Petrographic Analysis of White Mountain Red Ware from East Central Arizona

Petrographic Analysis of White Mountain Red Ware from East Central Arizona

Mary F. Ownby Submitted to Dr. Scott Van Keuren Department of Anthropology 509 Williams Hall University of Vermont Burlington, VT 05405-0168

Petrographic Report No. 2016-03 Desert Archaeology, Inc. 3975 N. Tucson Blvd., Tucson, AZ 85716 ● February 2016

Petrographic Analysis of White Mountain Red Ware from East Central Arizona Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 4 GEOLOGICAL SETTING ................................................................................................................... 4 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 4 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................... 6 DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................................... 7 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 10 APPENDIX A. THIN SECTION RECORDED DATA ................................................................. 11 REFERENCES CITED ....................................................................................................................... 15


LIST OF FIGURES 1. Map showing sites and geology. TRm=Triassic Moenkopi Formation. Based on Wilson

et al. 1960. .................................................................................................................................... 5

LIST OF TABLES 1. Sample inventory ....................................................................................................................... 6 2. Comparison of petrographic, paint, and NAA results. Paint groups from Van Keuren

et al. (2013:681) ........................................................................................................................... 8 3. Summary of NAA data groups by site (Van Keuren data only, omits samples from

Pinedale Ruin). ........................................................................................................................... 9 4. Summary of NAA data groups by ceramic type (Van Keuren data only, omits samples

of types not listed) ..................................................................................................................... 9 A.1. Codes for descriptions of paste and inclusions in thin sections ....................................... 12 A.2. Description of the paste .......................................................................................................... 13 A.3. Frequency of monomineralic inclusions and grog .............................................................. 13 A.4. Frequency of Rock Fragments ................................................................................................ 14


PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF WHITE MOUNTAIN RED WARE FROM EAST CENTRAL ARIZONA

The petrographic analysis of twelve sherds of White Mountain Red Ware (WMRW) from three sites in east central Arizona aimed to clarify the clay and mineral inclusions used to produce these samples. This information was important as chemical analysis through neutron activation analysis (NAA) had classified these samples, and 331 other samples, into 10 existing WMRW NAA groups. Petrographic analysis of the twelve samples would provide information on what aspects of the paste were separating the samples into different chemical groups. Further, this information could be related to the geology of the sites where the sherds were excavated to determine their likelihood of local production. GEOLOGICAL SETTING The WMRW analyzed in this study was recovered from three sites in east central Arizona. Most of the pottery examined is from Fourmile Ruin, AZ P:12:4 (ASM). This site is located on Cottonwood Wash southwest of Snowflake (Figure 1). The site sits on the Triassic Moenkopi Formation comprised predominantly of dark red sandstone and mudstone (Richard et al. 2000, Wilson et al. 1960). Cottonwood Wash drains a broad range of sedimentary deposits including Miocene to Pliocene sandstone, Cretaceous Dakota sandstone and Mancos shale, and Permian limestone and Coconino sandstone. To the southeast of Fourmile Ruin is Shumway Ruin, AZ P:12:6 (ASM), which is located along Show Low Creek. This site is also on Moenkopi Formation deposits, but in this case Show Low Creek drains this formation plus Middle Pliocene to Holocene basaltic rocks found to the south. Chevelon Ruin is located north of this area and east of Winslow, Arizona. The site overlooks Chevelon Creek as it sits on a low hill of Moenkopi sandstone. This creek drains Moenkopi formation and Coconino sandstone with lesser Permian limestone. METHODOLOGY The 12 WMRW samples from these three sites were mostly typed as Fourmile Polychrome, though two were classified as Fourmile Polychrome copy, a variant believed to be local to Fourmile Ruin (Table 1). For each sample, a set of qualitative criteria were recorded along with notes on the clay, general appearance, inclusions, and similarities to previously examined samples (see Appendix A for the recorded information for each sample). The color of the sections in both plane and cross polarized light were described followed by an indication of the optical activity of the matrix, i.e., fired clay and inclusions. This information is important for a general estimate of firing temperature, as typically above 850°C the matrix will become vitrified and be optically inactive (Rice 1987:431). Along with temper type, the percentage of inclusions, their sorting, size range, and shape range was noted for both added (including grog) and natural inclusions. Sorting was based on visual charts found in Matthew et al. (1991), size range is based on the Wentworth (1922) scale, and shape range utilizes Powers’ (1953) scale of roundness. For the identified mineral grains and


