FEWKEs] POTTERY FROM THE LITTLE COLORADO RUINS 57 



and Sikyatki, though its deooratioii has mauy likenesses to that on 

 the ijottery from tliese ruins. It has seemed best to discuss the 

 ceramic ware of these three localities together, but in so doing it is 

 thought necessary to mention the particular place from which each 

 specimen was obtained." 



It has been shown in an account of the pottery of Sikyatki, where 

 conclusions were drawn from a large collection, that there was not a 

 single piece of glazed pottery found in that ruin. At Awatobi few 

 such fragments were found, but in the Ilbmolobi and Chevlon ruins 

 there were many glazed bowls, pots, and jars. 



The question whether the ancient Pueblos glazed their ware has 

 been answei-ed in both the affirmative and negativ-e, and this differ- 

 ence, no doubt, is due to the want of a good definition of the term 

 glaze. Some of the bowls found at Ilomolobi and Chevlon have a 

 black vitreous covering resisting a knife point, but which is not the 

 gloss derived from polishing the vessel, but apparently from some 

 salt used in the preparation of the black jjigment with which the 

 ware is painted. This glaze, however, has not been detected on any 

 colors but black and green, or on auj- ware except the red, which is 

 so abundant in both the ruins here described. 



It is hardly necessary to consider at any great length the vai'ious 

 forms of ancient pottery obtained in 1896, for this would simi)ly 

 duplicate work already published in tlie author's account of Sikyatki. 

 Moreover, the question of variety of forms has alread\' been amply 

 discn.ssed by others. The mode of manufacture, technic, coloration, 

 and like questions were the first to attract attention of students, and, 

 while by no means exhaustively presented, are treated more exten- 

 sively than the character and meaning of the decoration. A few 

 types present the vai'ious forms of pottery from the ancient ruins, 

 and for a study of form alone the material in our museums is ample. 

 With derivation of .symbols, however, the problem is ver_y different, 

 for in a collection of thousands of specimens we rarely find two in 

 which the oi-namentation is the same. In a general way it may be 

 said that certain decorative types are followed, but the variations are 

 so mauy that in attempting to present an adequate idea of ancient 

 ceramic ornamentation it is necessary to describe almost every speci- 

 men. Manifestly that would be impossible, and as we need classifica- 

 tion in this department of study, the following is proposed. 



<i Unfortunately for close study of the lesson taught by Pueblo pottery regarding the migra- 

 ti(m of the ancient people of Arizona, the ruin from whii'h ancient Tusayan ware was collected 

 is not mentioned in early writings on fdd Pueblo pottei-y. Thus, we find specimens from 

 Awatobi. Canyon de Chelly, and .Sikyatki given one locality, ''Tusayan," and modern Tanoan 

 potterj' made at Hano by colonists from the Rio Grande bearing the same indefinite description. 

 Almost all Ihe modem pottery from "Tusayan" in the National Museum is intrusive in that 

 province, and is practically modified Tanoan. 



