University of Virginia Library


Page [58]

Section C


By Richard Woodbury

The Data from Bc 51.[23] —Rooms 7, 8, 9, 16, 19, 21, and kiva 3 provided
the majority of ground and pecked stone implements, while rooms
2 and 5 (otherwise very rich in artifacts) contained comparatively
few. Attempts at stratigraphic analysis of the material were fruitless.
Out of the very large number of this class of stone artifacts only 27
(19 manos, 7 hammerstones, 1 "smoothing stone") had a floor level or
sub-floor level locus. The remainder came from the surface or from the
fill. The manos and hammerstones, to which definite floor level loci
may be assigned, do not show distinctive characters as compared with
the totality of these types of objects from this site. The hammerstone
and 8 manos from the sub-structure of room 16 also fail to reveal any

Metates.—Twenty-two metates were recovered. None was found
in a bin or built into a permanent position. Apparently the metates at
Bc 51 were always portable, and when used were, doubtless, propped
up on a few stones in an impromptu fashion to give the required angle.[24]
All save 3 of the specimens were troughed, but none had very high
side walls; the troughs were about ½″ to 2¼″ deep. The block from
which the metate was made was only roughly shaped, in some instances
being almost unworked. Five specimens showed the trough open at
both ends, the remainder had the trough open at one end.[25] There were
three specimens of the basin type at Bc 51, that is, a flat, stone slab
with a depression worn in the top, by a rotary rather than a reciprocating
motion. One specimen was of the plain surface (slab) type,
in which the mano is as long or longer than the width of the grinding
surface, so that the entire surface of the metate is worn down and no
trough formed. In one metate the groove ran across the width of the
stone. One is a miniature specimen, 8¼″ long, 7¼″ wide, and 3″ thick.


Page [59
As at Bc 50 and Łeyit Kin, sandstone was the only material used.

In comparison with Łeyit Kin and Bc 50, Bc 51 yielded relatively
few metates. However, the predominance of the trough type is typical,
and the one plain surface specimen is an anomaly, for the type is usually
associated with Pueblo III (see discussion below). There is no
evidence of the use of metates at Bc 51 for purposes other than grinding
corn, but the miniature specimen may conceivably have been put to
some other use.

Manos.[26] —Ninety-eight manos were recorded, outnumbering the
metates by 7 to 1. The majority were rectangular with rounded
corners, but a few were round or oval. These latter were 5″ to 7″ long,
and about 4″ wide. There was about an equal division between types
with one and with two grinding surfaces. Twenty wedge-shaped
("triangular" cross-section) specimens were recorded, of which 10 had
1 grinding surface, 1 had 2, and 3 were not recorded. Almost all of
the manos were of sedimentary rocks.

Taking the manos as a whole, the sizes were as follows:

Maximum  Modal  Minimum 
Length  11¼″  6″ to 7″  4¼″ 
Width  5¼″  4″ to 4¾″  2¾″ 
Thickness  2¾″  1¼″ to 1½″  ⅝″ 

Although there is considerable range here, the majority of specimens
fall within the limits given as modal; this is less true of length, which
shows a more random distribution, but few specimens approach the
limits even in this dimension.

On the basis of this information Bc 51 is similar to Bc 50 and
Łeyit Kin in that the typical mano is rectangular with rounded corners,
either rectangular or wedge-shaped in cross-section, in both cases having
either one or two grinding surfaces.

Hammerstones.—Nineteen of the specimens came from kiva 3 and
9 from room 19. Only one instance of pitting to give a better grip for
the thumb or finger was observed.[27] Sedimentary, metamorphic, and


Page 60]
igneous rocks were all represented among the materials. Sorted on the
basis of shape, the hammerstones of Bc 51 are grouped as follows:
16 faceted (1 or more distinct flat abraded surfaces), 25 irregular, 13
round or oval. Surface finish: 24 well-smoothed (for all or part of
surface), 29 rough. Size:

Maximum  Modal  Minimum 
Length  5¾″  2¾″ to 3½″  1½″ 
Width  4″  2¼″ to 2¾″  1¼″ 
Thickness  4″  1½″ to 2½″  1″ 

In spite of the considerable range in size, the proportions remain about
the same in nearly all specimens.

Grooved Axes,[28] Hammers, and Mauls.—There were 11 specimens,
all full-grooved. The material is sandstone in three, schist in one, not
recorded in seven. The axes were four, all but one of them with a
single bit. They were quite uniform in size, approximately 4⅛″ by
2½″ by 1½″. The double-bitted specimen had had one bit re-used for
hammering. Three specimens were distinguished as mauls; they were
considerably larger—the largest 8¾″ by 6″ by 3¼″. Hammers (3
specimens) were probably put to about the same uses as mauls, but


Page [61
were within the size range of the axes, and may have been originally
made as axes. The mauls must have been made solely for the purpose
of pounding, as they could never have been modified from axes.

No notched percussion tools were found, thus distinguishing the
site from Bc 50. Another difference from Bc 50 is that the "mauls"
were re-used axes, and no tools corresponding to the mauls of Bc 51
were reported.

One specimen listed as an axe might, perhaps, better be called a
hoe; it is of slate 6″ by 2¾″, and has a groove completely encircling
it. However, its thinness makes the groove little more than a notch in
the two edges, with the mere suggestion of its presence on the two faces.
It is described as "well worn through use." The rectangular shape and
the roughness of the edges suggest a hoe rather than an axe, but either
use is plausible.

Four round stone dishes,[29] perhaps used as paint pots, were found.
The largest was 5½″ in diameter, and the smallest was 2½″. They
were carefully shaped, and the walls partly smoothed. But the depressions
for grinding or mixing were not more than 1⅛″ deep, unless in
the largest, which was fragmentary. The two objects mentioned in the
discussion of hammerstones may have been pestles, but their size would
have prevented their use in all but the largest of these bowls.

One fossil was found; it was unworked.

A concretion 8½″ long, shaped like half an egg, had been worked
by slightly hollowing the "interior" and making a few small holes on
the outer surface.

There were 24 polishing and smoothing stones. On the basis of
size and finish 14 can probably be considered pot-polishers; none was
faceted, but many were highly polished. They were mostly oval, and
the typical size 1⅞″ by 1″ by ⅜″. Of those for which material was
recorded, two were quartzite and one petrified wood. Only three specimens
seemed to be rubbing stones—the round, flat objects which are
usually said to be employed in smoothing plaster floors and walls. The
remaining 7 specimens of this group were either pot-polishers or
plaster-smoothers, but cannot be assigned definitely to either category.[30]


Page 62]

Fourteen discs[31] were found, varying in diameter from 7″ to 2½″,
and in thickness from ¾″ to [fraction 3 by 16]″. Perhaps some of these were used as
pot lids, or covers for cists. Similar objects were found at Bc 50, where
a few bore traces of pigment, and at Łeyit Kin.

