1 To cite but one example, several noted authorities compiled Table XI in The Maya and Their Neighbors (Vaillant, 1940), placing the Louisiana culture periods alongside those in the Southwest, Mexico, Oaxaca, Maya regions, and Peru. By what token can Tchefuncte be equated in time with Pueblo II, Teotihuacan 5, and Monte Alban 4; Marksville with Pueblo I I I and Aztec I ; Troyville with Aztec I I ; Coles Creek with Aztec III, and so on? Was this based on any known specific traits in common, on trade pieces, on separate chronologies that showed similar dates regardless of culture content? Undoubtedly, good reasons Were advanced for the correlations made within the Middle American province, but as for the Louisiana cultures, it is safe to state that they were so placed for no apparent reason other than to have something on the chart. Without wishing to get too involved at present, I would suggest that there is no inherent reason that Tchefuncte could not just as well be equated in time with Basket Maker II or even the Mexican “Archaic,” the following periods then occupying three or four centuries apiece instead of one.

2 Martin, Quimby, and Collier (1947, Fig. 122) give Adena, Alexander, Florida Deptford, Tchefuncte, and Poverty Point a time range of 500 to 900 A.D.; Hopewell and Copena 900 to 1300 A.D.; and “Caddo” 1300 to 1700 A.D.

3 Ford and Willey, 1941, Figs. 2-6.

4 Krieger, 1946, pp. 213-16 and Fig. 26.

5 Idem, p. 215 and ceramic chart, Fig. 19.

6 Watt, 1941.

7 Mr. Watt has kindly supplied photographs and drawings of the sherds and projectile points. The latter include Steiner Serrated and Perdiz Pointed Stem but were not positively in association with the pottery.

8 Field notes on file at the University of Texas.

9 Goldschmidt, 193S, pp. 97-9. Field notes on file at the University of Texas.

10 This splendid group of seven flat-topped mounds on the west side of Red River 15 miles above Shreveport was briefly described by Moore (1912, pp. 524-5) as the Pickett Landing site. Dr. C. H. Webb has collected sherds from the surface and the side of a borrow pit, the original village being now buried under Red River sediments.

11 Field notes by A. T. Jackson on file at the University of Texas.

12 McGee Bend Reservoir area. A copy of the report is on file at the University of Texas. Gus E. Arnold had previously located some of these sites for the WPA—University of Texas survey. See Stephenson, 1948.

13 Bossier Focus components reach all the way from the Angelina valley eastward to north-central Louisiana, being predominantly small camps on sandy upland ridges rather than valley bottoms. This complex is of great importance in tracing the cultural transitions from Gibson to Fulton Aspect on both sides of the Texas-Louisiana border (C. H. Webb, 1948a). In a very general sense, Bossier Focus is partly a degeneration of the Alto Focus, continuing the trend toward cruder and less well decorated pottery seen in Phase 3 of the latter. The engraved types of Alto do not, however, continue into the Bossier Focus, the continuities being in the presumed cooking vessels. The upland locatiohs of Bossier sites agree with the thesis of a breakup in the large-town life of the Alto and other Gibson Aspect foci. On the other hand, the Belcher Focus in the Red River Valley, believed to follow after Bossier, does not represent a degeneration, but a general continuity of the best ceramic art and stabilized bottomland communities of the earlier Gibson Aspect horizon, These matters will be discussed further by Webb and the writer in other publications.

14 C. H. Webb, letter of Feb. 29, 1948. Only Smithport Landing and Wilkinson have the Alto Focus complex as the major component, the remainder being from Coles Creek, Bossier, and Glendora foci. Allen and Colbert also yield Bossier Focus pottery, and Greer has Bossier as its principal component. Further data are given in C. H. Webb, 1948a. This continued occupation on the same sites is a common feature in Louisiana (Ford, 1936) and difficult to analyze without stratigraphic control. In all cases the Alto Focus pottery is of the late (Phase 3) varieties. Webb (1940, pp. 65-6) has described a circular house outline at the Greer site. It had sub-floor cache pits like Davis Phase 1 houses, but differed in having a projected entranceway to the southeast, and possibly another to the northeast.

