cl2, chapt. 7 · ered as elements within the heavy-fraction flota-tion samples. the flotation...
Post on 20-Aug-2021
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
241
CHAPTER 7
ABORIGINAL CERAMICS
RICHARD A. WEINSTEIN
MICHELLE HUTCHINS
Analysis of the aboriginal ceramics recoveredat Guadalupe Bay during the 1992 data-recovery projectwas an extremely laborious and time-consumingendeavor. Included in the analysis were all sherdsrecovered as field specimens, all sherds captured inthe 1/4-in screens, and all sherds collected fromthe site’s surface. Unfortunately, time and mon-etary constraints did not allow for analysis ofceramics captured in the 1/8-in screens or recov-ered as elements within the heavy-fraction flota-tion samples. The flotation samples were care-fully scanned, however, in an effort to identifydiagnostic artifacts that might be present. Thisresulted in the discovery of only one additionalrim sherd worthy of inclusion. Regardless, 42,712individual sherds were examined, of which 41,946came from the various excavation units and 766came from the eroding bankline. This is, by far,the largest collection of aboriginal ceramics everanalyzed from a site on the central Texas coast. Infact, it may be the largest sample of ceramics ana-lyzed from a single site anywhere in Texas outsidethe Caddoan culture area.
At this point it should be noted briefly that thecurrent ceramic analysis attempted to build uponprevious research in the area, particularly that of Duayand Weinstein (1992) and Duay et al. (1994). Otherearlier studies, such as those by Campbell (1952,1958a, 1962), Suhm and Krieger (1954), Mounger(1959), Suhm and Jelks (1962), Calhoun (1962), Story(1968), Hester and Parker (1970), Hester and Hill(1971), Mallouf et al. (1973), Fritz (1975), Cox andSmith (1988), and Ricklis (1990b), also were usedto guide the current research. A summary of thecontributions of these studies, plus other archaeo-
logical investigations in the region, can be found inS. Black (1989b) and Weinstein (1992, 1994), andwill not be repeated here. Rather, details related toeach of these individual reports will be discussedas necessary below.
Generally, the present analysis was designed toinvestigate both chronological and functional ques-tions regarding the Guadalupe Bay ceramic collec-tion (see Chapter 4). The type-variety system ofceramic classification, as devised by Duay andWeinstein (1992) and Duay et al. (1994) for the centralTexas coast, was to be the primary method utilizedin examining site chronology. Analyses of decora-tive motifs, rim form, and vessel form also were tobe employed if possible. Functional questions wereto be addressed through the use of numerous attributeanalyses, including such factors as vessel shape, orificediameter, and vessel wall thickness. As will be seen,each sherd was examined and measured in a myriadof ways, and numerous attributes were recorded. Theseattributes will be discussed in detail in the follow-ing sections.
Analytical Techniques
Analytical techniques employed for this studygenerally followed those established by Duay andWeinstein (1992) and began with the identificationof the various paste characteristics of individual sherds.Identification of a sherd’s paste is the critical firststep required under the current analysis system, andis necessary before that sherd can be assigned to aware series, and, subsequently, to a specific type andthen to a variety within that series. The followingdiscussion, therefore, represents a modified version
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
242
of the sorting criteria employed originally by Duayand Weinstein (1992).
Paste Identification
After a careful review of the previous researchconcerning central Texas coastal ceramics, particu-larly those studies by Campbell (1962), Fritz (1975),Hester and Hill (1971), Mallouf et al. (1973), Story(1968), and Suhm and Krieger (1954), it became clearthat the presence or absence of sand grains in thepaste of a sherd, plus the size of the sand grains,were key sorting criteria. These were recognizedas the basic matrix of the sherd, and were referredto as “primary inclusions” in the paste. Duay andWeinstein (1992) initially established three catego-ries of primary inclusions—silty paste, fine sandypaste, and medium to coarse sandy paste. Sherdswith silty or fine sandy pastes subsequently wereplaced in the Rockport ware series, while sherds withmedium to coarse sandy pastes were assigned to theGoose Creek ware series.
Unfortunately, Duay and Weinstein (1992) basedtheir earlier analysis on the subjective observationof grain size. According to their methods, if it waspossible to see individual sand grains without theaid of magnification, then the grains were classifiedas medium or coarse in size (Duay, personal com-munication 1995). If sand grains could not be seen,then the sherd was considered to have either a siltyor fine sandy paste, and it was examined further under10x magnification to determine whether or not sandwas present. Clearly, such a subjective approachcan be biased by the sharpness of an individual’seye sight, plus that person’s conception of what con-stitutes medium-size sand grains. As to be expected,when actual sherds from the 1989 testing project werereexamined at the beginning of the present study, itwas impossible for the current analysts to replicatethe earlier findings.
To avoid a similar subjective analysis, each sherdfrom the 1992 collection was broken along one edgeand carefully observed under either a 1.75x magni-fying light, a 10x hand lens, or a 10-to-30x binocu-lar microscope. Sand grains then were measuredwith the aid of a Wentworth scale, and the sherd’spaste classified according to three size categories:(1) silty paste (grains <1/16 mm in diameter), (2) veryfine (1/16 to 1/8 mm) to fine (1/8 to 1/4 mm) sandypaste, and (3) medium sandy paste (1/4 to 1/2 mm)(Table 7-1). No coarse-size sand grains were ob-served.
It soon was discovered that almost all sherdsfell within the very fine to fine grain-size category,thereby placing most of the collection into what earlierhad been assigned to the Rockport series. Althougha few sherds with medium-size grains were noted,the majority of material that would have been clas-sified as Goose Creek ware in 1989 became Rockportware under the present classification scheme. It stillwas not known, however, whether the paste dichotomyrecognized under the present system using theWentworth scale actually reflected true Rockport andGoose Creek ware categories, or if it simply wasthe result of the classification criteria utilized. Inother words, if one establishes parameters for warecategories prior to analysis, and then places sherdsinto those categories, how is one to know if thosecategories represent meaningful groupings?
In order to alleviate this problem, ceramics fromother sites along the Texas coast were examined atboth CEI and TARL. Collections with unquestion-able Goose Creek material included those from FlatBank Creek (41 FB 99), Mitchell Ridge (41 GV 66),and sites 41 HR 7, 41 HR 61, 41 HR 85, 41 HR 161,and 41 HR 632, all in the upper Texas coastal area.Sites with Rockport ware included Live Oak Point(41 AS 2), Kent-Crane (41 AS 3), and MustangLake (41 CL 3). This review confirmed the no-tion that previously recognized Rockport sherdshad silty pastes and/or very fine or fine sandy pastes.Somewhat disheartening, however, was the real-ization that sherds previously classified as mem-bers of the Goose Creek series actually exhibitedthe full range of sand-size particles, from veryfine to coarse. Fortunately, this fact was madeless troubling by the recognition that there weresignificant differences between Goose Creek andRockport wares other than grain size. All Rockportsherds, for instance, exhibited a very compact, well-consolidated paste, that appeared harder than almostall Goose Creek examples. Goose Creek ware, onthe other hand, had a much higher ratio of sand inthe paste, making it softer and more friable thanRockport ware. Because of the high sand content,Goose Creek ceramics also had a much sandier sur-face texture, at times approaching that of fine sand-stone. Often, loose particles of sand became dis-lodged from a Goose Creek sherd if one rubbed itin one’s hand. When taken together, all of these factors(quantity and size of sand grains, compactness andhardness of the paste, and general surface finish)provided a relatively clear break between Rockportand Goose Creek wares, a break that was easy torecognize once analysis began in earnest.
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
243
Primary Inclusions Black Painted Design Elementssilt (<1/16 mm) vertical straight linesvery fine (1/16-1/8mm) to fine (1/8-1/4 mm) sand vertical wavy linesmedium ( 1/4-1/2 mm) sand horizontal straight lines
horizontal wavy linesSecondary Inclusions diagonal straight lines
none pendant loopscaliche curved linesbone perpendicular linesshell unknown line orientationcaliche and bone dotscaliche and shell open circlecaliche, bone, and shell triangleshell and bone random dabbingunidentified white inclusions swastika
Decoration and Surface Alteration Body Portionnone bodyincised rimblack painted with gray or white slipblack painted without slip Lip Decorationpunctated painted black lip bandbrushed notchedred filmed incisedpolychrome paintedasphaltum black coating Vessel Formscoring beaker
jarIncised Design Elements beaker/jar
vertical straight lines bottlehorizontal straight lines simple bowldiagonal straight lines shallow bowlcurved lines globular bowlperpendicular straight linesparallel straight lines Rim Diameterhorizontal zigzag lines rounded off to the nearest cmdiagonal overincised linesvertical overincised lines Sherd Thicknesscrosshatched overincised lines rounded off to the nearest mmchevron patternopen trianglesline-filled trianglescrosshatched linescrossed linesunknown line orientation
Table 7-1. Attributes Recorded During the Analysis of the Aboriginal Ceramics fromGuadalupe Bay.
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
244
Once the primary paste characteristics of a sherdwere identified, and that sherd was assigned to ei-ther the Rockport or Goose Creek series, then it be-came necessary to identify the so-called “second-ary inclusions” within that sherd’s paste (see Table 7-1).Secondary inclusions were recognized by Duay andWeinstein (1992) as potentially significant temper-ing agents that could provide important chronologicaland cultural information. Since it was assumed thatthe silt and sand within the paste of a sherd repre-sented elements occurring naturally in the clays ofthe area (see Aten 1983b), then any additional ma-terial might represent culturally introduced temper.Duay and Weinstein (1992) searched for, and iden-tified, secondary inclusions by chipping off a smallportion of the sherd being analyzed, and examiningthe exposed interior for the presence of additionalmaterial, such as bone, caliche, and shell. This ex-amination occurred with the aid of a 10x binocularmicroscope and the addition of a small amount ofdiluted (10 percent) hydrochloric acid to the exposedsherd interior to check for the presence of calicheor organic particles that could not be seen with themicroscope. While this technique appeared to begenerally reliable, it was decided that more defini-tive means of identifying secondary inclusions werenecessary, particularly since these inclusions wouldhave been subjected to intense heat during the fir-ing of the vessel and they may not have retained thesame identifying characteristics that they had priorto firing.
As a test, both archaeological and contempo-rary samples of each inclusion were examined byapplying a drop of a 10-percent solution of hydro-chloric acid and observing the reaction. Bone, Rangiashell, oyster shell, and what was termed “hard” and“soft” caliche were tested. “Hard” caliche nodulesincluded extremely compact, pebble-like particlesthat did not dissolve or break apart when scrapedwith a sharp implement like a dental pick. Whenthese nodules were split in half, however, they nor-mally exhibited concentric growth rings. “Soft” calichewas composed of nodules that approached the con-sistency of chalk. A thin section of one of thesenodules showed no evidence of growth rings or definitestructure. It might, in fact, be more proper to referto soft caliche as microcrystalline limestone, or micrite,rather than caliche (Juan Lorenzo, personal commu-nication 1995). However, since this material oftenoccurred as a coating around the outer edge of a hardcaliche nodule, it was decided simply to refer to thetwo as “hard” and “soft” caliche. It should be notedfurther that soft caliche can easily be mistaken for
grog when included in the paste of a sherd. Appli-cation of the acid solution will, however, reveal itstrue identity.
Two additional sets of contemporary inclusions,bone and shell, then were placed in a pit containingan open fire. One set of inclusions was placed aroundthe margins of the pit, while the other was throwndirectly into the hot coals of the fire. The fire wasallowed to burn itself out, and then the inclusionswere removed and tested with the 10-percent solu-tion of acid. The various reactions of the acid tothe contemporary and archaeological samples (bothheated and nonheated) are presented in Table 7-2.
Before discussing the results of the test, it isnecessary to define the various acid reactions. Sixcategories were established and are defined as fol-lows: (1) no reaction (no bubbles emitted), (2) slightreaction (bubbles emerge slowly and singularly, dis-continuing within a few seconds), (3) mild reaction(bubbles emerge in a slow, steady stream for only abrief moment, usually less than 20 seconds, thendissipate), (4) moderate reaction (bubbles emergein rapid, multiple streams, forming a small clusterdirectly above the inclusion, (5) high reaction (anexplosion of tiny bubble clusters that pop up, dis-placing acid droplets, often emitting a hissing sound,(6) totally dissolved reaction (after a high reaction,the inclusion simply disappears).
Bone samples had the widest range of reactions,from none to mild (see Table 7-2). Interestingly,when there was no reaction, the bone often becamedarker in color while wet from the acid solution,returning to a lighter color when it dried. The heatedbone samples (those placed around the margins ofthe fire pit) produced a slight reaction, while the charredbone samples (those placed in the coals of the fire)and the archaeological samples produced mild re-actions. In the latter instance, the acid solution alsochanged colors, becoming brown after excess acidwas wiped off with a paper towel. The samples ofshell and soft caliche all had high reactions to theacid, while the hard caliche exhibited the dissolv-ing reaction.
Following results of the reaction test, sherds fromthe Guadalupe Bay site initially were examined byplacing a drop of the 10-percent solution of hydro-chloric acid on a fresh break along the sherd’s outeredge and then observing the reaction to determinethe nature of the secondary inclusions. Eventually,this method was abandoned in favor of submersing
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
245
the entire sherd in the acid solution (still after a piecehad been broken off), as the time needed to placean acid drop on each fresh break and then searchthe remainder of the sherd for additional inclusionsproved to be too extensive. Total immersion ofthe sherd offered a quick and efficient way of iden-tifying visible inclusions, plus finding and iden-tifying minute inclusions that were not visible atfirst.1
The 1989 analysis identified 11 paste catego-ries, or subcategories, based on the presence or ab-sence of secondary inclusions: (1) no visible inclu-sions, (2) caliche, (3) bone, (4) shell, (5) caliche andbone, (6) caliche and shell, (7) caliche, bone, andshell, (8) shell and bone, (9) organics other than boneand shell, (10) unidentified white inclusions (inclu-sions that did not react to acid), and (11) other (Duayand Weinstein 1992). In contrast, the current analy-sis noted only nine paste categories, as previouscategories 9 and 11 were not recognized (see Table7-1).
Generally, bone inclusions ranged from a singlespeck to a profuse amount. The bone was usuallywhite to gray in color, although occasional shadesof brown were noted. It was seldom black. Mostoften, the white bone inclusions had been pulver-ized, causing angular particles that were easily vis-ible on the sherd surface and along the break edges.Other sherds contained sparse amounts of bone ofvarying colors. A few sherds had been fired at ahigh enough temperature to reduce the bone to anashy state that was light gray in color. More will besaid of this “ashy” bone later in this chapter.
Sherds containing shell were the easiest to vi-sually identify, as the size of the shell particles gen-erally were the largest of all inclusions observed.The amount of shell in the paste exhibited the samebroad range as that noted for the bone; that is,from a single speck to a relatively large quantity.Shell particles usually were white in color, butshades of gray also were common. Occasionally,a sherd produced a high reaction to the acid, al-though no shell inclusions were visible. In theseinstances, the sherd again was broken, and thiseventually exposed the hidden shell particles. Ap-parently, shell has such a high reaction to acid thateven when the particles are buried deep within the
NO REACTION
SLIGHT REACTION
MILD REACTION
MODERATE REACTION
HIGH REACTION
TOTALLY DISSOLVED
Bone XHeated Bone X X
Charred Bone XArchaeological Bone X
Shell XHeated Shell X
Charred Shell XArchaeological Shell X
Hard Caliche X XHeated Hard Caliche X X
Charred Hard Caliche X XArchaeological Hard Caliche X X
Soft Caliche XHeated Soft Caliche X
Charred Soft Caliche XArchaeological Soft Caliche X
Table 7-2. Reactions of Contemporary and Archaeological Samples of Bone, Shell, and Caliche to the Diluted(10-Percent) Hydrochloric Acid Solution.
1 It should be noted that this method requires a well-venti-lated work space to avoid inhaling acid fumes. Gloves shouldalso be worn when handling the acid-soaked sherds.
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
246
paste, they still emit a significant amount of bub-bling effervescence.
The amount of hard caliche present in the sherdsfrom Guadalupe Bay was somewhat higher than theother secondary inclusions. There never were in-stances where only one or two pieces of caliche werepresent. Rather, hard caliche ranged from severalparticles to profuse amounts, and was always whitein color. Since hard caliche totally dissolves in theacid solution, careful observation of the sherd priorto submersion was necessary. It was found, how-ever, that if a sherd is dipped in the acid solutionand then removed immediately, the dissolving hardcaliche can be observed while it disappears.
Soft caliche inclusions were relatively rare atGuadalupe Bay, but, as noted earlier, when presentthey usually appeared as round nodules that initiallymight be mistaken for pieces of grog temper. Oncesubjected to the acid, however, then a very high re-action occurred. Soft caliche ranged in color fromwhite to pale gray, but it often became a bit darkerwhen placed in the acid solution.
A few additional inclusions were noted duringthe current analysis, usually hematite nodules or bitsof asphaltum, but these were not used to form newcategories of paste as they were extremely rare.Furthermore, hematite is believed to occur naturallyin some of the clays of the area, and, therefore, per-haps should not be considered an intentional tem-pering agent. Regardless, the presence of these in-clusions still was noted on the analysis forms.
Decoration and Surface Alteration
Following identification of the ware of a spe-cific sherd, plus the recognition of any secondaryinclusions that might be present, that sherd was searchedfor any evidence of intentional decoration and/or surfacealteration. Basically, seven main decorative groupswere recognized over the course of the analysis:(1) incised, (2) black painted on gray or white slip,(3) black painted without a slip, (4) punctated, (5)brushed, (6) red filmed, and (7) polychrome painted(see Table 7-1). These are thought to represent in-tentional decorative techniques that would have pro-duced recognizable design patterns on the surfaceof a vessel.
Two surface alterations that are not thought torepresent true decoration also were identified. Theseinclude black coating and scoring (see Table 7-1).
Black asphaltum coating occurs on different ceramictypes and varieties, and was not applied as an in-tentional decoration. Ricklis (1990b) and Duay andWeinstein (1992) considered it to be a mode that cross-cut types and varieties. Usually this coating appearsas a thick, sometimes shiny, layer of asphaltum. Itprimarily occurs as an overall coating on the inte-rior of jars and bottles, and is believed to have actedas a waterproofing agent. It also can be found alongthe edges of old vessel fragments (now identifiedas individual sherds) where it probably was appliedto help mend or seal cracks in the vessel wall. Be-cause of these probable functional, rather than deco-rative, uses, black asphaltum coating is not consid-ered a decoration. Black painting, on the other hand,which utilized asphaltum applied in decorative de-signs, is considered a form of decoration and willbe discussed in detail below.
Scoring is another form of surface alteration thatprobably has functional origins. Calhoun (1962) firstdiscussed this surface alteration and suggested that itwas created by scraping the ribbed shell of a marinebivalve (probably a bay scallop or similar creature) acrossthe vessel’s surface, thereby producing even, parallelrows of alternating ridges and furrows. Most of therows appear to have been aligned horizontally aroundthe vessel, although grid and diagonal patterns also occur.Scoring can be found on the exterior surface of sherds,and is assumed in those cases to have been the resultof thinning and shaping of the vessel wall. It may alsohave helped roughen the outer surface of the vessel tomake it less slippery and easier to grasp and handle.More often, scoring can be seen on the interior of sherds.In most of these cases, it probably also represents ef-forts of the potter to thin and shape the vessel wall,although heavy interior scoring on shallow bowls orplates could have been used as a grinding surface uponwhich plants, seeds, or other items may have been rubbed.Its prevalence on the interior of sherds probably re-flects the fact that exterior surfaces were carefullysmoothed over following thinning and shaping, therebyremoving most scoring marks, whereas the interiorsof jars and beakers either could not be smoothed dueto the small orifice diameter of the vessel (making itdifficult or impossible for the potter to get a hand in-side the vessel), or the interior surface did not need tobe smoothed for esthetic purposes. In many cases, scoringmarks on the interior had subsequently been coveredwith asphaltum, thus offering evidence of both func-tional techniques on the same vessel. Interestingly,only one sherd in the entire collection from Guada-lupe Bay exhibited scoring on both its interior and ex-terior surfaces.
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
247
Three of the decorative groups (incising, blackpainting on a gray or white slip, and black paintingon an unslipped surface) made up the vast majorityof all decorated ceramics recovered at GuadalupeBay. Following initial sorting into these groups, analpha-numeric code was developed and each deco-rated sherd was assigned a letter (or letters) and number(or numbers) representing the type of decoration, itsorientation on the vessel, and its width (Table 7-3).For example, a sherd with straight, vertical linesreceived the letter “A,” while a sherd with slightlywavy, vertical lines received the letter “B.” If theselines were painted then the qualifier “Asph.” wasadded. If they were incised, then the qualifier “Inc.”was added. These letters (plus the qualifier) thenwere coupled with a number indicating the width ofthe line. Thus, a sherd classed as “B2, Asph.” wouldexhibit slightly wavy, vertical painted lines that areof medium (between 2 and 4 mm) width. An “A1,Inc.” sherd would exhibit straight, vertical incisedlines of narrow width (<2 mm).
Rim/Lip Modification
In addition to sorting by paste and surface al-teration, sherds were separated into rim and bodycategories. A base category also would have beenused if any base sherds had been positively identi-fied. None was, however, so that category was dropped.Rim sherds were further examined for their shapeand any decorative treatments specific to that partof the vessel.
Several types of rims were recognized at Guada-lupe Bay. These included (1) rounded, (2) flat,(3)�pointed, and (4) beveled.
Three decorative treatments were recognized forvessel lips at Guadalupe Bay: (1) lip banding, (2) lipincising, and (3) lip notching (see Tables 7-1 and7-3). Lip banding was the most common treatmentin the collection and consisted of a painted asphal-tum band around the lip of the vessel. This bandusually fell into the wide category (>4 mm) and oc-curred simultaneously on the interior, exterior, andtop of the lip. Sometimes the band was a bit morenarrow, and/or only occurred on one or two portionsof the lip (i.e., the top and exterior, or the top only).
Lip incising was represented by short, multiplelines placed either on the top of flat lips or on theupper few millimeters of pointed lips. Lines on topof flat lips either were oriented perpendicular to thelong axis of the rim or were slanted across the top
of the lip. Lines on pointed lips were oriented ver-tically and generally extended up and over the lip,occurring on both the exterior and interior surfacesof the rim.
Lip notching occurred either as shallow V-shapedor square depressions impressed into the top of therim. Notching varied according to the space betweenthe individual notches, and the width of the notchesthemselves. These probably are equivalent to whatSuhm and Krieger (1954), Suhm and Jelks (1962)and Ricklis (1990b) have identified as “crenelated.”No scalloped rims were present in the collection.
Vessel Form and Size
When possible, rim sherds of sufficient size wereused to assess vessel form. Knowing the type ofvessel utilized presumably can provide informationon its function, thereby allowing for inferences tobe made about aboriginal activities at Guadalupe Bay.Several classes were recognized, primarily using theexcellent set of vessel diagrams illustrated by Phillips(1970), but modified as necessary to fit slight dif-ferences in coastal Texas ceramics. Included were:(1) beakers, (2) jars, (3) beakers or jars, (4) bottles,(5) simple bowls, (6), shallow bowls, and (7) globularbowls (see Table 7-1). No plates were recognized,although the presence of a significant number of sherdswith interior decoration suggests that plates may havebeen utilized. On the other hand, it also is possiblethat all sherds with interior decoration came fromshallow bowls, a vessel form that can be documentedin the collection.
Rim sherds also were used to estimate the ori-fice diameter of vessels if the sherd was large enoughor curved enough to allow for a reasonable measure-ment to be obtained (see Table 7-1). Sherds weremeasured by placing them on a board marked byconcentric circles spaced one centimeter apart. Itshould be emphasized that the overwhelming ma-jority of the sherds were very small and their ori-fice diameters could not be measured.
Lastly, the wall thickness of every sherd wasrecorded to the nearest millimeter in an effort to obtainpotential chronological and functional information(see Table 7-1). Measurements were taken with aset of calipers. In the past, several investigators havetaken great pains to measure the wall thickness ofeach sherd in their respective collections. Althoughthe extreme range varied slightly from collection tocollection, the average thickness remained relatively
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
248
A Vertical lines, straight L Painted dot1 thin2 medium M Curved line3 wide
N Open circlesB Vertical lines, slightly wavy
1 thin O Line-filled triangle2 medium3 wide P Parallel lines
C Vertical lines, highly wavy Q Crosshatched lines1 thin2 medium R Open triangle3 wide
S Unclassified incisedD Horizontal lines, straight
1 thin T Red filmed2 medium3 wide U Unknown line orientation (incised)
E Horizontal lines, slightly wavy V Punctations1 thin2 medium W Chevron pattern3 wide
X Zigzag linesF Horizontal lines, highly wavy
1 thin Y Random dabbing2 medium3 wide Z Swastika pattern
G Diagonal lines, straight A A Scored lines (scallop impressions)1 thin2 medium AB Crossed lines3 wide
A C Multiple unidentifiable designsH Unknown line orientation (painted)
1 straight, thin AOI Vertical overincised lines2 straight, medium3 straight, wide GOI Diagonal overincised lines4 slightly wavy, thin5 slightly wavy, medium QOI Crosshatched overincised lines6 slightly wavy, wide7 highly wavy, thin Lip Modifications8 highly wavy, medium AD Lip banding (painted)9 highly wavy, wide 1 thin10 unidentifiable line, thin 2 medium11 unidentifiable line, medium 3 wide12 unidentifiable line, wide
AE Lip incisingI Unidentifiable painted design 1 perpendicular lines across flat lip
2 vertical lines on pointed lipJ Unclassified brushed 3 diagonal lines across flat lip
K Perpendicular lines
Table 7-3. Alpha-Numeric Sorting Codes Utilized in the Analysis of the DecoratedAboriginal Ceramics from Guadalupe Bay.
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
249
consistent. Suhm and Jelks (1962) summarized mostof these data and noted that Goose Creek ware rangedfrom 2 to 10 mm in thickness with an average of6�mm. Rockport ware, on the other hand, was some-what thinner, ranging between 1.5 and 7 mm in thick-ness with an average of 3�mm.
Color
Color has been the focus of a great deal of at-tention by previous researchers working along theTexas coast. Core and surface colors have been de-scribed in pain-staking detail. As an example, Hesterand Parker (1970) established ten groups of bone-tempered ware based solely on exterior surface col-ors. Although color is easily recognizable, the cur-rent authors are of the opinion that it may not yieldmuch information. The final color of fired clay de-pends on a number of factors, two of which predomi-nate. One concerns the size, amount, and distribu-tion of impurities in the clay. Main impurities areiron and organic material. The second factor con-cerns the firing process, including time, tempera-ture, and atmosphere during firing (Rice 1987:333-345).
Color development resulting from iron inclusionscannot begin until all of the carbonaceous (organic)materials have been burned out of the clay (Rice1987:335), and the final color depends upon thestate of the iron. Iron in a reduced state (rare)produces grays, blues, greens, or gray-browns. Ironin an oxidized state produces reds and reddishbrowns. Generally, iron oxides in amounts of onepercent will produce a yellow tone, one and one-half percent will cause light browns and oranges,while three percent and higher will produce red tones(Rice 1987:335).
A dark core in a freshly broken cross section ofa sherd usually indicates that organic material waspresent in the raw clay, or carbonaceous materialwas deposited during firing. If the dark core occursin the center of the cross section, and both outer surfacesexhibit lighter colors, then this usually indicates thatthe organic material was present in the raw clay butnot completely removed during the firing process(Rice 1987:334). If the dark color occurs near thesurface and not in the center, then this is indicativeof smudging. Smudging is a technique used duringfiring in which an open fire is covered with manureor some other material, disabling oxygen from reachingthe pots, thereby depositing carbon on the vessel’ssurface (Rice 1987:335).
When a clay is free of these two classes of im-purities, it is white in color. When fired, it produceswhite and cream colors. Unfortunately, it is nearlyimpossible to determine if a dark color is due to thepresence of iron, organic material, or both. Gener-ally, the natural color of the raw clay has little bear-ing on the color of the final fired clay product (Rice1987:333).
Other materials, such as lime, can contribute tothe color of fired clay when temperatures around 800˚C and above are attained (average firing tempera-ture of prehistoric pottery was 800˚ to 900˚ C).Decomposed calcium carbonate (CaCo3) may re-act with clay to form calcium silicates with paleyellow or white colors. Several other materials,such as manganese, magnetite, titanium, sulfides,sulfates, and chlorides, also have varying influ-ences on the color of fired clays (Rice 1987:336).Their effects have not been observed on Texas pot-tery, however.
There are other contributing factors responsiblefor the various colors of ceramics (i.e., cooking residue,fire clouding, placement of the pot during firing, andpost-depositional factors). Overall, due to the problemsinvolved in determining which, if any, of the abovefactors may actually have contributed to the finalcolor of a vessel, recording the colors exhibited byaboriginal ceramics generally provides limited in-formation with little bearing on chronological or culturalquestions. Thus, sherd color was not recorded sys-tematically during the present analysis.
Ceramic Classification
Aboriginal ceramics were identified by MichelleHutchins according to the type-variety system ofceramic classification employed by Duay and Weinstein(1992) for sherds collected from sites along the VictoriaBarge Canal in 1989. This system has the flexibil-ity of pinpointing subtle differences in paste anddecorative techniques that can then be utilized torecognize fine-scale chronological units and/or cul-turally meaningful ceramic assemblages. Althoughothers, such as Story (1968), and Hester and Hill(1971), have attempted to examine the local ceram-ics in a careful and precise manner, their systemshave not been adopted, both due to the attributesthey chose to examine and the overall complexityof their sorting criteria. The type-variety system buildsupon these earlier investigations, but provides a setof sorting criteria and ceramic nomenclature thathopefully will eventually allow for replicability during
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
250
future analyses and a simplified system of commu-nication.
The type-variety analysis is primarily a descriptivesystem that has great utility in organizing and dis-cussing the local prehistoric pottery. Its main vir-tue derives from the fine-scale chronological and/or regional control that is theoretically obtainablethrough its use. It does not, however, lend itself tomany functional interpretations, other than a few caseswhere specific types or varieties may be associatedwith a specialized purpose, such as those types thatonly are represented by serving plates or bowls (AnnaIncised, for instance, in the Lower Mississippi Val-ley). The type-variety system can, nevertheless, beused in conjunction with other systems, such as thosethat identify vessel form and size, thereby provid-ing both chronological/spatial and functional infor-mation
The type-variety system first was developed byWheat et al. (1958) for the southwestern United States.Phillips (1958) subsequently modified the systemfor use in the Southeast, and later (1970) employedit as the backbone of his lower Yazoo Basin research.It has since been used on a regular basis by archae-ologists working in the Lower Mississippi Valley andadjacent areas. Aten (1979; 1983b) eventually broughtthe type-variety system into southeast Texas. Duayand Weinstein (1992:89-95) modified the system foruse at sites along the Victoria Barge Canal, and aslightly updated version of their system is utilizedfor the current study.
The following descriptions provide a brief re-view of the sorting criteria necessary for recogniz-ing the various types and varieties utilized in thecurrent study. Figure 7-1 offers a dendritic chartthat illustrates the step-by-step procedure of ceramicclassification, while Table 7-4 provides a list of alltypes and varieties present at Guadalupe Bay. Lastly,Table 7-5 lists all sherds by major provenience (ei-ther sample unit, excavation unit, or surface) recoveredduring the 1992 investigations.2
It should be emphasized, as has been done be-fore (Duay and Weinstein 1992; Duay et al. 1994),that the system employed here is only a first stepin sorting the local ceramics into types and vari-
eties. It is expected that subsequent research oflarge collections, such as that from Guadalupe Bay,will refine or alter these varieties, in some caseseliminating or combining one or more of them intomore useful categories. Nevertheless, it is hopedthat the use of the type-variety system will con-tinue, and analysis of the ceramics of the regionwill become an important key in subdividing theLate Prehistoric period along both temporal andspatial lines.
Rockport Series
Ceramics of the Rockport series have long beenrecognized at sites on the central and south Texascoasts (Campbell 1952, 1958a, 1960, 1962; Suhmand Krieger 1954). As discussed earlier in this chapter,ceramics of the Rockport series exhibit a well-con-solidated, silty or fine sandy paste. Ricklis (1990b:121)notes that this clay matrix is indistinguishable fromnatural clays found in the Beaumont Formation, andsuggests that most of the material gathered to pro-duce Rockport ceramics came from this Pleistocene-age feature. Generally, the clay matrix of Rockportware either contains silt-size particles only or a com-bination of silt, very fine sand, and/or fine sand (allparticles <1/14 mm) (see Table 7-1). Sometimes vesselswere fashioned from this clay matrix without theaddition of any temper, the naturally occurring siltand sand serving as the only tempering agents. Atother times, however, additional particles of bone,shell, or caliche were added, presumably as inten-tional tempering material. The addition (or lack) ofthese “secondary inclusions” provides the basis foridentifying specific varieties under the present clas-sification scheme.
Prior to the current study, there were three pre-viously recognized ceramic types within the Rockportseries: Rockport Plain, Rockport Incised, and RockportBlack-on-gray (Campbell 1952, 1958a, 1962; Duayand Weinstein 1992; Duay et al. 1994; Suhm andKrieger 1954; Suhm and Jelks 1962). The exten-sive collection from Guadalupe Bay has allowed forthe recognition of three new types: Rockport Black,Rockport Red, and Rockport Polychrome. Each ofthese six types, plus their constituent varieties, aredescribed below. Additions or changes to defini-tions supplied in Duay and Weinstein (1992) and/or
2 Appendix B also provides a detailed breakdown of the ce-ramics recovered from each excavation unit, by stratum and level.Also included is information on the presence or absence of as-
phaltum coating on each sherd, plus the specific location of thatcoating.
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
251
Fig
ure
7-1
.D
end
riti
c c h
art
of c
e ram
ic s
orti
ng
pro
c ed
ur e
s u
sed
du
r in
g th
e c u
r re n
t st
ud
y.
(Mod
ifie
d f
r om
Du
ay a
nd
We i
nst
e in
199
2:F
ig-
ur e
�5-
1; D
uay
et
al. 1
994:
Fig
ure
5-1.
)
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
252
Duay et al. (1994) are noted in parentheses in thesubsequent headings.
Rockport Plain, var. Rockport (n=15,699)
This is the so-called established variety of thetype Rockport Plain (see Campbell 1958a:437-438,1962:331-332; Suhm and Krieger 1954:385), and thegeneral sorting criteria noted by earlier investiga-tors holds true today. It was the most abundant va-riety found at Guadalupe Bay. Predominantly, thevariety consists of vessels with a plain or asphal-tum-coated interior and/or exterior, and a silty orfine sandy paste that lacks any visible secondary
inclusions. As noted above, the asphaltum presenton some of the sherds of this type is the thick, glossycoating that should not be confused with intentionalblack decoration. It almost certainly was used as awaterproofing agent on the interior of vessels andas a glue or sealant along the margins of cracks bothon the interior and exterior of vessels.
Rockport Plain, var. Guadalupe (n=8,312)
This is was the second most common variety ofRockport Plain found at Guadalupe Bay. In earlierstudies, it had been included in the type descriptionfor Rockport ware (see Campbell 1962:331; Suhm
Table 7-4. Ceramic Types and Varieties Recovered at the Guadalupe Bay Site.
ROCKPORT S ERIES
GOOS E CREEK S ERIES
Rockport Plainvar. Rockportvar. Guadalupevar. Green Lakevar. Seadriftvar. Austwell
Rockport Inci sedvar. Rockportvar. Mission Lakevar. Plank Bridgevar. Sommervillevar. Mustang Lake
Rockport Black-on-grayvar. Rockportvar. Long Mottvar. Hog Bayouvar. Mosquito Pointvar. Buffalo Lake
Rockport Blackvar. Rockportvar. Lolitavar. Kuy Creekvar. Spring Bayouvar. Elm Bayou
Rockport Red
Rockport Polychrome
Goose Creek Plainvar. Anaquavar. Traylor Ranchvar. Goff Bayouvar. Tivolivar. Bloomingtonvar. Kendrick's Hillvar. Lavaca
Goose Creek Inci sed
var. Panther Reef
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
253
Tabl
e 7-
5.G
ener
al D
istr
ibut
ion
of A
bori
gina
l C
eram
ic T
ypes
and
Var
ieti
es R
ecov
ered
Dur
ing
the
1992
Inv
esti
gati
ons
atG
uada
lupe
Bay
.
(con
tin
ued
)
N4
0W
69
N5
0W
79
N5
1W
90
N6
0W
90
N7
0W
10
0N
70
W1
10
N7
0W
12
0N
80
W1
20
N8
0W
13
0N
90
W1
30
N9
0W
14
0
Roc
kpor
t Bla
ckva
r. E
lm B
ayou
--
22
-1
--
--
-va
r. K
uy C
reek
--
--
--
-2
-1
-va
r. L
olit
a-
-7
33
23
11
-1
var.
Roc
kpor
t1
-3
1-
16
--
1-
var.
Spr
ing
Bay
ou-
--
--
1-
--
--
Roc
kpor
t Bla
ck-o
n-gr
ayva
r. B
uffa
lo L
ake
--
42-
46
33-
2-
-va
r. H
og B
ayou
-1
12-
24
262
10-
5va
r. L
ong
Mot
t3
240
83
1047
916
-11
var.
Mos
quit
o P
oint
--
11-
1-
142
--
-va
r. R
ockp
ort
-3
161
47
161
3-
4
Roc
kpor
t Inc
ised
var.
Mis
sion
Lak
e-
-3
--
-5
--
-1
var.
Mus
tang
Lak
e-
--
--
84
1-
--
var.
Pla
nk B
ridg
e-
--
-1
-1
-1
1-
var.
Som
mer
vill
e-
--
--
11
1-
--
var.
Roc
kpor
t-
--
-1
32
-1
--
Roc
kpor
t P
lain
var.
Aus
twel
l-
-34
615
2575
333
2-
var.
Gre
en L
ake
12
182
2029
112
2097
1236
var.
Gua
dalu
pe8
411
014
2448
216
3916
127
56va
r. R
ockp
ort
94
6516
4244
159
2341
1043
var.
Sea
drift
--
314
1614
316
101
1
Roc
kpor
t Red
var.
uns
peci
fied
--
--
--
1-
--
-
Roc
kpor
t Pol
ychr
ome
var.
uns
peci
fied
--
--
--
--
--
-
Goo
se C
reek
Inci
sed
var.
Pan
ther
Ree
f-
--
--
--
--
--
Goo
se C
reek
Pla
inva
r. A
naqu
a-
--
--
--
--
--
var.
Blo
omin
gton
--
--
--
--
--
-va
r. K
endr
ick'
s H
ill-
-4
--
--
--
--
var.
Lav
aca
--
--
--
20-
3-
-va
r. T
ivol
i-
--
--
--
--
--
var.
Tra
ylor
Ran
ch-
--
--
--
--
--
Unc
lass
ifie
d B
rush
ed-
--
--
--
--
--
Unc
lass
ifie
d Pu
ncta
ted
--
--
--
--
--
-
TO
TA
L2
21
63
98
57
13
62
04
77
21
10
37
95
51
58
Sam
ple
U
nit
s
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
254
(con
tin
ued
)
Tabl
e 7-
5.C
onti
nued
.
N1
00
W1
50
N1
10
W1
50
N5
8W
10
0N
60
W1
00
N6
0W
10
2N
62
W1
02
N6
4W
10
0N
64
W1
02
N6
6W
10
0N
66
W1
02
Roc
kpor
t Bla
ckva
r. E
lm B
ayou
--
5-
22
1-
1-
-va
r. K
uy C
reek
--
3-
--
--
--
-va
r. L
olit
a-
-2
11
-2
42
--
-va
r. R
ockp
ort
--
13
-5
-1
--
--
var.
Spr
ing
Bay
ou-
-1
--
--
--
--
Roc
kpor
t Bla
ck-o
n-gr
ayva
r. B
uffa
lo L
ake
--
87
511
2522
1014
911
var.
Hog
Bay
ou-
-6
28
26
-3
32
-va
r. L
ong
Mot
t2
-1
51
85
6319
1210
26
var.
Mos
quit
o P
oint
--
28
4938
158
1-
-2
var.
Roc
kpor
t2
-5
782
8078
4014
49
11
Roc
kpor
t Inc
ised
var.
Mis
sion
Lak
e1
-1
01
-1
-4
--
-va
r. M
usta
ng L
ake
--
13
22
31
71
21
var.
Pla
nk B
ridg
e-
-4
--
--
--
--
var.
Som
mer
vill
e-
-3
13
23
41
-2
var.
Roc
kpor
t-
-7
12
23
51
-2
Roc
kpor
t P
lain
var.
Aus
twel
l-
11
94
132
115
231
156
100
118
8586
var.
Gre
en L
ake
45
35
837
2956
199
917
13va
r. G
uada
lupe
229
73
861
2510
530
1026
2845
var.
Roc
kpor
t10
84
74
835
521
1147
629
356
410
232
319
var.
Sea
drift
--
11
423
064
5231
3813
1312
Roc
kpor
t Red
var.
uns
peci
fied
--
1-
-4
--
--
1
Roc
kpor
t Pol
ychr
ome
var.
uns
peci
fied
--
0-
--
--
--
-
Goo
se C
reek
Inci
sed
var.
Pan
ther
Ree
f-
-0
--
--
--
--
Goo
se C
reek
Pla
inva
r. A
naqu
a-
-0
--
-1
2-
--
var.
Blo
omin
gton
--
0-
--
--
--
-va
r. K
endr
ick'
s H
ill-
-4
--
--
-2
2-
var.
Lav
aca
--
23
--
--
--
--
var.
Tiv
oli
--
0-
--
-1
--
-va
r. T
rayl
or R
anch
--
0-
--
-1
--
-
Unc
lass
ifie
d B
rush
ed-
-0
--
--
--
-1
Unc
lass
ifie
d Pu
ncta
ted
--
0-
--
1-
--
-
TO
TA
L4
12
32
,37
11
45
39
04
17
94
96
95
79
61
34
01
51
2
Sam
ple
U
nit
sS
am
ple
Un
itT
ota
ls
Blo
ck
1 U
nit
s
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
255
(con
tin
ued
)
Tabl
e 7-
5.C
onti
nued
.
Blo
ck
1 U
nit
s
N6
8W
10
0N
54
W8
8N
54
W9
0N
54
W9
2N
54
W9
4N
70
W1
18
N7
2W
11
8N
72
W1
20
N7
2W
12
2
Roc
kpor
t Bla
ckva
r. E
lm B
ayou
-6
--
--
03
-2
2va
r. K
uy C
reek
-0
--
--
0-
62
2va
r. L
olit
a-
92
511
52
317
812
12va
r. R
ockp
ort
-6
3-
-3
610
337
13va
r. S
prin
g B
ayou
-0
--
--
04
13
-
Roc
kpor
t Bla
ck-o
n-gr
ayva
r. B
uffa
lo L
ake
-1
07
210
1758
87
2815
6256
var.
Hog
Bay
ou-
24
31
1216
32
819
3332
var.
Lon
g M
ott
371
62
1629
4877
17
048
5284
97va
r. M
osqu
ito
Poi
nt-
11
32
12
71
227
1626
25va
r. R
ockp
ort
43
22
1753
119
292
18
105
6883
126
Roc
kpor
t Inc
ised
var.
Mis
sion
Lak
e1
7-
11
13
27
68
var.
Mus
tang
Lak
e4
23
-1
41
64
-5
15va
r. P
lank
Bri
dge
11
1-
34
8-
11
4va
r. S
omm
ervi
lle
21
8-
--
11
62
41
var.
Roc
kpor
t1
17
21
14
88
717
6
Roc
kpor
t P
lain
var.
Aus
twel
l11
01
13
310
815
021
432
88
00
652
297
380
348
var.
Gre
en L
ake
212
10
1520
8967
19
113
616
625
026
1va
r. G
uada
lupe
233
53
4482
157
181
46
432
224
755
371
8va
r. R
ockp
ort
281
47
30
206
390
882
1011
2,4
89
1042
927
861
809
var.
Sea
drift
334
86
2615
233
76
104
315
159
141
Roc
kpor
t Red
var.
uns
peci
fied
-5
12
--
33
2-
-
Roc
kpor
t Pol
ychr
ome
var.
uns
peci
fied
-0
--
--
0-
-1
-
Goo
se C
reek
Inci
sed
var.
Pan
ther
Ree
f-
0-
--
-0
--
--
Goo
se C
reek
Pla
inva
r. A
naqu
a-
3-
1-
-1
--
--
var.
Blo
omin
gton
-0
--
--
03
41
-va
r. K
endr
ick'
s H
ill-
42
--
13
2-
--
var.
Lav
aca
-0
--
--
06
-28
25va
r. T
ivol
i-
1-
--
-0
--
--
var.
Tra
ylor
Ran
ch-
1-
--
55
8-
1-
Unc
lass
ifie
d B
rush
ed-
1-
--
-0
-1
--
Unc
lass
ifie
d Pu
ncta
ted
-1
--
1-
1-
--
-
TO
TA
L5
18
7,7
43
45
07
62
15
63
18
32
4,6
07
25
48
21
94
25
81
27
01
Blo
ck
1T
ota
ls
Blo
ck
2 U
nit
sB
lock
2
To
tals
Blo
ck 3
Uni
ts
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
256
Tabl
e 7-
5.C
oncl
uded
.