One disc was described as possibly a spindle whorl, but it is fragmentary.

There were 22 slabs of sandstone, of which ten were carefully
shaped rectangles, smoothed on one or both sides; the other 12 were
fragments or had been left rough. They ranged in size from 11¼″ to
2″ long, and were proportionately wide and thick. Their use is unknown.
Similar objects are not reported from Łeyit Kin and Bc 50.

Two paint palettes were found, in kivas 3 and 6, bearing traces of
yellow ochre on one face. The sizes are 4½″ by 2⅜″ by ¼″ and 5½″
by 4¾″ by ¼″. They were well smoothed and squared, but were not
decorated with any incisions and lacked raised edges. Consequently
only the presence of paint distinguishes them from the rectangular
slabs of similar size. Lacking any other explanation, we can perhaps
consider the slabs as palettes also. Palettes found at Bc 50 were even
larger than the largest of the Bc 51 slabs. The palettes from Łeyit
Kin are not described in detail.

A number of problematical stone objects were found, the most
interesting of which was a cone of smoothed sandstone, 9½″ high and
7½″ in diameter at the base. This was found in the northwest corner
of room 15 on the bench.

Notes on the Distribution of Some Ground and Pecked Stone
Artifacts in the Southwest

The Maps.—The maps[32] are intended, principally, to illustrate the
remarks made concerning distributions. The letters refer to dates, and
the numbers to site and reference as listed in the Key to the Maps.
In regard to stages, the statements of the authors referred to have
been taken at face value when they were definite. The cultures indicated
by the letters are as follows:

  • A. Prior to BM II

  • B. BM III-Pueblo II (inclusive)

  • C. Pueblo III-V (inclusive)

  • X. Culture unknown or highly doubtful

It is realized that this schema is not unobjectionable. In particular,
Division C lumps pre- and post-European artifacts to some extent. The
interested specialist can, however, check the exact provenience (so far
as the literature establishes one) by reference to the Key. Considerations


Page [63
of expense made it impossible to provide separate distribution
maps and sets of symbols for every cultural stage and the grouping
chosen (though admittedly arbitrary to some degree) seemed, perhaps,
less objectionable, all things considered, than any other.[33] No attempt
was made to categorize early excavations in terms of contemporary
cultural stage terminology by checking the pottery found or by the
architectural features. When the date was not mentioned in a report,
the site is listed as "X"—date unknown—unless other work at the site
or other investigations provided a date or period. In the Hohokam
and Mogollon areas, correlation with the Basket Maker-Pueblo chronology
is based on Gladwin[34] and Haury,[35] respectively. The possibility
that the earlier levels at Snaketown have been regarded as too early
will, perhaps, explain the appearance there in period "A" of the mortar
and pestle, the trough metate with two ends open, and the three-quarters
grooved axe. Elsewhere these artifacts appear first in
Basket Maker III, or later.

Metates.—For purposes of this study metates have been classified
by what seems to be the most satisfactory system, based (with one
exception) on the nature of the grinding surface. The types[36] are as

  • 1. Plain surface

  • 2. Utah

  • 3. Basin

  • 4. Trough, open at one end (scoop)

  • 5. Trough, open at two ends

  • 6. Three-legged (this of course disregards grinding

Metates have been carefully studied by Katherine Bartlett,[37] so that
what is said here will, to some extent, duplicate her conclusions.

The plain surface metate, as will be seen from Map 2, is more
common in the north and central areas. The farthest southern extension
of the type occurs in the Sierra Ancha Mountains.[38] The plain
surface metate is typical only of sites of Pueblo III or later, although
Judd reports the type from his Chaco Canyon pithouse No. 2,[39] and a
single example was found in Bc 51. Another possible instance of the
type before Pueblo III is in northeastern Arizona,[40] but the only evidence

No Page Number

Map 2. Distribution of Metates in the Southwest

is the presence of manos without the wear at the ends which often
results from use in a trough. In the Pinto Basin of California[41] there
are plain surface metates, which may be earlier than Pueblo III. They
occurred on the surface at sites which were without pottery, and which,
on the basis of the chipped stone and the geology of the region, were
dated as fairly early post-glacial.[42] The metates may have only a
chance association with the sites, "very possibly dating from late
aboriginal time," but it is possible that they represent an early undifferentiated
form. With these exceptions (and, perhaps, the Texas instance
shown on the map) the plain surface metate is confined to a
limited area and appears only after the start of Pueblo III.

This conclusion agrees with Bartlett's statement that this type is
a specialization at a late date.[43] She also points out the correlation
between this type and the use of bins.[44] A few occurrences of bins were
noted in the present survey; only two have not been discussed by
Bartlett: at Aztec Ruin in northern New Mexico,[45] and in the Village


Page [65
of the Great Kivas, New Mexico.[46] In the latter instance it is stated
that "the trough type of milling stone was rarely used in a bin, while
the concave style, without raised borders, seems, in the vast majority
of cases, to have been set in such containers."[47] This is in agreement
with Bartlett's conclusions. But, although the use of the bin with the
plain surface metate can be accepted as frequent, there are more exceptions
than these writers seem to suggest. Room 35 at Chetro Ketl
contains a slab-lined series of four bins. Three of the metates are of
trough type.[48] Conversely, at Unshagi,[49] the Riana Ruins,[50] and other
sites in the northern Rio Grande drainage plain surface metates were
found without bins.