15 Webb and Snow, 1945, pp. 40-1 (trait 17).

16 Moore, 1912, pp. 511-2 and Fig. 12.

17 Webb and Dodd, 1939. Their Plate 20 gives a map of the site and a ground plan of Mound A with all three pits.

18 The basic idea of skeletons laid parallel in rows in rectangular graves, their heads pointed in opposing directions, with or without offerings placed against the walls, has been reported in the Wisconsin variant of Hopewell (McKern, 1931, Fig. 13 and Pls. XXXIV, XXXV); from site Mn°l in southern Illinois, tentatively placed in the Ogden-Fettie Focus, Hopewellian Phase (Cole and Deuel, 1937, Pl. XXIX, B and p. 185); and the Seip Mound in southern Ohio CShetrone, 1936, Fig. 138).

19 Moore, 1912, Figs. 22, 23; Webb and Dodd, 1939, Pl. 26, Panel 3:1,2.

20 Webb and Dodd, 1939, Pl. 26, Panel 3: 3.

21 Orr, 1946.

22 Burnett, 1945; Clements, 1945.

23 Orr, 1946.

24 Krieger, 1946, references on p. 215.

25 Harrington, 1920. I had previously listed Mineral Springs as a Haley Focus component, but Clarence H. Webb recently pointed out that certain Spiro-like vessels and the “Copena” points from this site differ from the Washington and Ozan 1 sites of Harrington.

26 To cite an example, Orr (1946, p. 236) states that 221 skeletons came from the Craig mound Middle component, and that each burial contained from 2 to 31 individuals. The number of burials is not given, but after stating that 5 were intrusive in the Brown mound, and that the two Ward mounds yielded 10 single and group burials, a subsequent passage says there were 39 burials “in the Middle Component.” This could mean that 24 were in the Craig mound but there were other areas from which some could have come. At any rate, pottery was found in all 39 burials, but “it actually comprised only a small percentage of the total number of individual artifacts … .” The Middle component pottery is described under eight types, 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and A, B, C, with the following number of vessels in each: 0 (90 per cent of the village sherds), 0 (few sherds from village), 57, 14, 3 (plus fragments in burials and village), 3,1, and 3. We have no way of knowing which types or how many vessels were in individual graves, their association with non-ceramic artifacts, or on what basis the types were defined. The Coles Creek Incised and French Fork Incised vessels are listed with the Early component (pre-Spiro Focus?), but this has been questioned by others who worked in the W.P.A. excavations. This point is crucial for crossdating the Spiro Focus. One remark was that the Coles Creek vessels were “if anything, in the later parts of the Spiro culture,” a situation made possible by the fact that the culture sequence was based on gross depth of graves rather than on the levels from which the grave pits were dug. I have no doubt that there was a long sequence of culture at the Spiro site itself, and that Orr did his best with an unfortunate situation. The missing data and unanswered questions, however, make detailed comparisons with other cultures difficult.

27 Ford and Willey, 1941; Waring and Holder, 1945. The latter list 69 specific “Cult” traits of which 53 occur at Spiro.

28 Krieger, 1945,1947a, 19476; MacNeish, 1947.

29 Orr's Figure 32, E. He includes these in “Type 5” also, apparently not distinguishing between engraved designs and those polished over after incising (they are often very similar).

30 Lemley (1936) does not discuss the all-important “Caddo” irtifacts from the same mound as his “Pre-Caddo” complex. The “Pre-Caddo” graves were sub-mound and very large with rows of parallel skeletons like those at Gahagan, but with many Coles Creek vessels. Another set of equally large graves was dug from the mound top and passed all the way down into and through the first set, but these seem to have contained what we now call the Haley Focus complex. Since there are a dozen or more Spiro and four or five Holly engraved vessels from this excavation, it is of great importance to know their relation to one another and to the Coles Creek complex.

31 These have not been reported but I have seen them in the Craig mound collections at Norman. The material must have been obtained in the Catahoula Formation in southern Louisiana or Texas, beyond Gahagan and Davis, where it was also used. This material is never found in the later, Fulton Aspect, horizon in the “Caddoan” area. As mentioned on pages 153-4, it has no obvious advantage over any other sandstone, and in fact is too easily crumbled for hard usage.

32 Orr (1946, Pl. XXX, B, E and Fig. 36, B) shows scale model reconstructions of Spiro houses in various stages of completion.

33 Ford and Willey (1941, p. 345) state that rectangular houses appear in the Troyville period in the lower Mississippi Valley; houses of the Burial Mound horizons were largely, if not entirely, of circular plan. This trend provides another reason for believing that Spiro Focus was contemporaneous with the Davis site Phase 2 rather than Phase 1.