N7
4W
11
8N
74
W1
20
N7
4W
12
2N
74
W1
24
N7
4W
12
6N
76
W1
20
N7
6W
12
2N
76
W1
26
Sit
e T
otal
s
Roc
kpor
t Bla
ckva
r. E
lm B
ayou
11
32
-3
1-
18
13
0va
r. K
uy C
reek
13
2-
-1
2-
19
42
6va
r. L
olit
a6
27
178
415
81
16
21
19
0va
r. R
ockp
ort
98
75
-6
85
11
11
11
47
var.
Spr
ing
Bay
ou-
--
--
-1
11
01
12
Roc
kpor
t Bla
ck-o
n-gr
ayva
r. B
uffa
lo L
ake
6255
6452
5562
9310
17
05
13
99
9va
r. H
og B
ayou
4060
178
100
9950
125
130
87
41
41
,00
6va
r. L
ong
Mot
t53
156
214
177
129
130
167
269
15
76
32
2,0
91
var.
Mos
quit
o P
oint
1219
1611
3029
3726
27
44
43
1va
r. R
ockp
ort
2211
398
7832
3646
688
75
31
,47
5
Roc
kpor
t Inc
ised
var.
Mis
sion
Lak
e7
314
914
812
59
53
11
8va
r. M
usta
ng L
ake
93
164
611
87
88
41
34
var.
Pla
nk B
ridg
e6
46
29
515
55
85
76
var.
Som
mer
vill
e-
1-
--
33
12
10
43
var.
Roc
kpor
t4
25
-3
27
76
82
10
2
Roc
kpor
t P
lain
var.
Aus
twel
l20
632
728
821
415
016
523
116
23
42
06
05
,60
7va
r. G
reen
Lak
e24
821
538
643
934
917
926
424
73
14
01
11
4,0
10
var.
Gua
dalu
pe34
964
375
362
961
743
172
146
56
44
83
09
8,3
12
var.
Roc
kpor
t40
765
072
559
636
836
763
948
67
87
71
29
15
,69
9va
r. S
eadr
ift84
6961
4871
6713
647
13
02
37
2,0
15
Roc
kpor
t Red
var.
uns
peci
fied
--
3-
-1
-1
10
01
9
Roc
kpor
t Pol
ychr
ome
var.
uns
peci
fied
--
--
--
1-
20
2
Goo
se C
reek
Inci
sed
var.
Pan
ther
Ree
f-
--
--
--
-0
11
Goo
se C
reek
Pla
inva
r. A
naqu
a-
--
--
--
-0
04
var.
Blo
omin
gton
--
--
--
--
80
8va
r. K
endr
ick'
s H
ill-
--
--
--
-2
01
3va
r. L
avac
a4
710
-4
-4
49
20
11
5va
r. T
ivol
i-
--
--
--
-0
01
var.
Tra
ylor
Ran
ch-
--
--
--
-9
01
5
Unc
lass
ifie
d B
rush
ed-
--
--
--
-1
02
Unc
lass
ifie
d Pu
ncta
ted
1-
1-
--
31
61
9
TO
TA
L1
53
12
34
12
85
72
38
31
94
41
56
02
53
92
04
62
7,2
25
76
64
2,7
12
Blo
ck
3 U
nit
sB
lock
3T
otal
sSu
rfac
e
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
257
Figure 7-2. Portion of loop handle from a vessel of RockportPlain, var. Guadalupe . Note the bulge on theinterior of the sherd produced by the “rivet”used to attach the handle. (See Appendix Kfor provenience data.)
0 5
cm
and Krieger 1954:385). It includes vesselsor sherds with a plain or asphaltum-coatedexterior, either a plain or asphaltum-coatedinterior, and a silty or fine sandy paste thatcontains fragments of crushed bone and/orburned bone. The latter presumably wasadded as a tempering agent.
Interestingly, this was the only Rockportvariety to produce the remains of a vesselhandle (Figure 7-2). Luckily, the handlefragment also includes a portion of the bodyof the vessel, and this indicates that it hadbeen attached by extending a clay “rivet”through the vessel wall to anchor the handleto the interior of the container. Such riv-eted handles are common on Goliad ceramicsfrom Mission Espíritu Santo (Mounger1959:170-172), and it originally was thoughtthat the handle from Guadalupe Bay mightbe from a vessel of Goliad Plain that hadoriginated at the mission. However, exami-nation of the handle’s paste indicates thatit is typical of the Rockport series, and al-most certainly is of local manufacture.
Although relatively rare, the presence of handlesin Rockport assemblages is not unknown, as bothMartin (1931:55) and Campbell (1962:332) earlierhad noted that some sherds of Rockport Plain con-tained evidence of loop handles. Considering theextensive quantity of handles found at Espíritu Santo,however, it is likely that similar handles on Rockportware represent a very late addition to the ceramicindustry, and probably are representative of proto-historic and/or historic occupations.3 Consideringthe nearby presence of Mission Refugio in the 1790s,plus other evidence of an eighteenth-century occu-pation at Guadalupe Bay, it may not be too specula-tive to suggest an association between the handleand this late component. Such an association maybe supported further by the fact that the handle camefrom XU N54W92, one of the units in Block 2 spe-cifically excavated to examine the potential historicoccupation noted in that area of the site.
Rockport Plain, var. Green Lake (n=4,010)
This variety consists of pottery with a plain orasphaltum-coated exterior or interior, and a silty or
fine sandy paste that contains fragments of crushedshell. The shell probably was added as a temperingagent, although Story’s (1968) research at the InglesideCove site suggests that some shell may simply rep-resent natural inclusions in the clay selected for vesselmanufacture.
Rockport Plain, var. Seadrift (n=2,015)
Var. Seadrift can be recognized by sherds witha nondecorated exterior, a plain or asphaltum-coatedexterior or interior, and a silty or fine sandy pastethat contains small pieces of caliche as secondaryinclusions. As with the shell inclusions discussedabove, these latter items probably served as inten-tionally added tempering agents.
Rockport Plain, var. Austwell (n=5,607)
This variety can be recognized by sherds with aplain or asphaltum-coated exterior or interior sur-face, and a silty or fine sandy paste that contains aheterogeneous assortment of secondary inclusions.The latter can consist of shell, bone, and caliche;bone and caliche; shell and caliche; or any combi-nation thereof.
3 A very recent study by Ricklis (2000:78), received too latefor proper citation, discusses 16 loop handle fragments from Mission
Rosario that occur on Rockport paste and in an assemblage dat-ing to the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
258
Rockport Incised, var. Rockport (n=102)
As with Rockport Plain, var. Rockport, this va-riety represents the established variety of the typeand includes only those incised designs on sherdswith silty or fine sandy paste that lacks any notice-able secondary inclusions. Asphaltum coating maybe present on the interior of Rockport Incised sherds,and, in some instances, the asphaltum extends overthe lip and down over the upper few centimeters ofthe exterior rim. Since the decoration usually is lo-cated on or just below the rim of the vessel, the as-phaltum can cover either a portion of the inciseddecoration or the entire decoration.
Rockport Incised, var. Mission Lake (n=118)
This variety consists of predominantly horizontallines placed around the exterior, upper portion orrim of a vessel. The vessel may or may not containasphaltum on its interior and/or lip and exterior rim.Vessel paste consists of a silty or fine sandy matrixthat includes crushed and/or burned pieces of boneand represents the incised equivalent of RockportPlain, var. Guadalupe.
Rockport Incised, var. Plank Bridge (new variety) (n=76)
This is a new variety recognized in the expandedcollection analyzed for the current project. It con-sists of predominantly horizontal lines placed aroundthe exterior, upper portion or rim of a vessel, althoughother decorative elements may be added to this ba-sic design. The vessel may or may not contain as-phaltum on its interior and/or lip and exterior rim.Vessel paste consists of a silty or fine sandy matrixthat includes small pieces of shell presumably addedas temper. As such, Plank Bridge represents the in-cised equivalent of Rockport Plain, var. Green Lake.
One unique rim sherd of Plank Bridge came fromthe surface of the site and is worthy of further dis-cussion (Figure 7-3). It exhibits four horizontal in-cised lines running parallel to the lip on the exteriorof the sherd, a series of pendant triangles situatedbelow the horizontal lines, a painted black band alongthe top and outer edge of the lip, and red pigmentwithin the incised lines. A hint of red pigment alsois noticeable on the sherd’s surface adjacent to sev-eral of the incised lines, suggesting that the entiredecorative field may once have been covered by redfilm. The presence of the red pigment and the blackband could conceivably place the sherd within the
type Rockport Polychrome, to be discussed below.However, it is quite clear that the primary decora-tive motif was formed by the incised lines, whileboth the black band and red pigment were second-ary decorative elements added to “embellish” theprimary decoration. Thus, it is felt that the sherdshould more properly be classed as Rockport Incised.More will be said of this sherd later in the discus-sion on decorative motifs.
Rockport Incised, var. Sommerville(new variety) (n=43)
This is another new variety recognized duringthe current project. As with the other varieties ofRockport Incised, Sommerville consists of predomi-nantly horizontal lines placed around the exterior,upper portion or rim of a vessel. The vessel may ormay not contain asphaltum on its interior and/or lipand exterior rim. Vessel paste consists of a silty orfine sandy matrix that includes small pieces of cali-che presumably added as temper. Sommerville thereforerepresents the incised equivalent of Rockport Plain,var. Seadrift.
Rockport Incised, var. Mustang Lake (n=134)
Mustang Lake is named for the Mustang Lakesite (41 CL 3) which has produced a large assem-blage of Rockport series ceramics (see Campbell1960:Figure 2, 1962:Figure 1). Basically, the vari-ety consists primarily of horizontally incised linesplaced around the exterior, upper portion or rim ofa vessel that may or may not contain asphaltum onits interior, lip, and/or upper exterior rim. The paste
Figure 7-3. Unique sherd of Rockport In-cised, var. Plank Bridge , withblack lip band and red pigmentin incised lines. The specimenis an excellent example of the“Bendewald Point motif,” as dis-cussed later in this chapter. (SeeAppendix K for proveniencedata.)
0 3
cm
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
259
is composed of a silty or fine sandy matrix that containsa heterogeneous mixture of secondary inclusions similarto those found in Rockport Plain, var. Austwell. In-cluded in the collection from Guadalupe Bay is theonly partially reconstructed vessel discovered dur-ing the excavations. It consists of eight incised sherdsand nine plain body sherds from Sample UnitN70W110. More will be said of this vessel in a sub-sequent section on decorative motifs.
Rockport Black-on-gray, var. Rockport (revised definition) (n=1,475)
This is a modified version of the original typeRockport Black-on-gray (Campbell 1958a:435-437,1962:332; Suhm and Krieger 1954:382-384). As notedabove, the present definition of var. Rockport includesall intentionally decorated asphaltum paint or washapplied over a gray or white slip, usually to the out-side of a vessel. In rare instances, the decorationmay also occur on the interior of shallow bowls and/or plates. When it was uncertain whether the as-phaltum was applied intentionally or might actuallyrepresent residue from crack mending or simple carelessspattering, then the term “Unclassified Black Coated”was used. Where the gray or white slip is present,without any black decoration, the sherd still was clas-sified as Rockport Black-on-gray. Paste consists ofa silty or fine sandy matrix that lacks any visiblesecondary inclusions. As such, the paste is compa-rable to that noted for Rockport Plain, var. Rockport.
It should be noted that the present definition ofRockport Black-on-gray is a slight departure fromthat offered by Duay and Weinstein (1992) and Duayet al. (1994). Previously, those authors had assignedall painted pottery to the type Rockport Black-on-gray, whether or not a white or gray slip was present.There simply were so few examples of painted de-signs on nonslipped pottery that it was not consid-ered necessary to set up a new type. However, withanalysis of the expanded collection now available,it has become clear that a significant minority ofpainted designs occurs on nonslipped pottery. Tocontinue to place this material into the black-on-graycategory would be misleading. Thus, a new type,Rockport Black, has been established to cover blackpainting on vessels that lack a gray or white slip.
Rockport Black-on-gray, var. Long Mott(revised definition) (n=2,091)
In all outward respects this variety matches thedefinition of the established variety. However, the
paste contains crushed and/or burned fragments ofbone, and in that regard it is equivalent to RockportPlain, var. Guadalupe and Rockport Incised, var.Mission Lake. It was the most common variety ofRockport Black-on-gray found at the Guadalupe Baysite.
Rockport Black-on-gray, var. Hog Bayou(revised definition) (n=1,006)
Classification is the same as for vars. Rockportand Long Mott, except that the paste contains piecesof shell, and thus is equivalent to Rockport Plain,var. Green Lake.
Rockport Black-on-gray, var. Mosquito Point(new variety) (n=431)
This is a new variety set up to cover paintedpottery on a white or gray slip that occurs on typi-cal Rockport paste that contains bits of caliche. Thus,it is the Rockport Black-on-gray equivalent to RockportPlain, var. Seadrift and Rockport Incised, var. PlankBridge.
Rockport Black-on-gray, var. Buffalo Lake(revised definition) (n=999)
This variety is externally identical to vars.Rockport, Long Mott, Hog Bayou, and Mosquito Point.However, its paste consists of a mixture of varioussecondary inclusions, making it equivalent to the pasteof Rockport Plain, var. Austwell and Rockport In-cised, var. Mustang Lake.
Rockport Black, var. Rockport(new type and variety) (n=147)
As alluded to above, Rockport Black has beenset up as a new type to cover those vessels paintedwith asphaltum designs, but which lack any evidenceof the gray or white slip typical of Rockport Black-on-gray. There simply were too many sherds withinthis category to justify their continued placement withinthe black-on-gray type. Not only would this place-ment have masked possible chronological and/or spatialdifferences between the two forms of decoration, butit would continue to force numerous sherds lackinggray slip into a type that specifically mentions thepresence of such slip in its name.
Rockport Black, var. Rockport is the establishedvariety of this new type. It represents all intention-ally decorated asphaltum paint or wash applied over
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
260
the original, nonslipped surface of a vessel. In mostcases, the decoration was applied to the outside ofthe vessel, although, in rare instances, the decora-tion also was placed on the interior of shallow bowlsand/or plates. Paste is equivalent to the Rockportvariety of Rockport Plain.
Rockport Black, var. Lolita(new type and variety) (n=190)
This variety consists of all asphaltum decora-tion applied to nonslipped vessels with bone inclu-sions in their paste. As such, the paste of var. Lolitais equivalent to the Guadalupe variety of RockportPlain. It represents the most prevalent variety ofRockport Black.
Rockport Black, var. Kuy Creek(new type and variety) (n=26)
This variety consists of all asphaltum decora-tion applied to nonslipped vessels that have shellinclusions in their paste. Thus, the paste of var. KuyCreek is equivalent to the Green Lake variety ofRockport Plain.
Rockport Black, var. Spring Bayou(new type and variety) (n=12)
Spring Bayou consists of all asphaltum decora-tion applied to nonslipped vessels that have calicheinclusions in their paste. The paste of Spring Bayou,therefore, is equivalent to the Seadrift variety ofRockport Plain.
Rockport Black, var. Elm Bayou(new type and variety) (n=30)
As with other varieties of the Rockport Blacktype, var. Elm Bayou includes all asphaltum deco-ration applied to nonslipped vessels. In this case,the paste contains two or more categories of the varioussecondary inclusions (bone and shell; caliche andbone; caliche, bone and shell; etc.) making it equivalentto the Austwell variety of Rockport Plain.
Rockport Red (new type) (n=19)
This is a relatively rare ceramic type that wasrepresented by 19 sherds in the overall collectionfrom Guadalupe Bay (Figure 7-4, a-c). To the au-thors’ knowledge, this represents the largest collec-tion of red-painted pottery from the central Texascoast, as the only other examples of what appear to
be similar painted specimens were reported from theIngleside Cove site in San Patricio County (Story1968:19, Figure 25, C). Gatschet (1891:68), how-ever, notes, that red paint sometimes was used todecorate Karankawan pottery, and additional speci-mens can be expected from sites in the region.
Basically, Rockport Red includes all vessels withRockport paste that had a thin red slip applied totheir exterior and/or interior surfaces. Unlike RockportPolychrome, to be discussed next, the red slip onRockport Red covers all or almost all of a vessel’ssurface(s). At Guadalupe Bay, nine sherds had redslip on the exterior, three had it on the interior, andtwo had slip on both the interior and exterior. Fivesherds were too small to determine placement of theslip. Only one sherd of Rockport Red was of suffi-cient size to suggest vessel form; a beaker. How-ever, those five sherds with interior slip probablycame from shallow bowls or, less likely, plates.
Because of the scarcity of the type, no varietieshave been established for the current study. Rather,all examples, regardless of the presence or absence
Figure 7-4. Rockport Red and Rockport Poly-chrome. (a-c) Rockport Red, var. un-specified (interior view of sherds);(d-e) Rim sherds of Rockport Poly-chrome, var. unspecified. (See Ap-pendix K for provenience data.)
a b
c d
e0 3
cm
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
261
of secondary inclusions, are listed as Rockport Red,var. unspecified. Nevertheless, for comparative pur-poses it is worth noting that three of the sherds havepaste equivalent to the Rockport variety of RockportPlain, while two have paste equivalent to the Seadriftvariety. Nine have paste equivalent to the Guadalupevariety of Rockport Plain, and three have paste equalto the Austwell variety (see Appendix B).
Rockport Polychrome (new type) (n=2)
This is another new type, based on two sherdsfrom Guadalupe Bay (see Figure 7-4, d-e), plus thepresence of a few other sherds and at least one wholepolychrome vessel from additional sites along thecentral Texas coast (Calhoun 1964; Campbell 1962:332;Story 1968:18, Figures 20, D, and 23, H; Suhm andKrieger 1954:384, Plate 72, F, L; Suhm and Jelks1962:131, Plate 66, F, L). Interestingly, two of theadditional polychrome sherds are from the MustangLake site located on the west side of San AntonioBay (Suhm and Krieger 1954:384, Plate 72, F, L;Suhm and Jelks 1962:131, Plate 66, F, L).
Rockport Polychrome is represented by Rockportware vessels with typical asphaltum painted designsto which was added a red wash. On the few ex-amples known, the red wash was applied to a spe-cific area of the vessel, rather than the overall ves-sel surface. These same examples also indicate thatthe red and black painted areas had been applied toboth slipped and nonslipped surfaces. Because ofthe extreme rarity of the type, however, no distinc-tion has been made at this time between those sherdswith slip and those without. Perhaps with more data,it may be possible to establish two separate typesusing criteria similar to those employed in separat-ing Rockport Black from Rockport Black-on-gray.Along similar lines, no varieties have been estab-lished for the overall type. The present small samplesimply does not warrant such fine-scale division atthis point.
Regardless of the above, it is worth noting thatone of the sherds from Guadalupe Bay exhibited athin, horizontal, black lip band with a narrow, hori-zontal, red band located slightly below the lip onthe exterior (see Figure 7-4, d). Both bands had beenapplied over a white slip, on a vessel with paste equiva-lent to the Green Lake variety of Rockport Plain.The other sherd also exhibited black and red hori-zontal bands, both on the lip and just below the lip,respectively, on the exterior of the vessel (see Fig-ure 7-4, e). The vessel surface had not been slipped
prior to painting. Its paste is equivalent to theGuadalupe variety of Rockport Plain. Unfortunately,neither sherd was large enough to provide data relativeto vessel form.
Rockport Series Ceramics by Analysis Unit
Table 7-6 provides data on the distribution ofthe various ceramic types and varieties, by analysisunit, at Guadalupe Bay. Although almost every analysisunit contained ceramics, it is reasonable to concludethat those sherds found in the deeper, Archaic-agedeposits (AUs 8 through 10 and 12 through 16) rep-resent items that had been displaced downward bybioturbation, had been accidentally mixed duringwaterscreening in the field (as seems likely for thesherds from AU 13 which all were found among theremains associated with one level from XU N76W122),or had been accidentally included in the soil from adeep level, probably by being dislodged from theupper portion of a unit’s wall during digging (as seemsalmost certain for the one sherd associated with AU16, the earliest AU at the site). Thus, the followingexamination of the distribution of Rockport seriesceramics will concentrate on those AUs believedassociated with the Rockport occupation(s) at thesite (AUs 1 through 7).
As can be seen, the greatest quantity of Rockportceramics (over 14,000 sherds) came from AU 3. Thisis almost twice as many as AU 5 which had the sec-ond greatest quantity (over 7,000 sherds). Additionally,when the roughly 5,000 sherds from AU 6 are addedto the totals from AUs 3 and 5, then it is clear thatBlock 3 produced the majority of the ceramics re-covered at Guadalupe Bay. This is only logical, sincethat area of the site was specifically chosen for ex-cavation because of the tremendous quantity ofRockport-related artifacts recovered in the sampleunits in that location.
Chronologically, several interesting patternsemerge, despite the fact that much of Stratum 2appears to have been partly disturbed by recenttreefalls and bioturbation. By combining the sherdcounts from AUs 2 and 3 (the uppermost levelsin Stratum 2 in all three block excavations) andthen comparing those counts to combined totalsfor AUs 4 and 5 (the lower levels in the blockexcavations), it is possible to recognize subtle,and perhaps meaningful, differences in the per-centages for the various types and varieties(Table 7-7). When these counts then are comparedagainst those from AU 6, the slightly deeper, dis-
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
262
Table 7-6. Distribution of Aboriginal Ceramic Types and Varieties, by Analysis Unit.
(continued)
N o . % N o . % N o . % N o . % N o . % N o . %
Rockport Blackvar. Elm Bayou 5 0.20 3 0.06 8 0.06 4 0.08 5 0.07 4 0.08var. Kuy Creek 2 0.08 0 0.00 6 0.04 0 0.00 4 0.06 8 0.15var. Lolita 8 0.32 18 0.33 65 0.46 25 0.49 30 0.42 21 0.41var. Rockport 12 0.47 7 0.13 70 0.49 7 0.14 21 0.29 16 0.31var. Spring Bayou 2 0.08 0 0.00 4 0.03 1 0.02 2 0.03 1 0.02
Rockport Black total 2 9 1 . 1 4 2 8 0 . 5 2 1 5 3 1 . 0 8 3 7 0 . 7 2 6 2 0 . 8 6 5 0 0 . 9 7
Rockport Black-on-grayvar. Buffalo Lake 32 1.26 100 1.84 300 2.12 122 2.39 228 3.18 174 3.36var. Hog Bayou 42 1.65 18 0.33 356 2.51 43 0.84 265 3.69 236 4.56var. Long Mott 129 5.08 123 2.26 753 5.31 173 3.39 480 6.68 309 5.97var. Mosquito Point 17 0.67 70 1.29 149 1.05 33 0.65 74 1.03 52 1.00var. Rockport 94 3.70 195 3.59 479 3.38 240 4.70 244 3.40 135 2.61
Rockport Black-on-gray total 3 1 4 1 2 . 3 7 5 0 6 9 . 3 2 2 , 0 3 7 1 4 . 3 7 6 1 1 1 1 . 9 6 1 , 2 9 1 1 7 . 9 8 9 0 6 1 7 . 5 0
Rockport Incisedvar. Mission Lake 5 0.20 5 0.09 40 0.28 6 0.12 26 0.36 24 0.46var. Mustang Lake 0 0.00 11 0.20 43 0.30 14 0.27 25 0.35 21 0.41var. Plank Bridge 6 0.24 1 0.02 23 0.16 4 0.08 21 0.29 12 0.23var. Sommerville 2 0.08 7 0.13 15 0.11 9 0.18 4 0.06 2 0.04var. Rockport 4 0.16 13 0.24 43 0.30 8 0.16 7 0.10 18 0.35
Rockport Incised total 1 7 0 . 6 7 3 7 0 . 6 8 1 6 4 1 . 1 6 4 1 0 . 8 0 8 3 1 . 1 6 7 7 1 . 4 9
Rockport Plainvar. Austwell 238 9.38 869 16.00 1,621 11.43 815 15.95 973 13.55 699 13.50var. Green Lake 175 6.90 166 3.06 1,699 11.99 214 4.19 805 11.21 626 12.09var. Guadalupe 501 19.74 340 6.26 3,335 23.53 480 9.40 1,700 23.67 1,273 24.59var. Rockport 1,152 45.39 3,205 59.00 4,359 30.75 2,767 54.16 1,929 26.86 1,291 24.94var. Seadrift 109 4.29 263 4.84 731 5.16 131 2.56 300 4.18 233 4.50
Rockport Plain total 2 , 1 7 5 8 5 . 7 0 4 , 8 4 3 8 9 . 1 6 1 1 , 7 4 5 8 2 . 8 5 4 , 4 0 7 8 6 . 2 6 5 , 7 0 7 7 9 . 4 7 4 , 1 2 2 7 9 . 6 2
Rockport Redvar. unspecified 3 0.12 5 0.09 6 0.04 1 0.02 3 0.04 1 0.02
Rockport Red total 3 0 . 1 2 5 0 . 0 9 6 0 . 0 4 1 0 . 0 2 3 0 . 0 4 1 0 . 0 2
Rockport Polychromevar. unspecified 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.02
Rockport Polychrome total 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 2
Goose Creek Incisedvar. Panther Reef 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Goose Creek Incised total 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0
Goose Creek Plainvar. Anaqua 0 0.00 4 0.07 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00var. Bloomington 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 0.03 0 0.00 4 0.06 0 0.00var. Kendrick's Hill 0 0.00 6 0.11 0 0.00 5 0.10 0 0.00 0 0.00var. Lavaca 0 0.00 0 0.00 62 0.44 0 0.00 30 0.42 15 0.29var. Tivoli 0 0.00 1 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00var. Traylor Ranch 0 0.00 1 0.02 2 0.01 5 0.10 0 0.00 1 0.02
Goose Creek Plain total 0 0 . 0 0 1 2 0 . 2 2 6 8 0 . 4 8 1 0 0 . 2 0 3 4 0 . 4 7 1 6 0 . 3 1
Unclassified Brushed 0 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 0
Unclassified Punctated 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 0 1 2 0 . 0 4 0 0 . 0 0 4 0 . 0 8
Site Total 2 , 5 3 8 1 0 0 . 0 0 5 , 4 3 2 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 4 , 1 7 6 1 0 0 . 0 0 5 , 1 0 9 1 0 0 . 0 0 7 , 1 8 1 1 0 0 . 0 0 5 , 1 7 7 1 0 0 . 0 0
AU 1 AU 2 AU 3
Analysis Units
AU 4 AU 5 AU 6
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
263
(continued)
N o . % N o . % N o . % N o . % N o . % N o . %
Rockport Blackvar. Elm Bayou 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00var. Kuy Creek 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.38 0 0.00var. Lolita 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.41 0 0.00 0 0.00var. Rockport 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00var. Spring Bayou 1 0.34 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Rockport Black total 1 0 . 3 4 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 1 . 4 1 1 0 . 3 8 0 0 . 0 0
Rockport Black-on-grayvar. Buffalo Lake 2 0.69 17 1.75 1 0.60 0 0.00 8 3.07 0 0.00var. Hog Bayou 5 1.72 8 0.82 0 0.00 1 1.41 8 3.07 0 0.00var. Long Mott 8 2.76 40 4.12 0 0.00 1 1.41 15 5.75 2 16.67var. Mosquito Point 4 1.38 11 1.13 10 5.99 0 0.00 2 0.77 0 0.00var. Rockport 2 0.69 46 4.74 16 9.58 2 2.82 6 2.30 0 0.00
Rockport Black-on-gray total 2 1 7 . 2 4 1 2 2 1 2 . 5 8 2 7 1 6 . 1 7 4 5 . 6 3 3 9 1 4 . 9 4 2 1 6 . 6 7
Rockport Incisedvar. Mission Lake 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.41 2 0.77 0 0.00var. Mustang Lake 2 0.69 10 1.03 2 1.20 0 0.00 1 0.38 0 0.00var. Plank Bridge 0 0.00 1 0.10 0 0.00 1 1.41 0 0.00 0 0.00var. Sommerville 0 0.00 3 0.31 1 0.60 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00var. Rockport 0 0.00 3 0.31 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.38 0 0.00
Rockport Incised total 2 0 . 6 9 1 7 1 . 7 5 3 1 . 8 0 2 2 . 8 2 4 1 . 5 3 0 0 . 0 0
Rockport Plainvar. Austwell 59 20.34 178 18.35 7 4.19 5 7.04 41 15.71 5 41.67var. Green Lake 42 14.48 34 3.51 8 4.79 12 16.90 47 18.01 2 16.67var. Guadalupe 71 24.48 46 4.74 5 2.99 7 9.86 77 29.50 2 16.67var. Rockport 70 24.14 473 48.76 65 38.92 28 39.44 50 19.16 1 8.33var. Seadrift 16 5.52 100 10.31 52 31.14 12 16.90 1 0.38 0 0.00
Rockport Plain total 2 5 8 8 8 . 9 7 8 3 1 8 5 . 6 7 1 3 7 8 2 . 0 4 6 4 9 0 . 1 4 2 1 6 8 2 . 7 6 1 0 8 3 . 3 3
Rockport Redvar. unspecified 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Rockport Red total 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0
Rockport Polychromevar. unspecified 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Rockport Polychrome total 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0
Goose Creek Incisedvar. Panther Reef 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Goose Creek Incised total 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0
Goose Creek Plainvar. Anaqua 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00var. Bloomington 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00var. Kendrick's Hill 2 0.69 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00var. Lavaca 1 0.34 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00var. Tivoli 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00var. Traylor Ranch 5 1.72 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.38 0 0.00
Goose Creek Plain total 8 2 . 7 6 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 3 8 0 0 . 0 0
Unclassified Brushed 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0
Unclassified Punctated 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0
Site Total 2 9 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 9 7 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 6 7 1 0 0 . 0 0 7 1 1 0 0 . 0 0 2 6 1 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 . 0 0
AU 7 AU 8 AU 9 AU 10 AU 11
Analysis Units
Table 7-6. Continued.
AU 12
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
264
N o . % N o . % N o . % Total % Total
Rockport Blackvar. Elm Bayou 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.08 3 0 0 . 0 7var. Kuy Creek 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 0.40 2 6 0 . 0 6var. Lolita 0 0.00 0 0.00 22 1.77 1 9 0 0 . 4 4var. Rockport 0 0.00 0 0.00 14 1.12 1 4 7 0 . 3 4var. Spring Bayou 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.08 1 2 0 . 0 3
Rockport Black total 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 4 3 3 . 4 5 4 0 5 0 . 9 5
Rockport Black-on-grayvar. Buffalo Lake 0 0.00 0 0.00 15 1.20 9 9 9 2 . 3 4var. Hog Bayou 1 1.22 0 0.00 23 1.85 1 , 0 0 6 2 . 3 6var. Long Mott 7 8.54 0 0.00 51 4.09 2 , 0 9 1 4 . 9 0var. Mosquito Point 0 0.00 0 0.00 9 0.72 4 3 1 1 . 0 1var. Rockport 1 1.22 0 0.00 15 1.20 1 , 4 7 5 3 . 4 5
Rockport Black-on-gray total 9 1 0 . 9 8 0 0 . 0 0 1 1 3 9 . 0 7 6 , 0 0 2 1 4 . 0 5
Rockport Incisedvar. Mission Lake 3 3.66 0 0.00 6 0.48 1 1 8 0 . 2 8var. Mustang Lake 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 0.40 1 3 4 0 . 3 1var. Plank Bridge 1 1.22 0 0.00 6 0.48 7 6 0 . 1 8var. Sommerville 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 3 0 . 1 0var. Rockport 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 0.40 1 0 2 0 . 2 4
Rockport Incised total 4 4 . 8 8 0 0 . 0 0 2 2 1 . 7 7 4 7 3 1 . 1 1
Rockport Plainvar. Austwell 5 6.10 1 100.00 92 7.38 5 , 6 0 7 1 3 . 1 3var. Green Lake 4 4.88 0 0.00 176 14.13 4 , 0 1 0 9 . 3 9var. Guadalupe 15 18.29 0 0.00 460 36.92 8 , 3 1 2 1 9 . 4 6var. Rockport 40 48.78 0 0.00 269 21.59 1 5 , 6 9 9 3 6 . 7 6var. Seadrift 5 6.10 0 0.00 62 4.98 2 , 0 1 5 4 . 7 2
Rockport Plain total 6 9 8 4 . 1 5 1 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 , 0 5 9 8 4 . 9 9 3 5 , 6 4 3 8 3 . 4 5
Rockport Redvar. unspecified 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 9 0 . 0 4
Rockport Red total 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 9 0 . 0 4
Rockport Polychromevar. unspecified 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0 . 0 0
Rockport Polychrome total 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 0 0
Goose Creek Incisedvar. Panther Reef 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.08 1 0 . 0 0
Goose Creek Incised total 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 8 1 0 . 0 0
Goose Creek Plainvar. Anaqua 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 0 . 0 1var. Bloomington 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 8 0 . 0 2var. Kendrick's Hill 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 3 0 . 0 3var. Lavaca 0 0.00 0 0.00 7 0.56 1 1 5 0 . 2 7var. Tivoli 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0 . 0 0var. Traylor Ranch 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 5 0 . 0 4
Goose Creek Plain total 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 7 0 . 5 6 1 5 6 0 . 3 7
Unclassified Brushed 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 0 0
Unclassified Punctated 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 8 9 0 . 0 2
Site Total 8 2 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 , 2 4 6 1 0 0 . 0 0 4 2 , 7 1 2 1 0 0 . 0 0
No AUAU 13* AU 16**
Analysis Units
Table 7-6. Concluded.
* Ceramics in this analysis unit almost certainly mixed accidently during waterscreening—most likely from a single bucket of soil from a level associated either with AU 3, 5, or 6.
** The sherd in this analysis unit clearly is an accidental inclusion. Most likely from either AU 2 or 4.
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
265
N o . % N o . % N o . % N o . % Total % Total
Rockport Blackvar. Elm Bayou 11 0.06 9 0.07 4 0.08 0 0.00 2 4 0 . 0 6var. Kuy Creek 6 0.03 4 0.03 8 0.15 0 0.00 1 8 0 . 0 5var. Lolita 83 0.42 55 0.45 21 0.41 0 0.00 1 5 9 0 . 4 3var. Rockport 77 0.39 28 0.23 16 0.31 0 0.00 1 2 1 0 . 3 2var. Spring Bayou 4 0.02 3 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.34 9 0 . 0 2
Rockport Black total 1 8 1 0 . 9 2 9 9 0 . 8 1 5 0 0 . 9 7 1 0 . 3 4 3 3 1 0 . 8 9
Rockport Black-on-grayvar. Buffalo Lake 400 2.04 350 2.85 174 3.36 2 0.69 9 2 6 2 . 4 8var. Hog Bayou 374 1.91 308 2.51 236 4.56 5 1.72 9 2 3 2 . 4 7var. Long Mott 876 4.47 653 5.31 309 5.97 8 2.76 1 , 8 4 6 4 . 9 4var. Mosquito Point 219 1.12 107 0.87 52 1.00 4 1.38 3 8 2 1 . 0 2var. Rockport 674 3.44 484 3.94 135 2.61 2 0.69 1 , 2 9 5 3 . 4 7
Rockport Black-on-gray total 2 , 5 4 3 1 2 . 9 7 1 , 9 0 2 1 5 . 4 8 9 0 6 1 7 . 5 0 2 1 7 . 2 4 5 , 3 7 2 1 4 . 3 8
Rockport Incisedvar. Mission Lake 45 0.23 32 0.26 24 0.46 0 0.00 1 0 1 0 . 2 7var. Mustang Lake 54 0.28 39 0.32 21 0.41 2 0.69 1 1 6 0 . 3 1var. Plank Bridge 24 0.12 25 0.20 12 0.23 0 0.00 6 1 0 . 1 6var. Sommerville 22 0.11 13 0.11 2 0.04 0 0.00 3 7 0 . 1 0var. Rockport 56 0.29 15 0.12 18 0.35 0 0.00 8 9 0 . 2 4
Rockport Incised total 2 0 1 1 . 0 3 1 2 4 1 . 0 1 7 7 1 . 4 9 2 0 . 6 9 4 0 4 1 . 0 8
Rockport Plainvar. Austwell 2,490 12.70 1,788 14.55 699 13.50 59 20.34 5 , 0 3 6 1 3 . 4 8var. Green Lake 1,865 9.51 1,019 8.29 626 12.09 42 14.48 3 , 5 5 2 9 . 5 1var. Guadalupe 3,675 18.74 2,180 17.74 1,273 24.59 71 24.48 7 , 1 9 9 1 9 . 2 7var. Rockport 7,564 38.58 4,696 38.21 1,291 24.94 70 24.14 1 3 , 6 2 1 3 6 . 4 5var. Seadrift 994 5.07 431 3.51 233 4.50 16 5.52 1 , 6 7 4 4 . 4 8
Rockport Plain total 1 6 , 5 8 8 8 4 . 6 0 1 0 , 1 1 4 8 2 . 2 9 4 , 1 2 2 7 9 . 6 2 2 5 8 8 8 . 9 7 3 1 , 0 8 2 8 3 . 1 8
Rockport Redvar. unspecified 11 0.06 4 0.03 1 0.02 0 0.00 1 6 0 . 0 4
Rockport Red total 1 1 0 . 0 6 4 0 . 0 3 1 0 . 0 2 0 0 . 0 0 1 6 0 . 0 4
Rockport Polychromevar. unspecified 1 0.01 0 0.00 1 0.02 0 0.00 2 0 . 0 1
Rockport Polychrome total 1 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 0 1
Goose Creek Plainvar. Anaqua 4 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 0 . 0 1var. Bloomington 4 0.02 4 0.03 0 0.00 0 0.00 8 0 . 0 2var. Kendrick's Hill 6 0.03 5 0.04 0 0.00 2 0.69 1 3 0 . 0 3var. Lavaca 62 0.32 30 0.24 15 0.29 1 0.34 1 0 8 0 . 2 9var. Tivoli 1 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0 . 0 0var. Traylor Ranch 3 0.02 5 0.04 1 0.02 5 1.72 1 4 0 . 0 4
Goose Creek Plain total 8 0 0 . 4 1 4 4 0 . 3 6 1 6 0 . 3 1 8 2 . 7 6 1 4 8 0 . 4 0
Unclassified Brushed 1 0 . 0 1 1 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 0 1
Unclassified Punctated 2 0 . 0 1 2 0 . 0 2 4 0 . 0 8 0 0 . 0 0 8 0 . 0 2
Site Total 1 9 , 6 0 8 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 2 , 2 9 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 5 , 1 7 7 1 0 0 . 0 0 2 9 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 3 7 , 3 6 5 1 0 0 . 0 0
AUs 2 & 3
Analysis Units
AUs 4 & 5 AU 7AU 6
Table 7-7. Distribution of Aboriginal Ceramic Types and Varieties in those Analysis Units Associated withthe Rockport Occupation at Guadalupe Bay. Note that counts for the “Upper” (AUs 2 and 3)and “Lower” (AUs 4 and 5) Rockport Analysis Units have been Combined.
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
266
crete Rangia deposits in Block 3, then additionalpotentially important patterns can be seen.3
For example, Rockport Black, Rockport Black-on-gray, and Rockport Incised all have slightly higherpercentages in the deeper, and presumably slightlyearlier, deposits related to AU 6, rather than in thosedeposits associated with AUs 2 through 5 (seeTable 7-7). Rockport Black-on-gray is perhaps thebest example. Its percentages decrease from 17.5 per-cent in AU 6, to 15.5 percent in AUs 4 and 5, to13.0 percent in AUs 2 and 3. On the other hand,Rockport Plain increases in percentage in the higher,and presumably slightly later, deposits: from 79.6 per-cent in AU 6, to 82.3 percent in AUs 4 and 5, to84.6 percent in AUs 2 and 3 (see Table 7-7). Ofparticular interest, also, is the rather strong show-ing of Rockport Red in AUs 2 and 3 (11 sherds for0.1 percent). All of this suggests that black-paintedand incised ceramics, particularly Rockport Black-on-gray, were slightly more popular during the ear-lier part of the Rockport occupation at GuadalupeBay, while plain and red-painted ceramics gainedin popularity towards the latter part of that occupa-tion. The red-painted sherds, may, in fact, repre-sent very late additions to the assemblage, perhapsreaching their greatest use during protohistoric and/or historic times.
As far as specific varieties are concerned, fivestand out for their contrast to the general trends notedin their respective types. These are vars. Green Lakeand Guadalupe of Rockport Plain; var. Sommervilleof Rockport Incised; and vars. Rockport and Mos-quito Point of Rockport Black-on-gray. Both GreenLake and Guadalupe have greater percentages as-sociated with the deeper AU 6, while the other plainvarieties have greater percentages related to the over-lying AUs. Since Green Lake and Guadalupe con-tain shell and bone inclusions, respectively, as probabletempering agents, it is possible that a slight trendaway from these added materials occurred duringthe course of the Rockport occupation at GuadalupeBay. The higher percentages of Sommerville andMosquito Point in the upper deposits associated withAUs 2 through 5 may also mark a slight increase inthe use of caliche as a tempering agent for RockportIncised and Rockport Black-on-gray, respectively.
The meaning for the greater percentage of RockportBlack-on-gray, var. Rockport in the upper AUs, if,in fact, there is a meaning to the increase, is not known.All of the other Rockport varieties appear to mirrorthe general trends expressed by their parent types.
Analysis of the ceramics from the 1989 testingproject at Guadalupe Bay (Weinstein and Scott 1992)suggested that sherds with heterogeneous pastes,particularly the Austwell variety of Rockport Plain,appeared to have their greatest showings in levelsrelated to Stratum 2, as opposed to the overlyingStratum 1. It even was suggested that Austwell mayrepresent a prime marker of the prehistoric occupa-tion, while sherds associated with Stratum 1, par-ticularly the Green Lake and Guadalupe varietiesof Rockport Plain, were possibly related to the lat-est, historic Live Oak occupation (Weinstein and Scott1992:158, Table 7-7). The exact reverse of the lat-ter assumption now appears to be true, as just dis-cussed above. Given the much greater sample fromthe 1992 excavations, it seems reasonable to con-clude that the previous inferences were incorrect,and that Green Lake and Guadalupe may have hadtheir highest popularity early in the Rockport occu-pation. The data on var. Austwell, on the other, tendto support the previous suggestions. Although thevariety generally maintains its same frequency inAUs 2 through 6 (between 14.6 and 12.7 percent),it is interesting to note its much higher percentagein AU 7 (20.3 percent). This may be one of the fewinstances where the AU 7 data actually are provid-ing useful information; information that suggests thatrelatively large amounts of var. Austwell may sig-nal a potentially early Rockport II subphase occu-pation.
In summary, there does not appear to be a greatamount of difference in the vertical distribution ofmost of the ceramic types and varieties at GuadalupeBay. This undoubtedly is a reflection of the dis-turbed nature of Stratum 2 and the relatively shorttime span involved in the deposition of most of theidentifiable Rockport midden deposits (Stratum 2in all blocks and Strata 3 and 5 in Block 3). Never-theless, a few trends can be seen. Most decoratedtypes and varieties have their greatest showings inthe deeper deposits, suggesting a trend towards the
4 Sherds from AU 7 are not used for comparison at this point,since that analysis unit contained such a small ceramic sample.In fact, if it was not for the seemingly consistent radiocarbon
dates associated with the Stratum 5 oyster deposit representedby AU 7, one could legitimately question whether the middenwas even Rockport in age (see the discussion in Chapter 5).
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
267
use of slightly more plainwares in the later portionof the occupation. Rockport Red is the lone excep-tion as far as decorated types are concerned, as itfollows the plainware trend and has its greatest showingin the uppermost portion of Stratum 2. This maysuggest that the type is very late in the overall Rockportsequence. Lastly, plain sherds with bone and shellin their pastes, and/or a combination of these andother materials, have slightly higher percentages inthe deeper, and presumably somewhat earlier, Rockportlevels.
Additional Observations onRockport Series Ceramics
In addition to the information on Rockport ce-ramics noted above, a few other observations weremade during the course of the analysis. Observa-tions such as these may prove useful in future stud-ies. At least, future analysts should be aware of theirpotential possibilities. Each is discussed briefly below.
Sherds with White Paste and/orWhite Slip (n=273)
Although, as reviewed above, sherd color wasnot systematically examined during the current study,several color tendencies were observed during theanalysis and these led to additional research on sherdsof the Rockport series. Small percentages of all fivevarieties of Rockport Black-on-gray, one sherd ofRockport Black, var. Elm Bayou, and several sherdsof Rockport Plain, vars. Austwell, Green Lake,Guadalupe, and Seadrift, contained a very light, al-most white, paste that was uniformly distributedthroughout the interior of each sherd. The RockportBlack-on-gray sherds also exhibited a white outerslip, rather than the gray slip typical of that type.
