Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 14 (2017) 432–438

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jasrep

Replicating Red: Analysis of ceramic slip color with CIELAB color data MARK
⁎
James R. McGrath , Margaret Beck, Matthew E. Hill Jr
Department of Anthropology, University of Iowa, 114 Macbride Hall, Iowa City, IA 52242, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The CIELAB (International Commission on Illumination L*a*b*) tristimulous color space offers archaeologists an
Ceramics alternative to the Munsell system for analysis of the color of archaeological material and geological deposits.
Color measurement CIELAB space maps colors in three dimensions and does not require complicated mathematical manipulations
CIEL*a*b* color space before use in quantitative analyses. It can also be collected easily and inexpensively from digital photographs.
Pueblo-Plains interactions
Here we illustrate how to collect and use CIELAB data through our reanalysis of red-slipped ceramics in western
North America, comparing our results to a previous study of red slip color that relied on descriptive Munsell
data. Our case involves red-slipped ceramics from two contact-period Native American archaeological sites in
Kansas, USA. The CIELAB data support previous conclusions about changes in slip color through time in
Ledbetter Red, enabling more precise descriptions of color and testing of statistically significant differences
between groups. We argue that our methods record color in a more objective, precise way than is possible with
the human eye alone, and that the resulting data are useful for artifact or material comparison.

