
Occasional Paper no. 5. Cortez, CO: Crow Canyon Archaeological Center.
. 2002. “Recent Issues in the Archaeology of the Mimbres Region of the North
American Southwest.” Journal o f Archaeological Research 10 (4): 307-357.
. 2013. “Ethics and Permission to Access MimPIDD.” Manuscript, the Digital
Archaeological Record (tDAR). Revised October 2014. Accessed April 1, 2015.
http://core.tdar.org/document/381421/ethics-and-permission-to-access-mimpidd.
Hegmon, Michelle, and Stephanie Kulow. 2005. “Painting as Agency, Style as Structure:
Innovations in Mimbres Pottery Designs from Southwest New Mexico.” Journal
o f Archaeological Method and Theory 12 (4): 313-334.
Hegmon, Michelle, James R. McGrath, F. Michael O’Hara, III, and Will G. Russell.
2015. “Mimbres Pottery Designs in their Social Context.” Unpublished
manuscript, on file with the authors.
Hegmon, Michelle, Margaret C. Nelson, Roger Anyon, Darrell Creel, Steven A. LeBlanc,
Harry J. Shafer. 1999. “Scale and Time-Space Systematics in the Post-A.D. 1100
Mimbres Region of the North American Southwest.” Kiva 65 (2): 143-166.
Hegmon, Michelle, Margaret C. Nelson, and Susan M. Ruth. 1998. “Abandonment and
Reorganization in the Mimbres Region of the American Southwest.” American
Anthropologist 100 (1): 148-162.
210
Hegmon, Michelle, and Wenda R. Trevathan. 1996. “Gender, Anatomical Knowledge,
and Pottery Production: Implications of an Anatomically Unusual Birth Depicted
on Mimbres Pottery from Southwestern New Mexico.” American Antiquity 61
(4): 747-754.
--------- . 1997. “Response to Comments by LeBlanc, by Espenshade, and by Shaffer et
al.” American Antiquity 62 (4): 737-739.
Hill, James N. 1970. Broken K Pueblo: Prehistoric Social Organization in the American
Southwest. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona, no. 18. Tucson,
AZ: University of Arizona Press.
Hinton, Perry R. 2014. Statistics Explained. 3rd ed. London, UK: Routledge.
Hodder, Ian. 1981. “Society, Economy and Culture: An Ethnographic Case Study
Amongst the Lozi.” In Pattern o f the Past: Studies in Honour o f David Clarke,
edited by Ian Hodder, Glynn Isaac, and Norman Hammond, 67-95. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
. 1982a. “Sequences of Structural Change in the Dutch Neolithic.” In Symbolic
and Structural Archaeology, edited by Ian Hodder, 162-177. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
--------- . 1982b. Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies o f Material Culture.
New Studies in Archaeology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
. 1982c. “Theoretical Archaeology: A Reactionary View.” In Symbolic and
Structural Archaeology, edited by Ian Hodder, 1-16. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
--------- . 1990. “Style as Historical Quality.” In The Uses o f Style in Archeology, edited
by Margaret W. Conkey and Christine A. Hastorf, 44-51. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Hough, Walter. 1907. Antiquities o f Upper Gila and Salt River Valleys in Arizona and
New Mexico. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin
35. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Hurst, C. T. 1936. “Some Interesting Mimbres Bowls.” El Palacio 40 (7-9): 37-41.
211
James, William D., Robbie L. Brewington, and Harry J. Shafer. 1995. “Compositional
Analysis of American Southwestern Ceramics by Neutron Activation Analysis.”
Journal o f Radio analytical and Nuclear Chemistry 192 (1): 109-116.
Jelinek, Arthur J. 1961. “Mimbres Warfare.” Kiva 27 (2): 28-30.
Jenks, Albert Ernest. 1928a. “The Institute’s Expedition to the Mimbres Valley.” Bulletin
o f the Minneapolis Institute o f Arts 17 (1): 98-100.
. 1928b. “The Mimbres Valley Expedition.” Bulletin o f the Minneapolis Institute
o f Arts 17 (2): 154-159.
. 1929a. “Archaeological Field Work in North America During 1928, New
Mexico.” American Anthropologist 31 (2): 352.
. 1929b. “Cremation Among the Mimbres Valley Folk.” Art and Archaeology 27
(1): 47.
. 1930a. “In the Field: University of Minnesota.” El Palacio 29 (4-10): 150-151.
. 1930b. “Archaeological Field Work of the University of Minnesota in 1930.”
Science 72 (1877): 622-623.
. 1930c. “Pottery of Ancient Mimbrenos and Gila.” Bulletin o f the Minneapolis
Institute o f Arts, 19 (33): 162-165.
--------- . 1931. “The Significance of Mended Bowls in Mimbres Culture.” El Palacio 31
(10-11): 153-172.
--------- . 1932a. “Architectural Plans of Geometric Art on Mimbres Bowls.” El Palacio
33 (3-6): 21-64.
--------- . 1932b. “Geometric Designs on Mimbres Bowls.” Art and Archaeology 33 (3):
137-139, 158.
Jett, Stephen C., and Peter B. Moyle. 1986. “The Exotic Origins of Fishes Depicted on
Prehistoric Mimbres Pottery from New Mexico.” American Antiquity 51 (4): 688720.
Kabotie, Fred. 1949. Designs from the Ancient Mimbrenos with a Hopi Interpretation.
San Francisco, CA: Grabhorn Press.
212
Kidder, Alfred V. 1931. The Pottery o f Pecos. Vol. 1, The Dull-Paint Wares. Papers of
the Southwestern Expedition, no. 5. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Kidder, Alfred V., and Anna O. Shepard. 1936. The Pottery o f Pecos. Vol. 2. Papers of
the Southwestern Expedition, no. 7. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Lange, Charles H., and Carroll L. Riley, eds. 1970. The Southwestern Journals o f Adolph
F. Bandelier. Vol. 2 , 1883-1884. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico
Press.
LeBlanc, Catherine J. 1977. “Design Analysis of Mimbres Pottery.” Paper presented at
the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans,
LA, April 28-30.
LeBlanc, Steven A. 1975. Mimbres Archaeological Center: Preliminary Report o f the
First Season o f Excavation, 1974. Los Angeles, CA: Institute of Archaeology,
University of California, Los Angeles.
. 1976. “Mimbres Archaeological Center: Preliminary Report of the Second
Season of Excavation, 1975.” Journal ofNew World Archaeology 1 (6): 1-23.
. 1977. “The 1976 Field Season of the Mimbres Foundation in Southwestern New
M e x ic o Journal o f New World Archaeology 2 (2): 1-24.
. 1983a. “The Mimbres Culture.” In Mimbres Painted Pottery: Ancient Art o f the
American Southwest, edited by Paul Anbinder, 23-37. New York, NY: Hudson
Hill Press.
--------- . 1983b. The Mimbres People: Ancient Pueblo Painters o f the American
Southwest. London, UK: Thames and Hudson.
--------- . 1997. “A Comment on Hegmon and Trevathan’s ‘Gender, Anatomical
Knowledge, and Pottery Production.”’ American Antiquity 62 (4): 723-726.
--------- . 2004. Painted by a Distant Hand: Mimbres Pottery o f the American Southwest.
Peabody Museum Collection Series. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum Press,
Harvard University.
---- . 2006. “Who Made the Mimbres Bowls? Implications of Recognizing Individual
Artists for Craft Specialization and Social Networks.” In Mimbres Society, edited
213
by Valli S. Powell-Marti and Patricia A. Gilman, 109-150. Tucson, AZ:
University of Arizona Press.
--------- . 2010. “The Painters of the Pots.” In Mimbres Lives and Landscapes, edited by
Margaret C. Nelson and Michelle Hegmon, 75-81. Santa Fe, NM: School for
Advanced Research Press.
LeBlanc, Steven A., and Michelle Hegmon. 2016. “Mimbres Pottery Images Digital
Database (MimPIDD).” The Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR), Digital
Antiquity. Hosted by Arizona State University. tDAR ID: 377852.
doi:10.6067/XCV8ZWlN9H. Accessed May 19, 2016.
http://core.tdar.org/project/377852/mimbres-pottery-images-digital-databasemimpidd.
LeBlanc, Steven A., and Carole Khalil. 1976. “Flare-Rimmed Bowls: A Sub-Type of
Mimbres Classic Black-on-White.” Kiva 41 (3-4): 289-298.
LeBlanc, Steven A., and Ben Nelson. 1976. “The Salado in Southwestern New Mexico.”
Kiva 42(1): 71-79.
LeBlanc, Steven A., and Michael E. Whalen, eds. 1980. “An Archaeological Synthesis of
South-Central and Southwestern New Mexico.” Unpublished manuscript, Office
of Contract Archaeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
Leone, Mark P. 1968. “Neolithic Economic Autonomy and Social Distance.” Science 162
(3858): 1150-1151.
--------- . 1978. “Time in American Archeology.” In Social Archaeology, Beyond
Subsistence and Dating, edited by Charles L. Redman, Mary Jane Berman,
Edward V. Curtin, William T. Langhorne, Jr., Nina M. Versaggi, and Jeffery C.
Wanser, 25-36. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Leroi-Gourhan, Andre. 1964. Les religions de la prehistoire. Paris, FR: Presses
Universitaires de France.
--------- . 1965. Treasures o f Prehistoric Art. New York, NY: Abrams.
Levi-Strauss, Claude. [1958] 1963. Structural Anthropology. Translated by Claire
Jacobson and Brooke Grundfest Schoepf. New York, NY: Basic Books.