rock fragments their presence was noted and a frequency was assigned based on four categories: very rare (1-5 grains), rare (approx. 10 percent), sparse (approx. 10-25 percent), frequent (approx. 25-50 percent), abundant (approx. 50-75 percent), and highly abundant (approx. greater than 75 percent). This information is important for characterizing the types of grains present and those that are dominant.

Figure 1: Map showing sites and geology. TRm=Triassic Moenkopi Formation. Based on Wilson et al. 1960.


Table 1. Sample Inventory.

Sample No. NAA anid Site Pottery Type NAA Group

SVK1 SAP288 Fourmile Ruin Fourmile Polychrome 3 SVK2 SAP304 Chevelon Ruin Fourmile Polychrome 3 SVK3 SAP108 Fourmile Ruin Fourmile Polychrome 5 SVK4 SAP149 Fourmile Ruin Fourmile Polychrome 5 SVK5 SAP204 Fourmile Ruin Fourmile Polychrome 5 SVK6 SAP289 Fourmile Ruin Fourmile Poly Copy 6 SVK7 SAP294 Fourmile Ruin Fourmile Poly Copy 6 SVK8 SAP150 Fourmile Ruin Fourmile Polychrome 7 SVK9 SAP280 Fourmile Ruin Fourmile Polychrome 7 SVK10 SAP336 Shumway Ruin Fourmile Polychrome 7 SVK11 SAP102 Fourmile Ruin Fourmile Polychrome 9 SVK12 SAP174 Fourmile Ruin Fourmile Polychrome 9

RESULTS The petrographic analysis of the 12 WMRW sherds indicated similarities among them. All appeared to have been made with a clay derived from shale with natural inclusions of silty quartz and muscovite. However, the amount of these inclusions could vary. For example, SVK1 (Group 3) had common silty quartz and muscovite in the clay. At the other end of the spectrum, SVK11 and SVK12 (Group 9) had little silty quartz and muscovite. Other inclusions in the analyzed samples were very rare potassium feldspar and plagioclase, mostly in fine-sizes, though SVK6 and SVK7 (Group 6), and SVK11 and SVK12 (Group 9) had medium-sized potassium feldspar grains. All samples also contained very rare fragments of chert, mostly in very fine to medium sizes. Some of the samples had additional very rare inclusions. SVK1 and SVK5 each had a probable fine-grained sandstone fragment. SVK2 had a single likely metasiltstone inclusion. SVK5 and SVK6 had a few grains that are probably microcline. The latter sample also had micritic limestone, quartzite, and one metasiltstone. This sample had some plagioclase exhibiting weathering by sericite. SVK7 had a few fine-sized microcline grains, a few fragments of quartzite and anhydrite/gypsum was seen in some of the pores. This sample like, SVK8, SVK9, SVK11 and SVK12, had a single possible felsic volcanic rock fragment, which may have derived from the grog. SVK 8 also had a few quartzite and micritic limestone inclusions. SVK9 likewise had a few quartzite grains. A possible granite or schist fragment was seen in SVK10. Quartzite along with a possible sandstone fragment and a likely metasiltstone inclusion were identified in SVK11. Notably, all of these very rare inclusions are sedimentary or metasedimentary in character, with the exception of the felsic volcanic rock fragments that are possibly present in a few samples. By far the most common inclusions in all of the analyzed sherds were fragments of crushed pottery sherds, called grog. In all cases, the grog fragments could have a fabric (i.e., fired clay and inclusions) similar to the sherd they were in or have a different fabric. This clearly indicates that multiple broken pots were used to provide grog. The amount of grog did vary with samples such as SVK3 (Group 5), SVK8 (Group 7), and SVK11 and SVK12 (Group 9) having a elevated amount than the other sherds. However, these samples are also ones that


