Ceramic rattles have been reported from Mesoamerica and portions of aboriginal eastern North America (Roberts 1936). Within western North America, their occur\u00adrence may have been restricted to Kumeyaay territory. Ethnographically, the use of ceramic rattles by the Kumeyaay was attested by some informants (Spier 1923; Gifford 1931) but denied by others (Drucker 1937, 1941).<\/p>\n
![](\"https:\/\/sandiegoarchaeology.org\/Laylander\/Issues\/images\/rattle.gif\")
Rattle fragments have been reported from archaeological sites in western Imperial County, Mason Valley, Cuyamaca, and McCain Valley (Fenenga et al. 2015; Griset 1986; Laylander 1991; Laylander and Hedges 1992; Rogers 1936; Schaefer 1988; Treganza 1942; True 1970). The total number of reported rattle fragments is small, and it is possible that the apparent restriction of the artifacts to the southwestern Salton Basin and adjacent mountains may merely reflect the accidents of discovery.<\/p>\n
The identified rattle fragments show considerable diversity in their size, form, and decoration. It has been suggested that the rarity of rattles and the diversity in their design are indications of Kumeyaay cultural fluidity and openness to innovation (Laylander and Hedges 1992).<\/p>\n
PROSPECTS<\/b><\/p>\n
Future investigations may be able to clarify the geographical range for ceramic rattles and their chronology, methods and locations of manufacture, and variability in design.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Ceramic rattles have been reported from Mesoamerica and portions of aboriginal eastern North America (Roberts 1936). Within western North America, their occur\u00adrence may have been restricted to Kumeyaay territory. Ethnographically, the use of ceramic rattles by the Kumeyaay was attested by some informants (Spier 1923; Gifford 1931) but denied by others (Drucker 1937, 1941). Rattle fragments have been reported from archaeological sites in western Imperial County, Mason Valley, Cuyamaca, and McCain Valley (Fenenga et al. 2015; Griset 1986; Laylander 1991; Laylander and Hedges 1992; Rogers 1936; Schaefer 1988; Treganza 1942; True 1970). The total number of reported rattle fragments is small, and it is possible that the apparent restriction of the artifacts to the southwestern Salton Basin and adjacent mountains may merely reflect the accidents of discovery. The identified rattle fragments show considerable diversity in their size, form, and decoration. It has been suggested that the rarity of rattles and the diversity in their design are indications of Kumeyaay cultural fluidity and openness to innovation (Laylander and Hedges 1992). PROSPECTS Future investigations may be able to clarify the geographical range for ceramic rattles and their chronology, methods and locations of manufacture, and variability in design.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-613","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n