1. Introduction
Color is an important characteristic of archaeological materials, but
humans perceive and describe color in imprecise and irregular ways.
Many archaeologists use the Munsell system (Munsell, 1915) in an at-
tempt to standardize data collection for color. This system can identify a
wide range of colors, organized by three characteristics: value, hue, and
chroma (Munsell Color, 2000). Although many researchers use Munsell
colors in a purely descriptive way (e.g., replacing “red” with 7.5 R 5/6),
some have experimented with quantifying Munsell color data for use in
statistical analyses. For example, D'Andrade and Romney (2003) de-
veloped a model for generating x,y, and z (value, hue, and chroma)
coordinates from Munsell colors, and this approach was recently ap-
plied by Ruck and Brown (2015) to ceramics from Mayapán in Mexico
for analyzing color with analytic geometry. This shift from nominal to
interval data for color, however, does not address the imprecision and
inaccuracy of human vision. Observations of the same color by one
viewer may vary with differences in lighting conditions, moisture
content, and luster; observations of the same color by multiple viewers
may vary with minor physiological variations among the observers
(Gerharz et al., 1988; Frankel, 1980). In this paper, we argue that the
CIELAB (Commission internationale de l'échlairage [International Com-
mission on Illumination] L*a*b*) three dimensional color space system
offers advantages over the Munsell system for standardizing color re-
porting and comparison, here demonstrating its utility in a study of
color variation among red-slipped ceramics. Our analysis differentiates
ceramic slip colors in terms of hue, chroma, and lightness. Hue, also
referred to as tint or shade, distinguishes one color from another with
respect to the five principal colors (e.g., blue, green, yellow, orange,
red) and intermediate colors (e.g., yellow-red, green-yellow, etc.;
Cleland, 1921:14). Hue is associated with particular wavelengths of
light reflected from an object. Chroma is the strength of a color, re-
flecting the departure of that color from a white or grey standard
(Cleland, 1921:116). For example, colors with little chroma appear
more white or grey, whereas a color with high chroma would appear
much more vibrant. Finally, lightness describes the brightness of an
object relative to that of a similarly illuminated white color (Hunt and
Pointer, 2011; Fairchild, 2013).
Here we use CIELAB color data to evaluate previous conclusions
about red slip color (Beck et al., 2016) based on descriptive Munsell
data. We collected CIELAB color data for Ledbetter Red ceramics from
two Native American archaeological sites in Kansas, USA, and com-
pared these data between sites and with nonlocal red-slipped ceramics
(Tewa Red, Tewa Polychrome, and Plain Red). The nonlocal ceramics
were recovered from Kansas but originally made in Puebloan commu-
nities in New Mexico. According to both the CIELAB data and Munsell
data, potters making Ledbetter Red had a higher rate of success in
oxidizing red slips later in time, producing slips that were more similar
in color to those of Puebloan red-slipped ceramics. The CIELAB data
also record some previously undetected differences in hue between
Ledbetter Red and Puebloan red-slipped ceramics, suggesting regional
differences in the raw materials used for the slips. We conclude that the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: james-mcgrath@uiowa.edu (J.R. McGrath).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.06.020
Received 3 April 2017; Received in revised form 10 June 2017; Accepted 13 June 2017
2352-409X/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.R. McGrath et al.
CIELAB color system provides an easy, inexpensive, and quantitative
way to characterize color and better evaluate artifact similarities and
differences.
1.1. CIE L*a*b* color space
The CIELAB system, unlike Munsell data, can reliably and con-
sistently provide color designations without the problems of inter- and
intra-observer variation in color perception. Until recently, CIELAB
color space was rarely used by archaeologists, perhaps due to the high
cost of equipment (e.g., colorimeters or spectrophotometers) used to
record color in place of the human eye. However, CIELAB color data
can now be collected from digital photographs taken under uniform
lighting conditions using relatively low cost software, such as Adobe
Photoshop (Yam and Papadakis, 2004). Thus far, CIELAB data have
been successfully applied to a range of materials, including archae-
ological paintings (García et al., 2016; Rifkin et al., 2016), ochres
(Bernatchez, 2012; d'Errico et al., 2012), fire modified rock (Oestmo,
2013) and ceramics (Chenoweth and Farahani, 2015; Pérez-Arantegui
et al., 2009).
The CIELAB color system is a preferred color measurement system
used because it closely approximates the way the human eye perceives
colors (Hunt and Pointer, 2011; CIE, 2004). It is based on the color-
opponent theory, which states that due to the nature of our cone pho-
toreceptors, humans cannot perceive colors that are either red and
green at the same time, yellow and blue at the same time, or white and
black at the same time (Hurvich and Jameson, 1957). The CIELAB
system defines colors in three dimensions: L* (lightness), a* (red-green
coordinate), and b (yellow-blue coordinate) (Fig. 1). Both a* and b*
axis values range from approximately −128 to + 128. The third axis,
