Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:29:45.739Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Evaluating Visual Criteria for Identifying Carbon- and Iron-Based Pottery Paints from the Four Corners Region Using SEM-EDS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Joe D. Stewart
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario P7B 5E1, Canada
Karen R. Adams
Affiliation:
Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, 23390 County Road K, Cortez, CO 81321

Abstract

Paint types on black-on-white pottery in the prehistoric American Southwest have had significance for both chronological and sociocultural interpretations. Visual attributes have formed the basis for distinguishing carbon- and mineral-based paints on ancient black-on-white pottery in the American Southwest for over 60 years. In this study, an SEM-EDS (scanning electron microscope-energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer) system was first used to make an independent objective determination of the mineral or non-mineral paint present on 15 Mesa Verde White Ware sherds. Then, a group of 19 people (including experienced archaeologists and newly trained individuals) examined and classified the paint on these sherds, achieving an overall accuracy of 84.2 percent. This group also ranked in priority order the visual attributes they felt were most useful in determining pottery paint type: nature of edges (fuzzy, sharp), absorption (soaks in, sits on top), luster (shiny, dull), color range (black-gray-blue; black-brown-reddish), flakiness (doesn't flake off, flakes off), thickness (thin, thick), and surface polish (polish striations visible through paint, striations not visible through paint). In each case, the attribute applicable to carbon-based paint is listed first. The most difficult sherds for the group to identify displayed attributes of both carbon and mineral paints. A category for "mixed" paint type, already in use by archaeologists, is a reasonable third category for labeling sherd paint, as long as it does not become a "catch-all" category. For problematic sherds, the SEM-EDS can be used to characterize paint type, then the visual attributes adjusted to improve investigator accuracy in paint type determination.

Résumé

Résumé

Los tipos de pintura utilizados en la cerámica prehistórica negro-sobre-blanco en el Suroeste norteamericano son significativos en interpretaciones cronológicas y socioculturales. Por más de 60 anós atributos visuales nan sido la base de la distinción entre pintura orádnica (o carbonácea) y mineral. En este estudio se utilizó un sistema de SEM-EDS (microscopio electrónico de barrido-espectrómetro de energía dispersiva rayos-x) para determinar objetiva e independientemente la presencia de pintura mineral o no-mineral en 15 tiestos de la vajilla blanca Mesa Verde. Luego, un groupo de 19 personas (incluyendo arqueólogicos profesionales y principiantes) examinaron y clasificaron la pintura en estos tiestos, obtieniendo una exactitudpromedio de 84.2 por ciento. Este grupo también clasificó en orden de prioridad los atributos visuales considerados más útiles para determinar el tipo de pintura cerámica: hordes de la pintura (precisos, vagos), absorcion (pobre, efectiva), brillo (brillante, opaco), rango de color (negro-gris-azul; negro-café-rojizo), desprendimiento (se desprende, no se desprende), grosor (fino, grueso), ypulido superficial (estriaciones visibles a través de la pintura, estriaciones invisibles a través de la pintura). En cada caso, el atributo applicable a la pintura orgánica se lista primero. Los casos más dificiles de indentificar son aquellos tiestos que exhiben atributos tanto de pintura orgánica como mineral. Una categoria de "pintura mixta," utilizada por arqueólogos, es razonable en tanto y cuanto no se convierta en categoría residual. Para tiestos problemáticos el SEM-EDS puede usarse para caracterizar el tipo de pintura y así afinar la identificación basada en atributos visuales.

