Wilson W. Crook, III

Introduction

Over the past two years, the Houston Archeological Society (HAS) has been working with the Sam Houston Regional Library and Research Center in Liberty, Texas to assess the contents of the extensive Andy Kyle Archeological Collection currently curated at the Center. The collection was donated to the Center by the late Mr. Andy Kyle and consists of well over 30,000 artifacts collected from 95 sites in 9 Southeast Texas counties. One of the more prolific sites represented in the collection is the Savoy site (41LB27) located in northeastern Liberty County.  Artifacts from the Savoy site range from Middle Archaic to Late Prehistoric, with an extensive collection from the Woodland period (Crook et al. 2017).

A number of exotic items are present in the site collections including two broken bannerstones made from lithic material not native to Texas, a broken boatstone, and a large partial bowl of the rare Lower Mississippian ceramic type Mabin Stamped, var. Joe’s Bayou.  Recently, several previously unknown boxes of material from the Savoy site were located by Ms. Alana Inman, Director of the Sam Houston Regional Library. In these boxes was a small, cone-shaped ceramic artifact which could not be readily identified. The artifact has been shown to a number of colleagues both from Texas and Louisiana without any success in identification. It is hoped that this short paper will prompt someone to contact the author and assist in the artifact’s identification and functional use.

The Savoy Site (41LB27)

            The Savoy site is located approximately 4.2 km southwest of the community of Moss Hill in northeastern Liberty County. The site is bisected by County Road 2099 and hand written notes left by Mr. Kyle in the boxes of artifacts in the collection indicate that the unknown ceramic artifact described herein was found on the part of the site that occurs south of CR 2099, known locally as the “Stone Field” after the property’s original owner. The Savoy site is part of a series of four sites that occur parallel to one another along a 600 meter southeast-to-northwest stretch of land. Site 41LB26 lies 215 meters to the southeast; site 41LB28 is 225 meters to the northwest; and site 41LB29 is 400 meters to the northwest. All four sites contain similar cultural material ranging from the Middle Archaic to the Woodland period and into the Late Prehistoric period as well (Kindall and Patterson 1987; Crook et al. 2017). The nearest source of permanent water to the Savoy site is Knight’s Bayou, which is located 1.2 km to the west. Knight’s Bayou is a tributary of the Trinity River which currently lies 2.5 km to the west of the site.

The Savoy site was originally recorded in 1973 by the University of Texas during the Louisiana Loop Survey (Elton R. Prewitt, personal communication, 2019). A second survey was conducted in the mid-1980s by members of the HAS in conjunction with Mr. Andy Kyle who showed them where his artifacts were found (Kindall and Patterson 1987; Sheldon Kindall, personal communication, 2017). A third exploration of the area was conducted in 2014 by TRC Environmental Corporation as part of a pipeline right-of-way survey. TRC conducted 21 shovel tests over both the north and southern portions of the site. Nine of the 21 shovel tests contained cultural materials including a Gary point, an Alba point, and numerous ceramic sherds (TRC notes on file with the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory).

Occupational material at the Savoy site covers at least 0.7 acres today, however, based on information given to the HAS by Mr. Kyle, this area represents only about 20 percent of the original site size. Much of the site was destroyed by the construction of CR 2099 coupled with farming and house construction in the area (Sheldon Kindall, personal communication, 2017). Soils covering the area of the Savoy site belong to the Spurger-Bienville-Kennefick complex, specifically a mix of Bienville and Kennefick soils (Griffen 1996). The typical soil profile at the site consists of about 13 cm of a dark brown loamy fine sand underlain by 200+ cm of a very fine-grain dark yellowish-brown loamy sand (Griffen 1996). The artifact horizon extends to at least one meter or more in depth.

Artifacts from the site generally represent the following archeological periods:  (1) Archaic – 6000-2000 B.P. (marked by Ellis, Yarbrough, Kent, Ensor, and Gary points), (2) Woodland phase – 2000-1400 B.P. (marked by Gary and Kent points and both plain and decorated sandy paste ceramics), and (3) Late Prehistoric 1400-500 B.P. (marked by Alba, Catahoula, Friley, and Perdiz points, and both locally manufactured and imported Caddo ceramics) (Crook et al. 2017; Suhm et al. 1954; Suhm and Jelks 1962; Turner and Hester 1985, 1993, 1999; Turner et al. 2011).

