Thank you, this is the best Fremont presentation I have seen! I am glad you were not afraid of venturing into speculation; it is a compelling story. I am reminded of the old joke about how Norwegian Americans continue to ritually consume lutefisk at Christmas long after Norway abandoned the practice, i. e. emigrants can be culturally conservative compared to the source population.
No mention of Ivie Creek Black on White but I read about it in your work.Your putting it in Emery. Does it have Emery temper or does it vary. I'll look at my samples.. I also disagree when recently a BYU grad Bryce... tried to eliminate Sevier gray ware and include it with Emery. Big mistake. It takes away a huge diagnostic tool... forgetting that the Sevier Valley was like ground central Fremont.
Hi Jeff, Ivie Creek is a bit of a tricky issue. There were two painted types made by Emery potters. One is slipped, and the other is not. They both have the same temper. Interestingly, they often refire to different colors, so they were likely made with different clay sources (but much more research needs to be done to verify that). Traditionally, they have been lumped into the same category and called Ivie Creek Black-on-white (although Lane Richens separates them in his Clear Creek report chapter). Since we refer to the unslipped Snake Valley type as Snake Valley Black-on-gray, I had a long debate with a dissertation committee member about whether it was appropriate to call the unslipped Emery type Ivie Creek since it doesn’t technically have a white slip. I decided that the easiest thing to do would be to call them all Emery painted (to avoid saying “Ivie Creek Black-on-white and Emery Black-on-gray every time I refer in my research). Sorry that that’s such a long answer, but I would argue that it’s probably best to separate them out as Ivie Creek and Emery B/g when discussing them individually and then lumping them together as Emery painted when talking about them as a whole. That way it’s clear that not all Emery painted sherds have a white slip. The whole lumping Sevier and Emery actually comes from Watkins 2009. I’m pretty sure Bryce was just citing Watkins; however, I also disagree with him. I think Watkins was making the point that there are many Sevier and Emery sherds that are difficult to differentiate based on temper, and he was trying to say that if you’re not comfortable doing it, don’t because you’ll likely mess things up more. I’ve found that refiring the sherds is a pretty solid way to tell the difference, though, if the temper isn’t clear.
The significance to this Navajo Mtn non-corrugated Kayenta phenom is the southern Maverick Mrn migration into southern AZ and SE New Mex. However, in the Kauenta Area between AD 1150 and 1280 it also spread south and east towards the Tusayan Area. This may suggest it represents part of a Numic proto-Hopi group as opposed to the large en situ Tusayan proto-Hopi. By extension, this would suggest the Maverick Mtn factions were Numic, as well. This would also indicate the absence of corrugated pottery is definitive and the migration of this specific group began in the Fermont Area. .
@@katierichards5535 Thanks for your analysis. I was intrigued by a recent visit to a BYU presentation on the new Payson utah field site. They had on display an Emery white slipped vessel. Rare trading between the 2 areas. I wondered if this should have been an Ivie Creek vessel. So based on your response can't we get Lane or a graduate student on this to sort this out ?
Hi, sorry I didn’t see this sooner. If you’re still interested, it seems that the corrugated wares are primarily coming out of the Snake Valley region. There are some examples from other regions, but I think the majority were made in the Parowan Valley (where Snake Valley pottery was primarily produced).
@@katierichards5535 I've been working with Thatcher Rogers and Steve Germick on a study that involves the formation of a large ceramic geographic-related database that includes published info on over 6 million sherds recovered from sites scattered throughout much of Arizona and the western edge of Nex Mex. It was initially designed to track changes in ceramic production/procurement trends. We were focused on identifying the specific Kayenta Anasazi faction that migrated in the mid to late 13th century into southern AZ. Although the sherd count and chronometric data indicate use of corrugated pottery was extremely common throughout the eastern Anasazi sphere after AD 1000, this faction appears to have emerged around the mid-12th century centered on the Navajo Mtn District where corrugated suddenly dropped out. My hunch is this Navajo Mtn bon-corrugated Kayenta faction is an intrusive element that moved from the northwest in the Fremont Area where corrugated was not used. However, I know very little about the Fremont Culture and have very little sherd count data from this area. I'm not even sure it would be possible to figure out where this faction originated in the Fremont Culture Area.
@@katierichards5535 OK I had to check where the Parowan Valley is. Did large amounts of corrugated pottery appear in the assemblages there before or after AD 1150? If so was there any other change in the material culture there after the mid 12th century?
@@CmacKw Corrugated pottery appears rather abruptly around AD 1050. It's hard to tell if other significant material culture changes were concurrent with the appearance of corrugated pottery due to the rough state of Fremont chronology and dating. I might recommend checking out Scott Ure's MA thesis Parowan Valley Potting Communities: Examining Technological Style in Fremont Snake Valley Corrugated Pottery if want to know more about corrugated pottery. Jim Allison has some of the best data on Fremont dating across the region (though he's still working on publishing most of it). You could check out Allison's chapter The Northern Frontier in the History of the Greater Southwest. In the book Interaction and Connectivity in the Greater Southwest. I believe he goes through some of the basic chronological changes in Fremont material culture. Better understanding Fremont chronology and significant temporal changes is a much-needed area of study in the region!
Fine example of scientific academic dismissing people. Babbling on about pots. Unable to understand or even ask. What's in the pots is why they travel. lol
Thank you, this is the best Fremont presentation I have seen! I am glad you were not afraid of venturing into speculation; it is a compelling story.