34 A most interesting if minor point which no one seems to have noted is the facial expression of the Spiro humaneffigy pipes. The whole shape of the head and body, with the particular set of the eyes, nose, mouth, chin, cheekbones, etc., is much like that of Hopewellian clay figurines. Furthermore, at least two Spiro pipes have peculiar round knobs standing out from the forehead and back of the head, precisely as shown on a Hopewellian figurine from Illinois (McKern, Titterington, and Griffin, 1945, Pl. XXIV). Similar knobs are part of a headdress of copper from the Hopewell mound group (Moorehead, 1922, Fig. 12, A). The best Spiro pipes are not in print except that Sarah White sketched several of them in the Oklahoma Prehistorian (about 1940).

35 Moore, 1912, pp. 527-65.

36 Moore does not give the exact number, except to list the most beautiful or most complete ones from each grave. His sketches (Fig. 24) show complete vessels as circles (bottles with a small circle inside the other), and crushed vessels as nests of sherds.

37 A most productive research project, if it could be arranged, would be a complete examination of Moore's and Harrington's entire collections from these sites.

38 Moore, 1912, Figs. 40, 41, 44, 45, and Pls. XL, XLI. The black bottle in Plate XL provides a particularly striking example of Haley design work in scrolls with ticks and pendant triangles or “serrated” lines. The tall cylindrical bottle shown by Orr (1946, Fig. 32, c) from the Late component at Spiro provides a probable Haley Focus trade piece.

The use of straight or very slightly tapered spouts on Haley (and Sanders) bottles is a minor but very consistent difference between them and the Spiro, Gahagan, and Alto foci bottles with their long, strongly tapered spouts. This one attribute is a sure diagnostic of the latter three foci and was probably of temporal significance throughout the Gibson Aspect; i.e., it did not continue into'the Haley and Sanders foci (Krieger, 1946, Figs. 14, I, s, T; 15; 16; and Pls. 28, c; 29, A-C). Bottles of the entire Fulton Aspect have either a straight spout or one that bulges in the middle.

39 The dark brown polished vessel in Moore's Plate XXXVIII is a fine example. See also his Plate XXXIX and Figures 42, 43, 49, 53-57 inclusive, probably all of the type Haley Complicated Incised. This crossing-over of similar motifs on polished “fine” vessels and utility vessels was noted in several types at Davis (p. 128), making it difficult to draw any hard and fast distinction between them. Haley punctates were not confined to single rows, being used in small areas as well, but the total patterns are easily distinguished from Spiro.

40 Brushed lines and areas do not appear in Moore's illustrations but are believed to have occurred in his collections because of their use in the same complex elsewhere.

41 Idem, Fig. 49. One such sherd, position unknown, was found at Davis (present Pl. 51, K). On page 138 it is mentioned that this precise motif is common in the ceramics of classic Teotihuacan and Monte Alban III.

42 Idem, Pls. XXXVIII, XXXIX, XLI.

43 Moore's Figure 24 shows the pipes in place in the burial sketches. C. H. Webb suggests that the pipes from Washington (Harrington, 1920, Pl. CII, B, c, and p. 195) represent a late variety, shorter, thicker, with larger bowls than those from Mineral Springs. The latter agree precisely with the Spiro, Gahagan, and Alto foci form. In Figure 39, Moore shows three pipes, of which the two upper ones are the relatively short, thicker variety. It is possible, then, that the Haley site pipes were shifting from the extremely long form toward the other.

44 Harrington, 1920, pp. 22-3 and maps, Pls. I, II. Plate III, looking south, shows a tent pitched on the mound extension, indicating it was fairly level. The eastern tip, however, seems to slope where the tree stands, suggesting a ramp approach to the mound platform. The “pond” in Plate I I was evidently the borrow pit for Mound 1.

45 Idem (pp. 29-31) contains more details. One crude elbow pipe is shown in Plate CIV, B. The others, of which five were “red” would seem to be of the elbow form common in the later Mid-Ouachita Focus. Despite the fact that all 43 graves were dug from the surface, with a high probability that more than one culture complex is represented, the presence of both major pipe forms in the same burial shows that the short right-angular elbow form was coming into this area before the long-stemmed type disappeared.

46 A detailed analysis cannot be attempted, for lack of itemization by individual graves. Harrington's plates labeled “Ozan site 1” are probably from Mound 2 graves on the whole, but some from Mound 5 may be included (seven graves with 35 vessels, “about half of which were perfect”). Mound 4 had one grave near the center with 430 shell beads of the different forms described by Moore at Haley, pearl beads, and two arrow points; a second grave had a bottle and a jar with animal bones; and a third burial contained no artifacts. Mounds 3 and 6 were not explored. Tt should be remembered that Mounds 4 to 6 were | mile south of Mounds 1 to 3, and could have been distinct culturally.