were fired more highly, which appears to make the grog more visible. Nevertheless, variation in amount of grog was noted among the samples. The firing temperature for the analyzed sherds ranged from 800°C to 850°C. As stated, several were likely fired closer to 850°C, including SVK3, SVK6 and SVK7 (Group 6), and SVK8. The firing of SVK11 and SVK12 was very similar and their appearance suggests a quick firing up to 850°C. The other six samples were fired below 850°C but likely not below 800°C. For all of the samples the slip was visible in the thin section. Its appearance suggests a red clay was employed as inclusions, mostly of quartz, were seen in the slip. The amount of inclusions could vary, often depending on the thickness of the slip, which was also inconsistent among samples. Most of the samples had black and white paint visible in the thin section. In some cases the black paint appeared to sit on top of the paint (SVK1, SVK6, SVK7, SVK10, and SVK12) but for others it was more sunk into the red slip (SVK2, SVK5, and SVK9). In comparison to the analysis of the paint (see Van Keuren et al. 2013 and Table 2 below), there may be a correlation between paint type 2a that appears to sit on top of the red slip and paint type 3a and 3b where the paint has been slightly absorbed by the slip. This could relate to the lower manganese of the Type 2 paints versus the higher manganese in the Type 3 paints (Van Keuren et al. 2013:681). This suggestion would require further testing and analysis. The appearance of the white paint visible in thin section suggested a clay paint, likely kaolin, and in many cases the this was similar to the clay used to make the vessel. A few samples (SVK5, SVK7, SVK8, SVK10, and SVK11) may have had calcium carbonate added to the clay paint, possibly to make it whiter. DISCUSSION The petrographic analysis of 12 WMRW samples, comprising 10 Fourmile Polychrome and 2 Fourmile Polychrome copy types, revealed remarkable similarity among the samples, especially given that they had been placed into 5 different chemical groups (Table 2). Surprisingly, no unique set of inclusions distinguished the samples in the various NAA groups. Rather, all exhibited a clay probably derived from Mancos shale outcrops with natural inclusions of silty quartz, muscovite, fine to medium-sized quartz, potassium feldspar, plagioclase, and chert. Very rare inclusions of quartzite, metasiltstone, and sandstone also indicate a sedimentary geologic environment for the raw materials. Unfortunately, that is compatible with the locations of the three sites from which the pottery analyzed was excavated (see Figure 1). Fourmile Ruin is near Cottonwood Creek that drains Cretaceous Mancos shale and other sedimentary formations (Richard et al. 2000, Wilson et al. 1960). The site is on Triassic Moenkopi Formation that includes mudstone deposits. Likewise, Shumway Ruin is on Moenkopi Formation outcrops, though Mancos Shale is less available and the nearby Middle Pliocene to Holocene basalt may impact any secondary clay deposits. Chevelon Ruin though located approximately 50 kms north, also sits on the Moenkopi formation, although in this area sandstone is more common.


Table 2. Comparison of petrographic, paint, and NAA results. Paint groups from Van Keuren et al. (2013:681).

Sample No.

Site Pottery Type Petrographic Description NAA Group

Paint

Group1

SVK1 Fourmile Ruin Fourmile Poly Shale clay and grog 3 2a SVK2 Chevelon Ruin Fourmile Poly Shale clay and grog 3 3b SVK3 Fourmile Ruin Fourmile Poly Shale clay and grog 5 3a SVK4 Fourmile Ruin Fourmile Poly Shale clay and grog 5 3a SVK5 Fourmile Ruin Fourmile Poly Shale clay and grog 5 3b SVK6 Fourmile Ruin Fourmile Poly Copy Shale clay and grog 6 2a SVK7 Fourmile Ruin Fourmile Poly Copy Shale clay and grog 6 2a SVK8 Fourmile Ruin Fourmile Poly Shale clay and grog 7 2a SVK9 Fourmile Ruin Fourmile Poly Shale clay and grog 7 3a SVK10 Shumway Ruin Fourmile Poly Shale clay and grog 7 2a SVK11 Fourmile Ruin Fourmile Poly Shale clay and grog 9 2a SVK12 Fourmile Ruin Fourmile Poly Shale clay and grog 9 2a

