Addressing Some Problems Related to Research on Mimbres Ceramics and their Iconography

Abstract

The Mimbres Black-on-white ceramic tradition that flourished in the region centered in southwest New Mexico ca. AD 750-1130 offers the scholar an almost unrivaled corpus of iconography and has been the subject of many interpretative studies. Unfortunately, much of this research is compromised by the incorporation of vessels from both private and museum collections that lack provenience and provenance information. The publication of privately-held ceramics can increase their market value, and both categories potentially incorporate deceptive post-excavation modifications. Most Mimbres archaeologists have long been aware of this situation, but recent analytical and statistical studies have confirmed these claims. Additionally, the creation of the Mimbres Pottery Images Digital Database (MimPIDD) has made it easier for the researcher to investigate the provenience and provenance of known vessels. This paper argues for studying only vessels with full provenience and provenance, and it proposes a secure dataset thereof for future research.

La tradición cerámica Mimbres negro sobre blanco que floreció en la región centrada en el suroeste de Nuevo México ca. 750–1130 d.C. ofrece al estudioso un corpus iconográfico casi inigualable y ha sido objeto de muchos estudios interpretativos. Desafortunadamente, gran parte de esta investigación se ve comprometida por la incorporación de vasijas de colecciones tanto privadas como de museos que carecen de procedencia e información sobre procedencia. La publicación de cerámicas de propiedad privada puede aumentar su valor de mercado, y ambas categorías potencialmente incorporan modificaciones engañosas posteriores a la excavación. La mayoría de los arqueólogos de Mimbres son conscientes de esta situación desde hace mucho tiempo, pero estudios analíticos y estadísticos recientes han confirmado estas afirmaciones. Además, la creación de la Base de Datos Digital de Imágenes de Cerámica de Mimbres (MimPIDD) ha facilitado al investigador investigar la procedencia y procedencia de vasijas conocidas. Este artículo aboga por estudiar solo embarcaciones con procedencia y procedencia completas, y propone un conjunto de datos seguro de los mismos para futuras investigaciones.

KEYWORDS:

• Mimbres
• Mogollon
• iconography
• cultural heritage crime

Acknowledgments

Neither archaeological research nor the reporting thereof are solitary activities, and although any remaining flaws in this work must remain my own responsibility, many others both within and beyond the discipline aided in the production of this paper and therefore deserve to share in the credit for whatever aspects of it the reader deems meritorious. Above all, I owe my gratitude to Steven LeBlanc and Michelle Hegmon for access to the Mimbres Pottery Archive (2011) and the Mimbres Pottery Images Digital Database (2013). For almost two decades now, Margaret Berrier has been both my greatest friend and most thoughtful and uncompromising critic in Southern Mogollon archaeology, inspiring and challenging me in equal parts, and her excellent drawings have elevated this paper just as they have several previous collaborations. And although I never met her colleague John Davis alas, he too has shared his knowledge with me through Margaret. Darrell Creel, Roger Anyon, Barbara Roth, Patricia Gilman, Harry Shafer, and Danni Romero have all contributed immensely to my understanding of Mimbres archaeology and ceramics, and I am grateful for their patient mentoring. Thatcher Seltzer-Rogers read the first two drafts of this paper and offered excellent edits and suggestions, including the Chi-square analysis of data from Hegmon and colleagues (2017), and it is a much stronger work thanks to him. Chris Turnbow emphasized the importance of MimPIDD #4008, the peculiar warrior bowl from the Buckingham Friends School, and both he and Alan Stifleman shared unpublished studies and other documents related to that vessel. Landis Smith kindly gave permission to cite her unpublished report on this vessel. Doug Achim provided a helpful window into the antiquities trade. The three senior scholars who first reviewed this paper – Roger Anyon, Michelle Hegmon, and William Russell – all provided detailed and valuable critiques, as did the second round of reviewers (who remained anonymous), and I have attempted to address the points of their critiques here. I feel the final paper is an immensely better work thanks to them. Last, but not least, my partner Anya Martin once again turned her professional editing skills to my prose, and we all benefit from her efforts.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 Although archaeologists sometimes use the terms “provenience” and “provenance” more or less interchangeably, I use them here with the specific distinction that provenience refers to the actual place or findspot of an object along with its associational and stratigraphic context, while provenance refers to the modern (post-excavation) history of an artifact, in particular the chain of custody between its original provenience and its current curational location, along with any transformations and/or alterations it has undergone along the way.

