{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03023363613092479, 'fraction_numerical': 0.027846770120588622, 'mean_word_length': 4.768757982120051, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Guide to Ceramics from Spanish Colonial Sites in Texas

Part of the American Material Culture Commons, Archaeological Anthropology Commons, Cultural Resource Management and Policy Analysis Commons, Historic Preservation and Conservation Commons, History Commons, Human Geography Commons, Other Anthropology Commons, Other Arts and Humanities Commons, Other History of Art, Architecture, and Archaeology Commons, Other Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons, and the Technical and Professional Writing Commons Tell us how this article helped you.


AUTHORS' PREFACE
The descriptions of ceramic types in this publication are compiled primarily as an aid to archaeologists working at missions and presidios in Texas, though it will also help those investigating town and ranch sites occupied during the eighteenth century. It was written with the help of numerous site reports done by archaeologists throughout the twentieth century who have valiantly wrestled with the problems of type identification and dating. The senior author has had the privilege of working with many of them throughout this period, and has developed an intense interest in ceramic identification. Additional help has come from researchers who have created and refined the ceramic typology over the years, from John Goggin in 1968to Kathleen Deagan in 1987. The research of Florence and Robert Lister (1974, 1975, 1976a, 1976b, 1978) has contributed priceless information on the identification and origins of majolicas.
Researchers working on Spanish colonial sites in Texas become aware that there are ceramic types that Goggin or Deagan do not describe. This is partly because the authors did not have access to Texas collections (Goggin 1968:81-83) or were limiting their typologies to the Caribbean area (Deagan 1987).
At first, we avoided the problem by designating types with no known names as "Type A, Type B, etc." The senior author has taken her courage in both hands and started to use descriptive names, especially for the coarse wares that have generally been ignored (see Fox 2002:203-219; Gilmore 1974:55-69) as well as the majolicas found on Texas sites that existed into the nineteenth century. This has also increased our appreciation of the work of archaeologists working in California and Arizona, whose Spanish sites lingered even later than those in Texas did. They also have been looking for ways to refer to the later types (see Barnes 1980:192-110; Barnes and May 1972;Cohen-Williams 1992:119-130;May 1975).
The University of Texas at San Antonio Center for Archaeological Research (UTSA-CAR) is the curation facility for a large number of collections from Spanish colonial sites in Texas, which has facilitated the study necessary for producing this manuscript. The illustrations have drawn examples from these collections, plus a generous contribution from the large ceramic collection at Presidio La Bahía at Goliad.
Much of the problem of identification is due to the small size of sherds recovered from most sites and, therefore, the difficulty of identifying types. Hopefully, these illustrations will help to fit a small sherd into the overall pattern of a type and from this to recognize comparative dating of deposits.
This is a step in the development of Texas archaeologists' ability to recognize and date ceramics from Spanish colonial sites. It is does not pretend to be the "be all and end all" on this subject. While primarily intended to be a manual for archaeologists working at Colonial sites in Texas, this publication will also serve as an introduction to Spanish colonial ceramics for those just beginning in historic archaeology in the state.

EDITOR'S PREFACE
The original ideal behind this manuscript was simply to publish a type manual of the Colonial Period ceramics present in Texas sites. The original type descriptions have been written some time ago but as the illustrations were compiled it never quite seemed that the draft was complete. As we began to think of what other sections a user of this manual would like to see, what other chapters may be useful to contextualize the types, the manuscript naturally grew with chapter added to provide a background for the Spanish occupation of Texas, ceramic manufacture in Mexico and methods of ceramic manufacture.
Then it occurred to us that a reasonably comprehensive bibliography of archaeological investigations at Texas missions may also be of use to those readers intent on discovering more about Spanish colonial archaeology. By the time these ideas gelled and the product came together, we went from a manuscript of a few dozen pages to what you have here. I think all the additions were well worth the effort.
While we have tried to include the entire state in our discussion, the book is written from a South Texas perspective as these are the primary collections to which we have access and the sites with which we are most familiar. The manuscript is divided into four chapters. The first three chapters offer abbreviated background information. Chapter 1 is a brief history of the Spanish occupation of Texas, included to provide a background against which the details of ceramic types and dating will fit. Chapter 2 is a very brief summary of the history of Spanish ceramic manufacture in Mexico and a discussion of the importation of these ceramics into Texas. Chapter 3 provides a brief summary of the methods of manufacturing seen in Spanish ceramics in Texas, including the surface treatments and vessel forms. A glossary of terms used in ceramic analysis is included in Appendix A. Chapter 4 is the heart of the publication. It consists of type descriptions of Spanish colonial ceramics found in Texas. In most cases, each type includes a plate with several examples in color facing the text of the type descriptions. The layout is designed to facilitate identification. Each illustration will include the location at which the specific item was found, but in order to keep in-text citations to a minimum in Chapter 4, reference to the specific project during which each was recovered is not made. Instead, Appendix B consists of an extensive bibliography of archaeological site reports and artifact analyses, organized by location, for Spanish Colonial sites in Texas.
Steve A. Tomka CAR-UTSA Special Report #33 ix Fox and Ulrich 2008

CHAPTER 1: MISSIONS, PRESIDIOS, AND VILLAS OF SPANISH TEXAS
The arrival of Columbus, and later Cortez, Pizzaro and their cohorts, altered both Native American and European cultures forever. With the Spanish came change. The Spaniards brought with them a distinct religion, new technologies, animals, food, unique customs, and disease. In exchange, the natives introduced the foreigners to indigenous resources and customs that created a blend that can still be observed today. Texas was subjected to these winds of change when the Spanish began their occupation by way of the many missions, presidios and settlements that they established throughout the region.
The first permanent Spanish settlement within the boundaries of the state of Texas is believed to have been founded in 1682 by Fray Francisco Ayeta. The mission, Corpus Christi de la Ysleta del Sur, was located east of present day El Paso. The last mission, Nuestra Señora del Refugio, established on the Mission River in what is now Refugio County, was secularized in 1830, some nine years after the end of Spanish rule in Texas (Tennis 2002:49). In the intervening 148 years, these institutions functioned as the centers of the Spanish colonization efforts in Texas.

THE BEGINNINGS
Religious instruction of Central Mexico's native population by Spanish friars began almost immediately after the conquest of the Aztecs. The first group of Franciscan friars arrived in Mexico in 1524 (Ivey 1984:5). The formalized institution of the Spanish missions did not develop until late in the sixteenth century (Hinojosa 1991:65).
As their occupation expanded northward from Central Mexico, the Spanish found that not all Native Americans lived in settled farming communities controlled by a rigid social hierarchy such as the ones they had encountered in central Mexico. In central Mexico, the Spanish had merely replaced the upper most level of a well-established hierarchy. The many semi-nomadic and nomadic groups they found in the mountains and deserts of what is now northern Mexico, which the Spanish collectively referred to as the "Chichimecas", were not as easy to subdue (Chipman 1984:49-50). Yet, the mines in territories such as Nueva Viscaya and Nueva Galicia had the potential to be highly productive (Hinojosa 1991:65) if the local Native populations could be brought under control. The Chichimecas, however, did not tolerate the presence of the Spanish, as was demonstrated in their fierce resistance during the Chichimeca War (1550 1590) (Chipman 1984:47, 49-51).
CAR-UTSA Special Report #33 To deal with the opposition, the Spanish considered extermination of the Chichimecas (Bannon 1974:5), but in 1585, the Franciscan bishops of the Third Mexican Council proposed another solution that did not involve destroying whole populations, whose labor was needed in the frontier (Ivey 1984:7-8;Poole 1965:130). They suggested establishing "Indian communities" (i.e. missions) in northern Mexico that would be supervised by Catholic Fathers from the interior of Mexico. The Spanish Crown would supply the friars' salaries and provisions, as well as that of the married soldiers accompanying the friars. The Bishop believed that the mission institution would demonstrate to the Natives the advantages of a sedentary and civilized life (Ivey 1984:8). This approach to colonizing the territory became one of the more common and peaceful modes of incorporating the Natives into the Spanish way-of-life: And though some wilder tribes remained independent down to the nineteenth century, many of them were reconciled to Spanish rule not by military conquest but by the peaceful ministrations of the friars. In the north the friar anticipated the soldier instead of following him. Franciscans and Jesuits went fearlessly into the river valleys of Sonora and across the mountains of Chihuahua and Coahuila, building churches and gathering the Indians into mission, and frequently suffering martyrdom in retaliation for the crimes of military adventures (Parkes 1938:73).
In addition to the need to prevent violent resistance to Spanish occupation around the mining territories, the Spanish had another problem spurred by the geopolitical game between the Spanish and French empires. This problem was brought sharply to their attention in 1685, when they captured a French vessel in the Gulf of Mexico. Interrogation of those on board informed the Spanish that René-Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle, had brought three additional ships full of colonists to establish a French military colony at the mouth of the Mississippi (Foster 1998:71). La Salle had landed far to the west of the Mississippi River, in Matagorda Bay on the Texas coast. Although his colony had already been destroyed by the time the Spanish found it in 1689 (Foster 1995:27) in what is now Victoria County, the Spanish realized that this would not be the end of French attempts to encroach on land the Spanish Crown had claimed. During the search for La Salle they had encountered several groups of Native Americans, some of whom, in particular the Hasinai, lived in small farming communities similar to those the Spanish had found in Florida and who had expressed an interest in more contact with them (West 1916:403).
The Spanish knew they needed to colonize the vast territory east and northeast of their established bases in Mexico and New Mexico in order to discourage any further French attempts at encroachment, but found a lack of interest from their own citizens to colonize. Instead, Spain had to examine other options.
Unlike the English colonial powers, which aimed to displace or even eradicate the Native Americans, or the French, who wished merely to trade with the Native Americans they encountered, Spain worked to incorporate Native groups into their society (Hinojosa 1991:62). They wanted the Native Americans to CAR-UTSA Special Report #33 become what they called gente de raison, "people of reason," by which they meant Spanish-speaking Catholics, citizens loyal to the Spanish Crown. To accomplish this they would use the method that had worked well in Florida, and to some extent in the Chichimeca territory and New Mexico missions.

GOALS AND STRATEGY OF THE MISSIONS
The mission institution was developed for three main purposes: to protect, to Christianize, and to "civilize" (Fisher 1998:1). Missionaries were to be the cultural emissaries who established relations with native groups and founded far-ranging settlements that constituted the first step toward a Spanish foothold in the hinterlands. In this respect, the work of the Church served the purposes of religious zealots, military leaders, and the few European colonists alike, by converting the Native Americans to Catholicism and to a European lifestyle (McEwan 1993: xix).
In order to protect Spanish interests from French advancement in Texas, Spain focused on establishing a series of missions designed to incorporate Native groups into Catholicism and ultimately Spanish society.
In 1537, Pope Paul III decreed that the Natives encountered in the New World were "truly men capable of understanding the Catholic faith," creating an opportunity for the clergy to spread Christianity to unexposed people (Fisher 1998:1). This strategy proved to be a successful solution in the case of the Spanish Territory of Florida, and Spain intended to create the same success story in Texas.
The presidial soldier regularly accompanied the missionary (Bannon 1974:68). The establishment of missions paired with a presidio propagated Spanish northern expansion. These two institutions provided a defended frontier with the labor force needed to undertake construction activities that would encourage subsequent colonization (Scurlock et al. 1976). The armed soldiers present at the presidio provided protection for the missionaries and sometimes provided the force necessary keep Native Americans from leaving. The soldiers also aided the priests in the education of the Natives (Hinojosa 1991:66-67).
Both institutions were only to remain in existence until the missionaries felt that enough Natives had been converted and educated. The plan was that missionaries would gather the natives into the mission complex, using abundant food as an enticement (Meissner 1999:40-41). There they could be instructed in the disciplines of religion, farming and a European way-of-life. Secularization would follow, and the land divided among the Natives. The mission and presidio would then be re-established at another location (Scurlock et al. 1976:19). Seeds planted through such expansion would hopefully make the territory more attractive to colonists from Spain (Fisher 1998:1).
The missionaries of Florida did not find many sedentary agricultural societies flourishing throughout the land. Most of east Florida was occupied by hostile, nomadic groups which required some time to subdue and extract the obligatory labor and tribute (Deagan 1983:22). Similarly, the majority of the indigenous groups of Texas, with the exception of those living in East Texas and along the Rio Grande north of the Big Bend, were nomadic hunters and gatherers. They were not exposed to agriculture before the Spanish missionaries arrived and had not experienced a settled way of life.
The friars who came to Texas tried to apply the model that had been successful in Florida and sought to gather the natives into fixed settlements or reducciones. It was believed that sedentary living was the "Natural Law" (Hinojosa 1991:64

