DB,

The problem with such an over-reaching term as "colonoware" is that it lacks
a scientific basis for use of the term. Depending on where you work, local
literature defines the term "ware" using different attributes. Then you have the
"colono" part applying to completely unrelated cultures. Out here in
southwestern California, for example, local Kumeyaay (Yuman-speaking people) and
several Shoshonean-speaking families produced prehistoric pottery from residual
(Tizon Brown Ware) and sedimentary (Lower Colorado River Buff Ware) for over 1,000
years. They produced it at the time Spain invaded California and enslaved
coastal people into the Roman Catholic mission system. Some of those native
potters were transported as far north as the Los Angeles area, where there is no
tradition of pottery-making in pre-contract times. Some people living at those
Spanish settlements clearly met their own needs by mining local clays, mixing
animal dung or sand for temper, and produced crude bowls, fire pots, and water
jars for local use. Some of the pottery clearly was produced by people with
knowledge of the coil-paddle-anvil construction method, but the product did not
reflect the quality of native pottery. This is just too complicated to employ
the over-simplistic term "colonoware" because the act of colonizing the area
had less to do with the ware than a blend of cultural traditions. I, for one,
am opposed to using the term here in California.

Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.