1964. Le Ou et le Cuit. Paris, FR: Librairie Pion.
214
Longacre, William A. 1964. “Sociological Implications of the Ceramic Analysis.” In
Chapters in the Prehistory o f Eastern Arizona, edited by Edward G. Nash and
Patricia M. Williams, vol. 2, 148-167. Fieldiana: Anthropology, vol. 55. Chicago,
IL: Chicago Natural History Museum.
. 1970. Archaeology as Anthropology: A Case Study. Anthropological Papers of
the University of Arizona, no. 17. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
Lyle, Robyn P. 1996. “Functional Analysis of Mimbres Ceramics from the NAN Ruin
(LA I5049), Grant County, New Mexico.” Master’s thesis, Texas A&M
University.
Lyons, Patrick Daniel. 2001. “Winslow Orange Ware and the Ancestral Hopi Migration
Horizon.” PhD diss., University of Arizona.
Macdonald, William K. “Investigating Style: An Exploratory Analysis of some Plains
Burials.” In The Uses o f Style in Archeology, edited by Margaret W. Conkey and
Christine A. Hastorf, 52-60. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
McDonald, J. H. 2014. Handbook o f Biological Statistics. 3rd ed. Baltimore, MD: Sparky
House Publishing.
McGhee, Robert. 1977. “Ivory for the Sea Woman: The Symbolic Attributes of a
Prehistoric Technology.” Canadian Journal o f Archaeology 1: 141-149.
Mehta, Cyrus R., and Nitin R. Patel. 2013. IBM SPSS Exact Tests. IBM Corporation.
Accessed May 31, 2016. Adobe PDF eBook.
ftp://public.dhe.ibm.eom/software/analytics/spss/documentation/statistics/24.0/en/
client/Manuals/IBM_SPSS_Exact_Tests.pdf.
Miller, Daniel. 1982. “Structures and Strategies: An Aspect of the Relationship between
Social Hierarchy and Cultural Change.” In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology,
edited by Ian Hodder, 89-98. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Minnis, Paul E. 1985. Social Adaptation to Food Stress: A Prehistoric Southwestern
Example. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Moulard, Barbara L. 1982. “Mimbres Iconography: A Study in Methodology and
Interpretation.” Master’s thesis, Arizona State University.
215
--------- . 1984. Within an Underworld Sky: Mimbres Ceramic Art in Context. Pasadena,
CA: Twelvetrees Press.
Munson, Marit K. 2000. “Sex, Gender, and Status: Human Images from the Classic
Mimbres.” American Antiquity 65 (1): 127-144.
. 2006. “Picturing Differences: Gender, Ritual, and Power in Mimbres Imagery.”
In Mimbres Society, edited by Valli S. Powell-Marti and Patricia A. Gilman, 85108. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
--------- . 2011. The Archaeology o f Art in the American Southwest. Issues in Southwest
Archaeology. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
Munson, Marit K., and Kelley Hays-Gilpin. 2010. “Women and Men in Black and
White.” In Mimbres Lives and Landscapes, edited by Margaret C. Nelson and
Michelle Hegmon, 57-63. Santa Fe, NM: School for Advanced Research Press.
Nelson, N. C. 1914. “Pueblo Ruins of the Galisteo Basin, New Mexico.” In
Anthropological Papers o f the American Natural History Museum, vol. 15, part 1,
1-124. New York, NY: American Museum Press.
. 1916. “Chronology of the Tano Ruins, New Mexico.” American Anthropologist
18(2): 159-180.
Nesbitt, Paul H. 1931. The Ancient Mimbrehos: Based on Investigations at the Mattocks
Ruin, Mimbres Valley, New Mexico. Logan Museum Bulletin 4. Beloit, WI:
Logan Museum, Beloit College.
Panofsky, Erwin. 1939. “Introductory.” In Studies in Iconology: Humanistic Themes in
the Art o f the Renaissance, 3-31. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Peckham, Stewart. 1965. Prehistoric Weapons in the Southwest. Popular Series Pamphlet
3. Santa Fe, NM: Museum of New Mexico Press.
Peeples, Matthew A. 2011. “Identity and Social Transformation in Prehispanic Cibola
World: A.D. 1150-1325.” PhD diss. Arizona State University.
Plog, Stephen. 1980. Stylistic Variation in Prehistoric Ceramics: Design Analysis in the
American Southwest. New Studies in Archaeology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
216
. 1983. “Analysis of Style in Artifacts.” Annual Review o f Anthropology 12: 125142.
--------- . 1990. “Sociopolitical Implications of Stylistic Variation in the American
Southwest.” In The Uses o f Style in Archeology, edited by Margaret W. Conkey
and Christine A. Hastorf, 61-72. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Powell, Valli S. 1996. “Regional Diversity in Mogollon Red-on-Brown Pottery.” Kiva 62
(2): 185-203.
. 2000. “Iconography and Group Formation During the Late Pithouse and Classic
Periods of the Mimbres Society, A.D. 970-1140.” PhD diss., University of
Oklahoma, Norman.
Powell-Marti, Valli S., and William D. James. 2006. “Ceramic Iconography and Social
Asymmetry in the Classic Mimbres Heartland, AD 970-1140.” In Mimbres
Society, edited by Valli S. Powell-Marti and Patricia A. Gilman, 151-173.
Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
Rea, Louis M., and Richard A. Parker. 2014. Designing and Conducting Survey
Research: A Comprehensive Guide. 4th ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Redman, Charles L. 1977. “The ‘Analytical Individual’ and Prehistoric Style
Variability.” In The Individual in Prehistory: Studies o f Variability in Style in
Prehistoric Technologies, edited by James N. Hill and Joel Gunn, 41-53. New
York, NY: Academic Press.
--------- . 1978. “Multivariate Artifact Analysis: A Basis for Multidimensional
Interpretations.” In Social Archaeology: Beyond Subsistence and Dating, edited
by Charles L. Redman, Mary Jane Berman, Edward V. Curtin, William T.
Langhorne, Jr., Nina M. Versaggi, and Jeffery C. Wanser, 159-192. New York,
NY: Academic Press.
Robbins, R. Robert, and Russell B. Westmoreland. 1991. “Astronomical Imagery and
Numbers in Mimbres Pottery.” Astronomy Quarterly 8 (2): 65-88.
Rodeck, Hugo G. 1932. “Arthropod Designs on Prehistoric Mimbres Pottery.” Annals o f
the Entomological Society o f America 25 (4): 688-693.
Russell, Will G., and Michelle Hegmon. 2015. “Identifying Mimbres Artists: A
Quantitative Approach.” Unpublished manuscript, on file with the authors.
217
Ruth, Susan M. 1996. “Stylistic and Social Change in the Cliff and Mimbres Valleys: A
Study of Mimbres Black-on-White Pottery.” Master’s thesis, New Mexico State
University, Las Cruces.
Sackett, James R. 1966. “Quantitative Analysis of Upper Paleolithic Stone Tools.” In
“Recent Studies in Paleoanthropology,” edited by J. Desmond Clark and F. Clark
Howell. Special publication, American Anthropologist 68 (2), part 2: 356-394.
. 1973. “Style, Function and Artifact Variability in Paleolithic Assemblages.” In
The Explanation o f Culture Change: Models in Prehistory, edited by Colin
Renfrew, 317-325. London, UK: Duckworth.
. 1977. “The Meaning of Style in Archaeology: A General Model.” American
Antiquity 42 (3): 369-380.
--------- . 1982. “Approaches to Style in Lithic Archaeology.” Journal o f Anthropological
Archaeology 1 (1): 59-112.
. 1985. “Style and Ethnicity in the Kalahari: A Reply to Wiessner.” American
Antiquity 50 (1): 154-159.
--------- . 1990. “Style and Ethnicity in Archaeology: The Case for Isochrestism.” In The
Uses o f Style in Archeology, edited by Margaret W. Conkey and Christine A.
Hastorf, 32-43. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Schaafsma, Polly. 1980. Indian Rock Art o f the Southwest. Albuquerque, NM: School of
American Research.
--------- . 1985. “Form, Content and Function: Theory and Method in North American
Rock Art Studies.” In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 8.,
edited by M. B. Schiffer, 237-277. New York, NY: Academic Press.
--------- . 1992. Rock Art in New Mexico. Albuquerque, NM: Museum of New Mexico
Press.
. 1993. “Rock Art at Wupatki: Pots, Textiles and Glyphs.” In Wupatki and Walnut
Canyon: New Perspectives in History, Prehistory, and Rock Art, edited by D. G.
Noble, 21-27. Santa Fe, NM: Ancient City Press.
218
Schriever, Bernard A., II. 2008. “Informal Identity and the Mimbres Phenomenon:
Investigating Regional Identity and Archaeological Cultures in the Mimbres
Mogollon.” PhD diss., University of Oklahoma.
Scott, Catherine J. 1983. “The Evolution of Mimbres Pottery.” In Mimbres Painted
Pottery: Ancient Art o f the American Southwest, edited by Paul Anbinder, 39-67.
New York, NY: Hudson Hill Press.
Searcy, Michael T. 2010. “Symbols and Sociopolitical Organization: Mesoamerican
Iconography in the U.S. Southwest/Northwest Mexico.” PhD diss. University of
Oklahoma.
Shafer, Harry J. 1982. “Classic Mimbres Phase Households and Room Use Patterns.”
Kiva 48(1-2): 158-166.
. 1995. “Architecture and Symbolism in Transitional Pueblo Development in the
Mimbres Valley, SW New Mexico.” Journal o f Field Archaeology 22 (1): 23^-7.