SITE PLAN
The structured layout of many of the Texas missions resembles 12th Century Benedictine Monasteries (Ivey1984:13). These Monasteries retained all that was essential to be self-sufficient. Though the monks who resided in the Benedictine Monasteries lived scheduled lives isolated from the outside world, Franciscan friars who sought out individuals to convert and instruct ran the missions. The layouts of the missions resemble the plan of St. Gall, a "perfect" plan according to the Rule of St. Benedict (Ivey 1984:2). The Rule of St. Benedict required that "the monastery should be laid out that everything essential, that is to say water mills various crafts, is found with the Monastery walls" (Ivey 1984:2). The Monasteries clustered around the main church, living quarters, the kitchen, the refectory, storage rooms and the "chapter house" (Ivey 1984:2). Other buildings within the complex included workshops (smith, cooper, ceramic, textile, etc.), infirmary or hospital, a bakery, a grist mill, barns, stables and even areas for the wine making and beer brewing (Ivey 1984:2). Outside the structural compound of the mission, were farmland and pastures.
CAR-UTSA Special Report #33 The mission complexes were similar to the Benedictine Monastery with a few minor exceptions. The convento of the mission is actual a collection of some of the previously discussed rooms; the friars quarters, infirmary, privy, kitchen, refectory, and certain work areas. The missions allowed for textile workshops, stonemason, blacksmith and carpenter shops, as well as, granaries and native housing within the compound (Ivey 1984:4-6). Like the monastery plans, the farmlands and pastures were also located outside the structural complex at the missions.
Before construction of a mission compound, the site under consideration had to fulfill several requirements. The highest priority, exceeding even the proximity of local Indian groups, was water.
Native Americans could always be brought to a mission site, but water obeyed specific physical laws that dictated where it could be used (Ivey 1984:7). Where irrigation was needed to bring water to farmland, pasture land, and the mission nucleus, other factors such as a bank height, slope, water flow, and valley contour had to be examined before the site could be deemed acceptable (Ivey 1984:8). The site also needed to have areas that were level, water accessible, and above flood levels for croplands. Adequate pastureland was needed for grazing livestock and availability of resources for building and fuel (i.e. wood, clay, limestone, gravel, etc.) were other requirements.

SPANISH EFFORTS TO COLONIZE TEXAS
On several occasions during the 16 th and 17 th centuries, brief exploration of the Texas frontier occurred. Below we present a brief summary of regional histories in mission establishment and refer to specific missions to illustrate those trends. For the reader that is interested in learning more about these missions and trends we recommend that they consult some of the several authoritative works including Habig (1968a, 1968b, 1990), Bannon (1974), and Chipman (1984).  (Chipman 1992:66;Weber 1992:91). Though the mission was not placed within the modern Texas boundary, several of the native groups serviced here were from east of the Rio Grande.

WEST TEXAS MISSIONS
The first permanent Spanish settlement within the Texas state boundaries is believed to have been founded in 1682 by Fray Francisco Ayeta. The mission was named Corpus Christi de la Ysleta del Sur ( Figure 1-1: 3), in honor of the refugees from Ysleta who congregated there. The mission was located east of present day El Paso. During the next 50 years four additional missions were built in the El Paso/Socorro area (Habig 1990). As shown in Figure 1 (Habig 1990:149). Santa María de las Caldas was originally built for the Suma people, and was always an open community, more similar to the missions in New Mexico than the walled fortresses of Texas (Wright 2001). It existed from 1730 to 1749 (Habig 1990:166).
Southeast from the El Paso missions along the Rio Grande, several missions were established near present day Presidio. Navidad en las Cruces ( Figure 1-1: 6) (also known as San Francisco de los Julimes) was established in 1682 for the Jumanos who requested the mission (Habig 1990). The mission existed for one and a half years before the Franciscan missionary was forced out by the aggressive natives. It was re established in 1687 for a short time. Soon after Navidad en las Cruces was founded, two Franciscan missionaries founded El Apostol Santiago (Figure 1-1: 7) at another church constructed by the Jumanos, located further south. The missionaries were forced to leave this mission approximately six months later.
It is possible that the mission had a brief resurgence in 1687 (Habig 1990).
Attempts to re-establish missions in the Presidio area were made in 1715. Mission San Antonio de los Puliques (Figure 1-1: 8) was founded near the site of present-day Presidio (Habig 1990:153-154). Some speculate that the mission may have had its start sometime during the 1680s, though this may be due to the fact that Mission San Antonio was placed near or on the site of El Apostol. Mission San Antonio de los Puliques lasted until 1795, though it was abandoned several times for periods of up to six years.
Another mission founded in the area during 1715 was San Cristóbal (Figure 1-1: 9). Habig (1990:154) reports that the mission's history was similar to that of San Antonio de los Puliques, although other sources believe that it was initially started in 1683, and given its name in 1715 (Burke 1971:63-64).
Mission Santa María la Redonda de los Cibolos (Figure 1-1: 10) was located approximately twenty miles north of Presidio near Cibolo Creek. Little is known about this mission. It appears to have been established by the Trasviña Retis expedition in 1715, but it is possible that it was founded in 1684 by the Dominguez Mendoza expedition. Regardless, the mission was abandoned in 1724 (Habig 1990:154).

EAST TEXAS MISSIONS
The Aguayo expedition of 1689 to East Texas in search of the La Salle colony found that the settlement, known as Ft. Saint Louis, had already been destroyed by a smallpox epidemic and by hostile Native Americans (West 1916:398). Some of the Native American groups living inland from Fort Saint Louis had expressed interest in maintaining contact with the Spanish, which made the latter believe they would be willing to enter a mission (West 1916:403 (Bannon 1974:102). The two missions did not last long. The first existed three years before missionaries and soldiers abandoned the site at the urging of the Caddo. Rumors of an invasion by the French caused the Spaniards to bury any large valuable items and burn the structures to the ground before retreating to Coahuila (Burke 1971:118).
Santísimo Nombre de Maria was even less successful, lasting roughly one and a half years. A flood washed away the straw chapel and the missionaries fled to San Francisco de los Tejas (Habig 1990:153).
In 1713, the French constructed Fort Natchitoches on the Red River under the instruction of Louis Juchereau de Saint-Denis. This prompted Spain's second attempt to secure East Texas in 1716 (Bannon 1974:111 Texas to push the French out, but he found them willing to go without a fight (Hackett 1945). He re By 1729, however, Spanish officials were convinced that the East Texas missions were too costly to maintain and their presence was no longer needed. The Hasinai and other Caddo groups had not been CAR-UTSA Special Report #33 receptive to the Spanish missions (Bannon 1974:102). French attempts at occupation of the area had ended in 1721, so they no longer posed a threat to Spanish territory. Only Mission Guadalupe de los Nacogdoches ( River not far from modern Austin, and then to the San Antonio River, where each was renamed. The two remaining missions in East Texas were finally abandoned in 1773 (Burke 1971:70;Habig 1990:156-157).
The missions of East Texas faced several problems that limited their impact on Native American culture and ultimately led to their failure. Even though they were already living a sedentary life in small farming communities the Caddo were not interested in joining the missions. In addition, the distance that supplies from Mexico had to travel (Scurlock et al. 1976:23;Bannon 1974:121) to reach the missions often lead to shortages in resources that would discourage full-time residence at the missions.

THE SAN ANTONIO MISSIONS
In 1709, an expedition led by Captain Pedro de Aguirre stopped briefly near the headwaters of the San Antonio River (Foster 1995:99). Accompanying Aguirre on the expedition was Fray Antonio de San Buenaventura Olivares. Fray Olivares was greatly impressed by the abundance of resources, ideal locations, and disposition of the natives found near the Rio San Antonio. Olivares began petitioning to be allowed to move the rapidly failing Mission San Francisco de Solano across the Rio Grande (de la Teja 1995:8;John 1975:206-207) to this place where the creeks were "bordered by many trees and with water enough to supply a town" (Tous 1930:5). Before the end of 1716, the Governor of Coahuila commissioned Olivares to found a mission along San Antonio River (Bannon 1974:117). On May 1, 1718, Mission San Antonio de Valero (16) was founded (Foster 1995:132). Five days later Presidio San Antonio de Béjar (C) was established nearby (Bannon 1974:117). This Spanish community on the San Antonio was intended more to provide a secure way station on the road to the East Texas Missions than to convert the local Native Americans (de la Teja 1995:7).
Mission Valero (Figure 1-1: 16) was originally located just west of San Pedro Springs. The young mission experienced several setbacks at its first location. The mission was moved to the east side of the river in 1719 (Habig 1990:159). This second location did not fare much better as in 1724 a hurricane destroyed what few buildings had been erected at the mission. After the devastating hurricane passed, Mission Valero was moved to its present-day location across the river from the Presidio San Antonio between 1724 and 1727. The mission moved to it present location during the 1740s due to an epidemic (Scurlock et al. 1976:222).
In 1722 Mission San Francisco Xavier de Nájera (Figure 1-1: 17) was established, probably on the original site of Mission San José (Ivey and Fox 1999:45). The mission served a group fifty Ervipiami families that came from the Brazos River area. It appears that a shortage in funding created the decline of the mission and it lasted only about two years (Habig 1968a:78-81), although it is possible that the decline was due to a lack if interest on the Native's part (Ivey 1984:13). The mission closed in about two years but it was reopened shortly thereafter in an attempt to have it serve as a sub-mission of Valero. This trial did not last long (Habig 1968a:78-81) and its doors closed for good in 1726 (Schuetz 1968:11).
The been moved (Scurlock et al. 1976:22). San Fernando de Béjar was established on March 9, 1731, but did not receive viceregal approval until October (Scurlock et al. 1976:22). The villa expanded throughout the eighteenth century, with both immigrants from Mexico and Native Americans who had been baptized and married into presidio and villa families forming the population (Scurlock et al. 1976:22).
As the villa grew, the three East Texas missions were busy settling in their new locations. Each mission was re-christened upon arrival along the San Antonio River. Nuestra Señora de la Purísima Concepción  (Scurlock et al. 1976:22-23).
The early years of the San Antonio missions saw much hardship and struggle. Though there were adequate resources of wood, quarry stone, and water, fields had to be irrigated to be used as croplands.
This necessity limited the areas that could be settled around San Antonio: "…The fields required irrigation and this could be accomplished only in a narrow area along the upper 10 miles or so of the valley" (Ivey 1984:4). A major difficulty the missions faced was that, unlike the Native Americans surrounding the West Texas and East Texas missions, the Natives inhabiting South Texas were hunters and gathers who would have to be convinced to give up their nomadic ways (Schuetz 1968:14). The need to provide a large and dependable food supply to entice Native Americans into the missions led to the building of an extensive acequia system to provide irrigation to the fields around each mission (Cox 2005). In addition, large tracts of land surrounding San Antonio were pulled into service as ranches to raise large herds of cattle (Cargill et al. 1998).
The population census data of the missions reveal that initially there was no problem enticing the natives to join the missions. The prospect of abundant food, supplied by irrigated fields and the rapidly increasing herds of cattle, sheep, goats and pigs, as well as acquisition of material objects such as metal tools and glass beads, was an important lure to the missions, but protection from other Native Americans, especially Apaches, and later, Comanches, may have been an even greater inducement (John 1975:255-257;de la Teja 1995:9). However, even with these inducements, the Natives often did not stay (Ricklis 1996:159 162; Schuetz 1968:14). One father noted "It is the exception who does not flee to the wilderness two or three times and so far away that sometimes they go as far as 100 leagues away" (Habig 1978:56). At first, those who left and those who died of disease were readily replaced. Valero and San José, the first two missions established, had a neophyte population of over 500 by the end of the 1720s. In 1740 the overall Native American population of the missions was 987 (Habig 1978:80), but by 1750 the combined missions population was declining. All five missions housed only about 800 Natives (Hinojosa 1991:62).
In 1789, Fray Lopez noted that although Mission Valero was now some 70 years old, the majority of the population there had converted as adults (Habig 1968a:65). Hinojosa (1991:75) has pointed out that over two-thirds of the 319 Native Americans who were identified in both baptism and death records died before the age of three. Only eight from this group lived to the age of 30. No population growth within the mission community was taking place.
Historical records reveal much concerning the subsistence of the inhabitants of the missions. Farming and ranching endeavors were given much attention, "…types and quantities of vegetables and grains cultivated, the location and structure of the rancho, and the number of horses, sheep, pigs and mules and chickens" (Scurlock 1976:23-24). In Padre Dolores' account of mission life he wrote: There are consumed for this cattle which they try to increase to kill for them in each mission each Sunday and some special feast days, four or five heads of cattle butchering them, according to the number of people, making the pieces for each individual according to his ration, and mutton is given when they are sick. The maize from the harvest is used by giving it to Indians that they need to their complete satisfaction, also they issue beans, squash, watermelons which in each mission there is care to plant annually, for this produce is a major gift for the appetite of the Indians (Schuetz 1968:20-21).
Evidence suggests the use of indigenous food resource as well. An account from an anonymous missionary from Mission Concepción states "some women are in the habit of leaving the mission toward evening to eat tunas, strawberries, sour berries, nuts, sweet potatoes and other fruit and roots from the field" (Luetenegger 1976:49). Catching fish from the irrigation ditches was not uncommon either (Schuetz 1980:205). Some padres exhibited culturally biased views in their accounts of the natives' use of indigenous foods: "common illness [es] were fatal to the natives because they ate unwholesome foods gathered in the el Monte (wilderness) nearby" (Hinojosa 1991:76).
The early mission sites did not boast the impressive structural remains that we see today. In fact, original mission structures were very rudimentary. The buildings were constructed of cedar posts, thatch roofs, adobe walling and lime or mortar flooring (Ivey 1984:37;Scurlock et al. 1976: 23). Permanent stone structures at four missions began to be constructed during the 1740s and 1750s. Great care was taken in the construction of the churches, often taking up to 15 years to complete one project. All the missions had a stone church building by the mid 1750s. Mission San José was the exception, with an adobe church finished in 1749, and a stone church was not even begun until 19 years later (Scurlock 1976:23).
The institution of the frontier mission was originally believed to be a temporary means of Christianizing and Hispanicizing indigenous cultures. The missions were only to remain functioning until it was deemed that the people could be integrated into Spanish society. The San Antonio missions did not work towards this goal: As for assimilation of the Indians into the Hispanic society of San Fernando, it does not appear to have been seriously considered. Quite the contrary, the work and life in the mission and the building programs directed by the padres were designed to create permanent communities completely separate from the other institutions on the frontier. The survival and development of the missions for almost a century attests to the strength of those ideals of segregation and independence (Hinojosa 1991:69).
The San Antonio missions may have received support from both religious and political sects; for the most part, they acted in total isolation from the urban San Antonio society (Hinojosa 1991:68-69;Ivey 1984:1).