I am reminded of the old joke about how Norwegian Americans continue to ritually consume lutefisk at Christmas long after Norway abandoned the practice, i. e. emigrants can be culturally conservative compared to the source population.
No mention of Ivie Creek Black on White but I read about it in your work.Your putting it in Emery. Does it have Emery temper or does it vary. I'll look at my samples.. I also disagree when recently a BYU grad Bryce... tried to eliminate Sevier gray ware and include it with Emery. Big mistake. It takes away a huge diagnostic tool... forgetting that the Sevier Valley was like ground central Fremont.
Hi Jeff, Ivie Creek is a bit of a tricky issue. There were two painted types made by Emery potters. One is slipped, and the other is not. They both have the same temper. Interestingly, they often refire to different colors, so they were likely made with different clay sources (but much more research needs to be done to verify that). Traditionally, they have been lumped into the same category and called Ivie Creek Black-on-white (although Lane Richens separates them in his Clear Creek report chapter). Since we refer to the unslipped Snake Valley type as Snake Valley Black-on-gray, I had a long debate with a dissertation committee member about whether it was appropriate to call the unslipped Emery type Ivie Creek since it doesn’t technically have a white slip. I decided that the easiest thing to do would be to call them all Emery painted (to avoid saying “Ivie Creek Black-on-white and Emery Black-on-gray every time I refer in my research). Sorry that that’s such a long answer, but I would argue that it’s probably best to separate them out as Ivie Creek and Emery B/g when discussing them individually and then lumping them together as Emery painted when talking about them as a whole. That way it’s clear that not all Emery painted sherds have a white slip.
The whole lumping Sevier and Emery actually comes from Watkins 2009. I’m pretty sure Bryce was just citing Watkins; however, I also disagree with him. I think Watkins was making the point that there are many Sevier and Emery sherds that are difficult to differentiate based on temper, and he was trying to say that if you’re not comfortable doing it, don’t because you’ll likely mess things up more. I’ve found that refiring the sherds is a pretty solid way to tell the difference, though, if the temper isn’t clear.
The significance to this Navajo Mtn non-corrugated Kayenta phenom is the southern Maverick Mrn migration into southern AZ and SE New Mex. However, in the Kauenta Area between AD 1150 and 1280 it also spread south and east towards the Tusayan Area. This may suggest it represents part of a Numic proto-Hopi group as opposed to the large en situ Tusayan proto-Hopi. By extension, this would suggest the Maverick Mtn factions were Numic, as well. This would also indicate the absence of corrugated pottery is definitive and the migration of this specific group began in the Fermont Area. .
@@katierichards5535 Thanks for your analysis. I was intrigued by a recent visit to a BYU presentation on the new Payson utah field site. They had on display an Emery white slipped vessel. Rare trading between the 2 areas. I wondered if this should have been an Ivie Creek vessel. So based on your response can't we get Lane or a graduate student on this to sort this out ?
In the Fremont who had or made tons of corrugated pottery and who did not? This question is going somewhere.
Hi, sorry I didn’t see this sooner. If you’re still interested, it seems that the corrugated wares are primarily coming out of the Snake Valley region. There are some examples from other regions, but I think the majority were made in the Parowan Valley (where Snake Valley pottery was primarily produced).
@@katierichards5535 I've been working with Thatcher Rogers and Steve Germick on a study that involves the formation of a large ceramic geographic-related database that includes published info on over 6 million sherds recovered from sites scattered throughout much of Arizona and the western edge of Nex Mex. It was initially designed to track changes in ceramic production/procurement trends. We were focused on identifying the specific Kayenta Anasazi faction that migrated in the mid to late 13th century into southern AZ. Although the sherd count and chronometric data indicate use of corrugated pottery was extremely common throughout the eastern Anasazi sphere after AD 1000, this faction appears to have emerged around the mid-12th century centered on the Navajo Mtn District where corrugated suddenly dropped out. My hunch is this Navajo Mtn bon-corrugated Kayenta faction is an intrusive element that moved from the northwest in the Fremont Area where corrugated was not used. However, I know very little about the Fremont Culture and have very little sherd count data from this area. I'm not even sure it would be possible to figure out where this faction originated in the Fremont Culture Area.
@@katierichards5535 OK I had to check where the Parowan Valley is. Did large amounts of corrugated pottery appear in the assemblages there before or after AD 1150? If so was there any other change in the material culture there after the mid 12th century?
@@CmacKw Corrugated pottery appears rather abruptly around AD 1050. It's hard to tell if other significant material culture changes were concurrent with the appearance of corrugated pottery due to the rough state of Fremont chronology and dating. I might recommend checking out Scott Ure's MA thesis Parowan Valley Potting Communities: Examining Technological Style in Fremont Snake Valley Corrugated Pottery if want to know more about corrugated pottery. Jim Allison has some of the best data on Fremont dating across the region (though he's still working on publishing most of it). You could check out Allison's chapter The Northern Frontier in the History of the Greater Southwest. In the book Interaction and Connectivity in the Greater Southwest. I believe he goes through some of the basic chronological changes in Fremont material culture. Better understanding Fremont chronology and significant temporal changes is a much-needed area of study in the region!
'promosm'
Fine example of scientific academic dismissing people. Babbling on about pots. Unable to understand or even ask. What's in the pots is why they travel. lol