L* (lightness), is perpendicular to both a* and b* and increases from
bottom to top. L* ranges from 0 to 100.
CIELAB color data can be represented using three-dimensional
Cartesian coordinates, allowing quantitative data analysis. In CIELAB
space, the three dimensional color distance between two points is
known as ‘delta E’ (ΔE). The average untrained human eye generally
cannot differentiate between two colors that possess a ΔE less than 2.0
CIELAB units, although this value varies between colors (Melgosa et al.,
1997; Mokrzycki and Tatol, 2011). For example, some shades of red are
more difficult to distinguish from one another. In one analysis of red
Fig. 1. Graphical representation of hue angle and chroma in CIELAB color space. Hue
angle values range from 0° to 360° and chroma values can range from 0 to 181. Figure
after Fairchild, 2013. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend,
the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
433
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 14 (2017) 432–438
wines, Martínez et al. (2001) determined that the average human eye
can only distinguish dark shades of red if they differ by at least 3.0
CIELAB units. This suggests that CIELAB color space can be used to
differentiate colors at a higher resolution than is usually possible with
the human eye alone.
Hue and chroma in the CIELAB color space are determined by the
position of the a* and b* color coordinates. Hue can best be identified
as a vector originating from the Cartesian origin (a*, b* coordinates
equalling 0,0) and extending past the sample's actual a*, b* color co-
ordinates to a surrounding color wheel. The angle that is created,
known as the color's hue angle, is an indicator of the color present along
the perimeter of the color wheel (Hunt and Pointer, 2011). Chroma, as
it is used in the Munsell color system, can be thought of as the distance
from a neutral color (with a* and b* values equalling 0) to that color's
actual measured values (Hunt and Pointer, 2011; Fairchild, 2013).
Colors have greater chroma and appear more vibrant as one moves
closer to the exterior (on a* or b* axis) and more muted towards the
interior. Fig. 2 illustrates these points with both a red-orange and
yellow vector. A third random distribution of points is shown to illus-
trate the effect of the color wheel in two-dimensional space.
Color lightness is expressed as the L* value (Hunt and Pointer, 2011;
Fairchild, 2013). This value can vary across artifacts and even within
similarly hued colors. The human eye tends to have difficulty in dif-
ferentiating colors with extreme lightness values.
1.2. The archaeological case and study area
The red-slipped ceramics in this study were recovered from two
seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Native American sites in the High
Plains of western Kansas, USA: 14SC1 and 14SC304 (Hoard, 2009;
Williston and Martin, 1900; Witty, 1983). 14SC1, also known as the
Scott County Pueblo, began some time between 1500 and 1645 CE (Hill
et al., n.d.; Beck et al., 2016) as an occupation of local Plain Apache
people (archaeologically labeled as “Dismal River”). Puebloan people
from the northern Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico joined this com-
munity during the Spanish colonial period, building a small masonry
pueblo around 1620 and abandoning it around 1690 (Beck et al., 2016;
Trabert et al., 2016). All of the 14SC1 ceramics analyzed here come
from the pueblo and its associated features. The ceramics analyzed from
14SC304 were recovered from an Apachean wickiup structure and as-
sociated trash midden dating to 1690–1730 CE, overlapping with or
immediately following the occupation at 14SC1 (Beck et al., 2016).
The red-slipped ceramics from 14SC1 and 14SC304 (Beck et al.,
2016) fall into two categories: (1) locally produced Ledbetter Red and
(2) nonlocal red-slipped ceramics, including Tewa Red and con-
temporaneous red-slipped ceramics from New Mexico. The type Tewa
Red is characterized by a bright red, well-polished slip and volcanic ash,
tuff, or pumice temper collected within its area of manufacture in New
Mexico's Española Basin. Tewa Polychrome exhibits a similar bright red
slip as well as a white slip and black paint. Similar red-slipped ceramics
were produced elsewhere in the Puebloan Southwest, including at
Pecos Pueblo where these “Plain Red” ceramics include siltstone or
sandstone particles along with arkosic sand temper. Ledbetter Red is
defined as a copy of Tewa Red produced in western Kansas, at sites such
as 14SC1, 14SC304, and 14SC409, and is tempered with inclusions si-
milar in composition to the nearby Ogallala Formation (Beck et al.,
2016). Potters originally from the northern Rio Grande reproduced
Tewa Red after their move to western Kansas, creating Ledbetter Red.
Previous conclusions about temporal changes in Ledbetter Red
production were based in part on slip color, recorded using the Munsell
system (Beck et al., 2016:Tables 1–2). Beck et al. (2016:158) claimed
that “[p]otters at the earliest site, 14SC1, had the most difficulty in
replicating the bright red Tewa slip color. If these potters had recently
moved here from the northern Rio Grande region … they may have
been adjusting to local differences in firing materials or conditions.”
Later potters at 14SC304 were more successful in producing a bright
J.R. McGrath et al. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 14 (2017) 432–438