Secularization of the San Antonio missions began in 1793 (de la Teja 1995:86). Mission Valero and Mission San Juan were fully secularized in that year. Final secularization occurred at Mission
Concepción in 1823. Secularization was completed in 1824 at Mission San José (Habig 1968b:122). In September 1831, all of the remaining Mission Espada lands were ordered to be auctioned.

CENTRAL TEXAS MISSIONS
Several clusters of missions were founded in Central Texas, north and east of San Antonio. Many of these missions were established in an effort to serve the Apaches, though much of their work was not successful.
As shown in Figure 1-1, three missions were founded along the San Gabriel River between 1746 and 1749. Mission San Francisco Xavier de Horcasitas (28) was the first organized in 1746, though it was not officially established until 1748. The mission was not very successful due to the squabbling between the Natives and the presidio soldiers, a yearlong drought, and the murder of the missionary at Candelaria (Burke 1971:72). The mission functioned at this site until 1755 when it was moved to the springs at San Marcos where it lasted for a year before being moved yet again to the last site in present-day New Braunfels. After the last move, the mission was referred to as San Francisco Xavier on the Guadalupe (15), or just the Guadalupe Mission (Chipman 1992:849;Habig 1990:173). The mission was never formally recognized at its final location, but Father Dolores campaigned to include the site among the missions supported by Pedro Romero de Terreros. Terreros was encouraging the founding of missions among the Apaches, and the Guadalupe Mission fell outside of that region. Due to lack of funding and protection from a presidio, the mission was abandoned in 1758 (Chipman 1992;Habig 1990).
Soon after the establishing of Mission San Francisco,Mission San Ildefonso (29) was founded approximately two miles east of the first mission. It was hoped that this mission would serve the Coco, the Mayeye, the Orcoquiza, and other local groups. A smallpox epidemic, combined with a drought and the murder of Fr Ganzábal at Mission Candelaria (Burke 1971:80-81), caused a decline in the native population of the mission.
The third mission established along the San Gabriel River was Mission Nuestra Señora de la Candelaria (30). The mission was founded in 1749 and had some success in the beginning. Troubles brewed, nonetheless, between the presidio soldiers and the native inhabitants. The decline of the mission was set off by a double murder that appears to have been orchestrated by Captain Felipe de Rábago y Terán.

Terán had been admonished by Father Miguel Pinella and Father Juan José Ganzábal on several occasions
for his harsh punishments of the natives, and the refusal to order his soldiers to conduct themselves in a more appropriate manner with the native women. To add to the ill behavior of Terán and his soldiers, an affair between Terán and the wife of one of his enlisted men, Juan Joseph Ceballos, came to light.
Ceballos, unhappy with Terán's behavior, went to the padres for guidance. Ceballos had publicly denounced Terán, who imprisoned Ceballos for his actions and continued his affair. Fr. Ganzábal petitioned for the release of the prisoner, which induced Terán to punish Ceballos further. Infuriated, Fr Ganzábal threatened to report the incident to the superiors. Terán released Ceballos to appease Ganzábal, but was still filled with anger toward the priest. A few days later, on May 11, 1752, Fr Ganzábal and Ceballos were murdered while having dinner in the priest's room. A member from the Cocos confessed to the murders, though provided additional information implicating Terán. Within the next four years, the mission experienced a rapid decline in native inhabitants, brought on by their lack of faith in the Spaniards. In 1755, the mission was moved to San Marcos, and was deserted within the year (Burke 1971;Habig 1990;Richards 1936).
The establishment of Mission Santa Cruz de San Sabá ( were open, the invading natives massacred the padres and many of the soldiers at the mission. After they collected all that was transportable, the structures were burned. The attackers left before any assistance from the local presidio was organized. Attempts were made to re-establish the mission; however, none were productive (Burke 1971:134-137;Habig 1990:175). The presidio, later known as Presidio San Sabá, remained working until 1771 (Habig 1990:185).  (Habig 1990:174). The mission was quickly moved to a higher location soon after it was founded. The need for Rosario was due to the animosity between the Karankawa and the Aranama. Similar to Espíritu Santo, farming was only possible when the weather was favorable. Irrigation was not possible due to the contour of the land, however, the mission was successful in cattle ranching. Rosario was abandoned by 1780, and accounts indicate that the Karankawa were not happy with their treatment by the Spanish missionaries and soldiers (Fox 2000:5). The Karankawa returned in 1789 for a brief revival of the mission. The period was marked by peaceful relations between the Natives and the Spaniards. By 1791, a new church was built of stone. The mission continued until 1808, when the mission inhabitants were moved to the newer mission of Refugio (24), although there is evidence that at least some Native Americans remained at the mission until about 1830 (Fox 2000:6;Habig 1990:174). possibly continued one to two additional years before abandonment (Burke 1971:78-79;Habig 1990:174;Wooster 1996Wooster :1069. The last mission in Texas, Nuestra Señora del Refugio (27) In 1824, the mission was ordered to close, with all possessions being transferred to La Bahía. The mission continued to serve the remaining natives until 1830, when the mission was officially abandoned (Benowitz 1996(Benowitz :1073McDonald 2002:66-67). Mission Refugio was the last Texas mission created and the last mission abandoned.

PRESIDIOS
The construction of presidio complexes often occurred simultaneously with the establishment of the Spanish missions. The presidios offered added protection to the mission inhabitants, as well as providing opportunities for colonists to brave the frontier. Regulations stated that settlers were not to be turned away at the presidios, rather, they were allowed inside the wall to sell their wares, given parcels of land to produce crops, and encouraged to help in the defense of the settlement with the presidial soldiers (Moorehead 1975:270). The presidios would often be placed within close proximity of the missions, usually on the other side of a river, so as to be near enough to supply aid when needed, but far enough to offer some obstacle to the soldiers' access to the missions' female neophytes. One presidio may serve anywhere from one to five missions at a time.
The population at each presidio varied in the number of individuals and the ethnic background. As the mission period progressed in Texas, the ethnic dynamic shifted frequently. Some presidios were manned by individuals of purely Spanish background (i.e. espanoles, europeos), with a few members who were considered mixtures (mestizos, mulatos, coyotes, etc.) and some members of the local native groups considered to be scouts (exploradores) (Moorehead 1975:182-183). At the presidios on the frontier, the ethnic Spaniards were usually outnumbered by the men of mixed background and acculturated Native Americans (Moorehead 1975:197-198).
Eight presidios were established in Texas (Figure 1-1 The first presidio established within the present State of Texas was Nuestra Señora de los Dolores de los Tejas (Habig 1990:178-180). The presidio was founded in 1716 to serve the missions of Nuestro Padre San Francisco, Concepción de los Hasinai, San José de los Nazonis, Guadalupe de Nacogdoches, and Dolores de los Ais. The presidio was moved a few times before settling along Thomas Creek, but the exact location of these sites is not known. Presidio Dolores not only acted to protect the missionaries and their neophytes from raiding natives, but also as a listening station to track French activities in the area (Faulk 1996:334). The presidio lasted until April of 1729 when it was ordered to close (Habig 1990:180).
The presidio of San Antonio de Béxar was first erected at San Pedro Springs, near the San Antonio River in 1718. The exact location of this presidio is not known, though it was likely on the hill above the springs. The complex consisted of an adobe house that served as a headquarters, while the soldiers resided in huts. In 1722, the presidio was moved to a location on the west side of the river where it would serve as the nucleus around which the secular settlement of San Fernando would later develop. The new structures were to be built of adobe bricks, but documents indicate that they were never completed.
Unlike the other presidios in Texas, San Antonio de Béxar lacked any substantial structures such as walls, or towers. The compound was enclosed by a stockade, though the soldiers continued to live outside the walls within the town (Faulk 1996:334). The few structures fell into disrepair, and by 1790, new plans to reconstruct the presidio were created. These plans were never followed through. The Segunda Companía Volante de San Carlos de Parras del Alamo arrived in 1803 to help protect the town from hostile Native Americans, but they chose the recently abandoned buildings of Mission Valero, across the river from the town itself, giving it a new name: the "Alamo." The soldiers utilized the abandoned mission structures as the center of the fortified defense, and the plazas surrounding San Fernando as the municipal center. The old presidio in the center of town witnessed much of the hostility during the Mexican and Texan fights for independence. The presidio had a very brief reinstatement after the fall of the Alamo, but was finally closed in 1836, after Texas won its independence (Handbook of Texas 1996:826 (Habig 1990:184-185). By 1772, the missionaries from Mission La Luz abandoned the site. Repeated attempts were made by the French to settle in the area sometimes referred to as "Atascosita" over the years, until one succeeded in 1810 (Habig 1990).
Presidio San Elizario was established in 1780 along the Rio Grande near present day El Paso. The presidio was to serve the missions of San Lorenzo, Ysleta, Socorro, and Senecú, and to provide a colony of "pacified Apaches" (Timmons 1996:838-839). The chapel at the presidio served the spiritual needs of the surrounding town named San Elizario. In 1807, Zebulon Pike was imprisoned at Presidio San Elizario after crossing into Spanish territory and causing concern over possible American invasion. Until the presidio was recalled in 1814, a part of its function was to hold American traders, who were encouraged to enter Spanish territories after reading Pike's review on the commercial properties of New Mexico (Timmons 1996:838-839). The presidio's church was washed away in the big flood of 1829.