1 2a: high in copper; low in manganese; high in lead (relative to Group 2b); 3a: high in copper; high in manganese; high

in lead (relative to Group 3b); 3b: high in copper; high in manganese; low in lead (relative to Group 3a) Thus, the petrographic analysis, like the NAA data, was not able to identify where the examined pottery was produced. The broadly similar geology in this region of Arizona makes determining pottery sources challenging when the raw materials are sedimentary derived (Richard et al. 2000). Rather, the important point is the similarities petrographically and chemically among samples. Though the inclusions are similar in the 12 samples examined and all contained variably amounts of grog with different pastes, the overall look to the fabric was more similar among samples from the same chemical group. Although this is a vague method for grouping, and similarities of appearance are difficult to describe, it suggests that the clay chemistry may be the most influential factor in grouping the samples. Interestingly, when a sample in a group (e.g., SVK3 in Group 5) had a slightly different appearance to the fabric than the other samples in that group, it was due to a higher firing temperature. Two sets of samples were most distinct, SVK6 and SVK7 (Group 6), had a more iron-rich paste, while SVK11 and SVK12 (Group 9) also had a slightly iron-rich but heterogeneous paste. The Group 9 sherds were most similar to SVK8, SVK9, and SVK10 (Group 7). The latter group was similar to SVK3, SVK4, and SVK5 (Group 5) but had more silty quartz in the paste. Those samples were similar to SVK1 and SVK2 (Group 3), which had silty but not identical pastes possibly related to the fact that SVK2 is the only Pinedale Polychrome example. Thus, though it may be a challenge to precisely describe the factors that make the fabrics of each group more analogous to each other than to samples in the other groups, there does seem to be a legitimate pattern. This probably indicates different clay sources, but their geographic spread is difficult to establish. All could potentially be near the same site or come from a number of sites in the larger region. When these results are examined in light of the NAA data, it may be that samples in Group 7 have a clay source near Chevelon Ruin (Table 3). However, a number of Group 7 samples were also from Shumway Ruin. As by far the most sherds analyzed by NAA and petrography were from Fourmile Ruin, it is not surprising that those samples dominant


several NAA groups such as Groups 3, 5, 6, and 9. The petrographic differences in the fabric may suggest several clay sources for WMRW production at Fourmile Ruin. Likewise, the majority of sherds in this NAA database are Fourmile Polychrome. Thus, they dominate NAA Groups 5 and 7, who were slightly different in appearance petrographically. NAA Groups 3 and 9 are less clearly related to a specific type, but NAA Group 6 appears to represent Fourmile Polychrome copies believed to be local to Fourmile Ruin. The sherds petrographically analyzed from this group were distinct in appearance to those in the other groups. This may indicate a particular clay source employed for making local version of Fourmile Polychrome at Fourmile Ruin. Table 3. Summary of NAA data groups by site (Van Keuren data only, omits samples from Pinedale Ruin).

NAA Group Fourmile Ruin Shumway Ruin Chevelon Ruin Total

3 20 6 3 29 4 2 0 0 2 5 48 6 7 61 6 60 3 0 63 7 67 16 10 93 8 1 0 0 1 9 11 1 1 13 11 5 8 0 13 Unassigned/ Outliers

20 6 2 28

Total 234 46 23 303

Table 4. Summary of NAA data groups by ceramic type (Van Keuren data only, omits samples of types not listed).