The Mystery Artifact

As mentioned above, the artifact in question is a cone-shaped ceramic made from a sandy clay paste. It appears that the object is intentionally made and has not been repurposed from a broken sherd. It has been well-fired and is not friable, unlike most of the Goose Creek type ceramics from the site. Color varies from very pale brown (10YR 7/3-7/4) to pale brown (10YR 6/3). Length of the cone is 36.0 mm (Figure 1). Width is 15.0 mm at the wide end tapering to 6.1 mm at the pointed end. A small perforation approximately 1.5 mm in diameter transits through the entire length of the artifact (Figure 2).

At the wide end of the cone, the end is recessed to a depth of about 8 mm. Examination under a under high power (20-80x) Dino-Lite AM4111-T digital microscope shows the walls of the recessed end are slightly darkened and there is some unknown black residue on one side (Figure 3). No other wear was observed. To date, none of the darkened material has been removed for potential chemical analysis.

Discussion

            The cone-shaped ceramic artifact described herein is not only unique among all the artifacts recovered from the Savoy site, it is also completely unique among the entire Andy Kyle Archeological collection. Most of the artifacts collected by Mr. Kyle from the Savoy site were found on the surface so any artifact association with the object is unknown. However, given the composition of the ceramic and the fact that similar sandy paste ceramics have been recovered from the site, it is likely that the cone-shaped object is Woodland in age. Elton Prewitt (personal communication, 2019) postulated that the object was of Mississippian origin which is certainly possible given the presence of bannerstones made from exotic materials and the Mabin Stamped, var. Joe’s Bayou bowl from the same area of the site.

As to function, this remains problematical. The most common suggestions given to the author by colleagues is that it is either a perforated ornament of some type or a type of tubular pipe. Neither explanation is convincing, especially give the very small diameter (1.5 mm) of the perforation. If anyone from the Texas archeological community has seen something similar, please contact the author at: dubcrook@kingwoodcable.com.

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to Ms. Alana Inman, Manager of the Sam Houston Regional Library and Research Center in Liberty, Texas for inviting the Houston Archeological Society to participate in the development of the new prehistory exhibit at the Center and thus affording us the opportunity to study in detail all the artifacts contained in the Andy Kyle Archeological Collection. Alana not only provided open access to study the collection but also allowed for the study of artifacts outside the Center. I am also grateful to HAS colleague, Robert Sewell, who helped me take the high resolution digital photomicrograph which appears in this paper.

References Cited

Crook, Wilson W., III, Robert J. Sewell, Linda C. Gorski and Louis F. Aulbach

2017    The Andy Kyle Archeological Collection. Report of the Houston Archeological Society, 29:13-56. Houston.

Griffen, Kirby L.

1996    Soil Survey of Liberty County, Texas. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the Texas Agricultural and Experiment Station and the Harris County Flood Control District.

Kindall, Sheldon and Leland W. Patterson

1987    The Andy Kyle Archeological Collection, Southeast Texas. The Journal 86:14-21. Houston Archeological Society, Houston.

Suhm, Dee Ann and Alex D. Krieger, with the collaboration of Edward B. Jelks

1954     An Introductory Handbook of Texas Archeology. Bulletin of the Texas  Archeological Society 25:1-562.

Suhm, Dee Ann and Edward B. Jelks (editors)

1962    Handbook of Texas Archeology: Type Descriptions. Special Publication No. 1, Texas Archeological Society and Bulletin No. 4, Texas Memorial Museum.