Another type of metate with a limited distribution is the three-legged
type. It is common in the Valley of Mexico[51] and in Yucatan.[52]
But it never attained prominence as far north as the United States,
though four instances have been noted: in the Pueblo Viejo, Arizona;[53]
in the Arivaipa Valley, southeastern Arizona;[54] in the Lower Mimbres
Valley, New Mexico;[55] and at a site near Aztec Ruin, New Mexico.[56]
The presence of this type in northern New Mexico is surprising. This
specimen was found by a local inhabitant some years before Morris'
excavations. Nothing is known of its exact provenience, but it is said
to have come from the site. As a matter of fact, it should be carefully
noted that there are no unimpeachable reports of legged metates found
in association with unquestionable pre-European material north of 25°
N. Lat. Fewkes' Pueblo Viejo metate was a contemporary "plant."[57]
All other reported specimens were surface finds. Such objects are the
more dubious of significance because, since at least as early as 1914,
three-legged metates of basalt and lava have been made in Chihuahua
City and Juarez and sold to tourists as "curios from ruins."[58] Two
occurrences were noted in northern Mexico, one among the modern
Yaquis of Sonora,[59] and the other at Casas Grandes.[60] They are also


Page 66]
found in Sinaloa, where a four-legged type is more common than threelegged—but
all legged forms are less common than legless types.[61]

In Utah a peculiar specialization of the metate occurred; at the
end nearer the user a flat platform was left, or formed into a shallow
depression. Steward has discussed this Utah type,[62] showing that the
type is restricted in area, and developed late in Basket Maker times and
lasted until the end of Pueblo II, when Pueblo culture disappeared from
the northern part of this area. Roberts found a possible "prototype"
of this specialization at Kiatuthlanna, Arizona,[63] in a metate with a
shallow depression on the upper surface of "a small projection at one
end which served as a rest for the hand stone."

The basin type of metate presents a difficult problem. According
to Bartlett,[64] it is the first form of metate used in the Southwest. She
makes the important observation that its form is due to a rotary grinding
motion, probably with a round or oval mano held in one hand. But,
although this type does appear the earliest, it also continues in later
sites; for example, at Swarts Ruin, New Mexico,[65] at Snaketown in the
Sedentary Period,[66] and in Chihuahua as late as the mission period.[67]
The basin type is the one found beyond the Pueblo area to the east.
It was noted at the following locations: Eastern Colorado,[68] Western
Nebraska,[69] Northeastern New Mexico and Western Oklahoma,[70] the
Abilene section of Texas,[71] the Madera Valley, Texas,[72] the Panhandle
region of Texas,[73] Val Verde County, Texas,[74] the Shumla Caves,
Texas,[75] the Ozark Bluff Dwellers,[76] and Leary Indian Village, Nebraska.[77]
Three instances were noted west of the Pueblo area: in the
Twenty Nine Palms region of California,[78] in the Pinto Basin, California,[79]
and on the Santa Barbara Coast, California.[80] Thus, 13 out


Page [67
of the 26 examples noted were outside the strict limits of the Southwest.
Bartlett suggests that the type is older than the Basket Maker period.[81]
Perhaps while specialization resulting in other types was taking place
within the limits of the Southwest, the older type was persisting on the
eastern and western peripheries; and the late use of the basin type in
the Southwest proper can be accounted for as a combination of survival
and occasional intermittent contacts with the periphery. It would be
interesting to know whether, at sites where other types were in use
simultaneously with the basin type, there was a difference of function,
the basin type being limited, perhaps, to certain food products, or to
special methods of preparation.[82] A detailed and comparative study
of the modern use of the metate would be helpful in answering this

The trough type of metate has two forms; one in which the trough
is open at both ends, the other in which it is open only at one end. It
is difficult to decide to which type some specimens belong, because the
trough may slope from a depth of several inches at the far end (with
reference to the user) to no depth at the near end. In this way the two
types are sometimes not clearly distinguished, but grade into each
other. Bartlett points out the position of the trough type[83] in the evolution
of the metate,[84] between the basin and plain surface types. But
the question of whether any significance attaches to the distinction
between one or two ends open is not discussed.

The most conspicuous fact appearing from a study of the map is
thatg the type open at both ends has a more limited distribution than
does the other trough type; also that its distribution coincides almost
exactly with the distribution of the plain surface type. Its presence in
the Utah Basin in northern Utah[85] is the only known exception.
Although the type is found in both periods "B" and "C," more instances
are in the later period than in the earlier—9 as compared to 6. Though
little significance can be given to this slight chronological difference,
it is suggestive to find the type so limited in distribution. In contrast,
the metate with the trough open at one end only[86] occurs as far south
as Chihuahua in Mexico[87] and northwest to the Moapa Valley, Nevada.[88]


Page 68]
The explanation that suggests itself is that the trough open at both
ends is a specialization in a restricted area, while the form with
trough open at one end may be the more generalized form. If this
should prove to be so, the relation of the two specialized types to each
other should be studied. Is their distribution really identical? And
have they identical functions in the economy of the people?

Turning now to Bc 51, it will be remembered that metates of this
type with the trough open at both ends were found here. This type
was not reported for Bc 50 or Łeyit Kin, or elsewhere in Chaco Canyon.
The nearest published occurrence is at Kiatuthlanna.[89] However, Bc 51
is near the center of the area in which this type is common. The plain
surface type was found by Judd in his Chaco Canyon pit house No. 2,
while pithouse No. 1 apparently yielded only metates with trough open
at one end.[90]

Summing up our discussion of metates, it can be stated that the
basin type is very widespread, and though probably in use earlier than
Basket Maker-Pueblo development, continued throughout, as a comparatively
infrequent type. The plain surface and trough with two
ends open both more commonly occur late, although the latter may be
early in the Hohokam. The type with trough open at one end has a
much wider distribution. There are no certain instances of the three-legged
type in the American Southwest in the pre-European periods,
although to the south in Mexico it is common. In Utah a local type
was developed which, however, did not spread beyond this peripheral
region, and was abandoned after Pueblo II. That these distributions
are, in part, to be interpreted as dependent upon availability of certain
materials (and other non-historical factors) cannot be questioned, but
the information in the literature is insufficiently detailed and concrete
to make extended interpretations from this point of view possible.
However, as Mr. Reiter kindly suggests,[91] it may be noted, for example,
that there seems to be a preponderance of plain surface metates where
igneous stone was common, a preponderance of scooped and grooved
where large pieces of igneous rock were not easily available.

Axes.—(See Map 3.) Axes were divided into three types for study:
full grooved, three-quarters grooved, and notched. Another possible
type is the unnotched axe, or celt, but the only occurrences noted in the
literature were: the Abilene section of Texas;[92] Childs Point, Nebraska,[93]
and Leary Indian Village, Nebraska.[94] An artifact, similar to
the celt, which does appear in the Southwest, is commonly called a


Page [69

Map 3. Distribution of Axes in the Southwest

tcamahia or "skinning knife." It is characterized by its tapering shape,
with the blade either beveled or straight, and it is usually thin and well
polished. Its use is uncertain. Holmes[95] suggests its use in leather
working, and Morris[96] states that they are used on Zuñi and Hopi
altars, but were probably originally agricultural implements. The
tcamahia is found most commonly in the San Juan Basin, but at
Swarts Ruin[97] there were chipped hoes, without notches, which appear
identical in shape with the tcamahias found farther north. Notched
hoes with the sides parallel, rather than tapering, are occasionally
found elsewhere in the Southwest. It may be that the tcamahia is
unrelated to the axe. At Aztec Ruin[98] some of the tcamahias were
notched for hafting. Nevertheless the unnotched type does seem to
be characteristic of the San Juan area, and notched hoes are not
recorded for this area, with the possible exceptions at Aztec Ruins
and Bc 51.