CHAPTER 2: CERAMIC MANUFACTURING IN MEXICO AND SUPPLYING THE MISSIONS AND PRESIDIOS OF TEXAS
Soon after Spain's conquest of the New World, colonization of the Caribbean and Central and South America was underway. Spain established several colonial settlements in Florida and in the Caribbean that required manufactured Spanish goods. Central America became a significant destination for settlement as the precious mineral wealth of the regions became a major export. Spain initially supplied her colonies in the New World with needed goods such as food, clothing, tools, and other household items. The city of Seville held the monopoly on the exportation of Spanish and other European wares to the New World well into the colonial period (Lister and Lister 1987:201). As the populations of many of the settlements began to increase, the river ports at Seville could not keep up with the demands from the New World. To cope with the increased demand, some of the trade restrictions were loosened, though Seville still controlled the activity. When shipments of European wares did not reach New World ports to fill their needs, the settlers turned to indigenous potters to supply them with essentials for cooking and storage (Lister and Lister 1987:216). In a few instances Spanish households adopted native vessel forms to aid in some food preparation activities. The Spanish readily adopted the flat ceramic griddle used to cook tortillas (comales) and the heavy bowl with a ridged bottom used for grinding peppers, garlic, and other food ingredients (molcajetes) (Lister and Lister 1975:28). Overall, however, the Spanish settlers generally preferred to use glazed table wares, rather than the unglazed earthenwares produced by indigenous potters. They required chamber pots, oil lamps, candle holders and roof tiles for their houses (Lister and Lister 1975:29). In the kitchen, women needed the heavy, flat-bottomed cooking dishes known as cazuelas to prepare certain dishes. Though indigenous potters were highly skilled, they did not produce these vessel forms, and shipments from Spain were either too costly, or not reliable enough to adequately supply the population (Lister and Lister 1987:216-217). The answer to the problem was to teach the Native American population to produce Spanish-style ceramics.

MANUFACTURING SITES
The sixteenth century marked the beginning of ceramic manufacturing in Mexico. The earliest records of potters producing Spanish wares in Mexico date to 1537 and 1538 (Lister and Lister 1987:218). By the end of the sixteenth century, the bulk of the goods needed by the settlers were produced in the major population centers of the Spanish territory (Deagan 1987:23).  Later, these pottery complexes developed their own styles: a mixture of Native American, Chinese, Spanish (with its Moorish components), and Italian influences (Lister and Lister 1974:24).
CAR-UTSA Special Report #33 22 Fox and Ulrich 2008 Near the middle of the sixteenth century, majolica manufacturing was initiated in Puebla ( Figure 2-1), which soon became the largest production center producing the tin-glazed wares (Lister and Lister 1974:26). Puebla not only had the natural resources, but also a great supply of native labor to use in the procurement of materials and production of the ceramics (Lister and Lister 1987:231). Clay resources were readily available, as were minerals such as tequesquite, (soda ash, a mineral salt, a combination of chloride and sodium carbonate), needed for producing glazes (Lister and Lister 1974:26).
The Puebla ceramic industry developed as a mixture of styles produced by Native American potters under Spanish supervision (Lister andLister 1975:33, 1987:221). Andalusian styles were, of course, copied, although Mexican wares never exhibited the blatantly Moorish designs that were seen in earlier Caribbean sites (Lister and Lister 1975:33). Italian influence was a major factor in European majolica designs and this is also reflected in the designs seen in Mexico (Lister and Lister 1974:24-25).
Chinese porcelains began arriving in Mexico in the last quarter of the sixteenth century and began influencing the quality of the wares produced in Puebla and the other Mexican pottery centers (Lister and Lister 1987:252), and the shapes of some vessels (such as handleless cups) (Lister and Lister 1975:39).
Most importantly, however, the Chinese influence resulted in the adoption of a blue-on-white color scheme, often with copies of oriental design elements (Lister and Lister 1975:39).
As the Mexican ceramic industry developed, two grades of wares, a common ware and a more refined "fino" grade were manufactured (Lister and Lister 1987:234-237). The ceramics found on Colonial sites in Texas would have been almost exclusively common grade. Puebla continued to be the main center for the production of ceramics during the remainder of the colonial period. To this day, the ceramic industry still plays a big part in the economy of Puebla.
As the ceramic industry progressed in Mexico City and Puebla, other towns began production of comparable wares. Communities in Dolores, Tlaquepaque, Tonalá, Hildago, Guanajuato, Santa Fe, Aguascalientes, and Oaxaca ( Figure 2-1), produced various styles of majolica, lead-glazed, and burnished wares.
Unfortunately, many of the ceramic types that are identified in Texas cannot be attributed to one specific location. This is particularly true of the more common unglazed and lead-glazed wares, simple utilitarian wares which were probably produced in many of the manufacturing sites listed above. On occasion, the decoration type is indicative of a certain town's style.

SUPPLYING THE MISSIONS IN TEXAS
Each missionary was equipped with supplies upon the initial arrival at a new location. The supplies included the necessary objects for performing a mass, farming (including seeds and tools), household items needed for cooking and serving food in a European style, and goods to entice the indigenous populations (beads, necklaces, fabric, etc.) into the mission. The soldiers also brought with them enough supplies to establish a functioning presidio. Once established, both missions and presidios needed to be re-supplied on a regular basis (Leutenegger 1976:31).
The system in which the missions and the presidios received their supplies differed greatly from each other. Missions, in theory at lest, were to be self-sufficient by producing all that was needed for daily life.
In reality however, some items could not be produced locally (Leutenegger and Perry 1976:31)  Since no roads suitable for wagon traffic had yet been built (Ivey and Fox 1999:44), mule trains were the principal means by which goods were transported from Mexico. The mules could carry a heavy load and were able to navigate the rough terrain and river crossings. A mule train would travel between twelve and fourteen miles per day. When the supply train arrived at the mission, the missionary was responsible for distributing the supplies, according to a predetermined plan (Leutenegger 1976:27-30). In his annual report, the missionary was expected to list those items needed for the next shipment from Mexico (Leutenegger 1976:31).
Each mission had slightly different requests each year, though there were certain items that were commonly asked for. Items requested for the missionaries themselves included fine chocolate, piloncillo (unrefined sugar pressed into a cone shape), wine, snuff, tobacco, sweets, cumin, salt, pepper, and rice.
The missionaries would then request goods for the natives that included ordinary chocolate, beads, necklaces, earrings, rosaries, fabric, ribbon, tobacco, piloncillo, sombreros, and brushes. The train also brought in comales, copper pots used for cooking and water storage, and other items that were in need of replacement. Ceramics manufactured in Mexico routinely were requested each year (Ivey and Fox 1999:44). The goods were distributed upon arrival, except for the chocolate and tobacco. Every woman received a piloncillo, ribbon, beads, fabric, a petticoat, needles, thread, and a brush. Every man received a piloncillo, a pair of shoes, a hat, and a knife, with their fabric allotment given to the tailors to make new clothes for them. The tobacco was distributed after Sunday's mass, and everyone received a chocolate bar on Easter (Luetenegger 1976:31).
As part of the enculturation process the missionaries made a point of separating themselves from the neophytes in many ways. Archaeological and archival evidence suggests, for instance, that the fathers had a substantially different diet from the Native Americans in the missions (Meissner 2000:60). This differentiation extended even to chocolate, which was sent to the missions in two varieties, common chocolate for the neophytes and "fine" chocolate for the missionaries (Habig 1978:17) The few Native Americans who had been given positions of authority also received prestige items. For instance, although both cotton and wool cloth was woven at the missions, the neophytes and missionaries alike clearly recognized that the cloth "from Puebla" that they ordered with their other supplies was greatly preferred, and the missionaries used the distribution of this cloth as a prize for good behavior and to distinguish those Native Americans who had been put in positions of authority (Leutenegger 1976:29). Glazed pottery, especially majolicas, may also have occasionally served as prestige items for such people.
The presidios also relied on the mule trains to get their supplies, though the frequency of the trips and the type of goods were different from that of the missions. The soldier was expected to buy his food and equipment, in addition to supporting his household if he was married. The presidial soldiers' salary was sent from one of two towns in Mexico and had to be brought to the presidios in Texas, but was seldom received solely as cash (Moorehead 1975:202). Several times a year, the captain sent out a detachment of soldiers and the quartermaster to Saltillo or San Luis Potosi to receive the payroll, purchase goods for the soldiers and return to the presidio. On many occasions, the soldier's pay would be half money and half goods. Other times, the soldiers would be paid entirely with goods (Moorehead 1975:202). The paymaster, the individual who accepted the soldiers' salaries, would charge a fee for the services of purchasing and transporting the goods and salaries (Moorehead 1975:203). In addition, the presidial captain would inflate the cost of the supplies to turn a profit for himself. When the soldiers received goods as part or all of their salary, they would be given uniform, weapons, gunpowder, saddlery, and shoes. Items that soldiers ordered included soap, cigars, blankets, sackcloth, ribbons, and fabric, although they frequently paid ten times the original price for the item. This often left the common soldier without enough money to pay for required items, much less any luxuries (Moorehead 1975:207). Over the decades of Spanish occupation, the payroll system for the soldiers was altered several times to attempt to deal with the inflated prices and low salaries, with limited success (Moorehead 1975:206-219). Even though many of the items were overpriced, the soldiers still had to provide for their households. This meant that even the supply trains headed to the presidios brought with them from Mexico a multitude of utilitarian items such as kitchen utensils, cook wares, and service wares such as plates, cups, and bowls (Habig 1990).
The means of supplying the villas associated with the presidios is quite unknown. When supply trains would arrive at the presidios, it is possible that the presidial captain would sell goods to the families living in the surrounding villas. However, as in the case of the Canary Islanders, "merchants" were living in the villas soon after their establishments. The merchants were supplying the community with necessary goods some of which may have been produced locally with the rest obtained from Mexico. Records at the Bexar County Archives do indicate that smuggling was one of the methods used to bring goods from the Gulf Coast to the interior of Texas. More research is necessary to develop a better understanding of the supply system of the settlements throughout Texas.
Archaeological investigations at Spanish Colonial presidios and the missions in Texas have revealed differences in the amounts and types of ceramic wares brought to and/or used at these sites. For instance, glazed wares tend to be more common at presidio sites compared to missions (Cohen-Williams 1992:123). The dominance of glazed wares within presidio collections is probably due to the fact that Spanish presidio soldiers preferred glazed (Lister and Lister 1974:24) over unglazed wares made by Native residents of the missions. In addition, while the missionaries also preferred glazed wares, Nativemade wares were numerically more common in the missions because they represented the wares used by the neophytes that outnumbered the Spanish residents. The everyday utilitarian wares were produced locally using manufacture and firing techniques that most likely differed from those of the Spanish potters. Some variation on the locally made ware is evident, with stylistic attributes to mimic the European vessels, but the majority of the Native American ceramics found at the missions were not altered from prehistoric styles. While it has been assumed that most of the Spanish-made majolicas were made in manufacture centers in Mexico, recent Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis has revealed that some glazed wares may actually be made in Texas (Carlson 2007). Whether the potters are Spanish or Native craftsmen that learned the Spanish manufacture and decorative techniques is not know at this time, but it does raise questions about our assumptions of the manufacture localities of ceramic wares that are based simply on decorative techniques.