Turner, Ellen Sue and Thomas R. Hester

1985    A Field Guide to Stone Artifacts of Texas Indians. Gulf Publishing, Lanham,  Maryland.

1993    A Field Guide to Stone Artifacts of Texas Indians. 2^nd Edition. Gulf Publishing, Lanham, Maryland.

1999    A Field Guide to Stone Artifacts of Texas Indians. 3^rd Edition. Gulf Publishing, Lanham, Maryland.

Turner, Ellen Sue, Thomas R. Hester, and Richard L. McReynolds

2011    Stone Artifacts of Texas Indians. Taylor Trade Publishing, Lanham, Maryland.

Ken Brown

In the June, 2018 issue of this newsletter, I reviewed some of the reasoning and methods that underpin paleoenvironmental research involving snails, and I pointed out that the southwestern quadrant of Texas (basically, west of longitude 100º W and south of latitude 32ºN) is almost a blank slate for archeomalacologists. We know that the better-watered eastern half of the state often produces abundant and informative snail faunas from sites in alluvial deposits, but what about sites in dryland alluvial settings? Dryland floodplains often lack fringing gallery forests and are essentially open habitats with high insolation, constant exposure to wind, and a conspicuous lack of leaf litter from deciduous tree canopy. Trees, if present at all, are likely to be represented only by scrub brush. Woody species in desert settings tend to be small-leaved, because high insolation makes photosynthesis very efficient, so leaf litter is often scarce or absent. Ground cover may be sparse, unless there is good grass cover in wet years, or rock rubble in sloping areas. Conditions like these are challenging for snails, which are highly moisture-sensitive.

One of the earliest studies in the state was done by Cheatum (1966) as part of the Amistad paleoecological project at Eagle Cave, Bonfire Shelter, Devil’s Mouth, and Devil’s Rockshelter, but the  number of samples, volumetric size of samples, and number of specimens are not disclosed and  intrasite provenience is reported only by stratum. In the entire vast area of the Big Bend (more than 12,300 square miles, not counting parts of Culberson, Hudspeth, and Reeves counties), no formal archeomalacological studies have been done until recently, as far as I know.

The Genevieve Lykes Duncan site (41 BS 2615, Early Holocene to present, Brewster County)

This site lies 54 km south of Alpine, toward the western side of the sprawling O2 Ranch, a 272,000-acre ranch that actually sprawls over into Presidio County (Fig. 1). This is the eastern part of the Basin and Range province, and the site sits at the north end of Green Valley, on an interfluve between Terlingua Creek and Davenport Draw. Both streams have contributed sediment in the past, and the deepest component consists of stratified Late Paleoindian (Early Holocene) occupations: sparse artifact scatters associated with rock-lined hearths or small earth ovens.  An earlier occupation at about 10,400-11,080 cal BP lies about 2.3 to 2.5 m below the ground surface, with two rock-lined features, and five smaller rock-lined features dating about 8630-9535 cal BP are somewhat later. There are also two undated (but presumably Late Paleoindian) features that lack charcoal. As of 2016, at least 11 features had been found exposed in the walls of the recent arroyo that revealed the site, over a distance of about 24 meters (since then, three more have been found). There are also a few Middle and Late Holocene features exposed in more distant parts of the arroyo (Cloud et al. 2016:Fig. 6).

An extensive series of radiocarbon assays (chiefly on saltbush, mesquite, and creosote charcoal) ranging from 7934±25 to 9545±25 RCYBP places these Late Paleoindian occupations in the Early Holocene; Cloud et al. 2016:Table 2). These early occupations are buried by Allostratigraphic Unit 1, a thick deposit of clay loam that began accumulating sometime before 10,730 RCYBP and continued until the Middle Holocene. The Paleoindian deposits lie in a dark paleosol bracketed by two sheet gravel deposits (the lower one probably laid down by Terlingua Creek and the upper one by Davenport Draw; Cloud et al 2016:27). Allostratigraphic Units 2 (Middle to Late Holocene) and 3 (Late Holocene) overlie this unit. There is a series of global post-Younger Dryas cold events that punctuate the Early Holocene, but for the most part they do not seem to correspond to the Paleoindian occupations here, which follow the Preboreal Oscillation and precede the well-known 8200 cal cold event.

In July, 2013, I visited the site for several days with the auspices of the Center for Big Bend Studies, and with the assistance of Sam Cason (who did most of the work), collected a continuous column of matrix samples 60 cm wide and 2.74 m high from the southeast wall of the arroyo, immediately adjacent to the main excavation block (Fig. 2). The original plan was to collect samples in 5 cm increments, but the clay and silt-rich alluvium was so thoroughly indurated that this proved impossible, so the sampling interval was increased to 10 cm. Altogether 30 samples were collected (there are two extra samples because intervals were subdivided where stratigraphic breaks were crossed). The lowest sample cut only 10 cm into the lower gravel deposit (Fig. 2). This level is unassayed, but Andy Cloud (personal communication) estimates it dates to about 10,200 RCYBP, based on assays from the adjacent excavation block. Thus, the sample column documents the entire span of the Holocene (including the Late Paleoindian component), but presumably includes no Younger Dryas sediments.