Initially, it was thought that sherds exhibitingthis white paste had been manufactured from a dif-ferent clay source than the majority of the sherds inthe collection, and that they might provide informationon trade or the range of travel of the occupants ofthe site. It also was thought that the white slip ap-pearing on the sherds of Rockport Black-on-gray mighthave resulted from use of the same clay source asan element of the surface finish. In order to verifythese assumptions, four sherds were submitted to theDepartment of Geology and Geophysics at Louisi-ana State University (LSU) for X-ray diffractionanalysis. Two of the sherds (Rockport Black-on-gray, var. Buffalo Lake) contained the white paste,while the other two (Rockport Plain, var. Rockport)
exhibited typical dark gray to black paste. Specificresults of the analysis are presented in Appendix A,prepared by Dr. R. E. Ferrell, Jr.
Basically, the x-ray diffraction indicated that thesame clay source was used to manufacture all foursherds. Quartz made up the greatest percent, by weight,of the minerals comprising each sherd’s paste, fol-lowed by feldspars and illite (mica). Importantly,calcite was found only in the white-paste samples,almost certainly indicating that caliche (most prob-ably of the “soft” variety) had been added to the clayto produce the white color. This also suggests thatcaliche was utilized in the white slip on the RockportBlack-on-gray specimens. Rather than indicatingtrade or travel, sherds with white paste appear to befrom vessels that were manufactured for a specialpurpose, possibly as fine-ware serving bowls and/or plates.
Sherds with white paste were present in all analysisunits associated with the Rockport occupation atGuadalupe Bay, although they clearly were moreprevalent in those AUs from Block 3 (Table 7-8).As can be seen, AUs 3, 5, and 6 provided the bulkof all sherds with white paste (n=242; 88.6 percent).If the assumption expressed above is correct, thenthe area around Block 3 may have served as the lo-cus for special feasts and/or social gatherings thatutilized fine-ware serving vessels. The roughly con-temporaneous nature of AUs 3, 5, and 6 is borneout by the general lack of any noticeable frequencydifferences regarding the white-paste sherds fromthese analysis units (93, 65, and 84 sherds, respec-tively). About all that can be said is that AU 7, theunderlying oyster deposit in Block 3, was practicallyvoid of white-paste sherds. Although sample sizeis probably the main cause for this, the lack of white-paste sherds may indicate that activities associatedwith AU 7 did not involve feasting or the use of fine-ware vessels. The fact that AU 7 is believed to dateto the early part of the Rockport II subphase couldfurther suggest that most of the white-paste sherdsprobably date to the latter portion of the Rockport�IIoccupation.
Sherds with Excessive Bone Temper (n=674)
Besides the identification of sherds with eithera white paste or a white slip, several of the sherdsclassified as Rockport Plain, vars. Austwell andGuadalupe; Rockport Black-on-gray, vars. BuffaloLake and Long Mott; Rockport Black, var. Lolita;and Rockport Incised, vars. Mission Lake and Mus-
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
268
Tabl
e 7-
8.D
istr
ibut
ion
of S
herd
s w
ith
Whi
te P
aste
, by
Ana
lysi
s U
nit.
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
To
tal
% T
otal
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c kva
r. E
lm B
ayou
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
11.
540
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
0.3
7
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k
tota
l0
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
01
1.5
40
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
01
0.3
7
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k-o
n-g
ray
var.
Buf
falo
Lak
e0
0.00
218
.18
2021
.51
00.
0020
30.7
719
22.6
21
100.
000
0.00
00.
006
22
2.7
1va
r. H
og B
ayou
450
.00
19.
0939
41.9
42
25.0
032
49.2
345
53.5
70
0.00
00.
002
100.
001
25
45
.79
var.
Lon
g M
ott
225
.00
19.
095
5.38
337
.50
00.
001
1.19
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
24
.40
var.
Mos
quit
o P
oint
112
.50
00.
0010
10.7
51
12.5
01
1.54
33.
570
0.00
00.
000
0.00
16
5.8
6va
r. R
ockp
ort
00.
003
27.2
70
0.00
225
.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
005
1.8
3
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k-o
n-g
ray
tota
l7
87
.50
76
3.6
47
47
9.5
78
10
0.0
05
38
1.5
46
88
0.9
51
10
0.0
00
0.0
02
10
0.0
02
20
80
.59
Roc
kp
ort
Pla
inva
r. A
ustw
ell
00.
000
0.00
1718
.28
00.
0011
16.9
215
17.8
60
0.00
00.
000
0.00
43
15
.75
var.
Gre
en L
ake
00.
003
27.2
71
1.08
00.
000
0.00
11.
190
0.00
00.
000
0.00
51
.83
var.
Gua
dalu
pe0
0.00
00.
001
1.08
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
10
.37
var.
Sea
drift
112
.50
19.
090
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
110
0.00
00.
003
1.1
0
Roc
kp
ort
Pla
in
tota
l1
12
.50
43
6.3
61
92
0.4
30
0.0
01
11
6.9
21
61
9.0
50
0.0
01
10
0.0
00
0.0
05
21
9.0
5
Sit
e T
otal
81
00
.00
11
10
0.0
09
31
00
.00
81
00
.00
65
10
0.0
08
41
00
.00
11
00
.00
11
00
.00
21
00
.00
27
31
00
.00
An
alys
is
Un
its
AU
1
AU
2
AU
3
AU
4
AU
5
AU
6
AU
7A
U 1
0A
U 1
1
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
269
tang Lake, contained relatively extensive amountsof bone in their paste.5 At first it was thought thatthese might represent examples of Goliad ware, aceramic category first reported from Mission EspírituSanto (Mounger 1959) and believed to have beenmade by the historic Aranama Indians who residedthere during the eighteenth century. If such was thecase, then probable contact between these missionIndians and the occupants of the Guadalupe Bay sitecould be recognized.
After examination of ceramic collections fromMission Espíritu Santo, now curated at TARL, it becameclear that the sherds from Guadalupe Bay were notGoliad ware. Although the pastes of the two wareswere very similar, the Goliad material was much thickerand typically came from extremely large vessels thatoften exhibited loop handles, characteristics not as-sociated with the sherds from Guadalupe Bay. De-spite this, it still was felt that some type of connec-tion might exist between the two wares, and/or withLeon Plain of the interior regions of south Texas,and that the Guadalupe Bay sherds with heavy bonetempering might represent a local, Rockport seriescounterpart to either Goliad ware or Leon Plain. Ifso, then these sherds might have chronological and,perhaps, cultural significance.
Table 7-9 lists those sherds with excessive bonetemper in their pastes. Again, the majority camefrom AUs 3, 5, and 6 in Block 3 (n=503; 74.6 per-cent), with lesser amounts from the other Rockportanalysis units (AUs 2, 4, and 7). Those few sherdsassociated with AUs 8 through 11 represent itemsthat had worked their way downward throughbioturbation into these Late Archaic deposits. It isinteresting to note, but almost certainly only the re-sult of coincidence, that the counts for AUs 2 and 4are identical (n=57 each), while those for AUs 5 and6 also are identical (n=152 each). Because of this,little chronological interpretation can be gleaned fromthe sherd counts.
It is possible to recognize one clear association,however, and that is the overwhelming preponder-ance of Rockport Plain sherds in the sample. Ofthe total collection of specimens with excessive bonetemper, 567 (84.1 percent) were typed as RockportPlain, either vars. Austwell or Guadalupe. This is
in sharp contrast to those sherds with white paste,where Rockport Black-on-gray dominated, and suggeststhat heavily bone-tempered vessels were primarilyplain and may have served a utilitarian function.
Sherds with Highly Oxidized Surfaceand “Ashy” Bone (n=289)
Another observation included sherds with boneinclusions that had been fired at such a high tem-perature that the surface of the sherds generally ex-hibited a highly oxidized orange color. In addition,the bone inclusions had been transformed into a powderor ash. This “ashy” bone was identified with theaid of a high-powered microscope by Dr. Ferrell atthe Department of Geology and Geophysics at Loui-siana State University.
The majority of these sherds were classified asRockport Black-on-gray, var. Long Mott, althoughsome were identified as Rockport Black-on-gray, var.Buffalo Lake, Rockport Plain, var. Guadalupe, andRockport Black, var. Lolita (Table 7-10). Severalof the Long Mott specimens also had the white cali-che slip applied over the orange surface. All of thissuggests a strong relationship with those sherds rec-ognized above for their white paste, and argues thatthe two groups may have served like purposes.
An orange color similar to that noted in the presentsample originally was included as one of the pri-mary sorting criteria for the Goliad types recognizedby Mounger (1959:164-169) at Mission Espíritu Santo.Although the orange sherds from Guadalupe Bay donot match true Goliad ware, they may indicate tiesto the mission complex at Goliad. Thus, these sherdsmay also have chronological and/or cultural impor-tance.
Unfortunately, as seen in Table 7-10, the samedistribution pattern recognized for the white-pasteand heavily bone-tempered sherds generally pertainsto the sherds with ashy bone inclusions. The ma-jority again are from Block 3, AUs 3, 5, and 6 (n=197;68.2 percent), although there are a few from the otherRockport AUs, plus several from AUs 8, 11, and 12,the latter clearly in displaced contexts. If these sherdsdo represent relatively late items similar to the Goliadwares from Mission Espíritu Santo, then their strati-
5 Two sherds of Goose Creek Plain, var. Lavaca also had ex-cessive amounts of bone in their paste, and they are included in
Table 7-9, below. Because of such excessive bone, a close rela-tionship to the Rockport series is suggested.
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
270
Tabl
e 7-
9.D
istr
ibut
ion
of S
herd
s w
ith
Exc
essi
ve B
one
Tem
per,
by
Ana
lysi
s U
nit.
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
To
tal
% T
otal
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c kva
r. L
olit
a0
0.00
00.
002
1.01
11.
752
1.32
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
005
0.7
4
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k
tota
l0
0.0
00
0.0
02
1.0
11
1.7
52
1.3
20
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
05
0.7
4
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k-o
n-g
ray
var.
Buf
falo
Lak
e0
0.00
00.
007
3.52
23.
510
0.00
53.
290
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
42
.07
var.
Lon
g M
ott
13.
850
0.00
2412
.06
712
.28
2516
.45
159.
870
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
111
.11
73
10
.78
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k-o
n-g
ray
tota
l1
3.8
50
0.0
03
11
5.5
89
15
.79
25
16
.45
20
13
.16
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
11
1.1
18
71
2.8
5
Roc
kp
ort
Inc i
sed
var.
Mis
sion
Lak
e0
0.00
00.
006
3.02
00.
001
0.66
10.
660
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
111
.11
91
.33
var.
Mus
tang
Lak
e0
0.00
00.
003
1.51
00.
001
0.66
00.
000
0.00
120
.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
50
.74
Roc
kp
ort
Inc i
sed
to
tal
00
.00
00
.00
94
.52
00
.00
21
.32
10
.66
00
.00
12
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
01
11
.11
14
2.0
7
Roc
kp
ort
Pla
inva
r. A
ustw
ell
311
.54
3154
.39
3216
.08
1628
.07
1610
.53
3523
.03
00.
000
0.00
110
0.00
00.
005
50.0
00
0.00
13
92
0.5
3va
r. G
uada
lupe
2284
.62
2645
.61
123
61.8
131
54.3
910
770
.39
9663
.16
510
0.00
480
.00
00.
004
100.
005
50.0
07
77.7
84
30
63
.52
Roc
kp
ort
Pla
in
tota
l2
59
6.1
55
71
00
.00
15
57
7.8
94
78
2.4
61
23
80
.92
13
18
6.1
85
10
0.0
04
80
.00
11
00
.00
41
00
.00
10
10
0.0
07
77
.78
56
98
4.0
5
Goo
se
Cr e
e k
Pla
inva
r. L
avac
a0
0.00
00.
002
1.01
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
002
0.3
0
Goo
se
Cr e
e k
Pla
in
tota
l0
0.0
00
0.0
02
1.0
10
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
02
0.3
0
Sit
e T
otal
26
10
0.0
05
71
00
.00
19
91
00
.00
57
10
0.0
01
52
10
0.0
01
52
10
0.0
05
10
0.0
05
10
0.0
01
10
0.0
04
10
0.0
01
01
00
.00
91
00
.00
67
71
00
.00
An
alys
is
Un
its
AU
1
AU
2
AU
3
AU
4
AU
5
AU
6
No
AU
AU
11
AU
10
AU
9A
U 8
AU
7
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
271
graphic placement at Guadalupe Bay does not bearthis out.
Sherds with Contorted Paste
Thirteen sherds with a highly contorted pastewere recovered from the 1-by-1-m sample unit atN80W130. Although these may be nothing morethan the aberrant work of a single potter who didnot properly wedge the clay prior to vessel manu-facture, the paste has an “early” look to it, and issomewhat reminiscent of Tchefuncte ware from theLouisiana coast and Galveston Bay areas. Whilethere is no question that these sherds are part of theRockport series, their contorted nature may indicate
an early effort at pottery manufacture similar to thatof the Tchefuncte series. As such, these sherds mightrepresent a very brief and potentially early Rockportoccupation at Guadalupe Bay.
Ten of the 13 sherds came from Stratum 3 inthe sample unit, and this is believed to be equiva-lent to Stratum 3 (AU 6) in nearby Block 3. In ad-dition, one sherd came from Stratum 2 (AU 3), whiletwo came from Stratum 4 (AU 7). Although thisdoes not unequivocally point to an early occupation,the majority of the sherds do appear to be related tothe deepest ceramic-bearing strata in the unit, sug-gesting that an early occupation may be present butmasked by the overwhelming numbers of typical
N o . % N o . % N o . % N o . % N o . %
Rockport Blackvar. Lolita 0 0.00 1 5.00 1 1.11 1 4.35 1 1.92
Rockport Black total 0 0 . 0 0 1 5 . 0 0 1 1 . 1 1 1 4 . 3 5 1 1 . 9 2
Rockport Black-on-grayvar. Buffalo Lake 0 0.00 1 5.00 4 4.44 1 4.35 1 1.92var. Long Mott 12 100.00 16 80.00 75 83.33 15 65.22 47 90.38
Rockport Black-on-gray total 1 2 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 7 8 5 . 0 0 7 9 8 7 . 7 8 1 6 6 9 . 5 7 4 8 9 2 . 3 1
Rockport Plainvar. Guadalupe 0 0.00 2 10.00 10 11.11 6 26.09 3 5.77
Rockport Plain total 0 0 . 0 0 2 1 0 . 0 0 1 0 1 1 . 1 1 6 2 6 . 0 9 3 5 . 7 7
Site Total 1 2 1 0 0 . 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 9 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 . 0 0 5 2 1 0 0 . 0 0
AU 1 AU 2 AU 3 AU 4
Analysis Units
AU 5
N o . % N o . % N o . % N o . % N o . % Total % Total
Rockport Blackvar. Lolita 1 1.82 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 1 . 7 3
Rockport Black total 1 1 . 8 2 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 5 1 . 7 3
Rockport Black-on-grayvar. Buffalo Lake 4 7.27 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1 3 . 8 1var. Long Mott 46 83.64 29 100.00 6 100.00 1 100.00 0 0.00 2 4 7 8 5 . 4 7
Rockport Black-on-gray total 5 0 9 0 . 9 1 2 9 1 0 0 . 0 0 6 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 1 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 2 5 8 8 9 . 2 7
Rockport Plainvar. Guadalupe 4 7.27 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 100.00 2 6 9 . 0 0
Rockport Plain total 4 7 . 2 7 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 1 0 0 . 0 0 2 6 9 . 0 0
Site Total 5 5 1 0 0 . 0 0 2 9 1 0 0 . 0 0 6 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 1 0 0 . 0 0 2 8 9 1 0 0 . 0 0
AU 6 AU 8 AU 11 AU 12 No AU
Analysis Units
Table 7-10. Distribution, by Analysis Unit, of Sherds with Highly Oxidized Surfaces and Inclusions of “Ashy”Bone in their Pastes.
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
272
Rockport ware associated with AU 3. Interestingly,eleven of the sherds were classified as Rockport Plain,var. Green Lake, while the remaining two sherds wereidentified as Rockport Plain, var. Austwell. This isin keeping with the overall ceramic data discussedabove, in which Austwell and Green Lake have theirhighest percentages in the deeper, presumably slightlyearlier, Rockport levels at Guadalupe Bay.
Goose Creek Series
The Goose Creek ceramic series originally wasbased on collections from sites along the upper Texascoast (Ambler 1967, 1970, 1973; Aten 1967, 1983b;Aten and Bollich 1969; Aten and Chandler 1976;Aten et al. 1976; Shafer 1966; Suhm and Krieger1954; Suhm and Jelks 1962; Wheat 1953; Worthing-ton 1959). It generally includes all sherds that havea relatively high quantity of fine to coarse sand in aclay matrix. Most authorities (see Aten 1983b:217)believe that the high sand content simply reflectsthe likelihood that the aboriginal potters were uti-lizing naturally sandy clays, and not adding sand asa tempering agent. Others (Kelley et al. 1994) havesuggested that not all sandy-paste Goose Creek warewas the result of the clay source, but, rather, mayinclude some sand intentionally added to the paste.Whatever the case, the relatively high sand contentis one of the key attributes used to sort Goose Creekware from Rockport. Furthermore, Wheat (1953:189)and Suhm and Krieger (1954:378) noted that thesandiest sherds often had the texture of fine sand-paper, and that the surfaces usually were poorlysmoothed and uneven. Aten (1983b:231) noted thatGoose Creek ware was represented by poorly sortedsand grains, usually fine to medium in size, in a claymatrix. Because of the excessive quantity of sandin relation to the amount of clay, the paste often isextremely friable. All of these attributes help iden-tify Goose Creek ware and make it possible to sortit from Rockport ware in cases where the two seriesoverlap geographically.
Duay and Weinstein (1992) originally recognizedsherds of the Goose Creek series at Guadalupe Bayby the presence of what they identified as mediumto coarse sand. As reviewed above, this criterionwas applied subjectively, relying upon the abilityof the analyst to see sand grains without the aid of amicroscope. This procedure was discarded duringthe present study, and a Wentworth chart of grainsizes was used to measure sand grains. Because ofthis, many sherds that would have been classifiedas members of the Goose Creek series in 1989 now
have been placed in the Rockport series. In fact,one variety of Goose Creek Plain, Goff Bayou, wasnot even recognized in the present collection, de-spite the fact that 28 Goff Bayou sherds were iden-tified in 1989 (Duay and Weinstein 1992:94). Nev-ertheless, there still remains a significant quantityof ceramics that meet the present criteria set up toidentify Goose Creek ware, particularly when theanalyst takes into consideration the quantity of sandin the paste, the friable nature of the sherds, and theoverall rough surface finish—qualities that are notto be found in Rockport ware.
In a slight departure from the sorting criteriagenerally employed by analysts working with ce-ramic collections from sites on the upper Texas coast,Duay and Weinstein (1992) set up local varietiesof Goose Creek types along the same lines theyhad employed for Rockport types. Thus, the pres-ence or absence of secondary inclusions withinthe paste of Goose Creek ceramics became thekey to varietal identification. This seemed onlylogical for sites along the central Texas coast, wherethe Rockport and Goose Creek ceramic traditionsappear to merge geographically. Although thecurrent investigators have modified the overallcriteria used to identify Goose Creek ware, theystill feel that the recognition of secondary inclu-sions is a viable method of separating varieties ofGoose Creek types at sites along the central Texascoast, and this method is continued for the presentcollection.
In addition to the secondary inclusions, the presentsorting criteria for Goose Creek ware includes thepresence of asphaltum coating, similar to that notedfor Rockport ware. This coating, again, should notbe confused with actual asphaltum paint, but in-stead resulted from waterproofing or crack mending.The idea of applying asphaltum to serve thesepurposes should come as little surprise when con-sidering Goose Creek ceramics from the centralTexas coast. The strong local tradition of asphaltumuse on Rockport pottery almost certainly carriedover onto vessels with Goose Creek paste. Basedon all of the above, therefore, two ceramic types,Goose Creek Plain and Goose Creek Incised, alongwith their constituent varieties, have been identifiedat Guadalupe Bay.
Goose Creek Plain, var. Anaqua (n=4)
This is the local equivalent of Goose Creek Plain,var. Goose Creek (Weinstein et al. 1988), a rede-
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
273
fined version of Aten’s (1983b) Goose Creek Plain,var. unspecified. It is named after the Anaqua site(41 JK 7) at which Story (1968) recognized a sandy-paste ware that she then considered similar to GooseCreek Plain. After reviewing additional reports inthe area (Fawcett 1978:203-205; Fritz 1975; Malloufet al. 1973), plus examining numerous examples fromthe current project, it now is clear that the paste ofthis “Goose Creek-like” ware is, in fact, practicallyidentical to that of typical Goose Creek pottery, andthus it should be set up as a local variety.
Basically, Goose Creek Plain, var. Anaqua canbe recognized by vessels or sherds with plain or as-phaltum-coated interiors and/or exteriors, and a highpercentage of fine- to coarse-size sand in a relativelysoft and friable paste that lacks any evidence of sec-ondary inclusions. As just noted, the potential forasphaltum-coated surfaces reflects the local tradi-tion of waterproofing vessels with asphaltum, andhelps to sort Anaqua from the established variety ofGoose Creek.
Goose Creek Plain, var. Traylor Ranch (n=15)
This variety is defined by a plain or asphaltum-coated interior or exterior, and a high percentage offine- to coarse-size sand in a relatively soft and fri-able paste that contains crushed and/or burned frag-ments of bone. As such, the variety is the GooseCreek series counterpart to Rockport Plain, var.Guadalupe.
As noted above, the inclusion of what probablyrepresents bone temper in the type Goose Creek Plainis a departure from the definition supplied by Aten(1983b). Aten (1983b:244) did not include bone temperin his Goose Creek wares, but rather set up a sepa-rate, unnamed descriptive category that subsumedall bone-tempered ceramics. This was done simplybecause the sample from the upper Texas coast wasnot particularly large, and there was no need to dealwith bone-tempered ceramics in anything other thana superficial fashion. Considering the relative im-portance of bone tempering in the pastes of ceram-ics from the current study area, however, it seemsonly logical to recognize a local bone-tempered va-riety of Goose Creek pottery. Perhaps with moredata, it eventually will be possible to separate thebone-tempered Goose Creek (and possibly the bone-tempered Rockport) into new types. As Aten(1983b:244) suggested and as Hester and Hill (1971)implied, Leon Plain may prove to be the logical choicefor the parent type.
Goose Creek Plain, var. Tivoli (n=1)
Tivoli consists of a plain or asphaltum-coatedexterior, a plain or asphaltum-coated interior, and ahigh percentage of fine- to coarse-size sand in a rela-tively soft and friable paste that contains small piecesof caliche as secondary inclusions. As such, it isthe Goose Creek series equivalent to Rockport Plain,var. Seadrift.
Goose Creek Plain, var. Bloomington (n=8)
Outwardly, Bloomington has all of the charac-teristics of vars. Anaqua, Traylor Ranch, and Tivoli.Internally, however, it is marked by a high percent-age of fine- to coarse-size sand in a relatively softand friable paste that contains a heterogeneous mixtureof secondary inclusions. Thus, it is the Goose Creekequivalent to Rockport Plain, var. Austwell.
Goose Creek Plain, var. Kendrick’s Hill(revised definition) (n=13)
This is the first of two varieties that initiallywere identified at sites along the lower Lavaca River(Weinstein 1994).6 At that time these varieties wereplaced in the Rockport series and listed as constitu-ents of the type Rockport Plain (Duay et al. 1994:81).It also was felt that they might have geographicalsignificance, since all examples previously noted hadcome from the area around Lavaca and Matagordabays. In fact, Duay et al. (1994:81) noticed thatthese varieties might be similar to what Calhoun(1962:325) identified years ago as “Rockport warewith a coarse sand temper” from the area around LavacaBay. They also indicated that these varieties couldpossibly equate with a sample of sherds noted byFritz (1975:100, 104) that could not be classifiedeither as Rockport Plain or Goose Creek Plain dur-ing her investigations in the Matagorda Bay region.
The rather nebulous, borderline nature of thesesherds clearly is reflected by the fact that Duay etal. (1994:81) first placed them in the Rockport se-ries, while the present investigators have moved themto the Goose Creek series. This latter switch wasenacted to account for the relatively large sand grainspresent in the paste of the sherds, most of which are
6 Duay et al. (1994:81) actually set up three new varieties,based on their research along the lower Lavaca River. One ofthese, var. Possum Bluff, was not found in the collection fromGuadalupe Bay, so it is not discussed in this section.
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
274
of medium size, that are not found in Rockport ware.However, these sherds exhibit a well-consolidatedpaste and have a fine surface finish, both attributesappearing more in line with typical Rockport ma-terial. It was these latter attributes, in fact, thatswayed Duay et al. toward placing the varietiesin the Rockport series. Nevertheless, the presentauthors feel that the size of the sand grains issufficiently different from that of all other Rockportvarieties to justify the change to the Goose Creekseries.
Specifically, Kendrick’s Hill includes vessels orsherds with a plain or asphaltum-coated exterior, eithera plain or asphaltum-coated interior, a silty or finesandy paste that contains fragments of crushed boneand/or burned bone, along with relatively sparse,medium-size (1/4 to 1/2 mm) sand grains. Both thebone and medium sand grains may have been addedas tempering agents. As such, this variety is almostidentical to Rockport Plain, var. Guadalupe, savefor the addition of the medium sand grains.
Goose Creek Plain, var. Lavaca(revised definition) (n=115)
This variety can be recognized by its similarityto Rockport Plain, var. Austwell, except for the ad-dition of the sparse, medium-size sand grains notedabove. As such, it is characterized by vessels or sherdswith a plain or asphaltum-coated exterior, either aplain or asphaltum-coated interior, a silty or fine sandymatrix that contains a heterogeneous assortment ofsecondary inclusions (such as shell, bone, caliche,etc., or any combination of these inclusions), and asparse amount of medium sand grains.
Goose Creek Incised, var. Panther Reef (n=1)
This variety is the local equivalent of Goose CreekIncised, var. Goose Creek (Aten 1983b; Weinsteinet al. 1988), and is identified by incised lines usu-ally, but not always, placed horizontally around theexterior, upper portion of a vessel’s rim (Figure 7-5, a).Other motifs, such as line-filled triangles, diamonds,
Figure 7-5. Goose Creek Incised, Unclassified Brushed, and Unclassified Punctated.(a) Rim sherd of Goose Creek Incised, var. Panther Reef; (b) Unclas-sified Brushed with Guadalupe paste; (c-g) Unclassified Punctatedwith Guadalupe paste; (h-i) Unclassified Punctated with Rockport paste;(j) Unclassified Punctated with Austwell paste. (See Appendix K forprovenience data.)
a b
c d e f
gh i j
0 3
cm
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
275
or diagonal lines, also may occur (see Aten1983b:Figure 12.2 for examples of other decorativemotifs). The exterior and/or interior of the vesselcan be either plain or coated with asphaltum, and,as with Rockport Incised, the asphaltum may extendonto and slightly over the lip of the vessel. Paste isequivalent to that for Goose Creek Plain, var. Anaqua,and consists of a high percentage of fine- to coarse-size sand in a relatively soft and friable matrix thatlacks any signs of secondary inclusions.
Goose Creek Series Ceramicsby Analysis Unit
With the revised sorting criteria applied to the1992 ceramics, there now is an exceedingly smallerpercentage of Goose Creek sherds at GuadalupeBay (157 out of 42,712 sherds; 0.4 percent) thanthere was in 1989 (155 out of 467 sherds; 33.2 per-cent). Although this greatly limits the discussionon distribution of the ware, there are a few pat-terns that still are noticeable (see Tables 7-6 and7-7).
Perhaps most striking is the complete lack ofany Goose Creek ceramics in Stratum 1. When thisis coupled with the strong showing of Goose Creekware in AU 7 (2.8 percent), then it seems likely thatGoose Creek ceramics had their highest popularityduring the earliest Rockport occupation at GuadalupeBay. After that occupation, the percentages dropdramatically, and average between 0.3 percent (AU 6)and 0.4 percent (combined AUs 2 and 3) (see Table 7-7).This is only logical, since it has been theorized thatGoose Creek wares represent the earliest ceramicsfound along the central Texas coast (Weinstein1992:63-64). Interestingly, the Goose Creek variet-ies with the greatest percentages in AU 7 areKendrick’s Hill and Traylor Ranch, both with boneinclusions in their pastes. Again, this suggeststhat relatively high percentages of sherds with bonein their pastes may signal a slightly earlier Rockport IIsubphase occupation.
Miscellaneous Ceramics
Several ceramic items fall into categories dis-tinct from the types and varieties discussed above.Included are a few sherds that exhibit decorative treat-ments other than incising or painting, plus ceramicdiscs fashioned from former sherds. A clay coil alsowas present in the collection. Each will be reviewedbriefly below.
Unclassified Brushed (n=2)
Two body sherds exhibiting what appears to bebrushing were recovered and identified as “Unclas-sified Brushed.” One came from Block 1, from theupper part of the mixed Stratum 2 Rangia and oys-ter midden (AU 2). The other came from the lowerpart of Stratum 2 in Block 3 (AU 5) (see Figure 7-5, b).One (the illustrated example) had exterior brushing;the other interior brushing. One (again, the illus-trated example) had a bone-tempered paste equal tothe Guadalupe variety of Rockport Plain, while theother had a heterogeneous paste equivalent to theAustwell variety (see Appendix B).
Brushing has been reported on rare occasionsfrom sites along the Texas coast, but these prima-rily have come from the Galveston Bay area (Weinsteinet al. 1988:Figure 4-38, D). A possible brushed speci-men from Test Unit N62W100 was recovered at theGuadalupe Bay site during the 1989 testing project(Weinstein 1992:95, Table 7-7). Thus, two of thebrushed sherds so far noted from the site have comefrom the vicinity of Block 1. As with one of thesherds noted above, it had paste equivalent to theGuadalupe variety of Rockport Plain.
Unfortunately, considering the scanty data ob-tained so far, it is difficult to suggest a chronologi-cal placement for brushing along the central Texascoast. About all that can be said at present is thatthe sherds at Guadalupe Bay probably can be relatedto the middle Rockport subphase occupation(Rockport�II) dating between about A.D. 1300 and1400.
Unclassified Punctated (n=9)
Nine sherds, eight body and one rim, containedlinear rows of fine exterior punctations without anyother form of decoration (see Figure 7-5, c-j). Al-though these probably represent portions of eitherRockport Black or Rockport Incised vessels that in-cluded punctations in the areas between the paintedor incised bands or lines, it is possible that they arefrom vessels that only had punctations. Addition-ally, at least three of the sherds appear to come fromthe spout portions of bottles, indicating that somebottles may have contained rows of linear puncta-tions on their spouts and wavy, painted lines on theirbodies. Since it is not possible at this time to defi-nitely determine the true nature of any of these ves-sels, all of these sherds simply are identified as “Unclas-
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
276
sified Punctated.” One came from the surface ofthe eroding bankline, one from the lower portion ofStratum 2 in Block 1 (AU 4) (see Figure 7-5, h),another from the lower part of Stratum 2 in Block 2(also AU 4) (see Figure 7-5, i), while the remaindercame from Block 3: two from the upper part of Stra-tum 2 (AU 3) (see Figure 7-5, g and j) and four fromthe Stratum 3 Rangia deposit (AU 6) (see Figure7-5, c-f). The majority (n=6) were on paste equiva-lent to the Guadalupe variety of Rockport Plain, twowere on paste equal to the Rockport variety, and onewas on paste equal to the Austwell variety (see Ap-pendix B).
No similar sherds were reported from Guada-lupe Bay during the 1989 testing project, althoughtwo Unclassified Punctated specimens were re-covered from the Kendrick’s Hill site (41 JK 35)on the lower Lavaca River during test excavationsat that locale in 1992 (Duay et al. 1994:83). Bothof the latter consisted of linear rows of puncta-tions reminiscent of the rows that alternate be-tween painted wavy lines on Rockport Black andRockport Black-on-gray vessels. What made thesespecimens unique was the fact that both occurredon what then was identified as Goose Creek ware.Since the sorting criteria used to identify GooseCreek paste have now been changed (see above),it is likely that both of these sherds now wouldbe classified as having Rockport paste. If that, infact, is correct, then they most likely represent partsof Rockport Black vessels.
Although the radiocarbon dates suggest that thereis little chronological difference between Strata 2and 3 in Block 3, both principally dating betweenca. A.D. 1300 and 1400, it is interesting to note thatsix of the nine punctated sherds came either fromthe lower part of Stratum 2 (AU 4) (n=2) or Stra-tum 3 (AU 6) (n=4). This suggests a possible earlydate for the use of punctations during middle Rockporttimes.
Ceramic Discs (n=14)
Fourteen ceramic discs or fragments of discs,fashioned from both decorated and plain sherds, wererecovered at Guadalupe Bay (Table 7-11, Figure 7-6).All have smooth and nicely rounded edges and rangein diameter between 11 and 27 mm, with an aver-age diameter of 19.7 mm. None was perforated.Interestingly, all but three came from excavation unitseither within Block 3 or immediately adjacent to thatblock. Although the exact function of these discs is
subject to debate, it is clear by their distribution thatthe area around Block 3 was the main locus of whateveractivities once were associated with these artifacts.Perhaps they were used as gaming pieces or wereemployed in some form of counting.
Ten of the discs were made out of plain sherds(see Figure 7-6, a-j). Of these, four occur on pasteequivalent to the Guadalupe variety of Rockport Plain,two each are on pastes equal to the Rockport andAustwell varieties of Rockport Plain, and two havepaste equal to the Green Lake variety. Four discswere made from portions of Rockport Black-on-grayvessels (see Figure 7-6, k-n): one from a var. LongMott vessel, two from var. Buffalo Lake vessels, andone from a Hog Bayou vessel.
Ceramic discs of the type recovered at GuadalupeBay are present in limited numbers at other sites alongthe central Texas coast. Story (1968:Table 8, Fig-ure 25, G) notes a disc from the Ingleside Cove site,while Ricklis (1990b:173) briefly mentions a discfrom adjacent site 41 SP 120. The largest collec-tion of discs comes from the last location of Mis-sion Espíritu Santo near Goliad (Mounger 1959:175).There, 21 discs fashioned out of sherds of Goliadware were recovered, while two other discs were madefrom fragments of majolica vessels. Such a largequantity of discs from the mission, including the twofashioned from majolica, indicates that such itemswere manufactured relatively late in the aboriginalsequence of the region, perhaps with their greatestfrequency occurring during the Protohistoric andHistoric periods.
The chronological placement of the discs fromGuadalupe Bay, on the other hand, suggests thatthey occur throughout much of the Rockport phase.Most were associated with the Stratum 2 mixedRangia and oyster deposit that has been dividedinto AUs 2 through 5 (see Table 7-11). As dis-cussed numerous times previously, these analy-sis units are believed to date primarily betweenA.D. 1300 and 1400. One disc was associatedwith AU 6, the Stratum 3 Rangia deposit under-lying the Stratum 2 deposit in Block 3, while an-other was located beneath Stratum 3, resting di-rectly on the underlying noncultural colluvium/alluvium of Stratum 6 (AU 11). Since there isvirtually no difference in ages between Strata 2and 3, it is likely that these latter discs also dateto middle Rockport (Rockport II) times, ca.A.D. 1300 to 1400. Of course, there is the pos-sibility that some of the discs, particularly those from
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
277
An
aly
sis
Pro
ven
ien
ceU
nit
Ty
pe
Var
iety
Dia
met
erT
hic
kn
ess
Po
rtio
nC
om
men
ts
Sam
ple
U
nit
s
N70
W10
02
Roc
kpor
t P
lain
Gua
dalu
pe27
mm
5 m
mw
hole
dis
cN
one
N80
W12
05
Roc
kpor
t P
lain
Gua
dalu
pe11
mm
4 m
mw
hole
dis
cN
one
Blo
ck
1
N66
W10
02
Roc
kpor
t P
lain
Roc
kpor
t20
mm
3.5
mm
who
le d
isc
Con
cave
inte
rior
Blo
ck
3
N72
W12
06
Roc
kpor
t P
lain
Roc
kpor
t12
mm
5 m
mfr
agm
ent
Bur
nish
ed, c
onca
ve in
teri
orN
74W
118
11R
ockp
ort
Pla
inA
ustw
e ll
17 m
m5
mm
who
le d
isc
Non
eN
74W
120
3R
ockp
ort
Pla
inG
uada
lupe
15 m
m5
mm
frag
men
tIn
teri
or b
urni
shed
, con
cave
inte
rior
N74
W12
05
Roc
kpor
t Bla
ck-o
n-gr
ayL
ong
Mot
t22
mm
5 m
mw
hole
dis
cC
onca
ve in
teri
or, p
aint
ed in
teri
orN
74W
122
6R
ockp
ort
Pla
inG
uada
lupe
27 m
m5
mm
who
le d
isc
Tra
ces
of a
spha
ltum
coa
ting
on e
xter
ior
N74
W12
23
Roc
kpor
t Bla
ck-o
n-gr
ayB
uffa
lo L
ake
27 m
m3.
5 m
mw
hole
dis
cPa
inte
d in
teri
orN
74W
124
3R
ockp
ort
Pla
inA
ustw
e ll
14 m
m5
mm
who
le d
isc
Bla
ck-c
oate
d ex
teri
orN
74W
124
5R
ockp
ort
Pla
inG
reen
Lak
e19
mm
4 m
mw
hole
dis
cB
urni
shed
, con
cave
inte
rior
N74
W12
45
Roc
kpor
t P
lain
Gre
en L
ake
25 m
m5
mm
who
le d
isc
Con
cave
inte
rior
N76
W12
63
Roc
kpor
t Bla
ck-o
n-gr
ayH
og B
ayou
15 m
m3.
5 m
mw
hole
dis
cA
bsen
ce o
f pa
int
Su
r fac
e
Bea
ch S
urfa
ceN
one
Roc
kpor
t Bla
ck-o
n-gr
ayB
uffa
lo L
ake
25 m
m6
mm
who
le d
isc
Pain
ted
on e
xter
ior
Tabl
e 7-
11.
Dat
a on
the
14
Cer
amic
Dis
cs R
ecov
ered
Dur
ing
the
1992
Inv
esti
gati
ons
at G
uada
lupe
Bay
.
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
278
the upper portion of Stratum 2 (AUs 2 and 3) maydate to succeeding centuries, possibly during theRockport III and/or Live Oak phases, but the mixednature of Stratum 2 makes it impossible to sort thesefrom the others.
Ceramic Coil (n=1)
One fired ceramic coil was recovered from theupper part of Stratum 2 (AU 3) in Block 3 at GuadalupeBay. It has paste equivalent to the Seadrift varietyof Rockport Plain, indicating that it probably wasto be used in the manufacture of a Rockport warevessel. Clay coils have been found at several sitesalong the central Texas coast, indicating that localpottery was made by the coiling method (Calhoun1962:321-326; Ricklis 1990b:121-122). This is notunusual, as the coiling method was the primary meansby which pottery was manufactured throughout theSoutheast and along the Texas coast.
Spatial Distribution of Ceramic Typesat Guadalupe Bay
One of the main goals of the fieldwork atGuadalupe Bay was to piece plot all artifacts en-countered during the excavations so that subsequentspatial analyses could be attempted. It was hopedthat relationships might be recognized between cer-tain artifact types and specific areas of the site orthat potential small-scale activity loci might be iden-tified around possible hearth locations. In that re-gard, a review of the ceramic distribution data seemsappropriate at this point. Subsequent chapters willexamine the distribution of lithic artifacts, modifiedshell, bone tools, and historic artifacts.
It should be noted at the outset that the piece-plotted data appear to have been affected by severalfactors that bias some of the results. First, it be-came apparent during the course of the excavations
Figure 7-6. Ceramic discs. (a-d) Rockport Plain, var. Guadalupe; (e-f) Rockport Plain, var. Rockport;(g-h) Rockport Plain, var. Austwell; (i-j) Rockport Plain, var. Green Lake; (k) RockportBlack-on-gray, var. Long Mott; (l-m) Rockport Black-on-gray, var. Buffalo Lake; (n) RockportBlack-on-gray, var. Hog Bayou. (See Appendix K for provenience data.)
a b c d e
f g h i j
k l m n
0 3
cm
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
279
that not all people are capable of recognizing indi-vidual artifacts at the same level of accuracy, de-spite their best intentions and the slow, methodicaldigging procedures employed during the fieldwork.Simply stated, people’s eyesight varies, and somefolks can find hundreds of minute flakes and tinysherdlets, while others miss even the largest dart points.Thus, an excavation unit that is dug by a person withexcellent eyesight will usually yield a large numberof individually piece-plotted field specimens, whilean adjacent unit dug by a person with inferior eye-sight will most likely yield less field specimens.
A second factor that apparently affected the na-ture of the piece-plotted data was that of time. Aswill be seen clearly by the artifact plots presentedbelow, it is obvious that excavation units dug to-wards the end of the project produced a significantlysmaller number of field specimens per unit than thosedug earlier during the project. Although excavatorswere not directed to hasten their digging towardsthe end of the project by reducing the number offield specimens recorded, there apparently was anunconscious effort to meet the impending deadlineby digging quicker and decreasing the effort neededto document piece-plotted items. A quick glance atthe piece-plotted remains from Block 3 is a goodexample of this bias (see Figure 7-9, below). Thoseunits excavated during the initial phases of digging(XUs N70W118, N72W120, N74W118, N74W122,and N76W120) produced much greater quantities offield specimens, and this clearly is reflected in thechecker-board pattern of units exhibiting greaterconcentrations of piece-plotted material. Unfortu-nately, this factor was not recognized until after allof the field specimens were plotted, long after thefieldwork had ended.
In an effort to combat the biases just discussed,the following distribution plans illustrate both theindividually plotted field specimens and the countsfor all recovered artifacts, the latter including bothfield specimens and those artifacts captured in the1/4-inch screens. Thus, it is easy to compare totalartifact yield per excavation unit against the num-ber of field specimens recorded, thereby identify-ing those units affected by the “eyesight” and “time”biases.
It also should be noted here that the followingdistribution plans include the locations of “possiblehearths.” These were identified by examining theweight of burned shell vs. the weight of unburnedshell for each level of each unit. Specific details
regarding this procedure, plus illustrations of the variousisopleths of the burned-shell concentrations result-ing from this analysis, are presented in detail laterin Chapter 12. For now it is necessary only to real-ize that these possible hearths represent potential areasof activity in addition to those hearths identified duringthe actual fieldwork, the latter discussed in Chap-ter�5 and assigned specific feature numbers.
Figures 7-7 and 7-8 present the distribution ofall ceramics associated with AU 2, the upper por-tion of the Stratum 2 midden in Blocks 1 and 2. Ascan be seen in Figure 7-7, the biases just discusseddo not appear to have affected the recovery of fieldspecimens in Block 1 to any great extent. This al-most certainly is because Block 1 was the first ofthe blocks to be excavated. With the full projecttime lying ahead, the excavators did not feel pres-sured to complete the excavations quickly, and maxi-mum effort was devoted to the recovery of field speci-mens. The only major discrepancy between the numberof piece-plotted items (shown to the left of the fig-ure) and total counts (shown to the right) appears inXU N60W102, where there seems to be too few piece-plotted sherds for the total amount (n=491) recov-ered. Piece-plotted remains in all other units reflectreality reasonably well.
Unfortunately, it is hard to determine what thisreality might mean, aside from the obvious fact, notedseveral times previously, that most artifacts wereconcentrated in those units situated closest to thecanal bankline at the south end of the block. Per-haps it is this factor that is responsible for the greaterquantity of painted ceramics (Rockport Black andRockport Black-on-gray) recovered in the units southof N62. Or, perhaps there are greater numbers ofpainted sherds in this area because there was a pos-sible hearth present in XU N60W102, and the hearthwas the focus of food consumption and/or limitedceremonialism, as opposed to food preparation andstorage. As discussed in more detail later in thischapter, this assumes that painted wares were em-ployed primarily as serving vessels and/or ceremo-nial items, whereas plain and incised vessels wereutilized more for food preparation and storage. In-terestingly, the distribution of incised ceramics mayhelp support this possibility, as 16 sherds of RockportIncised came from those units north of N62 whilethe more prolific units south of N62 yielded only10 sherds.
The distribution of sherds for that part of AU 2situated in Block 2 is even more difficult, if not im-
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
280
Figure 7-7. Distribution of aboriginal ceramics associated with Analysis Unit 2 in Block�1.Plan view on the left shows distribution of piece-plotted specimens. Planview on the right shows totals (including piece-plotted items) for individualsample and excavation units.
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
281
possible, to interpret (see Figure 7-8). One fact thatis very clear, however, is that practically no effortwas devoted to the recovery of field specimens inXU N54W92. Although this unit yielded a total of362 sherds, not a single field specimen was recorded.Aside from that, the only other recognizable patternis the relative abundance of painted sherds in thetwo westernmost units in the block. Perhaps the samefactors responsible for the large amount of paintedsherds in the southern portion of Block 1 also con-tributed to the large number of painted sherds in thewestern part of Block 2.