The three-quarters grooved type of axe is familiar in its general


Page 70]
features: a groove around three of the four sides of an axe either
round to oval or rectangular in cross-section, with the fourth side either
flattened or rounded. Only one occurrence in period "A" was found,
that is, before Basket Maker III. This was at Snaketown, in the
Snaketown Phase.[99] According to Gladwin's equation of the Hohokam
and Basket Maker-Pueblo chronologies, this would place it about the
fourth or fifth century, A. D.[100] If this dating is accepted, we can grant
to Snaketown the earliest three-quarters grooved axes in the Southwest,
so far recorded. But if we place the earlier Hohokam phases a few
centuries later, as some archaeologists feel is necessary, this occurrence
falls within our "B" period. With this possible exception, the three-quarters
grooved axe does not appear until Pueblo I.[101] The distinction
between Basket Maker III and Pueblo I does not appear on the map,
as both are included in period "B." In all the reports examined for the
present study there was no indication that Roberts' identification of
the grooved axe with Pueblo I is not entirely valid.

With regard to geographic distribution of the three-quarters
grooved axes (see Map III), the northern and eastern boundary of the
area in which the type is common could be formed by a line drawn from
the Hopi towns to Gallup, New Mexico, and south to the Mimbres River.
Within the area south and west of this boundary occur all but two
instances of this type of axe.[102] These exceptions are: (1) The Ackmen-Lowry
area of southwestern Colorado,[103] where there is a single specimen
reported, in Pueblo I or II. While its local manufacture is possible, it
may also be intrusive from the south, and the three-quarters grooved
type is at least extremely uncommon here. (2) At the Pueblo of
Unshagi, New Mexico,[104] which yielded three specimens in Pueblo IV.
The occurrence far to the west in the Mohave Sink Region of California[105]
is quite possibly accounted for by visits to the turquoise mines
by Indians from Arizona.

Within the full grooved class have been included axes with a single
completely encircling groove, and those with more elaborate arrangements,
such as the spiral and oblique grooves which Kidder has described
from Pecos.[106] There is no other site for which the description
of axes has been as careful and complete as at Pecos, but similar axes
have been mentioned elsewhere, without complete details. The five
occurrences noted in the present survey are all in northern New Mexico,


Page [71
extending from the Pecos River to the tributaries of the Little Colorado:
at Unshagi, New Mexico,[107] in the Chama Valley,[108] on the Jemez
Plateau,[109] at Bc 50,[110] and at Zuñi.[111] The geographical distribution
of full grooved axes in general seems to be partly overlapping that of
three-quarters grooved axes, but to extend farther north and east. The
greatest number of occurrences are within the area indicated on the
map, but there are a few exceptions. First, the turquoise mines of the
Mohave Sink Region of California;[112] the remarks made in connection
with three-quarters grooved axes apply here also. Second, Casa
Grande, Arizona;[113] possibly the type here is the result of Salado influence
from the north. Third, Swarts Ruin, New Mexico,[114] and the
Harris Site nearby.[115] Fourth, Chihuahua, Mexico,[116] where Sayles reports
this type of axe from the Ramos Phase, during which the Salado
people were absorbed as they arrived from the north. Fifth, Honanki,
on Oak Creek, Arizona.[117] The Swarts Ruin, the Harris Site, and
Honanki are thus the only unexplained occurrences of the full grooved
axe outside the northern part of the Southwest.

The notched axes (including both two and three notches) seem to
have a definite center in the San Juan basin, extending to the northern
Rio Grande area. An apparently distinctive three-notched type has
been reported from the Gallina district.[118] Outside of this region, they
are found at the turquoise mines of southern California;[119] in the salt
mines near "Lost City," Nevada;[120] at the Harris site in New Mexico;[121]
and in Cottonwood Canyon, Utah.[122] Except for these four occurrences,
notched axes have the limited distribution indicated by the smaller
enclosed area on Map II.

Another feature of axes which might serve as a criterion of differentiation
is whether a specimen is long- or short-bitted. Nesbitt refers
to the distinction,[123] correlating the short bit with the three-quarters
grooved type and the Hohokam area, and the long bit with the full
grooved type and the Basket Maker-Pueblo area. The method of hafting,


Page 72]

Map 4. Distribution of Mauls and Hammers in the Southwest

however, has been shown to vary geographically, with the full
grooved axe mainly north of the three-quarters grooved. Two subtypes,
the notched axe and the elaborated full grooved axe, both tend to have
restricted but not identical northerly distributions.

Mauls and Hammers.—(See Map 4.) There are two main classes
of implement in this category: those held in the hand, and those hafted
in some fashion, with a groove for that purpose. The first class, basically,
is the hammerstone; but under this term are included a large
variety of implements, ranging from any small boulder which shows
wear on some portion of its surface, to the carefully shaped stones
which fit the hand perfectly and were apparently used for pecking
stone tools. The various functions are listed by Morris,[124] and include
roughening the grinding surfaces of metates, blocking out manos, axes,
and other tools, excavating the interior of bowls and mortars, grooving
axes and hammers, and dressing building stones. Bartlett[125] also suggests
that they were used for cracking nuts and bones. The rough, unworked,
and the carefully finished types of hammerstone grade imperceptibly
into each other, and at a single site it is not uncommon to find


Page [73
all degrees of finish exhibited. This is only to be expected, for, as cannot
too often be stressed, tools are made to satisfy some need of the
moment, and while falling into certain rough categories on the basis of
function, and influenced in form to a large degree by the cultural
heritage of the maker, nevertheless, it seems impossible to lay down
boundaries over which types do not pass. After all, the tool is made to
serve its purpose and not to fit an abstraction in the mind of the archaeologist.
The hammerstone does not show any particular area or period
of importance in its distribution. It occurs in the entire area studied
in this paper. Its rarity in sites earlier than Basket Maker III may be
a result of the rarity of competently studied and published sites of
earlier date. Consequently the hammerstone has been omitted from
the map of hammers and mauls.