47 Harrington, 1920, map, Pl. IX.

48 Idem (Pls. XXXII, A; XCIII; XCVIII; XCIX, A and c) show some of the effigies from Washington and Ozan 1.

49 Idem, Pl. XI. Burials 21, 24,25,33,34, and 67 in particular seem to follow the pattern of wall placement. When compared with Haley, Gahagan, and Crenshaw, it is evident that much less effort was spent on grave pits here, or comparable ones have yet to be discovered.

50 For engraved vessels very close to Moore's Haley specimens, see Harrington's Plates XLII (a red compound bowl); LXXII, A, B; LXXIV, B; LXXX, A; LXXXI, A, B; LXXXII, A, B; LXXXIII, B; and frontespiece. Often his term “incised” should be “engraved.” Red and white pigments commonly fill the design. The noded bowl, Plate XXIII, B, is a common Haley Focus trait and nearly identical to Moore's Figure 46. The very large bottle in Plate LXXI also agrees with Moore's statement on large Haley bottles with short necks.

51 This focus is described and characteristic pottery illustrated by T. L. and Mrs. Hodges (1945). The “Friendship Mound” is not a mound but a large burial ground in a sandy ridge, the graves now being exposed by erosion. The Hodges pottery may be compared with Harrington's Plates XXII, B; XXV B; XXVI, B; XXX, A; XXXIII, A XXXIV, B; XXXV, A, B; XXXVI, B; XXXVII, A XXXVIII, B; LIV, A; LVIII, B; LXVI, A; LXXIII, A, B LXXIX, A, B; LXXXIII, A, B; LXXXIV, A, B; XCVI, B to name only the most definite ones from the Ozan 1 and Washington sites alone. The elbow pipes in Plates CHI, AD and CIV, A, c, D are also very typical of the Mid-Ouachita Focus, and occur in the Texarkana Focus in the Red River bend area.

52 Harrington's Plates LXVIII, A; LXIX, A, B; LXXVIII A. Note also that Plate LXVIII, B is a good example of French Fork Incised, undoubtedly a trade piece from the Coles Creek culture, but whether in a Spiro or a Haley Focus grave at Washington is unknown. A possible variant of Alto Focus Holly Fine Engraved (Pl. XXXVII, B) came from Washington.

53 E.g., Harrington's Plates XXVIII, A, B, resemble Spiro vessels with polished-over incised and punctated scrolls, but they also suggest affiliation with Crockett Curvilinear Incised at Davis except for the high rim. Th°e same may be said for Plate XXIX, A, B from Ozan 1. Plates LXX, A and XCVII, B from Mineral Springs and Plate LXX, B from Washington also seem to be Spiro vessels. Mineral Springs had the very long-stemmed clay pipes, in contrast to the shorter and thicker variety from Washington (Pl. CII, A-E). All Copena blades shown by Harrington (Pls. CX, CXI) came from Mineral Springs. He does not mention them elsewhere, nor have any been found in.definite Haley Focus association. This trait belongs to Alto, Gahagan, and Spiro west of the Mississippi.

54 Moore, 1912, Fig. 122.

55 This was shown to the writer and Pedro Armillas in March, 1947, by Mr. M. P. Miroir of Texarkana. The top is about 3 feet wide, the base 6 feet, with sloping sides. The dense bottomland growth makes it difficult to follow the roadway now, but we were agreed that it is perfectly straight and joins both mounds at their base. Moore “carefully dug into” Mound E but found “no indication” of its use for burial purposes. He did not record the roadway and I know of none elsewhere in the entire “Caddoan” area. Martin, Quimby, and Collier (1947, p. 267) mention a graded roadway 600 feet long leading to a great circular platform at the Hopewellian Turner mound group in southern Ohio.

56 Lemley (1936, p. 26) states that the Heye Foundation (recipients of part of Moore's collections) furnished him with photographs of two Crenshaw vessels, one of which was “Caddoan,” the other probably “of the older culture,” resembling Lemley's Plate 8: 4.

57 Dickinson (1936) has presented an excellent discussion of the Crenshaw material in terms of the Coles Creek culture and its ceramic affiliations from Arkansas to Florida. Many Crenshaw vessels are good examples of the type French Fork Incised and bear interesting relationships in design motifs to Marksville and Hopewellian pottery, as Dickinson points out.