. 2001. “INAA Results.” In The El Paso Loop 375 Archaeological Project: Phase
II Testing and Phase III Mitigation, edited by P. Dering, Harry J. Shafer, and
Robyn P. Lyle, 348-355. Reports of Investigations no. 3, Center for Ecological
Archaeology, Texas A&M University, College Station; and Report no. 28,
Archaeology Studies Program, Environmental Affairs Division, Texas
Department of Transportation, Austin.
. 2003. Mimbres Archaeology at the NAN Ranch Ruin. Albuquerque, NM:
University of New Mexico Press.
Shafer, Harry J., and Robbie L. Brewington. 1995. “Microstylistic Changes in Mimbres
Black-on-White Pottery: Examples from the NAN Ruin, Grant County, New
Mexico.” Kiva 61 (1): 5-29.
Shafer, Harry J., and Anna J. Taylor. 1986. “Mimbres Mogollon Pueblo Dynamics and
Ceramic Style Change.” Journal o f Field Archaeology 13 (1): 43-68.
Shaffer, Brian S. 2002. “The Mythology of Classic Mimbres Painted Pottery Iconology:
Evaluation of the Iconographic Interpretations.” PhD diss., Texas A&M
University.
219
Shaffer, Brian S., and Karen M. Gardner. 1995a. “The Rabbit Drive Through Time:
Analysis of the North American Ethnographic and Prehistoric Evidence.” Utah
Archaeology 8 (1): 13-25.
. 1995b. “The Fish-Carrying Pole of the Mimbres: A Perishable Technology
Preserved on Pottery.” The Artifact 33 (2): 1-7.
--------- . 1997. “Reconstructing Animal Exploitation by Puebloan Peoples of the
Southwestern United States Using Mimbres Painted Pottery, AD 1000-1150.”
Anthropozoologica 25-26: 263-268.
. 1999. “Wolves in Sheep's Clothing: Prehistoric Depictions of Mimbres Hunting
Disguises from the American Southwest.” Visual Anthropology 12(1): 1-11.
Shaffer, Brian S., Karen M. Gardner, and Barry W. Baker. 1996. “Prehistoric Small
Game Snare Trap Technology, Deployment Strategy, and Trapper Gender
Depicted in Mimbres Pottery.” Journal o f Ethnobiology 16 (2): 145-155.
Shaffer, Brian S., Karen M. Gardner, and Joseph F. Powell. 1999. “Sexual Division of
Labor in the Prehistoric Puebloan Southwest as Portrayed by Mimbres Potters.” In
Sixty Years o f Mogollon Archaeology: Papers from the Ninth Mogollon
Conference, Silver City, New Mexico, 1996, edited by Stephanie M. Whittlesey,
112-117. Tucson, AZ: SRI Press.
Shaffer, Brian S., Karen M. Gardner, and Harry J. Shafer. 1997. “An Unusual Birth
Depicted in Mimbres Pottery: Not Cracked Up to What it is Supposed to Be.”
American Antiquity 62 (4): 727-732.
Shaffer, Brian S., Holly A. Nicholson, and Karen M. Gardner. 1995. “Possible Mimbres
Documentation of Pueblo Snake Ceremonies in the Eleventh Century.” North
American Archaeologist 16(1): 17-32.
Shepard, Anna O. 1948. The Symmetry o f Abstract Design with Special Reference to
Ceramic Decoration. Contributions to American Anthropology and History, no.
47. Reprinted from Carnegie Institution of Washington, publication 574.
Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington.
Short, Susan A. 1998. “When the Animals Still Danced: Animal Images in Mimbres
Pottery and Petroglyphs.” PhD diss., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
220
Skibo, James M., Michael B. Schiffer, and Nancy Kowalski. 1989. “Ceramic Style
Analysis in Archaeology and Ethnoarchaeology: Bridging the Analytical Gap.”
Journal o f Anthropological Archaeology 8 (4): 388-409.
Snodgrass, O. T. 1973. “A Major Mimbres Collection, by Camera: Life Among the
Mimbrenos, as Depicted by Realistic Designs on Their Pottery.” In “The Mimbres
Report,” edited by Gerald X. Fitzgerald and Nancy Hamilton. Special issue, The
Artifact 11 (4): 9-63.
. 1975. Realistic Art and Times o f the Mimbres Indians. El Paso, TX: Snodgrass.
. 1977. Realistic Art and Times o f the Mimbres Indians. 2nd ed. El Paso, TX:
Snodgrass.
Speakman, Robert J. 2013. “Mimbres Pottery Production and Distribution.” PhD diss.,
University of Barcelona, Spain.
Stanislawski, Michael B. 1977. “Ethnoarchaeology of Hopi and Hopi-Tewa Pottery
Making: Style of Learning.” In Experimental Archaeology, edited by Daniell
Ingersoll, John E. Yellen, and William MacDonald, 378^108. New York, NY:
Columbia University Press.
Stoffel, Diane E. 1991. “Classic Mimbres Iconography: An Investigation of Style,
Symbol, and Meaning.” Mater’s thesis, State University of New York at Buffalo.
Thompson, Marc. 1994. “The Evolution and Dissemination of Mimbres Iconography.” In
Kachinas in the Pueblo World, edited by Polly Schaafsma, 93-105. Albuquerque,
NM: University of New Mexico Press.
--------- . 1999a. “Knife-wing: A Prominent Mesoamerican, Mimbres and Pueblo Icon.” In
Sixty Years o f Mogollon Archaeology: Papers from the Ninth Mogollon
Conference, Silver City, New Mexico, 1996, edited by Stephanie M. Whittlesey,
145-150. Tucson, AZ: SRI Press.
. 1999b. “Mimbres Iconology: Analysis and Interpretation of Figurative Motifs.”
PhD diss., University of Calgary, Canada.
Thompson, Marc, Patricia A. Gilman, and Kristina C. Wyckoff. 2014. “The Hero Twins
in the Mimbres Region: Representations of the Mesoamerican Creation Saga Are
Seen on Mimbres Pottery.” American Archaeology 18 (2): 38-43.
221
. 2015. “What Mean These Mimbres Bird Motifs?” Pottery Southwest 31 (2): 2329.
Trigger, Bruce G. 2006. A History o f Archaeological Thought. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Voss, Jerome A. 1977. “The Barnes Site: Functional and Stylistic Variability in a Small
Paleo-Indian Assemblage.” Midcontinental Journal o f Archaeology 2 (2): 253305.
Washburn, Dorothy K. 1977. A Symmetry Analysis o f Upper Gila Area Ceramic Design.
Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 68.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
. 1978. “A Symmetry Classification of Pueblo Ceramic Designs.” In Discovering
Past Behavior, edited by Paul Grebinger, 101-121. New York, NY: Gordon and
Breach.
. 1983a. “Symmetry Analysis of Ceramic Design: Two Tests of the Method on
Neolithic Material from Greece and the Aegean.” In Structure and Cognition in
Art, edited by Dorothy K. Washburn, 138-164. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
--------- . 1983b. “Toward a Theory of Structural Style in Art.” In Structure and Cognition
in Art, edited by Dorothy K. Washburn, 1-7. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
--------- . 1984. “Symmetry Analysis of lea Valley Ceramics: Insights into Ica-Inca
Interactions.” Paper prepared for Seminar: Symbol and Text: Archaeology in
Lettered and Unlettered Societies, Colgate University. Unpublished manuscript,
on file with the author.
--------- . 1992. “The Structure of Black-on-White Ceramic Design from the Mimbres
Valley.” In Archaeology, Art, and Anthropology: Papers in Honor ofJ. J. Brody.
Papers of the Archaeological Society of New Mexico 18, edited by Meliha S.
Duran and David T. Kirkpatrick, 213-223. Albuquerque, NM: Archaeological
Society of New Mexico.
. 1999. “Perceptual Anthropology: The Cultural Salience of Symmetry.”
American Anthropologist 101 (3): 547-562.
222
Washburn, Dorothy K., and Donald W. Crowe. 1988. Symmetries o f Culture: Theory and
Practice o f Plane Pattern Analysis. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
Washburn, Dorothy K., Donald W. Crowe, and Richard V. N. Ahlstrom. 2010. “A
Symmetry Analysis of Design Structure: 1,000 Years of Continuity and Change in
Puebloan Ceramic Design.” American Antiquity 75 (4): 743-772.
Watson, Editha L. 1932. “The Laughing Artists of the Mimbres Valley.” Art and
Archaeology 33 (4): 189-193, 224.
Webster, Clement L. 1891. “Preliminary Notes on the Archaeology of Southwestern New
Mexico.” American Naturalist 25 (296): 768-770.
. 1912a. “Some Burial Customs Practiced by the Ancient People of the
Southwest.” Archaeological Bulletin 3 (3): 69-78.
. 1912b. “Archaeological and Ethnological Researches in Southwestern New
Mexico, part 1.” Archaeological Bulletin 3 (4): 101-115.
--------- . 1913a. “Archaeological and Ethnological Researches in Southwestern New
Mexico, part 2.” Archaeological Bulletin 4 (1): 14-20.
. 1913b. “Archaeological and Ethnological Researches in Southwestern New
Mexico, part 3.” Archaeological Bulletin 4 (2): 43-48.
. 1914a. “Archaeological and Ethnological Researches in Southwestern New
Mexico, part 4.” Archaeological Bulletin 5 (2): 19-26.
--------- . 1914b. “Archaeological and Ethnological Researches in Southwestern New
Mexico, part 5.” Archaeological Bulletin 5 (3): 44^16.