In contrast to Blocks 1 and 2, the upper portionof the Rockport midden in Block 3 produced a tre-mendous quantity of ceramics, and this is reflectedin the distribution pattern for AU 3 (Figure 7-9).Unfortunately, as noted above, the units in Block 3clearly illustrate the discrepancy in effort associatedwith the collection of field specimens, and one caneasily identify those units excavated during the ini-tial phases of digging vs. those excavated towardsthe end of the project. Nevertheless, it may be pos-sible to recognize a few potentially meaningful pat-terns. Once again, aside from the obvious fact that
Figure 7-8. Distribution of aboriginal ceramics associated with Analysis Unit 2 in Block 2. Plan viewon the top shows distribution of piece-plotted specimens. Plan view on the bottom showstotals (including piece-plotted items) for individual sample and excavation units.
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
282
Figure 7-9. Distribution of aboriginal ceramics associated with Analysis Unit 3in Block 3. Plan view on the top shows distribution of piece-plot-ted specimens. Plan view on the bottom shows totals (includingpiece-plotted items) for individual sample and excavation units.
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
283
those units nearest to the canal bankline producedthe greatest number of sherds, it is interesting to notethe presence of the only possible hearth associatedwith AU 3 in that same ceramically prolific area,roughly at N70W120. Unlike Block 1, however, theredoes not appear to be any type of association be-tween painted ceramics and the hearth, or any typeof negative association between incised sherds andthe hearth area. On the contrary, the greatest quan-tity of painted sherds can be associated with the twowesternmost units, N74W126 and N76W126, with388 and 234 painted sherds, respectively. Perhapsthese units are at the edge of an area where foodconsumption and/or ceremonialism occurred moreintensely than in the rest of Block 3. If such wasthe case, however, then most of that area appears tolie to the west of the block beyond the limits of theexcavations. About all that can be said with anydegree of certainty is that the upper Rockport middenin Block 3 represents an area where a tremendousamount of ceramics, of all types, was used and dis-carded.
The distribution of ceramics associated with AU 4in Block 1 is somewhat different than that for theoverlying AU 2, although the lack of piece-plotteditems in XU N64W102 is clearly evident (Figure 7-10).The greatest quantity of sherds was recovered fromthe three western units south of N64, with the larg-est amount obtained in XU N60W102. This is incontrast to AU 2, where XUs N58W100 and N60W100were two of the most prolific ceramic-producing units.Apparently, the presence of two possible hearths,one in N64W102 and the other in N60W102, mayaccount for the large number of sherds in that area.Again, the association between at least one of thesehearths and large numbers of painted sherds canbe postulated, as seen in XU N60W102. Unfor-tunately, the inverse relationship between this hearthand incised sherds does not appear to be particu-larly strong, so it may be more reasonable to con-clude that none of the potential associations havemuch meaning.
Interpretation of the ceramic distribution for AU 4in Block 2 is equally difficult (Figure 7-11). Asidefrom the obvious fact that very little effort again wasdevoted to the collection of field specimens in XUN54W92, one can see the relative abundance of paintedsherds in contrast to those present in Block 1. Thisis particularly true for the sample unit at N51W90where 103 painted sherds were recovered. If a 2-by-2-munit had been dug in that area, then it is conceiv-able that over 400 painted sherds might have been
collected. Although two possible hearths were noted,and a positive correlation between the quantity ofceramics and the hearths’ presence can be recognized,the area encompassed by Block 2 would appear tobe too small for such a correlation to have muchvalidity.
The distribution of ceramics related to AU 5 inBlock 3, also representing the lower part of the Stra-tum 2 Rockport deposit, is presented in Figure 7-12.Once more, the effects of the “time” bias are easilyrecognizable. In addition, it should be rememberedthat the absence of sherds associated with AU 5 inXU N72W120 simply reflects the fact that Stratum 2was removed by a single excavation level in thatunit. Since there was no lower cut into Stratum 2,there are no AU 5 ceramics. Regardless, as withthe overlying distributions of AU 3, there does notappear to be any clear-cut ceramic patterning in AU 5.Although two of the units with possible hearths (XUsN72W122 and N74W120) would, at first glance, seemto contain potentially meaningful quantities of plainand painted sherds, this significance is offset by thepresence of even greater numbers of similar sherdsin XU N74W124 where no evidence of a hearth wasuncovered. Likewise, the overwhelming preponderanceof ceramics in N74W124 is in sharp contrast to itstwo adjacent units (N74W122 and N74W126) thatproduced greatly reduced totals. About all that probablycan be said with any degree of confidence is thatBlock 3 once again was the locus of intense usageand discard of ceramics during the Rockport IIsubphase. While there may have been some sort ofactivity area (or areas) situated around the varioushearths in the block, the data are equivocal.
Analysis Unit 6 consisted of four distinct Rangiadeposits and associated shell and artifact scatters locatedbeneath AU 5 in the eastern part of Block 3 (Fig-ure 7-13). For convenience, the separate shell de-posits have been identified as “Shell Pockets” 1through 4. Because evidence of these deposits waslacking in XUs N74W120, N74W124, N74W126,and N76W126, there are no AU 6 artifacts illustratedon Figure 7-13 for these units. There are, however,three possible hearths and one definite hearth (Fea-ture 2) associated with AU 6. Interestingly, the onedefinite hearth is located adjacent to Shell Pocket(SP) 3, and not within the pocket itself. This is identicalto the situation normally found in hearth/refuse pilecouplets farther up the Texas coast, particularly inthe Galveston Bay area (see Aten 1983a), and it ishighly likely that Feature 2 and the majority of theartifacts recovered in Units N70W118, N72W118,
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
284
Figure 7-10. Distribution of aboriginal ceramics associated with Analysis Unit 4 in Block1. Plan view on the left shows distribution of piece-plotted specimens.Plan view on the right shows totals (including piece-plotted items) for in-dividual sample and excavation units.
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
285
N72W120, and Sample Unit N70W120 are relatedto activities occurring on and around SP 3. Like-wise, it is reasonable to conclude that the artifactsrecovered from XUs N74W122 and N76W122 canbe related to SP 1, while those in N76W120 andN72W122 can be tied to SPs 2 and 4, respectively.
With that in mind, it is worth noting the pre-ponderance of ceramics, of all types, associated withSP 1. It is also worth noting the relatively high numbersof painted sherds associated with SPs 1, 2, and 3.On the other hand, SP 4 appears to lack such highnumbers, but this almost certainly reflects the fact
that only a very small portion of the pocket was un-covered in Block 3. Overall, these data may be theclearest expression at Guadalupe Bay of special-activityareas where food consumption and associated trashand shellfish disposal occurred around specific hearthlocations. Considering the relatively large quantityof painted ceramics associated with SP 1, it may notbe stretching the data too far to further suggest thatsome form of ceremonial activity requiring the useof finely painted ceramic vessels took place in thenorth-central portion of Block 3 during the time thatthe shells and artifacts now identified as AU 6 werelaid down.
Figure 7-11. Distribution of aboriginal ceramics associated with Analysis Unit 4 in Block 2. Planview on the top shows distribution of piece-plotted specimens. Plan view on the bottomshows totals (including piece-plotted items) for individual sample and excavation units.
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
286
Figure 7-12. Distribution of aboriginal ceramics associated with Analysis Unit 5in Block 3. Plan view on the top shows distribution of piece-plot-ted specimens. Plan view on the bottom shows totals (includingpiece-plotted items) for individual sample and excavation units.
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
287
Figure 7-13. Distribution of aboriginal ceramics associated with Analysis Unit 6in Block 3. Plan view on the top shows distribution of piece-plot-ted specimens. Plan view on the bottom shows totals (includingpiece-plotted items) for individual sample and excavation units.
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
288
Analysis Unit 7, represented by the oyster de-posits of Stratum 5 in Block 3, is tentatively thoughtto represent the earliest of the Rockport II occupa-tions at Guadalupe Bay. As seen in Figure 7-14,there were two main oyster pockets situated in thesoutheastern corner of the block, plus the edge ofwhat probably was a third pocket situated in the extremenorthwestern corner. Although two hearths (Fea-tures 8 and 9) and a possible hearth could be tied totwo of the AU 7 oyster deposits, there were veryfew associated sherds recovered, thus precluding anymeaningful attempts at the recognition of ceramicpatterns. Nevertheless, the presence of the AU 7oyster pockets helps support the notion that hearth/refuse pile couplets do exist at Guadalupe Bay andthat the patterns recognized for AU 6 probably arelegitimate.
Decorative Design Elements and Lip Decoration
As discussed earlier in this chapter, all sherdsobtained during the current investigations were ex-amined for the presence of decoration. Generally,these fell into two broad categories: intentionallypainted decoration (including Rockport Black-on-gray and Rockport Black), and incised decoration(Rockport and Goose Creek Incised). Two othercategories, overall red filming (Rockport Red) andpolychrome painting (Rockport Polychrome), wererecognized, but these were not subjected to furtherstudy as they, respectively, either lacked variationin decorative design or were so limited in numberthat it would have been meaningless to record theirdecorative elements.
Design Elements
As noted, decorated sherds initially were sepa-rated by type and variety, and then each was givenan alpha-numeric code that described the decorationpresent (see Tables 7-1 and 7-3). Once coded, sherdsof the same type and variety then were placed intogroups consisting of recurring decorative patternsthat were termed “design elements.” Incised sherdsexhibited 15 design elements: (1) vertical straightlines, (2) horizontal straight lines, (3) diagonal straightlines, (4) curved lines, (5) perpendicular straight lines,(6) parallel straight lines, (7) horizontal zigzag lines,(8) diagonal overincised lines, (9) vertical overincisedlines, (10) crosshatched overincised lines, (11) chevronpattern, (12) open triangles, (13) line-filled triangles,(14) crosshatched lines, and (15) crossed lines (seeTable 7-1). A sixteenth category, “unknown lineorientation,” also was set up for those incised lines
that could not be placed in one of the primary groups.In most cases, a single design element probably wasthe only decoration present on a vessel. For instance,a jar might only exhibit a horizontal zigzag line lo-cated around its neck just below the rim. In otherinstances, however, two or more design elements mightoccur together on the same vessel. For example,horizontal straight lines might be present on the jar’sneck just below the rim, while a series of line-filledtriangles could occur immediately below the lowesthorizontal line. In both of these cases, a higher or-der of decoration is formed, and referred to later as a“motif.” Thus, depending on the situation, a motifmay consist of a single design element if that elementis the only decoration present on the vessel, or it canconsist of multiple design elements if two or more el-ements coalesce to form the overall decoration.
Painted sherds (both with and without gray slip)exhibited 14 design elements: (1) vertical straightlines, (2) vertical wavy lines, (3) horizontal straightlines, (4) horizontal wavy lines, (5) diagonal straightlines, (6) pendant loops, (7) curved lines, (8) per-pendicular lines, (9) lines of unknown orientation,(10) dots, (11) open circles, (12) triangles, (13) ran-dom dabbing (splotching that resembles blobs madeby dabbing the vessel with asphaltum paint), and(14) swastika (see Table 7-1).
Each of the design elements was subdivided furtherby the width of the lines forming the element. Thewidths of dots and dabbed areas also were recordedwhen appropriate. Lines and/or dots and dabbed areasless than 2 mm across were considered “narrow.”Those between 2 and 4 mm were considered “me-dium,” while those greater than 4 mm were “wide.”
As with the incised sherds, painted sherds thenwere grouped according to the various design ele-ments that were present. Sherds with “unidentifiabledesign elements” also were recorded, but, by virtueof their totally unrecognizable quality, such speci-mens do not constitute a particularly useful groupamenable to future analysis and interpretation. Ex-amples of single design elements include verticallines, horizontal lines, diagonal lines, curved lines,perpendicular lines, parallel lines, horizontal zig-zaglines, etc. Examples of multiple design elementsinclude horizontal and diagonal lines, vertical linesand dots, vertical and curved lines, horizontal andcrosshatched lines, etc.
Tables 7-12 through 7-14 list the various designelements recognized for the excavated examples of
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
289
Figure 7-14. Distribution of aboriginal ceramics associated with Analysis Unit 7in Block 3. Plan view on the top shows distribution of piece-plot-ted specimens. Plan view on the bottom shows totals (includingpiece-plotted items) for individual sample and excavation units.
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
290
Tabl
e 7-
12.
Des
ign
Ele
men
ts R
ecor
ded
for
Sher
ds o
f R
ockp
ort
Bla
ck-o
n-G
ray.
No.
(Ext
./Int
./Bot
h)*
No.
(Ext
./Int
./Bot
h)N
o.(E
xt./I
nt./B
oth)
No.
(Ext
./Int
./Bot
h)N
o.(E
xt./I
nt./B
oth)
No
.(E
xt.
/In
t./B
oth
)%
Tot
al
Sin
gle
Des
ign
Ele
men
ts
Ver
tica
l L
ines
Str
aigh
tna
rrow
4(4
/0/0
)3
(2/1
/0)
0—
—0
——
0—
—7
(6/1
/0)
0.4
3m
ediu
m2
(2/0
/0)
1(1
/0/0
)1
(0/0
/1)
3(2
/0/1
)1
(1/0
/0)
8(6
/0/2
)0
.49
wid
e3
(2/1
/0)
2(2
/0/0
)3
(3/0
/0)
4(4
/0/0
)0
——
12
(11
/1/0
)0
.74
med
ium
and
wid
e1
(0/0
/1)
0—
—0
——
0—
—0
——
1(0
/0/1
)0
.06
Sli
ghtl
y w
avy
narr
ow2
(2/0
/0)
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
3(3
/0/0
)0
.19
med
ium
5(5
/0/0
)3
(2/1
/0)
0—
—4
(4/0
/0)
0—
—1
2(1
1/1
/0)
0.7
4w
ide
2(2
/0/0
)4
(4/0
/0)
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
4(4
/0/0
)1
1(1
1/0
/0)
0.6
8H
ighl
y w
avy
med
ium
1(1
/0/0
)1
(0/1
/0)
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)3
(2/1
/0)
0.1
9w
ide
5(5
/0/0
)4
(4/0
/0)
2(1
/1/0
)0
——
5(5
/0/0
)1
6(1
5/1
/0)
0.9
9m
ediu
m a
nd w
ide
0—
—3
(3/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
0—
—3
(3/0
/0)
0.1
9St
raig
ht a
nd H
ighl
y w
avy
wid
e an
d w
ide
0—
—0
——
0—
—0
——
1(0
/1/0
)1
(0/1
/0)
0.0
6m
ediu
m a
nd w
ide
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)2
(2/0
/0)
0.1
2
Dia
gon
al
Lin
e sS
trai
ght
narr
ow0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
2(2
/0/0
)0
.12
med
ium
5(5
/0/0
)2
(2/0
/0)
0—
—2
(2/0
/0)
1(1
/0/0
)1
0(1
0/0
/0)
0.6
2w
ide
5(4
/1/0
)1
(1/0
/0)
2(0
/2/0
)0
——
1(1
/0/0
)9
(6/3
/0)
0.5
6
Pen
dan
t L
oop
sm
ediu
m0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
.06
Cu
rved
L
ine s
narr
ow2
(2/0
/0)
3(3
/0/0
)2
(2/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
7(7
/0/0
)0
.43
med
ium
4(4
/0/0
)8
(7/1
/0)
4(4
/0/0
)2
(2/0
/0)
4(4
/0/0
)2
2(2
1/1
/0)
1.3
6w
ide
11(1
0/1/
0)27
(26/
1/0)
19(1
5/4/
0)4
(4/0
/0)
17(1
6/1/
0)7
8(7
1/7
/0)
4.8
1na
rrow
and
wid
e1
(1/0
/0)
0—
—2
(2/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
3(3
/0/0
)0
.19
Pe r
pe n
dic
ula
r L
ine s
Str
aigh
tna
rrow
3(3
/0/0
)1
(1/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)5
(5/0
/0)
0.3
1m
ediu
m2
(2/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
0—
—0
——
2(2
/0/0
)0
.12
wid
e2
(2/0
/0)
9(9
/0/0
)1
(1/0
/0)
1(0
/1/0
)0
——
13
(12
/1/0
)0
.80
narr
ow a
nd w
ide
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
0.0
6
Par
alle
l L
ine s
Str
aigh
tna
rrow
2(2
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
0—
—2
(2/0
/0)
0.1
2m
ediu
m0
——
0—
—0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
1(1
/0/0
)0
.06
wid
e0
——
0—
—0
——
2(1
/1/0
)0
——
2(1
/1/0
)0
.12
var.
Ro
ckp
ort
var.
L
ong
Mot
tva
r.H
og B
ayou
var.
Mos
quit
o P
oin
t
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
ck-o
n-g
ray
(con
tin
ued
)
var.
Buf
falo
Lak
e
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
291
Tabl
e 7-
12.
Con
tinu
ed.
(con
tin
ued
)
No.
(Ext
./Int
./Bot
h)*
No.
(Ext
./Int
./Bot
h)N
o.(E
xt./I
nt./B
oth)
No.
(Ext
./Int
./Bot
h)N
o.(E
xt./I
nt./B
oth)
No
.(E
xt.
/In
t./B
oth
)%
Tot
al
Un
kn
own
L
ine
Ori
enta
tion
Str
aigh
tna
rrow
37(3
7/0/
0)29
(28/
1/0)
15(1
4/1/
0)12
(12/
0/0)
12(1
2/0/
0)1
05
(10
3/2
/0)
6.4
8m
ediu
m47
(46/
1/0)
48(4
8/0/
0)12
(12/
0/0)
7(6
/0/1
)15
(15/
0/0)
12
9(1
27
/1/1
)7
.96
wid
e45
(44/
1/0)
62(5
5/6/
1)39
(32/
7/0)
18(1
6/2/
0)17
(16/
1/0)
18
1(1
63
/17
/1)
11
.17
narr
ow a
nd w
ide
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
0.0
6m
ediu
m a
nd w
ide
1(0
/0/1
)0
——
0—
—2
(2/0
/0)
0—
—3
(2/0
/1)
0.1
9S
ligh
tly
wav
yna
rrow
10(1
0/0/
0)22
(22/
0/0)
10(9
/1/0
)2
(2/0
/0)
6(6
/0/0
)5
0(4
9/1
/0)
3.0
8m
ediu
m11
(11/
0/0)
32(3
1/1/
0)9
(9/0
/0)
6(6
/0/0
)3
(3/0
/0)
61
(60
/1/0
)3
.76
wid
e23
(22/
1/0)
48(4
6/2/
0)13
(12/
1/0)
7(7
/0/0
)18
(18/
0/0)
10
9(1
05
/4/0
)6
.72
narr
ow a
nd w
ide
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
1(0
/0/1
)0
——
1(1
/0/0
)3
(2/0
/1)
0.1
9H
ighl
y w
avy
narr
ow4
(4/0
/0)
5(5
/0/0
)1
(1/0
/0)
1(1
/0/0
)2
(2/0
/0)
13
(13
/0/0
)0
.80
med
ium
2(1
/1/0
)3
(3/0
/0)
4(4
/0/0
)0
——
4(4
/0/0
)1
3(1
2/1
/0)
0.8
0w
ide
8(8
/0/0
)31
(30/
1/0)
12(1
2/0/
0)5
(4/1
/0)
24(2
4/0/
0)8
0(7
8/2
/0)
4.9
4St
raig
ht a
nd S
ligh
tly
wav
yna
rrow
and
wid
e0
——
0—
—2
(0/1
/1)
0—
—0
——
2(0
/1/1
)0
.12
wid
e an
d m
ediu
m0
——
1(0
/0/1
)0
——
0—
—0
——
1(0
/0/1
)0
.06
wid
e an
d w
ide
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
0.0
6St
raig
ht a
nd H
ighl
y w
avy
wid
e an
d m
ediu
m0
——
0—
—0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
1(1
/0/0
)0
.06
Stra
ight
and
Uni
d. li
new
ide
and
narr
ow0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
.06
Slig
htly
wav
y an
d U
nid.
line
narr
ow a
nd n
arro
w0
——
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
.06
Uni
dent
ifia
ble
line
narr
ow41
(40/
1/0)
47(4
6/1/
0)18
(18/
0/0)
8(7
/1/0
)5
(5/0
/0)
11
9(1
16
/3/0
)7
.34
med
ium
43(4
0/3/
0)30
(28/
2/0)
12(1
1/1/
0)5
(5/0
/0)
9(9
/0/0
)9
9(9
3/6
/0)
6.1
1w
ide
36(3
5/1/
0)31
(31/
0/0)
21(1
7/3/
1)8
(8/0
/0)
16(1
5/1/
0)1
12
(10
6/5
/1)
6.9
1na
rrow
and
med
ium
0—
—2
(1/1
/0)
0—
—0
——
0—
—2
(1/1
/0)
0.1
2na
rrow
and
wid
e0
——
2(2
/0/0
)1
(1/0
/0)
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
4(4
/0/0
)0
.25
Do
tsna
rrow
3(3
/0/0
)2
(2/0
/0)
01
(1/0
/0)
2(2
/0/0
)8
(8/0
/0)
0.4
9m
ediu
m6
(6/0
/0)
5(5
/0/0
)3
(3/0
/0/)
1(1
/0/0
)5
(5/0
/0)
20
(20
/0/0
)1
.23
wid
e7
(7/0
/0)
4(4
/0/0
)3
(2/1
/0)
0—
—6
(5/1
/0)
20
(18
/2/0
)1
.23
narr
ow a
nd m
ediu
m0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
.06
Op
en
Cir
c le
wid
e1
(1/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
.06
Tr i
angl
eS
trai
ght
line
sw
ide
0—
—0
——
0—
—0
——
1(0
/1/0
)1
(0/1
/0)
0.0
6
var.
Ro
ckp
ort
var.
L
ong
Mot
tva
r.H
og B
ayou
var.
Mos
quit
o P
oin
t
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
ck-o
n-g
ray
var.
Buf
falo
Lak
e
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
292
Tabl
e 7-
12.
Con
tinu
ed.
(con
tin
ued
)
No.
(Ext
./Int
./Bot
h)*
No.
(Ext
./Int
./Bot
h)N
o.(E
xt./I
nt./B
oth)
No.
(Ext
./Int
./Bot
h)N
o.(E
xt./I
nt./B
oth)
No
.(E
xt.
/In
t./B
oth
)%
Tot
al
Dab
bin
g narr
ow1
(1/0
/0)
0—
—2
(2/0
/0)
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
4(4
/0/0
)0
.25
med
ium
0—
—4
(3/1
/0)
2(2
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—6
(5/1
/0)
0.3
7w
ide
13(1
0/3/
0)36
(33/
3/0)
19(1
7/1/
1)1
(1/0
/0)
17(1
7/0/
0)8
6(7
8/7
/1)
5.3
1m
ediu
m a
nd w
ide
0—
—0
——
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)1
(1/0
/0)
0.0
6na
rrow
, med
ium
, and
wid
e0
——
0—
—0
——
0—
—2
(2/0
/0)
2(2
/0/0
)0
.12
Mul
tiple
Des
ign
Ele
men
ts
Ver
tica
l L
ines
an
d C
urv
ed L
ine
Hig
hly
wav
y an
d C
urve
dw
ide
and
wid
e0
——
1(0
/0/1
)0
——
0—
—0
——
1(0
/0/1
)0
.06
Ve r
tic a
l L
ine s
an
d
U
nid
enti
fiab
le
De s
ign
Slig
htly
wav
y an
d U
nid.
Des
ign
med
ium
and
wid
e0
——
0—
—0
——
1(0
/0/1
)0
——
1(0
/0/1
)0
.06
Cu
rved
Lin
e an
d U
nk
now
n L
ine
O
r ie n
tati
onC
urve
d an
d St
raig
htna
rrow
and
nar
row
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)2
(2/0
/0)
0.1
2na
rrow
and
wid
e1
(0/1
/0)
0—
—0
——
0—
—0
——
1(0
/1/0
)0
.06
med
ium
and
med
ium
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
0.0
6w
ide
and
med
ium
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
0.0
6C
urve
d, S
trai
ght,
and
Uni
d. li
new
ide,
nar
row
, and
nar
row
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
0.0
6
Pe r
pe n
dic
ula
r L
ine s
an
d
Un
kn
own
L
ine
Or i
e nta
tion
Stra
ight
and
Str
aigh
tw
ide
and
wid
e0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
.06
Dot
s an
d V
e rti
c al
Lin
eD
ots
and
Slig
htly
wav
yw
ide
and
narr
ow0
——
0—
—0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
1(1
/0/0
)0
.06
Dot
s an
d U
nk
now
n L
ine
O
r ie n
tati
onD
ots
and
Stra
ight
wid
e an
d w
ide
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
0.0
6w
ide
and
narr
ow0
——
0—
—1
(0/0
/1)
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
2(1
/0/1
)0
.12
Dot
s an
d Sl
ight
ly w
avy
wid
e an
d w
ide
0—
—0
——
0—
—0
——
1(0
/0/1
)1
(0/0
/1)
0.0
6
Dot
s an
d
Un
iden
tifi
able
D
e sig
nna
rrow
and
wid
e0
——
1(0
/1/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
1(0
/1/0
)0
.06
wid
e an
d w
ide
1(0
/1/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
0—
—1
(0/1
/0)
0.0
6
var.
Ro
ckp
ort
var.
L
ong
Mot
tva
r.H
og B
ayou
var.
Mos
quit
o P
oin
t
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
ck-o
n-g
ray
var.
Buf
falo
Lak
e
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
293
Tabl
e 7-
12.
Con
clud
ed.
No.
(Ext
./Int
./Bot
h)*
No.
(Ext
./Int
./Bot
h)N
o.(E
xt./I
nt./B
oth)
No.
(Ext
./Int
./Bot
h)N
o.(E
xt./I
nt./B
oth)
No
.(E
xt.
/In
t./B
oth
)%
Tot
al
Dab
bin
g an
d U
nk
now
n L
ine
O
r ie n
tati
onD
abbi
ng a
nd S
trai
ght
wid
e an
d na
rrow
0—
—0
——
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)1
(1/0
/0)
0.0
6w
ide
and
med
ium
0—
—0
——
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)1
(1/0
/0)
0.0
6w
ide
and
wid
e0
——
1(0
/1/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
1(0
/1/0
)0
.06
Dab
bing
and
Slig
htly
wav
yw
ide
and
wid
e0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
.06
Dab
bing
and
Uni
d. li
nem
ediu
m a
nd m
ediu
m1
(0/1
/0)
0—
—0
——
0—
—0
——
1(0
/1/0
)0
.06
Un
kn
own
L
ine
Or i
e nta
tion
an
d
Un
iden
tifi
able
D
e sig
n S
trai
ght a
nd U
nid.
Des
ign
narr
ow a
nd n
arro
w1
(1/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
.06
wid
e an
d m
ediu
m0
——
1(0
/1/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
1(0
/1/0
)0
.06
wid
e an
d w
ide
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
0.0
6
Uni
dent
ifab
le D
esig
nna
rrow
12(1
2/0/
0)8
(8/0
/0)
3(2
/1/0
)7
(7/0
/0)
7(7
/0/0
)3
7(3
6/1
/0)
2.2
8m
ediu
m10
(10/
0/0)
7(6
/1/0
)3
(3/0
/0)
5(5
/0/0
)6
(6/0
/0)
31
(30
/1/0
)1
.91
wid
e10
(5/2
/3)
13(1
2/1/
0)6
(5/1
/0)
10(9
/1/0
)10
(8/2
/0)
49
(39
/7/3
)3
.02
narr
ow a
nd w
ide
0—
—1
(0/0
/1)
0—
—0
——
0—
—1
(0/0
/1)
0.0
6m
ediu
m a
nd w
ide
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
0.0
6
T
otal
44
2(4
17
/20
/5)
55
9(5
26
/29
/4)
25
3(2
21
/26
/6)
13
2(1
21
/7/4
)2
35
(22
6/8
/1)
1,6
21
(1,5
11
/90
/20
)1
00
.00
var.
Ro
ckp
ort
var.
L
ong
Mot
tva
r.H
og B
ayou
var.
Mos
quit
o P
oin
t
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
ck-o
n-g
ray
* I
ndic
ates
loca
tion
of th
e de
sign
on
eith
er th
e ex
teri
or, i
nter
ior,
or
both
the
exte
rior
and
inte
rior
of
the
sher
d.
var.
Buf
falo
Lak
e
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
294
Tabl
e 7-
13.
Des
ign
Ele
men
ts R
ecor
ded
for
Sher
ds o
f R
ockp
ort
Bla
ck.
(con
tin
ued
)
No.
(Ext
./Int
./Bot
h)*
No.
(Ext
./Int
./Bot
h)N
o.(E
xt./I
nt./B
oth)
No.
(Ext
./Int
./Bot
h)N
o.(E
xt./I
nt./B
oth)
No
.(E
xt.
/In
t./B
oth
)%
Tot
al
Sin
gle
Des
ign
Ele
men
ts
Ver
tica
l L
ines
Str
aigh
tna
rrow
0—
—0
——
0—
—0
——
1(0
/1/0
)1
(0/1
/0)
0.4
6w
ide
2(1
/1/0
)3
(3/0
/0)
0—
—1
(0/0
/1)
0—
—6
(4/1
/1)
2.7
4S
ligh
tly
wav
yw
ide
2(2
/0/0
)1
(1/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
0—
—3
(3/0
/0)
1.3
7H
ighl
y w
avy
wid
e0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
.46
Stra
ight
and
Sli
ghtl
y w
avy
med
ium
and
med
ium
0—
—0
——
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)1
(1/0
/0)
0.4
6St
raig
ht a
nd H
ighl
y w
avy
wid
e an
d w
ide
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
0.4
6
Hor
izon
tal
Lin
e sS
trai
ght
wid
e1
(1/0
/0)
1(0
/1/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
2(1
/1/0
)0
.91
Sli
ghtl
y w
avy
wid
e1
(1/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
.46
Dia
gon
al
Lin
e sS
trai
ght
narr
ow1
(1/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
2(2
/0/0
)0
.91
med
ium
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
0.4
6m
ediu
m a
nd w
ide
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
0.4
6
Cu
rved
L
ine s
narr
ow1
(1/0
/0)
1(0
/1/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
2(1
/1/0
)0
.91
med
ium
1(1
/0/0
)1
(1/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
0—
—2
(2/0
/0)
0.9
1w
ide
1(0
/1/0
)4
(3/1
/0)
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
1(1
/0/0
)7
(5/2
/0)
3.2
0
Pe r
pe n
dic
ula
r L
ine s
Str
aigh
tm
ediu
m0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
.46
wid
e0
——
1(0
/1/0
)0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
2(1
/1/0
)0
.91
narr
ow a
nd w
ide
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
0.4
6
Par
alle
l L
ine s
Str
aigh
tna
rrow
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
0.4
6m
ediu
m1
(1/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
.46
wid
e0
——
1(0
/1/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
1(0
/1/0
)0
.46
var.
Ro
ckp
ort
var.
Lo
lita
var.
Ku
y B
ayou
var.
Spr
ing
Bay
ou
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
ck
var.
Elm
Bay
ou
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
295
Tabl
e 7-
13.
Con
tinu
ed.
(con
tin
ued
)
No.
(Ext
./Int
./Bot
h)*
No.
(Ext
./Int
./Bot
h)N
o.(E
xt./I
nt./B
oth)
No.
(Ext
./Int
./Bot
h)N
o.(E
xt./I
nt./B
oth)
No
.(E
xt.
/In
t./B
oth
)%
Tot
al
Un
kn
own
L
ine
Ori
enta
tion
Str
aigh
tna
rrow
2(2
/0/0
)6
(5/1
/0)
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
1(1
/0/0
)1
0(9
/1/0
)4
.57
med
ium
3(3
/0/0
)7
(6/1
/0)
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
2(2
/0/0
)1
3(1
2/1
/0)
5.9
4w
ide
11(1
0/1/
0)22
(19/
3/0)
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
3(3
/0/0
)3
7(3
3/4
/0)
16
.89
narr
ow a
nd w
ide
0—
—0
——
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)1
(1/0
/0)
0.4
6m
ediu
m a
nd w
ide
0—
—0
——
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)1
(1/0
/0)
0.4
6S
ligh
tly
wav
yna
rrow
2(2
/0/0
)1
(1/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
0—
—3
(3/0
/0)
1.3
7m
ediu
m8
(8/0
/0)
7(7
/0/0
)0
——
1(1
/0/0
)1
(1/0
/0)
17
(17
/0/0
)7
.76
wid
e1
(0/1
/0)
8(6
/2/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
9(6
/3/0
)4
.11
Hig
hly
wav
yna
rrow
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
0.4
6m
ediu
m0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
.46
wid
e2
(2/0
/0)
12(1
2/0/
0)0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
15
(15
/0/0
)6
.85
Stra
ight
and
Sli
ghtl
y w
avy
wid
e an
d w
ide
0—
—1
(0/0
/1)
1(0
/1/0
)0
——
0—
—2
(0/1
/1)
0.9
1St
raig
ht a
nd U
nid.
line
wid
e an
d na
rrow
0—
—0
——
0—
—1
(0/0
/1)
0—
—1
(0/0
/1)
0.4
6U
nide
ntif
iabl
e lin
ena
rrow
7(7
/0/0
)3
(3/0
/0)
2(2
/0/0
)2
(2/0
/0)
0—
—1
4(1
4/0
/0)
6.3
9m
ediu
m2
(2/0
/0)
3(3
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
5(5
/0/0
)2
.28
wid
e4
(3/1
/0)
7(7
/0/0
)0
——
1(0
/1/0
)2
(0/2
/0)
14
(10
/4/0
)6
.39
narr
ow a
nd w
ide
0—
—3
(3/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
0—
—3
(3/0
/0)
1.3
7
Do
tsna
rrow
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
0.4
6m
ediu
m1
(1/0
/0)
3(3
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
44
/0/0
)1
.83
wid
e1
(1/0
/0)
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
2(2
/0/0
)0
.91
Dab
bin
g med
ium
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
0.4
6w
ide
6(6
/0/0
)2
(1/0
/1)
1(0
/0/1
)0
——
2(1
/1/0
)1
1(8
/1/2
)5
.02
med
ium
and
wid
e0
——
0—
—0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
1(1
/0/0
)0
.46
Sw
as t
ika
wid
e0
——
2(2
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
2(2
/0/0
)0
.91
Mul
tiple
Des
ign
Ele
men
ts
Ve r
tic a
l L
ine s
an
d
Dot
sSt
raig
ht a
nd D
ots
wid
e an
d m
ediu
m0
——
0—
—0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
1(1
/0/0
)0
.46
Cu
rved
Lin
e an
d U
nk
now
n L
ine
O
r ie n
tati
onC
urve
d an
d H
ighl
y w
avy
wid
e an
d w
ide
0—
—2
(2/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
0—
—2
(2/0
/0)
0.9
1
var.
Ro
ckp
ort
var.
Lo
lita
var.
Ku
y B
ayou
var.
Spr
ing
Bay
ou
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
ck
var.
Elm
Bay
ou
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
296
Tabl
e 7-
13.
Con
clud
ed.
No.
(Ext
./Int
./Bot
h)*
No.
(Ext
./Int
./Bot
h)N
o.(E
xt./I
nt./B
oth)
No.
(Ext
./Int
./Bot
h)N
o.(E
xt./I
nt./B
oth)
No
.(E
xt.
/In
t./B
oth
)%
Tot
al
Pe r
pe n
dic
ula
r L
ine s
an
d
Par
alle
l L
ine s
Stra
ight
and
Str
aigh
tw
ide
and
wid
e0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
.46
Un
kn
own
L
ine
Or i
e nta
tion
an
d
Un
iden
tifi
able
D
e sig
n S
trai
ght a
nd U
nid.
Des
ign
wid
e an
d w
ide
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
0.4
6
Uni
dent
ifab
le D
esig
nm
ediu
m2
(2/0
/0)
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
4(4
/0/0
)1
.83
wid
e2
(1/1
/0)
00
——
0—
—0
——
2(1
/1/0
)0
.91
narr
ow a
nd w
ide
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
0.4
6
T
otal
68
(62
/6/0
)1
13
(99
/12
/2)
10
(8/1
/1)
7(4
/1/2
)2
1(1
7/4
/0)
21
9(1
90
/24
/5)
10
0.0
0
var.
Ro
ckp
ort
var.
Lo
lita
var.
Ku
y B
ayou
var.
Spr
ing
Bay
ou
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
ck
* I
ndic
ates
loca
tion
of
the
desi
gn o
n th
e ex
teri
or, i
nter
ior,
or
both
the
exte
rior
and
inte
rior
of
the
sher
d.
var.
Elm
Bay
ou
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
297
Tabl
e 7-
14.
Des
ign
Ele
men
ts R
ecor
ded
for
Sher
ds o
f R
ockp
ort
Inci
sed.
No.
(Ext
./Int
./Bot
h)N
o.(E
xt./I
nt./B
oth)
No.
(Ext
./Int
./Bot
h)N
o.(E
xt./I
nt./B
oth)
No.
(Ext
./Int
./Bot
h)N
o.
(Ex
t./I
nt.
/Bo
th)
% T
otal
Sin
gle
Des
ign
Ele
men
ts
Ver
tica
l L
ines
Str
aigh
t (S
ingl
e li
ne)
narr
ow1
(1/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
.23
Str
aigh
t (M
ulti
ple
line
s)na
rrow
3(3
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—3
(3/0
/0)
0—
—6
(6/0
/0)
1.3
7
Hor
izon
tal
Lin
esS
trai
ght
(Sin
gle
line
)na
rrow
7(7
/0/0
)6
(6/0
/0)
3(3
/0/0
)1
(1/0
/0)
8(8
/0/0
)2
5(2
5/0
/0)
5.6
9m
ediu
m0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
2(2
/0/0
)0
.46
Str
aigh
t (M
ulti
ple
line
s)na
rrow
50(5
0/0/
0)58
(58/
0/0)
40(4
0/0/
0)22
(22/
0/0)
67(6
7/0/
0)a
23
7(2
37
/0/0
)5
3.9
9m
ediu
m0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
2(2
/0/0
)0
.46
wid
e1
(1/0
/0)
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
3(3
/0/0
)0
.68
Dia
gon
al
Lin
e sS
trai
ght
(Mul
tipl
e li
nes)
narr
ow2
(2/0
/0)
1(1
/0/0
)1
(1/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
4(4
/0/0
)0
.91
Cu
rved
L
ine s
Cur
ved
(Sin
gle
line)
narr
ow0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
.23
Pe r
pe n
dic
ula
r L
ine s
Str
aigh
t (S
ingl
e li
ne)
narr
ow0
——
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)1
(1/0
/0)
2(2
/0/0
)0
.46
Str
aigh
t (M
ulti
ple
line
s)na
rrow
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)2
(2/0
/0)
0.4
6
Par
alle
l L
ine s
Stra
ight
(T
wo
line
s)na
rrow
1(1
/0/0
)1
(1/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
0—
—2
(2/0
/0)
0.4
6St
raig
ht (
Mor
e th
an tw
o li
nes)
narr
ow1
(1/0
/0)
1(1
/0/0
)3
(3/0
/0)
2(2
/0/0
)3
(3/0
/0)
10
(10
/0/0
)2
.28
Hor
izon
tal
Zig
z ag
Lin
e sZ
igza
g (S
ingl
e lin
e)na
rrow
2(2
/0/0
)9
(9/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
2(2
/0/0
)1
3(1
3/0
/0)
2.9
6m
ediu
m0
——
8(8
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
8(8
/0/0
)
Ch
evro
n
Pat
ter n
narr
ow0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
0—
—2
(2/0
/0)
3(3
/0/0
)0
.68
Op
en
Tr i
angl
e sSt
raig
ht (
Sing
le tr
iang
le)
narr
ow0
——
0—
—0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
1(1
/0/0
)0
.23
Stra
ight
(M
ulti
ple
tria
ngle
s)na
rrow
0—
—0
——
0—
—0
——
3(3
/0/0
)a3
(3/0
/0)
0.6
8
var.
Ro
ckp
ort
var.
Mis
sion
Lak
eva
r.P
lan
k B
ridg
eva
r.S
om
mer
vill
e
Roc
kp
ort
Inci
sed
(con
tin
ued
)
var.
Mus
tang
Lak
e
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
298
Tabl
e 7-
14.
Con
tinu
ed.
(con
tin
ued
)
No.
(Ext
./Int
./Bot
h)N
o.(E
xt./I
nt./B
oth)
No.
(Ext
./Int
./Bot
h)N
o.(E
xt./I
nt./B
oth)
No.
(Ext
./Int
./Bot
h)N
o.
(Ex
t./I
nt.
/Bo
th)
% T
otal
Lin
e-F
ille
d
Tri
angl
esSt
raig
ht (
Sing
le tr
iang
le)
narr
ow0
——
2(2
/0/0
)3
(3/0
/0)
4(4
/0/0
)4
(4/0
/0)
13
(13
/0/0
)2
.96
Stra
ight
(M
ulti
ple
tria
ngle
s)na
rrow
0—
—5
(5/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)6
(6/0
/0)
1.3
7
Cro
ssh
atch
ed
Lin
esS
trai
ght
narr
ow8
(8/0
/0)
1(1
/0/0
)4
(4/0
/0)
0—
—6
(6/0
/0)
19
(19
/0/0
)4
.33
Cro
ssed
L
ines
Str
aigh
tna
rrow
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
0.2
3
Mul
tiple
Des
ign
Ele
men
ts
Ve r
tic a
l L
ine s
, H
oriz
onta
l
Lin
e s,
and
D
iago
nal
L
ine s
Str
aigh
t (S
ingl
e li
ne),
Str
aigh
t (
Sin
gle
line
), a
nd S
trai
ght
(M
ulti
ple
line
s)na
rrow
and
nar
row
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
0.2
3
Hor
izon
tal
Lin
e s a
nd
Dia
gon
al
Lin
e sSt
raig
ht (
Sing
le li
ne)
and
S
trai
ght
(Sin
gle
line
)na
rrow
and
nar
row
2(2
/0/0
)1
(1/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
0—
—3
(3/0
/0)
0.6
8St
raig
ht (
Sing
le li
ne)
and
S
trai
ght
(Mul
tipl
e li
nes)
narr
ow a
nd n
arro
w0
——
0—
—0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
1(1
/0/0
)0
.23
Stra
ight
(M
ulti
ple
line
s) a
nd
S
trai
ght
(Sin
gle
line
)na
rrow
and
nar
row
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)1
(1/0
/0)
1(1
/0/0
)3
(3/0
/0)
0.6
8St
raig
ht (
Mul
tipl
e li
nes)
and
Str
aigh
t (M
ulti
ple
line
s)na
rrow
and
nar
row
0—
—0
——
3(3
/0/0
)0
——
2(2
/0/0
)5
(5/0
/0)
1.1
4
Hor
izon
tal
Lin
e s a
nd
Cr o
ssh
atc h
e d
Lin
e sSt
raig
ht (
Mul
tiple
line
s) a
nd
Str
aigh
t (S
ingl
e li
ne)
narr
ow a
nd n
arro
w0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
2(2
/0/0
)1
(1/0
/0)
4(4
/0/0
)0
.91
Hor
izon
tal
Lin
e s a
nd
Cr o
sse d
L
ine s
Stra
ight
(M
ultip
le li
nes)
and
S
trai
ght
(Mul
tipl
e li
nes)
narr
ow a
nd n
arro
w0
——
2(2
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
2(2
/0/0
)0
.46
var.
Ro
ckp
ort
var.
Mis
sion
Lak
eva
r.P
lan
k B
ridg
eva
r.S
om
mer
vill
e
Roc
kp
ort
Inci
sed
var.
Mus
tang
Lak
e
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
299
Tabl
e 7-
14.
Con
tinu
ed.
(con
tin
ued
)
No.
(Ext
./Int
./Bot
h)N
o.(E
xt./I
nt./B
oth)
No.
(Ext
./Int
./Bot
h)N
o.(E
xt./I
nt./B
oth)
No.
(Ext
./Int
./Bot
h)N
o.
(Ex
t./I
nt.
/Bo
th)
% T
otal
Hor
izon
tal
Lin
es
and
O
pen
T
rian
gles
Stra
ight
(Si
ngle
line
) an
d S
trai
ght
(Mul
tipl
e tr
iang
les)
narr
ow a
nd n
arro
w0
——
0—
—0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)b
1(1
/0/0
)0
.23
Stra
ight
(M
ultip
le li
nes)
and
Str
aigh
t (M
ulti
ple
tria
ngle
s)na
rrow
and
nar
row
0—
—2
(2/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
9(9
/0/0
)c1
1(1
1/0
/0)
2.5
1
Hor
izon
tal
Lin
e s
and
L
ine -
F
ille
d
Tr i
angl
e sSt
raig
ht (
Mul
tiple
line
s) a
nd S
trai
ght (
Sin
gle
tria
ngle
)na
rrow
and
nar
row
2(2
/0/0
)2
(2/0
/0)
0—
—0
——
2(2
/0/0
)6
(6/0
/0)
1.3
7
Hor
izon
tal
Lin
e s
wit
h
Cr o
ssh
atc h
e d
Ove
r in
c isi
ng
Stra
ight
(M
ultip
le li
nes)
and
S
trai
ght
(Mul
tipl
e li
nes)
narr
ow a
nd n
arro
w2
(2/0
/0)
3(3
/0/0
)2
(2/0
/0)
1(1
/0/0
)2
(2/0
/0)
10
(10
/0/0
)2
.28
Hor
izon
tal
Lin
e s
wit
h
Ve r
tic a
l O
ver i
nc i
sin
gSt
raig
ht (
Mul
tiple
line
s) a
nd
Str
aigh
t (M
ulti
ple
line
s)na
rrow
and
nar
row
0—
—2
(2/0
/0)
4(4
/0/0
)0
——
4(4
/0/0
)1
0(1
0/0
/0)
2.2
8
Hor
izon
tal
Lin
e s
wit
h
Dia
gon
al
Ove
r in
c isi
ng
Stra
ight
(M
ultip
le li
nes)
and
S
trai
ght
(Mul
tipl
e li
nes)
narr
ow a
nd n
arro
w0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
2(2
/0/0
)0
.46
Hor
izon
tal
Lin
e s a
nd
Pu
nc t
atio
ns
Stra
ight
(M
ultip
le li
nes)
and
P
unct
atio
nsna
rrow
and
nar
row
0—
—0
——
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)1
(1/0
/0)
0.2
3
Pe r
pe n
dic
ula
r L
ine s
an
d
Par
alle
l L
ine s
Stra
ight
(M
ulti
ple
line
s) a
nd
S
trai
ght
(Mul
tipl
e li
nes)
narr
ow a
nd n
arro
w1
(1/0
/0)
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
3(3
/0/0
)0
.68
var.
