![\"\"](\"http:\/\/sandiegoarchaeology.org\/baja-and-california\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/pipes-with-caption.gif\")
Several ethnographers and archaeologists have suggested that pipe forms might be correlated with ethnic traditions:<\/p>\nCeramic smoking pipes are an uncommon artifact type in San Diego County. Two main pipe styles have been recognized: a straight, tubular form; and a curved, bow-shaped form with a flanged handle. Within the first type, a subtype of pipes with a flared bowl has sometimes been distinguished.<\/p>\n
Several ethnographers and archaeologists have suggested that pipe forms might be correlated with ethnic traditions:<\/p>\n
A summary of archaeologically reported pipes and pipe fragments in the table below shows a somewhat greater proportion of straight pipes in Luise\u00f1o territory than in either northern or southern Kumeyaay territory, although the contrast is not statistically significant, according to a chi-square test.<\/p>\n
| Site<\/b><\/td>\n | Ethnic \nTerritory \n(Heizer 1978)<\/b><\/td>\n | Straight<\/b><\/td>\n | Bow<\/b><\/td>\n | Other \nor Not \nSpecified<\/b><\/td>\n | References<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n| SDI-217<\/td>\n | Luise\u00f1o<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | 1<\/td>\n | Waugh 1986<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-308<\/td>\n | Luise\u00f1o<\/td>\n | 1<\/td>\n | 2<\/td>\n | 5<\/td>\n | True et al. 1974<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-616<\/td>\n | Luise\u00f1o<\/td>\n | 3<\/td>\n | 2<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | True 1966<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-682<\/td>\n | Luise\u00f1o<\/td>\n | 3<\/td>\n | 6<\/td>\n | 9<\/td>\n | True et al. 1991<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-721<\/td>\n | Luise\u00f1o<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | 3<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | True 1966<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-789<\/td>\n | Luise\u00f1o<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | 3<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | True 1966<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-5353<\/td>\n | Luise\u00f1o<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | 1<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | Koerper et al. 1992<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-799<\/td>\n | Cupe\u00f1o<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | 1<\/td>\n | White et al. 1983<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-4513<\/td>\n | Ipai<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | 1<\/td>\n | Gall\u00adegos et al. 1989<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-5017<\/td>\n | Ipai<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | 1<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | Winter\u00adrowd and Cardenas 1987<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-5383<\/td>\n | Ipai<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | 1<\/td>\n | Nor\u00adwood 1982<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-5426<\/td>\n | Ipai<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | 1<\/td>\n | 1<\/td>\n | Van Horn 1988<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-55224<\/td>\n | Ipai<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | 1<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | Wade et al. 1990<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-5669<\/td>\n | Ipai<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | 1<\/td>\n | 23<\/td>\n | Berryman 1981<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-5680<\/td>\n | Ipai<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | 1<\/td>\n | Domi\u00adnici 1985<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-5938<\/td>\n | Ipai<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | 1<\/td>\n | 1<\/td>\n | Pignio\u00adlo 1987<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-11,068<\/td>\n | Ipai<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | 3<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | Schroth and Gallegos 1991<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDM-W-1556<\/td>\n | Ipai<\/td>\n | 1<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | O’Neil 1982<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-860<\/td>\n | Tipai<\/td>\n | 2<\/td>\n | 13<\/td>\n | 46<\/td>\n | True 1966, 1970<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-903<\/td>\n | Tipai<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | 1<\/td>\n | Gross and Sampson 1990<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-913<\/td>\n | Tipai<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | present<\/td>\n | –<\/td>\n | True 1966<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-2537<\/td>\n | Tipai<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | 2<\/td>\n | 4<\/td>\n | Griset 1986<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDM-C-144<\/td>\n | Tipai<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | 2<\/td>\n | True 1966<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-W-202<\/td>\n | Tipai<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | 1<\/td>\n | True 1966<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDM-W-256<\/td>\n | Tipai<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | 10<\/td>\n | True 1966<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDM-W-348<\/td>\n | Tipai<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | 1<\/td>\n | Cardenas and Van Wormer 1984<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n | Besides contrasts in ethnic traditions, other expla\u00adnations for the existence of distinct pipe forms might be that the pipes were non-local ex\u00adchange items, that the manufacturing of one form predated the other, and that different forms were used primarily in different functional contexts (e.g., recreational smoking, shamanism or curing, and funeral observances).