Whallon, Robert. 1968. “Evidence of Late Prehistoric Social Organization in New York
State.” In New Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by Sally R. Binford and Lewis
R. Binford, 223-244. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Wiessner, Polly. 1983. “Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points.”
American Antiquity 8 (2): 253-275.
. 1985. “Style or Isochrestic Variation? A Reply to Sackett.” American Antiquity
50(1): 160-166.
223
. 1990. “Is There a Unity to Style?” In The Uses o f Style in Archeology, edited by
Margaret W. Conkey and Christine A. Hastorf, 105-112. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Wobst, H. Martin. 1977. “Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange.” In For the
Director: Research Essays in Honor o f James B. Griffin, edited by Charles E.
Cleland, 317-342. Anthropological Papers, no. 61. Ann Arbor, MI: Regents of the
University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology.
Wolfe, Lynn. 1950. “Mimbres Potters - Masters of the Fine Line.” Palette 30 (2): 2-7.
APPENDIX A
RAW CODED ATTRIBUTE DATA WITH VESSEL ACCESSION INFORMATION
225
KEY FOR CODED ATTRIBUTE DATA IN TABLE A .l
1. MIM ID = Unique identifier assigned to each vessel in the MimPIDD database (see
LeBlanc and Hegmon 2016)
2. Owner = Museum housing the vessel
a. CMA = Cleveland Museum of Art
b. LMA = Beloit College Logan Museum of Anthropology
c. MIAC = Museum of Indian Arts and Culture (Laboratory of Anthropology)
d. PMAE = Harvard University Peabody Museum of Archaeology and
Ethnology
e. SDM = San Diego Museum of Man
f. UCM = University of Colorado Museum of Natural History
g. UNM = University of New Mexico Maxwell Museum of Anthropology
h. WAM = University of Minnesota Weisman Art Museum
i. WNMU = Western New Mexico University Museum
3. Museum ID = Unique identifier or accession number assigned to each vessel by the
housing museum (information provided by MimPIDD)
4. Site = Study site
a. C = Cameron Creek Village
b. G = Galaz Ruin
c. M = Mattocks Village
d. N = NAN Ranch Ruin
e. S = Swarts Ruin
5. SYM = Symmetry
a. A = Asymmetric
b. M = Multiple
c. REF = Reflection
d. ROT = Rotation
6. #SF = Number of symmetry folds
7. GL = General layout
a. NR = Non-reserved
b. R = Reserved
c. RF = Reserved, filled
d. RM = Reserved, motifs
8. SL = Specific layout
a. C = Circular
b. CMP = Converging, multi-part
c. CTP = Converging, two-part
d. FSC = Figurative star, circular
e. FSQ = Figurative star, quartered
f. FSS = Figurative star, square
g. O = Other
h. Q = Quartered
i. QS = Quartered, square
9. DBW = Design band width
10. RBP = Rim band presence
a. A = Absent
b. P = Present
11. #RB = Number of rim bands
12. RBT = Rim band type
a. COM = Combination
b. THK = Thick
c. THN = Thin
13. #THKRB = Number of thick rim bands
14. #THNRB = Number of thin rim bands
15. BBP = Base band presence
a. A = Absent
b. P = Present
16. #BB = Number of base bands
17. LF = Line form
a. COM = Combination
b. CUR = Curvilinear
c. REC = Rectilinear
Table A.I. Raw coded attribute data with vessel accession information. Sorted by site, owner, and MimPIDD ID.
Images and additional data for each vessel can be accessed in MimPIDD (with permission) using the MIM ID
(https://core.tdar.org/collection/22070).
MIM ID Owner
Museum ID
Site SYM #SF
GL
7917
CMA
CMA 1930.39
C
ROT
4
R
7918
CMA
CMA 1930.33
C
ROT
4
R
SL
DBW
RBP #RB
RBT
#THKRB #THNRB
BBP #BB
C
3.5
P
3
THK
3
0
P
1
REC
C
4
P
2
THK
2
0
P
2
COM
REC
LF
7919
CMA
CMA 1930.41
C
A
N/A NR
O
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A
7920
CMA
CMA 1930.43
C
ROT
2
R
CTP
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A COM
7921
CMA
CMA 1930.34
C
ROT
4
R
C
3
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
7931
CMA
CMA 1930.37
C
ROT
4
R
C
2.5
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
7932
CMA
CMA 1930.36
C
ROT
3
R
C
3.5
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
COM
1038
MIAC
20317/11
C
REF
N/A R
C
2
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
COM
MIAC
20305/11
C
A
N/A NR
O
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
1045
MIAC
20247/11
C
ROT
2
R
C
2.5
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
COM
1050
MIAC
20211/11
C
ROT
4
NR
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A
REC
1051
MIAC
20313/11
C
REF
2
NR
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A
REC
1060
MIAC
20334/11
C
ROT
2
NR
a
Q
Q
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
1090
MIAC
19581/11
C
ROT
4
RF
FSS
N/A
P
14
COM
3
11
N/A
N/A
REC
1095
MIAC
20241/11
C
REF
4
RM
CMP
N/A
P
5
THN
0
5
N/A
N/A
COM
1100
MIAC
20230/11
C
ROT
3
R
C
3.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
1
COM
1113
MIAC
20231/11
C
ROT
2
R
CTP
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A
REC
1115
MIAC
20311/11
C
ROT
3
R
C
2.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
REC
1116
MIAC
20234/11
C
ROT
2
RF
CTP
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A
REC
1123
MIAC
20220/11
C
A
N/A R
C
2
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
1
REC
1132
MIAC
19984/11
C
ROT
2
R
C
2.5
P
2
THK
2
0
A
0
REC
1135
MIAC
20289/11
C
ROT
2
RM
CMP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
1145
MIAC
20295/11
ROT
4
R
C
3
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
1148
MIAC
20210/11
ROT
3
R
C
3
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
1168
MIAC
20361/11
c
c
c
ROT
4
R
C
4
P
6
COM
1
5
N/A
N/A
REC
227
1042
1176
MIAC
16207/11
C
ROT
4
R
C
3
P
1
1267
MIAC
20332/11
C
ROT
4
R
C
2.5
A
1270
MIAC
20329/11
C
ROT
3
R
C
2.5
P
1277
MIAC
20221/11
C
REF
3
R
CMP
N/A
1281
MIAC
20201/11
C
ROT
2
R
QS
1310
MIAC
20355/11
C
A
N/A R
1314
MIAC
20229/11
C
ROT
3
1316
MIAC
20217/11
C
ROT
1321
MIAC
20338/11
C
1354
MIAC
20237/11
1395
MIAC
1403
MIAC
6075
MIAC
6081
THK
1
0
0
N/A
0
0
p
1
REC
2
THK
2
0
A
0
REC
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A
REC
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A
REC
O
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
3
REC
R
CMP
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A
REC
2
R
CTP
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A COM
ROT
2
R
CTP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
C
ROT
4
RF
C
3.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
0
N/A
N/A
N/A COM
N/A CUR
20296/11
C
ROT
4
NR
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
C
ROT
3
R
Q
C
N/A
20215/11
2
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
COM
E606
C
ROT
4
RF
QS
N/A
P
3
THK
3
0
N/A
N/A
REC
MIAC
E697
C
ROT
3
R
C
4
P
2
THK
2
0
P
2
REC
6084
MIAC
E703
C
ROT
2
R
C
3.5
P
2
THK
2
0
P
1
REC
6090
MIAC
E718
C
ROT
4
R
CMP
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A
REC
6094
MIAC
E735
C
ROT
3
R
C
3
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
REC
6095
MIAC
E736
C
ROT
2
R
CTP
N/A
P
7
THN
0
7
N/A
N/A
REC
6096
MIAC
E738
C
ROT
3
R
C
3
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
REC
6098
MIAC
E740
C
ROT
2
NR
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A COM
6100
MIAC
E744
C
ROT
2
R
Q
C
2
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
3
COM
6102
MIAC
E748
C
ROT
2
RF
CTP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
6105
MIAC
E757
C
ROT
2
RF
QS
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A
REC
6107
MIAC
E761
C
ROT
9
R
C
2
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
2
REC
6111
MIAC
E770
C
REF
N/A R
C
1.5
P
15
COM
3
12
N/A
N/A
REC
6114
MIAC
E775
C
ROT
2
R
C
3.5
P
2
THK
2
0
P
2
REC
6115
MIAC
E777
C
ROT
3
R
C
3.5
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
6118
MIAC
E783
ROT
4
R
C
3
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
REC
6121
MIAC
E786
6122
MIAC
E792
c
c
c
p
1
REC
3
R
C
2.5
P
1
THK
1
0
A
0
REC
3
R
C
3
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
228
ROT
ROT
6123
MIAC
E794
C
ROT
2
R
C
3
P
1
THK
1
0
6124
MIAC
E797
C
ROT
4
R
C
2
A
0
N/A
0
6127
MIAC
E800
C
ROT
12
R
CMP
N/A
P
13
THN
0
6134
MIAC
E862
C
ROT
4
NR
A
0
N/A
6155
MIAC
E422
C
ROT
6
R
a
c
N/A
2
A
0
6157
MIAC
E429
C
REF
13
RF
CMP
N/A
P
3
P
1
COM
0
P
2
REC
13
N/A
N/A
REC
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
N/A
0
0
P
1
REC
THK
3
0
N/A
N/A COM
6162
MIAC
E435
C
ROT
56
R
C
2
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
2
REC
6165
MIAC
E439
C
M
N/A R
C
3.5
P
7
THN
0
7
P
1
COM
6166
MIAC
E440
C
ROT
4
R
CMP