CHAPTER 3: DEFINING VARIATION IN MANUFACTURE, SURFACE TREATMENTS, AND VESSEL FORMS IN SPANISH COLONIAL CERAMICS
The ceramics recovered from Spanish Colonial sites in Texas have been divided into categories that are determined by their manufacturing technique, paste, glaze, and decoration. This chapter provides a brief discussion of how ceramics are characterized in each of these categories. A glossary of ceramic terms can be found in Appendix A.
The ceramics made by Native Americans in much of Texas before the arrival of Europeans were unglazed bone and/or sand tempered wares. They were sometimes carefully smoothed or burnished and sometimes decorated with incising or painted with asphaltum. The ceramic tradition of the Native peoples, especially in Central and South Texas continued with little change throughout the mission period and these ceramics are often the most common at mission sites (Hester 1989:224). Most Native American ceramics manufactured in Texas have no glaze applied to the vessel walls. In most instances, the vessel walls are smoothed, sometimes close to the state of burnishing. The Spanish settlers could never grow accustomed to the lack of glazes on ceramic table wares (Lister and Lister 1987).
Mexico City became the first center in New Spain to develop a European-inspired ceramic industry. It began with potters first having to locate an adequate supply of clay that would fire to a lighter color than the typical Native American wares (see Lister and Lister 1987). The right kind of clay was available only outside of the Valley of Mexico, and had to be brought into Mexico City. Raw materials for the production of the glazes applied to the ceramic vessels also were needed. Shortly after the fall of Tenochtitlán, mining for tin began prompted by the need to cast new cannons. The tin also was needed by potters to create the opaque, white glaze that is characteristic of majolica. Sodium was another mineral essential to producing the smooth glaze typical of European wares. Ample tequesquite, the rocky material found in salt flats, could be gathered from saline lakebeds throughout the Valley of Mexico. For decoration, cobalt was needed to create the blue accents typical of colonial majolicas (Lister and Lister 1987:223). Supplies of cobalt would have been imported from Spain (Lister and Lister 1987: 223).
The ceramics recovered from the Spanish Colonial sites in Texas have been divided into categories based on their manufacturing technique, glaze, and decoration. These categories will be briefly discussed next.

MANUFACTURING TECHNIQUES
There are two basic methods of creating hollow wares (ceramics such as cups, bowl, plates, etc. as opposed to tiles or bricks) with walls that are more or less uniform in thickness so that the clay does not crack during the firing process. The first method, used both by European-influenced and Native American potters, was hand-building. There are several ways to hand-build ceramics (Rice 1987:125 129): • Coiling. The vessel is built up by coiling thin ropes of clay on each other until the right height has been reached, then smoothing the clay coils into thin, even walls that will not break during firing.
• Pinching and/or Drawing. A lump of clay is shaped by pinching and pulling it into the desired shape.
• Slab building. Clay is rolled into slabs, which are then joined to create the body of the vessel.
• Molding. Clay is rolled into a thin layer and then shaped by pushing it onto a mold.
The second method is wheel-throwing. A lump of clay is placed on a "wheel", a round, flat surface that is turned slowing. The clay is then smoothed into an even shape with the hands, while the turning wheel insures that the vessel walls maintain an even thickness. Examples of both methods are found in Spanish ceramics in Texas.

PASTE TYPES
Paste characteristics, the clay fabric of the vessel (see glossary in Appendix A), play an important part in the classification of ceramics. In the case of the Spanish ceramics in Texas, there are only a few different classifications to consider. All mission-period Spanish ceramics are unrefined earthenwares. Some are coarse, fired at low temperatures, with large percentages of sand in the clay and with coarse-grained tempers. Some are fine, fired at higher temperatures, with smaller percentages of large-grained sand and with finer-grained temper. The color of the paste and type of inclusions can also be used to differentiate sub-groups of ceramics.

UNGLAZED WARES
Unglazed ceramics are usually considered "utilitarian" wares, commonly known as cooking utensils, washing utensils, and storage containers (Deagan 1987:30-43). One of the most common unglazed vessel types is the olla or water container. The unglazed body of the vessel allowed a slow seeping of water to the surface of the pot, where it evaporated, cooling the pot surface, and the water contained in the vessel.
Shipping containers, usually called "olive jars" are another common unglazed vessel type. Some olive jars have a lead glaze on the interior to prevent seepage (Deagan 1987:30-43). Other unglazed vessels included various cooking and baking dishes and large bowls or basins.

Burnishing
Usually smoothed by hand or with a wooden tool, unglazed ceramics can also be burnished. Burnishing creates a smooth, highly polished surface, without the application of a glaze. The burnishing of the ceramic vessel takes place during the "leather-hard" state, when the clay has dried and before firing. A hard smooth object is rubbed on the surface of the paste, pushing all the courser grains below the surface, while compacting and aligning the fine-grained surface particles (Rice 1987:473). Burnished ceramics can be decorated by painting, but some burnished ceramics in Texas have been decorated by creating highly burnished designs on a less burnished "matte" background.

Slip Decorated
Some unglazed ceramics are decorated with a thin layer of slip, which is a thin emulsion of clay, usually of a color different than the vessel body that is applied to the vessel before firing. The slip can be applied to the entire body or painted on in a pattern. The slip is usually rubbed into the fabric of the pot to some extent, but is also sometimes burnished before firing.

GLAZED WARES
A glaze is a coating of glass melted onto the body of the ceramic. Glazes are mixtures of many ingredients, including the silica that melts into glass and other ingredients to create different colors and make the glaze tougher (Rice 1987:151). Glazes can be used to change the color of the vessel, and to protect painted designs, but the primary advantage of glazing is that the glassy surface is water-proof.
The two major glaze types in Colonial ceramics are lead glaze and tin glaze.  Tin-glazing, also known as majolica and faience, is produced by adding tin to the lead glaze (Lister and Lister 1974:17). The tin causes the surface to become opaque in shades of white, cream, blue, yellow, and green depending on any further additives. The opaque surface is sometimes left blank, but more often is decorated with painted designs executed in various colors. Tin-glazed wares are classified in terms of decoration.
The dates attributed to various decorative patterns seen in Mexican majolicas are to some extent based on the dates attributed to places where they have been found. In addition, there is what can be called the "bargain" factor. As Ivey and Fox (1999:44) note: It can be assumed that the relatively low level of financial support given to the missions, the vows of poverty taken by the Franciscans, and the cumbersome mechanics of the supply system itself all tended to influence ceramics purchasing in the direction of "bargains." …In fact it is suggested that the ceramic types and frequencies found in Texas were caused by the purchase of whatever varieties of majolica were beginning to form backlogs in supplier stocks as their popularity dropped off among the general consumer population of Mexico. In other words, the dating and frequency of ceramics in Texas may be the result, not of actual production curves and dates of first and last manufacture of a type, but of its peaking and declining popularity. …much of what is found on the Texas frontier may not have been the best, or the worst, ceramics but merely the best bargains available at the time they were purchased. Lister and Lister (1976a) also discuss this issue. Additionally, the "heirloom" factor comes into play.
Some ceramics may not have been broken until long after the particular type was manufactured.
Obviously, this makes it necessary to add "about" to all temporal estimates.

VESSEL FORMS
Ceramic sherds recovered from archaeological excavations at Spanish Colonial sites in Texas are usually too small to allow an understanding of the vessel form. Occasionally, however, sherds are large enough to reveal that there was great variation in the types of vessels utilized by the Spanish and Native American inhabitants (for example, see Cargill et al. 2004:63;Meissner 1996:66;Schuetz 1969:50-58).
Occasionally ceramic assemblages derived from shipwrecks have provided invaluable information about vessel forms given the completeness of the vessels recovered (see Marken 1994). The vessel forms utilized at the missions and presidios can be divided into the following categories: storage, cooking, table service and household items. Some of these forms have been found in Spanish sites in Texas.

STORAGE VESSELS
Fragments of storage containers are commonly found at Spanish colonial sites. The forms of the vessels represent both the Spanish settlement on the Texas frontier and the indigenous people coping with the need for adequate water storage. Vessel forms such as the jarra, cántaro, tinaja, orza, and botija ( Figure   3-2) were used to transport items like mustard, olives, oil, pitch, and cacao between Spain and the colonies (Lister and Lister 1987). The vessels were reused for other functions. One category of storage jar, used to transport liquids such as olive oil and wine, was the olive jar (Avery 1997:91). Native-made, unglazed ollas were used as water storage vessels due to their ability to keep water cool.

COOKING VESSELS
Cooking vessels range from small molcajetes to large cooking pots. The molcajete, a rounded bowl on a tripod of legs, with incised grooves on the interior, was typically an unglazed or lead-glazed vessel that was used for grinding chilies and garlic to add to food. Molcajete fragments have been recovered from both mission and presidio sites.
The cazuela, a type of stewpot, would have been more likely to be found in the kitchens of the families associated with the presidios and other settlements. It might come in many sizes. Other forms of cooking vessel are the cacerola and the bean pot. The comal, an unglazed ceramic griddle, was used to prepare tortillas for the household. Though records from the Spanish missions show that iron comales were imported by the missionaries (Leutenegger 1976:27), fragments of clay comales have been recovered from several mission and presidio sites.   Figure 3-3a-b).
Cups came in a number of forms (tazas, pocillos, escudillas) many of which have been found with and without handles (Figure 3-3c-e). Simple pitchers, such as the one shown in Figure 3-3f, have also been found. Bowls and jars were used as communal service vessels, storing the entrée or condiment before its distribution at mealtime (Figure 3-3g-h).
For the most part, the native inhabitants of the missions continued using vessels similar to those used before the missions were established. Vessels for the individual service of food were not common in the most native ceramic traditions (Lister and Lister 1987). Instead, there had been a more communal way of dining before the arrival of the Spanish. The extent of the influence of Spanish occupation on the indigenous people can be seen in the ceramic assemblages recovered from many of the mission sites in Texas. Although most of the unglazed, native-made ceramic sherds collected from Spanish Colonial sites appear to be fragments of large vessels, some sherds indicate smaller bowls. In addition, forms that resemble the Spanish version of the bowl and cup were recovered. These exhibited foot-rings and lipped rims, although they had unglazed bodies (Ulrich 2004 These holders consisted of a small, saucer-like base, with an attached hollowed stem to hold the candle.
Fragments of piloncillo molds also have been found. These are cone shaped molds made of soft-paste ceramics, usually unglazed, designed to mold the cones of unprocessed sugar that were so popular with both Native Americans and Hispanic inhabitants. Piloncillo is still being used today, though the molds are now usually made of wood.
French cosmetic jars are sometimes recovered from the presidio and mission sites (Figure 3-4), especially in East Texas. These jars are soft-paste, tin-glazed earthenwares referred to as faience. Pipe bowls have been recovered from both presidio and mission sites, made of either local or imported materials.

CHAPTER 4: CERAMICS FROM SPANISH COLONIAL SITES IN TEXAS
This is the first publication to summarize Spanish Colonial ceramics recovered from archaeological sites in the state of Texas. It considers unglazed as well as lead-and tin-glazed wares. While it groups ceramics based on design elements, a number of the groupings, particularly among the unglazed and leadglazed wares, are poorly known in the state. Therefore, the majority of these unglazed and lead-glazed wares are categorized based on formal descriptions. They have not been sufficiently studied and their relationships to named types not well enough understood to define these wares as formal types (i.e., the Blue on White and Aranama Polychrome), we use the term "tradition" to refer to the broader grouping of related types already established in the literature. This taxonomic scheme is in its infancy. We hope that this work will encourage others to further develop the preliminary designations made here, and look forward to a period when a systematic, well developed scheme is in place for Spanish Colonial ceramics found on Texas sites.
In the following sections, we group the Spanish Colonial ceramics based on broad unglazed and glazed groupings. The glazed group is further subdivided into lead-glazed and tin-glazed subgroups. The leadglazed wares are divided into sandy paste and fine paste sub-groups and the ceramics within the tinglazed subgroup are organized into broader clusters based on broad temporal periods (i.e., late 17 th century, 18 th century, etc.).
The discussion of each form includes a brief history of its definition and/or naming and, when appropriate, the relationship of the ware to types/varieties documented in Florida or California. We have not defined formal types in many cases because of uncertainties regarding relationship to extant types and the relatively small sample sizes studied. This brief history is followed by a general description of the form that includes the decoration, method of manufacture, paste description, sherd thickness, and any other information that will help in identification. There follows a paragraph on the shape and size of vessels, where known, an estimate of the dates of manufacture, and a statement on what is presently known about the place of manufacture. Illustrations on the facing page show minor differences within a type as well as details of color and shape of vessels. In many cases, sufficiently large sherd fragments do not exist to allow us to reconstructs entire design motifs represented on the ceramics. Captions include the site number at which each illustrated sherd was collected. Site names and additional references on these specific sties are in Appendix B.