In all, 465.6 kg (about half a ton) of sediment was collected. For the entire column, the mean sample size processed was 14.3 liters (range, 13-15 liters) and the mean analyzed weight was 15.05 kg; the total weight of sediment used in the analysis was 451 kg (a few samples had excess amounts). Samples were soaked overnight in tapwater, then passed through nested 18-inch geologic sieves with mesh sizes of 2 mm, 1 mm, and 0.5 mm. Residue from each grade was dried and bagged for picking. All snails, snail shell fragments, charcoal, seeds, animal bones, and possible microdebitage were saved and counted or weighed. After picking, the remaining residue was turned over to Brittney Gregory for heavy mineral separation studies at LSU.

Despite the fact that nearly half a ton of sediment was processed, only 843 specimens (many of them damaged or fragmentary) were recovered. This amounts to a density of only about two specimens per liter of sediment, compared to about 10-130 per liter from other sites in the eastern half of Texas where the same methods have been used. There are only four kinds of terrestrial snails: Succineidae, Gastrocopta pellucida, Helicodiscus singleyanus (= Lucilla singleyana), and Pupoides albilabris. The Succineidae are unidentified. Although succineids are usually considered to be wetland fringe inhabitants, there are perhaps a couple of borderland species (Succinea luteola and S. solastra) that are found in arid upland areas. Thus, it is not clear whether the succineids indicate wet or dry conditions (but perhaps the latter). There are only two kinds of aquatic snails: a planorbid, believed to be juvenile Planorbella trivolvis, and Physa sp., probably Physa acuta. A few examples of a third aquatic species, Gyraulus parvus, was not found in the sample column but was recovered in wet-screening by the field crew.

All of these snails are resilient habitat generalists, and all appear to be very arid-tolerant species (although the identity of the succineids is uncertain). Almost all the Succineidae, the Helicodiscus, and the aquatic snails are juveniles, hinting at high juvenile mortality. Generally speaking, the aquatic taxa are tolerant of sluggish, poorly oxygenated, warm water with high solute levels. All of the aquatic snails are confined to the bottom half of the column, disappearing in the upper gravel, just before the midpoint of the Holocene; otherwise, the same kinds of snails are found throughout the column, although fluctuating in abundance.

The Genevieve Lykes Duncan snail assemblage is characterized by low specimen density, low taxonomic diversity, apparently high juvenile mortality for many taxa, and a preponderance of arid-tolerant, resilient habitat generalists. When I began sampling this site, I expected to find lingering evidence of greater moisture conditions from the Younger Dryas at the base of the column. My expectation was that despite mounting aridification in the Early Holocene, one or two samples at the base of the column would yield greater numbers of snails, more diversity, and perhaps some taxa that are more moisture-dependant. This proved not to be the case. Instead, the snail assemblage suggests local conditions were already arid by the start of the Holocene. This is consistent with the saltbush, mesquite, and cholla identified in charcoal, and the Cheno-Ams, Artemisia, thistle, Asteraceae, and Ephedra identified in a pollen sample overlying Feature 1 (Cloud et al. 2016:55-56). My sampling stopped in the top of the lower gravel (a depositional event that might signal significant climatic reorganization), and if there is an assemblage adapted to wetter conditions, it must lie in the unsampled sediments under that gravel bed.

The Sayles Adobe site (41 VV 2239, Late Holocene, Val Verde County)

In May, 2016, I visited the Sayles Adobe site in Eagle Nest Canyon (Fig. 3) near Langtry. Eagle Nest Canyon is a narrow, deep, rock-floored canyon that drains southward into the Rio Grande, and two famous sites, Eagle Cave and Bonfire Shelter, lie farther upstream in the canyon. Sayles Adobe is a sandy terrace site that sits perched high (about 11 meters) above the canyon floor not far from the confluence with the Rio Grande. It sits at the foot of the talus slope descending from Skiles Shelter (41 VV 165) and may have served as an adjunct area during the occupation of that site. Tori Pagano, a Texas State University graduate student, has been excavating Sayles Adobe for her MA thesis in geoarcheology, and my report on the snails is to appear as an appendix in her thesis. Tori collected a discontinuous series of eight pilot samples for me from two separate excavation blocks, representing about a 2500-year span of the Late Holocene. Here, instead of a continuous column, the goal was simply to find out if microsnails were present in these sediments, and if so, what kind and in what quantity.

