Mohave Pottery — Key Ideas to Explore
Edition facts
Mohave Pottery — Key Ideas to Explore can be approached with a clearer sense of reading commitment from its source measurements: 18,807 words, 1 hr 22 min estimated reading time, and 3 detected text sections.
The text analysis averages about 13.7 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.
Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “Indian pottery -- North America,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.
Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.
How this score is calculated
- Description quality20 pts
- Title & short description10 pts
- Source metadata20 pts
- Text length15 pts
- Chapters / structure15 pts
- EPUB file integrity20 pts
Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.
Read the Text
Produced by Chris Curnow, Katie Hernandez, Joseph Cooper and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
Transcriber Note: Bold text in the original version has been marked like =this=.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS BERKELEY AND LOS ANGELES 1961
KRAUS REPRINT CO. Millwood, New York 1976
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS BERKELEY AND LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON, ENGLAND
_Reprinted with the permission of the University of California Press_
A U.S. Division of Kraus-Thomson Organization Limited
1. Mohave Pottery, by A. L. Kroeber and Michael J. Harner 1 2. The Aboriginal Population of the San Joaquin Valley, California, by S. F. Cook 31 3. The Aboriginal Population of the North Coast of California, by S. F. Cook 81 4. The Aboriginal Population of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California, by S. F. Cook 131 5. California Athabascan Groups, by Martin A. Baumhoff 157 6. Colonial Expeditions to the Interior of California, Central Valley, 1800-1820, by S. F. Cook 239 7. Shoshone-Bannock Subsistence and Society, by Robert F. Murphy and Yolanda Murphy 293 8. A Burial Cave in Baja California, The Palmer Collection, 1887, by William C. Massey and Carolyn M. Osborne 339 9. Washo Religion, by James F. Downs 365
BY A. L. KROEBER AND MICHAEL J. HARNER
ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS Vol. 16, No. 1 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS
Editors (Berkeley): R. L. Olson, R. F. Heizer, T. D. McCown, J. H. Rowe Volume 16, No. 1, pp. 1-30, plates 1-8, 2 figures in text
Submitted by editors August 4, 1954 Issued May 6, 1955 Price, 75 cents
University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles California
Cambridge University Press London, England
Manufactured in the United States of America
The pottery here described was collected fifty years ago by Kroeber and is all in the University's Museum of Anthropology.
It is described for ethnological comparability by Kroeber, with emphasis on use, shape, painted design, and names of designs; and for archaeological utilization by Harner, with special attention to ware, temper, firing, hardness, forms, paint and color, and technological considerations generally. The two parts were written independently. They overlap here and there, especially on vessel shapes; but, after a few duplications were excised, it has seemed advantageous, after adding a brief concordance of terms employed by the two authors, to let the independent treatments of shapes stand double.
No comparisons with other native ceramic arts, recent or ancient, are undertaken by us.
PART I. ETHNOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Page Pottery shapes recognized by the Mohave 1 Pottery objects other than vessels 2 Technological notes 2 Description of the pottery 3 Plate 1: Bowls 3 Plate 2: Bowls 3 Plate 3: Platters 4 Plate 4: Spoons 5 Plate 5: Jars, pots, jugs, cups 6 Plate 6: Bowls, platters, parchers, canteens 7 Plate 7: Spoon backs, toys, pipes, pot rests 7 Plate 8: Jar, cup, platter, bowls, spoons 8 Summary of shapes 8 Summary of painted designs and elements 9 The Mohave pottery style 10
Appendix I. Memoranda on the destroyed Academy collection 12 Appendix II. A small Mohave bowl 12 Appendix III. Granite temper and limonite pigment examination, by Professor Charles Meyer 13 Appendix IV. Mohave pottery in other museums 13 Appendix V. Correlation of Kroeber and Harner shape classes 13
PART II. A DESCRIPTION FOR THE ARCHAEOLOGIST
PARKER RED-ON-BUFF, FORT MOHAVE VARIANT, AND PARKER BUFF, FORT MOHAVE VARIANT
Introduction 15 Parker Red-on-Buff, Fort Mohave variant 16 Parker Buff, Fort Mohave variant 18 Bibliography 20 Plates 23
PART I ETHNOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
POTTERY SHAPES RECOGNIZED BY THE MOHAVE
The generic Mohave name for pottery vessels seems to be kwáθki,[1] the word for bowl.
[1] Orthography: θ, ð, like th in thick, this; s, somewhat retroflex; tš, much like English ch; ly, ny, palatalized l, n, like Castilian ll, ñ (y is never a vowel in the transcription used); v, bilabial; t, retroflex; ', glottal stop; q, a back k; h is rather faint initially, but rough, nearly like Spanish j when medial, final (or initial through slurring of an unaccented initial vowel). Unaccented phonemic a is sounded a or e indifferently. Length is not indicated in this paper. The acute accent on vowels indicates a stressed syllable, which is also raised in pitch.