One specialization of the hammerstone deserves mention, the pitted
hammerstone. Its distinguishing feature is the presence of shallow
pits pecked opposite each other on the two largest surfaces, probably
to serve as grips for the finger and thumb. Although relatively few
references were noted in the literature, they were scattered over most
of the Southwest, east of a line from southeast Colorado through the
Hopi villages, and through the Sierra Ancha to Casa Grande. The
pitted hammerstone was not noted west of this line, but the absence
may be due to oversights in the survey of the literature. Whether the
pits are really intentional or are due to hard use may, in any case, be
regarded as not yet fully established.

Turning to the grooved type of maul and hammer, it seems impossible
to distinguish in the literature between mauls and hammers. A
related type, club-heads, is also distinguished by two authors.[126] Some
archaeologists call implements which are grooved for hafting and show
use for pounding, hammers, and others call them mauls. Whether the
two terms are interchangeable depends, of course, on definition, which
must be arbitrary if stated in terms of external form, and in the case
of archaeology must be largely conjectural if stated in terms of use.
In the description of the percussion tools from Bc 51, the distinction
was made on the basis of size, following the designations used in the
field. The importance of the distinction lies in the common re-use of
axes for pounding. These dulled, battered axes are smaller than the
large and heavy "mauls." But it is not known whether all of the
"hammers" were made from worn out axes, or whether there is only
a chance resemblance between the smaller pounding tools and occasional
discarded axes.

This distinction could not be made in the present survey, because
there are few published details as to size. The only distinction which
was found to be applicable was the one used for axes—the nature of


Page 74]
the groove. The distribution of the two types was similar to that of
the axes. The only occurrence of the three-quarters grooved type
outside the boundary sketched on the map is in the Mohave Sink
Region of California,[127] where, as in the case of the axes, it may be due
to visits by Indians from the East. On the other hand, the full grooved
type of maul or hammer occurred at all the locations at which the
full grooved axe was present. Besides these instances beyond the area
of greatest prevalence, which are shared with the axe, the maul or
hammer alone is found at Lake Corrine, in northern Utah,[128] in the
Abilene section of Texas,[129] at Paragonah, Utah,[130] at Kings Ruin,
Arizona,[131] Fitzmaurice Ruin nearby,[132] and in the San Francisco Mountains.[133]
Because of the rather numerous exceptions, mostly to the west,
to the distribution sketched on the map, it might be justifiable to regard
the area where the full grooved maul or hammer is typical as being
greater than that for the corresponding type of axe. If this is so, it
would be interesting to know whether the mauls or hammers beyond
the limits of the axes are of the type made specifically for pounding,
or are also made from discarded axes. If the former should prove to
be the case, it would suggest that the distinction between "mauls" and
"hammers" really possesses validity.

Mortars and Pestles.—(See Map 5.) In the present study sufficient
examples have been noted to suggest that the mortar and pestle[134] must
be considered among the ordinary artifacts of at least part of the
Southwest. There is no evidence that metate and mano were ever
replaced by the mortar and pestle, but they were apparently augmented
in some areas. The map indicates that the majority of the occurrences
of mortar and pestle together are in the south. The presence of the
pestle around Great Salt Lake suggests the possibility of a second center
of importance. But the mortar and pestle also occur scatteringly
north from the Gila-Salt Basin as far as southern Colorado,[135]
west to the Mohave Sink Region of California,[136] and east to


Page [75

Map 5. Distribution of Mortars and Pestles in the Southwest

Val Verde County, Texas.[137] In Texas the eastern boundary is approximately
the boundary of the mesquite thicket country. But the force
of this evidence for the widespread use of the mortar and pestle in
the Southwest, and for a concentration in the Gila-Salt Basin is lessened
by the difficulty of interpreting reports found in the literature. As
far as possible, mortars have been distinguished from bowls (containers,
not for pounding), and the latter excluded. But errors may
have occurred, for clear-cut descriptions are not always given, there are
no universally accepted definitions of mortars and bowls. The mortars
listed on the map as large would seem to have been for pounding only,
and were frequently very crude and rough in appearance. Those listed
as small may have been intended for receptacles. Bed rock and portable
mortars ought also to be distinguished.

Likewise, pestles cannot always be distinguished from hammerstones.
In all the instances included on the map, it appeared that the
pestle was distinct from the ordinary hammerstone; in some cases
elongated pestles with distinct heads larger than the handles were
reported. In other cases the pestle was merely a long stone showing
wear by pounding on one or two ends. At the sites where mortars


Page 76]
were reported but no pestles, it is possible that simple hammerstones
were used, or perhaps wooden pestles. But it seems, on the basis of
the available inadequate information, that we are justified in regarding
them as sporadic in most of the Southwest, and fairly common
in the southern portion.

General Conclusions.—At present only the following highly tentative
general conclusions (based in considerable degree on negative[138]
evidence) can be ventured:

1. Bc 51 resembles two other small house ruins of the Chaco
Canyon (Bc 50 and Łeyit Kin) in most of its ground and pecked stone.
It differs in that: (1) it contained metates with the trough open at
both ends, (2) it lacked notched axes and hammers, and (3) petrified
wood was not commonly used for hammerstones. It may well be that
the absolute and relative numbers on which these differentiæ are based
are insufficient to make such conclusions valid, but, taking the evidence
as it stands, such differences appear.

2. The basin (bowl) metate may be the earliest form used in
the Southwest, but continued in use until late times.

3. The plain surface metate and the type with the trough open at
both ends are found in approximately the same area, principally in
the north.

4. The type of metate with the trough open at one end (scoop)
has a much wider distribution than does the other trough type.

5. The three-quarters grooved axe is rare before Basket Maker
III and is typical only of the southern portion of the Southwest.

6. Notched axes are restricted to the San Juan Basin and the
adjoining portion of the Rio Grande Valley.[139]

7. Axes with elaborate grooves are mostly found in the northern
Rio Grande area and immediately to the west.[140]

8. Although three-quarters grooved mauls and hammers have
approximately the same distribution as the three-quarters grooved
axes, the full grooved maul or hammer occurs rather frequently
outside the limits of the full grooved axe.

9. The mortar and pestle are present in the Southwest and seem
to be concentrated in the Gila-Salt Basin, in Chihuahua and southern
New Mexico.


Because of the size of the symbols used only approximate locations are represented
on the map.


[Editorial Note: Remarks of this character apply to groupings and map
symbols used in the later distributional studies but will not be repeated.]


Gladwin, et. al., 1937, p. 8.


Haury, 1936a, pp. 116-118, 127-130.


Defined and described later.


Bartlett, 1933 and 1936.


Bartlett, 1933, p. 25; and Haury, 1934, p. 116.