Type
Reports
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Abel, L. J. 1955 Pottery Types of the Southwest: WaresSA, 10A, 10B, 12A, San Juan Red Ware, Mesa Verde Gray and White Ware, San Juan White Ware, edited by Colton, H.S.. Ceramic Series No. 3. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.Google Scholar
Best, S. P., Clark, R. J. H., and Withnall, R. 1992 Non-destructive Pigment Analysis of Artefacts by Raman Microscopy. Endeavor, New Series 16(2): 6673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, R. L., Canouts, V., Ately, S. De, Qoyawayma, A., 1988 The Formation of Ceramic Analytical Groups: Hopi Pottery Production and Exchange, A.D. 1300-1600. Journal of Field Archaeology 15: 317338.Google Scholar
Blair, M. E., and Blair, L. R. 1986 Margaret Tafoya: A Tewa Potter's Heritage and Legacy. Schiffer Publishing, West Chester, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Borradaile, G. J., Stewart, J. D., and Ross, W. A. 1998 Characterization of Stone Tools by Rock Magnetic Methods. Geoarchaeology 13: 7391.3.0.CO;2-5>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, B. A. 1988 Wallace Ruin Interim Report. Southwestern Lore 54(2): 833.Google Scholar
Breternitz, D. A., Rohn, A. H. Jr., and Morris, E. A. 1974 Prehistoric Ceramics of the Mesa Verde Region. Ceramic Series 5. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.Google Scholar
Chapman, K. M. 1936 The Pottery of Santo Domingo Pueblo: A Detailed Study of Its Decoration. Memoirs I. Laboratory of Anthropology, Santa Fe, New Mexico.Google Scholar
Colton, H. S. 1953 Potsherds: An Introduction to the Study of Prehistoric Southwestern Ceramics and Their Use in Historic Reconstruction. Bulletin 25. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.Google Scholar
Colton, H. S., and Hargrave, L. L. 1937 Handbook of Northern Arizona Pottery Wares. Bulletin 11. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.Google Scholar
Dittert, A. E. Jr., and Plog, F. 1980 Generations in Clay: Pueblo Pottery of the American Southwest. Northland Press, Flagstaff.Google Scholar
Ermigiotti, P. 1997 The Kiln Conference at Crow Canyon: A Summary Report'1991 to 1996. Manuscript on file, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado.Google Scholar
Evershed, R. P. 1993 Biomolecular Archaeology and Lipids. World Archaeology 25: 7493.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fewkes, J. W. 1896 A Contribution to Ethnobotany. American Anthropologist [old series] IX: 1421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fewkes, J. W. 1978 Consistency in Archaeological Measurement and Classification: A Pilot Study. American Antiquity 43: 8689.Google Scholar
Giardino, M., Miller, R., Kuzio, R., and Muirhead, D. 1998 Analysis of Ceramic Color by Spectral Reflectance. American Antiquity 63: 477183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guthe, C. E. 1925 Pueblo Pottery Making. Southwestern Expedition No. 2. Publications of the Department of Archaeology, Phillips Academy, Andover. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
Hawley, F. M. 1929 Prehistoric Pottery Pigments in the Southwest. American Anthropologist 31: 731754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawley, F. M. 1936 Field Manual of Southwestern Pottery Types. Bulletin 291. Anthropological Series, Vol. 1. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Hawley, F. M. 1938 Classification of Black Pottery Pigments and Paint Areas. University of New Mexico Bulletin 321, pp. 314. Anthropological Series Vol. 2, No. 4. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Hawley, F. G. 1938 The Chemical Analysis of Prehistoric Southwestern Glaze-Paint, with Components. University of New Mexico Bulletin 321, pp. 1527. Anthropological Series Vol. 2, No. 4. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Hayes, A. C. 1964 The Archaeology ofWetherill Mesa, Mesa Verde National Park-Colorado. Archaeological Research Series No. 7A. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Hough, W. 1897 The Hopi in Relation to their Plant Environment. American Anthropologist [old series] X: 3314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P. T. 1994 Analysis of Five Anasazi Mineral Paint Samples. Pottery Southwest 21(2): 19.Google Scholar
Kidder, A. V 1924 An Introduction to the Study of Southwestern Archaeology with a Preliminary Account of the Excavations at Pecos. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
LeFree, B. 1975 Santa Clara Pottery Today. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Lewis, L., Mitchell, E. L., and Garcia, D.L. 1990 Daughters of the Anasazi. Video edited by James Johnson. Written, produced, cinematographed, and directed by John Anthony. 1990 film project, Second Site Productions, Indianapolis.Google Scholar
Lindauer, O. 1994 Traditional and Non-traditional Pinto and Gila Polychrome. Pottery Southwest 21(4): 18.Google Scholar
Morris, E. H. 1939 Archaeological Studies in the La Plata District, Southeastern Colorado and Northwestern New Mexico. Publication No. 519. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Morris, E. H. 1975 A Simple Method for Distinguishing between Organic and Inorganic Paints on Black-on-white Anasazi Pottery. American Antiquity 40: 348349.Google Scholar
