University of Virginia Library

Search this document 

collapse sectionI. 
collapse sectionII. 
collapse sectionD. 
Section D
collapse sectionIII. 
collapse sectionA. 
collapse sectionC. 
collapse sectionD. 
collapse sectionF. 
collapse sectionG. 
collapse sectionII. 

collapse sectionB. 
collapse section 

Section D

Pottery Evidence

Whole Forms.[3] —A list by types may well form the basis for the
discussion: 11 Escavada: 2 jars, 1 effigy jar, 2 bowls, 1 ladle, 1 bowl or
dipper, 1 pitcher, 3 small effigies—dog's (?) head, mouse (?), bird (?);
10 Gallup: 5 pitchers, 2 bowls, 1 dipper, 1 effigy, 1 worked sherd;
9 McElmo: 4 bowls, 2 ladles, 1 bowl or dipper, 1 pitcher, 1 frog effigy;
7 Red Mesa: 3 bowls, 1 pitcher, 1 ladle, 1 jar, 1 effigy; 4 Exuberant:


Page 40]
2 jars, 1 pitcher, 1 bowl; 4 Wingate Black on Red: 3 bowls, 1 worked
sherd; 2 Lino: 1 dipper, 1 effigy jar; 2 Upper Gila Corrugated; 1
bowl each of Sunset Red, La Plata Black on White, Deadman's Black
on Red. The Red Mesa ladle, the worked sherds, the Escavada
mouse (?) effigy, and one pot of Exuberant Corrugated came from
the debris of the refuse mound, while a bowl and pitcher of Red Mesa
and the pitcher of Exuberant Corrugated were with the cist
burial 60/31. All other vessels came from rooms and kivas, and the
vast majority of these were associated with burials (cf. Table 3).

In general, the distribution of whole vessel types is roughly similar
to that of sherd percentages. (See Table 2.) Escavada and Gallup
are the two most prominent types, if we take the sherds found in
rooms and kivas as a whole. The obvious discrepancy is in the relative
unimportance of Exuberant and Lino in the collection of whole vessels.
This, however, is clearly due to the fact that these utility wares were
not frequently used as grave furniture and hence had small chance
of preservation in whole form. (The only exceptions are the Exuberant
vessels with burials 17 and 31.) Another difference which attracts
attention is that, while there are more vessels of McElmo than of
Red Mesa, there are very distinctly more sherds of the latter type.
Since it seems likely that many of the burials, at least, date from a
period after the rooms in question had been abandoned, the question
therefore arises: is McElmo perhaps a pottery type which appears
relatively late at Bc 51? This appears very unlikely, however, when
we note that a McElmo bowl was found on the floor of the substructure
of Room 17. Another, found beneath the superstructure floor of
Room 16 contained wind-stratified sand, suggesting that it had been
abandoned in situ. Moreover, McElmo vessels were found associated
with Red Mesa and Deadman's Black on Red forms—both supposedly
rather early types.

Since association of vessels of two or more different pottery types
with a single burial generally means at least some overlap in the
period of usage of these types, let us note the instances given by our
data: Escavada, Gallup, Red Mesa, McElmo, and Upper Gila Corrugated
all occur together in one or more cases. Escavada and Sunset
Red occur in association, as do Wingate Black on Red, McElmo, and
Deadman's Black on Red. McElmo is, in a sense, the most omnipresent
ware at Bc 51, for whole forms appear in essentially all parts of the
site and at the most varied levels. In contrast, no complete vessels
of Escavada or Gallup were found in the rooms north of kiva 5 nor in
any of the substructures.


An Experiment.—Since sherds of certain types possess the
property of fracturing more easily than those of other types, and since
sherds from loci where there has been unusual weight, pressure, or

No Page Number

No Page Number

Table 2


Page [41
other physical disturbance may have broken into smaller fragments,
there is perhaps a possibility that percentage differences under some
circumstances might be deceptive. A priori, it seems plausible that
when dealing with large samples the cancellation of plus and minus
factors would obviate these difficulties, but I know of no empirical
examination of the question. As a small test, C. T. R. Bohannon
suggested that relative weights might be tried. We were aware, of
course, that using weights would bring other irrelevancies and difficulties
into the picture, but the experiment seemed, nevertheless,
worth trying. Time and the pressure of other duties did not permit us
to carry the experiment to a satisfactory conclusion, but the simple
facts on samples of 8 pottery types are presented for whatever of
interest, stimulation, or amusement they may induce:

Number of
Weight in
Relative Weight in
Ounces per 100 Sherds 
Exuberant  834  359  43.0 
Escavada  595  200  33.6 
Lino  435  131  30.1 
Red Mesa  276  90  32.6 
Gallup  194  92  47.4 
McElmo  75  32  42.6 

(Sherds came from various quarters of the excavation and all were
soaked overnight in water to equalize saturation.) It will be evident
that in some situations rank order taken by weight and by percentage
could be expected to be different.

Sherd Percentages.—The evidence is given in Table 2,[4] but since
the table is very compact, some analysis is perhaps called for.

