The purpose of this essay is to provide reasonable proof, based on the Morellian method, that images 1A and 1B are by the same artist. These images of painted ceramics come from the cultures of the archaeological Southwest around 950 – 1150 (Fry, 2011). To paint each ceramic, the artisans used similar techniques such as checkerboard pattern, broad lines, hatching, use of positive and negative space and, as well as anatomical representations. Although the overall pictures differ significantly, the goal of implementing the Morellian method is to identify artists' use of the same formulas to create smaller parts of works. When producing Image 1A (1A), the artist used a (six square by three square) checkerboard pattern to separate sections of lines of approximately the same width that lined the outer edge of the ceramic. These border lines alternately occupy negative and positive spaces. A repeated use of thin hatch lines – which are relatively short on the outside and long on the inside – is present. This use of positive and negative spatial alternation occurs in both depictions of animals [i.e. the fish, the body and feet of the larger (bird) figure]. The artist also uses the painted space by leaving a negative pattern of zigzag lines within which a reflective outline is painted. Within the outline is a series of diamond shapes. Finally, eyes are produced by leaving a negative circle or oval and centering a single painted dot inside. In Image 1B (1B), this artist used a checkerboard pattern (six squares by six squares) adjacent to the innermost line. Two lines, which alternate inwards between negative and positive use of space, are present on the edge of the ceramic. Each of these lines measures approximately...... middle of paper ......greater uniformity of size is observed in the zigzags of 1A than in those of 1B. Yet the interior zigzag pattern of each ceramic is framed by a painted rectangular image, which shares an intersection with the outermost corner of the final diamond. Although the overall presentation of these drawings differs, the commonalities are easily observed. In conclusion, the author believes that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that a common artist produced the paintings in 1A and 1B. There are certainly characteristic differences between these images; however, through the application of the Morellian method, it can be inferred that the overall techniques are very similar. Although this is a subjective method and the author is not accustomed to using it, it seems plausible that these works were made by a common craftsman; but, perhaps along a continuum and not at around the same time.