Pierce, C, Varien, M. D., Driver, J. C., Gross, G. T., and Keleher, J. W. 1998 Artifacts. In The Sand Canyon Archaeological Project: Site Testing, edited by Varien, M. D., pp. 10. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado.Google Scholar
Peckham, S. 1990 From This Earth: The Ancient Art of Pueblo Pottery. Museum of New Mexico Press, Santa Fe.Google Scholar
Robbins, W. W., Harrington, J. P., and Freire-Marreco, B. 1916 Ethnobotany of the Tewa Indians. Bulletin No. 55. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Roberts, F. H. H. Jr. 1935 A Survey of Southwestern Archaeology. American Anthropologist 37: 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohn, A.H. 1959 A Tentative Classification of Pottery from the Mesa Verde Region. Manuscript on file, Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado.Google Scholar
Rollins, R. 1993 The Cruciferae of Continental North America. Stanford University Press, Stanford.Google Scholar
Roney, J. R. 1996 The Pueblo HI Period in the Eastern San Juan Basin and Acoma-Laguna Areas. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150-1350, edited by Adler, M. A., pp. 145169. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Seaman, P. D. 1996 Hopi Dictionary. revised edition. Anthropological Papers No. 2. Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.Google Scholar
Shepard, A. O. 1936 The Technology of Pecos Pottery. In The Pottery of Pecos, Vol. II, Part II, pp. 446459. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
Shepard, A. O. 1939 Technology of LaPlata Pottery. In Archaeological Studies in the La Plata District Southwestern Colorado and Northwestern New Mexico, by Morris, E. H., pp. 249287. Publication 519. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Shepard, A. O. 1948 The Symmetry of Abstract Design with Special Reference to Ceramic Decoration. Publication 574, Contribution 47. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Shepard, A. O. 1971 A Technological Note on Awatovi Pottery. In Painted Ceramics of the Western Mound at Awatovi, by Smith, W, pp. 179184. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology No. 38. Harvard University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Shepard, A. O. 1980 Ceramics for theArchaeologist. Reprinted. Braun-Brumfield, Ann Arbor. Originally published 1956, Publication 609, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Smith, W. 1971 Painted Ceramics from the Western Mound at Awatovi. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology No. 38. Harvard University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Stevenson, M. C. 1904 The Zuni Indians, Their Mythology, Esoteric Fraternities, and Ceremonies. Twenty-third Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Swarthout, J., and Dulaney, A. 1982 A Description of Ceramic Collections from the Railroad and Transmission Line Corridors. The Coronado Project Archaeological Investigations, Salt River Project. Coronado Series 5, MNAResearch Paper 26. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.Google Scholar
Swink, C. 1996 A Comparison of Organic Paint Sources for Pottery. Handout presented to the Sixth Kiln Conference at Crow Canyon, August 23, 1996. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado.Google Scholar
Weiner, J. 1994 The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time. Vintage Books, New York.Google Scholar
Whallon, R., and Brown, J. A. (editors) 1982 Essays on Archaeological Typology. Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston, Illinois.Google Scholar
Whiting, A. F. 1939 Ethnobotany of the Hopi. Bulletin No. 15. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.Google Scholar
Whittaker, J. C, Caulkins, D., and Kamp, K.A. 1998 Evaluating Consistency in Typology and Classification. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5(2): 129164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, C. D. 1991 Appendix A. Ceramic Analysis. Hovenweep Laterals Project. Four Corners Archaeological Project Report Number 16: Archaeological Excavations on the Hovenweep Laterals, pp. 677762. Prepared for Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City. Complete Archaeological Service Associates, Cortez, Colorado.Google Scholar
Wilson, C. D. 1996 Ceramic Pigment Distributions and Regional Interaction: A Re-examination of Interpretations in Shepard's “Technology of La Plata Pottery.” Kiva 62: 83102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, C. D., and Blinman, E. 1993 Analysis of Ceramics from Mesa Verde Kilns. Manuscript on file, Division of Research and Resource Management, Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado.Google Scholar
Wilson, C. D., and Blinman, E. 1995 Ceramic Types of the Mesa Verde Region. In Archaeological Pottery of Colorado: Ceramic Clues to the Prehistoric and Protohistoric Lives of the State's Native Peoples, edited, by Brunswig, R. H. Jr., Bradley, B., and Chandler, S. M., pp. 3388.Occasional Papers No. 2. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver.Google Scholar