CHRONOLOGY
One of our principal aims in this work was to provide a chronological ordering of Spanish Colonial ceramics found on sites in Texas. We hope that this preliminary chronological scheme will aid archaeologists in determining relative and/or approximate dates for the components they investigate. The dates, presented in Figure 4-1, are linked to the appearance of the types at colonial and historical sites throughout Texas, as well as records of manufacture and export from Mexico. Dates of manufacture were gathered from the many sources. These include Avery (1997), Barnes (1980), Barnes and May (1972), Brain (1979), Calhoun (1999), Caywood (1950), Cohen-Williams and Williams (2004), Deagan (1987) Gilmore (1973), Gerald (1968), Goggin (1968), Gregory (1980), Ivey (1983), Fox (1981, 1999), Katz (1979), Lakeman (2001), Lister andLister (1974, 1987), May (1975), , Seifert (1977), and Smith (1965). In many cases, the date ranges have been adjusted by the lead author based on several decades of working with Spanish Colonial material in Texas. For some wares, the tail-end of the period of manufacture coincides with the beginning of the surge in colonial occupation in Texas. Others appear at the end of the colonial period in Texas, but when Mexico still provided the majority of wares that made their way into the territory. All dates are approximate and subject to revision.

VALERO RED PAINTED
This type was recognized and given a descriptive name-Red-on-Orange-during the first excavations at the Alamo (Greer 1967:19) and given a more formal name during later investigations in Alamo Plaza (Fox and Hester 1976:67). At that time, the term Valero began to be used by researchers at CAR and elsewhere. Valero ware has also been recovered from colonial sites all over South Texas as well. It is a type that appears to be restricted to Texas.

General Description
This type is wheel-made and has clearly visible manufacturing striations (

Vessel Forms
So far, insufficient numbers of sherds have been recovered from a site to allow reconstruction of a complete vessel. The curve of the sherds indicates that the vessels were relatively large and bulbous, probably intended to be used as water jars. The absence of a glazed surface would have allowed natural cooling of the water inside the vessel through evaporation of water from the outer surface of the vessel.
This appears to be the only vessel form used in this type of ware. Three fragments of a large vessel that appears to have been a water jug were found at the bottom of a (probably post-Colonial) ceramic kiln near Mission Espada in San Antonio (41BX4;Cargill et al. 2004:63).

Estimated Dates
This type seems to occur throughout the eighteenth century and may well continue into the nineteenth century (see Figure 4-1).

Place of Manufacture
The mission registries of Texas make no mention of the presence of wheels for manufacturing ceramics.
Therefore production of the Valero wares was likely not local. The most probable place of manufacture is Mexico, though the exact location is unknown.
Deagan opted to use Guadalajara Polychrome to identify the ware due to possible confusion with a later, related lead-glazed variety. Here we add the surface treatment to the type name to eliminate confusion.  (Charlton and Katz 1979:53).

General Description
This type of ceramic has a fine, gray to tan paste that has a sweet, earthy fragrance when damp (Figure 4 3). The common term for the clay from which the vessels were made was búcaro (Fairbanks 1973:170).
Most vessels have thin walls (ca. 4 to 6 mm) and break into small fragments. They are often painted with delicate, closely spaced red, black and occasionally yellow geometric and/or linear designs and bands, over a creamy white slip and then highly burnished (Figure 4-3 c-f). Some sherds are totally red or black on one surface ( Figure 4-3 a-b), but the thickness and the paste indicate they are the same ware as that with colored designs. There is no evidence of wheel throwing, and potters traditionally have used convex, mushroom-shaped molds to make these vessels (Charlton and Katz 1979:47).

Estimated Dates
Charlton and Katz (1979:46) date the colonial version of this ware from 1650 to 1810 (see Figure 4-1). A more modern example of this ware is still being made in Tonalá today.

RED BURNISHED
This ware is defined on the basis of color and surface treatment. It has not been formally defined as a type. It was first described by Curtis Tunnell (Tunnell and Newcomb 1969:77-78)

as found in Mission
San Lorenzo in Camp Wood, Texas, and the Alamo in San Antonio (Greer 1967:17-18). Red Burnished wares have also been recovered from the other San Antonio missions, Presidio La Bahía, Mission Rosario, Mission Espíritu Santo, and Mission Refugio. Its distribution appears to be restricted to Texas.

General Description
These vessels are dark red, or occasionally black, with polished surfaces. The fine-grained, uniform red paste is coated with a thin, fine-grained slip that has been highly polished (Figure 4-4). Matte areas, on the interior of bowls and exterior of larger containers, are decorated with glossy, burnished spirals and curvilinear figures (Figure 4-4a-c; see also Gilmore 1974:63). The burnished surface tends to spall during firing, producing a white speckled appearance on many of the red sherds, as well as sometimes a light sprinkling of black. Similar to the Tonalá Burnished ware, this type of ceramic was handmade.

Vessel Forms
These are usually small bowls with slightly inverted rims and miniature strap handles just beneath the lip on the exterior. Some bowls have a tall, flaring foot ring averaging around 2.5 cm in height (Gilmore 1974:63;Tunnell and Newcomb 1969:78). Larger jars in the Presidio La Bahía collection have vertical rims with thickened vertical ridges spaced several centimeters apart. Sherds vary in thickness from 9 mm near the base to 5 mm at the widest part and thickening slightly to 6 mm just under the rim. The use for these vessels has not yet been determined.

Estimated Dates
This ware seems to be present through much of the eighteenth century (see Figure 4-1). The earliest finds come from the third site of Mission Espiritu Santo in Mission Valley, north of Victoria, Texas (Lakeman 2001:58). The site was used from 1726 to 1749.

Place of Manufacture
This ware was probably manufactured in central Mexico according to Tunnell (Tunnell and Ambler 1967:24), although the exact location is unknown. Red Burnished ware has been found across Texas from Presidio Los Adaes (in Louisiana) (Gregory 1980:49) to El Paso (Gerald 1968) and was probably acquired by the procuradors of the mule trains that supplied the colonial sites (Fox 2002:204).

SANDY PASTE LEAD-GLAZED WARES
Detailed analysis of lead-glazed wares in Texas sites was done by A.A. Fox in 1974 for the collection from Mission Rosario, near Goliad, Texas (see Gilmore 1974:55-59). Microscopic examination of these wares allowed division into sandy paste and fine paste types. Descriptive names were given to wares that could be differentiated from each other by color and/or texture of the glaze.

YELLOW GLAZE AND GREEN GLAZE I
This ware was first separated from the other Mexican Lead-Glazed wares by Curtis Tunnell (Greer 1967:20-21) who identified it as Light Yellow. In 1974, Fox used the term Yellow Ware to separate and further describe this ware (Gilmore 1974:56). This ware has been found at the Spanish Colonial sites in San Antonio, Texas.

General Description
Vessels of this ceramic ware generally display obvious signs of the use of a potter's wheel (Figure 4-5a, e). Walls are relatively thick, often as thick as 10 mm. A yellow-tinted lead glaze of varying thickness (Schuetz 1968:53) covers the interior of bowls (Figure 4-5), occasionally spilling onto the outside. The paste is generally sandy and coarse and ranges from rose-beige to orange with red-brown inclusions.
Some bowls bear sparse green decoration or green rim bands. These vessels sometime occur with a green glaze rather than yellow (Figure 4-5d).

Vessel Forms
Vessel forms that have been noted in the archaeological and historical records include deep bowls, jars, and pitchers. The vessels appeared to have been heavy and thick-walled, which probably held up well in transit from Mexico to Texas. These thick lead glazed vessels would have been sturdy utilitarian wares.

Estimated Dates
Sandy pasted lead glazed wares were produced throughout the eighteenth century (see Figure 4-1).

Place of Manufacture
The sandy pasted lead glaze wares were imported from Mexico, though the exact location of manufacture is not known.

YELLOW GLAZE AND GREEN GLAZE II
These sandy pasted lead glazed wares are thinner (3 mm to 5 mm) than the Yellow Glaze and Green Glaze I wares. The glaze is thinner, as well, and is found over a somewhat finer-textured paste.

General Description
Bowls of this ware are often decorated with green bands around the rim and in the bottom (Figure 4-6).
There is a great variety in the vessel forms and decoration of these sandy paste lead-glazed wares. All of the varieties appear to have been intended for kitchen use. Colors of the glaze vary from pale yellow over orange paste to dark green over gray paste.

Vessel Forms
Typical vessel forms included bowls, jars, and pitchers. Occasionally, the ware also contains simple candleholders made in imitation of copper ones.

Estimated Dates
This ceramic ware was produced throughout the eighteenth century. Two large, splayed bowls of this type were recovered from a post-1772 context at Rancho de las Cabras, near Floresville, Texas (Ivey 1983).
Other examples of the ware were encountered at Mission San Juan de Capistrano and Mission Concepción.

Place of Manufacture
These vessels were also produced in Mexico, although the location is undetermined.

GALERA
This term has come into use across the Southwest since the first half of the twentieth century. It was first used in Texas by Gerald (1968:53-54), who suggested that the type is still used by people who continue to buy similar wares in Mexico. Schuetz (1969:50-51) has called this West Mexico Polychrome. Galera ware is commonly found at most mission, presidio, and villa sites in Texas. We are not certain of the relationship of this ware to the similarly named ware in California ( Krase 1981).

General Description
Ceramic vessels of this type are often molded rather than wheel-thrown. The body is thin, averaging 3 to 4 mm in thickness and tends to break into small sherds.

Vessel Forms
Common forms of Galera wares include chocolate pots with constricted necks and bulbous bases, and bean pots of various shapes. Other forms encountered include serving dishes (i.e. plates and platters) and tazas (cups). Thin strap handles are common ( Figure 4-7 a, d). Chocolate pots often have pinched pouring spouts on the rim similar to those of pitchers.

Estimated Dates
Ceramic chocolate pots appear to have abruptly replaced similar copper vessels about 1750 (Tomka and Fox 1998:22). No information is available on bean pots and other serving dishes, although archaeological records indicate their presence in Texas during the early part of the eighteenth century into the midnineteenth century. Here we suggest a date range of 1725 to 1850 (see Figure 4-1). Similar wares are still produced and can be found in many areas of Mexico today.

Place of Manufacture
Galera ware appears to have originated from the state of Jalisco, probably from the town of Tlaquepaque, a suburb of Guadalajara (Gerald 1968:54). It is possible that the type may have been produced in other towns as well.
CAR-UTSA Special Report #33 50 Fox and Ulrich 2008 RED BROWN Schuetz (1969:51) has referred to this as Guadalajara Ware, but does not identify a source for this information. Typically, the term "Guadalajara Ware" has been associated with Tonalá Burnished. Red Brown ware has been encountered at Presidio La Bahía, and Mission San Juan de Capistrano, as well as the other missions of San Antonio.

General Description
This ware has a red-brown-tinted lead glaze over a fine red-brown paste. Shallow throwing rings show up distinctly on the upper surface of sherds (Figure 4-8). The thin lead glaze can be found on the interior only, or on both the interior and exterior of the vessel.

Vessel Forms
A flat-based form with gently sloping sides that curve inward could be from shallow plates (Schuetz 1980:74). Other rim sherds curve gradually outward similar to the necks and rims of yellow lead-glazed jars. Shallow bowls also appear to be a common form. A basal fragment has a flat bottom, as if a pancake were applied to the bottom of a shallow plate. Sherds vary in thickness from 4 to 6 mm and are generally too small to be able to reconstruct vessel shapes or sizes.

Estimated Dates
Red Brown wares are present in Texas throughout the eighteenth century (see Figure 4-1).

