1 Smithsonian Institution, River Basins Survey, in the Dam “B” reservoir basin on Neches River just below the Angelina confluence, and the McGee Bend reservoir on the lower Angelina River and Attoyac Bayou. I had the opportunity to examine Stephenson's collections in detail when they were analyzed in the University of Texas laboratory. See Stephenson, 1948.

2 Ford and Quimby, 1945, p. 62, Pl. 5, A-G.

3 Wm. G. Haag, in Webb and Dejarnette, 1942, pp. 514-16. The types Alexander Incised and O'Neal Plain are also found as intrusives in the Tchefuncte culture. The Davis sherds lack the row of punched-out nodes around the rim of these and other Pickwick Basin types, and unlike the Tchefuncte and Pickwick sand-tempered complexes, there is no pinching of body surfaces; however, a great many of the resident clay-tempered vessel bodies were punctated and pinched.

4 Collections in the Ceramic Repository for the Eastern United States, University of Michigan; cursory examination made during several visits.

5 Ford and Willey, 1940, pp. 78-9 and Figs. 35, 36, 37, A-F.

6 James B. Griffin (letter of January 16, 1946) identified some of these as “Hopewell incised,” none as Marksville Incised. The exact type might depend more on paste characteristics than on shape or design, which, combined with proximity to the Marksville culture of Louisiana, indicates to me that Marksville (often called “southern Hopewell”) should be favored in the present case. George I. Quimby, Jr. (letter of January 10, 1946), identified only one as a “Marksville rim,” stating it was not a good example (Fig. 50, L).

7 Webb and Snow, 1945, Fig. 2. The type Montgomery Incised is said by Griffin (idem, p. 237) to appear in late Adena culture and to have analogs in Tchefuncle Incised and in Orange Incised of the St. John's (Florida) area. Griffin has examined the two Davis sherds and expressed an opinion that, although they resemble Monlgotnery Incised, their sand temper would preclude their being specifically of this type.

8 Ford and Willey, 1940, Fig. 36. They do not, however, illustrate or mention such meanders. Griffin (letter of January 16, 1946) states that the large sherd “reminds me of Hopewellian design,” and that the conical leg is Hopewellian. This is the only leg definitely related to a vessel at Davis (see Vessel Appendages).

9 Krieger, 1946, Tables 5, 6, p. 190; Pl. 27, A, c, E, F.

10 The pottery I have in mind would probably belong to Orr's “Spiro 5 Type” (Orr, 1946, p. 237). This is typical of what Orr calls the Middle Component, which to me is the only component of the Spiro Focus at this site. Orr's Early Component and Late Component do not seem to me to be components of the Spiro Focus, but to represent quite different cultures. In other words, Early Component of X Focus, Middle Component (of Spiro Focus), Late Component of Y Focus, would be the order of development in this complex site. Fort Coffee then forms a fourth focus in the same locality, not closely related to the first three, although containing some continuities. In the vessel chart (Krieger, 1946, Fig. 19) the drawings labeled “Spiro Fine Engraved” refer to pottery of Orr's “Middle Component” or “Middle Period,” associated with the rich assemblage of “Southern Cult” ceremonial objects.

On August 9, 1948, Lynn E. Howard gave his opinion that the sherds described in the text are Spiro.

12 Krieger, 1943,1946; see Gibson Aspect.

13 Harrington, 1920.

14 Information from Pedro Armillas, foremost authority on Teotihuacan, on his visit to Austin in March, 1947. An interesting supplement lies in an astounding similarity between the typical Haley Focus arrow points and those of Teotihuacan (see Projectile Points).

15 Moore, 1912, Pl. XLI; Krieger, 1946, types Sanders Plain, Sanders Engraved, Maxey Noded Redware, Red vessels are unknown in the Frankston Focus complex which later occupied the Neches River valley all around the Davis site, but farther north in the Red River country they continue from Sanders-Haley times into the historic period.

16 Charles E. Dibble (letter of April 30, 1948) writes: “Variants of the design you sent appear in a number of Mexican codices. Perhaps the most available source is Bulletin 28, Bureau of American Ethnology. See Figure 31, p. 133, for a relationship with the sun and earth movement, Plate VIII and Figure 40, p. 179 as a symbol of war (fire and water). Another variant is mentioned in Seler's study of the Codex Borgia (pp. 13, 27) where he cites parallels with figures in the Codex Borbonicus and the Tonalamatl of Aubin. In Codex Borbonicus it is an interlocking snake and scorpion representing heaven and earth. In the Aubin Tonalamatl we have Quetzalcoatl interlocking with a worm, also meaning heaven and earth. A similar pattern appears in Maya codices as variants of the day Eznab and the glyph kin (sun or day); see Seler's Gesammelte Abhandlungen, Vol. I, p. 462. A final possible relationship might be established with variants of the ball court [symbol] llachtle. The ball court is represented in both the Aubin and the Codex Borbonicus.”

17 Kidder, Jennings, and Shook, 1946. The pottery design in their Figure 198, A, incised on a brownish black bowl, includes a two-armed element in which the arms curve outward from a core which they surround, precisely as on the Davis sherd except for the number of arms. The humaneffigy vessel in their Figure 190 bears engraved (?) designs around the base which include four bands radiating from an oval core, but perhaps this comparison is too far-fetched. Their Figure 71, i-K shows spaced units of six scroll arms radiating from a core, and Figure 78, H (vessel from Tlaxcala, Mexico) frve-lobed floral (?) designs.

Ekholm (1944, Fig. 9) shows designs on Zaquil Black incised from period IV in the Tampico area, some of which remind me of the Davis sherd in the technique and “set” of the lines. His Figure 9, v shows a four-armed unit but the arms are not twisted or “voluted.” It was this twisting which suggested to Dibble (our Note 16) an esoteric symbolism, snake and scorpion, heaven and earth, etc., rather than the simple radiation which might result in any floral motif.

18 Shepard (in Kidder, Jennings, and Shook, 1946, pp. 274-7) describes the specimens from Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala, and evidence for the occurrence of stucco in the Esperanza phase, Monte Alban III, and Teotihuacan III is given on her pages 256-7. It would be difficult to cite all the occurrences and total time span for Middle America as a whole. There is another possibility, namely that it represents the remains of a complete white coating with incised designs of the type mentioned by Ekholm (1944, p. 400) as intrusive in the Tampico area Las Flores complex.

19 Ford and Quimby, 1945, Fig. 18, A. Note that vessel side curves into bottom and legs are just where bottom flattens out; this could be the case with the present sherd.

20 Idem, Figs. 18, c, E, P; also compare Figure 18, G with the present Figure 52, K. Quimby had no comment on these specimens, apparently seeing no resemblance to Tchefuncte vessels.