N/A
P
6
COM
1
5
N/A
N/A COM
6170
MIAC
E449
C
ROT
2
RF
CTP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A COM
6172
MIAC
E450
C
REF
2
R
C
2.5
P
1
THK
1
0
A
0
REC
6174
MIAC
E454
C
ROT
3
R
C
3.5
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
REC
6176
MIAC
E457
C
ROT
4
RF
FSS
N/A
P
9
COM
2
7
N/A
N/A
6189
MIAC
E491
C
REF
4
R
CMP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A COM
6193
MIAC
E505
C
ROT
2
R
CTP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A COM
6199
MIAC
E517
C
REF
3
R
CMP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A COM
5800
SDM
10460
C
ROT
2
R
C
3
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
REC
5803
SDM
N/A
C
ROT
2
R
QS
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A
REC
5804
SDM
10478
C
ROT
4
R
C
2.5
P
2
THK
2
0
P
2
COM
5808
SDM
10490
C
ROT
3
R
C
4
P
11
COM
2
9
A
0
REC
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
ROT
3
1.5
P
2
THK
2
0
A
0
REC
2
2
2
2
2
R
NR
C
ROT
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
R
Q
CTP
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A
REC
RF
CTP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
5811
SDM
10463
5814
SDM
10488
5815
SDM
10491
5818
SDM
10474
1449
UCM
28.142.20/CU22.354
1478
UCM
28.142.27/CU22.359
UCM
28.142.33/CU22.362
UCM
28 149.71/CU22.394
1508
UCM
CU22.409
1511
UCM
CU22.358
ROT
ROT
ROT
R
C
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
RF
CTP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
REC
REF
1
R
CTP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
ROT
6
R
CMP
N/A
P
8
COM
1
7
N/A
N/A COM
ROT
8
R
C
2
P
11
THN
0
11
P
1
REF
4
RM
CMP
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A COM
REC
229
1503
1506
ROT
1513
UCM
C
ROT
3
R
C
ROT
2
N/A
N/A
N/A
C
ROT
2
R
0
N/A
C
3.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
COM
P
1
A
0
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A
REC
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A COM
1514
UCM
28.142.36/CU22.363
28.142.58/CU22.382
1515
UCM
28.142.46/CU22.374
1517
UCM
28.142.81/CU22.399
C
ROT
4
R
CMP
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A
REC
1553
UCM
28.142.36/CU22.381
C
ROT
2
R
C
3
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
COM
1554
UCM
28.142.13/CU22.351
C
ROT
6
R
C
1.5
P
7
THN
0
7
A
0
CUR
1555
UCM
28.142.63/CU22.387
C
ROT
6
N/A
N/A
N/A
P
6
THN
0
6
N/A
N/A
REC
1556
UCM
28.142.29/CU22.360
C
ROT
3
R
C
2.5
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
1557
UCM
28.142.38/CU22.366
C
REF
7
R
C
1.5
P
1
THK
1
0
A
0
REC
1560
UCM
28.142.9/CU22.349
C
ROT
3
R
C
2.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
COM
1563
UCM
28.142.23/CU22.357
C
ROT
3
R
C
3
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
1
REC
1564
UCM
28.142.40/CU22.368
C
A
N/A RM
C
2
P
3
THK
3
0
A
0
REC
1569
UCM
28.142.48/CU22.376
C
A
N/A RF
0
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A COM
3141
UCM
28.142.32
C
ROT
2
NR
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
2.5
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A COM
5251
UCM
28.142.35
C
ROT
4
R
Q
C
2934
WAM
2B-41
G
ROT
4
RF
FSS
2945
WAM
2B-25
G
ROT
14+
R
C
1.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
2
REC
2947
WAM
2B-18
G
ROT
3
R
C
2.5
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
2951
WAM
2B-13
G
ROT
2
R
CTP
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A
REC
2958
WAM
2B-88
G
A
N/A R
C
3
P
2
THK
2
0
P
1
COM
2961
WAM
2B-94
G
ROT
2
R
CTP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A COM
2971
WAM
2B-111
G
ROT
2
R
CTP
N/A
P
4
THK
4
0
N/A
N/A
REC
2986
WAM
2B-148
G
ROT
2
R
C
2
P
2
THK
2
0
A
0
REC
2992
WAM
2B-157
G
ROT
4
R
C
1.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
REC
2996
WAM
2B-158
G
ROT
4
R
C
1.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
REC
2997
WAM
2B-164
G
ROT
2
R
C
2.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
1
COM
3010
WAM
2B-228
G
ROT
4
R
C
2.5
P
5
THN
0
5
P
1
COM
3018
WAM
2B-212
G
ROT
4
R
C
3.5
P
2
THK
2
0
P
2
REC
WAM
2B-235
G
REF
53+
R
C
1.5
P
7
COM
1
6
A
0
CUR
3045
WAM
2B-234
G
A
N/A
R
C
3
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
230
3044
3071
WAM
2B-299
G
A
N/A NR
0
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
3076
WAM
2B-300
G
ROT
4
RF
QS
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
3100
WAM
11B-489
G
ROT
4
RF
FSS
N/A
P
11
COM 4
7
N/A
N/A
REC
3101
WAM
11B-494
G
ROT
4
R
C
3.5
P
2
THK
2
0
P
2
REC
3103
WAM
11B-498
G
ROT
2
R
CTP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
3106
WAM
11B-499
G
ROT
4
RF
FSS
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A
REC
3108
WAM
11B-516
G
REF
2
R
C
3
P
2
THK
2
0
P
1
COM
3109
WAM
11B-511
G
REF
4
R
C
1
P
5
THN
0
5
P
2
REC
3124
WAM
11B-538
G
ROT
2
NR
Q
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
3126
WAM
11B-535
G
ROT
4
R
CMP
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A
REC
3139
WAM
15B-16
G
REF
20
R
C
1.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
REC
3145
WAM
15B-36
G
ROT
4
RF
CMP
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A
REC
3148
WAM
15B-25
G
ROT
2
R
CTP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A COM
3149
WAM
15B-40
G
ROT
2
R
C
1.5
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
3150
WAM
15B-28
G
ROT
8
R
C
2.5
P
2
THK
2
0
P
1
REC
3156
WAM
15B-149
G
ROT
4
R
C
2
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
1
COM
3158
WAM
15B-180
G
ROT
N/A R
C
2
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
3172
WAM
15B-124
G
REF
N/A R
C
4
P
9
COM
2
7
P
8
CUR
3174
WAM
15B-122
G
REF
2
R
CMP
N/A
P
5
COM
2
3
N/A
N/A
REC
3208
WAM
15B-89
G
ROT
4
RF
QS
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A
REC
3210
WAM
15B-60
G
REF
17
RF
C
1.5
P
6
COM
1
5
N/A
N/A CUR
3212
WAM
15B-51
G
A
N/A RF
CTP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A COM
3213
WAM
15B-49
G
REF
4
R
CMP
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A
REC
3214
WAM
15B-53
G
ROT
2
R
C
2.5
P
7
THN
0
7
A
0
REC
3225
WAM
15B-192
G
ROT
2
R
CTP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A COM
3234
WAM
15B-204
G
ROT
2
RF
CTP
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A COM
3235
WAM
15B-208
G
ROT
4
R
C
2.5
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
COM
REC
3241
WAM
15B-218
G
ROT
24+
R
C
2
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
2
CUR
3275
WAM
15B-262
G
ROT
4
R
CMP
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A
REC
3283
WAM
15B-362
G
ROT
4
NR
Q
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A
REC
3285
WAM
15B-346
G
ROT
2.5
P
2
3296
WAM
15B-340
G
3297
WAM
15B-327
G
C
2.5
A
C
2
P
3300
WAM
15B-336
3301
WAM
C
3
A
0
QS
N/A
P
5
3349
N/A R
CTP
N/A
P
A
N/A R
C
2
A
G
ROT
4
RF
QS
N/A
15B-464
G
ROT
2
R
C
WAM
15B-476
G
ROT
2
NR
3372
WAM
15B-472
G
ROT
2
3375
WAM
15B-469
G
ROT
9
3376
WAM
15B-470
G
ROT
3377
WAM
15B-480
G
ROT
3378
WAM
15B-493
G
3380
WAM
15B-486
G
5080
WAM
2B-317
5084
WAM
2B-5
4
R
ROT
3
R
ROT
4
R
G
ROT
4
R
15B-337
G
ROT
4
RF
WAM
15B-437
G
A
3360
WAM
15B-448
G
3364
WAM
15B-460
3368
3371
WAM
C
THK
2
0
P
1
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
REC
7
COM
1
6
P
1
COM
N/A
0
0
A
0
REC
THN
0
5
N/A
N/A
REC
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A
REC
0
N/A
0
0
P
3
REC
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A
REC
2.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
REC
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A
REC
R
Q
CMP
N/A
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A
REC
R
C
1.5
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
2
RF
CTP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A COM
2
RM
CTP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A COM
ROT
3
R
C
2.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
REC
ROT
4
RF
FSC
N/A
P
4
COM
1
3
N/A
N/A
REC
G
REF
4
NR
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
ROT
2
R
Q
0
N/A
G
N/A
P
7
COM
1
6
N/A
N/A COM
COM
5085
WAM
2B-261
G
ROT
2
R
C
2
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
5087
WAM
2B-110
G
ROT
2
R
CTP
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A COM
5088
WAM
2B-244
G
ROT
3
R
C
2
P
1
THK
1
0
A
0
REC
5092
WAM
2B-325
G
ROT
15
R
C
1
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
2
REC
5124
WAM
11B-496
G
ROT
2
R
C
3
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
COM
5125
WAM
11B-491
G
ROT
2
R
QS
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A