Ro
ckp
ort
var.
Mis
sion
Lak
eva
r.P
lan
k B
ridg
eva
r.S
om
mer
vill
e
Roc
kp
ort
Inci
sed
var.
Mus
tang
Lak
e
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
300
Tabl
e 7-
14.
Con
clud
ed.
No.
(Ext
./Int
./Bot
h)N
o.(E
xt./I
nt./B
oth)
No.
(Ext
./Int
./Bot
h)N
o.(E
xt./I
nt./B
oth)
No.
(Ext
./Int
./Bot
h)N
o.
(Ex
t./I
nt.
/Bo
th)
% T
otal
Uni
dent
ifab
le D
esig
n
Un
kn
own
L
ine
Or i
e nta
tion
Str
aigh
t (S
ingl
e li
ne)
narr
ow0
——
0—
—0
——
0—
—2
(2/0
/0)
2(2
/0/0
)0
.46
Str
aigh
t (M
ulti
ple
line
s)na
rrow
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
1(1
/0/0
)3
(3/0
/0)
0.6
8U
nide
ntif
ied
(Sin
gle
line)
narr
ow2
(2/0
/0)
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—1
(1/0
/0)
4(4
/0/0
)0
.91
Uni
dent
ifie
d (M
ultip
le li
nes)
narr
ow0
——
0—
—0
——
0—
—2
(2/0
/0)
2(2
/0/0
)0
.46
Un
kn
own
L
ine
Or i
e nta
tion
an
d P
un
c tat
ion
sU
nid.
(Si
ngle
line
) an
d Pu
ncta
tion
narr
ow a
nd n
arro
w0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
——
0—
—0
——
1(1
/0/0
)0
.23
T
otal
87
(90
/0/0
)1
12
(11
2/0
/0)
68
(70
/0/0
)4
0(3
9/0
/0)
13
2(1
13
/0/0
)4
39
(43
9/0
/0)
10
0.0
0
var.
Ro
ckp
ort
var.
Mis
sion
Lak
eva
r.P
lan
k B
ridg
eva
r.S
om
mer
vill
e
Roc
kp
ort
Inci
sed
a T
wo
sher
ds a
re f
rom
the
part
ially
rec
onst
ruct
ed ja
r fo
und
in S
ampl
e U
nit N
70W
110.
b
Fro
m th
e pa
rtia
lly r
econ
stru
cted
jar
foun
d in
Sam
ple
Uni
t N70
W11
0. c
Fiv
e sh
erds
are
fro
m th
e pa
rtia
lly r
econ
stru
cted
jar
foun
d in
Sam
ple
Uni
t N70
W11
0.
var.
Mus
tang
Lak
e
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
301
Rockport Black-on-gray, Rockport Black, and RockportIncised, the three types with the greatest number ofdecorated sherds. The small sample of decoratedsherds from the surface collections (n=106) are notincluded on these tables. Since these sherds couldnot be related to any specific analysis unit withinthe site, it was felt that they would be of little use inidentifying fine-scale chronological, social, and/orfunctional differences at Guadalupe Bay. However,unique sherds from the surface will be discussed asnecessary. Also listed on Tables 7-12 through 7-14are the various varieties associated with each de-sign element, plus the location of the design elementon the vessel (exterior, interior, or both).
Rockport Black-on-gray Design Elements
There were over 1,600 sherds of Rockport Black-on-gray (see Table 7-12). As to be expected in acollection consisting of thousands of small sherds,the greatest quantity included sherds with single designelements that exhibited straight lines of unknownorientation (n=419; 25.9 percent). This was fol-lowed by painted lines both of unidentifiable typeand unknown orientation (n=336; 20.7 percent).Sherds with slightly wavy lines of unknown ori-entation comprised the next most common group(n=223; 13.8 percent), followed by sherds withcurved lines (n=110; 6.8 percent), sherds with highlywavy lines of unknown orientation (n=106; 6.6 per-cent), and those with dabbed designs (n=99; 6.1 per-cent). Of the sherds containing lines of recog-nizable orientation, those with vertical lines werethe most common (n=79; 4.9 percent), followed bydiagonal lines (n=21; 1.3 percent). Sherds with dots(n=49; 3.0 percent) also made up a reasonable por-tion of the sample.
The most common group of sherds exhibitingmultiple design elements contained curved lines andlines of unknown orientation (n=6; 0.4 percent). Thiswas followed by sherds with dabbing and lines ofunknown orientation (n=5; 0.3 percent), and thosewith dots and lines of unknown orientation (n=4;0.3 percent) (see Table 7-12).
Interestingly, of all sherds exhibiting painted lines,522 contained straight lines, while 258 containedslightly wavy lines, and 133 contained highly wavylines. Additionally, of those sherds with painted lines,326 exhibited narrow lines (<2 mm in width), 373exhibited medium lines (between 2 and 4 mm in width),and 664 contained wide lines (>4 mm in width). Thiswould suggest that the most common from of deco-
ration for Rockport Black-on-gray at the GuadalupeBay site consisted of relatively straight lines thatwere greater than 4 mm in width. Slightly wavylines of medium width appear to represent the nextmost common form of decoration, followed by highlywavy lines of narrow width. These figures are some-what misleading, however, if one realizes that manyof the straight lines almost certainly represent por-tions of wavy lines on sherds that were too smallfor the full extent of the wave to be recognized. Theyprobably are classified as “straight” more by defaultthan by their actual form.
In a similar vein, many of the perpendicular andparallel lines may be nothing more than residue fromsloppy painting where asphaltum dripped onto ad-jacent areas of the vessel. Likewise, some of thelines classified as “parallel” are located next toportions of sherds where asphaltum had been ap-plied as a crack-mending agent. These lines, there-fore, may simply represent dribbled asphaltum as-sociated with the mending process, rather thanintentionally painted lines. Unfortunately, noneof the sherds with parallel or perpendicular linesis large enough to determine the exact nature of thelines.
At this point it may be worth noting a discrep-ancy between many of the sherds of Rockport Black-on-gray recovered at Guadalupe Bay with similaritems reported by Ricklis (1995a:199) from sites hehas examined. Ricklis noted that vessels with wavyor squiggled lines (his Rockport Black-on-grayII) did not contain bone temper in their pastes.This was in contrast to other Rockport vessels thatoften included bone. Such bone-tempered ves-sels, Ricklis suggested, were used primarily forcooking and the bone was a necessary elementadded to the paste to reduce “thermal shock” (Ricklis1995a:199). The lack of bone in the vessels withwavy lines, plus their overall finer finish, sug-gested that they probably served as serving orstorage vessels for water or other liquids. As canbe seen by Table 7-12, many of the sherds withwavy or squiggled lines from Guadalupe Bay wereclassified as Rockport Black-on-gray, var. Long Mott,the variety with bone inclusions that presumably hadbeen added as a tempering agent. Although the au-thors agree with Ricklis that these vessels probablyserved as fine-ware items with a function or func-tions different from other Rockport ceramics, the datafrom Guadalupe Bay suggest that bone served as acommon tempering agent for all forms of Rockportvessels.
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
302
Rockport Black Design Elements
The data for Rockport Black are similar to thatfor Rockport Black-on-gray (see Table 7-13). Again,the most common decorative category included sherdswith painted straight lines of unknown orientation(n=62; 28.3 percent). This also was followed byunidentifiable lines of unknown orientation (n=36;16.4 percent), and slightly wavy lines of unknownorientation (n=29; 13.2 percent). Unlike RockportBlack-on-gray, sherds with highly wavy lines ofunknown orientation (n=17; 7.8 percent) comprisedthe next most common group, followed by those withdabbing (n=13; 5.9 percent), and those with curvedlines (n=11; 5.0 percent). Rounding out the list weresherds with dots (n=7; 3.2 percent), diagonal lines(n=4; 1.8 percent), perpendicular lines (n=4; 1.83 per-cent), horizontal lines (n=3; 1.4 percent), parallellines (n=3; 1.4 percent), and swastika design (n=2;0.9 percent).
Only five sherds with multiple design elementswere noted for Rockport Black. Of these, two sherdsexhibited a curved line along with a highly wavyline of unknown orientation. The rest included in-dividual sherds with vertical lines and dots, perpen-dicular lines and parallel lines, and lines of unknownorientation coupled with an unidentifiable design.Again, it should be recognized that many of the sherdswith parallel and/or perpendicular lines may sim-ply represent portions of vessels onto which asphaltumhad dribbled due to careless painting or crack mending.
One sherd of particular note exhibited what maybe part of a swastika design painted on the interiorof a shallow bowl. The uniqueness of the sherd isenhanced further by the fact that the swastika ap-pears to have been formed by negative painting (Fig-ure 7-15).
Ninety of the Rockport Black sherds exhibitedstraight lines, 36 contained slightly wavy lines, and21 contained highly wavy lines. Additionally, 37Rockport Black sherds exhibited narrow lines, 43exhibited medium lines, and 114 contained wide lines.In both the type and width of the lines, the RockportBlack sample mirrors that of the Rockport Black-on-gray group. Once again, it would appear thatthe application of relatively straight, wide lines wasthe most common form of painted decoration. Slightlywavy lines of medium width were the next mostcommon form of decoration, followed by highly wavylines of narrow width. Again, however, these fig-ures may not reflect the true situation, as many of
the straight lines probably are elements of wavy linesthat simply were on sherds too small for proper iden-tification.
Regardless, all of this shows the extremely close,and not unexpected, relationship between RockportBlack and Rockport Black-on-gray, at least in termsof the design elements present on the two types. Onlyhorizontal lines and the swastika design occurredon Rockport Black sherds, to the exclusion of RockportBlack-on-gray, while open circles and triangles werepresent only on sherds of Rockport Black-on-gray.Perhaps most interesting of all, however, was therelatively minor percentage of sherds from both typesexhibiting multiple design elements: 24 for RockportBlack-on-gray (1.5 percent) and five for RockportBlack (2.3 percent). This is in contrast to RockportIncised, to be discussed next, which contained 63sherds (14.4 percent) exhibiting multiple design el-ements.
Rockport Incised Design Elements
Single design elements associated with RockportIncised are quite varied, although one element inparticular, that of straight, multiple horizontal lines(n=241; 55.0 percent), clearly outnumbers all oth-ers (see Table 7-14). This is followed by straight,single horizontal lines (n=27; 6.2 percent), single,horizontal zigzag lines (n=21; 4.8 percent), cross-hatched lines (n=19; 4.3 percent), line-filled triangles(n=19; 4.3 percent), and parallel lines of unknown
Figure 7-15. Sherd of RockportBlack, var. Lolita exhib-iting a possible negative-painted swastika designon the interior of a shal-low bowl. (See Appen-dix K for proveniencedata.)
0 3
cm
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
303
orientation (n=12; 2.7 percent). If one considers thelikelihood that many of the 27 single horizontal linesprobably are from vessels that actually containedmultiple horizontal lines, but are on sherds too smallfor more than one line to be recognized, then theabundance of the first design element noted aboveincreases even further.
As just discussed, multiple design elements madeup over 14 percent of all recognizable incised deco-ration. This figure may be somewhat lower thanreality, since many of the single design elementsundoubtedly represent portions of multiple designelements on sherds that simply were too small tocontain all of the decorative field. For example, twoof the three sherds with multiple, open triangles arepart of the partially reconstructed vessel from SampleUnit N70W110. These sherds came from the low-est part of the decorative field and did not containthe associated horizontal lines.
One of the most common multiple design ele-ments consists of horizontal and diagonal lines onthe upper part of the vessel just below the lip (n=12;2.7 percent). In most cases the diagonal lines de-scend downward from the lowest horizontal line,although there are examples where the diagonal linesoccur above the horizontal lines. Many of the de-scending diagonal lines may represent portions ofline-filled triangles placed below the horizontal lines;not enough of the decoration was present, however,to unquestionably support this possibility.
Another common group of multiple design ele-ments consists of horizontal lines, almost always placedon the upper portion of the vessel just below the lip,and a multiple set of open triangles placed belowthe lowest horizontal line (n=12; 2.7 percent). Thiscombination of horizontal lines and either incisedtriangles or triangular punctations is a common deco-rative motif on ceramics along the Gulf coast andwithin the Lower Mississippi Valley. It occurs onsherds of Goose Creek and San Jacinto Incised inthe Galveston Bay area (Aten 1983b:Figure 12.6;W. Black 1989:16-17; Ricklis 1994a:Figures 7.15,7.21, 7.22, 7.24) and on Coles Creek Incised on theLouisiana coast and within the Lower MississippiValley (Ford 1951; Phillips 1970; Williams and Brain1983; plus numerous others). Interestingly, 10 ofthe 12 sherds with this combination of design ele-ments came from the partially reconstructed Mus-tang Lake vessel from Sample Unit N70W110 (seeTable 7-14). Because of the small size of one of thelatter sherds, it only contained one horizontal line.
Other sherds with multiple design elements in-clude those with horizontal lines and crosshatchedoverincising (n=10; 2.3 percent), horizontal lines andvertical overincising (n=10; 2.3 percent), horizon-tal lines and line-filled triangles (n=6; 1.4 percent),horizontal lines and crosshatched lines (n=4; 0.9 per-cent), perpendicular lines and parallel lines (n=3;0.7 percent), and horizontal lines with diagonaloverincising (n=2; 0.5 percent). The sherds withoverincised lines (whether vertical, crosshatched, ordiagonal) all form an interesting set of decorativepatterns that have been illustrated on several occa-sions in the past (Campbell 1962:Figure 1, T-U; Suhmand Jelks 1962:Plate 67, I). More will be said ofthese below.
In the case of sherds with horizontal lines andcrosshatched lines, the crosshatched element alwaysoccurs below the horizontal element on the exteriorportion of the vessel. As with the open trianglesand line-filled triangles, such crosshatched lines actas a form of embellishment beneath the horizontallines and serve to highlight or define the overalldecorative field. Ricklis (1994a:192-208) set up similarembellishments as “secondary decorative elements”in his study of the ceramics from the Mitchell Ridgesite on Galveston Island.
Lastly in regard to incised sherds, it is worthnoting that the vast majority exhibited straight lines.Only one sherd of var. Mission Lake contained a curvedline (see Table 7-14). It also is worth noting therelative paucity of incised lines with medium or widewidths. Of the 438 sherds of Rockport Incised re-covered from the excavations, only 12 (2.7 percent)had lines with widths between 2 and 4 mm, whileonly three (0.7 percent) had lines with widths greaterthan 4 mm. Perhaps importantly, of the 12 sherdswith medium lines, eight are from sherds with singlezigzag lines located immediately below the lip, andmost of these probably are from one Mission Lakevessel.
Lip Decoration
The excavated sample produced 601 rim sherdsthat exhibited decoration on the lip or the lip andthe very upper portion of the rim. Such decorationoccurred in four principal forms: painted black bands,incised lines across a flat lip, incised vertical lineson a pointed lip, and lip notching (see Tables 7-1and 7-3). By definition, sherds with black bandingand no other decoration were classified as eitherRockport Black or Rockport Black-on-gray. These
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
304
are equivalent to what Ricklis (1990b:616-617) iden-tified as Rockport Black-on-gray I. Such sherdsrepresent the greatest quantity of black-banded rims(n=465; see “Carancahua Bay” and “Steamboat Is-land” motifs, below), and, as such, would appear tobe the most common form of decoration for RockportBlack and Rockport Black-on-gray vessels. How-ever, because many of these sherds are relativelysmall, and painted designs on the body of Rockportvessels are usually limited to narrow vertical lines(most likely wavy), dots, dabs, etc., this numbermay be somewhat misleading. Many of the rimsherds that exhibit only black banding may, in fact,come from vessels that had some form of bodypainting. Unfortunately, without either wholevessels or relatively large sherds, it is impossible todetermine the exact relationship between banded rimsand decorated bodies. If, on the other hand, black-banded sherds also exhibited incised lines, red film,or polychrome decoration, then they were classifiedas Rockport Incised, Rockport Red, or RockportPolychrome, respectively.
The other three types of lip decoration are muchless numerous. Unlike the banded sherds, these deco-rations alone did not place the sherd into a specifictype. For example, sherds with lines across the lipwere not classed as Rockport Incised unless they alsoexhibited incised decoration elsewhere. As such,these types of decoration are more akin to “modesof decoration” that crosscut type and variety bound-aries (see Phillips 1970:28-29 for a discussion onmodes). Lip notching is a good case in point, asit was found on most of the common Rockporttypes: Rockport Black, Rockport Black-on-gray,and Rockport Plain. Ricklis (1990b:616) earlier hadclassified such notched sherds as the type RockportCrenelated. Under the current classification system,lip notching is considered a rim mode and not a separatetype. Each of the four forms of lip decoration arediscussed below.
Black Banding (n=588)
As can be seen by Table 7-15, black bandingoccurred on the top of the lip if the vessel had a flatlip (Top), on the exterior or interior portion of therim just below the lip (usually on vessels with pointedrims) (Ext. or Int.), on the lip and either the ex-terior or interior portion of the rim (Top/Ext. andTop/Int.), and on the top and both the exterior andinterior parts of the rim (All). As with the paintedand incised design elements discussed above, the blackbanding was further sorted by the width of the band:
narrow (<2 mm), medium (2 to 4 mm), and wide(>4 mm).
Black banding occurred on 163 sherds of RockportBlack (representing 27.7 percent of the total bandedsherds and 27.1 percent of all sherds with lip deco-ration), 398 sherds of Rockport Black-on-gray(67.7 percent of all banded sherds and 66.2 percentof all sherds with lip decoration), 24 sherds of RockportIncised (4.1 and 4.0 percent, respectively), two sherdsof Rockport Polychrome (0.3 and 0.3 percent, re-spectively) and one sherd of Rockport Red (0.2 and0.2 percent), with the greatest quantity (n=139; 23.6 per-cent) associated with Rockport Black-on-gray, var.Rockport. Of all banded sherds, the greatest quan-tity (n=368; 62.6 percent) exhibited banding on thetop of the lip and both the exterior and interior por-tions of the rim. Sherds with banding only on thetop of the lip (n=72; 12.2 percent) and on the top ofthe lip and either the exterior portion of the rim (n=63;10.7 percent) or the interior portion of the rim (n=77;13.1 percent) were present in relatively moderateamounts. Sherds with banding only on the exterior(n=1; 0.2 percent) or interior (n=2; 0.3 percent) portionsof the rim, without any associated banding on thelip, were rare. The largest number of sherds (n=426;72.5 percent) contained wide bands, followed by sherdswith medium bands (n=107; 18.2 percent), and sherdswith narrow bands (n=55; 9.4 percent). Clearly, themost common form of painted bands (n=340; 57.8 per-cent) consisted of those sherds with wide bands andband placement on the top of the lip and both theexterior and interior portions of the rim.
Incised Lines Across Lip (n=11)
The next most common lip decoration occurredon 11 sherds and consisted of incised lines placedacross the top of a flat lip (see Table 7-15). Theselines either were positioned perpendicular to the longaxis of the lip (n=8; 72.7 percent) or were slanted atabout a 45-degree angle to the long axis (n=3; 27.3 per-cent). Lip lines occurred on six sherds of RockportBlack (54.6 percent), two sherds of Rockport Black-on-gray (18.2 percent), and three sherds of RockportPlain (27.3 percent). All incised lines were of thenarrow version. Somewhat surprisingly, no incisedlips were associated with any of the sherds of RockportIncised.
Vertical Incised Lines on Lip (n=1)
Only one rim, a sherd of Rockport Plain, var.Green Lake, exhibited short, vertical incised lines
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
305
Top
Ext
.In
t.T
op/E
xt.
Top
/Int
.T
op/?
*A
ll%
Per
p.Sl
ante
d%
No.
%N
o.%
To
tal
% T
otal
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
ckva
r. E
lm B
ayou
narr
ow**
20
00
00
00
.34
10
9.0
90
0.0
00
0.0
02
0.3
3m
ediu
m0
00
01
00
0.1
70
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
10
.17
wid
e0
00
21
013
2.7
20
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
16
2.6
6va
r. K
uy C
reek
med
ium
10
00
00
00
.17
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
01
0.1
7w
ide
00
02
20
51
.53
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
09
1.5
0va
r. L
olit
ana
rrow
70
03
10
01
.87
20
18
.18
00
.00
21
5.3
81
11
.83
med
ium
20
01
10
21
.02
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
06
1.0
0w
ide
00
04
20
326
.46
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
03
86
.32
var.
Roc
kpor
tna
rrow
60
02
00
01
.36
02
18
.18
00
.00
00
.00
81
.33
med
ium
30
05
60
32
.89
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
01
72
.83
wid
e0
00
27
038
7.9
90
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
47
7.8
2va
r. S
prin
g B
ayou
narr
ow1
00
11
00
0.5
10
19
.09
00
.00
00
.00
30
.50
med
ium
00
00
10
00
.17
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
01
0.1
7w
ide
00
01
00
20
.51
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
03
0.5
0
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k
tota
l2
20
02
32
30
95
27
.72
33
54
.55
00
.00
21
5.3
81
63
27
.12
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k-o
n-g
ray
var.
Buf
falo
Lak
ena
rrow
100
00
00
22
.04
20
18
.18
00
.00
00
.00
12
2.0
0m
ediu
m1
10
12
01
1.0
20
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
61
.00
wid
e0
00
53
040
8.1
60
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
48
7.9
9va
r. H
og B
ayou
narr
ow2
00
00
00
0.3
40
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
20
.33
med
ium
30
02
20
52
.04
00
0.0
00
0.0
01
7.6
91
22
.00
wid
e1
00
44
030
6.6
30
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
39
6.4
9va
r. L
ong
Mot
tna
rrow
20
00
00
00
.34
00
0.0
00
0.0
01
7.6
92
0.3
3m
ediu
m4
00
17
04
2.7
20
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
16
2.6
6w
ide
10
04
90
661
3.6
10
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
80
13
.31
var.
Mos
quit
o P
oint
med
ium
30
02
00
21
.19
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
07
1.1
6w
ide
10
04
12
275
.95
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
03
55
.82
var.
Roc
kpor
tna
rrow
110
10
11
02
.38
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
01
42
.33
med
ium
60
010
91
85
.78
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
03
45
.66
wid
e1
01
59
174
15
.48
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
09
11
5.1
4
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k-o
n-g
ray
tota
l4
61
23
84
75
25
96
7.6
92
01
8.1
80
0.0
02
15
.38
39
86
6.2
2
Bla
ck B
ande
dIn
cise
d
Lin
es
Acr
oss
Fla
t L
ip
Dec
orat
ed
Lip
s
a b e
c d
Tabl
e 7-
15.
Lip
Dec
orat
ions
Rec
orde
d fo
r R
im S
herd
s fr
om G
uada
lupe
Bay
.
(con
tin
ued
)
Inci
sed
Ver
tica
l Lin
eson
Poi
nted
Lip
Not
ched
Lip
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
306
Top
Ext
.In
t.T
op/E
xt.
Top
/Int
.T
op/?
*A
ll%
Per
p.Sl
ante
d%
No.
%N
o.%
To
tal
% T
otal
Roc
kp
ort
Inci
sed
var.
Mis
sion
Lak
em
ediu
m0
00
10
00
0.1
70
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
10
.17
wid
e0
00
11
06
1.3
60
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
81
.33
var.
Mus
tang
Lak
em
ediu
m1
00
00
00
0.1
70
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
10
.17
wid
e0
00
01
04
0.8
50
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
50
.83
var.
Pla
nk B
ridg
em
ediu
m1
00
00
00
0.1
70
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
10
.17
wid
e0
00
02
01
0.5
10
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
30
.50
var.
Roc
kpor
tm
ediu
m0
00
01
00
0.1
70
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
10
.17
wid
e0
00
02
02
0.6
80
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
40
.67
Roc
kp
ort
Inc i
sed
to
tal
20
02
70
13
4.0
80
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
24
3.9
9
Roc
kp
ort
Pla
inva
r. G
reen
Lak
ena
rrow
00
00
00
00
.00
00
0.0
01
10
0.0
00
0.0
01
0.1
7va
r. G
uada
lupe
narr
ow0
00
00
00
0.0
02
01
8.1
80
0.0
02
15
.38
40
.67
med
ium
00
00
00
00
.00
00
0.0
00
0.0
02
15
.38
20
.33
var.
Roc
kpor
tna
rrow
00
00
00
0.0
01
09
.09
00
.00
00
.00
10
.17
med
ium
00
00
00
00
.00
00
0.0
00
0.0
03
23
.08
30
.50
wid
e0
00
00
00
0.0
00
00
.00
00
.00
21
5.3
82
0.3
3
Roc
kp
ort
Pla
in
tota
l0
00
00
00
0.0
03
02
7.2
71
10
0.0
09
69
.23
13
2.1
6
Roc
kp
ort
Pol
ych
rom
eva
r. u
nspe
cifie
dna
rrow
10
00
00
00
.17
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
01
0.1
7m
ediu
m0
00
00
01
0.1
70
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
10
.17
Roc
kp
ort
Pol
ych
rom
e to
tal
10
00
00
10
.34
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
02
0.3
3
Roc
kp
ort
Re d
var.
uns
peci
fied
med
ium
10
00
00
00
.17
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
01
0.1
7
Roc
kp
ort
Re d
to
tal
10
00
00
00
.17
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
01
0.1
7
Sit
e T
otal
72
12
63
77
53
68
10
0.0
08
31
00
.00
11
00
.00
13
10
0.0
06
01
10
0.0
0
*
Indi
cate
s pr
esen
ce o
f bl
ack
pain
t on
top
of li
p, p
lus
eith
er e
xter
ior
or in
teri
or o
f ri
m, b
ut u
nsur
e of
latte
r pl
acem
ent d
ue to
sm
all s
ize
of s
herd
.**
In
dica
tes
wid
th o
f pa
inte
d ba
nds,
inci
sed
lines
, or
notc
hes.
Nar
row
= <
2mm
. M
ediu
m =
2 to
4 m
m.
Wid
e =
>4
mm
.a
Sh
erd
cont
ains
asp
halt
um o
n to
p of
lip.
For
that
rea
son
it a
lso
is li
sted
und
er b
lack
ban
ded.
The
she
rd is
cou
nted
onl
y on
ce, h
owev
er, i
n th
e to
tal c
olum
ns a
t the
rig
ht o
f th
e ta
ble.
b
One
she
rd c
onta
ins
asph
altu
m o
n to
p of
lip;
oth
er c
onta
ins
asph
altu
m o
n to
p an
d in
teri
or o
f lip
. Fo
r th
ose
reas
ons
they
als
o ar
e lis
ted
unde
r bl
ack
band
ed.
The
she
rds
are
coun
ted
only
onc
e, h
owev
er, i
n th
e to
tal c
olum
ns to
the
righ
t.
cO
ne s
herd
con
tain
s as
phal
tum
on
top
of li
p; o
ther
con
tain
s as
phal
tum
on
top
and
exte
rior
of
lip.
For
thos
e re
ason
s th
ey a
lso
are
liste
d un
der
blac
k ba
nded
. T
he s
herd
s ar
e co
unte
d on
ly o
nce,
how
ever
, in
the
tota
l col
umns
to th
e ri
ght.
d
Sher
d co
ntai
ns a
spha
ltum
on
top
and
inte
rior
of
lip.
For
that
rea
son
it a
lso
is li
sted
und
er b
lack
ban
ded.
The
she
rd is
cou
nted
onl
y on
ce, h
owev
er, i
n th
e to
tal c
olum
ns a
t the
rig
ht o
f th
e ta
ble.
e
Sher
d co
ntai
ns a
spha
ltum
on
top
of li
p. F
or th
at r
easo
n it
als
o is
list
ed u
nder
bla
ck b
ande
d. T
he s
herd
is c
ount
ed o
nly
once
, how
ever
, in
the
tota
l col
umns
at t
he r
ight
of
the
tabl
e.
Bla
ck B
ande
dIn
cise
d
Lin
es
Acr
oss
Fla
t L
ip
Dec
orat
ed
Lip
s
Tabl
e 7-
15.
Con
clud
ed.
Inci
sed
Ver
tica
l Lin
eson
Poi
nted
Lip
Not
ched
Lip
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
307
on the exterior of a pointed lip (see Table 7-15).Although this represents a unique form of lip treat-ment, the lack of any comparative specimens limitsfurther discussion at this point.
Lip Notching (n=13)
The final form of lip decoration, that of lip notch-ing, was present on 13 sherds at Guadalupe Bay (seeTable 7-15 and Figure 7-16). Included were twosherds of Rockport Black (15.4 percent), two sherdsof Rockport Black-on-gray (15.4 percent), and ninesherds of Rockport Plain (69.2 percent). Of the lat-ter, four examples occurred on var. Guadalupe andfive occurred on var. Rockport. Five of the notchedlips (38.5 percent) contained notches that were lessthan 2 mm across, six sherds (46.2 percent) exhib-ited notches between 2 and 4 mm in width, and twosherds (15.4 percent) had notches that were greaterthan 4 mm across.
Discussion of Lip Decoration
Overall, it is interesting, but certainly not un-usual, to note the strong relationship between bandedrim decoration and Rockport Black and RockportBlack-on-gray (561 of 588 sherds; 95.4 percent).7
Obviously, a painted vessel was likely to receive apainted rim. In contrast, however, was the lack ofany relationship between sherds of Rockport Incisedand the various incised lip treatments. In fact, ascan be seen in Table 7-15, 24 sherds of RockportIncised had banded rims, but none had any in-cised lines on the lip. One would have expectedincised sherds to have received incised lip deco-ration, but that apparently did not occur at Guada-lupe Bay.
Also interesting is the relatively strong relationshipbetween notched lips and Rockport Plain (9 of 13sherds; 69.2 percent). Although notching occurs onseveral ceramic types, it apparently was the preferredform of lip decoration on plain vessels. Likewise,four (33.3 percent) of the 12 sherds with incised lipswere classed as Rockport Plain.
In addition to the above, an effort was made toexamine the relationships of the different decoratedlip forms to the various analysis units identified at
Guadalupe Bay. It was hoped that potential chro-nological data and/or intrasite spatial patterning mightbe recognized. As such, Tables 7-16 through 7-18list the three main forms of lip decoration (blackbanding, incising, and notching) and their associ-ated analysis units.
Rims with black banding were found through-out most analysis units (see Table 7-16), although,as noted many times earlier, those found in AUs 8through 14 clearly were displaced downward bybioturbation or, in the case of AU 13, may have beenmixed accidentally during the waterscreening op-eration. As with the distribution of all previously
7 Obviously, this strong relationship is heightened by the factthat all banded sherds without associated body decoration alsowere classed as Rockport Black or Rockport Black-on-gray. However,
96 sherds (17.1 percent) of these two types included both lip bandingand body painting, suggesting that the relationship is legitimate.
Figure 7-16. Notched lips. (a-d) Notched lips ofRockport Plain, var. Rockport ; (e-g) Notched lips of Rockport Plain,var. Guadalupe; (h) Notched lip ofRockport Plain, var. Seadrift; (i-j)Notched lips of Rockport Black, var.Lolita. (See Appendix K for prove-nience data.)
a b c
d e f
g h
i
j0 3
cm
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
308
N o . % N o . % N o . % N o . % N o . % N o . % N o . %
Rockport Blackvar. Elm Bayou
Top 0 0.00 1 1.09 1 0.56 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00Top/Exterior 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.56 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.37 0 0.00Top/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.09 1 1.37 0 0.00Top/Exterior/Interior 1 2.17 3 3.26 4 2.26 0 0.00 1 1.09 3 4.11 1 6.67
var. Kuy CreekTop 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.37 0 0.00Top/Exterior 1 2.17 0 0.00 1 0.56 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00Top/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.56 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.37 0 0.00Top/Exterior/Interior 2 4.35 0 0.00 3 1.69 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
var. LolitaTop 0 0.00 1 1.09 6 3.39 0 0.00 1 1.09 1 1.37 0 0.00Top/Exterior 2 4.35 0 0.00 3 1.69 1 1.41 0 0.00 2 2.74 0 0.00Top/Interior 0 0.00 1 1.09 1 0.56 0 0.00 2 2.17 0 0.00 0 0.00Top/Exterior/Interior 1 2.17 6 6.52 7 3.95 4 5.63 7 7.61 7 9.59 0 0.00
var. RockportTop 3 6.52 0 0.00 1 0.56 1 1.41 2 2.17 2 2.74 0 0.00Top/Exterior 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 2.82 1 1.41 3 3.26 0 0.00 0 0.00Top/Interior 3 6.52 1 1.09 4 2.26 1 1.41 1 1.09 3 4.11 0 0.00Top/Exterior/Interior 1 2.17 1 1.09 26 14.69 4 5.63 3 3.26 6 8.22 0 0.00
var. Spring BayouTop 0 0.00 1 1.09 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00Top/Exterior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.09 1 1.37 0 0.00Top/Interior 1 2.17 0 0.00 1 0.56 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00Top/Exterior/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 1.13 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Rockport Black total 1 5 3 2 . 6 1 1 5 1 6 . 3 0 6 7 3 7 . 8 5 1 2 1 6 . 9 0 2 2 2 3 . 9 1 2 9 3 9 . 7 3 1 6 . 6 7
Rockport Black-on-grayvar. Buffalo Lake
Top 0 0.00 3 3.26 1 0.56 3 4.23 1 1.09 2 2.74 1 6.67Exterior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.37 0 0.00Top/Exterior 1 2.17 2 2.17 2 1.13 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.37 0 0.00Top/Interior 0 0.00 1 1.09 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 2.17 2 2.74 0 0.00Top/Exterior/Interior 3 6.52 8 8.70 12 6.78 10 14.08 6 6.52 4 5.48 0 0.00
var. Hog BayouTop 1 2.17 1 1.09 2 1.13 0 0.00 2 2.17 0 0.00 0 0.00Top/Exterior 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 2.82 1 1.41 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00Top/Interior 1 2.17 1 1.09 3 1.69 0 0.00 1 1.09 0 0.00 0 0.00Top/Exterior/Interior 2 4.35 0 0.00 10 5.65 2 2.82 13 14.13 6 8.22 1 6.67
var. Long MottTop 0 0.00 1 1.09 2 1.13 0 0.00 2 2.17 1 1.37 1 6.67Top/Exterior 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.56 2 2.82 2 2.17 0 0.00 0 0.00Top/Interior 0 0.00 4 4.35 6 3.39 1 1.41 2 2.17 3 4.11 0 0.00Top/Exterior/Interior 3 6.52 5 5.43 22 12.43 12 16.90 18 19.57 6 8.22 0 0.00
var. Mosquito PointTop 0 0.00 2 2.17 1 0.56 1 1.41 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00Top/Exterior 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 1.13 1 1.41 1 1.09 1 1.37 1 6.67Top/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.09 0 0.00 0 0.00Top/? 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 1.13 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00Top/Exterior/Interior 1 2.17 4 4.35 9 5.08 2 2.82 5 5.43 4 5.48 1 6.67
var. RockportTop 1 2.17 6 6.52 1 0.56 6 8.45 1 1.09 3 4.11 0 0.00Interior 1 2.17 1 1.09 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00Top/Exterior 3 6.52 7 7.61 2 1.13 2 2.82 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 6.67Top/Interior 4 8.70 4 4.35 7 3.95 2 2.82 1 1.09 0 0.00 1 6.67Top/? 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.56 1 1.41 0 0.00 1 1.37 0 0.00Top/Exterior/Interior 8 17.39 25 27.17 8 4.52 12 16.90 8 8.70 5 6.85 7 46.67
Rockport Black-on-gray total 2 9 6 3 . 0 4 7 5 8 1 . 5 2 9 9 5 5 . 9 3 5 8 8 1 . 6 9 6 6 7 1 . 7 4 4 0 5 4 . 7 9 1 4 9 3 . 3 3
Rockport Incisedvar. Mission Lake
Top/Exterior 0 0.00 1 1.09 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.09 0 0.00 0 0.00Top/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.37 0 0.00Top/Exterior/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 2.26 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
var. Mustang LakeTop 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00Top/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.09 0 0.00 0 0.00Top/Exterior/Interior 0 0.00 1 1.09 2 1.13 1 1.41 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
var. Plank BridgeTop 1 2.17 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00Top/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 2.17 0 0.00 0 0.00Top/Exterior/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.56 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
var. RockportTop/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.56 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 2.74 0 0.00Top/Exterior/Interior 1 2.17 0 0.00 1 0.56 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Rockport Incised total 2 4 . 3 5 2 2 . 1 7 9 5 . 0 8 1 1 . 4 1 4 4 . 3 5 3 4 . 1 1 0 0 . 0 0
Rockport Polychromevar. unspecified
Top 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.56 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00Top/Exterior/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.37 0 0.00
Rockport Polychrome total 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 5 6 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 1 . 3 7 0 0 . 0 0
Rockport Redvar. unspecified
Top 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.56 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Rockport Red total 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 5 6 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0
Site Total 4 6 1 0 0 . 0 0 9 2 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 7 7 1 0 0 . 0 0 7 1 1 0 0 . 0 0 9 2 1 0 0 . 0 0 7 3 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 5 1 0 0 . 0 0
AU 2 AU 3 AU 4
Analysis Units
AU 5 AU 6AU 1
Table 7-16. Distribution of Sherds with Black Lip Banding, by Analysis Unit.
(continued)
AU 8
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
309
N o . % N o . % N o . % N o . % N o . % N o . % Total % Total
Rockport Blackvar. Elm Bayou
Top 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0 . 3 4Top/Exterior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0 . 3 4Top/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0 . 3 4Top/Exterior/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 3 2 . 2 1
var. Kuy CreekTop 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0 . 1 7Top/Exterior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0 . 3 4Top/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0 . 3 4Top/Exterior/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 0 . 8 5
var. LolitaTop 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 9 1 . 5 3Top/Exterior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 8 1 . 3 6Top/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 0 . 6 8Top/Exterior/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 100.00 1 14.29 3 4 5 . 7 8
var. RockportTop 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 9 1 . 5 3Top/Exterior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 9 1 . 5 3Top/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 3 2 . 2 1Top/Exterior/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 1 6 . 9 7
var. Spring BayouTop 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0 . 1 7Top/Exterior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0 . 3 4Top/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0 . 3 4Top/Exterior/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0 . 3 4
Rockport Black total 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 1 4 . 2 9 1 6 3 2 7 . 7 2
Rockport Black-on-grayvar. Buffalo Lake
Top 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1 1 . 8 7Exterior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0 . 1 7Top/Exterior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 6 1 . 0 2Top/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 0 . 8 5Top/Exterior/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 3 7 . 3 1
var. Hog BayouTop 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 6 1 . 0 2Top/Exterior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 6 1 . 0 2Top/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 6 1 . 0 2Top/Exterior/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 5 5 . 9 5
var. Long MottTop 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 7 1 . 1 9Top/Exterior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 0 . 8 5Top/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 6 2 . 7 2Top/Exterior/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 57.14 7 0 1 1 . 9 0
var. Mosquito PointTop 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 0 . 6 8Top/Exterior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 6 1 . 0 2Top/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0 . 1 7Top/? 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0 . 3 4Top/Exterior/Interior 3 27.27 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 9 4 . 9 3
var. RockportTop 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 8 3 . 0 6Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0 . 3 4Top/Exterior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 5 2 . 5 5Top/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 9 3 . 2 3Top/? 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 0 . 5 1Top/Exterior/Interior 8 72.73 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 14.29 8 2 1 3 . 9 5
Rockport Black-on-gray total 1 1 1 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 1 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 5 7 1 . 4 3 3 9 8 6 7 . 6 9
Rockport Incisedvar. Mission Lake
Top/Exterior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0 . 3 4Top/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0 . 1 7Top/Exterior/Interior 0 0.00 1 100.00 1 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 6 1 . 0 2
var. Mustang LakeTop 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 14.29 1 0 . 1 7Top/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0 . 1 7Top/Exterior/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 0 . 6 8
var. Plank BridgeTop 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0 . 1 7Top/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0 . 3 4Top/Exterior/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0 . 1 7
var. RockportTop/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 0 . 5 1Top/Exterior/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0 . 3 4
Rockport Incised total 0 0 . 0 0 1 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 1 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 1 4 . 2 9 2 4 4 . 0 8
Rockport Polychromevar. unspecified
Top 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0 . 1 7Top/Exterior/Interior 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0 . 1 7
Rockport Polychrome total 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 3 4
Rockport Redvar. unspecified
Top 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0 . 1 7
Rockport Red total 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 1 7
Site Total 1 1 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 1 0 0 . 0 0 7 1 0 0 . 0 0 5 8 8 1 0 0 . 0 0
AU 9 AU 10 No AUAU 11 AU 13
Analysis Units
AU 14
Table 7-16. Concluded.
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
310
discussed ceramics at Guadalupe Bay, the majorityof the black banded rims were found in those AUsassociated with Block 3 (AUs 3, 5, and 6) (342 sherds;58.2 percent). The relatively strong showing of bandedlips in AU 3 (177 sherds; 30.1 percent), the upper-most portion of the Stratum 2 Rockport component,might, at first, be taken as an indication that lip bandingwas more common towards the latter portion of thatoccupation. This is supported somewhat by the to-tal lack of banded lips from AU 7, the Stratum 5oyster lens in Block 3 believed to be the earliestRockport deposit uncovered. All of this is offset,however, by the recognition that the combined totalfor AUs 5 and 6 (n=165; 28.1 percent) is almost ex-actly the same as the total for AU 3. Not only doesthis argue against any chronological change in bandingfrequency, but it supports the notion expressed ear-lier in Chapters 5 and 6 that much of the materialfound in the lower part of Stratum 2 in Block 3 (AU 3)may actually represent items that had originally been
deposited in Stratum 3 (AU 6), but had been dis-placed upward by subsequent bioturbation.
Regardless of the above, it also is interesting tonote the percentages of each ceramic type across theAUs. For instance, Rockport Black amounted to 16.3percent of the total black-banded sherds from AU 2and 16.9 percent of black-banded sherds from AU 4,both in the area of Blocks 1 and 2 (see Table 7-16).On the other hand, Rockport Black made up 37.9,23.9, and 39.7 percent of the black-banded sherdsfrom AUs 3, 5, and 6, respectively, from Block 3.In contrast, Rockport Black-on-gray sherds with bandedlips comprised 81.5 percent of the banded sherds inAU 2 and 82.0 percent in AU 4. In Block 3, bandedlips on Rockport Black-on-gray sherds comprised55.9, 71.7, and 54.8 percent for AUs 3, 5, and 6.These percentages suggest that Rockport Black vesselswith banded lips were somewhat more common inBlock 3, while similar Rockport Black-on-gray vessels
N o . % N o . % N o . % N o . % Total % Total
Rockport Blackvar. Elm Bayou
Flat lip, perpendicular lines 1 20.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 8 . 3 3var. Lolita
Flat lip, perpendicular lines 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 100.00 0 0.00 2 1 6 . 6 7var. Rockport
Flat lip, slanted lines 1 20.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 100.00 2 1 6 . 6 7var. Spring Bayou
Flat lip, slanted lines 1 20.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 8 . 3 3
Rockport Black total 3 6 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 2 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 1 0 0 . 0 0 6 5 0 . 0 0
Rockport Black-on-gray var. Buffalo Lake
Flat lip, perpendicular lines 0 0.00 2 50.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 1 6 . 6 7
Rockport Black-on-gray total 0 0 . 0 0 2 5 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 2 1 6 . 6 7
Rockport Plainvar. Green Lake
Pointed lip, vertical lines 0 0.00 1 25.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 8 . 3 3var. Guadalupe
Flat lip, perpendicular lines 2 40.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 1 6 . 6 7var. Rockport
Flat lip, perpendicular lines 0 0.00 1 25.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 8 . 3 3
Rockport Plain total 2 4 0 . 0 0 2 5 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 4 3 3 . 3 3
Site Total 5 1 0 0 . 0 0 4 1 0 0 . 0 0 2 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 . 0 0
AU 3 AU 4 AU 5 AU 6
Analysis Units
Table 7-17. Distribution of Sherds with Incised Lips, by Analysis Unit.