Place of Manufacture
This ceramic ware was produced in Mexico, although the exact location is unknown.

DARK BROWN
This is similar to Galera type in paste, color, texture, wall thickness, and construction technique. It was first separated from the other lead glazes (Fox 2002:207)

General Description
The darker brown color suggests that the glaze is brown or that a brown slip has been applied under the glaze to create a molasses color. The glaze on the exterior does not appear to have been equally applied, resulting in areas of thicker glazing on the vessel. Interior glazing is not uniform and ranges in color from clear to green. Striations resulting from production on a wheel are visible on the interior wall of the vessels. Decoration takes the form of a row of impressed dents around the shoulders of the vessels (Figure 4-9c). The paste is uniformly red-orange.

Vessel Forms
Bulbous pots are 13 cm in diameter at the base of a short neck, with a slightly everted rim. All sherds recovered so far seem to be from such vessels. They are remarkably thin, averaging 3 mm in thickness.
They appear to have at least one vertical circular handle attached between the neck and the shoulder and measure about 11 mm in diameter at the rim.

Estimated Dates
Based on the dates of operations of the missions where it has been found (Mission Rosario [1754-1808, Mission San Juan Capistrano [1731-post-1900, and Mission Refugio [1795-1830, the ware was probably in use from the middle to the late eighteenth century and possibly a bit later. We suggest a date range of from about 1750 to 1830 (see Figure 4-1).

Place of Manufacture
The exact location of manufacture is unknown, although western Mexico is a possible area.
CAR-UTSA Special Report #33 54 Fox and Ulrich 2008 SMOOTH BROWN Sherds of this ware are found at historic San Antonio sites, although not as commonly as other wares.
Some of the sites with collections of this ware date to the early nineteenth century. Mission sites that were occupied after their secularization in the 1790s also contain examples of this ware. A few sherds are also found in the Presidio La Bahía collection. Its distribution appears to be limited to Texas Spanish Colonial sites.

General Description
The red fine-grained paste is covered on both sides with a smooth, transparent lead glaze, usually thicker on the inside of a vessel, which allows the body to show through. Decoration generally consists of one or more narrow dark brown bands and/or vertical slashes on the interior (Figure 4-10a, b, d). Wall thickness of this ware is generally greater than that of the Dark Brown Ware.

Vessel Forms
Common vessel forms encountered include shallow bowls and plates with flat bases and no foot rings.

Estimated Dates
Exact dates of manufacture are unknown. Smooth Brown probably dates from around 1775 to about 1830 (see Figure 4-1).

Place of Manufacture
Manufacture of this ware may have occurred in Mexico.

BROWN ON YELLOW
This ware is found less frequently than other lead-glazed wares on Texas colonial sites. The distribution of the ware appears to be limited to Texas. Though not found as often, when encountered the larger fragments allow the reconstruction of some vessel forms.

General Description
This fine-grained paste is yellow to orange when damp, and the lead glaze may possibly be colorless, merely enhancing the paste color. The glaze covers the inside and goes slightly over the top of the rim.
The glaze does not age well and often appears pock-marked. Swirling brown designs were applied under the glaze, and brown dots occur around the top of the rim (Figure 4-11). Some vessels appear to have been molded, while others were wheel-thrown.

Vessel Forms
One form encountered is a shallow plate with a slightly upturned rim and a small ring foot. Another form that has been observed is a small bowl, with interior glazing spilling over the rim, brown designs appearing as brush strokes, and a flat base with no foot ring.

Estimated Dates
This ceramic type seems to date between about 1750 and 1825 (Figure 4-1).

Place of Manufacture
Brown on Yellow Ware is probably produced in Mexico. The precise location of its manufacture is unknown.
CAR-UTSA Special Report #33 58 Fox and Ulrich 2008 TONALÁ GLAZED This type is just one of a number of wares traditionally made in Tonalá. The clay used appears to be the same as in Tonalá Burnished, but this ware differs due to the addition of a glaze over the slip and the use of different colors and design motifs. This type has been recovered from Presidio La Bahía, Mission San Antonio de Valero, Mission San Juan de Capistrano, and Mission Refugio. Tonalá Glazed was first identified in Arizona and given the name "Tonalá ware" (Barnes 1980:101-2) in reference to the location of manufacture. Here we refer to it as Tonalá Glazed Ware to remove the possible confusion with its burnished cousin.

General Description
The paste tends to be browner than Tonalá Burnished wares. A white or cream-colored slip covers both surfaces. Green, red-brown, and black designs are painted on the inside surface and the vessel is then covered with a clear lead glaze (Figure 4-12). The decorated slip does not bond well with the paste, resulting in frequent flaking and exposure of the surface of the paste after years of burial in the soil (Figure 4-12a, c). Similar to the Tonalá Burnished, the odor of the paste when damp is unique and diagnostic.

Vessel Forms
Schuetz recovered a sufficient number of relatively large sherds at the Alamo (41BX6) to be able to estimate the form as a shallow bowl with a ring foot (Schuetz 1973). The sherds are nearly always very small and therefore difficult to assign to a vessel shape.

Estimated Dates
This ceramic type began to appear after 1780 in northern Sonora and Arizona (Caywood 1950:85). Gerald (1968:54) found it in late eighteenth-century presidios in northern New Spain, and suggested it was in use from 1780 to 1830 (see Figure 4-1). An unusually large number of sherds of this type were found at Mission Refugio in Refugio, Texas. Mission Refugio was the last mission in operation in Texas, closing in 1830.

Place of Manufacture
This ceramic type was produced at Tonalá, outside of Guadalajara, in the modern Mexican state of Jalisco.

BLACK LUSTER GLAZE
This ware was first reported in Texas by Schuetz (1969:52)

in collections from Mission San Juan
Capistrano. The number and size of the sherds were too small to allow reconstruction of body shapes. She did report that there have been two Black Luster types made in Mexico, each in a different town. Black Luster has been recovered from the San Antonio Missions, and Mission Rosario, Mission Espiritu Santo, Presidio La Bahía, and Mission Refugio.

General Description
The glaze on this ware is intensely black and shiny (Figure 4-13), and is often stamp-decorated or embellished with molded high relief (Figure 4-13d) (Schuetz 1969:52). Sherds recovered from most mission sites are few and very small. The paste can be found in either terra cotta or buff color.

Vessel Forms
Schuetz (1980: Figure 22) recovered enough sherds of this ware to be able to reconstruct some forms representing deep bowls with everted rims. The few sherds in Texas collections measure from about 3 mm to 5 mm in thickness. Barnes (1980:100) reports that wares characterized by black glaze on a reddish body were made in the town of Santa Fe in the state of Michoacan, between 1750 and 1850 (see Figure 4-1).

Place of Manufacture
According to Schuetz (1969:52), a similar black luster glazed ware was manufactured on a terra cotta body in Puebla. Further research is needed to ascertain the place or places of manufacture of this ware.

OLIVE JARS
Olive Jars were used to ship liquids such as wine and olive oil to the New World (Avery 1997:221;Goggin 1964:256). Fragments of these vessels have been recovered at the San Antonio missions, as well as Presidio Loreto. We have not endeavored to place the Spanish Colonial olive jar sherds found in Texas missions into types.

General Description
These were large, heavy egg-shaped jars with restricted necks. They were often glazed on the inside with a lead glaze varying from emerald to olive green and sometimes the outside had a thin white slip. The paste is usually reddish to pale tan in color. In Texas collections, the paste seem to be universally light tan to cream and only occasionally reddish (Figure 4-14). Small numbers of olive jar sherds are found on Texas colonial sites, but they are numerous on coastal sites in Florida and the southeastern United States.
On the frontier, they appear to have been used primarily for storage.

Vessel Forms
John Goggin (1964) distinguished three basic body types (A, B, and C) and designated form types within these. Sherds are thicker than those of other ceramic wares, varying from 5 mm to 9 mm depending on the part of the jar represented. The forms shown previously in Figure 3-2 are based on jars found in eighteenth century shipwrecks (Marken 1994:94-98).

Estimated Dates
John Goggin (1964) divided the three body types into "Early" (1490s to 1580), "Middle" (1580 to 1780), and "Late" (1780 to 1800s) styles. However, Avery (1997:128) disagrees with the date ranges for some of Goggin's body types. The olive jar sherds found on Texas sites generally fall into the Middle style (see Figure 4-1).

Place of Manufacture
These vessels were used for the importation of products not made in the New World. The place of manufacture was most likely in Andalusia, Spain (Lister and Lister 1987:141). Fox and Ulrich 2008

MEXICAN TIN-GLAZED WARES
All Mexican tin-glazed vessels, commonly called majolicas, were made on a potter's wheel and fired in a kiln. They then were covered with a lead glaze to which tin had been added to produce an opaque surface when fired. After drying, a design was painted on one or both surfaces and the vessel was again fired.
One of the first descriptions of colonial ceramics on sites in the Southwest was done by Louis Caywood (1950:77-97). Fifteen years later, David Snow (1965:25-35) began to arrange tin-glazed wares in the Southwest into chronological order and to use type names. Before long, archaeologists in Texas (Gilmore 1973;Schuetz 1969;Tunnell 1966) were recognizing individual patterns among the tin-glazed sherds, but hesitated to assign distinctive type names. By 1968, Yale University had published a book (Goggin 1968) that soon became the resource for identification and dating of tin-glazed wares in Texas. Further work in Texas has enlarged and improved our familiarity with tin-glazed wares. Below, the majolicas will be organized in rough chronologic order. Finally, references to French-made tin-glazed wares, commonly called faience, and Chinese porcelain, both of which are recovered from Spanish Colonial sites, are presented.

LATE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY TO EARLY EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
CASTILLO POLYCHROME Schuetz (1969:54) reported that a few fragments of this type were recovered from Mission San Juan de Capistrano in San Antonio, Texas. Excavations conducted at the Spanish Governor's Palace (41BX179), also in San Antonio, produced a few small sherds (Figure 4-15). Castillo Polychrome is a rare type in Texas, due to its early date. The type was defined by Goggin (1968:183-186) and is present in late seventeenth-century components in Florida (Deagan 1987:81-82). It is considered a variety of the Puebla Polychrome type in the California classification (Cohen-Williams and Williams 2004:8, 34-35).

General Description
This type has naturalistic designs in a medium blue color, though the shade can be another variation of cobalt, on a white glossy background. Thin dark blue or black lines and dots accent the designs, distinguishing it from a similar type, San Agustín Blue on White. Blue loops are found on the exteriors of plates (Figure 4-15). Typical motifs found on Castillo Polychrome include floral designs and depictions of birds (Goggin 1968:184). The paste is cream to white in color. Sherds of this type are seldom found on Texas sites, and then only in the earliest sites, sometimes accompanied by Puebla Polychrome.

Vessel Forms
Goggin (1968:185) mentions only plates (platos) with a low ring foot and jars (jarros). Plate rims recovered from the Spanish Governor's Palace in San Antonio are thin (3 mm) and rounded. Forms recovered from sites in Florida were plates as well (Deagan 1987). The small sample size of sherds available for study limits other inferences concerning vessel forms.

Estimated Dates
According to Deagan (1987:85), the estimated date of this type is from the late 1680s to the early 1700s, but other accounts indicate that the ware may have been popular as early as 1598 and as late as 1725 (Cohen-Williams and Williams 2004:34). Here we suggest a date range of 1700 to 1725 (Figure 4-1).

Place of Manufacture
Castillo Polychrome may have been manufactured in Puebla, Mexico (Goggin 1968:185).

General Description
Designs on this ceramic type are floral sprays in green and brown on a cream background. Designs are geometrically arranged into sections divided by thin brown lines (Figure 4-16), one section on the basal interior and another along the rim. The paste is pinkish tan in color, although some fragments have a cream paste. This type is found only on relatively early Texas sites, such as Presidio Loreto (41VT8). Its presence at Mission Concepción (41BX12) is part of the evidence that the site was originally used as the first site of Mission San José y San Miguel de Aguayo (41BX3). The type was defined by Goggin (1968:166-169) and in Florida it is common on late seventeenth and early eighteenth century sites (Deagan 1987:75-77). It does not occur in California Spanish Colonial components.