The thick package of alluvium at this site consists of sandy sediments derived from limestone terrain in the canyon watershed, along with some fine-grained sediments (including mud drapes) contributed by backflooding from the nearby Rio Grande. Two of the samples were box-shaped removals 20 cm thick (“borrow pit” block), and six were 22-42 cm in thickness (“sandbox” block; Fig. 4). The samples come from two separate excavation blocks and represent a maximum elevation difference of about 2.9 m. These samples cover about a 2500-year span of the Late Holocene, from about 3167 cal BP at the lowest sample to a point somewhat later than 675 cal BP for the uppermost sample (Tori Pagano, personal communication 2018). This uppermost sample, at about 1275 AD, occurs well into the Medieval Climatic Anomaly. Sedimentation rates were high at this site. An Early Holocene radiocarbon assay of 8236±34 RCYBP was obtained on guajillo charcoal from an auger test at a depth of 5.7 m, so there are sediments equivalent in age to the Lykes Duncan site, but no excavation or snail sampling has been done at this depth. Late Holocene sedimentation rates were evidently high at this site, so the unusually thick samples obtained (up to 42 cm) probably do not imply much time-averaging.

For the 8 pilot samples, average volume was 12.7 liters (range, 11.3-15.0). The processing methods used were the same as those at the Lykes Duncan site. From the 101.35 liters of sediment processed, only 559 specimens were recovered; almost 81% of these came from the 0.5 mm mesh sieve. Specimen density is fairly low, about 5.51 specimens per liter. This is much lower than the 15.7 specimens per liter at Bonfire Shelter, doubtless reflecting the much higher depositional rates at Sayles Adobe. Low specimen density could be a result of poor habitat quality, the diluting effect of rapid sediment deposition, or both.

The samples produced one adult Rabdotus (species indeterminate), three juveniles, and some spires of indeterminate age. Other than this, the snail fauna is very similar to that from Genevieve Lykes Duncan. The assemblage includes Gastrocopta pellucida adults and juveniles, Succineidae adults and (mostly) juveniles, Helicodiscus singleyanus (Lucilla singleyana) of indeterminate age, a few Pupoides albilabris adults, and perhaps two aquatic species: small, mostly juvenile snails tentatively identified as Gyraulus parvus (but with a somewhat anomalous shape), and two small planorbids that look different from Gyraulus (an embryo and a columellar fragment) and suggest the possibility of one or more different species.

Except for the presence of a few Rabdotus and the absence of Physa, this assemblage is much the same as that at Genevieve Lykes Duncan. The succineids are mostly very tiny embryos, and I suspect represent one of the two upland, arid-adapted species in the Succineidae family.

Overview: Snails in Dryland Alluvium

These two sites differ in many ways. Genevieve Lykes Duncan lies in an open, lowland basin at about 1180 meters, in sediments generated from igneous and metamorphic bedrock, and spans the entire Holocene, at the confluence of two meandering, unconstrained streams. Sayles Adobe lies in a narrow, rock-floored limestone canyon at 350 meters, partially sheltered from wind and insolation, with samples that are limited to the Late Holocene (although older but unsampled sediments are at the base), with sediments produced both by limestone bedrock terrain and by Rio Grande backflooding (although the there seems to be no particular evidence of a Rio Grande influence in the snail assemblage).

Annual precipitation is similar in the two areas, but it is distributed differently. At Langtry under the current climatic regime, it  is about 37.26 cm/year (based on 1981-200 normals) with 32% occurring in the summer. There is no permanent weather station on the O2 Ranch, but average annual precipitation was about 36 cm in 1914-1928, and 42 cm in 2015-2016. May to October are the wettest months, with August the peak, and 44% of precipitation occurring in the summer months (June to August).  Insolation rates are very high here and evapotranspiration exceeds precipitation for 11 out of every 12 months. Although the antiquity of the North American Monsoon system is not entirely certain, Genevieve Lykes Duncan participates in this system today, receiving Pacific moisture, often from convectional thunderstorms, mostly in the summer, when plant growth and snail activity are enhanced, but evaporation rates are higher. Sayles Adobe lies farther east and receives more moisture from the Gulf of Mexico, so its precipitation pattern is a hybrid of the West Texas monsoon pattern and the bimodal eastern Texas pattern of rainfall peaks in May and September. At Langtry, April-May and September-October are the rainiest months, but significant rainfall also occurs in June-August (Fig. 5).