2 Although the works of Cunkle (2000), Evans and colleagues (1985), and Snodgrass (1975) are amateurish, even fringe publications (Evans and colleagues include a chapter on Atlantis, and Cunkle strikes a decidedly “New Age” tone), all contain large numbers of images of Mimbres bowls, many of which are not published elsewhere, making them at least potentially useful prior to the online launch of MimPIDD. Snodgrass also provides basic provenience/provenance information for his images, more in fact than many other publications did at the time. Evans and colleagues (1985) provide the primary documentation of ceramics from the Baca site.

3 Lee and Khandekar (2012:222) identify two additional bowls as “questionable,” but do not consider their data sufficient to make conclusive determinations regarding their authenticity.

4 The vessel number in their paper, 6044, does not match the vessel in the current version of the database, where it is coded as MimPIDD #9346.

5 Brody and colleagues actually published an image of MimPIDD #4012 in 1977 (Figure 17), without any suggestion that its imagery might be spurious, identifying it as the depiction of a ceremony and inaccurately implying that it came from the Swarts site (1977:48). Evans and colleagues published a drawing of it and gave it two fanciful names: “Ceremonial Scene” and “The Women Had a Vote” (1985:143).

6 This bowl was at one point in the Kings’ collection, as it appears in Moyer’s 1980 catalog thereof, where it is described as “highly mended” (Figure 122, 92), but I was unable to confirm whether it went to the Deming Luna Mimbres Museum with the rest of their collection. Much of the Kings’ collection was stolen from their home in 1986 (Moyer 1980:13), and although some of it was later recovered in California by the FBI, it is not clear whether all of it was returned, and some pieces were badly damaged during shipping back to New Mexico (Darrell Creel, personal communication 2023). Although the current location of this vessel is unknown, I share the images here given that they are unlikely to raise its resale value on the antiquities market.

7 An additional ethical issue, albeit one somewhat beyond the focus of this paper, pertains to the publication of virtually all images of Mimbres ceramics. The majority of these vessels have been recovered from burials, and this is particularly true for Style III bowls on which representational iconography is most abundant and elaborate. Indigenous descendant communities have raised justifiable objections to the publication of photos of artifacts from burial contexts. For this reason, I include here only drawings of vessels, rather than photographs, and even then, I have limited the inclusion of vessels with “kill-holes” as much as possible. This feature, the marker of a specialized termination event, is especially typical of, though not exclusive to, bowls included with burials from the Mimbres Classic. Although museums have long displayed Mimbres ceramics with little consideration for their context, that began to change rapidly in 2019, when the Art Institute of Chicago was forced to postpone a major exhibition of Mimbres bowls, largely or entirely from one private collection, after Indigenous leaders raised concerns regarding the lack of prior tribal consultations (Dafoe 2019; Johnson 2019). The University of Minnesota subsequently initiated the repatriation of its Mimbres collections (largely excavated at Galaz; Boudinot 2022), and other institutions have restricted access to their own collections. During the same period, the number of Indigenous nations claiming the Mimbres as ancestors more than doubled. Although the publication and public presentation of photographs of Mimbres ceramics is now widely viewed as inappropriate and disrespectful, drawings generally remain acceptable, and that practice is followed herein. At heart, archaeologists and Indigenous communities share common interests in the protection of cultural heritage, and this means adopting shared and respectful protocols for preservation and research. The future of our discipline depends on strengthening these partnerships. Relying on professional drawings of burial goods rather than photographs, as I have done in this paper, is one way to demonstrate good faith in our current and future relationships with Indigenous communities. The issue of unprovenienced bowls affects this decision as well. Although it is often possible to determine from published reports which vessels excavated in controlled contexts came from burials and which did not, the lack of available provenience information for many vessels in museums and private collections, and the possibility that kill-holes have been “repaired” or “restored,” makes it impossible to determine even provisionally whether or not these came from burials. We must therefore “err on the side of the angels” and limit images in publications and professional presentations to drawings. It is time for our discipline to prioritize respect for Indigenous communities and their ancestors. Finally, I stress the importance of publishing only “accurate” drawings of Mimbres vessels, i.e. drawings that show not only the iconography of the original ceramics, but also any cracks, damage, and modifications (including kill-holes when present), all insofar as available reference images allow. Most importantly, these drawings should show the entire vessel, not just any figurative imagery in its center. Whenever possible, data regarding the exteriors of the bowls should also be included.