| Pl. | No. (per cent) | D(L) (per cent) | W | W/L | H | H/D | Th. | Curv. |
| 3,a | 13784 | 272 | ... | 79 | 29 | 5.0 | 330 | |
| 3,b | 13783 | 283 | ... | 88 | 31 | 5.0 | 348 | |
| 3,c | 1713 | 262 | ... | 77 | 29 | 5.5 | 320 | |
| 3,d | 1722 | 202 | ... | 71 | 35 | 5.5 | 270 | |
| 3,e,f | 13785 | 266 | 215 | 81 | 66 | 28+ | 6.5 | 303 |
| 3,g | 1751 | 145* | ... | 48 | 33 | 6.0 | 195 | |
| 3,h | 13786 | 166 | 147 | 89 | 59 | 38+ | 5.5 | 217 |
| 3,i | 1738 | 157 | 135 | 86 | 43 | 29.5+ | 5.0 | 191 |
| 3,j | 4294 | 155 | 121 | 78 | 44 | 32+ | 5.5 | 178 |
Note: D(L), diameter or greatest length; Th., thickness; Curv., length of tape laid curving along diam. or max. length of under side; *147 long, 143 wide, but round in intent; +Mean of H/L and W/L. All dimensions in mm.
It will be seen that the H/D ratio is from 28 to 38 per cent; whereas that for bowls is from 38 to 68 per cent, with 21 out of 24 between 45 and 61.
Platters i and j were described when collected as "dish-like spoons" or scoops; j, like plate 2,h, is from Tokwaθa's household.
Designs
As regards painted design, a and b revert to the all-over regular forking of plate 1, but with dark background instead of light or spot-studded, so that the pattern really is negative in effect. It is probably significant that the only two platelike bowls carrying this design should be the only ones to present it negatively. The pattern is well executed in both. It is of course somewhat easier to carry out regularly on a flattish plate than in an up-curving bowl.
d was called "himáka lameθlame, its back leaves" (or "patches"?—cf. pl. 4,d). This presumably refers to the large dot-studded hexagonal areas—hexagonal at least in intent. My notes also name a "tšitθôk face-paint" design, which would then be the name of the interconnected hourglass figures which constitute the primary or positive element of the patterning. The combination of these two design elements recurs on the exterior of the jar of plate 8,a. The back or under side of d in the present plate is boldly checkered, as shown in plate 8,c. It is possible that the leaf name refers to this checker.
c and g were both designated as fish backbone, which as a pattern we have already encountered on bowl 2,g, though there on the outer side and named after a face paint: parallel zigzags with solid-filled angles. The idea seems to be that of a fish backbone as it might be drawn out with ribs attached—"herringbone" in our own nomenclature. Then 3,g would be the more representational form with the vertebral column left in—though it is also partway transitional to the triple-line angle-and-forking pattern of plate 1 and of 3,a,b above. The simpler, merely parallel-chevron form of the design—with the vertebrae omitted—is perhaps more usual, and is shown recurring in e and in plate 4,f,k. The under side of c has 67 vertical (radiating) lines.—Plate 3,g, no. 1751, was obtained from Nyavarup along with no. 1749, plate 4,o, which see. Nyavarup, like Tokwaθa, was a historic character, having been encountered by the Ives party in 1858 and mentioned in Möllhausen. In 1902 he told me the creation, which will be published as myth no. 9.
f is the under or convex side of e, but its spots (12-14 mm. diameter) reappear as the sole inside pattern in h, and between the tortoises of j. The inside dots of h and the outside ones of f were however put on differently: in h in rows across the oval, in f irregularly or perhaps spirally. The under side of h also has dots, fainter than on the front. In j the dots seem inserted with reference to the larger figures of tortoises.
These tortoises of j are definitely similar to the halytôṭa spiders of plate 2,h, but are also distinctive, with enclosed-line quadrilateral body, 3-toed legs at corners, and head and tail. Both 3,j and 2,h however were made to sell, are more representational than most Mohave pottery paintings, and should be viewed with a degree of reserve, though I believe that their designs have basis in native usage.