The shapes for which Mohave names were obtained are mainly those which segregate out objectively on examination of a collection:
kwáθki, an open bowl with slightly everted lip, often with a band of mesquite bark--both bean mesquite and screw mesquite are specified in my notes--tied around the neck. The shape is shown in pls. 1, 2, 6,_a_-_c_, 8,_d_-_h_; the name kwáθki was specifically applied to 1,_d_, 2,_b_, 2,_h_, 6,_a_.
kayéθa, a platter, that is, a low round bowl or flat dish without neck or everted lip, was applied to pl. 3,_d_. The shape is shown in pls. 3,_a_-_d_, _g_, 8,_c_.
kayúka, pl. 3,_c_, or kakápa, also a platter, but oval, and smaller. Pls. 3,_e_, _f_, _h_-_j_, 6,_d_, _e_.
Kroeber and Harner's Mohave Pottery is built on a deliberate structural division: Kroeber addresses ethnological comparability—use, shape, and design names—while Harner focuses on archaeological utility—ware, temper, firing, and hardness. The foreword notes that the two parts were written independently, and that after excising duplications, the editors let the independent treatments of shapes stand double. This choice foregrounds the authors' distinct disciplinary lenses rather than smoothing them into a single voice.
Two Vocabularies for One Collection
The same vessels are described twice, but with different emphases. Kroeber's section foregrounds Mohave terminology: design names like tšitθôk, hotahpave ("halter"), and ta-skilye-skilye (referring to a column of horizontal points in women's chin tattooing). He notes that several design names also appear as face-painting names in the Handbook, suggesting a shared visual vocabulary across media. Harner, by contrast, classifies by technological attributes: paste, temper, firing atmosphere, and hardness. The reader can compare, for instance, how a bowl described by Kroeber as bearing a "coyote teeth" design is characterized by Harner in terms of its ceramic composition.
Patterns Named from the Body and the World
Kroeber's summary of design names reveals a naming system grounded in observable, often animate, referents. Animals predominate: fish (back)bone, coyote teeth, raccoon hand, yellowhammer belly, tortoise, spider, butterfly. Plant parts appear only once (cottonwood leaves). Several names derive from face painting or tattooing patterns—ta-tsirqa-tsirqa, for instance, corresponds to sharp points under the eyes. A few are purely descriptive, like ta-hlame-hlame ("patches") or kyauelkyau ("angled, zigzag"). Kroeber explicitly states that there is "no deeper symbolic significance" in the pattern names, a claim that limits interpretive speculation but also underscores the Mohave potters' own taxonomic logic.
The Role of Stippling and Negative Space
Both authors attend to surface treatment, but Kroeber's catalog of painted elements is particularly detailed. He distinguishes stippling used as shading, as border, or as area fill, and notes its occurrence on specific vessels (e.g., bowls 1a–h, platter 3d). He also identifies a "negative (dark) effect" where the background is dark and the pattern light, or where dark and light areas alternate evenly. This attention to visual contrast—solid angles, filled-in corners, polka dots, fishnet-like crossing lines—suggests that Mohave potters manipulated figure-ground relationships deliberately. Harner's technological notes on paint and color would complement this, but the excerpts do not include his full analysis.
Concordance and the Limits of Overlap
The foreword promises a "brief concordance of terms employed by the two authors," acknowledging that their independent treatments may use different words for the same vessel shape or design element. This editorial device is crucial: it signals that the two descriptions are not redundant but complementary, and that the reader must navigate between them. The excerpts show that Kroeber's shape categories (bowls, platters, spoons, jars, jugs, cups, canteens, pipes, pot rests) are organized by plate numbers, while Harner's likely follow a different logic. The concordance would help map one system onto the other, but its absence from the excerpts leaves the reader to infer the points of contact.
Because the two authors wrote independently, the reader is encouraged to move between their sections, comparing how the same vessel is described ethnographically and archaeologically. The design names recorded by Kroeber offer a rare glimpse into Mohave classification, while Harner's technological data provide a material baseline. The book's value lies less in a unified account than in the productive friction between its two analytical registers.
Reading about two voices circling one clay pot, I thought of my grandmother’s hands on her own ceramics, each mark a quiet argument with time. That same tension lives in A Lecture on Stained Glass — Inside the Classic, where light becomes a vocabulary too. Both books let artifacts speak past their makers, and I felt oddly at home there. The old ache of naming something without owning it.
There are no reviews for this eBook.
How will you remember this book?
Save your reaction, strongest insight, and memorable passage.