NAA Group Fourmile Poly Fourmile Poly Copy Pinedale Poly Total

3 9 8 4 21 4 0 1 0 1 5 55 1 0 56 6 8 43 2 53 7 75 9 1 85 8 0 0 0 0 9 8 2 0 10 11 6 2 1 9 Unassigned/ Outliers

16 5 0 21

Total 177 71 8 256

Analysis of the larger NAA database of WMRW seems to suggest grouping occurring by site and ceramic type, indicating that certain types were likely more often made at particular sites and then distributed from that area. As stated, it may be that NAA Groups 5 and 7 represent Fourmile Polychrome made at Fourmile Ruin, while NAA Group 6 with a distinct fabric encompasses Fourmile Polychrome copies made at Fourmile Ruin. NAA Group 3 could be the production of Pinedale Polychrome and some Fourmile Polychrome (with


slightly different pastes) at Pinedale Ruin. NAA Group 9 with a distinctive paste could be Fourmile and Pinedale Polychrome made in the Mogollon and Tonto areas. Although this suggests a number of broadly distributed production sites, what is significant is the clay preference despite some geologic variability, and the consistency of adding grog temper. This technological tradition was widespread and also appears in other ceramic wares such as Cibola White Ware. However, WMRW is different because its manufacture required access to iron-rich clay for slip and components for the paint. Thus, it could not be made everywhere. A previous petrographic study of 15 samples of WMRW, including 7 Puerco Black-on-red, 5 Wingate Black-on-red, 2 St. Johns Black-on-red, and one St. Johns Polychrome, also identified grog temper in shale-derived clays (Ownby 2014). NAA data from these samples suggested they could be placed into two separate groups, which also had samples of Cibola White Ware and Soccoro White Ware. Analysis of these data in the larger NAA database of St. Johns and Wingate types indicated a number of production locations in Arizona and New Mexico, though some separation in the movement of pottery between these areas. Further, the NAA data suggested that Cibola White Ware was more broadly produced than WMRW. CONCLUSION While the petrographic data was not able to identify any specific inclusions that separated the 12 WMRW samples into the five NAA groups, it did indicate that fabric differences were likely playing a role. This relates to the clay selected suggesting several separate raw material sources likely utilized in producing this pottery. Further, though the grog was variable in terms of fabric and prevalence, it seems to have not overwhelmed the NAA chemical signatures of the clay. This is an important result especially as for other NAA datasets, grog temper has appeared to affect the chemical distinctiveness of groups. This study along with others, confirms that the combination of NAA and petrographic data are a robust methodology for better clarifying the production and distribution of ancient pottery.


APPENDIX A

THIN SECTION RECORDED DATA

Appendix A. Thin Section Recorded Data Page 12

Table A.1. Frequency codes.

Category Code Definition

Frequency 0 Does not exist

1 Very rare (1-5 grains)

2 Rare (c. 10%)

3 Sparse (c. 10-25%)

4 Frequent (c. 25-50%)

5 Abundant (c. 50-75%)

6 Highly Abundant (c. >75%)


Table A.1. Description of the paste.

Sample No. Color PPL1 Color XPL2 Optical Activity Temper Type % Inclusions3 Sorting Size Range Shape Range

SVK1 Yellow Yellowish gray Slight Grog 20 Fair v. fine to coarse Angular to rounded

SVK2 Yellow Yellowish gray Slight Grog 30 Poor v. fine to v. coarse Angular to rounded

SVK3 Gray Gray Inactive Grog 40 Poor v. fine to v. coarse Angular to subrounded

SVK4 Yellow Yellowish gray Slight Grog 30 Fair v. fine to v. coarse Angular to rounded


SVK6 Dark gray Dark gray Inactive Grog 30 Poor v. fine to v. coarse Angular to rounded

SVK7 Gray Gray Inactive Grog 30 Fair v. fine to v. coarse Angular to rounded

SVK8 Dark gray Dark gray Inactive Grog 40 Fair v. fine to v. coarse Angular to rounded





1 PPL: plane polarized light 2 XPL: cross polarized light 3 Percentage of inclusions, sorting, and size and shape ranges includes natural and added inclusions such as grog.

