SOUTHWESTERN ARCHEOLOGY ROBERTS 527 



the finding of Pueblo potsherds in Hohokam sites or an association 

 of potsherds in border-line districts separating the two provinces. 

 Pueblo I potsherds have been found in Colonial sites, Pueblo II-III 

 in Sedentary, Pueblo III-IV in Classic. In southwestern Ncav Mex- 

 ico a series of sites designated Mogollon by Gladwin, which differ 

 from both the Hohokam and the Pueblo, yielded a few northern 

 sherds identified as Basket Maker III by the Gila Pueblo group but 

 considered as typical Pueblo I by this writer, as well as some Colonial 

 Hohokam. From this evidence it has been suggested that the Colo- 

 nial existed through Basket Maker III, Pueblo I and II into early 

 III. Since the site in question furnished a dendrochronological date 

 of 900 and it is known that Pueblo I was in full flower in the north 

 by 777, the cross finds are not as significant as they might be under 

 other circumstances. Furthermore, no Hohokam sherds have thus 

 far been found in any Basket Maker III sites. The Pueblo I mate- 

 rial associated with Hohokam Colonial has been mainly of the Ka- 

 yenta black on white type, which present evidence indicates to be 

 later than the Chaco black on white or eastern form of Pueblo I. 

 Under the circumstances it would seem precipitate to attempt any 

 closer correlation than that of an approximate synchronization. 



One of the interesting problems is that of the paddle-and-anvil 

 pottery. The question naturally arises as to where this method was 

 derived from and what relation it bears to the other areas where a 

 similar technique was used. If the modern Pima are descendants of 

 the Hohokam, their pottery-making methods may possibly be con- 

 sidered as a heritage from their predecessors. The Pima pottery is 

 paddle-and-anvil finished, but it is built up bj^ coiling, as is also the 

 case in the southern California and Colorado River tribes. If the 

 same was true for the Hohokam, there was not as great a difference 

 in southwestern ceramics as the general statement, so frequently 

 heard in discussions of late, of coiled versus paddle-and-anvil pot- 

 tery would indicate. Basically they are similar, as Gifford pointed 

 out a number of years ago when he stated " there are two methods 

 of making coiled pottery * * * ^j^ ^^^ Southwest." *^ The dis- 

 tinction lies in the finishing processes. 



COMMENTARY 



The Pecos Classification has been enthusiastically praised on the 

 one hand and ardently damned on the other. Its proponents have 

 felt that it was the most outstanding advance in years, whereas those 

 who have not subscribed to its tenets are convinced that it represents 

 the ultimate in asininity. Both the pros and the cons, however, 

 have shown a propensity to fall into the same error, namely, that of 



« Gifford, 1928. 