The outstanding contrast with the sherd data from the refuse
mound is probably the position of Lino. As Dr. Hawley pointed out,
Lino is there the numerically ranking type at all levels examined,
although appreciably more predominant in the lower levels. In the
rooms and kivas, however, Lino is in majority at floor level only in
room 10 and kiva 2 and in the fill of rooms 9 and 23 (sub). It is
second ranking type at floor level in rooms 21 and 22 (sub) and kivas
5 and 6; also in the fill of rooms 16 (super) and 18 and of kivas
1 and 2. We note, however, that it is unequivocally predominant at


Page 42]
the 3′ to 6′ sub-floor level in rooms 1 and 3 and the ranking type at the
0-3′ sub-floor level of rooms 3, 4, and 7, and kivas 3 and 4 (and a
close second at this level in rooms 1, 2, and 8). One simple generalization
can be made with confidence: as one descends to the lower
levels in the northern portion of Bc 51 (and the adjacent refuse
mound) Lino rises sharply and unmistakably in prominence. It seems
plausible to connect this fact with the hypothesis that the Lino Gray
and Lino Fugitive Red pottery types were those manufactured in
greatest quantity by the pithouse dwellers.

In the rooms and kivas the ranking position is taken by another
utility ware, Exuberant Corrugated, which is in majority at floor
level in all save rooms 7, 10, 15, 20, 22 (super), 23 (super) and kivas
2 and 6, and in about an equal number of the fills. Escavada is the
most prominent painted type, having the ranking percentage at floor
level in 4 rooms and 2 kivas and in the fill of 4 rooms and 1 kiva
and being second at floor level in 3 rooms and 1 kiva and in the fill
of 10 rooms and 3 kivas. Red Mesa is distinctly less prominent than
in Bc 50, for it is first only in one sub-floor level and in the fill of one
room, and at floor level appears in the 2nd and 3rd categories but
3 times. Gallup runs more frequently than Red Mesa in the 3rd and
4th brackets but, in contrast to Bc 50, never attains 1st place.

No single floor level can be assigned to a Red Mesa pottery complex.
Almost without qualification, the rooms and kivas are characterized
by that pottery complex of which Exuberant and Escavada
are the outstanding types, while sub-floor levels show a consistent
rise in percentage of Lino and (in many cases) of Red Mesa. The
only putatively trade wares found, which have not been discussed
or referred to by Dr. Hawley,[5] are Deadman's Black on White,[6] and
Puerco Black on White.[7]

Sherd evidence affords no unequivocal indications as to relative
age of the various rooms and kivas, though possibly a somewhat
greater age of kiva 5 may be indicated by the absence of Gallup and
other putatively late types in significant percentages. It is noteworthy
that the pottery complexes of the substructure are hardly distinguishable
from those of upper rooms, generally. The rise of Red Mesa to
2nd place at floor level and of Lino to 1st in floor fill of room 23 (sub)
prompted investigation, but the use of the chi-squared test of significance
gave odds of less than 1 in 3 that the difference was meaningful.
Similarly, there is no statistical warrant for taking the position of
Lino in rooms 9 and 10 and in kiva 2 very seriously. (The samples
in room 9 and kiva 2 are so small that, in any case, inference would be


Page [43
hazardous in the extreme). Wall sherd data (unfortunately very
limited) does not change the general picture.

Careful study of percentages by levels indicated a probably significant
rise in Gallup in the upper levels (and also in the northern
as opposed to the southern rooms of the ruin). Although found at
floor and sub-floor levels associated with Red Mesa, Gallup is definitely
more prominent at surface or near surface levels. For example the
17 sherds in the firepit to the southwest of the surface of kiva 2 gave:
Gallup, 59; Chaco Corrugated, 23; Exuberant, 12; Deadman's Black
on Red, 6. Similarly, though less consistently, Chaco Black on White
and Chaco Corrugated bulk larger in the northern area and in levels
nearer the surface.

Analyzing the fill by levels and taking a pottery complex as
defined by the three most numerous types, 90 per cent of the complexes
by levels are made up of varying permutations of these types: Exuberant,
Escavada, Lino, Gallup, Red Mesa (with Exuberant present in
some position in more than 95 per cent of instances). Into roughly 10
per cent of the complexes by levels one of the following enters: McElmo,
Wingate Black on Red, Chaco Corrugated, Sunset Red, Chaco
Black on White, Kana-a Black on White, La Plata Black on White.

In the sum, the data of Table 2 affords some confirmation of the
general stratigraphic sequence of the Lino, Red Mesa, and Escavada
pottery complexes posited in Part I, Section A, but suggest that the
period when floor and room and kiva fill sherds accumulated fell within
the ascendancy of the Escavada complex. The evidence indicates
considerable trade.


A table was prepared which showed all fill percentages by 1 foot levels (and
with separate entries for the stratigraphy column). Comments based on analysis of
this table appear in the text. Not only, however, would the printing of such a table
in its entirety have been prohibitively expensive, but such an arrangement is, up to
a point, actually misleading for it tacitly assumes that rooms were filled in
strictly even layers at right angles to the room walls. This first table (and the original
laboratory identification sheets) may be examined at the University of New Mexico
and a copy of the table is on deposit at the Peabody Museum of Harvard University.


See Part I, Section A (and the pages of Brand, et. al., there cited) and Part
III, Section A. (Dr. Hawley is, of course, responsible for all pottery identifications
in this section.)


See Colton and Hargrave, 1937, pp. 208-9.


See Hawley, 1936, p. 34.


This category covers all which were sufficiently complete or sufficiently restorable
to be recorded in the field catalog of artifacts. It will be convenient to include in
the discussion the few such not found in rooms and kivas.