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
311
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
To
tal
% T
otal
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c kva
r. L
olit
a0
0.00
240
.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
002
15
.38
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k
tota
l0
0.0
02
40
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
21
5.3
8
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k-o
n-g
ray
var.
Hog
Bay
ou0
0.00
120
.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
var.
Lon
g M
ott
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
110
0.00
17
.69
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k-o
n-g
ray
tota
l0
0.0
01
20
.00
00
.00
00
.00
11
00
.00
21
5.3
8
Roc
kp
ort
Pla
inva
r. G
uada
lupe
133
.33
240
.00
00.
001
33.3
30
0.00
43
0.7
7va
r. R
ockp
ort
266
.67
00.
001
100.
002
66.6
70
0.00
53
8.4
6
Roc
kp
ort
Pla
in
tota
l3
10
0.0
02
40
.00
11
00
.00
31
00
.00
00
.00
96
9.2
3
Sit
e T
otal
31
00
.00
51
00
.00
11
00
.00
31
00
.00
13
3.3
31
31
00
.00
AU
2
AU
3
AU
4
AU
5
An
alys
is
Un
its
AU
6
Tabl
e 7-
18.
Dis
trib
utio
n of
She
rds
wit
h N
otch
ed L
ips,
by
Ana
lysi
s U
nit.
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
312
were relatively common in both areas. Although thecounts are very low, it also is worth noting that allof the Rockport Polychrome and Rockport Red sherdswith banded lips came from Block 3. This is in keepingwith the data on those Rockport Black-on-gray sherdswith white paste, as discussed above, and supportsthe idea that the Block 3 area was the locus of finerand more elaborately decorated ceramics than else-where across the site.
A few words can be said of the distribution ofincised lips across the various AUs (see Table 7-17).Over half (n=7; 58.3 percent) were present in thelower levels of the mixed Rangia and oyster middenof Stratum 2 (AUs 4 and 5) along with the Stratum 3Rangia deposit in Block 3 (AU 6), and this couldindicate a possible early Rockport II subphase as-sociation. Although the total frequencies are rela-tively low, the additional fact that no incised rimswere found in either AUs 1 or 2 provides some sup-port for this potential association.
In contrast, notched lips were more common inthe upper portion of the Stratum 2 deposit (AUs 2and 3) (n=8; 61.5 percent), with lesser amounts inthe lower part of the same deposit (AUs 4 and 5)plus the Stratum 3 Rangia midden in Block 3 (AU 6)(n=5; 38.5 percent) (see Table 7-18). Again, althoughthe total frequencies are extremely low, this suggeststhat notched lips may have been more common inthe later stages of the Rockport occupation at thesite. Together, incised and notched lips may proveuseful in the future in separating early and late Rockportcomponents. For now, it can only be suggested thatincised lips were more prevalent during early RockportII times, and that notched lips assumed a similar rolelater during the Rockport phase.
Decorative Motifs
Once all excavated sherds were sorted by de-sign element(s) and/or lip decoration, it was pos-sible to recognize recurring decorative patterns ormotifs that form the highest order of decorative in-tent on the part of the aboriginal potters at GuadalupeBay. As noted earlier, such motifs consisted of singledesign elements if the motif was relatively simple,or multiple design elements if it was slightly morecomplicated. At present, there are eight motifs rec-ognized for Rockport Incised, seven motifs for RockportBlack, and seven motifs for Rockport Black-on-gray.Each motif will be discussed individually below bytype.
Since the current type-variety system of ceramicclassification was developed as a means of recog-nizing the paste characteristics of Rockport ceram-ics, simply because there were so few decorated sherdsavailable for analysis at the time it was created, itcannot be used for motif classification, although thatgenerally is how the type-variety system is employedelsewhere in the Southeast and Lower MississippiValley. For that reason, a slightly modified versionof the type-variety system has been employed formotif classification in the present study. Thus, mo-tifs are given names, like varieties, but such namesare enclosed in quotation marks and followed by theword “motif,” whereas variety names are italicizedand preceded by the abbreviation “var.”8 Thus, amotif is written as Rockport Incised, “Ayres Pointmotif,” while a variety is written as Rockport In-cised, var. Mustang Lake. By providing motifs withnames, it will be possible in the future to simplyincorporate these names into the type-variety sys-tem if it later is decided to eliminate the current paste-oriented type-variety system and to establish a moreconventional, decoration-oriented type-variety sys-tem.
Rockport Incised Motifs
There are eight motifs recognized for RockportIncised, based on a total of 85 sherds that are suffi-ciently large enough to allow for motif identifica-tion (Table 7-19). Although Rockport Incised sherdsmade up only a modest portion of the total ceramicassemblage at Guadalupe Bay, a reasonably largenumber of the specimens were recognizable to mo-tif. Since Rockport Incised designs are almost al-ways confined to the rim and/or upper portion ofthe vessel, it is possible to find individual rim sherdsthat contain a major portion of the overall decora-tive motif. This, in turn, leads to greater certaintyon the part of the analyst as to which motif actuallyis represented. Painted vessels, on the other hand,as discussed earlier, usually employed designs that
8 An effort has been made to name motifs after prominentgeographical landmarks in and around San Antonio, Lavaca, andMatagorda bays. In order to further clarify the nomenclature, allRockport Incised motifs have the word “Point” included in theirnames, while all Rockport Black-on-gray motifs include the word“Island.” Likewise, all Rockport Black motifs include the word“Bay.”
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
313
included portions of the lip, neck, and body of thevessel. Although the lip area usually was entirelypainted, decoration on the neck and body portionsof the vessel often was less inclusive (i.e., individualwavy lines, isolated dots, dabs, etc.), leaving rela-tively large, intervening, nondecorated areas. There-fore, the chance of finding groups of associated de-sign elements on individual body sherds, even whenexamining thousands of examples from painted vessels,is extremely small.
Rockport Incised,“Grassy Point motif” (n=28)
This is the most common motif recognized onall incised pottery at Guadalupe Bay. It consists simplyof a series of narrow, parallel lines incised in a hori-zontal band around the upper part of the exterior ofthe vessel (Figures 7-17 and 7-18). The lines werecarelessly executed, usually on the vessel when thepaste still was relatively wet. Sometimes the linesrun together or, on rare occasions, cross or overlapone another. This is not true crosshatching, how-ever, but simply the result of sloppy incising.
There are only two complete rims in the cur-rent collection that show the entire decorative field
associated with the “Grassy Point motif” (see Fig-ure 7-17, b-c). In both cases, the decoration beginsimmediately below the lip and extends down the neckof the vessel for a distance of between 1.2 and 1.9 cm.On the same sherds there are four and seven indi-vidual lines, respectively. Another 26 sherds lackrims, but include the lower portion of the decora-tive field. Thus, it is possible to safely classify theseas “Grassy Point” specimens. Although not com-plete, these sherds exhibit between two and eightindividual lines. It is possible that many of the othersherds with design elements listed as either singleor multiple horizontal lines (see Table 7-14) also arefrom “Grassy Point” vessels. Since they lack thelower portion of the decorative field, however, suchan assumption cannot be known for certain. Thesherds could be from “Foster Point,” “BendewaldPoint,” or “Ayres Point” vessels, to be discussed below.
The “Grassy Point motif” occurs on all variet-ies of Rockport Incised: eight sherds each on vars.Rockport and Mission Lake, five each on vars. PlankBridge and Mustang Lake, and two on var. Sommerville.This diversity probably is a reflection of the rela-tive abundance of the motif; since it occurs on moresherds than any other incised motif, it is logical thatit would occur on more varieties than any other motif.
Rim Body Rim Body Rim Body Rim Body Rim Body Total % Total
Motifs
"Grassy Point" 0 8 2 6 0 5 0 2 0 5 2 8 3 2 . 9 4
"Marsh Point" 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 . 7 1
"Cox Point" 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 9 . 4 1
"Cedar Point" 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 6 7 . 0 6
"Keeran Point" 0 1 1 5 0 5 1 1 1 5 2 0 2 3 . 5 3
"Ayres Point" 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 5 5 . 8 8
"Bendewald Point" 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 6 4 1 2 1 4 . 1 2
"Foster Point" 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 . 3 5
Total 2 1 0 1 4 1 5 0 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 6 8 5 1 0 0 . 0 0
var .Rockport
var .Mission Lake
var .Plank Bridge
var .Sommerv i l l e
var .Mustang Lake
Rockport Incised
Table 7-19. Decorative Motifs Recognized on Sherds of Rockport Incised at Guadalupe Bay.
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
314
a
b c
de
f g
h i j k
lm
n o
p q r
0 3
cm
Figure 7-17. Rockport Incised, “Grassy Point motif.” (a) Idealized “Grassy Point” vessel; (b-c) Complete“Grassy Point” rim sherds of Rockport Incised, var. Mustang Lake; (d-j) Partial “GrassyPoint” rim sherds of Rockport Incised, var. Rockport; (k-r) Partial “Grassy Point” rimsherds of Rockport Incised, var. Mission Lake. (See Appendix K for provenience data.)
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
315
Since the “Grassy Point motif” is representedby a relatively simple design, it is no wonder thatsimilar designs occur across most of the Texas coastand eastward into Louisiana and beyond. Clearly,the most common connection lies with examples ofGoose Creek and San Jacinto Incised ceramics fromthe Galveston Bay area (Aten 1983b:Figures 12.4,12.6; W. Black 1989:1-7; Ricklis 1994a:Figures 7.13,
7.14, 7.15, 7.20, 7.21) and Coles Creek Incised pot-tery, particularly the relatively late Hardy variety,from the Louisiana coast and Lower Mississippi Valley(Phillips 1970). Along the central Texas coast, the“Grassy Point motif” is known in limited amountsfrom a few scattered sites (Campbell 1962:332, Figure1; Suhm and Jelks 1962:133, Plate 67), with GuadalupeBay providing the largest sample to date. As notedby several previous researchers (Campbell 1962:332;Corbin 1974:45; Ricklis 1990b:614), this motif, alongwith all other motifs associated with Rockport In-cised, is more common in the northern part of therange of Rockport ceramics, thereby strengtheningits close ties to Goose Creek and San Jacinto In-cised. Corbin (1974:45), in fact, sees the most ob-vious relationship with Galveston Bay ceramics thatdate to Aten’s (1983b) Old River period, ca. A.D.1350 to 1700.
Rockport Incised, “Marsh Point motif” (n=4)
This is another motif composed of a relativelysimple, single design element. It consists of a se-ries of narrow, parallel lines incised either in a con-tinuous diagonal band around the upper part of thevessel’s exterior, or in a series of distinct diagonalsets separated by undecorated areas, also around theupper part of the vessel’s exterior (Figure 7-19). Inthe future, with more specimens available for study,it may be possible to separate these two patterns intodifferent motifs. For now, they are simply listed as“Marsh Point.” Generally, the lines of “Marsh Point”were more carefully incised than those of the “GrassyPoint motif,” apparently at a time when the clay hadreached a leather-hard state. As with “Grassy Point,”the “Marsh Point motif” begins directly below thelip and extends down the neck of the vessel fromthat point.
There are four rim sherds that can be confidentlyassigned to this motif. Only one contains a com-plete set of four individual lines (see Figure 7-19, c),with the overall set measuring 5 mm across. Therest of the sherds have between three and five lines.Since none of these latter sherds exhibits a completeset of lines, the line totals should be viewed as minimumfigures. In addition, none of the sherds showed thefull decorative field, so it is impossible to determineexactly how far the overall decoration extends be-low the lip. Since there are only four “Marsh Point”sherds present in the collection from Guadalupe Bay,they occur on a limited number of varieties: twoeach on Rockport Incised, vars. Rockport and Mis-sion Lake.
Figure 7-18. Additional sherds with the “GrassyPoint motif.” (a-e) Partial “GrassyPoint” rims of Rockport Incised, var.Plank Bridge; (f-h) Partial “GrassyPoint” rims of Rockport Incised, var.Mustang Lake; (i-j) Partial “GrassyPoint” rims of Rockport Incised, var.Sommerville. (See Appendix K forprovenience data.)
a b
c
e f g
h
d
i
j
0 3
cm
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
316
Unlike “Grassy Point,” the “Marsh Point mo-tif” appears to be less closely tied to motifs in theGalveston Bay area. Although a few similar designshave been illustrated for San Jacinto and Goose CreekIncised (Aten 1983b:Figure 12.6; W. Black 1989b:26),sherds of these types more commonly exhibit verti-cal, rather than diagonal, incised lines (Aten1983b:Figure 12.6; W. Black 1989b:25; Ricklis1994a:Figures 7.16, 7.18, 7.21). Diagonal incisedlines actually are more common in sherds of MaziqueIncised, especially the Manchac variety, from coastalLouisiana and the Lower Mississippi Valley (Phillips1970). Interestingly, no examples of “Marsh Point”are illustrated in any of the previous studies cover-ing the coastal bend area, although it is likely thatat least a few specimens occur at scattered sites inthe northern part of the region.
Rockport Incised, “Cox Point motif” (n=8)
The “Cox Point motif” is a relatively commondesign that has been recognized as an element ofRockport ceramics since the 1930s (Potter 1930:Plate�7;Campbell 1962:332, Figure 1). It consists of a single,
horizontal zigzag line that circles the upper part ofthe vessel’s exterior just below the lip (Figure 7-20).Unlike all other Rockport Incised motifs, the linethat forms “Cox Point” is relatively wide, and fallsin the medium category (between 2 and 4 mm) asdefined in the present study. It also is particu-larly sloppy, and exhibits burred edges formed byincising in a wet paste. These characteristics serveto set the motif off from other horizontal zigzaglines that most likely are elements in more-com-plicated motifs. All “Cox Point” examples fromGuadalupe Bay are unzoned; however, specimensillustrated by other researchers (Potter 1930:Plate 7,1 and 3) include zoned examples that could even-tually be set up as a separate motif.
There are seven rims and one body sherd of “CoxPoint” in the current collection. All were classifiedas Rockport Incised, var. Mission Lake. Two of therims fit together, while three other sherds almostcertainly are from the same vessel. Thus, the entirecollection most likely represents the remains of onlyone or two vessels. Regardless, on all rim sherdsthe highest point (that closest to the lip) on the zig-
Figure 7-19. Rockport Incised, “Marsh Point motif.” (a) Idealized “Marsh Point” vessel; (b-c) “MarshPoint” rims of Rockport Incised, var. Rockport; (d-e) “Marsh Point” rims of RockportIncised, var. Mission Lake. (d and e are probably from the same vessel.) (See AppendixK for provenience data.)
a
b c
ed
0 3
cm
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
317
zag line is between 5 and 7 mm from the sherd’slip. Individual zigs (or zags) measure about 15 mmin length, while the entire zigzag pattern has an overallwidth of between 10 and 15 mm.
As noted, this motif has been recognized as aRockport design since the first ceramic studies wereattempted, and it has been illustrated on severalprevious occasions (Campbell 1962:Figure 1; Corbin1974:Figure 14; Potter 1930:Plate 7; Suhm andJelks 1962:Plate 67). Only a few sherds exhibit-ing designs similar to the “Cox Point motif” havebeen reported in the Galveston Bay area (Ricklis1994a:Table 7.7, Figure 7.21, c), while no coun-terparts are known from the Louisiana coast orthe Lower Mississippi Valley. This suggests thatthe “Cox Point motif” is principally confined tothe central Texas coast, and probably is a true Rockportdiagnostic.
Rockport Incised, “Cedar Point motif” (n=6)
This motif is represented by crosshatched linesthat occur in a band that circles the upper part ofthe vessel’s exterior (Figure 7-21). At times the cross-hatched band is positioned immediately below thelip, while other examples include an obvious non-decorated zone between the top of the band and thevessel’s lip. The crosshatched lines are narrow, butsomewhat sloppy, suggesting that the clay was relativelywet when the vessel was incised.
There are four examples of “Cedar Point” rimsin the present collection (see Figure 7-21, b-d, f).Three have the decorative band beginning imme-diately below the lip, while one has the band be-ginning 9 mm below the lip. Three were classi-fied as Rockport Incised, var. Mustang Lake andone as var. Mission Lake. The other two speci-
a
b c
e
f
g
h
d
0 3
cm
Figure 7-20. Rockport Incised, “Cox Point motif.” (a) Idealized “Cox Point” vessel; (b-g) Complete“Cox Point” rim sherds of Rockport Incised, var. Mission Lake; (h) Partial “Cox Point”rim of Rockport Incised, var. Mission Lake. (b composed of two sherds that fit together;c, e, and g probably from same vessel.) (See Appendix K for provenience data.)
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
318
mens are body sherds that exhibit enough of thedecorative field to allow for their identificationas “Cedar Point.” One is on Plank Bridge paste,and the other is on Sommerville paste. Additionalexamples of crosshatching are present in the col-
lection from Guadalupe Bay, but, since none is arim or contains a large enough area to identifythe decorative band, it is impossible to determineif these latter sherds are examples of the “CedarPoint motif” or if they are parts of the crosshatched
Figure 7-21. Rockport Incised, “Cedar Point motif.” (a) Idealized “Cedar Point” vessel with decora-tive band located immediately below the lip; (b-d) Complete “Cedar Point” rims withdecorative band below lip, all Rockport Incised, var. Mustang Lake; (e) Partial “CedarPoint” rim of Rockport Incised, var. Plank Bridge; (f-g) Partial “Cedar Point” rims withdecoration in a band placed several millimeters below the lip (f on Mission Lake paste, gon Sommerville paste); (h) Idealized “Cedar Point” vessel with decorative band sepa-rated from the lip by a nondecorated zone. (See Appendix K for provenience data.)
a
b c
e
f g
h
d
0 3
cm
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
319
element associated with the “Foster Point motif,”to be discussed below.
Rare examples of “Cedar Point” have been notedand/or illustrated by past researchers working withRockport ceramics (Campbell 1962:332, Figure 1;Suhm and Jelks 1962:133). A similar design morecommonly occurs on Goose Creek and San JacintoIncised sherds from the upper Texas coast (W. Black1989b:23, S-4; Corbin 1974:Figure 14; Ricklis1994a:Table 7.7, Figures 7.17, 7.19, 7.23) and onsherds of the type Harrison Bayou Incised from theLouisiana coast and Lower Mississippi Valley (Phillips1970). All of this implies an upper coast “connec-tion” for the motif.
Rockport Incised, “Keeran Point motif”(n=20)
The general decorative idea of the “Keeran Pointmotif” is similar to that of “Cedar Point,” with theimportant exception that “Keeran Point” exhibitsmultiple horizontal lines with subsequent overincising.At Guadalupe Bay, “Keeran Point” comes in threebasic patterns: horizontal lines with vertical overincisedlines (Figure 7-22), horizontal lines with diagonaloverincised lines (Figure 7-23), and horizontal lineswith crosshatched overincised lines (Figure 7-24).Eventually, these three patterns may be set up asseparate motifs. For now, however, it is the tech-nique of overincising that allows them to be groupedtogether as “Keeran Point.” As with “Cedar Point,”the “Keeran Point motif” occurs in a band aroundthe upper part of the vessel, sometimes with a non-decorated zone between the band and the lip, some-times with the motif occurring immediately belowthe lip.
Of the 20 sherds that comprise this motif atGuadalupe Bay, eight sherds (one rim, seven bodies)exhibit vertical overincised lines, another four sherds(all bodies) contain crosshatched overincised lines,and eight sherds (two rims, six bodies) have di-agonal overincised lines. Those with verticaloverincised lines were classified as Rockport In-cised, vars. Mission Lake (n=2), Mustang Lake(n=3), and Plank Bridge (n=3). The four withcrosshatched overincising were identified asRockport Incised, vars. Mustang Lake, PlankBridge, Sommerville, and Rockport, while those withdiagonal overincising were classified as vars. Mis-sion Lake (n=4), Mustang Lake (n=2), Plank Bridge(n=1), and Sommerville (n=1).
Two of the sherds with vertical overincising fittogether and allow for measurements to be recordedregarding placement and width of the decorative field(see Figure 7-22, b). These sherds indicate that thedecorated band is 12 mm wide and is positioned 10 mmbelow the lip of the vessel. In addition, two ofthe sherds with diagonal overincising exhibit adecorative field that begins immediately belowthe lip (see Figure 7-23, b-c). Since the lowerpart of each sherd is missing, however, it is notpossible to determine the width of the decoratedfield. One of the crosshatched overincised sherdshas a decorated band that is 14 mm wide, but therim is missing making it impossible to determinethe distance between the top of the band and the lip(see Figure 7-24, b). Interestingly, this latter sherd(one of the Mustang Lake specimens) contains redpigment within its incised lines.
Several examples of the “Keeran Point motif”are known from the central Texas coast, having beenillustrated in past publications from the region(Campbell 1962:Figure 1; Corbin 1974:Figure 14;Suhm and Jelks 1962:Plate 67). It also is a fairlycommon motif along the upper Texas coast where ithas been recorded on Goose Creek and San JacintoIncised sherds (Aten 1983b:Figures 12.4, 12.6; W.Black 1989b:10-12, 19, S-3 to S-4; Ricklis 1994a:Figure 7.16). Overincising is relatively rare farthereast along the Louisiana coast, although several ex-amples of Plaquemine Brushed, var. Plaquemine andColes Creek Incised, var. Hardy are known to ex-hibit the technique (Phillips 1970; Weinstein and Kelley1992). This may indicate that the geographical “heart-land” of overincising is in the Galveston Bay area.
Rockport Incised, “Ayres Point motif” (n=5)
This is another motif that has been recognizedfor Rockport Incised sherds for many years (Campbell1962:332). It is represented by multiple design ele-ments consisting of a band of narrow, horizontallyincised lines that circle the upper part of the vessel’sexterior immediately below the lip, plus a series ofpendant, line-filled triangles located beneath the lowestof the horizontal lines (Figures 7-25 and 7-26). Thehorizontal incised lines are identical to those notedabove for the “Grassy Point motif,” while the line-filled triangles exhibit three main patterns: slantedlines, crossed lines, and coalescing lines. At leastone other pattern, that of horizontal lines within thetriangles, is illustrated by Corbin (1974:Figure 14)but not present at Guadalupe Bay.
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
320
There are four body sherds and one rim inthe current sample. Three (all body sherds) arerepresented by the slanted-line pattern of line-filledtriangles, and one each by the crossed and coa-lescing patterns (the latter represented by the lonerim). Three of the sherds were classified as RockportIncised, var. Mustang Lake (including the coa-lescing pattern and two of the slanted-line pat-terns), and one each as Mission Lake (the otherslanted-line pattern) and Rockport (the crossed-line pattern). Only the sherd with the coalescingpattern was complete enough to measure (see Fig-ure 7-26, c). It includes an 8-mm-wide band ofthree horizontal lines extending downward fromthe lip, plus one complete triangle that extendsdownward from the lowest horizontal line for an-
other 13 mm. Although broken, the other foursherds have between three and seven horizontallines above the triangles.
There are 16 other sherds in the present collec-tion that exhibit portions of line-filled triangles, andthese probably represent elements off “Ayres Point”vessels. However, all are from body sherds that lackany of the associated horizontal lines needed foraccurate motif assignment. They could, instead, befrom vessels that only have line-filled triangles presentimmediately below the lip. Definite examples ofsuch a motif are missing from Guadalupe Bay, butare known from other sites along the central Texascoast (i.e., Corbin 1974:Figure 14; Suhm and Jelks1962:Plate 67, D).
Figure 7-22. Rockport Incised, “Keeran Point motif” with vertical overincising. (a) Idealized “KeeranPoint” vessel showing band of horizontal lines with vertical overincised lines; (b) Com-plete “Keeran Point” rim of Rockport Incised, var. Mustang Lake; (c) Partial “KeeranPoint” rim on Mustang Lake paste; (d-e) Partial “Keeran Point” rims of Rockport In-cised, var. Mission Lake ; (f-h) Partial “Keeran Point” rims of Rockport Incised, var.Plank Bridge. (b composed of two sherds that fit together.) (See Appendix K for prove-nience data.)
a
b
c
d
e f
g h
0 3
cm
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
321
As noted above, the “Ayres Point motif” is presentin minor amounts at sites yielding Rockport ceram-ics (Campbell 1962:332, Figure 1; Corbin 1974:Fig-ure 14; Suhm and Jelks 1962:Plate 67, M). It is farmore common at sites in the Galveston Bay area whereit occurs on sherds of Goose Creek Incised and SanJacinto Incised (W. Black 1989b:15-17; Ricklis1994a:Table 7.7, Figures 7.13, 7.22, 7.23). It doesnot appear on sherds farther to the east in Louisianaor within the Lower Mississippi Valley, suggestingthat it is principally an upper Texas coast motif.
Rockport Incised, “Bendewald Pointmotif” (n=12, including one partiallyreconstructed vessel)
The “Bendewald Point motif” is similar to the“Ayres Point motif” save that the pendant trianglesare open rather than filled with incised lines (Fig-ure 7-27). Sometimes there is a single horizontal
zoning line present beneath the triangles, and on afew occasions there are single vertical lines withinalternating pendant triangles.
There are four sherds plus one partially recon-structed vessel that exhibit the “Bendewald Pointmotif.” 9 Of the sherds, two (one rim and one bodysherd) were classified as Rockport Incised, var. MissionLake while the other two (also one rim and one body
Figure 7-23. Rockport Incised, “Keeran Point motif” with diagonal overincised lines. (a) Ideal-ized “Keeran Point” vessel with horizontal lines overincised by diagonal lines;(b-c) “Keeran Point” rims with lip present, indicating decorative zone begins im-mediately below lip (b on Mustang Lake paste, c on Sommerville paste); (d-h) Par-tial “Keeran Point” rim sherds (d-e on Mission Lake paste, f-g on Mustang Lakepaste, h on Plank Bridge paste). (See Appendix K for provenience data.)
a
b c d
e f
g h
0 3
cm
9 Although sherds from the surface collection were not includedin the motif analysis, it is worth noting again the unique sherd ofRockport Incised, var. Plank Bridge (see Figure 7-3) that exhib-its red pigment within, and adjacent to, the incised lines, as it isan excellent example of the “Bendewald Point motif.” The sherdcontains four close-spaced, horizontal, parallel lines situated im-mediately below the lip, plus black banding on the top and outeredge of the lip. Overall, the parallel lines extend downward fromthe lip for a distance of about 5 mm, while the pendant trianglesextend another 6 mm below the lowermost line.
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
322
Figure 7-24. Rockport Incised, “Keeran Point motif” with crosshatched overincising. (a) Idealized“Keeran Point” vessel with band of horizontal lines overincised by crosshatchedlines; (b-e) Partial “Keeran Point” rims with crosshatched overincising (b onMustang Lake paste with red pigment in lines, c on Sommerville paste, d on Rockportpaste, and e on Plank Bridge paste). (See Appendix K for provenience data.)
a
b c
d e
0 3
cm
Figure 7-25. Rockport Incised, “Ayres Point motif” with pendant triangles filled withslanted lines. (a) Idealized “Ayres Point” vessel; (b-c) Partial “Ayres Point”rims exhibiting pendant triangles with slanted lines (b on Mustang Lakepaste and c on Mission Lake paste). (See Appendix K for provenience data.)
a
b
c
0 3
cm
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
323
Figure 7-26. Additional examples of Rockport Incised, “Ayres Point motif.” (a) Idealized“Ayres Point” vessel with pendant triangles filled with crossed lines; (b) Par-tial rim of Rockport Incised, var. Rockport exhibiting the crossed-line, pen-dant-triangle version of the “Ayres Point motif;” (c) Complete rim of RockportIncised, var. Mustang Lake with the “Ayres Point motif” and coalescing lineswithin the pendant triangle; (d) Idealized “Ayres Point” vessel with pendanttriangles filled with coalescing lines. (See Appendix K for provenience data.)
a
b
c
d
0 3
cm
0 3
cm
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
324
sherd) were identified as var. Mustang Lake. TheMission Lake rim contains four horizontal lines thatoccur in a band that extends from the lip downwardfor 5 mm (see Figure 7-27, e). Below these lines,the open triangles extend down for another 4 mm.Thus, the entire motif covers only the upper 9 mmof the vessel. The Mustang Lake rim also exhibitsfour horizontal lines in a band extending down from
the lip for 7 mm (see Figure 7-27, c). The pendanttriangles cover an additional 7 mm, limiting the entiredecorative field to the upper 14 mm of the vessel.
The partially reconstructed vessel is the mostimpressive ceramic item recovered during the ex-cavations at Guadalupe Bay (see Figure 7-27, a-b).It is made up of nine nondecorated body sherds, two
Figure 7-27. Rockport Incised, “Bendewald Point motif.” (a) Idealized “Bendewald Point” vessel;(b) Partially reconstructed vessel of Rockport Incised, var. Mustang Lake exhibiting the“Bendewald Point motif;” (c-d) Complete “Bendewald Point” rims (c on Mustang Lakepaste, d on Mission Lake paste); (e-f) Partial “Bendewald Point” rims (e on MissionLake paste, f on Mustang Lake paste). (See Appendix K for provenience data.)
cm
0 5
a
b
c d e f
0 3
cm
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
325
rim sherds exhibiting only horizontal lines, and sixsherds with both horizontal lines and the pendanttriangles (three of which are rims). All of those withincisions were classified as Rockport Incised, var.Mustang Lake, while the nondecorated body sherdsoriginally were classed as Rockport Plain, var. Austwell.Taken together, the decorative field is quite broad,and covers the upper 40 mm of the vessel. Thereare nine horizontal lines that occupy the top 27 mmof the field, plus a zoned area of pendant trianglesthat extends down from the lowest horizontal linefor an additional 13 mm.
As far as the authors can determine, the “Bende-wald Point motif” is illustrated in only one otherstudy from the coastal bend region (Ricklis 1995d:Figure 21). However, “Bendewald Point” and/or verysimilar motifs appear, to a limited extent, on GooseCreek and San Jacinto Incised sherds from the up-per Texas coast (Aten 1983b:12.4, 12.6; W. Black1989:17; Corbin 1974:Figure 14; Ricklis 1994a:Table7.7, Figures 7.15, 7.21, 7.22). Similar motifs alsoare common, either as triangular punctations or in-cised triangles, on several ceramic types typical of
the Coles Creek and early Plaquemine cultures inLouisiana and the Lower Mississippi Valley, par-ticularly Coles Creek Incised, Mazique Incised,and Plaquemine Brushed (Belmont n.d.; Phillips1970; Williams and Brain 1983; see also Ricklis1994a:Figure 7.24). Considering all of this, it is likelythat the Guadalupe Bay site is located either at orvery near the southern edge of the overall distribu-tion of the “Bendewald Point motif.” The motif’smajor area of distribution appears to be situated fartherup the Texas coast and on into coastal Louisiana.
Rockport Incised, “Foster Point motif” (n=2)
The final motif recognized for Rockport In-cised at Guadalupe Bay includes the coupling ofmultiple horizontal lines with an underlying zoneof crosshatched lines, all situated around the up-per part of the vessel’s exterior (Figure 7-28). Inthis instance, the horizontal lines are identical tothose noted above for the “Grassy Point,” “AyresPoint,” and “Bendewald Point” motifs. The cross-hatched lines apparently serve the same “embel-lishment” purpose as the pendant triangles recog-
Figure 7-28. Rockport Incised, “Foster Point motif.” (a) Idealized “Foster Point” vessel; (b) Com-plete “Foster Point” rim of Rockport Incised, var. Sommerville; (c) Partial “Foster Point”rim of Rockport Incised, var. Mission Lake. (See Appendix K for provenience data.)
a
b c
0 3
cm
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
326
nized as elements of the “Ayres Point” and “BendewaldPoint” motifs.
Although there are many sherds exhibiting cross-hatched lines at Guadalupe Bay (see Table 7-14),only two can be confidently assigned to the “FosterPoint motif.” The remainder are from small sherdsthat lack the associated horizontal lines, so it is notcertain if they are elements of “Foster Point” or “CedarPoint.” One of the two sherds is a complete rimclassed as Rockport Incised, var. Sommerville (seeFigure 7-28, b). It exhibits eight narrow, relativelysloppy, horizontal lines that cover the upper 22 mmof the rim. These lines are underlain by equally sloppycrosshatched lines that extend downward for another10 cm. In addition to the general sloppiness of thedecoration, all lines have pronounced areas of “pushed-up” clay or burring along their margins indicatingthat the paste of the vessel was fairly wet when theincising occurred. The other “Foster Point” speci-men is a body sherd classified as Rockport Incised,var. Mission Lake (see Figure 7-28, c). It containstwo relatively fine, well-made horizontal lines overlyinga relatively wide band of crosshatching that is at least23 mm wide. Although some burring is present alongthe margins of the lines, all are more carefully in-cised than those of the other specimen.
The “Foster Point motif” represents one of theearliest designs ever illustrated for Rockport ceramics,having been included by Potter (1930:Plate 7) in hisinitial study of decorated pottery from the coastalbend area. Somewhat surprisingly, to the authors’knowledge no subsequent publications on the regionprovide any additional illustrated examples. It alsois surprising to find that the motif is not particu-larly common farther up the coast. Only one ex-ample of a similar, but not identical, motif has beenillustrated from the Galveston Bay area (W. Black1989b:13). It also is lacking from the Louisiana coastand Lower Mississippi Valley. This strongly sug-gests that the motif may have its strongest showingalong the central Texas coast, and it may prove tobe an excellent marker of Karankawan culture. Itsrelative scarcity even in this potential heartland maylessen its overall usefulness, however.
Rockport Incised Motifs by Analysis Unit
Table 7-20 lists the various motif sherds ofRockport Incised by analysis unit. As with previ-ous discussions of this sort, it was hoped that ex-amination by analysis unit might help identify chro-nological and/or intrasite spatial trends that could
be meaningful to future studies. Unfortunately, dueto the apparent mixed nature of the Stratum 2 midden(AUs 2 through 5) few patterns immediately becomeobvious. For instance, all motifs that occur in theupper portions of Stratum 2 (AUs 2 and 3) (“GrassyPoint,” “Marsh Point,” “Cox Point,” “Cedar Point,”and “Keeran Point”) also occur in the lower portionsof the stratum (AUs 4 and 5), and usually in com-parable amounts. Only “Keeran Point” shows a sig-nificantly greater amount in AU 3 vs. AU 5 (10 vs.4 sherds), but this is offset by the presence of anadditional four sherds from AU 6, the Stratum 3 Rangiamidden beneath Stratum 2 in Block 3 (and the pos-sible origin for many of the sherds located in thelower portion of Stratum 2), plus two sherds fromAU 7, the apparent Rockport oyster deposit in Block 3.
Despite the above, three motifs (“Ayres Point,”“Bendewald Point,” and “Foster Point”) occur onlyin the lower portions of Stratum 2 (AUs 4 and 5)and/or the underlying Stratum 3 Rangia midden inBlock 3 (AU 6). Although the sample size for eachof these motifs is relatively small, and includes theeight sherds of “Bendewald Point” from the partiallyreconstructed vessel found in Sample Unit N70W110,these motifs may represent early Rockport phasedesigns worthy of future chronological consideration.
Spatially, most of the motif sherds, like most ofthe other ceramics, were found in the area of Block3 (AUs 3, 5, 6, and 7), although a small number ofmotif specimens also came from the area around Blocks1 and 2 (AUs 2 and 4). The latter included examplesof “Grassy Point,” “Cedar Point,” “Ayres Point,”“Bendewald Point,” and “Foster Point.” Interest-ingly, of those motifs with relatively large samplesizes, no “Keeran Point” sherds were identified inthe area of Blocks 1 and 2. What this means is un-certain, if it means anything at all, but it may pointto a link between the “Keeran Point motif” and ves-sels associated with feasting and/or ceremonies, ac-tivities believed to have taken place around Block 3.
Rockport Black Motifs
There are seven motifs recognized for RockportBlack (Table 7-21). Some are similar to those notedbelow for Rockport Black-on-gray, although thereare several differences that may prove meaningfulin the future. On the contrary, it may later be found,with greater recognition of motifs from other sites,that there are no differences between the painted wares,and a single set of motif names could be used tocover both Rockport Black and Rockport Black-on-
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
327
Tabl
e 7-
20.
Dec
orat
ive
Mot
ifs
of R
ockp
ort
Inci
sed,
by
Ana
lysi
s U
nit.
Mo
tifs
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
To
tal
% T
otal
"G
rass
y P
oin
t"va
r. R
ockp
ort
00.
004
18.1
80
0.00
14.
353
16.6
70
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
89
.41
var.
Mis
sion
Lak
e0
0.00
14.
551
9.09
313
.04
211
.11
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
150
.00
89
.41
var.
Pla
nk B
ridg
e0
0.00
14.
550
0.00
14.
351
5.56
00.
000
0.00
110
0.00
00.
001
50.0
05
5.8
8va
r. S
omm
ervi
lle
00.
001
4.55
00.
001
4.35
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
22
.35
var.
Mus
tang
Lak
e3
75.0
01
4.55
00.
001
4.35
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
55
.88
"G
rass
y P
oin
t"
tota
l3
75
.00
83
6.3
61
9.0
97
30
.43
63
3.3
30
0.0
00
0.0
01
10
0.0
00
0.0
02
10
0.0
02
83
2.9
4
"M
arsh
Poi
nt"
var.
Roc
kpor
t0
0.00
29.
090
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
002
2.3
5va
r. M
issi
on L
ake
00.
000
0.00
00.
002
8.70
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
22
.35
"M
arsh
P
oin
t"
tota
l0
0.0
02
9.0
90
0.0
02
8.7
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
04
4.7
1
"C
ox
Poi
nt"
var.
Mis
sion
Lak
e0
0.00
14.
550
0.00
313
.04
422
.22
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
008
9.4
1
"C
ox
Poi
nt"
to
tal
00
.00
14
.55
00
.00
31
3.0
44
22
.22
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
89
.41
"C
edar
Poi
nt"
var.
Mis
sion
Lak
e0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
5.56
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
1.1
8va
r. M
usta
ng L
ake
125
.00
00.
000
0.00
14.
351
5.56
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
003
3.5
3va
r. P
lank
Bri
dge
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
4.35
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
11
.18
var.
Som
mer
vill
e0
0.00
14.
550
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
1.1
8
"C
edar
Poi
nt"
tot
al1
25
.00
14
.55
00
.00
28
.70
21
1.1
10
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
06
7.0
6
"K
e er a
n P
oin
t"va
r. R
ockp
ort
00.
001
4.55
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
11
.18
var.
Mis
sion
Lak
e0
0.00
418
.18
00.
001
4.35
15.
560
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
67
.06
var.
Pla
nk B
ridg
e0
0.00
29.
090
0.00
313
.04
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
55
.88
var.
Som
mer
vill
e0
0.00
29.
090
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
002
2.3
5va
r. M
usta
ng L
ake
00.
001
4.55
00.
000
0.00
316
.67
210
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
67
.06
"K
e er a
n P
oin
t" t
otal
00
.00
10
45
.45
00
.00
41
7.3
94
22
.22
21
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
20
23
.53
"A
yre s
P
oin
t"va
r. R
ockp
ort
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
110
0.00
00.
001
1.1
8va
r. M
issi
on L
ake
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
4.35
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
11
.18
var.
Mus
tang
Lak
e0
0.00
00.
001
9.09
28.
700
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
003
3.5
3
"A
yre s
P
oin
t"
tota
l0
0.0
00
0.0
01
9.0
93
13
.04
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
11
00
.00
00
.00
55
.88
"B
end
ewal
d P
oin
t"va
r. M
issi
on L
ake
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
4.35
15.
560
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
22
.35
var.
Mus
tang
Lak
e*0
0.00
00.
008
72.7
31
4.35
15.
560
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
10
11
.76
"B
end
ewal
d
Poi
nt"
to
tal
00
.00
00
.00
87
2.7
32
8.7
02
11
.11
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
12
14
.12
"F
oste
r P
oin
t"va
r. M
issi
on L
ake
00.
000
0.00
19.
090
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
11
.18
var.
Som
mer
vill
e0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
100.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
11
.18
"F
oste
r P
oin
t"
tota
l0
0.0
00
0.0
01
9.0
90
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
01
10
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
02
2.3
5
Sit
e T
otal
41
00
.00
22
10
0.0
01
11
00
.00
23
10
0.0
01
81
00
.00
21
00
.00
11
00
.00
11
00
.00
11
00
.00
21
00
.00
85
10
0.0
0
AU
2
AU
3
AU
4
An
alys
is
Un
its
AU
5
AU
6
AU
7
* S
herd
s fr
om A
U 4
are
fro
m p
arti
ally
rec
onst
ruct
ed ja
r fr
om S
ampl
e U
nit N
70W
110.
AU
8A
U 1
0A
U 1
1N
o A
U
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
328
gray designs. Until then, however, the motifs of thetwo types will receive separate names. It also shouldbe noted that several of the motifs are based on smallsherds making establishment of the motifs somewhattentative. It is hoped, however, that future studieseither will confirm or reject the legitimacy of thesemotifs.
It should be reiterated at this point that sherdsexhibiting only painted bands around the lip were,by definition, classified either as Rockport Black orRockport Black-on-gray. As such, these sherds forma large percentage of all decorated designs of thesetwo types. Earlier investigators also had noted thesame preponderance of black-banded rims (Campbell1958a, 1962), and Ricklis (1990b:616-617, Figure 65,1995a:199, Figure 17) set up banded rims as a separatetype that he labeled “Rockport Black-on-gray I.” Sinceonly small rim sherds are present in the current col-lection, as opposed to whole vessels or relativelylarge rims, it is impossible to determine if the paintedband occurs alone, and, thus, is the only decorationon the vessel, or if it actually is associated with otherdecorative elements. For that reason, the presentauthors were somewhat hesitant at first to set up blackbanding as a decorative motif. To have ignored blackbanding, however, would have eliminated one of themost potentially prominent forms of Rockport deco-
ration from the list of recognized motifs. As paststudies (Campbell 1958a, 1962; Potter 1930; Ricklis1990b, 1995a; Suhm and Krieger 1954; Suhm andJelks 1962) have shown that vessels with only blackbanding do, indeed, exist, the decision eventuallywas made to identify rim sherds with black bandingas a specific motif. It should be understood, how-ever, that many of these sherds may actually befrom vessels with some form of body decoration.Until a selection of whole vessels or a sample oflarge-enough sherds is examined, it probably willbe impossible to know the percentage of vessels ina Rockport ceramic assemblage that contain only black-banded rims.
Rockport Black, “Carancahua Bay motif”(n=143)
As just discussed, the “Carancahua Bay motif”(along with its sister motif, “Steamboat Island,” seebelow) consists simply of a black rim band that pri-marily circles the exterior and top portions of a vessel’slip (Figure 7-29). At times the band may also occuron the interior edge of the lip. “Carancahua Bay”apparently represents the most common of all RockportBlack motifs, but, as noted above, that may be morea reflection of sherd size than actual prominence.Sherds exhibiting either the “Carancahua Bay” or
Rim Body Rim Body Rim Body Rim Body Rim Body Total % Total
Motifs
"Carancahua Bay" 60 0 17 0 10 0 50 0 6 0 1 4 3 9 2 . 8 6
"Copano Bay" 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 . 3 0
"Espíritu Santo Bay" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 . 6 5
"Pats Bay" 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 . 6 5
"Aransas Bay" 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 . 3 0
"Shoalwater Bay" 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 . 6 5
"Mesquite Bay" 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 . 6 0
Total 6 4 0 1 9 0 1 1 0 5 3 0 7 0 1 5 4 1 0 0 . 0 0
var .Rockpor
t
var .Elm Bayou
var .Kuy Creek
var .Lol i ta
var .Spring Bayou
Rockport Black
Table 7-21. Decorative Motifs Recognized on Sherds of Rockport Black at Guadalupe Bay.
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
329
“Steamboat Island” motifs are reported to make upthe bulk of all decorated ceramics from previousRockport assemblages (Campbell 1958a:435,1962:332; Suhm and Krieger 1954:384; Suhm andJelks 1962:131), and, as just noted, Ricklis (1990b:616-617, Figure 65) set up the design as a separate typethat he labeled Rockport Black-on-gray I.
There are 143 “Carancahua Bay” rim sherds inthe current collection. The majority of these (n=117;81.8 percent) originally were classified as RockportBlack, vars. Rockport and Lolita, although all otherRockport Black varieties also were included (seeTable�7-21). As with all black-banded lip deco-ration (see Table 7-15), most of the “CarancahuaBay” sherds contained asphaltum on the top, ex-terior, and interior of the vessel’s lip (n=81; 56.6
percent), while lesser quantities had asphaltumonly on the top of the lip (n=25; 17.5 percent),the top and exterior portion of the lip (n=20;14.0 percent), or the top and interior part of thelip (n=17; 11.9 percent). Six of the sherds, allwith asphaltum paint only on the top of the lip,also had incised lines placed across the lip (threewith perpendicular lines and three with slantedlines) Two others, again with paint only on top ofthe lip, exhibited lip notches (both of the narrow form).