Despite these differences, both sites have similar snail assemblages, characterized by low specimen density, a very limited range of resilient, arid-adapted taxa, and apparent high juvenile mortality in some of the species. Both assemblages seem to indicate  arid, drought-prone (and probably variable) conditions that only resilient habitat generalists can tolerate. These findings raise an interesting question: if the fauna consists entirely of resilient habitat generalists, can we rely on it to register small-scale fluctuations in past climates? In faunal studies, it is often the rare, infrequent species with specialized habitat preferences that carry the most paleoenvironmental information payload. If none of these are present, can we rely on fluctuating specimen counts to indicate changing environmental conditions?

We probably need to apply the FRIN principle (Further Research Is Needed).

References

Cheatum, E. P.

1966        Report on Mollusk Shells Recovered From Four Archeological Sites in the Amistad  Reservoir. Pages 227-243 in Dee Ann Story and Vaughn M. Bryant, Jr. (assemblers), A   Preliminary Study of the Paleoecology of the Amistad Reservoir Area. Final Report of  Research Under the Auspices of the National Science Foundation (GS-667).

Cloud, William A., Richard W. Walter, Charles D. Frederick and Robert Mallouf

2016        Late Paleoindian Occupations at the Genevieve Lykes Duncan Site, Brewster County,       Texas. The Journal of Big Bend Studies 28:1-82. Center for Big Bend Studies, Alpine.

Manuscripts Resulting from This Research

Brown, Kenneth M.

n.d.a        Analysis of a Column of Snail Samples from the Genevieve Lykes Duncan Site.   Manuscript in progress, estimated length about 80 pages, to be published by the Center    for Big Bend Studies.

n.d.b        Appendix G: Pilot Sampling of the Snail Fauna at Sayles Adobe. Appendix to appear in

MA thesis (2019) by Victoria Pagano, Texas State University, estimated length about 25  pages.

Elton R. Prewitt

Texas Archeological Research Laboratory

The University of Texas at Austin

Archeologists have known of the painted pebbles in southwest Texas for about 100 years. Extensive excavation of dry rockshelters in the eastern and central Trans-Pecos region began in the 1920s. Initial digging by local collectors was followed in the 1930s by over half-dozen institutions that mounted multiple museum-stuffing expeditions.

Davenport and Chelf (1941) compiled 281 pebble designs observed in various collections from Val Verde county made during the 1920s and 1930s. The Amistad Reservoir salvage program carried out by UT Austin’s Texas Archeological Salvage Project (TASP) from 1958 to 1969 provided numerous additional samples that were recovered from various rockshelters in the Lower Pecos River portion of the eastern Trans-Pecos. As a result, the greatest number of known painted pebbles are from Val Verde county.

UT Austin student and TASP employee Mark Parsons (1967) studied painted pebbles intensively during the early 1960s. His full research paper, in which he worked with a sample of roughly 400 specimens (interpolated from his 1967 references), was never published, but a summary of it appeared later (Parsons 1986). Parsons’ work provides a foundation for continuing study of these fascinating artifacts. He demonstrated that the narrow end of most pebbles is the top portion of the design, but importantly he also defined a Core Motif comprised of 3 elements, and he described six proposed styles of pebbles.

The three elements of the Core Motif defined by Parsons include a Bisecting Element consisting of one or more vertical lines, a Central Element that is horizontal and located toward the lower portion of the pebble, and Flanking Elements positioned on either side of the bisecting element (Fig. 1). Each of these elements may comprise a variety of motifs.

Figure 1: Core Motif showing a) Bisecting Element; b) Central Element; c) Flanking Element (SID00411).-

The six painted pebble styles proposed by Parsons are currently being reviewed as part of a long-term study initiated by Shumla in 2009. The research team that includes Dr. Jean Clottes (Foix, France), Dr. Carolyn E. Boyd (Texas State University), and Elton R. Prewitt (TARL) currently works with a sample of roughly 750 painted pebbles. Although modifications to Parsons’ styles appear warranted, the basic structure he presented is sound and requires tweaking only in light of specimens excavated subsequent to his study.

Mock (1987, 2011, 2012, 2013) employs a different method of grouping painted pebbles based upon individual motifs rather than overall style. Her work has contributed significantly to possible pebble motif interpretations. However, we choose to follow the earlier work by Parsons that was based upon analysis techniques used in art history studies.