58 This feature of a single borrow pit, no matter how many mounds were present in a cluster, suggests (1) that the dominating temple mound alone was built with clay from a pit, or (2) all the mounds, even if constructed at different times, were built of clay from the same pit, carried different distances. A calculation of the cubic contents, even very approximately, should provide a scale for comparing the mounds with the pit in such cases.

59 Orr, 1946, pp. 235-6.

60 This does not eliminate the possible use of comparable artistic work in wood, cloth, feather-work, etc. The shell inlays (?) have been mentioned. Certainly the Haley peoples practiced intense ceremonials on their mounds and in connection with interments; but whether these had any direct relation with the “Southern Cult” or were more like Gahagan, or neither, is another question.

61 This was pointed out by C. H. Webb, and a check of my notes bears it out. The inclusion of this trait in Haley Focus (Krieger, 1946, p. 215) should be corrected, as should the statements that tapered bottle necks and square bases occurred in all Gibson Aspect foci except Sanders. Haley can be joined with Sanders in not possessing these traits, so far as now known.

62 I t is interesting to note that effigy vessels become established here at about the same time that effigy pipes disappear. Celts of various “greenstones” were undoubtedly still used in this focus, but the reports more often describe celts of very hard materials—chert, jasper, quartzite, basanite, etc.

63 Moore, 1912, Figs. 26, 28, 29, 33. The incut, needlelike tip on some specimens is believed to be a variation within the type. The recurved edges and outsweeping barbs are like those of Alba Barbed, but the diamond-shaped stems and tiny protrusions from the stem edges are not. The beautiful “Agee” points from Crenshaw graves (Lemley, 1936, Pl. 11) are said to have come from “Pre-Caddo” graves, and may be a highly specialized development of the widespread Alba Barbed type.

64 See the present Davis site illustrations; those for the East mound (Figs. 63-5); Harrington's (1920, Pls. XXVII, A, B; XXIX, A, B; XLIII, A; XLIV, A; XLV, B; LVIII, A; and LXV, A, B from Ozan 1 and Washington; and Moore (1912, Fig. 49) for Haley Focus components. Harrington (1920, Pls. XXVI, A; XXVIII, A, B) shows specimens from Mineral Springs very similar to the Spiro Focus examples of polished-over incised scrolls which I provisionally called “Keota Curvilinear Incised” (1946, Fig. 19). It would be well to learn much more about Spiro pottery before insisting on any typological correlations with it.

65 Moore (1912) shows several four-peaked incised jars, and the present Figures 63-5 show peaked bowls and jars from East mound. Harrington (1920, Pls. LVII, A; LX, A; LXVII, B) shows jar bodies with fingernail punctates, and a four-peaked jar, all from Washington and Ozan 1. Body punctating seems to have been far less common in the north than at Davis, and is absent in the whole Fulton Aspect.

66 Orr, 1946, pp. 249-51, and conversations.

67 Moore, 1912, Pl. XXXVII.

68 This brings up the question of whether the Coles Creek Incised and French Fork Incised trade vessels at Spiro were in association with the Early component (Orr, 1946). One may suspect that much reliance was placed on Ford's statements (Ford, 1936) that Coles Creek culture preceded “Caddo” in Louisiana. I should like to see the basic data on these vessels at Spiro re-examined before accepting this alignment. The inclusion of Gahagan as a component of Spiro Focus, with the statements that Gahagan had “Cult paraphernalia,” mound, burial, house, ceramic, chipped and ground stone traits “nearly identical with those of the Middle Spiro component” (Orr, 1946, p. 250) are highly uncritical and unacceptable. The writer sees no way at present of demonstrating that Gahagan followed Coles Creek in time.

69 Krieger, 1946, pp. 171-203 and Pls. 16-29.

70 Idem, pp. 216-18. Orr (1946) recognizes two “phases” of the Middle component, the earlier bearing the richest ceremonial material, the later revealing it “on the wane.” Sanders may be regarded as agreeable with the latter. Also listed with Middle component, late phase, are 14 vessels of Orr's “Spiro 6 type,” all red-filmed; several are clear cases of Sanders Engraved carinated bowls; others are Maxey Noded Redware bottles; and eight are oval bowls with an effigy head on the rim not found in the Sanders Focus.