REC
5126
WAM
11B-71
G
REF
6
R
CMP
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A
REC
5128
WAM
11B-432
G
ROT
2
R
C
3.5
P
2
THK
2
0
A
0
COM
5129
WAM
11B-457
G
ROT
2
RM
CMP
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A COM
5131
WAM
11B-408
G
ROT
4
R
C
3
P
6
COM
1
5
P
6
5134
WAM
11B-452A
G
ROT
2
R
QS
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
5135
WAM
11B-428
G
ROT
2
R
C
3.5
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
REC
COM
232
5136
WAM
11B-439
G
REF
5
R
C
3
P
6
COM
1
5
P
2
REC
5141
WAM
11B-423
G
ROT
4
R
C
2.5
P
2
THK
2
0
P
2
REC
5142
WAM
11B-501
G
ROT
3
R
C
3.5
P
2
THK
2
0
P
1
REC
5144
WAM
11B-435
G
ROT
4
R
C
3
P
2
THK
2
0
P
2
REC
5145
WAM
11B-415
G
ROT
2
R
C
3
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
COM
5146
WAM
11B-539A
G
ROT
2
R
C
3
P
2
THK
2
0
P
1
COM
5148
WAM
11B-412
G
ROT
16
RF
CMP
N/A
P
10
COM
2
8
N/A
N/A COM
5149
WAM
11B-440
G
A
N/A
NR
0
N/A
P
6
THN
0
6
N/A
N/A COM
5155
WAM
11B-410
G
ROT
2
R
C
2.5
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
5173
WAM
15B-135
G
ROT
2
R
C
2.5
P
2
THK
2
0
P
1
REC
5174
WAM
15B-108
G
REF
5
R
C
1.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
2
COM
5176
WAM
15B-5
G
ROT
2
R
C
2.5
P
6
THN
0
6
P
6
COM
5181
WAM
15B-3
G
ROT
4
R
C
2.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
CUR
5188
WAM
15B-130
G
ROT
4
R
CMP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A COM
5210
WAM
15B-492
G
M
N/A RF
0
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
COM
5211
WAM
15B-500
G
REF
8
R
C
3.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
1
COM
5213
WAM
15B-494
G
ROT
4
R
C
1.5
P
2
THK
2
0
A
0
REC
5215
WAM
15B-458
G
ROT
2
R
CTP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
5217
WAM
15B-265
G
A
N/A
R
C
3
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
REC
5218
WAM
15B-185
G
ROT
4
R
C
2
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
5221
WAM
15B-290
G
REF
4
R
C
2.5
P
7
COM
1
6
P
1
REC
5227
WAM
15B-319
G
ROT
3
R
C
1.5
P
7
THN
0
7
A
0
COM
6242
WAM
2B-301
G
A
N/A
NR
0
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A
REC
6246
WAM
2B-127
G
ROT
2
R
C
3.5
P
4
COM
1
3
P
1
REC
6247
WAM
2B-55
G
ROT
2
R
C
2.5
P
1
THK
1
0
A
0
COM
3659
LMA
16271.18
M
ROT
2
R
C
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
A
0
REC
3661
LMA
16285
M
REF
4
RF
FSS
N/A
P
4
COM
2
2
N/A
N/A
REC
3667
LMA
16353
M
REF
11
R
C
2
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
3668
LMA
16271.2
M
ROT
10+
R
C
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
2
REC
3694
LMA
16271.04
M
ROT
3
R
C
2
P
1
THK
1
0
A
0
REC
3695
LMA
16271.23
M
ROT
N/A R
C
3.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
REC
3700
LMA
16151
M
ROT
17
R
C
1
P
1
THK
1
0
P
2
REC
3702
LMA
21082
M
ROT
4
R
C
1.5
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
3703
LMA
16271.22
M
ROT
4
R
CMP
N/A
P
14
COM
2
12
N/A
N/A
REC
3704
LMA
16135
M
A
N/A NR
O
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
3705
LMA
21081
M
ROT
3
R
CMP
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A
REC
3708
LMA
16142.04
M
ROT
4
R
C
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
P
2
REC
3709
LMA
16164
M
REF
3
R
C
3
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
1
REC
REC
3712
LMA
16345
M
ROT
3
R
C
2.5
P
2
THK
2
0
P
1
3719
LMA
16142.01
M
ROT
8
R
CMP
N/A
P
7
THN
0
7
N/A
N/A CUR
3720
LMA
16271.02
M
ROT
4
R
C
2
P
9
COM
1
8
A
0
COM
3721
LMA
16271.1
M
ROT
2
R
C
3
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
3722
LMA
16271.21
M
ROT
4
R
C
3
P
2
THK
2
0
P
2
REC
3724
LMA
21094.01
M
ROT
4
R
CMP
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A
REC
3725
LMA
16133
M
ROT
2
RF
CTP
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A
REC
3727
LMA
16131
M
ROT
45+
R
C
1.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
REC
3732
LMA
16273.03
M
ROT
4
R
C
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
P
1
REC
3734
LMA
16137.01
M
ROT
2
R
C
2
P
2
THK
2
0
P
2
REC
3735
LMA
16156.02
M
ROT
3
R
C
2
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
3737
LMA
16138
M
ROT
5
R
C
3.5
P
2
THK
2
0
P
3
REC
3738
LMA
16271.09
M
ROT
2
R
CTP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A COM
3739
LMA
16200
M
REF
5
R
C
2
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
2
3740
LMA
16167
M
ROT
2
R
CTP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A COM
3742
LMA
16145.01
M
ROT
2
R
CTP
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A COM
3743
LMA
16169
M
ROT
3
R
CMP
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
A
0
3744
LMA
16273.04
M
REF
2
RM
CTP
N/A
P
12
COM
2
10
N/A
N/A COM
REC
COM
LMA
16273.02
M
ROT
7
R
C
2.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
2
REC
LMA
16290
M
REF
2
R
CMP
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A
REC
3754
LMA
16158
M
REF
7
R
C
2
P
1
THK
1
0
P
2
REC
3755
LMA
16271.09
M
ROT
2
R
C
3.5
P
2
THK
2
0
P
2
COM
234
3752
3753
3756
LMA
21132
M
REF
3
R
C
3.5
P
1
THK
1
0
A
0
COM
3757
LMA
16152
M
ROT
4
R
C
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
3758
LMA
16271.15
M
ROT
3
R
C
3.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
1
REC
3763
LMA
16203
M
ROT
2
R
CTP
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A COM
3766
LMA
16141.02
M
ROT
2
R
CMP
N/A
P
6
COM
1
5
N/A
N/A
3769
LMA
16201
M
M
N/A RF
O
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A COM
3774
LMA
16165.01
M
ROT
4
NR
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A
REC
LMA
16161
M
ROT
4
R
Q
C
N/A
3779
N/A
P
3
THK
3
0
P
3
REC
3780
LMA
REF
3
R
CMP
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A COM
LMA
16271.06
16271.11
M
3784
M
ROT
10+
R
C
2
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
2
REC
3785
LMA
16271.14
M
ROT
4
R
CMP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
3787
LMA
21089
M
ROT
4
R
C
1.5
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
3789
LMA
16271.03
M
ROT
2
R
C
3
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
7008
LMA
16271.12
M
REF
2
NR
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A COM
7013
LMA
16271.01
M
ROT
4
R
Q
C
3
P
1
THK
1
0
A
0
COM
7053
LMA
N/A
M
ROT
4
RF
QS
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A
REC
7055
LMA
16271.16
M
ROT
2
R
C
3
P
2
THK
2
0
P
1
REC
1092
MIAC
8542/11
M
ROT
2
R
C
2
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
ROT
REC
1126
MIAC
8530/11
M
3
R
C
2.5
P
2
THK
2
0
P
2
REC
1129
MIAC
8498/11
M
REF
11
R
C
1
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
1
REC
1142
MIAC
8537/11
M
REF
2
RF
FSS
N/A
P
3
THK
3
0
N/A
N/A
REC
1143
MIAC
8522/11
M
ROT
4
R
C
1.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
2
REC
1169
MIAC
8514/11
M
ROT
2
RF
QS
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A
COM
N/A R
C
2.5
P
2
THK
2
0
P
1
REC
P
7
COM
1
6
N/A
N/A
REC
P
1
THK
1
0
P
2
REC
1177
MIAC
8541/11
M
A
1178
MIAC
8533/11
M
ROT
3
R
FSC
N/A
1180
MIAC
8543/11
M
ROT
6
R
C
2
1183
MIAC
8509/11
M
ROT
2
R
CTP
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A
REC
1186
MIAC
8531/11
M
ROT
4
R
QS
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
1191
MIAC
8528/11
M
ROT
2
RF
CTP
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A
COM
1210
MIAC
8516/11
M
A
N/A R
C
2
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
1236
MIAC
8512/11
1313
MIAC
8517/11
M
ROT
2
1315
MIAC
8520/11
M
ROT
2
M
M
N/A RF
C
2
P
THK
1
P
1
2
R
C
3
R
C
2.5
THK
P
1
THK
0
N/A
N/A
REC
2
0
P
2
REC
1
0
P
1
REC
3900
UNM
89.48.15
M
ROT
2
R
CTP
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A
REC
3901
UNM
89.48.17
M
ROT
4
RF
FSS
N/A
P
9
COM
1
8
N/A
N/A
REC
3903
UNM
89.48.7
M
ROT
4
NR
P
8
COM
2
6
N/A
N/A
REC
UNM
89.48.3
M
ROT
2
R
Q
CTP
N/A
3904
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A COM
UNM
89.48.2
M
A
N/A R
C
3
P
2
THK
2
0
P
1
COM
UNM
77.58.7
M
ROT
2
R
C
3.5
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
4225
UNM
77.58.50
M
ROT
4
R
C
3
P
2
THK
2
0
P
1
REC
REC
4226
UNM
78.39.3
M
ROT
4
R
C
2.5
P
2
THK
2
0
P
1
REC
4227
UNM
77.58.58
M
ROT
2
R
C
3.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
COM
4229
UNM
77.58.46
M
ROT
3
R
CMP
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A
REC
4230
UNM
77.58.55
M
ROT
2
R
C
3
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
4236
UNM
77.61.4
M
ROT
19
R
C
1.5
P
2
THK
2
0
P
2
REC
4237
UNM
77.61.6
M
ROT
4
R
C
2
P
6
COM
1
5
P
1
REC
4238
UNM
77.58.54
M
ROT
2
RF
CTP
N/A
P
8
COM
2
6
N/A
N/A
REC