Fig. 2. Three plots of CIELAB color values illustrating the relationship between vector angles and hues of colors. The vector on the left figure illustrates colors with red-orange hues (Hue
angle = 45°) and variable chroma values, the central figure shows a different vector with colors possessing yellow hues (Hue angle = 0°) with variable chroma values, and the right figure
shows a randomized distribution of colors with varying chroma values. The color displayed for each point is the actual color that occurs at that location in CIELAB color space. This figure
was created in MatLab using the plot_Lab.m script by Eckhard and Domingo (2014). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web
version of this article.)

red slip, “having apparently worked out any kinks in the firing process.” recovered from the earlier site, 14SC1 (Beck et al., 2016:Table 1); 37
Specifically, Beck et al. (2016) argued that the slip color on Ledbetter Ledbetter Red sherds recovered from the later site, 14SC304 (Beck
Red from 14SC304 more closely resembled the red (10R 4/6 and 10R 5/ et al., 2016:Table 2), and seven nonlocal red-slipped sherds (i.e., Tewa
6) of Tewa Red than did the Ledbetter Red from 14SC1. The evidence Red, Tewa Polychrome, Plain Red) recovered from 14SC1 (Fig. 3). We
for this was a comparison of the most common slip color and “more analyzed interior and exterior surfaces separately in our study, given
cases of ‘red’ slips [at 14SC304] than at 14SC1” (Beck et al., 2016:156). previously noted Munsell color differences between the interior and
This case seemed like an ideal one for exploring the advantages of exterior (Beck et al., 2016:Tables 1, 2). Only exterior surfaces of the
quantitative color data in CIELAB space, because the archaeological nonlocal types are included here, given a consistent lack of interior red
interpretation rests so heavily on color assessment. The earlier study slips for analysis (interiors were instead smudged and polished, white
relied on qualitative perceived differences in the color red. A quanti- slipped, or damaged).
tative CIELAB analysis of the actual color differences provides a robust We photographed red-slipped sherd surfaces next to a sheet of white
means to support, contradict, or refine the previously published in- paper and a scale bar, using a stationary Nikon D60 camera mounted
ferences. above a green screen background. Photographs were taken in natural
indirect sunlight over approximately 1 h on a clear day and subse-
quently color corrected to the same white standard. While we cannot
2. Sample and methods
completely control natural lighting normally, these methods do mini-
mize color variation owing to slight shifts in natural light over time. The
To evaluate whether the slip color of Ledbetter Red from 14SC304
nearly uniform illumination conditions and color correction used in this
more closely matched the hue and chroma of Tewa Red than did the
study means that any variation between color samples likely originates
Ledbetter Red produced at 14SC1, we generated CIELAB colors for the
from the colors present on different sherd slips, rather than minor
slips on 58 Ledbetter Red sherds and seven nonlocal red-slipped sherds,
variations in the natural lighting between photographs. Moreover,
following methods described by Yam and Papadakis (2004). Our
while we acknowledge that the absolute values we recorded under
sample (Table 1, Appendix A) includes 21 Ledbetter Red sherds
these conditions would differ slightly had we used different photo-
graphy methods and illuminates (Hunt and Pointer, 2011) (e.g., pho-
Table 1
Red-slipped ceramics in the CIELAB analysis. tographing in completely dark room and illuminated by a camera
flash), we chose natural indirect sunlight because we think it provides
Site and ceramic type Analyzed Analyzed interior Analyzed exterior an adequate level of uniform illumination with our methods.
sherds slips slips The photographs used in this analysis were taken in the .RAW file
14SC1 Ledbetter Red 21 15 17 format were color corrected to the same white standard in Adobe
14SC1 Tewa Red 2 0 2 Photoshop using the following steps:
14SC1 Tewa 1 0 1
Polychrome 1) Using the curve adjustment tool, set white standard with white piece
14SC1 Plain Red 4 0 4
of paper and set black standard with the darkest pixel on the photo.
14SC304 Ledbetter 37 37 22
Red 2) Merge photo layers.

434
J.R. McGrath et al. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 14 (2017) 432–438

Table 2
Average values (and range of values) for lightness, hue angle, and chroma for analyzed slipped surfaces.

Site and ceramic type INT L* INTCosHueAngle INTChroma EXT L* EXTCosHueAngle EXTChroma

14SC1 Ledbetter Red 34.97 (25.25–43.00) 0.67 (0.63–0.73) 29.31 (19.30–38.19) 30.09 (19.00–42.25) 0.65 (0.54–0.77) 29.91 (8.31–46.32)
14SC1 nonlocal red – – – 30.36 (18.50–43.00) 0.62 (0.53–0.67) 37.90 (20.39–51.09)
14SC304 Ledbetter Red 28.63 (15.50–41.50) 0.65 (0.57–0.75) 34.11 (18.04–50.50) 34.18 (20.50–59.00) 0.67 (0.56–0.73) 27.94 (18.02–43.56)

Fig. 3. A selection of slip colors used in this study. These

colors represent the averaged CIELAB values from the
sampled sherd. Analysis ID number is listed with sample
color. (For interpretation of the references to color in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)

3) Save as a .TIFF file.