71 “Aspect,” in my mind, is a term of convenience in referring to a group of foci with certain traits in common which set them off from other such groups. Contrary to many other archaeologists, I have never considered this a mathematical problem, but one of general trends and techniques running through cultural foci which bear a close time relationship. The term “focus” saves us the trouble of repeating over and over the traits and artifacts of each component in a uniform group; likewise, “aspect” saves us the trouble of itemizing and explaining over and over those traits which were held in common by two or more foci. Historical processes had, of course, produced the similarities seen in the various components and foci. The terms themselves, however, have nothing to do with historical processes that actually occurred; they are merely symbols or labels for masses of material which may be compared and discussed in historical language. The aim of archaeological research is the discussion of these histories, employing the classificatory terms when they are suitable, or some other language when they are not. There is entirely too much fuss over the exact number of traits belonging to this focus or that, and whether a focus belongs in this aspect or that on the basis of trait percentages.

72 Krieger, 1946, pp. 205-12, 221-47, 266-70, and chronological chart, Fig. 26.

73 See the remarks by several authorities at the 1946 conference at Norman, Oklahoma (Krieger, 19474); MacNeish, 1947; Du Solier, Krieger, and Griffin, 1947. It must be remembered that the Mexican cultural influences, whatever they were, did not spread gradually across the 800 miles of country between the Huastecan and “Caddo area” borders; therefore it is not necessary to allow a time differential between them. Again, the problem of origin in Spiro and “Southern Cult” ceremonial elements is evidently quite distinct from that of ceramic origins in Middle America, in time and perhaps in place.

74 Ford and Willey, 1941.

75 Martin, Quimby, and Collier, 1947. They state, for example, that Adena preceded Hopewell in Ohio (so that they belong to Burial Mound I and II, respectively there) but Adena occupied a Burial Mound II position in Kentucky. Copena, they state, was closely related to Hopewell, Troyville, and late Adena, being found in northern Alabama. Ford and Quimby (1945, pp. 90-5) discuss the relationships between Tchefuncte, Adena, Marksville, and other early ceramic cultures. Griffin (in Webb and Snow, 1945, pp. 234-46) discusses Adena pottery in relation to Tchefuncte and Hopewell, and some of its wider implications in culture history in the Eastern United States.

76 Baker and others, 1941. Certain non-ceramic artifacts comparable to those from Davis may also be found in their Plates 2 and 34 (projectile points like Gary Stemmed and Ellis Stemmed, spall side scrapers), 3 (flint “disks'* from cache), 4 (p'etaloid celts). The arched stamp marks in vertical rows, listed under the Havana group and much like some Weches Fingernail Impressed designs at Davis, are also shown by Cole and Deuel, 1937, PL II: 3, and Figure 7: 4, 8a.

77 Diagonal patterns appear as early as Tchefuncte times (Ford and Quimby, 1945, Pls. 3, 4 show them in various techniques) and on fiber-tempered pottery in Florida (Griffin, 1945, typeOrange Incised). They can be found in Woodland pottery and even as far away as Connecticut (Rouse, 1947, Figs. 4, c; 6, D, F) they closely resemble Dunkin Incised patterns at Davis. Webb and De Jarnette (1942, PL 295: 2, B) also show sherds quite close to Dunkin Incised in pattern.

78 The type Orange Incised just mentioned (Griffin, 1945) bears this feature in combination with diagonal incised patterns and furthermore the wide lip itself is decorated with incised lines and punctates on these fiber-tempered vessels. A most interesting analogy is provided by incised lines and punctates on the flat lips of stone bowls from the Poverty Point cache in Louisiana (C. H. Webb, 1944, Fig. 31). In both cases the designs are similar to those on the lips of Pennington Punctated-Incised at Davis, Holly Fine Engraved perhaps imitating this idea but with its own “regular” pattern and meandering bands. Crooks Stamped, an early Marksville type (Ford and Willey, 1940, Fig. 39, B), and Troyville Plain in Louisiana (Haag, 1939, No. 3), also include flat decorated lips on bowls.

79 They appear on the Tchefuncte type Orleans Punctated (Ford and Quimby, 1945, PL 6, E) and Churupa Punctated of the “middle and late Marksville period” (Haag, 1939, No. 3). Further study should reveal other occurrences.

80 W. S. Webb and Snow, 1945, pp. 35-60.

81 Idem, Traits 79-81 cite cases of two and three skeletons in Adena tombs. They also occurred in a large log-covered central vault in Mound 4 at the Marksville .site (information from J. A. Ford). The Gahagan and Haley graves were not, so far as known, log tombs.

