University of Virginia Library

Section A


By Florence Hawley

In 1934, accounts of a number of Chaco pottery types were published.[1]
In 1936, I published systematic descriptions of the greater
number of pottery types which had, up to that time, been recognized in
the Chaco.[2] Illustrations and further descriptive material were published
in 1937.[3] The purpose of the present section is to name and
describe one new type, to publish the first extended descriptions of two
other types, and to make certain additions to previously published
descriptions. The material on the new type will first be presented, then
the data (following the alphabetic order of the names) on the types
which have already appeared in print. The additions are, of course,
to be construed as additions to (or slight modifications of) the previously
published descriptions.

Sandstone Black on Orange.[4] —This new type which, for convenience
in listing, was given this tentative name, was identified in 1937, and
rechecked and submitted to several archaeologists for comment in
1938.[5] These black and orange sherds have been found scattered
through various levels of the refuse mound. It is not native but
intrusive. The native provenience is not yet definitely known but it is
suggested to be north of the Chaco, perhaps in the Four Corners
country. The collection of Mr. J. Flora of Durango contains numerous
specimens of this type, locally known as "Intrusive Redware."
Earl Morris speaks of it as "Early Black on Red." Recently Paul Martin
has spoken of it as "La Plata Black on Red." It's period has been
given as BM III.

Paste: Dull orange, flecked with golden specks, presumably of yellow
mica. Homogeneous, fine. Core often gray, otherwise orange.

Temper: Dark particles, apparently volcanic sand or crushed volcanic
crystals predominant; occasionally some light colored fine sand.

Construction: One large sherd shows flat indentations suggesting finish
by paddle and anvil.

Wall: c. 4 mm.


Page 50]

Hardness: Ranges from 2 to 4.5, preponderantly 2.5 to 3.5.[6]

Finish: Interior well smoothed and covered with thin slip slightly
darker orange than paste. Bowl exterior unslipped or thinly
slipped; marked with horizontal scraping streaks, uneven and
slightly bumpy. Small golden flecks prominent on both surfaces
which, in themselves, are usually of low luster. A few specimens
show a fairly high polish, horizontal polishing marks, and a color
more light brown than orange.

Designs: Simple unit designs of solid triangles and lines in very thin
dull black paint (not yet tested for composition) on interior of
bowls, often almost invisible. Designs set in large undecorated

Lip: Direct, constricted, painted black.

Shapes: Bowls predominant; jars.

Comparison: The Bluff Black on Red shows more sand and less volcanic
temper, a thicker redder slip which contrasts with the thin
orange slip of Sandstone, and thinner, duller paint in simpler,
more scattered designs. The surface shows more glistening particles
and is more orange than either Bluff or Deadman's Black on

Chaco Black on White[7] (See Plates 5B and 11)

Hardness: 4.0 to 4.5, mainly 4.5.

Comparison and discussion: The chief characteristic used in distinguishing
this type from Gallup Black on White is its even, well-smoothed,
well-polished, decorated surfaces.


See Hawley, 1936, p. 43; Hawley, 1934, p. 41.

Chaco Corrugated

Comparison and Discussion: Paste, temper, and construction similar to
Exuberant Corrugated except that paste and temper of Chaco
Corrugated averages finer. Distinguished from Exuberant Corrugated
on the basis of narrowness of coils and smallness of indentations.
Rarely incised over coils and indentations.

Escavada Black on White[8] (See Plates 8 and 11)

Hardness: 3.5 to 4.5, preponderance 4.5.

Comparison and discussion: Escavada Black on White is recognized
primarily on the basis of lack of surface polish except for an
occasional few streaks presumably caused by wear and usage.
The surface is usually dull, sometimes rather granular, but smooth;
the designs are usually rather heavy, in lines about ¼″ wide or in
wide line elements combined with hatched elements in which the
hatching lines are usually heavier and often more widely spaced
than those used on later types. It is very similar to Puerco Black
on White; in fact, the two may be variations of one type and
further study may indicate advisability of combining them under
one name. Escavada Black on White probably grew out of Red
Mesa black on White.


See Hawley, 1936, p. 32; 1934, p. 36.


Page [51

Exuberant Corrugated[9] (See Plate 8)

Area: Chaco, Gallup, Red Mesa, and vicinity.

Derivation: Kana-a Gray.

Paste: Gray, hard.

Temper: Sand, potsherds, and black volcanic material in varying proportions.

Construction: Coiled.

Wall: c. 6 mm.

Hardness: 3.5 to 4.5; preponderance around 4.5.

Finish: Spiral coil averaging about ¼″ wide, indentations wide and
usually deep, sometimes decorated with alternation of indentations
and plain coil in geometric designs, sometimes alternating bands
of indentations and of plain coiling; occasional use of crudely
incised designs cutting across coils.

Forms: Jars preponderant; bowls, pitchers.

Comparison: Similar to Pueblo II corrugated from other areas of
northern Arizona and New Mexico, although it may later be found
that the common use of some volcanic temper might be regionally
distinctive. Distinguished from Chaco Corrugated by wideness
of coils and greater width and depth of indentations.


See Roberts, 1935, p. 13; Hawley, 1936, p. 33.