We chose an averaged pinpoint color sampling strategy rather than

the averaged region strategy used by Bernatchez (2012) and Oestmo
(2013), in which an averaged color is calculated across a portion of the
surface of an artifact (Fig. 4). Both approaches can differentiate be-
tween the original surface and adhering matter attached to that surface,
such as caliche, carbonized material, or museum labels, and are capable
of restricting color measurements to the surface of the actual artifact.
The distinction between these approaches lies in the type of color data
collected. The averaging of colors across a region includes all available
color values, and is suitable when an artifact possesses no obviously
intended color. This is the case with Oestmo's (2013) analysis of fire
modified rock. Alternatively, a pinpoint sampling strategy allows the
analyst to take color measurements only from areas of interest (in this
case unaltered portions of the slip), and is better suited when artifacts
are intentionally colored or when the analyst is interested in a subset of
the total available colors on an artifact.
The six-step process to collect CIELAB color data from the digital
photographs is as follows:

1) Open the .TIFF file in Adobe Photoshop

2) In the Color Panel, set the color channels to Lab.
3) Position a 2 × 2 cm grid over the sherd while attempting to fill as
many of the grid squares as possible. The grid used in this analysis
has a cell size of 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm (Fig. 5). There were a total of 16
cells in our grid.
4) Using a random number generator (e.g., http://www.
randomnumbergenerator.com/), generate a number between 1
and 16 to identify the square where a measurement will be taken.
Repeat this step three additional times until a total of four mea-
surements are taken from different squares. However, when a Fig. 4. Comparison of two color section methods: averaged region approach (top) and
sampling square includes an unslipped portion of the sherd, surface averaged pinpoint approach (bottom). Colored boxes overlaying the top sherds illustrate
inclusions, or damage, generate a new square number and take the the averaged color for their respective sampled regions. The averaged color generated
from pinpoint locations is provided below the averaged pinpoint color coordinates. Please
measurement from that square. Ignore repeated squares and instead
note the color difference in the averaging approach resulting from the inclusion of caliche
generate a new square number.
on the sherd surface. Analysis ID 101 pictured here (Appendix A). (For interpretation of
5) Using the eyedropper tool, sample the color in the center of the the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
selected square. Record the L*a*b* color coordinates generated in this article.)

435
J.R. McGrath et al. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 14 (2017) 432–438

Fig. 5. Sampling grid overlay. In this example, we would

avoid cells 1, 13, 14, and 15 because the sherd surface is
partially or completely absent. Analysis ID 66 pictured here
(Appendix A).

the Color Panel.

6) Calculate the average of the four sets of L*, a*, b* values for each
sherd.

Our statistical analyses examined variation among three variables:

Hue Angle, Chroma and Lightness. Lightness was one of the observed
values, but the other two (hue angle and chroma) had to be calculated
using our averaged a* and b* values. Hue angle and chroma values
were calculated using the recommended CIELAB formulas provided by
Hunt and Pointer (2011:57): hue angle = Degrees(arctan(b* / a*)).
This value was then converted to ratio data, which ranged between 0
(green hue) and 1 (red hue), using a cosine transformation (i.e.,
CosHueAngle = (cosine (radians (90 − hue angle in degrees)) + 1) /
2) for conventional statistical analysis. Chroma was calculated as the
square root of the sum of squared a* and b* values (i.e., chroma =
(a*2 + b*2)1/2).

3. Results and discussion

Fig. 6. Box plot comparison of distribution of averaged interior slip lightness values (L*)
3.1. CIELAB data patterns between Ledbetter Red from 14SC1 and 14SC304.