4239
UNM
77.67.28
M
ROT
2
R
C
3
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
1
REC
4242
UNM
77.67.27
M
ROT
4
R
C
2.5
P
2
THK
2
0
P
1
COM
4244
UNM
78.39.1
M
ROT
4
RF
O
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
3
COM
4248
UNM
77.42.8
M
ROT
4
R
CMP
N/A
P
6
THN
0
6
N/A
N/A
REC
4249
UNM
77.58.56
M
ROT
2
R
C
2
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
2
REC
4252
UNM
77.42.37
M
ROT
2
R
C
2
P
2
THK
2
0
P
1
REC
4256
UNM
77.61.7
M
ROT
4
R
C
2.5
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
COM
4265
UNM
77.42.32
M
ROT
4
R
C
3
P
2
THK
2
0
P
2
REC
4266
UNM
77.61.5
M
ROT
4
R
C
2
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
4269
UNM
77.61.3
M
ROT
4
RF
FSS
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A
REC
4272
UNM
77.58.25
M
ROT
4
NR
N/A
P
3
THK
3
0
N/A
N/A
REC
4292
UNM
78.44.7
M
ROT
4
R
Q
C
3
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
REC
4293
UNM
77.42.30
M
M
N/A RF
O
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A CUR
236
3905
4223
6002
UNM
89.48.12
M
ROT
4
RF
QS
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A
REC
6006
UNM
89.48.5
M
REF
16+
R
C
1
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
3
REC
6501
UNM
80-30-393
M
REF
6
R
C
2
P
7
COM
1
6
P
7
REC
6504
UNM
77-42-26
M
ROT
2
R
as
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A COM
6508
UNM
80-30-687
M
A
N/A R
C
2.5
P
2
THK
2
0
P
1
REC
2129
PMAE
95998
N
ROT
4
RF
QS
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
2181
PMAE
96013
N
ROT
2
R
C
3.5
P
2
THK
2
0
P
2
COM
2195
PMAE
95995
N
ROT
4
RF
QS
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A
REC
2276
PMAE
95997
N
ROT
2
R
C
3
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
2287
PMAE
96009
N
REF
4
R
C
2
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
REC
COM
2397
PMAE
96012
N
ROT
4
R
C
2.5
P
5
THN
0
5
P
9
2735
PMAE
96000
N
REF
2
R
CTP
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A COM
2739
PMAE
95994
N
ROT
2
RF
CTP
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A COM
2740
PMAE
96007
N
A
N/A R
C
2
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
2743
PMAE
96001
N
ROT
4
R
C
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
P
2
REC
2744
PMAE
95991
N
REF
4
NR
FSQ
N/A
P
4
THK
4
0
N/A
N/A
REC
2748
PMAE
96002
N
REF
20+
R
CMP
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A
REC
2749
PMAE
95996
N
ROT
2
NR
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
2750
PMAE
96008
N
ROT
4
R
Q
QS
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
2751
PMAE
96005
N
ROT
3
R
C
2.5
P
2
THK
2
0
P
2
COM
R
2753
PMAE
96011
N
ROT
4
7525
WNMU
N/A
N
M
N/A R
7526
WNMU
N/A
N
REF
2
NR
7536
WNMU
N/A
N
REF
4
R
7547
WNMU
N/A
N
A
7548
REC
CMP
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A COM
C
2
P
6
COM
1
5
A
0
REC
Q
C
N/A
P
5
COM
2
3
N/A
N/A
REC
1.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
REC
N/A RF
CMP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
N/A
REC
N/A
N
ROT
4
RF
QS
N/A
A
0
N/A
WNMU
N/A
N
REF
2
R
CMP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
7550
WNMU
N/A
N
REF
2
NR
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
7551
WNMU
N/A
N
ROT
2
RF
Q
CTP
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A
REC
7552
WNMU
N/A
N
ROT
4
NR
Q
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
237
WNMU
7549
N A
N
ROT
2
RF
CTP
WNMU
NA
N
REF
2
R
WNMU
NA
N
REF
N/A RF
7562
WNMU
NA
N
REF
4
RM
C
7564
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
5
R
C
7568
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
4
RF
FSC
7570
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
4
R
C
7553
WNMU
7556
7558
N/A
A
0
N/A
CTP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A COM
C
3.5
P
8
THN
0
8
P
2
COM
1
P
6
THN
0
6
A
0
REC
2.5
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
COM
3.5
P
10
COM
1
9
P
7
REC
0
0
N/A
N/A COM
7571
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
4
R
C
3
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
7572
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
4
R
C
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
REC
7579
WNMU
NA
N
REF
2
NR
Q
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
7580
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
2
NR
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A COM
7581
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
2
RM
Q
CTP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
7582
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
4
RF
QS
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A
REC
7583
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
4
R
O
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A
REC
7585
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
4
R
CMP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A COM
7586
WNMU
NA
N
REF
2
NR
O
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A
7587
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
2
R
CMP
N/A
P
4
THN
0
4
N/A
N/A
REC
7588
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
4
R
C
1.5
P
N/A THN
0
N/A
A
0
COM
7589
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
4
R
C
2.5
P
7
COM
1
6
P
1
COM
7591
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
4
R
C
1
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
COM
THK
1
N/A
REC
REC
7593
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
2
R
C
1.5
P
1
1
0
P
7594
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
4
RF
FSS
N/A
P
N/A COM
1
N/A
N/A
7596
WNMU
NA
N
REF
N/A
R
C
2.5
P
10
COM
2
8
N/A
N/A
REC
7598
WNMU
NA
N
REF
N/A RF
C
2.5
P
9
COM
2
7
N/A
N/A
REC
7604
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
2
R
C
3
P
2
THK
2
0
P
1
REC
7605
WNMU
NA
N
A
N/A R
C
2
P
5
COM
1
4
N/A
N/A
REC
REC
7607
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
2
RM
CTP
N/A
P
6
COM
1
5
N/A
N/A COM
7608
WNMU
NA
N
A
N/A
R
C
3.5
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
COM
WNMU
NA
N
REF
46
R
C
1.5
P
8
THN
0
8
A
0
REC
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
3
R
C
2
P
2
THK
2
0
P
2
REC
238
7610
7615
7621
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
3
R
C
3.5
P
2
THK
2
0
p
2
REC
7622
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
3
R
2
P
2
THK
2
0
p
1
REC
7623
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
2
R
c
c
3
P
2
THK
2
0
p
1
REC
7625
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
4
NR
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A
REC
7627
WNMU
NA
N
REF
32
RF
Q
0
N/A
N/A
P
3
THK
3
0
N/A
N/A CUR
7629
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
7
R
3
P
2
THK
2
0
P
1
R
c
c
c
3.5
P
3
THK
3
0
P
3
REC
1
P
7
COM
2
5
N/A
N/A
REC
REC
COM
7630
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
4
7631
WNMU
NA
N
REF
N/A R
7632
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
8
R
CMP
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A
7636
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
4
R
C
3
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
1
REC
7637
WNMU
NA
N
REF
8
RM
CMP
N/A
P
3
THK
3
0
N/A
N/A CUR
7642
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
4
R
C
3
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A COM
7643
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
2
R
C
3.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
1
REC
7644
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
5
R
CMP
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A
REC
7645
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
2
R
C
1.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
2
REC
7646
WNMU
NA
N
A
N/A R
C
3
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
COM
7648
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
7
R
C
2
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
7650
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
4
R
CMP
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A
REC
7651
WNMU
NA
N
REF
63
R
C
1
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
1
REC
7652
WNMU
NA
N
A
N/A R
C
3
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
1
COM
7653
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
4
RF
FSS
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A
REC
7654
WNMU
NA
N
REF
4
R
C
3.5
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
7656
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
4
R
C