Gallup Black on White[10] (See Plates 6 and 11)

Hardness: c. 4.5.

Comparison and discussion: Stratigraphy and association in the Bc
50-51 dump and rooms indicate that this type grew out of Escavada
Black on White.

It lasted, as indicated in the Chetro Ketl dump, at least as
late as 1130 A. D. Its chief distinguishing characteristic is the
mottled, streakily polished surface onto which the designs were
painted, most of the design being at least partly hatched. Designs
averaged more complicated than for Escavada Black on White but
were neither as well conceived, as delicate, nor as well executed as
the average for Chaco Black on White. The latter was evidently
a late and short development, never superseding the Gallup Black
on White but showing its florescence around 1100 A. D. and up
until 1130, as found in the Chetro Ketl dump.


Hawley, ibid., p. 42; see also Hawley, 1934, p. 38.

La Plata Black on White[11]

Area: Chaco, Red Mesa, Zuñi, north into the Four Corners.

Derivation: Lino Gray.

Walls: c. 4 mm.

Hardness: 4.5.

Finish: Surface unevenly smoothed, probably by scraping, temper protruding
through float; no slip; designs painted in black iron paint
on interiors of bowls, exteriors of small-mouthed vessels.


Page 52]

Designs: Drawn in lines about [fraction 1 by 16]″ wide; occasionally life forms crudely

Forms: Bowls, jars, pitchers, dippers.

Comparison: La Plata Black on White differs from Lino Black on Gray
primarily in the use of iron paint rather than of carbon paint for
decoration. This difference is consistent and easily detected
because most of the La Plata sherds show a tendency toward overfiring
in some part of the vessel.


Cf. Hawley, 1936, p. 23.

McElmo Black on White[12] (See Plates 6, 8, 9, and 10)

Walls: c. 3 to 6 mm.

Hardness: c. 4 to 4.5.

Comparison and discussion: McElmo Black on White is a progenitor of
Mesa Verde Black on White. It is found in Chaco dumps in large
enough percentages to suggest that some of it was made in the
canyon rather than all having been traded in from outside. Some
small Chaco cliff ruins show a total of McElmo Black on White
sherds and may represent the homes of some immigrants from the
north. The designs of this type of Black on White are, in general,
the wide line type expected for Pueblo II, but distinctively of carbon
paint. Inter-influence between Chaco and Mesa Verde peoples
is indicated in the pottery of the canyon, however, in occasional
sherds of McElmo designs applied in iron paint and sherds with
hatched Chaco designs applied in carbon paint.


See Hawley, 1936, p. 31.

Red Mesa Black on White[13] (See Plates 7 and 11)

Synonyms: Chaco Transitional Black on White (in part), Chaco I.

Area: Gallup district, Chaco district, Red Mesa district.

Derivation: La Plata Black on White.

Paste: Gray to White.

Temper: Sand

Construction: Coiled.

Wall: c. 3 mm.

Hardness: 4 to 4.5.

Finish: Interior of bowls and exterior of jars slipped with white, polished,
decorated in black iron paint. Exterior unslipped, unpolished.

Designs: Fine lines in parallel groups in stepped figures, lines often
crossing at corners, solid triangles, small pendant dots on triangles
or on lines.

Forms: Bowls, jars, pitchers, ladles.

Comparison: Similar to Kiatuthlanna Black on White but differs somewhat
in design. Transition from polished Red Mesa Black on


Page [53
White into unpolished Escavada Black on White is apparent in
many sherds which show characteristics of each type.

Table 4

Lino Gray  32  4.5  4.0  3.5 
La Plata B on W  10  4.5 
Red Mesa B on W  33  4.5  10  4.0 
Kana-a Neck-banded  11  4.5  15  4.0  3.5 
Escavada B on W  37  4.5  4.0  3.5 
McElmo B on W  10  4.5  12  4.0  3.5 
Wingate B on R  14  4.5  12  4.0  3.5  3.0 
Gallup B on W  41  4.5  4.0  3.5 
Exuberant Corr.  33  4.5  13  4.0  3.5 
Chaco Corrugated  18  4.5  4.0  3.5 
Chaco B on W  22  4.5  4.0 
Deadman's B on R  4.5  4.0  3.5 

Gladwin, 1934, Fig. 8; Mera, 1935, p. 3 and Pl. 1. Red Mesa Black on White,
named by Gladwin but not previously fully described appears to be indigenous to both
the Red Mesa and Chaco districts. As used by Gladwin the type covers what has been
divided into the two types, Red Mesa Black on White and Escavada Black on White,
in the Chaco. This division has been made on the basis of typology and of stratigraphy.


In this table "N" stands for number of sherds tested, "H," for their hardness.


Hawley, 1934, pp. 35-38, Plates XV-XVI.


Hawley, 1936. Various page citations will appear later in this section.


Brand, et. al., 1937, pp. 85-88, 166-171, Plates XIV-XVII.


Perhaps a variation or a sub-type of Abajo Red on Orange.


The kind consideration and aid of Haury, Brew, Morris, Colton, Mera, and
Nesbitt in checking and identifying cross finds is gratefully acknowledged.


Ceramic Hardness Standards of the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology.
Cf. March, Standards of Pottery Description.