We averaged CIELAB values for interior and exterior surfaces by Table 4

ceramic type or group (Table 2; Appendix A). We then considered Results of independent samples t-test between Ledbetter Red interior slips from 14SC1
whether the CIELAB data support previously observed change through and 14SC304. Bold p values considered statistically significant.
time in Ledbetter Red slip color, comparing the exterior and interior
Variable t df p value (2-tailed) Mean difference
slips from the earlier 14SC1 and the later 14SC304. The answer for
exterior slips is no; CIELAB values are not statistically different between INT L* − 3.23 50 0.002 4.09
the two sites (Table 3). For interior Ledbetter Red slips, however, there INTCosHueAngle − 1.78 50 0.081 0.017
are statistically significant differences in lightness (higher at 14SC1) INTChroma 2.41 46 0.020 −1.97

(Fig. 6) and chroma (higher at 14SC304) (Table 4; Fig. 7). The visible
result is a more vibrant color for 14SC304 interior slips, perceived by
14SC1 as a proxy for Tewa Red. The answer is a qualified yes; the only
Beck et al. (2016:Tables 1, 2) as a range of red colors (e.g., 10R 4/6,
statistically significant difference in average CIELAB values is a slightly
10R 5/6, 2.5YR 5/6, 5YR 5/6) that were more similar to Tewa Red slip
higher average hue angle (0.035) for the 14SC304 interior slips
color than the reddish brown colors from 14SC1.
(Table 5; Fig. 8).
Finally, we considered whether the CIELAB data support the pre-
viously observed similarity in color between 14SC304 red slips and
Tewa Red, using a small sample of nonlocal red-slipped ceramics from 3.2. Comparison to Munsell-based conclusions by Beck et al. (2016)

Table 3 The interpretations of Beck et al. (2016) were based on frequencies

Results of independent samples t-test between Ledbetter Red exterior slips from 14SC1
of Munsell colors (e.g., red, weak red, yellowish red, reddish brown)
and 14SC304.
used as nominal data categories. Because there were more cases of
Variable t df p value (2-tailed) Mean difference “red” slips ceramics at 14SC304 than identified at 14SC1, the authors
argued the later potters at 14SC304 had a higher rate of success in
EXT L* 1.5 37 0.153 4.09
oxidizing red slips and reproducing the slip color of Tewa Red than did
EXTCosHueAngle 1.1 37 0.276 0.0169
EXTChroma −0.80 37 0.430 − 1.97 the earlier potters at 14SC1 (Beck et al., 2016:156). Embedded in this
argument is the conclusion that potters in western Kansas could find

436
J.R. McGrath et al. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 14 (2017) 432–438

color at 14SC304 than at 14SC1, although this is only true for the in-
terior slips. Beck et al. (2016:156) notes that interior slips in particular
changed color over time, suggesting that the highly visible bowl in-
teriors were the focus of potters' efforts. The CIELAB data also suggest a
more subtle difference in hue between Ledbetter Red from 14SC304 and
the nonlocal red-slipped ceramics, perhaps stemming from regional
differences in the iron oxides used for the red slip (Cornell and
Schwertmann, 2006; Elias et al., 2006). A future study could explore
the possibility of regional variation in slip raw materials using a much
larger sample of Tewa Red ceramics.

4. Conclusion

This paper describes how to collect CIELAB color data from digital
photographs and illustrates how these data enable more detailed and
nuanced understandings of archaeological artifacts. In this case study,
CIELAB data support earlier conclusions about changing slip color over
time—specifically, that potters in western Kansas better emulated the
slip color of Tewa Red at the later site of 14SC304. These data also
Fig. 7. Box plot comparison of distribution of averaged interior slip Chroma values be-
suggest slight color differences between Ledbetter Red from 14SC304
tween Ledbetter Red from 14SC1 and 14SC304.
and nonlocal red-slipped ceramics, possibly related to regional differ-
ences in slip raw material, that were previously undetected.
Table 5
Our methods enable the objective comparison of colors through
Results of independent samples t-test between Ledbetter Red interior slips from 14SC304
and nonlocal exterior slips from 14SC1. Bold p values considered statistically significant. qualitative and quantitative analysis. The equipment and software used
in this analysis are readily available and easy to use. Although the
t df Sig (2-tailed) Mean difference Munsell color system still provides a convenient heuristic device in the
qualitative description of artifact colors, the CIELAB color system al-
L* − 0.612 42 0.544 − 1.724
CosHueAngle 2.161 42 0.036 0.0350 lows uncomplicated quantification and measurement of colors.
Chroma − 0.993 42 0.327 3.821 Particularly when coupled with other characterization techniques, ob-
jectively measured color can be an important variable for examining
raw material and artifact variation.