82 Webb and Dodd, 1939.

83 See discussions by Ford and Willey, 1941; Martin, Quimby, and Collier, 1947, pp. 353-61.

84 Walker, 1936, Figs. 3, 4, Pl. 1.

85 Willey and Woodbury, 1942, p. 243.

86 E.g., Ekholm (1944, p. 426) mentions a possible relation between Tancol pottery in the Tampico area and ceramics of the Southeastern United States. This opinion was based largely, I believe, on a minor occurrence of horizontal lines on rims and lips and would seem to be a rather weak link, if at all. His Figures 28, 29 show other sherds resembling Yokena Incised and Marksville Red Filmed of Louisiana, according to J. A. Ford.

87 Moore, 190S, 1907.

88 MacNeish, 1947; DuSolier, Krieger, and Griffin, 1947, pp. 27-9.

89 Krieger, 1946, Fig. 26 and pp. 251-7; 1947a, Fig. 50.

90 Ford and Willey (1940, p. 143) state that “Intensive investigations in the central part of the Mississippi Valley will very probably show that the widespread Middle Mississippi cultures were developing at the same time, principally from Hopewellian. One result to be expected … is that traits directly comparable with those of Hopewellian will appear sporadically in peripheral Mississippian cultures and in the adjacent Woodland cultures at dates very near the beginning of the historic period.”

91 Vaillant, 1932.

92 Vaillant (editor), 1940, Table XI, compiled by several outstanding authorities.

93 Random examples from Peru appear in Kroeber (1944), who shows various bottles with a central spout, cylindrical vessels, hemispherical or simple bowls, bowls of composite outline, etc.; his Plate 5, c is a bottle with strongly tapered spout. Bennett (1944, Figs. 5, A, B, D, E and 12, A, B, P-H) shows some vessel forms similar to those at Davis; his Figure 28, A shows a wide range of greatly widened, flattened and flanged lips quite similar to those of Holly Fine Engraved and other Davis types; and Figure 29, A-K shows designs of deep ring punctates, vertical rows of crescent-shaped punctates, and punctates within bands much like those on some Davis, Hopewellian, and other Eastern pottery. Howard (1947, Fig. 2, D) shows the bottle form with central spout from Late Ronquin, Venezuela; and his Figure 11 shows utility jars with corrugated necks, as well as bowls with three small conical legs, from lowland Bolivia. Countless other such examples could be cited.

94 Red-and-white painting is a feature of the central Mississippi basin and Tennessee-Cumberland culture, not occurring at all in the “Caddo area” unless on rare trade pieces in the Fulton Aspect. It is clearly a problem distinct from that of Gibson Aspect pottery.

95 Willey and Woodbury (1944) have surveyed this technique in the United States and discussed its Middle American implications. Linné (1934, Appendix 1) presents data on Middle and South America. The only small Davis sherd from Phase 1 (p. 142) is too indefinite for any statement.

96 Linné (1934, Appendix 2) and Kidder, Jennings, and Shook (1946) give extended discussions of these techniques. The small Davis sherd with thick white coating (Fig. 51, u) is again too indefinite for discussion.

97 Griffin and Krieger, 1947.

98 Armillas, 1948, pp. 110-11. The dates are taken from his indirect statements.

99 Chicanel, Miraflores, and Monte Alban I would seem appropriate inclusions in the Formative period but are not mentioned.

100 Strong, 1948o, p. 107.

101 Idem, pp. 72-4, 93-8. His Plate 10, H shows an extremely interesting bowl labeled “Mayoid carved subtype” with fine engraved lines and small excised areas very much like Holly Fine Engraved but with lines farther apart.

102 Strong, 19486, especially Fig. 19.

103 Smith, 1936a, 19366.

104 Morley, 1947, Table IX.

105 Kidder, Jennings, and Shook, 1946, pp. 5-6, 241-60.

106 In a letter dated October 4, 1947, he comments that the browner vessels were selected for mortuary offerings, and “There are two varieties of Black-brown: fine and coarse incised. Ware is the same in both, but the fine appears in a greater range of shapes and is usually better polished. The red filling appears only in the coarse; the fine incising, being very shallow and made with a needlesharp point, wouldn't take filling. It was post-firing, apparently, as it was not affected by smudging, and the paste is somewhat lighter in color than the surface. The coarse was sometimes done in the moist clay before polishing, sometimes cut into the fired vessel. The Miraflores complex has a very limited territorial range, being practically confined, as far as we now know, to the Guatemala valley.”