<\/p>\n PROSPECTS<\/b><\/p>\n Future archaeological investigations may be able to shed light on the distribution of different pipe forms within different ethnic territories, during different time periods, and within different functional contexts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Ceramic smoking pipes are an uncommon artifact type in San Diego County. Two main pipe styles have been recognized: a straight, tubular form; and a curved, bow-shaped form with a flanged handle. Within the first type, a subtype of pipes with a flared bowl has sometimes been distinguished. Several ethnographers and archaeologists have suggested that pipe forms might be correlated with ethnic traditions: Philip Stedman Sparkman (1908) reported that the Luise\u00f1o used short, tubular pipes. Leslie Spier (1923) noted that the southern Kumeyaay used bow pipes. He specifically denied that they used the straight form. According to Edward W. Gifford (1931), the Kumeyaay of Imperial Valley did not use ceramic pipes at all. Malcolm J. Rogers (1936) apparently combined ethnographic and archaeological information when he reported that bow pipes were most common among the northern Kumeyaay (Ipai) and probably originated among them, that southern Kumeyaay also used bow pipes exclusively, and that the pipes of the Luise\u00f1o, Cupe\u00f1o, and Cahuilla were straight in form and relatively few in number. Discussing archaeological observations relating to the lower Colorado River area, Rogers (1945) attributed straight ceramic pipes to the Yuman I period (prior to ca. A.D. 1050) and did not assign any pipe form to Yuman II or to Yuman III. D. L. True (1966, 1970; True et al. 1991) observed archaeological\u00adly that the bow pipe was typical of Kumeyaay territory, but that occasional specimens were found in Luise\u00f1o territory. He classified ceramic pipes among the artifact types that he “believed to have potential future diagnostic value” for distinguishing Yuman from Uto-Aztecan assemblages (True 1966:237-239). Gena R. Van Camp (1979) reiterated Rogers’ views, although adding that bow pipes were infrequent in the northern portion of Kum\u00adeyaay territory as compared to the south\u00adern portion. Jackson Underwood (2004) reviewed ethnographic evidence concerning pipe forms and contexts of tobacco use among the Yuman and Uto-Aztecan groups of southern California. Among his conclusions was that bow pipes were not treated as ceremonial objects. A summary of archaeologically reported pipes and pipe fragments in the table below shows a somewhat greater proportion of straight pipes in Luise\u00f1o territory than in either northern or southern Kumeyaay territory, although the contrast is not statistically significant, according to a chi-square test. Site Ethnic Territory (Heizer 1978) Straight Bow Other or Not Specified References SDI-217 Luise\u00f1o — — 1 Waugh 1986 SDI-308 Luise\u00f1o 1 2 5 True et al. 1974 SDI-616 Luise\u00f1o 3 2 — True 1966 SDI-682 Luise\u00f1o 3 6 9 True et al. 1991 SDI-721 Luise\u00f1o — 3 — True 1966 SDI-789 Luise\u00f1o — 3 — True 1966 SDI-5353 Luise\u00f1o — 1 — Koerper et al. 1992 SDI-799 Cupe\u00f1o — — 1 White et al. 1983 SDI-4513 Ipai — — 1 Gall\u00adegos et al. 1989 SDI-5017 Ipai — 1 — Winter\u00adrowd and Cardenas 1987 SDI-5383 Ipai — — 1 Nor\u00adwood 1982 SDI-5426 Ipai — 1 1 Van Horn 1988 SDI-55224 Ipai — 1 — Wade et al. 1990 SDI-5669 Ipai — 1 23 Berryman 1981 SDI-5680 Ipai — — 1 Domi\u00adnici 1985 SDI-5938 Ipai — 1 1 Pignio\u00adlo 1987 SDI-11,068 Ipai — 3 — Schroth and Gallegos 1991 SDM-W-1556 Ipai 1 — — O’Neil 1982 SDI-860 Tipai 2 13 46 True 1966, 1970 SDI-903 Tipai — — 1 Gross and Sampson 1990 SDI-913 Tipai — present – True 1966 SDI-2537 Tipai — 2 4 Griset 1986 SDM-C-144 Tipai — — 2 True 1966 SDI-W-202 Tipai — — 1 True 1966 SDM-W-256 Tipai — — 10 True 1966 SDM-W-348 Tipai — — 1 Cardenas and Van Wormer 1984 Besides contrasts in ethnic traditions, other expla\u00adnations for the existence of distinct pipe forms might be that the pipes were non-local ex\u00adchange items, that the manufacturing of one form predated the other, and that different forms were used primarily in different functional contexts (e.g., recreational smoking, shamanism or curing, and funeral observances). PROSPECTS Future archaeological investigations may be able to shed light on the distribution of different pipe forms within different ethnic territories, during different time periods, and within different functional contexts.<\/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-618","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n |