Table A.2. Frequency of monomineralic inclusions and grog

Sample No. QTZ1 KSPAR MICR PLAG PLAGAL MUSC BIOT CHLOR PX AMPH OPAQ FOX EPID SPH GAR GROG

SVK1 4 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 3

SVK2 4 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3

SVK3 4 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4

SVK4 4 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3

SVK5 4 1 1 1 9 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3

SVK6 4 1 1 1 1 3 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 3

SVK7 4 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3

SVK8 4 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 4

SVK9 4 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 3

SVK10 4 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3

SVK11 4 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 4

SVK12 4 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 4

1 qtz=quartz, kspar=potassium feldspar, micr=microcline, plag=plagioclase, plagal=altered plagioclase, mus=muscovite, bio=biotite, chlor=chlorite, px=pyroxene, amph=amphibole, opaq=opaques, fox=iron oxides, epid=epidote, sph=sphene, gar=garnet, tour=tourmaline


Table A.3. Frequency of rock fragments

Sample No. LVF1 LVFB LVI LVM LVV LVH LMF LMA LMT LMTP LMSS LSS LSA LSCH LSCA

SVK1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

SVK2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

SVK3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

SVK4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

SVK5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

SVK6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1

SVK7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

SVK8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1

SVK9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

SVK10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

SVK11 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0

SVK12 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

1 LVF=felsic volcanic (e.g. rhyolite), LVFB=biotite-bearing felsic volcanic, LVI=intermediate volcanic (e.g. andesite), LVM=mafic volcanic (e.g. basalt), LVV=vitric volcanic (e.g. obsidian), LVH= Hypabyssal volcanics, LMF=foliated quartz aggregate (e.g. quartzite), LMA=quartz-feldspar (mica) aggregate, LMT=quartz-feldspar-mica tectonite (e.g. schist), LMTP=phyllite, LMSS= Metamorphosed sedimentary rock, LSS=granular aggregates of equant subangular to rounded grains (e.g. siltstones), LSA=very fine-grained, semi-opaque sedimentary (e.g. shale), LSCH=microcrystalline aggregates of silica (e.g. chert), LSCA=very fine calcite crystals (e.g. carbonate)

REFERENCES CITED

Matthew, Anthony J., Ann J. Woods, and C. Oliver 1991 Spots Before the Eyes: New Comparison Charts for Visual Percentage Estimation in

Archaeological Material. In Recent Developments in Ceramic Petrology, edited by Andrew P. Middleton and Ian C. Freestone, pp. 211-264. British Museum Occasional Paper No. 81. British Museum Press, London.

Ownby, Mary F. 2013 Chemical and Petrographic Analysis of Decorated Pottery from Four Sites in El

Malpais National Monument, New Mexico. In Ritual in the Lava: The Las Ventanas Community Landscape Study on the El Malpais National Monument, New Mexico, 2010-12, edited by P.F. Reed. Technical Report No. 2013-101. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson.

Powers, Maurice C. 1953 A new roundness scale for sedimentary particles. Journal of Sedimentary Research 23:117-

119. Rice, Prudence M. 1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Richard, Stephen M., Stephen J. Reynolds, Jon E. Spencer, and Philip A. Pearthree 2000 Geologic Map of Arizona 1:1,000,000. United States Geological Survey, Washington D.C. Van Keuren, Scott, Hector Neff, and Mark R. Agostini 2013 Glaze-paints, technological knowledge, and ceramic specialization in the fourteenth-

century Pueblo Southwest. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32:675–690. Wentworth, Chester K. 1922 A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediments. Journal of Geology 30:377-392. Wilson, Eldred D., Richard T. Moore, and Robert T. O’Haire 1960 Geologic Map of Navajo and Apache Counties, Arizona. University of Arizona Bureau of

Mines, Tucson.

Documents

Petrographic Analysis of White Mountain Red Ware from East Central Arizona