As noted, the “Carancahua Bay motif” has beenrecognized for years as one of the prime decorativedesigns associated with Rockport ceramics (Campbell1958a:435, 1962:332; Suhm and Krieger 1954:384;Suhm and Jelks 1962:131; Ricklis 1990b, 1995a),and it occurs quite commonly on most Rockport sites
Figure 7-29. Rockport Black, “Carancahua Bay motif.” (a) Idealized “Carancahua Bay” vessel; (b-k) Rim sherds exhibiting the “Carancahua Bay motif.” (b-c with Rockport paste, d-hwith Lolita paste, i with Spring Bayou paste, j with Kuy Creek paste, and k with ElmBayou paste.) (See Appendix K for provenience data.)
a
b c d
e f
g h
i j k
0 3
cm
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
330
along the central Texas coast. It also is worth not-ing the occurrence of similar lip banding on the rimsof several vessels typed by Mounger (1959:168-169,Plates 13, 15, 17, 25) as Goliad Red-on-buff and GoliadBlack-on-buff from Mission Espíritu Santo. Thisindicates that the idea of lip banding lasted into his-toric times in the region.
Rockport Black, “Copano Bay motif”(n=2, but probably ~70)
“Copano Bay” (along with its sister motif“Matagorda Island”) represents one of the most com-mon of all asphaltum-painted motifs found on Rockportceramics. It is marked by a black lip band that usu-ally covers both the top and exterior edge of the vesselrim, sometimes the interior edge, and from whichdescend individually painted wavy or squiggled verticallines on the exterior portion of the vessel (Figure 7-30).Such lines can be either slightly or highly wavy, andbe narrow, medium, or wide in width. With more
data in the future, it may be possible to identify ad-ditional motifs based on the width and “waviness”of the lines. In the past, this motif would have beenincluded in the type “Rockport Black-on-gray II”proposed by Ricklis (1990b:617-619, Figure 65).
Although this motif probably is one of the mostcommon of all motifs present on Rockport Blackceramics, only two rim sherds from Guadalupe Baycould be definitely assigned to the category. Nev-ertheless, most, if not all, of the other Rockport Blacksherds with vertical wavy lines, curved lines, and/or wavy lines of unknown orientation (see Table 7-13)probably are elements of the “Copano Bay motif.”However, since these sherds might be from vesselsthat contain alternating rows of dots and wavy lines(similar to the “Turnstake Island motif” of RockportBlack-on-gray) or other motifs not yet recognized,it is not possible to confidently assign them to “CopanoBay.” Likewise, as noted earlier, it is possible thatmost of the vertical straight lines identified as a single
Figure 7-30. Rockport Black, “Copano Bay motif.” (a) Idealized “Copano Bay” vessel; (b-c) Rim sherds of Rockport Black, var. Rockport with the “Copano Bay motif.”(See Appendix K for provenience data.)
a b
0 3
cm
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
331
design element on Table 7-13 actually represent verysmall segments of wavy lines that were too short toinclude a recognizable bend or wave in the line. Thus,if all of these additional design elements are included,then something on the order of about 70 “CopanoBay” sherds may actually be represented in the presentcollection.
The two definite “Copano Bay” sherds originallywere classified as Rockport Black, var. Rockport.Both include a wide lip band (greater than 4 mm)on the exterior, interior, and top of a flat lip, coupledwith slightly wavy, wide vertical lines.
The “Copano Bay motif” (and/or the “MatagordaIsland motif”) was one of the earliest of all decora-tive patterns recognized on Rockport ceramics (Potter1930:43, Plate 8), and it has consistently remainedso throughout the years (Campbell 1958a:435, Fig-ure 5, 1962:332, Figure 1; Ricklis 1990b:617-619;Suhm and Krieger 1954:384, Plate 73; Suhm andJelks 1962:131, Plate 66). It also is one of the mostwidespread motifs, occurring on sites throughout allof the central Texas coastal area. Ricklis (1996:30)has suggested that many of the vessels exhibitingthis motif might have functioned specifically as con-tainers for water or other liquids, and that the wavylines symbolically represent the flowing liquid.
Interestingly, Mounger (1959:Plate 23) illustratesseveral sherds of Goliad Black-on-buff from Mis-sion Espíritu Santo that contain vertical wavy linesreminiscent of the “Copano Bay motif.” One of thesherds (in the upper right-hand corner of the plate)appears to be a rim with an associated black band.If the latter is the case, then it can be hypothesizedthat a motif very much like that of “Copano Bay”still was in vogue at least into the eighteenth cen-tury.10
Rockport Black, “Espíritu Santo Bay motif” (n=1)
This motif is similar to that of “Copano Bay”save that the lines descending from the vessel rim
are straight diagonals rather than vertical squiggles(Figure 7-31). Although only one definite exampleof this motif is present in the current sample, Campbell(1958a:435, Figure 5, f-g, 1962:332, Figure 1, I, K)notes its occurrence at other sites in the region. Forthat reason it is considered a viable decorative pat-tern.
The one sherd of “Espíritu Santo Bay” from theGuadalupe Bay site was classed as Rockport Black,var. Spring Bayou. It exhibits a medium-wide bandon the top and interior of a rounded lip, with a single,narrow line descending from the band. Aside fromthe few sherds discussed and illustrated by Campbell,no other examples of this motif are known.
Rockport Black, “Pats Bay motif” (n=1)
The “Pats Bay motif” is almost identical to the“Espíritu Santo motif” except that the lines descendingfrom the vessel rim are vertical rather than diago-nal (Figure 7-32). Again, only one definite exampleof the motif was present at Guadalupe Bay. It con-sists of a rim sherd of Rockport Black, var. Lolitawith a round lip and a wide black band on the exte-rior, interior, and top of the lip. The vertical linesare relatively wide, measuring more than 4 mm across.
Although not common, vertical straight lines areknown from other Rockport assemblages from thecentral Texas coast (Campbell 1958a:435, 1962:332).It may be that these straight lines are nothing morethan aberrant versions of wavy vertical lines. If not,however, than they may have some chronologicalor spatial significance, and, for that reason, futurestudies should address their possible presence in anassemblage.
It may be worth noting that Mounger (1959:Plate17) illustrates several examples of Goliad Red-on-buff from Mission Espíritu Santo that exhibit verti-cal painted lines similar to those of the “Pats Baymotif.” Thus, as with the “Copano Bay motif,” itmay be possible that designs very similar to “PatsBay” lasted into the Historic period in the region.
10 It should be noted, however, that six of the sherds illustratedby Mounger (1959:Plates 21-23), and identified as Goliad Black-on-buff, had been illustrated previously by Suhm and Krieger(1954:Plate 73, A, C, D-E, I, R) as examples of Rockport Black-on-gray. These same sherds subsequently were illustratedby Suhm and Jelks (1962:Plate 66, A, C, D-E, I, R) again asRockport Black-on-gray. Thus, the uncertain classification
of these specimens raises questions about the actual natureof Goliad Black-on-buff and whether it truly represents AranamaIndian ceramics. Perhaps these sherds simply are portionsof Rockport trade vessels that were utilized by the Aranama,or perhaps they pertain to a minor prehistoric Karankawan occu-pation that existed at the site many years prior to its establish-ment as a Spanish mission.
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
332
Figure 7-31. Rockport Black, “Espíritu Santo Bay motif.” (a) Idealized “EspírituSanto Bay” vessel; (b) Rim sherd of Rockport Black, var. Spring Bayouwith the “Espíritu Santo Bay motif.” (See Appendix K for prove-nience data.)
a
b
0 3
cm
Figure 7-32. Rockport Black, “Pats Bay motif.” (a) Idealized “Pats Bay” vessel;(b) Rim sherd of Rockport Black, var. Lolita with the “Pats Bay”motif. (See Appendix K for provenience data.)
a
b
0 3
cm
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
333
Rockport Black, “Aransas Bay motif” (n=2)
“Aransas Bay” (and its decorative sister, “KenyonIsland”) appears to be a minor, but relatively con-sistent, motif in Rockport assemblages along the centralTexas coast. It consists of a painted black band aroundthe lip coupled with vertical rows of individuallypainted dots that descend downward from the bandon the exterior portion of the vessel (Figure 7-33).
An excellent example of either the “Aransas Bay”or “Kenyon Island” motif, from the Blink Bonniesite near Rockport, is illustrated by Potter (1930:44,Plate 9). Other potential examples are reported byCampbell (1962:332, Figure 1, L), Suhm and Krieger(1954:384), and Suhm and Jelks (1962:131). Pre-vious investigations at Guadalupe Bay (Weinsteinand Scott 1972:Figures 7-5 and 7-9) also recoveredsherds exhibiting either “Aransas Bay” or “KenyonIsland” motifs.
Two rim sherds of “Aransas Bay” are presentin the current collection. Both have wide bands present
on the exterior, top, and interior portions of flat lips,with medium-wide dots descending down from theband. One sherd was classed originally as RockportBlack, var. Lolita, while the other was identified asRockport Black, var. Rockport.
In addition to sites with Rockport components,designs similar to “Aransas Bay” are shown byMounger (1959:Plates 13, 25) from Mission EspírituSanto near Goliad. In those cases, sherds of bothGoliad Red-on-buff and Goliad Black-on-buff ex-hibit rows of individual dots descending from ves-sel rims. As with the “Copano Bay motif,” it maybe assumed, therefore, that a decorative design similarto “Aransas Bay” lasted at least until the eighteenthcentury.
Rockport Black, “Shoalwater Bay motif”(n=1)
This is a rather unique motif represented by asingle, wide, horizontal black band that circles theupper part of the interior portion of shallow bowls
Figure 7-33. Rockport Black, “Aransas Bay motif.” (a) Idealized “Aransas Bay” vessel;(b-c) Rim sherds with the “Aransas Bay motif” (b with Lolita paste and cwith Rockport paste). (See Appendix K for provenience data.)
a
b c
0 3
cm
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
334
and/or plates (Figure 7-34). The lone example inthe current collection occurs on a rim sherd of RockportBlack, var. Lolita that also exhibits black coatingon its top and interior portions. The black band is5�mm wide and located 9�mm below the lip.
Similar, though not identical, designs are illus-trated by Campbell (1958a) from the Live Oak Pointsite. One (Campbell 1958a:Figure 5, c) clearly in-cludes a horizontal band on the interior of a shallowbowl or plate, although several vertical wavy lines alsoare present. Another (Campbell 1958a:Figure 5, u) showstwo horizontal bands on what probably is the exte-rior of the vessel.
Rockport Black, “Mesquite Bay motif” (n=4,but probably 12)
“Mesquite Bay” is a tenuous motif representedby irregular areas of blotchy black painting thatMounger (1959:169) referred to as “uneven dabs”(Figure 7-35). This “dabbing” appears as a numberof individual design elements that apparently covera relatively large area of the exterior of the vessel,as compared to the more carefully applied dots foundon Rockport Black and Rockport Black-on-gray.Dabbed rim sherds in the current collection exhibitboth plain and banded lips. For now, both lip formsare included in the motif, but it may be prudent inthe future to establish separate motifs for those sherdsthat contain lip banding and those that lack suchbanding. Whatever the case, it will be necessary
for future studies to acquire a greater sample of the“Mesquite Bay motif,” particularly on larger sherds,before the validity of this motif can be confirmed.
Previous discussions of Rockport ceramics failto mention any designs similar to “Mesquite Bay,”although sloppily applied asphaltum coatings werenoted by Suhm and Krieger (1954:384) and Suhmand Jelks (1962:131). Those authors attributed suchuneven applications to crack-mending and/or water-proofing attempts. While this may be the case inmost instances, it is possible that some of the sloppycoatings actually represent intentional designs similarto the “Mesquite Bay motif.” This is particularlyconceivable if one compares the sherds initially il-lustrated by Suhm and Krieger (1954:Plate 73) andlater by Suhm and Jelks (1962:Plate 66) with thoseshown by Mounger (1959:Plates 21-23). Six of thesherds illustrated by the former authors, and typedas Rockport Black-on-gray, also are illustrated byMounger and identified as Goliad Black-on-buff. Ofthese, at least two (Mounger 1959:Plates 21-22; Suhmand Jelks 1962:Plate 66, I, R) could be examples ofthe random dabbing mentioned by Mounger.
Only four rims in the current sample could beplaced in the “Mesquite Bay” category, although itis likely that the other eight sherds with dabbing (seeTable 7-13) probably are from “Mesquite Bay” ves-sels. Two of the four examples of “Mesquite Bay”originally were classified as Rockport Black, var.Elm Bayou, while one was identified as Rockport
Figure 7-34. Rockport Black, “Shoalwater Bay motif.” (a) Idealized “Shoalwater Bay” ves-sel; (b) Rim sherd of Rockport Black, var. Lolita exhibiting the “Shoalwater Baymotif.” (See Appendix K for provenience data.)
a b
0 3
cm
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
335
Black, var. Rockport, and the other as Rockport Black,var. Kuy Creek. Two (one Elm Bayou sherd, plusthe Rockport sherd) have wide dabbing on rims thatalso contain black banding on the exterior, interior,and top of a round lip, while another (the other ElmBayou sherd) has black banding on the interior andtop of a flat lip. The Kuy Creek sherd has a roundlip, but no black band.
Rockport Black Motifs by Analysis Unit
Once again, the mixed nature of the Stratum2 deposit makes it difficult to identify any clear-cut chronological trends among the differentRockport Black motifs. Nevertheless, a few ob-servations can be made. First, the most commonmotif, “Carancahua Bay,” has its greatest show-ing in the upper levels of the site (Table 7-22).The majority of specimens came from the upperportion of Stratum 2 (AUs 2 and 3) (n=72; 50.4 per-cent), with an additional 11 sherds (7.7 percent)from the overlying Stratum 1 colluvium (AU 1).In contrast, only 57 sherds (39.9 percent) came
from the lower Rockport deposits, including theStratum 3 Rangia midden (AUs 4, 5, and 6). Thismay suggest a general increase in popularity forthe “Carancahua Bay motif” towards the latterportion of the Rockport phase. Also occurringonly in the upper levels of the site were sherdsof the “Espíritu Santo Bay” (AU 1) and “ShoalwaterBay” (AU 3) motifs, although the small samplesize of each precludes any definitive statements.
Motifs occurring only in the lower Rockport levelsinclude “Copano Bay” (AUs 5 and 6) and “Pats Bay”(AU 6) (see Table 7-22) Again, however, the smallsample size of each makes any conclusive remarksimpossible. Likewise, any statements regarding thedistribution of individual motifs across the site arelimited by the small sample sizes for most motifs.Unfortunately, in the one instance where there areenough sherds for potential interpretation, the dis-tribution of sherds of the “Carancahua Bay motif”generally reflects that of the overall ceramic assem-blage, with the majority of the specimens (n=105;73.4 percent) coming from the Block 3 area.
Figure 7-35. Rockport Black, “Mesquite Bay motif.” (a) Idealized “Mesquite Bay” vessel;(b-c) Rim sherds with the “Mesquite Bay motif” (b with Kuy Creek paste,c with Rockport paste, and d with Elm Bayou paste). (See Appendix K forprovenience data.)
a
c d
0 3
cm
b
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
336
Mo
tifs
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
To
tal
% T
otal
"Car
anca
hua
Bay
"va
r. R
ockp
ort
433
.33
214
.29
3150
.00
545
.45
731
.82
1137
.93
00.
000
0.00
00.
006
03
8.9
6va
r. E
lm B
ayou
18.
334
28.5
74
6.45
00.
002
9.09
517
.24
110
0.00
00.
000
0.00
17
11
.04
var.
Kuy
Cre
ek3
25.0
00
0.00
58.
060
0.00
00.
002
6.90
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
06
.49
var.
Lol
ita
325
.00
750
.00
1524
.19
545
.45
940
.91
931
.03
00.
001
100.
001
50.0
05
03
2.4
7va
r. S
prin
g B
ayou
00.
001
7.14
34.
840
0.00
14.
551
3.45
00.
000
0.00
00.
006
3.9
0
"C
aran
cah
ua
Bay
" t
otal
11
91
.67
14
10
0.0
05
89
3.5
51
09
0.9
11
98
6.3
62
89
6.5
51
10
0.0
01
10
0.0
01
50
.00
14
39
2.8
6
"C
opan
o B
ay"
var.
Roc
kpor
t0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
19.
091
4.55
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
21
.30
"C
opan
o B
ay"
tot
al0
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
01
9.0
91
4.5
50
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
02
1.3
0
"E
spír
itu
S
anto
B
ay"
var.
Spr
ing
Bay
ou1
8.33
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
10
.65
"E
spír
itu
S
anto
B
ay"
to
tal
18
.33
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
10
.65
"P
ats
Bay
"va
r. L
olit
a0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
13.
450
0.00
00.
000
0.00
10
.65
"P
ats
Bay
" t
otal
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
13
.45
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
10
.65
"A
ran
sas
Bay
"va
r. R
ockp
ort
00.
000
0.00
11.
610
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
0.6
5va
r. L
olit
a0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
4.55
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
10
.65
"A
ran
sas
Bay
" t
otal
00
.00
00
.00
11
.61
00
.00
14
.55
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
21
.30
"S
hoa
lwat
e r B
ay"
var.
Lol
ita
00.
000
0.00
11.
610
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
0.6
5
"S
hoa
lwat
e r
Bay
"
tota
l0
0.0
00
0.0
01
1.6
10
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
01
0.6
5
"M
e sq
uit
e B
ay"
var.
Roc
kpor
t0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
4.55
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
10
.65
var.
Elm
Bay
ou0
0.00
00.
002
3.23
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
21
.30
var.
Kuy
Cre
ek0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
50.0
01
0.6
5
"M
e sq
uit
e B
ay"
tot
al0
0.0
00
0.0
02
3.2
30
0.0
01
4.5
50
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
01
50
.00
42
.60
Sit
e T
otal
12
10
0.0
01
41
00
.00
62
10
0.0
01
11
00
.00
22
10
0.0
02
91
00
.00
11
00
.00
11
00
.00
21
00
.00
15
41
00
.00
AU
1
AU
2
AU
3
AU
4
An
alys
is
Un
its
AU
5
AU
6
Tabl
e 7-
22.
Dec
orat
ive
Mot
ifs
of R
ockp
ort
Bla
ck, b
y A
naly
sis
Uni
t.
AU
8A
U 1
4N
o A
U
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
337
Rockport Black-on-gray Motifs
As with Rockport Black, there are seven motifsrecognized for Rockport Black-on-gray (Table 7-23).Four are equivalent to motifs found on Rockport Black,but three represent different decorative ideas.
Prior to the individual motif discussions presentedbelow, an explanation should be provided for the lackof a named motif that includes vertical, straight-linepainting on the upper, exterior portion of RockportBlack-on-gray vessels; a motif similar to that iden-tified as “Pats Bay” for Rockport Black. Although28 sherds with vertical straight lines were presentin the collection (see Table 7-12), none was of suf-ficient size, nor did it contain a large-enough rim,for the authors to be certain that a motif equivalentto “Pats Bay” was intended. While it is conceiv-able that some of these sherds may be from vesselswith vertical, straight lines, it is not possible to as-sign any to a new motif. With more data from othersites and collections, however, recognition of sucha motif may be possible.
Rockport Black-on-gray, “Steamboat Islandmotif” (n=322)
This is the Rockport Black-on-gray equivalentto the “Carancahua Bay motif” of Rockport Black,
and most previous statements regarding that motifalso pertain to “Steamboat Island.” It consists sim-ply of a black rim band that primarily circles theexterior and top portions of a vessel’s lip (Figure 7-36). At times the band also occurs on the interioredge of the lip. Because of its relative simplicity,“Steamboat Island” apparently represents the mostcommon of all Rockport motifs (but see the earlierdiscussion regarding Rockport Black motifs). Ac-cordingly, sherds exhibiting the “Steamboat Islandmotif” are reported to make up the bulk of all deco-rated ceramics from previous Rockport assemblages(Campbell 1958a:435, 1962:332; Suhm and Krieger1954:384; Suhm and Jelks 1962:131). Ricklis(1990b:616-617, Figure 65), therefore, set up the designas a separate type—Rockport Black-on-gray I—toreflect the widespread presence of the motif.
There are 322 sherds of “Steamboat Island” inthe current collection from Guadalupe Bay (seeTable�7-23). As with the “Carancahua Bay motif,”the most common sherds of “Steamboat Island” in-clude those with pastes that lack any secondary in-clusions (classed originally as Rockport Black-on-gray, var. Rockport) or contain only bone inclusions(var. Long Mott). Also in keeping with “CarancahuaBay,” the lip banding of “Steamboat Island” mostregularly occurred on the top, exterior, and interiorportions of the vessel’s lip (n=202; 62.7 percent).
Rim Body Rim Body Rim Body Rim Body Rim Body Total % Total
Motifs
"Steamboat Island" 120 0 52 0 38 0 75 0 37 0 3 2 2 9 2 . 8 0
"Matagorda Island" 4 0 5 0 2 0 6 0 0 0 1 7 4 . 9 0
"San José Island" 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 . 8 6
"Rattlesnake Island" 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 . 2 9
"Kenyon Island" 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 . 5 8
"Turnstake Island" 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 . 2 9
"Long Island" 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 . 2 9
Total 1 2 5 0 5 9 0 4 2 0 8 4 0 3 7 0 3 4 7 1 0 0 . 0 0
var .Rockport
var .Buffalo Lake
var .Hog Bayou
var .Long Mott
Rockport Black-on-gray
var. Mosquito Point
Table 7-23. Decorative Motifs Recognized on Sherds of Rockport Black-on-Gray at Guadalupe Bay.
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
338
Figure 7-36. Rockport Black-on-gray, “Steamboat Island motif.” (a) Idealized “Steamboat Island”vessel; (b-t) Rim sherds exhibiting the “Steamboat Island” motif (b-e with Rockport paste,f-h with Long Mott paste, i-o with Buffalo Lake paste, p-s with Hog Bayou paste, and twith Mosquito Point paste). (See Appendix K for provenience data.)
a
b c
d e
f g
h i j k l
m n o p
q r s t
0 3
cm
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
339
This was followed by banding only on the top ofthe lip (n=41; 12.7 percent), on the top and interiorof the lip (again n=41; 12.7 percent), and the topand exterior of the lip (n=32; 9.9 percent). Foursherds also exhibited banding on the top and oneside of the lip, but, due to their small size, it wasimpossible to determine whether the latter placementwas on the interior or exterior part of the vessel. Onesherd also had banding only on the exterior of thelip, while another sherd only had banding on the interiorof the lip.
As noted for “Carancahua Bay,” “SteamboatIsland” has been recognized for years as one of theprincipal decorative designs on Rockport ceramics.Of particular interest is the potential association ofthe motif with relatively late components dating intothe Protohistoric and Historic periods, as evidencedby the presence of similar designs on Goliad Red-on-buff and Goliad Black-on-buff vessels from MissionEspíritu Santo at Goliad (Mounger 1959).
Rockport Black-on-gray,“Matagorda Island motif” (n=17,but probably ~480)
This is Rockport Black-on-gray’s equivalentto the “Copano Bay motif” of Rockport Black, andvirtually all statements concerning the design ele-ments of “Copano Bay” also pertain to “MatagordaIsland.” It is characterized by a black lip bandthat usually covers both the top and exterior edgeof the vessel rim, sometimes the interior edge,and from which descend individually painted wavyor squiggled vertical lines on the exterior portionof the vessel (Figure 7-37). As with “Copano Bay,”such lines can be either slightly or highly wavy,and be narrow, medium, or wide in width. Withadditional study, differences in line quality andwidth may allow for the establishment of moremotifs.
Since there are many more sherds of RockportBlack-on-gray than Rockport Black in the presentcollection (and probably in most other collections,as well), there are many more sherds or potentialsherds of “Matagorda Island” than there are of “CopanoBay.” Seventeen rims can unequivocally be assignedto the motif, while upwards of about 480 additionalsherds might also be from portions of “MatagordaIsland” vessels. As noted for “Copano Bay,” mostof the sherds exhibiting curved lines and/or wavylines of unknown orientation (see Table 7-12) prob-ably are from “Matagorda Island” vessels, while many
of the sherds classed as having vertical straight linescould also be representative of the “Matagorda Is-land motif.” In the latter case, the sherds simplyare too small for the full extent of the painted lineto be visible, making it impossible to identify indi-vidual waves or squiggles in the line.
Of the 17 “Matagorda Island” sherds fromGuadalupe Bay, four were classed as Rockport Black-on-gray, var. Rockport, two as var. Hog Bayou, sixas var. Long Mott, and five as var. Buffalo Lake. Allhave black banding present on the lip, and all butone (one of the Long Mott sherds) have banding onthe exterior, top, and interior of the lip. The LongMott sherd only has banding on the interior and topof the lip. Eleven of the 16 sherds have roundedlips, while the remaining five have flat lips. Two ofthe Buffalo Lake sherds fit together and have incised,perpendicular lines across a flat lip (see Figure 7-37, q).The sherds are almost evenly divided between thosewith wide wavy lines, and those with medium wavylines. None has a narrow wavy line. Likewise, allof the associated bands either are wide (n=11) ormedium (n=6).
Rockport Black-on-gray, “San José Islandmotif” (n=3, but probably 21)
This is the Rockport Black-on-gray equivalentto the “Espíritu Santo Bay motif” of Rockport Black.It consists of diagonal straight lines descending fromthe exterior lips of Rockport Black-on-gray vesselsthat also contain black lip bands (Figure 7-38). Again,all statements regarding previous recognition anddistribution of the “Espíritu Santo Bay motif” per-tain to this motif.
There are three rims in the current collectionthat can be classed as “San José Island” without muchhesitation. It is likely that additional sherds withdiagonal straight lines (see Table 7-12) also are rep-resentative of this motif, but, since those sherds ei-ther are too small or lack rims, definite motif as-signment cannot be made. Of the three rims, twowere classed as Rockport Black-on-gray, var. LongMott and one as var. Rockport. All have wide lipbands on the exterior, top, and interior portions ofthe vessels’ lips. Two (one Long Mott sherd and theRockport sherd) have round lips, and the other (thesecond Long Mott specimen) has a flat lip. Narrow,medium, and wide diagonal lines are included; nar-row on one of the Long Mott sherds, medium on theother Long Mott sherd, and wide on the Rockportsherd.
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
340
Rockport Black-on-gray,“Rattlesnake Island motif” (n=1)
This is a rather unique motif recognized onlyon one sherd classified as Rockport Black-on-gray,var. Long Mott. It consists of a series of semicircu-lar-shaped, pendant loops that circle the upper partof the vessel’s exterior just below the lip (Figure 7-39).The one example in the current collection also con-tains a medium-wide black band covering the exte-rior, interior, and top of a flat lip; the medium-wideloops descend from this band. Other sherds withportions of the motif may lie hidden among those
specimens that exhibit only curved lines as their designelement (see Table 7-12). As noted above, it is im-possible to properly assign these sherds to a motif,since they could also represent segments of wavylines from either the “Matagorda Island” or “TurnstakeIsland” motifs. Similarly, it also is possible that alike motif may be present on Rockport Black sherdsthat exhibit curved lines as single design elements(see Table 7-13). Again, those sherds were too smallfor definite motif recognition.
It is perhaps significant that this motif is simi-lar, if not identical, to several designs present on
Figure 7-37. Rockport Black-on-gray, “Matagorda Island motif.” (a) Idealized “Matagorda Island”vessel; (b-q) Rim sherds exhibiting the “Matagorda Island motif.” (a-e with Rockportpaste, f-g with Hog Bayou paste; h-m with Long Mott paste, and n-q with Buffalo Lakepaste.) (See Appendix K for provenience data.)
a
b c d
e f g
h i j k l
m n o p
q0 3
cm
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
341
Figure 7-38. Rockport Black-on-gray, “San José Island motif.” (a) Idealized “San José Island”vessel; (b-d) Rim sherds exhibiting the “San José Island motif” (b with Rockportpaste, c-d with Long Mott paste). (See Appendix K for provenience data.)
a
b c
d
0 3
cm
Figure 7-39. Rockport Black-on-gray, “Rattlesnake Island motif.” (a) Ideal-ized “Rattlesnake Island” vessel; (b) “Rattlesnake Island” rim sherdwith Long Mott paste. (See Appendix K for provenience data.)
a
b
0 3
cm
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
342
sherds of Goliad Red-on-buff from Mission EspírituSanto at Goliad (Mounger 1959:168, Plates 15-18).It also is interesting to note the lack of similar de-signs on any of the Goliad Black-on-buff sherds fromthe same site (Mounger 1959). In fact, the presentauthors cannot find any examples of the “San JoséIsland motif” either discussed or illustrated in anyprevious study on Rockport ceramics. For thesereasons, there may be a relationship between “SanJosé Island” and relatively late protohistoric and/or historic occupations similar to that at EspírituSanto.
Rockport Black-on-gray, “Kenyon Islandmotif” (n=2)
This is the Rockport Black-on-gray equivalentof the “Aransas Bay motif” of Rockport Black. Assuch, it consists of vertical rows of painted dots thatdescend downward from the lip on the exterior por-tion of the vessel (Figure 7-40). Both banded andplain lips are present in the current collection. Al-though grouped under one motif at this time, it maybe possible in the future to sort these into two sepa-
rate motifs once more data are accumulated on chro-nological and/or geographical differences, if any.
The two sherds from Guadalupe Bay are bothrims and were classified as Rockport Black-on-gray,vars. Hog Bayou and Buffalo Lake. The Hog Bayouspecimen exhibits both narrow- and medium-sizeddots below a round lip that also contains a mediumband on its exterior, interior, and top. The BuffaloLake specimen has wide dots below a round lip thatlacks any sign of a band. An additional 47 sherdscontain isolated dots, and these may also be from“Kenyon Island” vessels. Because of their size and/or lack of a rim, however, it is not possible to confi-dently sort these to their proper motif. They might,just as likely, represent sherds from “Turnstake Is-land” vessels, to be discussed next.
Rockport Black-on-gray, “Turnstake Islandmotif” (n=1)
The “Turnstake Island motif” is similar to the“Kenyon Island motif” save that vertical wavy linesalternate with the rows of vertical dots (Figure 7-41).
Figure 7-40. Rockport Black-on-gray, “Kenyon Island motif.” (a) Idealized “Kenyon Island”vessel; (b-c) Rim sherds with the “Kenyon Island motif” (b with Hog Bayou paste,c with Buffalo Lake paste). (See Appendix K for provenience data.)
a
b c
0 3
cm
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
343
This decorative idea is similar to several examplesillustrated by Potter (1930:Plate 8) in which verticalwavy lines alternate with vertical rows of puncta-tions. However, in the case of “Turnstake Island”all decoration is applied with asphaltum paint. Some-what surprisingly, no other illustrations or discus-sions of the motif are provided in any of the previ-ous studies on Rockport ceramics examined by thepresent authors. At least one sherd of Goliad Red-on-buff from Mission Espíritu Santo has a similardesign, although it is difficult to determine if the verticalline is straight or wavy (Mounger 1959:Plate 13).
The one example in the current collection is arim classified as Rockport Black-on-gray, var. Buf-falo Lake. It contains wide dots and a narrow wavyline, both descending downward from a round lipthat has a wide band on its exterior, top, and inte-rior. As discussed above for “Kenyon Island,” it ispossible that additional sherds from “Turnstake Is-land” vessels are present among those specimens thatonly exhibit painted dots (see Table 7-12). Sincemany of these sherds may be from “Kenyon Island”
vessels, however, they are not assigned to either motif.A stronger case can be made for association of themotif with those sherds that contain dots and linesof unknown orientation (see Table 7-12). Since theorientation of the lines is not known, however, it isimpossible to assign the sherds to “Turnstake Island.”
Rockport Black-on-gray,“Long Island motif” (n=1)
This unique motif is similar to that of the “KenyonIsland motif,” save for one important difference. “LongIsland” consists of vertical rows of painted dots thatdescend downward from the vessel lip on the inte-rior of shallow bowls and/or plates (Figure 7-42).The one example in the current collection has widedots situated below a wide lip band that is presenton the exterior, top, and interior of the lip. It origi-nally was classed as Rockport Black-on-gray, var.Hog Bayou.
Sherds with designs similar to that of the “LongIsland motif” have been noted by Campbell (1958a:437,
Figure 7-41. Rockport Black-on-gray, “Turnstake Island motif.” (a) Idealized“Turnstake Island” vessel; (b) “Turnstake Island” rim sherd withBuffalo Lake paste. (See Appendix K for provenience data.)
a
b
0 3
cm
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
344
Figure 5, v) from the Live Oak Point site, but noother investigators make mention of comparable sherds.Without additional data from other collections, thereis little to add regarding the potential chronologi-cal, geographical, and/or cultural usefulness of thismotif.
Rockport Black-on-gray Motifs by Analysis Unit
As with Rockport Incised and Rockport Black,an effort was made to examine Rockport Black-on-gray motifs by analysis unit (Table 7-24). The dis-tribution is somewhat similar to that of the variousRockport Black motifs (see Table 7-22), a not un-expected circumstance considering the likeness ofthe two types. “Steamboat Island” is common inmost analysis units, although it has slightly greaternumbers in the upper portions of Stratum 2 (AUs 2and 3) (n=141; 43.8 percent) than in the lower por-tions of Stratum 2 (AUs 4 and 5) and the Stratum 3Rangia deposit in Block 3 (AU 6) (n=129; 40.1 per-cent). If one considers the 25 sherds from AU 1,then additional support for an increase through timeis provided. This mirrors quite well the findings ofthe “Carancahua Bay motif,” as discussed earlier.Surprisingly, no sherds of the motif (or any otherBlack-on-gray motif) came from AU 7, the appar-ent Rockport oyster deposit in Block 3. This is par-ticularly vexing since minor amounts of the motif(obviously displaced) were found in the Late Archaicoyster midden in Block 1 (AUs 8 and 9). Perhapslack of the motif in AU 7 is related to the ratherlimited distribution of that analysis unit across Block�3.
Only the “Turnstake Island motif” occurs in theupper levels of Stratum 2 (AU 3) to the exclusionof the lower Rockport levels. Small sample size,however, mitigates against any chronological state-ments at this time. In contrast, “Rattlesnake Island”was found only in the lower levels of Stratum 2 (AU 4).Again, small sample size, plus the fact that a simi-lar decorative motif is known from the historic mis-sion of Espíritu Santo at Goliad (as discussed above),precludes any attempt at meaningful chronologicalinterpretation. The lone sherd of “Long Island” alsocame from a relatively early deposit, in this case theLate Archaic oyster midden of Block 1 (AU 8), butits provenience is undoubtedly the result of post-depositional disturbance.
A few words can be offered regarding the spa-tial distribution of the various Rockport Black-on-gray motifs across the site. As noted several timespreviously, the majority of the motifs came from thearea around Block 3, along with the majority of re-covered ceramics. Only the lone sherds of “Rattle-snake Island” and “Long Island” came from the areaaround Blocks 1 and 2, rather than Block 3. Al-though small sample size hinders most interpreta-tions, it is worth noting that the “Rattlesnake Island”sherd specifically came from XU N54W90, one ofthe Block 2 units initially excavated to examine thepotential historic aboriginal component in that area.This provides some support for a possible late datefor the motif, although, as just noted above, the sherdwas found in the lower portion of the Stratum 2 middenin that area. Overall, however, considering the datafrom Mission Espíritu Santo, plus the sherd’s loca-
Figure 7-42. Rockport Black-on-gray, “Long Island motif.” (a) Idealized “Long Island” vessel;(b) Rim sherd exhibiting the “Long Island motif” with Hog Bayou paste. (SeeAppendix K for provenience data.)
a
b
0 3
cm
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
345
Mo
tifs
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
To
tal
% T
otal
"S
team
boa
t Is
lan
d"
var.
Roc
kpor
t16
64.0
037
54.4
115
18.0
720
37.0
49
16.0
77
21.2
17
63.6
48
72.7
30
0.00
120
.00
12
03
4.5
8va
r. B
uffa
lo L
ake
28.
0012
17.6
58
9.64
1120
.37
916
.07
927
.27
19.
090
0.00
00.
000
0.00
52
14
.99
var.
Hog
Bay
ou4
16.0
02
2.94
1619
.28
23.
7011
19.6
42
6.06
00.
000
0.00
13.
030
0.00
38
10
.95
var.
Lon
g M
ott
28.
008
11.7
626
31.3
311
20.3
716
28.5
77
21.2
11
9.09
00.
000
0.00
480
.00
75
21
.61
var.
Mos
quit
o P
oint
14.
005
7.35
1214
.46
47.
416
10.7
15
15.1
51
9.09
327
.27
00.
000
0.00
37
10
.66
"S
team
boa
t Is
lan
d"
to
tal
25
10
0.0
06
49
4.1
27
79
2.7
74
88
8.8
95
19
1.0
73
09
0.9
11
09
0.9
11
11
00
.00
11
00
.00
51
00
.00
32
29
2.8
0
"Mat
agor
da I
slan
d"va
r. R
ockp
ort
00.
002
2.94
22.
410
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
41
.15
var.
Buf
falo
Lak
e0
0.00
00.
002
2.41
23.
700
0.00
13.
030
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
005
1.4
4va
r. H
og B
ayou
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
1.85
11.
790
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
20
.58
var.
Lon
g M
ott
00.
000
0.00
00.
002
3.70
35.
361
3.03
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
61
.73
"M
atag
ord
a Is
lan
d"
tot
al0
0.0
02
2.9
44
4.8
25
9.2
64
7.1
42
6.0
60
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
01
74
.90
"S
an J
ose
Isla
nd
"va
r. R
ockp
ort
00.
001
1.47
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
10
.29
var.
Lon
g M
ott
00.
000
0.00
11.
200
0.00
11.
790
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
20
.58
"S
an J
ose
Isla
nd
" t
otal
00
.00
11
.47
11
.20
00
.00
11
.79
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
30
.86
"R
attl
e sn
ake
Isla
nd
"va
r. L
ong
Mot
t0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
11.
850
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
0.2
9
"R
attl
e sn
ake
Isla
nd
"
tota
l0
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
01
1.8
50
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
01
0.2
9
"K
enyo
n I
slan
d"
var.
Buf
falo
Lak
e0
0.00
11.
470
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
0.2
9va
r. H
og B
ayou
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
3.03
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
10
.29
"K
enyo
n I
slan
d"
tot
al0
0.0
01
1.4
70
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
01
3.0
30
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
02
0.5
8
"T
urn
stak
e Is
lan
d"
var.
Buf
falo
Lak
e0
0.00
00.
001
1.20
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
0.2
9
"T
urn
stak
e Is
lan
d"
tot
al0
0.0
00
0.0
01
1.2
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
01
0.2
9
"L
ong
Isla
nd
"va
r. H
og B
ayou
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
19.
090
0.00
00.
000
0.00
10
.29
"L
ong
Isla
nd
" t
otal
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
19
.09
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
10
.29
Sit
e T
otal
25
10
0.0
06
81
00
.00
83
10
0.0
05
41
00
.00
56
10
0.0
03
31
00
.00
11
10
0.0
01
11
00
.00
11
00
.00
51
00
.00
34
71
00
.00
* S
herd
s fr
om th
is a
naly
sis
unit
alm
ost c
erta
inly
inco
rpor
ated
by
acci
dent
dur
ing
wat
ersc
reen
ing
in th
e fi
eld.
AU
1
AU
2
AU
3
AU
4
An
alys
is
Un
its
AU
5
AU
6
Tabl
e 7-
24.
Dec
orat
ive
Mot
ifs
of R
ockp
ort
Bla
ck-o
n-G
ray,
by
Ana
lysi
s U
nit.
AU
8A
U 9
AU
13*
No
AU
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
346
tion at Guadalupe Bay, it is suggested that the “Rattle-snake Island motif” may prove useful in recogniz-ing historic and/or protohistoric occupations in theregion.
Vessel Forms
One hundred and fifty-three rim sherds were largeenough to determine vessel form, and these fell intoseven main categories: beaker, jar, beaker or jar,bottle, simple bowl, shallow bowl, and globular bowl(Table 7-25). The identification of a specific formgenerally followed that of Phillips (1970), althoughthe bottle category was added to cover long-neckedvessels commonly present in Rockport phase assem-blages. Such bottles sometimes have been identi-fied as “ollas” in past studies on Rockport ceramics(Ricklis 1990b:607). Beakers were recognized bysherds with straight sides that lacked evidence ofan outflaring (everted) or inflaring (inverted) rim,while sherds with everted rims were identified asjars.11 These latter specimens usually showed evi-dence of a slightly constricted neck area that thenflared outwards towards the rim. Simple bowls, shallowbowls, and globular bowls were sorted by the de-gree of rim closure. Shallow bowls are wide-mouthvessels with flaring sides; some extreme examplesof which might be classified as plates if enough ofthe vessel was present. Simple bowls also includewide-mouth vessels, but exhibit sides that are lessflared than those of shallow bowls. Globular bowlshave a constricted shape with inverted rims and rela-tively narrow mouths. Such vessels lack any evi-dence of a neck, however, precluding their classifi-cation as bottles.
As can be seen by Table 7-25, beakers far andaway outnumbered all other forms combined (n=97),representing 63.4 percent of all vessels. The nextmost common form, that of jars, was representedby 18 rims (11.8 percent), followed by 15 rims fromsimple bowls (9.8 percent). Ten sherds came from
either jars or beakers (6.5 percent), but were too smallfor proper identification, while eight sherds (5.2 per-cent) were from shallow bowls and four (2.6 per-cent) were from bottles. Lastly, one sherd (0.7 per-cent) came from a globular bowl. Taken together,all jars and beakers (n=125) account for 81.7 per-cent of the assemblage, while all bowls (n=24) equal15.7 percent.
It is instructive to note the association of vesselform with the different types and varieties recog-nized in the collection. Beakers occurred on all types,with the greatest quantity (40.2 percent) associatedwith Rockport Plain (see Table 7-25). This was fol-lowed by Rockport Black-on-gray (26.8 percent) andRockport Incised (24.7 percent). Only small per-centages of the beakers were associated with RockportBlack (7.2 percent) and Rockport Red (1.0 percent).A slightly different pattern pertains for jars, withRockport Incised (44.4 percent), Rockport Plain (16.7percent), and Rockport Black-on-gray (also 22.2),making up the majority.12 In this instance, though,Rockport Black (16.6 percent) also made up a mod-est percentage of the total.
Bottles and bowls, on the other hand, exhibit asignificantly different pattern. In all cases, RockportBlack-on-gray vessels had the highest percentagesof each vessel form: 75.0 percent for bottles, 53.3 per-cent for simple bowls, 62.5 percent for shallow bowls,and 100 percent for globular bowls. Although theoverall number of vessels of each of these formsis relatively small compared to jars and beakers,there is no mistaking the association of paintedvessels with bottles and bowls. This association,also recognized by others (Campbell 1958a:435;Ricklis 1995a:199), suggests quite strongly thatpainted vessels represent a “fine ware” categoryof ceramics that were used primarily as servingcontainers. In contrast to this, plain and incisedvessels probably were employed mainly as cookingor storage containers.
11 A potential problem in vessel identification should be notedat this point. Since most of the sherds were relatively small,even those deemed large enough for use in identifying vessel form,there may be cases where a sherd with straight sides was recordedas having come from a beaker, when, in fact, it could have comefrom the upper “spout” portion of a wide-mouth bottle. This isparticularly true for Rockport Black and Rockport Black-on-gray,where it is known from past studies (Ricklis 1990b, 1995a) thatmany of the vessels related to these types consisted of bottles orollas. This problem may also explain the rather limited number
of actual bottles (n=4) identified in the current sample. Thesebottles were recognized primarily by their very narrow spouts.If their spouts had been wider, they might have been classed asbeakers.
12 The totals and percentages for Rockport Incised are some-what inflated, as five of the seven sherds actually represent theremains of the partially reconstructed vessel from Sample UnitN70W110.
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
347
No.
%N
o.%
No.
%N
o.%
No.
%N
o.%
No.
%T
ota
l%
Tot
al
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
ckva
r. E
lm B
ayou
44.
120
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
004
2.6
1va
r. K
uy C
reek
00.
001
5.56
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
0.6
5va
r. L
olit
a2
2.06
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
112
.50
00.
003
1.9
6va
r. R
ockp
ort
11.
030
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
12.5
00
0.00
21
.31
var.
Spr
ing
Bay
ou0
0.00
211
.11
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
002
1.3
1
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
ck
tota
l7
7.2
23
16
.67
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
22
5.0
00
0.0
01
27
.84
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k-o
n-g
ray
var.
Buf
falo
Lak
e6
6.19
15.
561
10.0
02
50.0
04
26.6
71
12.5
00
0.00
15
9.8
0va
r. H
og B
ayou
22.
061
5.56
110
.00
00.
001
6.67
00.
000
0.00
53
.27
var.
Lon
g M
ott
99.
280
0.00
220
.00
00.
001
6.67
112
.50
110
0.00
14
9.1
5va
r. M
osqu
ito
Poi
nt2
2.06
00.
000
0.00
125
.00
16.
670
0.00
00.
004
2.6
1va
r. R
ockp
ort
77.
222
11.1
13
30.0
00
0.00
16.
673
37.5
00
0.00
16
10
.46
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k-o
n-g
ray
tota
l2
62
6.8
04
22
.22
77
0.0
03
75
.00
85
3.3
35
62
.50
11
00
.00
54
35
.29
Roc
kp
ort
Inc i
sed
var.