On October 31,1947, Kidder wrote that “The Miraflores specimens should date from the early years of trfe Christian era, perhaps from 100 to 200 A.D. That, of course, is pretty much guess work but is as near as I can estimate. Robert Smith believes, and I. agree with him, that Miraflores is probably contemporaneous with Chicanel rather than with Mamom. This is on typological grounds but there may have been lags in one direction or another between the Highlands and Peten … there was never any strong development of fine engraving in Chicanel. This was confined to Miraflores … .”

107 Kidder, Jennings, and Shook, 1947, Figs. 17, 19. These graves are said to be unique in Middle America and would date at about Monte Alban III times (p. 96). Their Figure 20 shows the construction of a log tomb.

108 Vaillant and Vaillant, 1934, esp. pp. 117-27 and Table 6.

109 Idem. At the bottom of Table 6 they use the expression “Undiscovered Formative Stages Equivalent to Basket Maker I through Pueblo III,” but there need be no confusion with Armillas' use of “Formative” for Meso- America as a whole. The Vaillants' phrase would apply to the undiscovered Basic horizon mentioned by Armillas, at least in Mexico.

110 Idem, p. 76. Their Figures 19 and 22 show several of these bottles in brown and red-on-brown ware. The necks are vertical with flaring mouth; no tapered necks are illustrated. The “brown ware” actually ranges from black to brown, and the bottle bodies were “often left smooth, but simple vertical incisions are employed for decoration” (p. 74).

111 Idem, p. 76.

112 Vaillant, 1935, p. 223 and Fig. 19. Both the unit and continuous decorations are illustrated on three-legged, convex-bottomed carinated bowls. Note also the “cajete” bowls with incised and punctated interiors providing handsome designs rather than functional grates. On page 259 he gives a date of 400-600 A.D. for El Arbolillo II.

113 Vaillant, 1930, Pls. III, c, H; IV, D, H, I-L, O-Q; V, A, B; VI, H, j , K, M. Plate VII, H presents a good example of the bowl form with high concave side and convex bottom found rarely at Davis.

114 Idem, Pls. XXXVII, XL, XLI. The full known distribution of ring (“napkin ring”) and solid disk ear spools in Middle America is given by Kidder, Jennings, and Shook (1946, p. 215). They state that the former belongs to early horizons in Guatemala and the “Middle Cultures” of Mexico, while the disk form has been reported only from Mexico and “seems to be characteristic of the Middle Cultures” except for Period VI in the Panuco area. Note that Kaminaljuyu rings (Fig. 91) were decorated on the interior and outer edges.

115 Drucker, 1943a, pp. 118-20.

116 Idem, p. 121.

117 Idem, especially Figs. 21, 22, 32, 34, Pl. 21, A-C. Figures 39, 40 and Plate 20 show an S-shaped element and more complex engraved, red-paint filled designs. The latter remind me much more of some Fulton Aspect pottery than anything in the Gibson Aspect.

118 Weiant, 1943, Figs. 39-48. On page 70 he says that the very wide everted rims “are highly reminiscent of rims occurring in material from the early periods of Uaxactun, Playa de los Muertos, San Jose, British Honduras, Copan, and Monte Alban.”

119 Drucker, b, especially pp. 81-7 and see Figs. 12, 82-114 inclusive.

120 Ekholm, 1944, Table 1 and pp. 423-33.

121 Through Dr. Ekholm's courtesy, I was able to examine that part of his collection housed at the American Museum of Natural History in November, 1944.

122 MacNeish, 1947.

123 Du Solier, Krieger, and Griffin, 1947.

124 Du Solier, Krieger, and Griffin, 1947; and Du Solier, 1945, who presents a study on Tajin pottery.

125 Du Solier, Krieger, and Griffin, 1947, pp. 27-30.

126 A similar result was reached in my 1945 paper on the “Southern Cult,” in which possible derivations from Maya or Maya-influenced cultures seemed to outweigh those from nearer ones. In this work, ceramics were not considered.

127 This situation is much along the lines predicted by Carter (1945) for agricultural practices. He insisted that Eastern archaeologists would someday discover “Mississippian” sites in which agricultural complexes were present at much earlier times than archaeologists were wont to believe. We are also reminded of “Influence Q” in Middle America, which Vaillant and Lothrop believed had something to do with the passage of ceramic and other traits into the Mississippi Valley region (Vaillant, 1932, pp. 19-20; Merwin and Vaillant, 1932; Lothrop, 1948).

In a paper just issued (Krieger, 1948), I have discussed at greater length a route across Texas (the “Gilmore Corridor”) which may have been used for the introduction of agriculture and other culture traits from Middle America.