Judd, 1924, p. 411. It is possible to confuse new troughed metates with the
plain surface type.


Guernsey, 1931, p. 99.


Amsden, in Campbell, 1935, p. 33.


Campbell, 1935, p. 50; and Sharf, in Campbell, 1935, p. 19.


Bartlett, 1933, pp. 26-29.


Ibid., pp. 17-18, 23-25, 28.


Morris, 1919b, p. 235.


Roberts, 1932, pp. 33, 37, 140.


Ibid., p. 33.


Personal communication from Mr. Paul Reiter, April 12, 1939.


Reiter, 1938, p. 163 and footnote 66.


Hibben, 1937, p. 41 and Plate II.


Bartlett, 1933, p. 22.


Stromsvik, 1937, pp. 123-127.


Fewkes, 1903, p. 184 and Fig. 114.


Sauer and Brand, 1930, p. 433.


Fewkes, 1914, p. 20.


Morris, 1915, p. 682.


Personal communication from Dr. Donald Brand. Cf. Kidder, 1939, p. 226,
footnote 7.


Personal communications from Dr. Brand and Mr. Reiter.


Holden, 1934, Pl. 2, facing p. 10.


Bartlett, 1854, Vol. 2, plate facing p. 362.


Personal communication from Dr. Brand.


Steward, 1935, pp. 9-10; and 1936, p. 41 and Table 2 (which gives dimensions
and other information for a large series of Utah type metates).


Roberts, 1931, p. 154 and Pl. 32.


Bartlett, 1933, p. 21.


Cosgrove, 1932, pp. 35-37.


Gladwin, et. al., 1937, Pl. 50.


Sayles, 1936, Table 1, op. p. 84. This is Conchas phase and the appearance
here probably has an eastern origin.


Renaud, 1934, p. 46.


Renaud, 1934, p. 46.


Renaud, 1930, p. 124.


Ray, 1929, p. 22.


Kelley, 1933, pp. 53-59.


Struder, 1934, pp. 80-96.


Pearce and Jackson, 1933, pp. 87-89.


Martin, 1933, p. 80.


Harrington, 1934, p. 7.


Hill and Wedel, 1936, p. 46.


Campbell, 1931, p. 79.


Amsden, in Campbell, 1935, p. 33.


Rogers, D. B., 1929, pp. 349-351 and Plates 54 and 55.


Bartlett, 1933, p. 21.


On the broader aspects of distributional associations see Linton, 1924.


Apparently the underlying type in the Valley of Mexico. Cf. Bartlett, 1936,
p. 20.


Ibid., 1933, pp. 10, 28.


Steward, 1936, p. 42.


A recently reported occurrence of this type, not appearing on the map, is in
the region just north of Williams, Arizona, and west of the San Francisco Mountains
(Hargrave, 1938).


Sayles, 1936, Table 1, op. p. 84, also Kidder, 1939, p. 226, footnote 7. Indeed,
the distribution extends continuously into Southern Mexico—personal communication
from Dr. Brand, April, 1939.


Harrington, 1930, p. 24 and Fig. 7.


Roberts, 1931, p. 154. It is possible that Roberts' remarks were misconstrued,
so the presence of the metate with trough open at both ends here is uncertain.


Judd, 1924, p. 411, Plate 1, Fig. 2.


Personal communication, April 12, 1939.


Ray, 1929, pp. 12, 16-17.


Gilder, 1909, p. 69 and Fig. 6.


Hill and Wedel, 1936, p. 44.


Holmes, 1878, p. 407.


Morris, 1919b, p. 26.


Cosgrove, 1932, pp. 45-46.


Morris, 1919b, p. 26.


Sayles, in Gladwin, et. al., 1937, Pl. 78.


Gladwin, 1937, p. 8.


Roberts, 1935, p. 14.


Not shown on the map is an occurrence near Williams, Arizona, just west of
the San Francisco Mountains (Hargrave, 1938).


Martin, 1938, p. 254.


Reiter, 1938, p. 165.


Rogers, M. J., 1929, pp. 5-6.


Kidder, 1932, pp. 45-53.


Reiter, 1938, p. 165.


Jeancon, 1923, Pl. 12; also Hibben, 1937, pp. 28, 43.


Hewett, 1906, Pl. 12.


Hibben, in Brand, et. al., 1937, p. 92.


Stevenson, 1883, p. 337.


Rogers, M. J., 1929, p. 5.


Fewkes, 1912, pp. 123-124, Pls. 53-55, Fig. 23.


Cosgrove, 1932, p. 41.


Haury, 1936, p. 70.


Sayles, 1936, p. 44.


Fewkes, 1898a, p. 571.


Hibben, 1938, p. 135.


Rogers, M. J., 1929, p. 5.


Harrington, 1927a, p. 127.


Haury, 1936a, p. 70.


Judd, 1926, p. 146 and Pl. 50.


Nesbitt, 1938, pp. 127-128.


Morris, 1919b, pp. 19-20.


Bartlett, 1934, p. 20.


Kidder, 1932, mauls, p. 54, club-heads, p. 55; and Cosgrove, 1932, mauls,
p. 43, club-heads, p. 44.


Rogers, M. J., 1929, pp. 5-6.


Steward, 1936, pp. 40-41. Steward states that the material of this specimen
suggests an origin to the south or west.


Ray, 1931, pp. 87-88.


Judd, 1926, p. 146.


Spicer and Caywood, 1936, p. 56.


Ibid., p. 112. A specimen described as a "pick" is included here because of
its general similarity.


Bartlett, 1934, p. 31.


There is a serious terminological difficulty here. Some archaeologists, for
example, would consider what I have referred to as the "one-handed, circular motion
basin metate" as a mortar and certain of my "manos" as the corresponding pestles.
From a functional viewpoint the case can certainly be argued. But I believe I follow
the modal usage. In any event, in these paragraphs I call "mortars and pestles" only
those artifacts which have been so labeled by the authors who have described them.


Fewkes, 1916, pp. 96-117; and 1917, pp. 461-488.


Rogers, M. J., 1929, p. 8.


Pearce and Jackson, 1933, pp. 41-42, 133.


Perhaps the most important single point is a negative one. The published
data are inadequate to determine definitively whether such artifacts are useful as indicators
of cultural stylization and change.


Dr. Brand informs me that they also occur in southern New Mexico.


Dr. Brand writes that they are also fairly common in Chihuahua.

Key To Maps

A. Pre-Basket Maker, Basket Maker I, Basket Maker II.

B. Basket Maker III, Pueblo I, Pueblo II.

C. Pueblo III, Pueblo IV, Pueblo V.

X. Date unknown.


Page [77
  • 1. Mohave Sink Region, Calif. Rogers, M. J. 1929.

