The Chapin and Piedra types have been distinguished mainly by design
(Hayes and
Lancaster:111). Wilson and Blinman (47) report a mix of Chapin and Piedra characteristics in PI pottery throughout the 800s; they find the distinction between the two “arbitrary.” Cattenach (210) feels the continuum of PI pottery could easily be divided into Chapin, Cortez, and transitional.
In a comparison of two sets of tree-ring-dated sites, however, Hayes and Lancaster found the Chapin – Piedra sequence validated. They compared ceramics from La Plata
pithouses, tree-ring-dated to the 600s, with sherds of 250 years later from Site 1676 and Badger House
(Hayes and
Lancaster:111). Only Chapin was found in the pithouse sites. Piedra appeared at the other sites in the first half of the 700s, constituted 15% of the B/w sherds in those locations by AD 750, constituted about half the assemblage at Site 1644, and Houses 4, 5, and Protokiva C of Site 1676 at ~ AD 860, and dominated the assemblage by AD 875-900. The transition to Cortez was in evidence by AD 900
(Hayes and
Lancaster:114).
While the two types have been distinguished primarily by a perceived change in design style, there are differences or a continuum in other characteristics. To summarize what the Type lists show: Piedra paint is mainly mineral, reported on all but 3.8% at Badger House, and on all but 12% at Site 1676
(Hayes and
Lancaster:114). Mineral with some carbon was reported at Longhouse (Cattenach:210). However, since the incidence of mineral paint is higher in all periods in areas west of Mesa Verde proper
(Breternitz et
al), a Chapin/Piedra paint difference may be less significant as one moves west of the Mesa sites. In the later Piedra contexts, sherds are smoothed and polished. Slip appears on 23% of later Piedra sherds at Badger House
(Hayes and
Lancaster:114). Fugitive red is diversely reported: while it was almost nonexistent at Badger House
(Hayes and
Lancaster:114), Wilson and Blinman (47) report it as ‘sometimes present. . .not as common as in Chapin.’
|