510 ANNUAL KEPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 193 5 



different kinds of pottery represented at each, provided the ceramic 

 sequence has previously been determined by stratigraphy. The 

 method was used for some time with good success. Recently, how- 

 ever, it has fallen into the discard. Just why this should be the case 

 is not apparent. It is true that under certain conditions it is not an 

 infallible source of evidence, particularly in chronological studies 

 based solely on surface material. Nevertheless it is helpful in out- 

 lining the main characteristics of a district and in indicating where 

 intensive work should be undertaken. In a consideration of the 

 ceramics of a single site it has more than enough merit to warrant its 

 retention in archeological procedure. By this means it is possible 

 to demonstrate in a graphic way the true nature of the pottery com- 

 plex. Perhaps one explanation for the failure to make use of the 

 system is that the workers have become so absorbed in a detailed 

 study of pottery per se — the writer has been guilty of such on occa- 

 sion — in a determination of types and the finding of names for them, 

 that they have forgotten the important factor of giving percentages. 

 It is only from such data that the real significance of each group in 

 the series can be judged. 



Accumulated data had demonstrated that there were regional 

 variations and that characteristic elements tended to conform to 

 distinct patterns or styles according to the district in which they 

 were found. Also, it was observed that the stylistic complexes 

 seemed to radiate from particular centers and that they mingled or 

 overlapped along the hazy boundary lines separating the numerous 

 spheres of influence. In addition it was definitely established that 

 there were a number of different stages or horizons in the unfolding 

 of the culture. Although writers described these features, little 

 attempt was made to combine the knowledge into a coherent whole 

 until Nelson undertook a chonological study of the entire area. He 

 had drawn up a diagrammatic chart to illustrate his conception of 

 the relations between the various groups, as well as their origins, 

 but had not completed his work when his efforts were diverted to 

 other fields.® Nelson's outline broadened the viewpoint of students 

 to a considerable degree. Even so, the possibilities for revealing a 

 vivid and fascinating narrative of culture growth were not fully 

 appreciated until Kidder published his Introduction to Southwestern 

 Archeology in 1924. Kidder not only assembled, digested, condensed, 

 and made available the salient facts of the existing data; he went 

 further and correlated the mass of information into an historical 

 reconstruction presenting for the first time a comprehensive postula- 

 tion of developments in the area. The book had greater value, 

 however, than that of summing up and interpreting the work which 



•Nelson, 1919, p. 119. 