Acknowledgments

Facilities and materials used in this study were provided by the

University of Iowa (UI) Department of Anthropology. Financial support
for work with these site collections was provided by a National Science
Foundation Grant (# 1316758) to Margaret Beck and Sarah Trabert, a
UI Social Science Funding Program grant to Matthew Hill, and UI
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences funding to Matthew Hill and
Margaret Beck. Robert Hoard and Chris Garst (Kansas State Historical
Society) provided access to the artifact collections from 14SC1 and
14SC304. We thank Michelle Hegmon, Sarah Trabert, and two anon-
ymous reviewers for comments on this paper.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx.

doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.06.020.

Fig. 8. Box plot comparison of distribution of averaged CosHueAngle values between
exterior slips for nonlocal reds from 14SC1 and interior slips for Ledbetter Red from
14SC304.
slip raw material oxidizing to the right color or range of colors, making
final slip color largely dependent upon firing conditions. The recorded
Munsell colors for refired Ledbetter Red samples and a larger sample of
Tewa Red ceramics suggested that similar red colors (10R 4/6, 10R 5/
6) were possible in both regions when the firing atmosphere was suf-
ficiently oxidizing (Beck et al., 2016:155–156, Table 5). Beck et al.
(2016:157) therefore claimed that Ledbetter Red differs in color with
Tewa Red because of “incomplete oxidation of the slip, rather than the
color of the slip material.”
Our standardized, quantitative CIELAB analysis supports the con-
clusion that Ledbetter Red slip color is more similar to Tewa Red slip
References
Beck, M., Trabert, S., Hill, D.V., Hill, M.E., 2016. Tewa Red and the Puebloan diaspora:
the making of Ledbetter Red. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 6, 148–159.
Bernatchez, J., 2012. The Role of Ochre in the Development of Modern Human Behavior:
A Case Study from South Africa, School of Human Evolution and Social Change,
Arizona State University, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. pp. 762.
Chenoweth, J.M., Farahani, A., 2015. Color in historical ceramic typologies: a test case in
statistical analysis of replicable measurements. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 4, 310–319.
CIE, 2004. CIE 15: Colorimetry, Third Edition. Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage,
Vienna (CIE).
Cleland, T.M., 1921. A Grammar of Color: Arrangements of Strathmore Paper in a Variety
of Printed Color Combinations According to the Munsell Color System. The
Strathmore Paper Company, Mittineague, MA, USA.
Cornell, R.M., Schwertmann, U., 2006. The Iron Oxides: Structure, Properties, Reactions,
Occurrences and Uses, 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Weinheim; Cambridge.
D'Andrade, R.G., Romney, A.K., 2003. A quantitative model for transforming reflectance
spectra into the Munsell color space using cone sensitivity functions and opponent
process weights. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 100, 6281–6286.
Eckhard, T., Domingo, M.A.M., 2014. Plot Lab color coordinates. https://www.