Pebbles may be painted in red, black or both, and sometimes yellow or white may be observed. Color is not used as a factor in the present examination of style. The illustrations that follow are enhanced either by pencil shading or digital overlay in order to make the sometimes very dim designs visible. Specimens are identified by their Shumla identification number (SID).

Parsons’ Style 1 exhibits geometric patterns. The Bisecting Element generally is three vertical lines while the Central Element has concentric circles and the Flanking Elements contain “X”s or diagonal lines.  Designs often wrap around the lateral edges and most frequently are executed by fine lines. However, some pebbles of this style are executed by broader lines, prompting a suggestion that two substyles might be defined (Fig. 2).

Figure 2: Style 1, Early Geometrics; a) Style 1A (SID00775); b) Style 1B (SID00715).

In Parsons’ Style 2 the Bisecting Element usually is three lines, but the Central Element may be rectangular or circular with linear or spatulate forms radiating from it. The Flanking Elements include horizontal crescent lines or “flags.” While not overtly so, this style has elements of anthropomorphic representation. The Central Element circle is very suggestive of female genitalia. Two substyles are distinguished, the first of which includes horizontal crescents as originally defined by Parsons. The second includes straight lines (flags) that may be horizontal or diagonal and usually intersect a vertical line (Fig. 3).

Figure 3: Style 2, Flag Design showing obverse and reverse patterns; a) Style 2A (SID00154); b) Style 2B (SID00155).

Style 3 pebbles are overtly anthropomorphic with female genitalia apparent in the Central Element. The key features that identify this style are vertically-oriented chevrons positioned to suggest eyes in the Flanking Elements. Sometimes there are multiple chevrons, and some may be joined into a heart shape (Fig. 4).

Figure 4: Style 3, Chevron Eyes oriented vertically; a) SID00148; b) SID00500.

Parsons’ Style 4 is problematical. He defined this style based upon only three specimens, all of which are anthropomorphic exhibiting eyes similar to Style 5. The key motif he proposed is a “V” shape suggestive of projectiles. While this motif appears on several pebbles other than the original three, none of them are anthropomorphic with identifiable eyes. Tentatively, Style 4 may be redefined to include pebbles that have anthropomorphic qualities, especially female genitalia in the Central Element, but that lack eye representations in the Flanking Elements. The three pebbles Parsons used to define this style are now included in Style 5. Five substyles of Style 4 may be recognized (Fig. 5).  In Style 4A the Bisecting Element includes a vee shape or a zigzag. Style 4B has anthropomorphic elements but no eyes while Style 4C is defined by fine-line application and the Central Element exhibits open circle or brackets. Style 4D comprises most examples not assignable to Styles 4A, 4B or 4C. Style 4E includes examples where apparent hair (or head) only is depicted either in red or black monochrome.

Figure 5: Style 4, Anthropomorphic, lacking eyes; a) Style 4A (SID00630); b) Style 4B (SID00626); c) Style 4C (SID00181); d) Style 4D (SID00611); e) Style 4E (SID00256).

Parsons’ Style 5 includes clearly anthropomorphic representations that he divided into two substyles. However, considering the observable variation in the currently available examples it appears four substyles might be appropriate for this group. Basic to the style is the presence of open brackets or circles in the Central Element and depictions of eyes in the upper Flanking Elements (Style 5A). Some examples exhibit downward diagonal lines or bands that converge toward the open brackets or circles (Style 5B). Others appear to have subtle shading on the upper portions of the pebbles suggestive of hair or possibly skull caps (Style 5C). Some anthropomorphic pebbles (Style 5D) are simply not assignable to a specific substyle (Fig. 6).

Figure 6: Style 5, Anthropomorphic, eyes depicted; a) Style 5A (SID00632); b) Style 5B (SID00022); c) Style 5C (SID00535); d) Style 5D (SID00285).

Style 6 also is anthropomorphic, but hair is clearly depicted both on obverse and reverse faces of the pebble. The Central Element is positioned higher on the pebbles than in other styles; it usually includes a rectangle or oval suggestive of a mouth. Eyes are most frequently depicted by short horizontal bars, but sometimes are depicted by vertical chevrons. No revisions are proposed for Style 6 (Fig. 7).

Figure 7: Style 6, Anthropomorphic, hair clearly depicted; a) SID00397; b) SID00701.

Newly proposed Style 7 includes a variety of geometric designs that differ markedly from those included in Style 1. Divided into three substyles, Style 7 pebbles may exhibit designs that depict “butterfly” motifs (Style 7A) while others comprise vertical lines only (Style 7B). Still others (Style 7C) contain various geometrics such as chevrons that may be nested or sometimes interlocking (Fig. 8).

