PART II
A DESCRIPTION FOR THE ARCHAEOLOGIST
PARKER RED-ON-BUFF, FORT MOHAVE VARIANT AND PARKER BUFF, FORT MOHAVE VARIANT
BY
MICHAEL J. HARNER
INTRODUCTION
The following analysis of the Mohave pottery collected by Professor Kroeber is primarily for the use of the archaeologist to aid him in identifying historic Mohave ceramics. Not represented in the collection is pottery made by the Mohave south of Parker. Some typological differences may exist between the pottery of those settlements and the pottery in Kroeber's collection, which is from Mohave Valley. In addition, the evidence seems to indicate that Mohave ceramics were undergoing changes in the late historic period. Since the historic period can be considered to extend back to the time of the first Spanish contacts, other chronologically significant "historic" Mohave pottery types or type variants may be discerned through additional research. For these reasons "Fort Mohave" is introduced here as a variant or subtype name in preference to using "Historic Mohave" which is felt to be too inclusive a term.
In referring to historic Mohave pottery, Malcolm Rogers (1945, p. 179) once used the name "Needles Red-on-Buff." However, the description of Needles Red-on-Buff by Colton (1939, pp. 12-13) and the use of that type name by Schroeder (1952, p. 32) indicate that each has in mind a type distinguishable from the pottery described in this paper. At the same time, Schroeder (1952, p. 20) clearly considers that his Parker types include historic Mohave pottery within their typological range, and I am of the same opinion. The descriptions of Parker Red-on-Buff, Parker Buff, and Parker Stucco by Schroeder (1952, pp. 19-22) agree in basic characteristics with most of the pottery described in the present paper. However, some forms which do not seem to occur prehistorically in the Lower Colorado Buff Ware, such as cups, ring bases and keels, are present in the late historic collection described here. Such new forms can be of definite use as chronological diagnostics, but it is difficult to justify setting up a new type on the basis of them alone. Consequently, the qualification "Fort Mohave variant" has been added to the Parker type names to denote this late historic pottery complex. When more detailed descriptions are available for the earlier ceramics of the Parker Series, the typological contrast may prove to be of sufficient scope to warrant classifying the Fort Mohave variants as full-fledged types. In any case, such descriptions must be made before useful comparisons can be attempted.
The description which follows does not include pottery figurines, toys, rattles, pipes, or pot rests. Also one undecorated jar[7] was not included in the study.
Techniques of description used here are almost entirely based upon Colton and Hargrave (1937), Shepard (MS), and Gifford (1953); the latter paper being also the source of the paint permanency scale.[8] Color analysis is based upon the Munsell Soil Color Chart and hardness tests upon Moh's scale. Depth and diameter measurements refer to exterior dimensions.