437
J.R. McGrath et al.
mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/44965 MATLAB Central File Exchange.
Retrieved August 15, 2015.
Elias, M., Chartier, C., Prévot, G., Garay, H., Vignaud, C., 2006. The colour of ochres
explained by their composition. Mater. Sci. Eng. B 127, 70–80.
d'Errico, F., Moreno, R.G., Rifkin, R.F., 2012. Technological, elemental and colorimetric
analysis of an engraved ochre fragment from the Middle Stone Age levels of Klasies
River Cave 1, South Africa. J. Archaeol. Sci. 39, 942–952.
Fairchild, M.D., 2013. Color Appearance Models. John Wiley & Sons.
Frankel, D., 1980. Munsell colour notation in ceramic description: an experiment. Aust.
Archaeol. 10, 33–37.
García, C.R., Bonilla, V.V., Marín, I.R., Mascarós, S.M., 2016. A unique collection of
Palaeolithic painted portable art: characterization of red and yellow pigments from
the Parpalló Cave (Spain). PLoS One 11, e0163565.
Gerharz, R.R., Lantermann, R., Spennemann, D.R., 1988. Munsell color charts: a necessity
for archaeologists? Aust. J. Hist. Archaeol. 6, 88–95.
Hill, M.E., Jr., Beck, M. E., Trabert, S. J., Adair, M. (2017), A Hard Time to Date: The
Occupational History of Scott County Pueblo (14SC1) and the Presence of Puebloan
Populations on the High Plains. In preparation. (n.d.).
Hoard, R.J., 2009. Archaeological survey of Scott State Park: 2009 Kansas archaeology
training program field school. Kansas Anthrop. 30, 41–133.
Hunt, R.W.G., Pointer, M.R., 2011. Measuring Colour, 4th Edition. John Wiley & Sons,
Chihester, UK.
Hurvich, L.M., Jameson, D., 1957. An opponent-process theory of color vision. Psychol.
Rev. 64, 384–404.
Martínez, J., Melgosa, M., Pérez, M., Hita, E., Negueruela, A., 2001. Visual and instru-
mental color evaluation in red wines. Food Sci. Technol. Int. 7, 439–444.
Melgosa, M., Hita, E., Poza, A., Alman, D.H., Berns, R.S., 1997. Suprathreshold color-
438
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 14 (2017) 432–438
difference ellipsoids for surface colors. Color. Res. Appl. 22, 148–155.
Mokrzycki, W., Tatol, M., 2011. Colour difference ΔE-A survey. Machine Graphics Vision
20, 383–411.
Munsell, A.H., 1915. Atlas of the Munsell Color System. Wadsworth-
Howland & Company, Incorporated Printers.
Munsell, Color, 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts, Gretabacbeth.
Oestmo, S., 2013. Digital imaging technology and experimental archeology: a methodo-
logical framework for the identification and interpretation of fire modified rock
(FMR). J. Archaeol. Sci. 40, 4429–4443.
Pérez-Arantegui, J., Montull, B., Resano, M., Ortega, J., 2009. Materials and technological
evolution of ancient cobalt-blue-decorated ceramics: pigments and work patterns in
tin-glazed objects from Aragon (Spain) from the 15th to the 18th century AD. J. Eur.
Ceram. Soc. 29, 2499–2509.
Rifkin, R.F., Prinsloo, L.C., Dayet, L., Haaland, M.M., Henshilwood, C.S., Diz, E.L., Moyo,
S., Vogelsang, R., Kambombo, F., 2016. Characterising pigments on 30000-year-old
portable art from Apollo 11 Cave, Karas Region, southern Namibia. J. Archaeol. Sci.
Rep. 5, 336–347.
Ruck, L., Brown, C.T., 2015. Quantitative analysis of Munsell color data from arche-
ological ceramics. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 3, 549–557.
Trabert, S., Beck, M.E., Hill, M.E., 2016. The Long Path to Kansas: Puebloan Migrants and
Apachean Residents. NewsMAC Fall 2016. pp. 6–11.
Williston, S.W., Martin, H.T., 1900. Some Pueblo Ruins in Scott County, Kansas.
Transactions of the Kansas State Historical Society. 6. pp. 124–130.
Witty Jr., T.A., 1983. An Archaeological Review of the Scott County Pueblo. Bulletin of
the Oklahoma Anthropological Society. 32. pp. 99–106.
Yam, K.L., Papadakis, S.E., 2004. A simple digital imaging method for measuring and
analyzing color of food surfaces. J. Food Eng. 61, 137–142.