  • 2. Winona Village, Ariz. McGregor 1937.

  • 3. San Francisco Mountains, Ariz. Colton 1933.

  • 4. San Francisco Mountains, Bartlett 1934.

  • 5. Eagle Cave, Val Verde Co., Texas. Davenport (no date).

  • 6. Val Verde Co., Texas. Pearce and Jackson 1933.

  • 7. Shumla Caves, Texas. Martin 1933.

  • 8. Mt. Riley, New Mex. Alves 1933.

  • 9. Yaquis of Sonora, Holden 1934.

  • 10. Middle Chinlee, Ariz. Morss 1927.

  • 11. Blue River, Ariz. Hough 1914.

  • 12. Blue River, Ariz. Hough 1907.

  • 13. Casa Grande, Ariz. Mindeleff 1897.

  • 14. Casa Grande, Ariz. Fewkes 1912.

  • 15. Casa Grande, Ariz. Fewkes 1907.

  • 16. Grewe Site, Ariz. Woodward 1931.

  • 17. Twenty Nine Palms Region, Calif. Campbell 1931.

  • 18. Swarts Ruin, New Mex. Cosgrove 1932.

  • 19. Galaz Ruin, New Mex. Bryan 1931.

  • 20. Harris Site, New Mex. Haury 1936.

  • 21. Cameron Creek Village, New Mex. Bradfield 1931.

  • 22. Zuñi, New Mex. Stevenson 1883.

  • 23. Village of the Great Kivas, New Mex. Roberts 1932.

  • 24. Walpi, Ariz. Stevenson 1883.

  • 25. Awatovi and Sikyatki, Ariz. Fewkes 1898.

  • 26. Hopi Mesas, Ariz. Hough 1903.

  • 27. Roosevelt:9:6, Ariz. Haury 1932.

  • 28. Tusayan Ruin, Ariz. Haury 1931.

  • 29. Showlow and Pinedale, Ariz. Haury and Hargrave 1931.

  • 30. Pueblo Viejo, Ariz. Fewkes, 1898.

  • 31. Pueblo Viejo, Ariz. Fewkes 1904.

  • 32. McDonalds Canyon, Ariz. Hough 1903.

  • 33. Kintiel, Ariz. Haury and Hargrave 1931.

  • 34. La Roux Wash, Ariz. Hough 1903.

  • 35. Taos Valley, New Mexico, Jeancon 1929.

  • 36. San Diego Mission, New Mex. Toulouse 1937.

  • 37. Northeastern Ariz. Guernsey 1931.

  • 38. Fremont River, Utah. Morss 1931.

  • 39. Aztec Ruin, New Mex. Morris 1919A.

  • 40. Site near Aztec Ruin, New Mex. Morris 1915.

  • 41. Johnson Canyon, Colo. Morris 1919B.

  • 42. Mancos Canyon, Colo. Holmes 1878.

  • 43. Mogollon Village, New Mex. Haury 1936.

  • 44. Cannonball Ruin, Colo. Morley 1908.

  • 45. Lowry Ruin, Colo. Martin 1936.

  • 46. Ackmen-Lowry Area, Martin 1938.

  • 47. Petrified Forest, Ariz. Mera 1934.

  • 48. Honanki, Oak Creek, Ariz. Fewkes 1898A.

  • 49. Navajo National Monument, Ariz. Fewkes 1911B.

  • 50. Betatakin, Ariz. Judd 1930.

  • 51. Monument Valley, Ariz. Kidder and Guernsey 1919.

  • 52. Northeastern Ariz. Kidder and Guernsey 1921.

  • 53. Jemez Cave, New Mex. Alexander and Reiter 1935.

  • 54. Jemez Plateau, New Mex. Hewett 1906.

  • 55. Jemez Cave, New Mex. Alexander and Reiter 1935.

  • 78]

    Page 78]
  • 56. Unshagi, New Mex. Reiter 1938.

  • 57. Shabik'eschee Village, New Mex. Roberts 1929.

  • 58. Chaco Canyon Pit Houses, New Mex. Judd 1924.

  • 59. Chaco Canyon, New Mex. Hewett 1936.

  • 60. Bc 50, New Mex. Brand, et. al. 1937.

  • 61. Łeyit Kin, New Mex. Dutton 1938.

  • 62. Pueblo Bonito, New Mex. Pepper 1920.

  • 63. Bc 51, New Mex. present report.

  • 64. Chihuahua, Mex. Sayles 1936.

  • 65. Kings Ruin, Ariz. Spicer and Caywood 1936.

  • 66. Fitzmaurice Ruin, Ariz. Spicer and Caywood 1936.

  • 67. Sonora, Mex. Sauer and Brand 1931.

  • 68. Southeastern Ariz. Sauer and Brand 1930.

  • 69. Sierra Ancha, Ariz. Haury 1934.

  • 70. "Lost City," Nevada. Harrington 1927B.

  • 71. Moapa Valley, Nevada. Harrington 1930.

  • 72. Mesa House, Nevada. Hayden 1930.

  • 73. Sierra Madras Mountains, Mex. Blackiston 1909.

  • 74. Pinto Basin, Calif. Campbell 1935.

  • 75. Pinto Basin, Calif. Campbell 1936.

  • 76. Brewster Co., Tex. Coffin 1932.

  • 77. Fort Apache, Ariz. Bandelier 1892.

  • 78. Tempe, Ariz. Bandelier 1892.

  • 79. Casas Grandes, Mex. Bartlett 1854.

  • 80. Jornada del Muerto, New Mex. Chapman 1926.

  • 81. Snaketown, Ariz. Gladwin, et. al. 1937.

  • 82. Upper San Francisco River, New Mex. Hough 1923.

  • 83. Luna, New Mex. Hough 1920.

  • 84. Kiatuthlanna, Ariz. Roberts 1931.

  • 85. Lake Mohave, Calif. Campbell 1936.

  • 86. Chama Valley, New Mex. Jeancon 1923.

  • 87. Chama Valley and Gallina River, New Mex. Douglass 1917.

  • 88. Riana Ruin, New Mex. Hibben 1937.

  • 89. Largo Area, New Mex. Mera 1938.

  • 90. Fumarole Area, New Mex. Renaud 1929.

  • 91. Fumarole Area, New Mex. Renaud 1930.

  • 92. Oak Creek, New Mex. Renaud 1929.

  • 93. Oak Creek, New Mex. Renaud 1930.