Mis
sion
Lak
e10
10.3
10
0.00
00.
000
0.00
16.
670
0.00
00.
001
17
.19
var.
Mus
tang
Lak
e8
8.25
738
.89
110
.00
00.
001
6.67
00.
000
0.00
17
11
.11
var.
Pla
nk B
ridg
e1
1.03
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
112
.50
00.
002
1.3
1va
r. S
omm
ervi
lle
11.
030
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
0.6
5va
r. R
ockp
ort
44.
121
5.56
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
005
3.2
7
Roc
kp
ort
Inc i
sed
to
tal
24
24
.74
84
4.4
41
10
.00
00
.00
21
3.3
31
12
.50
00
.00
36
23
.53
Roc
kp
ort
Pla
inva
r. A
ustw
ell
88.
251
5.56
110
.00
00.
002
13.3
30
0.00
00.
001
27
.84
var.
Gre
en L
ake
99.
280
0.00
00.
000
0.00
16.
670
0.00
00.
001
06
.54
var.
Gua
dalu
pe17
17.5
31
5.56
00.
000
0.00
16.
670
0.00
00.
001
91
2.4
2va
r. R
ockp
ort
44.
120
0.00
00.
001
25.0
00
0.00
00.
000
0.00
53
.27
var.
Sea
drift
11.
031
5.56
110
.00
00.
001
6.67
00.
000
0.00
42
.61
Roc
kp
ort
Pla
in
tota
l3
94
0.2
13
16
.67
22
0.0
01
25
.00
53
3.3
30
0.0
00
0.0
05
03
2.6
8
Roc
kp
ort
Re d
var.
uns
peci
fied
11.
030
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
0.6
5
Roc
kp
ort
Re d
to
tal
11
.03
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
10
.65
Sit
e T
otal
97
10
0.0
01
81
00
.00
10
10
0.0
04
10
0.0
01
51
00
.00
81
00
.00
11
00
.00
15
31
00
.00
* Fi
ve o
f th
e ja
r ri
ms
actu
ally
are
fro
m th
e pa
rtia
lly r
econ
stru
cted
ves
sel f
rom
Sam
ple
Uni
t N70
W11
0.
Bea
ker
Jar
Bea
ker
or J
arB
ott
le
Ves
sel
For
ms
Sim
ple
Bo
wl
Sh
all
ow
Bo
wl
*
Tabl
e 7-
25.
Ves
sel F
orm
s, b
y T
ype
and
Var
iety
, Rec
ogni
zed
for
Sher
ds f
rom
Gua
dalu
pe B
ay.
Glo
bula
rB
owl
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
348
It should be noted that an additional 144 bodysherds contain painted designs on their interiors, whileanother 11 rim sherds also exhibit interior painting,but all were too small to allow for proper vessel iden-tification. Most, if not all, of these sherds probablyare from simple bowls, shallow bowls, or possiblyeven plates. Twenty-six were classified as RockportBlack, while 129 were identified as Rockport Black-on-gray. Their presence in the overall collection fromGuadalupe Bay significantly increases the numberof painted vessels probably associated with bowlsand/or plates. This further strengthens the likeli-hood that such painted vessels functioned primarilyin a serving capacity.
The association of vessel forms and decorativemotifs also was examined in an effort to find poten-tial meaningful relationships and to locate supportfor the assumptions expressed above. Although thesample is relatively small, amounting to only 65 sherds,a few observations are possible (Table 7-26). First,all incised motifs occur only on beakers or jars, thussupporting the cooking and/or storage function forthe majority of these vessels. The painted motifs,on the other hand, occur on all vessel forms, par-ticularly the two black-banded motifs, “CarancahuaBay” and “Steamboat Island.” This supports the notionthat painted vessels fulfilled several roles, includ-ing that of serving vessels.
Past studies of late prehistoric ceramic assem-blages in the Southeast and Midwest (Kelley 1994:75;Pauketat 1989; Shapiro 1984) have suggested thatthe frequency of jars (and/or beakers in the presentcase) can be used to determine the degree of sitepermanence. Generally, jars made up a maximumof 28 percent of all vessels at several Mississippiperiod sites examined by Shapiro (1984:704), be-tween 45 and 91 percent of the total vessels in do-mestic assemblages at other Mississippi period sitesin the American Bottom area studied by Pauketat(1989:Table 3), and 55 percent of the total assem-blage at the protohistoric and historic McLelland sitein the Caddoan cultural area reported by Kelley(1994:75). This shows a great range of variationfrom one culture area to another, and indicates thatit probably will be necessary to examine a largersample of ceramics from additional sites along thecentral Texas coast before any meaningful statementscan be offered regarding the relationship of vesselforms and site permanence.
Unfortunately, previous ceramic studies from sitesalong the central Texas coast have not provided the
data necessary for comparative purposes. Ricklis(1990b:602, 606, 610), for example, looked at 464rim sherds from four sites in the region—GuadalupeBay (41 CL 2), Live Oak Point (41 AS 2), McGloinBluff (41 SP 11 ), and Kirchmeyer (41 NU 11 )—inan attempt to refine the existing ceramic typology.He chose to divide his vessels into two broad sizecategories based on orifice diameter—those withmouths less than 5 cm in diameter, which he termed“small-mouth” vessels, and those with mouths gen-erally greater than 12 cm in diameter, called “wide-mouth” vessels (Ricklis 1990b:610). The formerincluded bottles, while the latter encompassed bothjars and bowls. Because of this, one cannot sepa-rate cooking and/or storage vessels (jars) from servingvessels (bowls), making it difficult, if not impos-sible, to compare the data to that from GuadalupeBay. About all that can be said is that small-mouthvessels (bottles) made up 10.6 percent of the over-all vessel assemblage from the four sites (Ricklis1990b:Table 28). This is slightly greater than the2.6 percent noted for bottles at Guadalupe Bay, butsuch a difference does not appear to be particularlysignificant.
The only other potentially comparable dataon vessel form comes from Mission Espíritu Santoat Goliad. Mounger (1959:164-167) was able toreconstruct or partially reconstruct 15 vessels ofGoliad Plain, and from these she was able to in-terpret vessel form. Five were identified as pots(four with handles), one as a shallow bowl, fiveas simple bowls, one as a globular bowl, and threeas globular jars. An additional bottle neck alsowas noted (Mounger 1959:169), although it didnot come from a reconstructed vessel. Aside fromthe bottle neck, individual rim sherds were notused to identify vessel form. Using these totals,it is possible to determine that vessels classed aseither jars or pots made up 50 percent of the col-lection, bowls comprised 43.8 percent, and thelone bottle neck represented 6.3 percent. Assumingthat Mounger’s jars and pots are somewhat equiva-lent to the jar and beaker categories at GuadalupeBay, then it is clear that there were significantlygreater numbers of these forms at the latter site(50 percent at Espíritu Santo and 81.7 percent atGuadalupe Bay). In contrast, bowls made up agreater percentage of the vessels at the missionthan they did at Guadalupe Bay (43.8 percent to15.7 percent). Since the mission ceramics wereproduced during the eighteenth century by AranamaIndians, as opposed to what probably was the four-teenth century by Karankawan Indians, such dis-
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
349
Tabl
e 7-
26.
Ves
sel F
orm
s, b
y D
ecor
ativ
e M
otif
, Rec
ogni
zed
for
Sher
ds R
ecov
ered
at
Gua
dalu
pe B
ay.
No.
%N
o.%
No.
%N
o.%
No.
%N
o.%
No.
%T
ota
l%
Tot
al
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
ck
"C
aran
cah
ua
Bay
mot
if"
var.
Elm
Bay
ou3
8.82
00.
001
14.2
90
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
004
6.1
5va
r. L
olit
a2
5.88
18.
330
0.00
00.
000
0.00
120
.00
00.
004
6.1
5va
r. S
prin
g B
ayou
00.
001
8.33
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
1.5
4
"E
spír
itu
S
anto
B
ay
mot
if"
var.
Spr
ing
Bay
ou0
0.00
18.
330
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
11
.54
"M
esq
uit
e B
ay
mot
if"
var.
Elm
Bay
ou2
5.88
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
23
.08
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k
tota
l7
20
.59
32
5.0
01
14
.29
00
.00
00
.00
12
0.0
00
0.0
01
21
8.4
6
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k-o
n-g
ray
"S
team
boa
t Is
lan
d
mot
if"
var.
Buf
falo
Lak
e4
11.7
61
8.33
114
.29
210
0.00
125
.00
120
.00
00.
001
01
5.3
8va
r. H
og B
ayou
12.
941
8.33
114
.29
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
34
.62
var.
Lon
g M
ott
514
.71
00.
002
28.5
70
0.00
00.
000
0.00
110
0.00
81
2.3
1va
r. M
osqu
ito
Poi
nt2
5.88
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
23
.08
var.
Roc
kpor
t7
20.5
90
0.00
114
.29
00.
001
25.0
03
60.0
00
0.00
12
18
.46
"M
atag
ord
a Is
lan
d m
otif
"va
r. B
uffa
lo L
ake
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
250
.00
00.
000
0.00
23
.08
var.
Lon
g M
ott
12.
940
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
1.5
4
"S
an J
osé
Isla
nd
mot
if"
var.
Roc
kpor
t0
0.00
00.
001
14.2
90
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
1.5
4
"T
urn
stak
e Is
lan
d m
otif
"va
r. B
uffa
lo L
ake
12.
940
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
1.5
4
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k-o
n-g
ray
tota
l2
16
1.7
62
16
.67
68
5.7
12
10
0.0
04
10
0.0
04
80
.00
11
00
.00
40
61
.54
Roc
kp
ort
Inc i
sed
"A
yre s
P
oin
t m
otif
"va
r. M
usta
ng L
ake
12.
940
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
1.5
4
"C
edar
Poi
nt
mot
if"
var.
Mus
tang
Lak
e0
0.00
18.
330
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
11
.54
"C
ox
Poi
nt
mot
if"
var.
Mis
sion
Lak
e4
11.7
60
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
004
6.1
5
"B
end
ewal
d
Poi
nt
mot
if"
var.
Mus
tang
Lak
e0
0.00
650
.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
006
9.2
3
"K
e er a
n
Poi
nt
mot
if"
var.
Mis
sion
Lak
e1
2.94
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
11
.54
Roc
kp
ort
Inc i
sed
to
tal
61
7.6
57
58
.33
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
13
20
.00
Sit
e T
otal
34
10
0.0
01
21
00
.00
71
00
.00
21
00
.00
41
00
.00
51
00
.00
11
00
.00
65
10
0.0
0
*Fi
ve o
f th
e si
x sh
erds
are
fro
m th
e pa
rtia
lly r
econ
stru
cted
ves
sel f
rom
Sam
ple
Uni
t N70
W11
0.
Bea
ker
Jar
Bea
ker
or J
arB
ott
le
Ves
sel
For
ms
Sim
ple
Bo
wl
*
Shal
low
Bow
lG
lobu
lar
Bow
l
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
350
crepancies in vessel frequencies probably reflecttemporal and cultural differences.
Vessel Forms by Analysis Unit
Table 7-27 lists the various vessel forms by analysisunit. A few minor trends can be seen, but it is un-certain whether these trends can be confidently at-tributed to chronological or functional factors. Ascan be seen, the majority of vessel rims (n=83; 54.3percent) came from the lower Rockport deposits (AUs 4through 7), particularly those associated with theBlock 3 area) as opposed to only 59 rims (38.6 per-cent) from the upper Rockport deposits (AUs 2 and 3),again with most associated with Block 3. Thus, thegreater counts and percentages of those individualvessel forms associated with the lower Rockportdeposits (especially those in Block 3) may simplyreflect the greater quantity of overall rims found inthose same deposits.
Regardless, 41 beaker rims (42.3 percent of allbeakers) came from the upper portion of the Rockportoccupation (AUs 2 and 3), while 49 rims (50.5 per-cent) came from the lower Rockport deposits (AUs 4through 7), thus indicating a potential minor prefer-ence towards the lower deposits. Jars also showeda slightly greater trend towards the deeper Rockportdeposits, consisting of three rims (16.7 percent) fromAUs 2 and 3 and 11 rims (61.1 percent) from AUs 4through 7. (Of the latter 11 rims, however, it shouldbe kept in mind that five came from the partiallyreconstructed vessel found in Sample Unit N70W110.)Beakers or jars also showed a minor tendency to-wards the deeper deposits, with four rims (40.0 per-cent) from AU 2 and five rims (50.0 percent) fromAUs 4 through 6.
Simple bowls also are represented by a greaternumber of rims in the deeper Rockport deposits: three(20.0 percent) associated with AU 3, in contrast tothe 12 (80.0 percent) found in AUs 4 through 7. Shallowbowls are evenly split, however, between the upperand lower Rockport deposits (four rims from AUs 2and 3; four rims from AUs 4 through 6). The loneglobular bowl rim came from the upper Rockportoccupation of AU 3.
Bottle sherds represented the only vessel formto show a potential association with the upper Rockportdeposits. Three of the four sherds (75.0 percent)came from AUs 2 and 3, while only one sherd camefrom AU 6. Unfortunately, small sample size maynegate this apparent trend.
Overall, the various associations of the differ-ent vessel forms to specific AUs is somewhat equivocal,since those AUs with the majority of any particularvessel form also contained the most ceramics. Onlythe four bottle sherds exhibit a chronological ten-dency that is contrary to all others, and suggests avessel form that developed relatively late during theRockport phase. As just noted, however, this ten-dency may simply reflect small sample size.
Vessel Size
Vessel size was determined by measuring theorifice diameter of those rim sherds or joined rimsherds large enough to provide reasonable data. Thesesherds were placed on a board marked by concen-tric circles spaced one centimeter apart and the di-ameter was estimated to the nearest centimeter. Ascan be seen by Table 7-28, one partial vessel and116 individual sherds were large enough to supplyuseful orifice measurements.
Generally, all beakers and jars (including ves-sels that could not be sorted as either beakers or jars)had orifice diameters that averaged between 17.3 and17.6 cm, with a range between 8 and 28 cm. As tobe expected, bottles had much smaller openings,averaging 5.0 cm, although the overall bottle sample(n=2) is exceedingly small. Again as to be expected,simple bowls and shallow bowls had the greatest orificediameters, averaging 20.8 and 20.9 cm, respectively.This is logical, as bowls most likely represent wide-mouth serving containers.
As with vessel form, the size of a vessel hasbeen used in the past to determine its probable function.Kelley (1994:75-76) reviewed data on vessel sizefrom several studies across the Southeast, particu-larly those by Hally (1984, 1986), and found thatlarge, wide-mouth jars, with orifices between 40 and50 cm in diameter, usually were identified as stor-age containers, while jars with smaller mouths wererecognized as cooking vessels. Although no ves-sels with orifices greater than 30 cm were recov-ered at Guadalupe Bay, it still was felt that an ex-amination of the size distributions could prove use-ful. By graphically plotting the size data as a histo-gram, it was hoped that a more recognizable distri-bution pattern might emerge. A unimodal distribu-tion might suggest that the vessels served one func-tion, while a multimodal distribution might suggestthat two distinct functions were involved. Figure 7-43,therefore, provides the jar/beaker size data. As canbe seen, a unimodal pattern is present, indicating
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
351
Tabl
e 7-
27.
Ves
sel F
orm
s by
Ana
lysi
s U
nit.
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
To
tal
% T
otal
Bea
ker
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
ckva
r. E
lm B
ayou
00.
000
0.00
24.
880
0.00
13.
571
4.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
004
2.6
1va
r. L
olit
a0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
002
7.14
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
21
.31
var.
Roc
kpor
t0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
13.
850
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
10
.65
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
ck-o
n-g
ray
var.
Buf
falo
Lak
e0
0.00
15.
564
9.76
13.
850
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
63
.92
var.
Hog
Bay
ou0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
3.57
14.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
21
.31
var.
Lon
g M
ott
00.
001
5.56
37.
323
11.5
41
3.57
00.
000
0.00
110
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
009
5.8
8va
r. M
osqu
ito
Poi
nt0
0.00
00.
001
2.44
13.
850
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
21
.31
var.
Roc
kpor
t0
0.00
422
.22
12.
441
3.85
00.
001
4.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
007
4.5
8
Roc
kp
ort
Inc i
sed
var.
Mis
sion
Lak
e0
0.00
00.
005
12.2
01
3.85
00.
003
12.0
00
0.00
00.
000
0.00
125
.00
00.
001
06
.54
var.
Mus
tang
Lak
e0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
311
.54
310
.71
28.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
85
.23
var.
Pla
nk B
ridg
e0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
3.57
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
10
.65
var.
Roc
kpor
t0
0.00
211
.11
12.
440
0.00
27.
140
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
005
3.2
7va
r. S
omm
ervi
lle
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
3.85
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
0.6
5
Roc
kp
ort
Pla
inva
r. A
ustw
ell
00.
000
0.00
37.
320
0.00
13.
573
12.0
01
25.0
00
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
008
5.2
3va
r. G
reen
Lak
e0
0.00
00.
003
7.32
00.
002
7.14
312
.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
25.0
00
0.00
95
.88
var.
Gua
dalu
pe1
25.0
00
0.00
819
.51
13.
853
10.7
11
4.00
125
.00
00.
000
0.00
125
.00
00.
001
61
0.4
6va
r. R
ockp
ort
00.
000
0.00
12.
441
3.85
00.
001
4.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
25.0
00
0.00
42
.61
var.
Sea
drift
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
4.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
0.6
5
Roc
kp
ort
Re d
var.
uns
peci
fied
00.
000
0.00
12.
440
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
0.6
5
Bea
ke r
to
tal
12
5.0
08
44
.44
33
80
.49
14
53
.85
17
60
.71
17
68
.00
25
0.0
01
10
0.0
00
0.0
04
10
0.0
00
0.0
09
76
3.4
0
Jar R
ock
por
t B
lac k
var.
Kuy
Cre
ek0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
100.
001
0.6
5va
r. S
prin
g B
ayou
125
.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
3.57
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
21
.31
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k-o
n-g
ray
var.
Buf
falo
Lak
e0
0.00
15.
560
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
10
.65
var.
Hog
Bay
ou1
25.0
00
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
0.6
5va
r. R
ockp
ort
125
.00
00.
001
2.44
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
21
.31
Roc
kp
ort
Inc i
sed
var.
Mus
tang
Lak
e0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
519
.23
13.
571
4.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
007
4.5
8va
r. R
ockp
ort
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
3.85
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
0.6
5
Roc
kp
ort
Pla
inva
r. A
ustw
ell
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
125
.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
10
.65
var.
Gua
dalu
pe0
0.00
15.
560
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
10
.65
var.
Sea
drift
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
3.85
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
0.6
5
Jar
tota
l3
75
.00
21
1.1
11
2.4
47
26
.92
27
.14
14
.00
12
5.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
01
10
0.0
01
81
1.7
6
AU
2
AU
3
AU
4
An
alys
is
Un
its
AU
5
AU
6
AU
1
*
(con
tin
ued
)
AU
7A
U 8
AU
9A
U 1
1N
o A
U
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
352
(con
tin
ued
)
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
To
tal
% T
otal
Bea
ker
or J
arR
ock
por
t B
lack
-on
-gra
yva
r. B
uffa
lo L
ake
00.
001
5.56
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
0.6
5va
r. H
og B
ayou
00.
001
5.56
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
0.6
5va
r. L
ong
Mot
t0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
28.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
21
.31
var.
Roc
kpor
t0
0.00
211
.11
00.
001
3.85
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
003
1.9
6
Roc
kp
ort
Inci
sed
var.
Mus
tang
Lak
e0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
100.
000
0.00
00.
001
0.6
5
Roc
kp
ort
Pla
inva
r. A
ustw
ell
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
4.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
0.6
5va
r. S
eadr
ift0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
3.57
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
10
.65
Bea
ker
or J
ar t
otal
00
.00
42
2.2
20
0.0
01
3.8
51
3.5
73
12
.00
00
.00
00
.00
11
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
10
6.5
4
Bot
tle
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k-o
n-g
ray
var.
Buf
falo
Lak
e0
0.00
15.
560
0.00
00.
000
0.00
14.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
21
.31
var.
Mos
quit
o P
oint
00.
001
5.56
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
0.6
5
Roc
kp
ort
Pla
inva
r. R
ockp
ort
00.
000
0.00
12.
440
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
0.6
5
Bot
tle
tota
l0
0.0
02
11
.11
12
.44
00
.00
00
.00
14
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
42
.61
Sim
ple
Bow
lR
ock
por
t B
lac k
-on
-gra
yva
r. B
uffa
lo L
ake
00.
000
0.00
12.
442
7.69
13.
570
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
004
2.6
1va
r. H
og B
ayou
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
4.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
0.6
5va
r. L
ong
Mot
t0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
14.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
10
.65
var.
Mos
quit
o P
oint
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
13.
570
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
0.6
5va
r. R
ockp
ort
00.
000
0.00
12.
440
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
0.6
5
Roc
kp
ort
Inc i
sed
var.
Mis
sion
Lak
e0
0.00
00.
001
2.44
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
10
.65
var.
Mus
tang
Lak
e0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
3.57
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
10
.65
Roc
kp
ort
Pla
inva
r. A
ustw
ell
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
13.
570
0.00
125
.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
21
.31
var.
Gre
en L
ake
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
13.
570
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
0.6
5va
r. G
uada
lupe
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
13.
570
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
0.6
5va
r. S
eadr
ift0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
3.57
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
10
.65
Sim
ple
B
owl
tota
l0
0.0
00
0.0
03
7.3
22
7.6
97
25
.00
28
.00
12
5.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
01
59
.80
AU
2
AU
3
AU
4
An
alys
is
Un
its
AU
5
AU
6
AU
1
Tabl
e 7-
27.
Con
tinu
ed.
AU
7A
U 8
AU
9A
U 1
1N
o A
U
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
353
Tabl
e 7-
27.
Con
clud
ed.
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
To
tal
% T
otal
Shal
low
Bow
lR
ock
por
t B
lac k
var.
Lol
ita
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
4.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
0.6
5va
r. R
ockp
ort
00.
000
0.00
12.
440
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
0.6
5
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k-o
n-g
ray
var.
Buf
falo
Lak
e0
0.00
15.
560
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
10
.65
var.
Lon
g M
ott
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
13.
570
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
0.6
5va
r. R
ockp
ort
00.
001
5.56
00.
002
7.69
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
003
1.9
6
Roc
kp
ort
Inc i
sed
var.
Pla
nk B
ridg
e0
0.00
00.
001
2.44
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
10
.65
Sh
allo
w
Bow
l to
tal
00
.00
21
1.1
12
4.8
82
7.6
91
3.5
71
4.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
08
5.2
3
Glo
bula
r B
owl
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k-o
n-g
ray
Lon
g M
ott
00.
000
0.00
12.
440
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
0.6
5
Glo
bu
lar
Bow
l to
tal
00
.00
00
.00
12
.44
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
10
.65
Sit
e T
otal
41
00
.00
18
10
0.0
04
11
00
.00
26
10
0.0
02
81
00
.00
25
10
0.0
04
10
0.0
01
10
0.0
01
10
0.0
04
10
0.0
01
10
0.0
01
53
10
0.0
0
AU
2
AU
3
AU
4
An
alys
is
Un
its
AU
5
AU
6
AU
1
* T
hese
fiv
e sh
erds
are
fro
m th
e pa
rtia
lly r
econ
stru
cted
ves
sel f
rom
Sam
ple
Uni
t N70
W11
0.
AU
7A
U 8
AU
9A
U 1
1N
o A
U
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
354
No.
Ran
geA
vg.
No.
Ran
geA
vg.
No.
Ran
geA
vg.
No.
Ran
geA
vg.
No.
Ran
geA
vg.
No.
Ran
geA
vg.
To
tal
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
ckva
r. E
lm B
ayou
218
to
2019
.00
00.
00
00.
00
00.
00
00.
00
00.
02
var.
Kuy
Bay
ou0
00.
01
2020
.00
00.
00
00.
00
00.
00
00.
01
var.
Lol
ita
212
to
1513
.50
00.
00
00.
00
00.
00
00.
01
2020
.03
var.
Roc
kpor
t0
00.
00
00.
00
00.
00
00.
00
00.
01
1111
.01
var.
Spr
ing
Bay
ou0
00.
01
1515
.00
00.
00
00.
00
00.
00
00.
01
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k
tota
l4
12
to
201
6.3
215
t o
20
17
.50
00
.00
00
.00
00
.02
11
t o
201
5.5
8
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k-o
n-g
ray
var.
Buf
falo
Lak
e6
12 t
o 22
17.3
111
11.0
115
15.0
18
8.0
315
to
2219
.01
3030
.01
3va
r. H
og B
ayou
120
20.0
120
20.0
116
16.0
00
0.0
128
28.0
00
0.0
4va
r. L
ong
Mot
t9
12 t
o 20
15.4
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
126
26.0
122
22.0
11
var.
Mos
quit
o P
oint
211
to
1814
.50
00.
00
00.
00
00.
01
2222
.00
00.
03
var.
Roc
kpor
t5
11 t
o 20
16.0
28
to 1
813
.02
18 t
o 19
18.5
00
0.0
118
18.0
218
to
2119
.51
2
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k-o
n-g
ray
tota
l2
311
to
22
16
.24
8 t o
20
14
.34
15
t o
191
7.0
18
8.0
715
t o
28
21
.64
18
t o
302
2.8
43
Roc
kp
ort
Inc i
sed
var.
Mis
sion
Lak
e8
14 t
o 24
18.5
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
123
23.0
00
0.0
9va
r. M
usta
ng L
ake*
615
to
2115
.32
14 t
o 18
16.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
120
20.0
00
0.0
9va
r. P
lank
Bri
dge
124
24.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
124
24.0
2va
r. R
ockp
ort
414
to
1816
.51
2222
.00
00.
00
00.
00
00.
00
00.
05
var.
Som
ervi
lle
116
16.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
1
Roc
kp
ort
Inc i
sed
to
tal
19
14
to
241
8.1
314
t o
22
18
.00
00
.00
00
.02
20
t o
232
1.5
12
42
4.0
25
Roc
kp
ort
Pla
inva
r. A
ustw
ell
815
to
2317
.81
2626
.00
00.
00
00.
02
20 t
o 22
21.0
00
0.0
11
var.
Gre
en L
ake
715
to
2318
.40
00.
00
00.
00
00.
01
1414
.00
00.
08
var.
Gua
dalu
pe12
12 t
o 28
18.6
112
12.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
13
var.
Roc
kpor
t4
22 t
o 26
23.3
00
0.0
00
0.0
12
2.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
5va
r. S
eadr
ift1
1616
.01
1919
.01
2020
.00
00.
01
2020
.00
00.
04
Roc
kp
ort
Pla
in
tota
l3
212
to
28
17
.93
12
t o
261
9.0
12
02
0.0
12
2.0
414
t o
22
19
.00
00
.04
1
Sit
e T
otal
78
11
to
281
7.2
12
8 t o
26
16
.95
15
t o
201
7.6
22
t o 8
5.0
13
14
t o
282
0.8
711
t o
30
20
.91
17
* O
ne o
f th
e ja
r "s
herd
s" a
ctua
lly c
onsi
sts
of f
ive
join
ed r
ims
from
the
part
ially
rec
onst
ruct
ed v
esse
l fro
m S
ampl
e U
nit N
70W
110.
Bea
ker
Jar
Bea
ker
or J
arB
ott
le
Ori
fice
D
iam
eter
s (c
m)
Tabl
e 7-
28.
Ves
sel S
ize,
Bas
ed o
n O
rifi
ce D
iam
eter
s, A
ccor
ding
to
Ves
sel F
orm
and
Typ
e an
d V
arie
ty.
Sim
ple
Bow
lSh
allo
wB
owl
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
355
that jars and beakers were produced in one broadsize class with orifice diameters generally rangingfrom about 12 to 20 cm. Thus, they most likely servedone function, that of cooking vessels. Support forthis assumption comes from the one partially recon-structed jar of Mustang Lake with the “BendewaldPoint motif.” That vessel contains spots of charredfood residue on its outer surface below the decora-tive field indicating that it was, indeed, used forcooking.
Interestingly, the orifice data agree quite wellwith that presented recently by Ricklis (2000:100,Figure 59) from Missions Espíritu Santo and Rosario.
These latter sites had vessels with diameters gener-ally ranging between 15 and 19 cm. When thesedata were compared to that for vessels from a small,short-term camp site, the Oak Mott site (16 AS 92),Ricklis (2000:100) found that the camp had muchsmaller vessels with orifice diameters ranging be-tween 10 and 14 cm. Thus, he suggested that largesites with semi-permanent or permanent occupa-tions (Group I sites) probably had larger vesselsthat would have been difficult to carry, whilesmaller, short-term hunting or foraging sites(Group II sites) had smaller vessels that were easierto transport. By inference, then, it can be arguedthat the Rockport occupations at Guadalupe Bay
Figure 7-43. Orifice diameters of rim sherds from beakers and jars. (a)Beakers; (b)�Beakers and jars combined.
a
b
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
356
were of the semi-permanent or sedentary type, moreakin to Group I sites.
Vessel Thickness
As noted earlier, almost every sherd fromGuadalupe Bay was measured for thickness. Thus,a few observations concerning vessel thickness maybe offered.
Table 7-29 provides a summary of sherd thick-ness for 152 of the rims identifiable to a specificvessel form.13 Thickness is in millimeters, with in-dividual sherds ranging between 2 mm (for one ofthe bottle rims) to 8 mm (for one of the beakers andtwo of the simple bowls). As can be seen, the vastmajority of all vessel sherds fell within the 4- to 6-mmrange, with an average for all sherds of 4.8 mm.
Beaker sherds measured between 3 and 8 mm,with an average of 4.8 mm, while jars ranged be-tween 3 and 6 mm, with an average of 4.6 mm. Sherdsclassed as beakers or jars were most similar to jars,ranging between 4 and 6 mm, with an average of4.6 mm. This suggests that many of these sherdsmay actually have come from jars rather than bea-kers. Simple bowls were the thickest of all vessels,averaging 5.1 mm, with a range of between 3 and 8mm, while bottles were the thinnest, averaging 4 mm,although one sherd was 7 mm thick. Shallow bowlsalso had a rather restricted range, between 3 and 6 mm,with a relatively thin average of 4.3 mm. The oneglobular bowl rim measured 4 mm thick, but, be-cause it is the lone representative of that vessel cat-
egory, the sample is considered too small for anydefinitive statements.
Overall, these figures suggest that bottles andshallow bowls were the thinnest vessels producedat Guadalupe Bay, followed by jars, and beakers orjars. Beakers were slightly thicker, while simple bowlswere the thickest of all. Of course the total rangeof averages for each vessel category is not particu-larly great (only from 4 to 5.1 mm), and probablyindicates a relatively uniform manufacturing processthat would appear to represent a well-developed ce-ramic technology.
In addition to the above, it is of interest to notethe minor, though perhaps important, difference be-tween the thicknesses noted for painted, incised, andplain vessels. For instance, all painted vessels, whetherthey be beakers, jars, or bowls, consistently producedrelatively thin sherds, while incised and plain ves-sels yielded somewhat thicker sherds (Table 7-30).As can be seen, Rockport Black-on-gray sherds av-eraged 4.5 mm (beakers), 3.8 mm (jars), 4.4 mm(beakers or jars), 4.3 mm (bottles), 4.6 mm (simplebowls), and 4.8 mm (shallow bowls), for a combinedaverage of 4.4 mm. Rockport Incised sherds, on theother hand, averaged 5.0 mm (beakers), 5.1 mm (jars),5.0 mm (beaker or jar), 5.5 mm (simple bowl), and4.0 mm (shallow bowl), for a combined average of5.1 mm. Rockport Plain vessels also produced a rela-tively thick combined average of 5.0 mm.
Given all of this, it would appear that vesseldecoration (or the lack thereof) went hand in handwith vessel function, and this association is reflectedin vessel thickness. This is in keeping with the no-tion discussed previously that many, if not most, ofthe painted vessels were relatively thin, fine-wareitems used primarily as serving containers, while theplain and incised vessels were somewhat thicker andserved mostly as cooking or, perhaps, storage ves-sels.
13 Although 153 rims actually were identifiable to vessel form,one rim accidentally was omitted from the thickness analysis,resulting in a reduced total of 152 vessel sherds measured forthickness.
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
357
Tabl
e 7-
29.
Ves
sel T
hick
ness
, Acc
ordi
ng t
o V
esse
l For
m a
nd T
ype
and
Var
iety
.
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
To
tal
Ave
rage
Bea
ker
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
ckva
r. E
lm B
ayou
00.
000
0.00
35.
661
1.61
00.
000
0.00
00.
004
4.2
5va
r. L
olit
a0
0.00
00.
001
1.89
00.
001
4.76
00.
000
0.00
25
.00
var.
Roc
kpor
t0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
11.
610
0.00
00.
000
0.00
15
.00
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
ck-o
n-g
ray
var.
Buf
falo
Lak
e0
0.00
00.
003
5.66
11.
611
4.76
133
.33
00.
006
5.0
0va
r. H
og B
ayou
00.
000
0.00
11.
890
0.00
14.
760
0.00
00.
002
5.0
0va
r. L
ong
Mot
t0
0.00
111
.11
47.
554
6.45
00.
000
0.00
00.
009
4.3
3va
r. M
osqu
ito
Poi
nt0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
23.
230
0.00
00.
000
0.00
25
.00
var.
Roc
kpor
t0
0.00
222
.22
47.
551
1.61
00.
000
0.00
00.
007
3.8
6
Roc
kp
ort
Inc i
sed
var.
Mis
sion
Lak
e0
0.00
00.
002
3.77
711
.29
14.
760
0.00
00.
001
04
.90
var.
Mus
tang
Lak
e0
0.00
00.
001
1.89
34.
843
14.2
90
0.00
00.
007
5.2
9va
r. P
lank
Bri
dge
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
14.
760
0.00
00.
001
6.0
0va
r. R
ockp
ort
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
1.61
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
5.0
0va
r. S
omm
ervi
lle
00.
000
0.00
23.
771
1.61
14.
760
0.00
00.
004
4.7
5
Roc
kp
ort
Pla
inva
r. A
ustw
ell
00.
000
0.00
11.
896
9.68
14.
760
0.00
00.
008
5.0
0va
r. G
reen
Lak
e0
0.00
00.
003
5.66
58.
061
4.76
00.
000
0.00
94
.78
var.
Gua
dalu
pe0
0.00
00.
007
13.2
16
9.68
314
.29
00.
001
33.3
31
74
.94
var.
Roc
kpor
t0
0.00
00.
001
1.89
23.
230
0.00
133
.33
00.
004
5.2
5va
r. S
eadr
ift0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
4.76
00.
000
0.00
16
.00
Roc
kp
ort
Re d
var.
uns
peci
fied
00.
000
0.00
11.
890
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
4.0
0
Bea
ke r
to
tal
00
.00
33
3.3
33
46
4.1
54
16
6.1
31
57
1.4
32
66
.67
13
3.3
39
64
.81
Jar R
ock
por
t B
lac k
var.
Kuy
Cre
ek0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
11.
610
0.00
00.
000
0.00
15
.00
var.
Spr
ing
Bay
ou0
0.00
00.
001
1.89
11.
610
0.00
00.
000
0.00
24
.50
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k-o
n-g
ray
var.
Buf
falo
Lak
e0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
11.
610
0.00
00.
000
0.00
15
.00
var.
Hog
Bay
ou0
0.00
00.
001
1.89
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
14
.00
var.
Roc
kpor
t0
0.00
222
.22
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
002
3.0
0
Roc
kp
ort
Inc i
sed
var.
Mus
tang
Lak
e0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
58.
062
9.52
00.
000
0.00
75
.29
var.
Roc
kpor
t0
0.00
00.
001
1.89
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
14
.00
Roc
kp
ort
Pla
inva
r. A
ustw
ell
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
1.61
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
5.0
0va
r. G
uada
lupe
00.
000
0.00
11.
890
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
4.0
0va
r. S
eadr
ift0
0.00
111
.11
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
3.0
0
Jar
tota
l0
0.0
03
33
.33
47
.55
91
4.5
22
9.5
20
0.0
00
0.0
01
84
.56
34
5
Sh
erd
T
hic
kn
ess
(mm
)
67
2
*
(con
tin
ued
)
8
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
358
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
To
tal
Ave
rage
Bea
ker
or J
arR
ock
por
t B
lack
-on
-gra
yva
r. B
uffa
lo L
ake
00.
000
0.00
11.
890
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
4.0
0va
r. H
og B
ayou
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
1.61
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
5.0
0va
r. L
ong
Mot
t0
0.00
00.
002
3.77
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
24
.00
var.
Roc
kpor
t0
0.00
00.
001
1.89
23.
230
0.00
00.
000
0.00
34
.67
Roc
kp
ort
Inci
sed
var.
Mus
tang
Lak
e0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
11.
610
0.00
00.
000
0.00
15
.00
Roc
kp
ort
Pla
inva
r. A
ustw
ell
00.
000
0.00
11.
890
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
4.0
0va
r. S
eadr
ift0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
4.76
00.
000
0.00
16
.00
Bea
ker
or J
ar t
otal
00
.00
00
.00
59
.43
46
.45
14
.76
00
.00
00
.00
10
4.6
0
Bot
tle
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k-o
n-g
ray
var.
Buf
falo
Lak
e1
100.
000
0.00
11.
890
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
002
3.0
0va
r. M
osqu
ito
Poi
nt0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
133
.33
00.
001
7.0
0
Roc
kp
ort
Pla
inva
r. R
ockp
ort
00.
001
11.1
10
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
13
.00
Bot
tle
tota
l1
10
0.0
01
11
.11
11
.89
00
.00
00
.00
13
3.3
30
0.0
04
4.0
0
Sim
ple
Bow
lR
ock
por
t B
lac k
-on
-gra
yva
r. B
uffa
lo L
ake
00.
000
0.00
35.
661
1.61
00.
000
0.00
00.
004
4.2
5va
r. H
og B
ayou
00.
001
11.1
10
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
13
.00
var.
Lon
g M
ott
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
133
.33
18
.00
var.
Mos
quit
o P
oint
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
1.61
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
5.0
0va
r. R
ockp
ort
00.
000
0.00
11.
890
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
4.0
0
Roc
kp
ort
Inc i
sed
var.
Mis
sion
Lak
e0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
11.
610
0.00
00.
000
0.00
15
.00
var.
Mus
tang
Lak
e0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
4.76
00.
000
0.00
16
.00
Roc
kp
ort
Pla
inva
r. A
ustw
ell
00.
000
0.00
00.
002
3.23
00.
000
0.00
00.
002
5.0
0va
r. G
reen
Lak
e0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
11.
610
0.00
00.
000
0.00
15
.00
var.
Gua
dalu
pe0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
33.3
31
8.0
0va
r. S
eadr
ift0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
4.76
00.
000
0.00
16
.00
Sim
ple
B
owl
tota
l0
0.0
01
11
.11
47
.55
69
.68
29
.52
00
.00
26
6.6
71
55
.13
34
5
Sh
erd
T
hic
kn
ess
(mm
)
67
2
(con
tin
ued
)
Tabl
e 7-
29.
Con
tinu
ed.
8
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
359
Tabl
e 7-
29.
Con
clud
ed.
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
To
tal
Ave
rage
Shal
low
Bow
lR
ock
por
t B
lac k
var.
Lol
ita
00.
000
0.00
11.
890
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
4.0
0va
r. R
ockp
ort
00.
001
11.1
10
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
13
.00
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k-o
n-g
ray
var.
Buf
falo
Lak
e0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
4.76
00.
000
0.00
16
.00
var.
Lon
g M
ott
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
1.61
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
5.0
0va
r. R
ockp
ort
00.
000
0.00
23.
771
1.61
00.
000
0.00
00.
003
4.3
3
Roc
kp
ort
Inc i
sed
var.
Pla
nk B
ridg
e0
0.00
00.
001
1.89
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
14
.00
Sh
allo
w
Bow
l to
tal
00
.00
11
1.1
14
7.5
52
3.2
31
4.7
60
0.0
00
0.0
08
4.3
8
Glo
bula
r B
owl
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k-o
n-g
ray
Lon
g M
ott
00.
000
0.00
11.
890
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
4.0
0
Glo
bu
lar
Bow
l to
tal
00
.00
00
.00
11
.89
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
14
.00
Sit
e T
otal
11
00
.00
91
00
.00
53
10
0.0
06
21
00
.00
21
10
0.0
03
10
0.0
03
10
0.0
01
52
4.7
5
* T
hese
fiv
e sh
erds
are
fro
m th
e pa
rtia
lly r
econ
stru
cted
ves
sel f
rom
Sam
ple
Uni
t N70
W11
0.
34
5
Sh
erd
T
hic
kn
ess
(mm
)
67
28
The Guadalupe Bay Site (41 CL 2)
360
Tabl
e 7-
30.
Ves
sel T
hick
ness
, Gro
uped
by
Ves
sel F
orm
and
Cer
amic
Typ
e.
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
To
tal
Ave
rage
Bea
ker
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
ck0
0.00
00.
004
7.55
23.
231
4.76
00.
000
0.00
74
.57
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
ck-o
n-g
ray
00.
003
33.3
312
22.6
48
12.9
02
9.52
133
.33
00.
002
64
.46
Roc
kp
ort
Inci
sed
00.
000
0.00
59.
4312
19.3
56
28.5
70
0.00
00.
002
35
.04
Roc
kp
ort
Pla
in0
0.00
00.
0012
19.0
019
30.6
56
28.5
71
33.3
31
33.3
33
94
.97
Roc
kp
ort
Red
00.
000
0.00
11.
890
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
4.0
0
Jar R
ock
por
t B
lac k
00.
000
0.00
11.
892
3.23
00.
000
0.00
00.
003
4.6
7
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k-o
n-g
ray
00.
002
22.2
21
1.89
11.
610
0.00
00.
000
0.00
43
.75
Roc
kp
ort
Inc i
sed
00.
000
0.00
11.
895
8.06
29.
520
0.00
00.
008
5.1
3
Roc
kp
ort
Pla
in0
0.00
111
.11
11.
891
1.61
00.
000
0.00
00.
003
4.0
0
Bea
ker
or J
arR
ock
por
t B
lac k
-on
-gra
y0
0.00
00.
004
7.55
34.
840
0.00
00.
000
0.00
74
.43
Roc
kp
ort
Inc i
sed
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
1.61
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
5.0
0
Roc
kp
ort
Pla
in0
0.00
00.
001
1.89
00.
001
4.76
00.
000
0.00
25
.00
Bot
tle
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k-o
n-g
ray
110
0.00
00.
001
1.89
00.
000
0.00
133
.33
00.
003
4.3
3
Roc
kp
ort
Pla
in0
0.00
111
.11
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
3.0
0
Sim
ple
Bow
lR
ock
por
t B
lac k
-on
-gra
y0
0.00
111
.11
47.
552
3.23
00.
000
0.00
133
.33
84
.63
Roc
kp
ort
Inc i
sed
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
1.61
14.
760
0.00
00.
002
5.5
0
Roc
kp
ort
Pla
in0
0.00
00.
000
0.00
34.
841
4.76
00.
001
33.3
35
5.8
0
34
5
Sh
erd
T
hic
kn
ess
(mm
)
62
*
(con
tin
ued
)
87
Chapter 7: Aboriginal Ceramics
361
Tabl
e 7-
30.
Con
clud
ed.
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
No
.%
To
tal
Ave
rage
Shal
low
Bow
lR
ock
por
t B
lac k
00.
001
11.1
11
1.89
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
23
.50
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k-o
n-g
ray
00.
000
0.00
23.
772
3.23
14.
760
0.00
00.
005
4.8
0
Roc
kp
ort
Inc i
sed
00.
000
0.00
11.
890
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
4.0
0
Glo
bula
r B
owl
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k-o
n-g
ray
00.
000
0.00
11.
890
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
001
4.0
0
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k
tota
l0
0.0
01
11
.11
61
1.3
24
6.4
51
4.7
60
0.0
00
0.0
01
24
.42
Roc
kp
ort
Bla
c k-o
n-g
ray
tota
l1
10
0.0
06
66
.67
25
47
.17
16
25
.81
31
4.2
92
66
.67
13
3.3
35
44
.44
Roc
kp
ort
Inc i
sed
to
tal
00
.00
00
.00
71
3.2
11
93
0.6
59
42
.86
00
.00
00
.00
35
5.0
6
Roc
kp
ort
Pla
in
tota
l0
0.0
02
22
.22
14
26
.42
23
37
.10
83
8.1
01
33
.33
26
6.6
75
04
.96
Roc
kp
ort
Re d
to
tal
00
.00
00
.00
11
.89
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
14
.00
Sit
e T
otal
11
00
.00
91
00
.00
53
10
0.0
06
21
00
.00
21
10
0.0
03
10
0.0
03
10
0.0
01
52
4.7
5
* T
hese
fiv
e sh
erds
are
fro
m th
e pa
rtia
lly r
econ
stru
cted
ves
sel f
rom
Sam
ple
Uni
t N70
W11
0.
34
5
Sh
erd
T
hic
kn
ess
(mm
)
62
87
top related