Figure 8: Style 7, Late Geometrics; a) Style 7A (SID00382); b) Style 7B (SID00733); c) Style 7c (SID00189).

Parsons (1967, 1986) thought the various styles of painted pebbles formed a continuous artistic tradition that extended from the Early Archaic period through the Late Prehistoric period. That notion, however, was based on an outdated concept of Lower Pecos River regional chronology wherein the Late Archaic began at about 3000 B.P. As currently understood, the Late Archaic begins at about 4000 B.P. (Black and Dial 2005; Castaneda et al. 2018).

As originally proposed by Parsons, Style 1 pebbles indeed date to the Early Archaic (9000 – 6000 B.P.) as is confirmed by stratigraphic position and radiocarbon assays obtained from Eagle Cave (41VV167) near Langtry (Koenig and Black 2017). None of the styles are found in contexts suggesting a Middle Archaic (6000 – 4000 B.P.) age affiliation, contrary to assertions by some researchers (Mock 2012; Turpin and Middleton 1998). Styles 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 are all Late Archaic (4000 – 1200 B.P.) in age although some may extend into the early part of the Late Prehistoric. While Parsons postulated a temporal seriation among those styles, this suggestion cannot be confidently supported at this time. That Style 6 dates to the Late Prehistoric (1200 – 400 B.P.) as Parsons proposed seems quite reasonable although no examples have been found in clear unmixed context.

Acknowledgements:  Thank you to the numerous people who have assisted in this ongoing study. The staff at TARL, the Witte Memorial Museum in San Antonio, the Amistad National Recreation Area of the National Park Service and the Jack Skiles family generously allowed access to their collections.

This summary is revised and condensed from a paper entitled “A Review of Parsons’ Painted Pebble Styles” presented at the 89^th Annual Meeting of the Texas Archeological Society, San Antonio TX 26-28 October 2018.

References Cited

Black, S. L. and S. W. Dial, 2005. Electronic document, https://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/plateaus/prehistory, (accessed 19 December 2018).

Castañeda, A. M., C. W. Koenig, M. W. Rowe and K. L. Steelman, 2018. Portable X-ray Fluorescence of Lower Pecos Painted Pebbles: New Insights Regarding Chaîne Opératoire, Context, and Chronology. Manuscript on file, Shumla, Comstock TX (submitted to Journal of Archaeological Science).

Davenport, J.W. and C. Chelf, 1941. Painted Pebbles from the Lower Pecos and Big Bend Regions of Texas. Bulletin V, Witte Memorial Museum, San Antonio, TX.

Koenig, C.W. and S.L. Black, 2017. Low Impact, High Resolution: Unraveling and Learning from 10,000 Years of Hunter-Gatherer Use of Eagle Cave. Paper presented at Society for American Archaeology 82^nd Annual Meeting, March 29^th-April 2^nd, Vancouver BC, Canada.

Mock, S.B., 1987. The Painted Pebbles of the Lower Pecos: A Study of Medium, Form and Content. M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Texas at San Antonio.

Mock, S.B., 2011. Portable Rock Art of the Lower Pecos Canyonlands: The Symbolic Work of Women. American Indian Rock Art 37:115-132.

Mock, S.B., 2012. 41VV2079 – A Rock Shelter Excavated by Ted Sayles in 1932. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 83:191-213.

Mock, S.B., 2013. Painted Pebbles: Lower Pecos Women Take Charge. In: Shafer, H.J. (Ed.), Painters in Prehistory: Archaeology and Art of the Lower Pecos Canyonlands. Trinity University Press, San Antonio, TX, pp. 223-240.

Parsons, M.L., 1967. Painted Pebbles: A Stylistic and Chronological Analysis. Manuscript on file at Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, Austin TX.

Parsons, M.L., 1986. Painted Pebbles: Styles and Chronology. In: Shafer, H.J. (Ed.), Ancient Texans: Rock Art and Lifeways along the Lower Pecos. Texas Monthly Press, Austin, TX, pp. 180-185.

Turpin, S.A., and L. Middleton, 1998. Painted Pebbles from Archaic Contexts in 41VV156, A Rockshelter in the Lower Pecos Region, Val Verde County, Texas. La Tierra 25(3):51-54.