1.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
1
REC
7658
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
2
R
C
3
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
1
REC
7659
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
2
R
C
2.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
1
COM
7660
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
2
R
C
3.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
2
REC
R
C
1.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
1
COM
CTP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A COM
WNMU
N
ROT
4
7663
WNMU
NA
N
A
N/A RF
7670
WNMU
NA
N
REF
4
R
CMP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A COM
7671
WNMU
NA
N
ROT
4
R
CMP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
239
7662
NA
7672
WNMU
N/A
N
ROT
4
R
CMP
N/A
A
R
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
7677
WNMU
N/A
N
ROT
3
C
3.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
CUR
7679
WNMU
N/A
N
A
N/A RF
O
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
7684
WNMU
N/A
N
REF
4
R
C
3
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
REC
10034
PMAE
24-15-10/94709
S
ROT
2
NR
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A COM
10056
PMAE
26-7-10/95961.1
S
REF
2
R
Q
CTP
N/A
P
3
THK
3
0
N/A
N/A
REC
10067
PMAE
27-11-10/96213
S
ROT
2
RF
CTP
N/A
P
6
THN
0
6
N/A
N/A
REC
2025
PMAE
95877
S
ROT
2
R
C
2
P
2
THK
2
0
P
1
REC
2034
PMAE
96260
S
ROT
2
RM
CMP
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A COM
2040
PMAE
95978
S
ROT
4
R
C
2
P
5
COM
1
4
P
5
COM
2050
PMAE
94459
S
ROT
24
R
C
P
7
THN
0
7
P
2
REC
2059
PMAE
95916
S
ROT
2
RF
CTP
1.5
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A COM
2062
PMAE
95865
S
ROT
4
RF
FSS
N/A
P
8
COM
2
6
N/A
N/A
REC
2073
PMAE
95917
S
ROT
4
R
C
2.5
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
COM
2085
PMAE
95925
S
A
N/A R
C
4
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
COM
2101
PMAE
96199
S
ROT
8
R
C
1.5
P
6
THN
0
6
P
6
CUR
2106
PMAE
95919
S
ROT
4
R
CMP
N/A
P
9
THN
0
9
N/A
N/A
REC
2110
PMAE
94906
S
ROT
2
R
C
2.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
REC
C
2
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
1
REC
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A
REC
2115
PMAE
94531
S
ROT
2
R
2116
PMAE
95910
S
REF
2
NR
2120
PMAE
94683
S
ROT
2
R
Q
C
2.5
P
2
THK
2
0
P
1
REC
2125
PMAE
94840
S
ROT
2
R
C
2
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
2136
PMAE
96088
S
ROT
4
R
C
3
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
COM
2140
PMAE
96232
S
ROT
6
R
C
2
P
4
COM
1
3
P
4
COM
2141
PMAE
94821
S
ROT
2
R
CTP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A COM
2142
PMAE
95891
S
REF
2
R
C
2
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
PMAE
95841
S
ROT
3
R
C
3
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
1
COM
PMAE
94629
S
REF
2
NR
O
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
2153
PMAE
94915
S
ROT
4
RF
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
PMAE
94903
S
ROT
4
RM
QS
CMP
N/A
2154
N/A
P
7
THN
0
7
N/A
N/A COM
240
2147
2148
2162
PMAE
96254
S
ROT
4
RM
CMP
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
2166
PMAE
94729
S
ROT
2
RM
O
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
2173
PMAE
95977
S
ROT
4
R
C
3
P
2
THK
2
0
2184
PMAE
95945
S
A
N/A R
C
3
P
2
THK
2
0
2186
PMAE
94572
S
ROT
4
NR
FSQ
N/A
P
2
COM
1
1
2192
PMAE
94478
S
ROT
2
RM
CTP
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
REC
N/A
N/A
REC
P
7
REC
P
1
REC
N/A
N/A COM
N/A
N/A COM
2203
PMAE
96131
S
ROT
4
R
C
1
P
3
THK
3
0
P
1
2204
PMAE
95851
S
ROT
4
R
CMP
N/A
P
14
THN
0
14
N/A
N/A
REC
2206
PMAE
94880
S
ROT
4
NR
FSQ
N/A
P
9
COM
2
7
N/A
N/A
2209
PMAE
94462
S
ROT
4
R
C
2.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
REC
CUR
2213
PMAE
95872
S
ROT
4
R
C
3
P
2
THK
2
0
P
2
COM
2216
PMAE
96206
S
ROT
10
R
C
2
P
2
THK
2
0
P
2
REC
2225
PMAE
94610
S
ROT
2
RF
CTP
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A COM
2228
PMAE
94835
S
ROT
3
R
C
2
P
10
COM
1
9
A
0
COM
2230
PMAE
96265
S
ROT
4
R
C
1.5
P
1
THK
1
0
A
0
REC
2235
PMAE
94653
S
ROT
2
R
CTP
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A COM
2237
PMAE
96212
S
ROT
5
R
C
2
P
8
THN
0
8
P
4
CUR
2240
PMAE
95814
S
ROT
4
R
CMP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
REC
2271
PMAE
94545
S
REF
2
R
C
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
REC
2273
PMAE
94875
S
ROT
4
R
C
2.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
1
REC
2275
PMAE
94794
S
REF
10
RM
CMP
N/A
P
3
THK
3
0
N/A
N/A COM
2281
PMAE
95941
S
ROT
4
RM
CMP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
R
REC
2284
PMAE
94737
S
ROT
4
2288
PMAE
94581
S
A
N/A R
2289
PMAE
94532
S
ROT
4
2298
PMAE
96217
ROT
2
2301
PMAE
94591
ROT
2317
PMAE
96157
ROT
2325
PMAE
94874
2343
PMAE
96187
s
s
s
s
s
CMP
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A
O
N/A
P
6
THN
0
6
N/A
N/A COM
R
C
2
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
COM
R
CMP
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A
REC
4
R
C
2.5
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
3
R
CMP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A COM
ROT
2
R
CTP
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A
REC
ROT
4
R
C
2.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
REC
2348
PMAE
94769
S
ROT
2
R
C
3.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
REC
2391
PMAE
96231
S
ROT
3
R
C
3
P
4
THN
0
4
P
1
COM
2393
PMAE
94648
S
ROT
2
R
CTP
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A
REC
2399
PMAE
96182
S
ROT
2
R
C
3.5
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
2406
PMAE
94587
S
ROT
4
R
QS
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A
REC
2412
PMAE
94684
S
ROT
4
NR
FSQ
N/A
P
8
COM
2
6
N/A
N/A COM
2417
PMAE
94644
S
ROT
2
RF
CTP
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A COM
2431
PMAE
95964
S
ROT
2
RF
QS
N/A
P
3
THK
3
0
N/A
N/A
REC
2432
PMAE
94795
S
ROT
2
R
C
4
P
1
THK
1
0
1
REC
2436
PMAE
94586
S
ROT
3
R
C
3
P
2
THK
2
0
P
P
2
COM
2440
PMAE
94526
S
ROT
3
R
CMP
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A
REC
2452
PMAE
94487
S
ROT
2
R
C
3
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
2453
PMAE
95833
S
ROT
4
R
CMP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
2454
PMAE
95848
S
ROT
8
R
CMP
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A CUR
2500
PMAE
94655
S
ROT
2
RF
O
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
2506
PMAE
94505
S
REF
4
RM
CMP
N/A
P
6
COM
1
5
N/A
N/A COM
2507
PMAE
96171
S
REF
1
RM
CTP
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A COM
2508
PMAE
94816
S
ROT
2
R
C
3
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
2521
PMAE
96104
S
ROT
2
R
CMP
N/A
P
3
THK
3
0
N/A
N/A COM
2525
PMAE
94885
S
ROT
5
R
C
3
P
2
THK
2
0
P
1
COM
2534
PMAE
95938
S
ROT
6
R
C
3
P
2
THK
2
0
P
5
REC
2539
PMAE
95918
S
ROT
8
R
C
2.5
P
2
THK
2
0
P
2
REC
2540
PMAE
94582
S
ROT
2
R
C
2
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
COM
2541
PMAE
94512
S
ROT
3
R
C
2.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
A
0
COM
2543
PMAE
95799
S
ROT
2
R
C
1.5
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
2546
PMAE
95858
S
ROT
3
R
C
1.5
P
7
THN
0
7
P
1
COM
REC
REC
PMAE
94907
S
ROT
4
R
C
2.5
A
0
N/A
0
0
P
1
REC
PMAE
96230
ROT
7
R
C
1
P
2
THK
2
0
A
0
REC
2552
PMAE
94453
ROT
4
NR
Q
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
2556
PMAE
94791
s
s
s
ROT
3
R
CMP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
242
2548
2549
2558
PMAE
94609
S
ROT
2
R
C
2.5
P
2
THK
2
0
p
1
REC
2563
PMAE
94739
S
ROT
21
R
C
2.5
P
1
THK
1
0
p
2
CUR
2569
PMAE
96098
S
REF
4
R
CMP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
2578
PMAE
96240
S
ROT
4
R
C
2
P
6
THN
0
6
A
0
COM
2585
PMAE
96150
S
ROT
2
R
CTP
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A
REC
2590
PMAE
96227
S
ROT
2
R
CTP
N/A
P
2
THK
2
0
N/A
N/A COM
2627
PMAE
95900
S
ROT
4
R
C
2
P
6
THN
0
6
A
0
REC
2638
PMAE
94682
S
ROT
6
R
C
3
P
2
THK
2
0
P
2
REC
2640
2641
PMAE
95899
S
ROT
4
R
C
2.5
P
2
THK
2
0
P
2
PMAE
95806
S
REF
2
R
CTP
N/A
P
7
THN
0
7
N/A
N/A
REC
REC
2682
PMAE
95923
S
REF
2
R
C
3
P
1
THK
1
0
P
1
REC
2690
PMAE
94913
S
ROT
3
R
C
3.5
P
2
THK
2
0
P
1
REC
2699
PMAE
94766
S
ROT
2
RF
CTP
N/A
P
1
THK
1
0
N/A
N/A COM
9375
PMAE
94870
S
ROT
2
RF
CTP
N/A
A
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
REC
to