  • 94. Chevlon, Ariz. Fewkes 1898C.

  • 95. Texas Canyon, Ariz. Fulton 1934.

  • 96. Willard, Utah. Judd 1926.

  • 97. Willard, Utah. Steward 1936.

  • 98. Great Salt Lake, Utah. Steward 1936.

  • 99. Paragonah, Utah. Judd 1926.

  • 100. Paragonah, Utah. Judd 1919.

  • 101. Kane Co., Utah. Nusbaum, et. al. 1922.

  • 102. Moab, Utah. Judd 1919.

  • 103. Western Nebraska. Renaud 1934.

  • 104. Eastern Colo. Renaud 1931.

  • 105. Piedra District, Colo. Roberts 1930.

  • 106. Mesa Verde, Colo. Fewkes 1916.

  • 107. Mesa Verde, Colo. Fewkes 1907.

  • 108. Mesa Verde, Colo. Fewkes 1911A.

  • 109. Mesa Verde, Colo. Fewkes 1917.

  • 110. Abilene section, Texas. Ray 1929.

  • [79

    Page [79
  • 111. Abilene section, Texas. Ray 1931.

  • 112. Caves of Great Salt Lake, Utah. Steward 1937.

  • 113. Little Colorado ruins, Ariz. Fewkes 1904.

  • 114. Nine-Mile Canyon, Utah. Gillin 1938.

  • 115. Desolation Canyon, Utah. Gaumer 1937.

  • 116. Lower Mimbes Valley, New Mex. Fewkes 1914.

  • 117. Pecos, New Mex. Kidder 1932.

  • 118. Madera Valley, Texas. Kelley 1933.

  • 119. Panhandle, Texas. Studer 1934.

  • 120. Provo, Utah. Steward 1936.

  • 121. Grantsville, Utah. Steward 1936.

  • 122. Lake Corrine, Utah. Steward 1936.

  • 123. Uintah Basin, Utah. Steward 1936.

  • 124. Montezuma Valley, Colo. Prudden 1914.


[Editorial Note: Mr. Woodbury had special qualifications for undertaking this
section, for he had been engaged in an intensive study (in the field and laboratory) of
the ground and pecked stone artifacts from Awatovi. Unfortunately, there were not
funds available to ship these heavy implements to Cambridge, and hence Mr. Woodbury
had to work from the field catalog, other field notes, photographs, and a 20-page
report, prepared on the site by Thomas Field, which contained drawings of
about 80 of the more differentiated artifacts. This report (Field, 1937) is on deposit
(with the other original field notes from the site) at the University of New Mexico.
During July, 1939, we checked Mr. Woodbury's report against the implements stored
at the University of New Mexico and discovered and corrected a few minor errors.]


Field, 1937.


See Plate XXI in Brand, et al, 1937, for very similar specimens.


Types are illustrated in Plate XXI of Brand, et al, 1937.


[Editorial Note: Hasty description elsewhere at times has resulted in confusion
between "intentionally shaped" finger grips, and the adapting of the peculiarly
adaptable human hand to areas chipped in process of use. Most instances of shaped
fingergrips that I have seen are located near the middle of an approximately columnal
(or irregularly rectangular) hammerstone.

At Chetro Ketl the majority of hammerstones were of igneous rock. There were
few instances apparent of intentional shaping. Suppose a columnal section of petrified
wood were used. Two general types of blows would be required in shaping sandstone;
the impacting or "concussive" blow delivered by a broad surface and, perhaps,
the directional blow of a smaller localized or pointed surface. The broad faced hammerstone,
again, appears to have had two functions: (1) to tap or "impact" along a line
of intended fracture (or from personal experience, approximately along the intended
line of fracture), and to deliver the hard blow (or blows) which completed the fracture;
and (2) to "peck" the protruding irregularities from an intended flat surface of
sandstone or limestone. If a localized, directional blow is used in the first function, a
triangular, shattering fracture results.

The majority of the blunt surfaced hammerstones are chipped around the
circumference of the blunt face. When ends are reversed these (generally conchoidal)
fracture areas, admittedly, do feel different and restful, to the hand. It is this chipping
which has, at times, been referred to as "fingergrips," albeit the intentionally
shaped finger grips are often farther down the shaft. Too much of this chipping
around one end results in an uncertainty of grip due to fatigue, and to slipperiness of
perspiration on the newly broken and rather slick surfaces. An eroded or "battered"
rough surface is more comfortable over a long period, and more accurate in use.
Even so, I believe the hand grip is insignificant compared to the percussive surface.

Chetro Ketl yielded a number of spherical hammer stones, with entire surfaces
covered by chips of various size. Some of these were of metamorphic rock. One's
hand adapted itself—usually quite readily—to any section of irregular surface. In
my estimation, these spherical models constitute the streamlined acme of hammerstone
perfection; they are heavier, offer more variety of grip (they are more restful),
and the chances of edge-splintering (as from turning a columnal model too far to one
side or the other to deliver a blow), are minimal. The spherical specimens, of course,
usually offer no localized percussive area for directional blows.

I have not the least doubt that after chipping was (perhaps accidentally) accomplished
in use, the chipped surfaces were often used as finger grips. In many instances,
however, it would appear that to be accurately described as intentionally
shaped finger grips, the chipping should be elaborated by abrasion. Even this precaution
involves no finality or accuracy, however, for an "accidental" chipped area
might be subjected to abrasion; or, conceivably, some instances of abrasion may evidence
peculiar secondary use.]


For illustrations of similar specimens see Plate XX in Brand, et. al., 1937.


Cf. Plate XIXd in Brand, et. al., 1937.


[Note by Paul Reiter: The stone smoothers for pottery and for wall and floor
plaster serve an entirely different function, basically. They are both smoothers, to be
sure; but the smaller, usually more carefully shaped or chosen pottery smoothers have
to serve not only for the plastic annealing and smoothing of wet clay, but also for
the all-important purpose of shaping. There is very little shaping quality inherent
in a plaster smoother. Rather, the function is one of smoothing and compressing—
actually, annealing is also a part of the process. The weight, resulting from the
larger size of artifact, is most important; beside smoothing the wet plaster put on a
wall, it serves to mix and agitate the plaster, equalling distribution of the density,
removing bubbles. Surface agitation also mixes the wet plaster to the point where it
is consistently impressed throughout and cracking is avoided. Thus, both as
regards use, and size, wall plaster smoothers differ basically from pottery smoothers.
Thus, again, they are (from the functional point of view) two different artifact


Plate XIXa in Brand, et. al., 1937.