Vessel Forms
Vessel forms include small and larger deep-brimmed plates and small bowls with out-flaring rims. All forms have a ring foot. In general, the sherds of this type are thicker than those of other Mexican-made tin-glazed ceramics (Goggin 1968:167). Body sherds can be as thick as 11 mm near the base. Near the rim, they thin to about 5 mm.

Estimated Dates
San Luis Polychrome does not appear before 1650, indicating that is was manufactured during the last half of the seventeenth century and early eighteenth century, or about 1660 to around 1720 (see Figure 4 1).

Place of Manufacture
According to Lister and Lister (1976b:126), this was an early product of the Mexico City industry. Since green ceramics were considered lower quality and green was not suitable for finer types, this may have been considered a lower-class ware (Lister and Lister 1974:33;Seifert 1977:13).
ABÓ POLYCHROME TYPE A This type was first described and illustrated by Goggin (1968:169-173). Often, Aranama Polychrome is mistaken for Abó Polychrome due to similar color schemes and incomplete designs on small sherds recovered from sites in Texas (Figure 4-17). There are two main differences between the Abó and Aranama varieties. One is that Abó uses blue more freely in its decoration than Aranama (Figure 4-17c).
The second is that Abó displays a greater amount of white background than Aranama Polychrome. Abó Polychrome predates Aranama Polychrome by as much as 50 years (Deagan 1987:79-81, 87). Florida classifications lump the type into a general Abó Polychrome type (Deagan 1987:81, 87) while California classifications use the type designation but the illustrated specimens (Cohen-Williams and Williams 2004:38) are different from those in the Type A shown here.

General Description
Decoration consists of branches with leaves or flower petals in opaque yellow and orange and bright, transparent blue with green stems (Figure 4-17). The colored leaves and petals are outlined in thin brown or black lines. The paste is usually cream-colored, although Goggin (1968:196) notes that it can range to terracotta.

Estimated Dates
This type begins somewhat earlier than Puebla Polychrome, possibly 1640s, and tends to disappear by about 1700 (Goggin 1968(Goggin :1272. Deagan (1987:81) argues that the ware may have been produced as late as 1750. Here, we suggest a date range of 1650 to 1720 (see Figure 4-1).

Place of Manufacture
Abó Polychrome appears to be another type originating out of Puebla, Mexico.
PUEBLA POLYCHROME Puebla Polychrome has been recovered from Mission San Antonio de Valero (41BX6) and several sites within Villa de Bexar, including San Fernando Cathedral (41BX7) and Presidio de Bexar (41BX179).
Like San Luis Polychrome, this type is located at early Spanish Colonial sites in Texas. The type was originally defined by Goggin (1968:173-182). It has been identified in Florida collections from sites dating to the late 17 th and early 18 th centuries (Deagan 1987:81-82

General Description
There is no decoration on the exterior of plates and the interior of cups and bowls. The decorated surface is painted in blue swaths surrounded by lace or cobweb effects in thin black lines, with occasional black dots (Figure 4-18). It may also have touches of green, yellow, or orange. Design towards the rims of the vessels appears as cross-hatched combs in black. The design in the basal interior is often divided into quarters by double black lines. Makers' marks may sometimes be found on the basal exterior. The paste is usually cream to light buff in color, although they can be found in peach to terracotta shades on rare occasions.
Puebla Polychrome is thought to be an extension of the Talavera styles brought to the New World, which also exhibit the same lace or cobweb motifs (Lister and Lister 1987:238-239). The quality of the decoration on the wares can range from haphazard to very fine, and would have determined the value of the vessel at the time.

Vessel Forms
Vessel forms of Puebla Polychrome include deep plates (platos), small cups with no handles (tazas, pocillos), and bowls. All forms have a ring foot. Sherds are 5 mm or slightly less in thickness.

Estimated Dates
Puebla Polychrome appears during the last half of the seventeenth century to the 1720s. In Texas, it is encountered only in the earlier Spanish sites. We suggest a probable date range of 1650 to 1725 ( Figure   4-1).

PUEBLA PLAIN
Puebla Plain is commonly found at all Spanish Colonial sites in Texas. When examining a ceramic assemblage, Puebla Plain usually comprises the largest portion of recovered majolicas from the sites. It is part of the Puebla majolica wares of the 17 th and 18 th century identified in Florida (Deagan 1987:77-78) and is identified as Puebla White in California classifications (Cohen-Williams and Williams 2004:11 12).

General Description
Puebla Plain specimens are undecorated, white majolicas (Figure 4-19). Sherds from these undecorated wares are generally thin and light in weight. However, it is possible that the many of the sherds with no sign of decoration could also be pieces of otherwise decorated vessels such as Puebla Blue on White, Huejotzingo, or even Guanajuato. Small fragments of plain sherds from otherwise decorated vessels are categorized as Puebla Plain due to the lack of any tale-tell marks, limiting the utility of this type. The color of the glaze is commonly a creamy white, but some specimens exhibit a blue or greenish tint which may be the result of impurities in the glaze. Paste colors vary dramatically from cream to light orange.
Puebla Plain sherds often exhibit degrees of crazing (see glossary in Appendix A), from minimal to abundant.

Vessel Forms
Vessel forms typical of Puebla Plain include small bowls, cups, and chamber pots (Lister and Lister 1974: Figure 8).

Estimated Dates
This type was popular throughout the eighteenth century and into the mid-nineteenth century (Lister and Lister 1974:30). Here we suggest dates of 1700 to 1850 (Figure 4-1).

Place of Manufacture
The production of Puebla Plain most likely occurred in Mexico, although the exact location is unknown.

ABÓ POLYCHROME TYPE B
In Texas the type has been encountered in collections from the second site of Mission Espiritu Santo (1722 to 1752) north of Victoria, Texas (Lakeman 2001:75-76). The Abó Polychrome B is identical to Abó Polychrome Type B identified by Smith (1965:86) from Santa Rosa, Pensacola, in Florida. A type called Mount Royal Polychrome by Goggin (1968:159-161), dated to about the same time, may also be this type, though the past appears to differ. The Florida classifications identify the type as a variant of the Abó Polychrome type (Deagan 1987:80). The California classification system lumps the Abó and Aranama types into one, but the illustrated specimens are too small to determine whether the several varieties of Abó/Aranama Polychrome include the Abó Polychrome B type (Cohen-Williams and Williams 2004:38-57).

General Description
This type has the familiar orange rim band bordered with brown lines of Abó Polychrome (Figure 4-20).
Suspended below the rim band are groups of blue petals; sometimes the paint is so thick it appears raised.
A blue floral design in the center is surrounded by a similar band at the cavetto. The specimens recovered by Smith (1965:91-93) from Santa Rosa, Pensacola, Florida (1723-1752), have human, animal or floral central designs.

Vessel Forms
Typical vessel forms of Abó Polychrome B appear to be deep plates.

Estimated Dates
The popularity of this type in Texas is estimated at circa 1720-1750 (Smith 1965:86). Deagan (1987:81) indicates that Abó Polychrome B was produced only during the eighteenth century (see Figure 4-1).

Place of Manufacture
The exact location of manufacture is unknown, although it was possibly produced in Puebla, Mexico.  (Deagan 1987:82-83) and is classified as a variety of Puebla Blue on White in California (Cohen-Williams and Williams 2004:8, 23-25).

General Description
The surface of this type is completely covered with smooth, thick, chalky white enamel. Decoration is done in two or more shades of blue, with the darker shade more prominent (Figure 4-21 in Texas tend to be 5 to 6 mm in thickness, with paste color being pinkish cream to cream in color.

Estimated Dates
This type was first described as dating from about 1700 to 1730 (Goggin 1968:187-189). Smith (1965:84) suggested extending this date to 1750 on the basis of its popularity at Santa Rosa Pensacola, which dates from 1722 to 1752. This might also explain its presence at the Goliad site of Presidio La Bahía, which was moved there in 1749. May (Barnes and May 1972:31) suggests this type dates to 1700 to 1780 on the basis of the later California mission sites, and we follow that temporal estimate here (see Figure 4-1).
Seifert (1977:187) suggests that the post-1730 version be called Chinoiserie Blue on White. Further study may allow dividing this type into two, depending on the dates of other ceramic types from the same sites.

Place of Manufacture
San Agustín is of the same tradition of ceramics produced in Puebla, Mexico.

PUEBLA BLUE ON WHITE
This ceramic type is the most widespread of the Puebla Blue on White Tradition majolicas (Deagan 1987:83). It was first described and dated by John Goggin (1968:190-195). He included nearly every type of tin-glazed ceramic decorated in blue and white. Recent research has begun to tease out some of these into individual types. Puebla Blue on White is commonly found at most Spanish Colonial Texas sites such as the San Antonio missions, Mission Espíritu Santo, Mission Rosario, Mission Refugio, Presidio Loreto, and Presidio La Bahía. The type is found throughout Florida (Deagan 1987:83-84) and California (Cohen-Williams and Williams 2004:8, 12-18).

General Description
This pottery type is covered on the interior and exterior with white enamel and decorated with designs painted in dark and light blue on the inside of plates and bowls and the outside of cups (Figure 4-22). The major plate design has two blue bands below the rim from which are suspended groups of single blue petals alternating with single blue flowers. Other design elements include dots, lines, and lobes. The central design of this type is usually a crane form or various floral arrangements. Puebla Blue on White has been said to have been influenced by Chinese, Talaveran, and Sevillian ceramic models (Lister and Lister 1974:29-31). The paste is usually cream in color. Sherds vary from 4 to 6 mm in thickness on the same vessel.

Estimated Dates
The manufacture of Puebla Blue on White occurred throughout the eighteenth century. Ivey (Ivey and Fox 1999:42) suggests 1720s to 1760s in San Antonio. In Figure 4-1 we assign manufacturing of the ware to an interval between 1650 and 1830 (see also Gerald 1968:43;Deagan 1987:84;Lister and Lister 1987:346), with suggestions of the actual range differing depending on the source of information. This long date range may also be a result of the inclusion of Blue on White varieties that were later separated into different types. Bowls with everted rims (soperos) have only been found at the first site of Presidio La Bahía (Gilmore 1973:40) that was in existence from 1720 to 1724, and Presidio Los Adaes in Louisiana (Gregory 1980: Plate 5j), but no other sites in Texas.

Place of Manufacture
Puebla Blue on White was manufactured at Puebla and perhaps elsewhere in Mexico. By 1700, blue decoration on white backgrounds was identified with Puebla, but later it apparently was also made in other towns including Mexico City. However, small Blue on White bowls with abstract floral designs in the basal area and everted rims decorated with blue dashes made in Mexico City (Lister and Lister 1974: Figure 10c;Seifert 1977:16) have been included here in the Blue on White category.

General Description
The paste and surface finish are similar to those of Puebla Blue on White. The glaze color is usually a creamy white. Decoration consists of a single blue band around and slightly over the rim (Figure 4-23).
The blue can vary from dark blue to pale gray-blue. Occasionally, examples of Huejotzingo have been recovered exhibiting a green rim band (Figure 4-23d), though some believe that the green version was produced at a later date than the blue. The band is located on the inside rim of plates and the outside rim of cups. Since such a large part of these vessels are undecorated, a large percentage of undecorated tinglazed sherds may be from this type of vessel. Sherds are generally 5 mm in thickness, and the paste is cream or pink in color.

Vessel Forms
Vessel forms of Huejotzingo are similar to plate and cup forms of Puebla Blue on White. Specimens recovered from Texas sites indicate that Huejotzingo was produced as plates (platos), brimmed bowls (soperos), cups (tazas, pocillos), and small bowls (escudillas).

Estimated Dates
This type was popular throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Goggin 1968:195). The blue version of Huejotzingo began production circa 1700, whereas the green banded style is believed to have been substituted starting about 1780 (Barnes and May 1972:33-34; see also Figure 4-1). Some authorities have suggested that the Huejotzingo variety persists to this day (Gerald 1968;Barnes and May 1972:32).  (Deagan 1987:85). The California classifications seem to identify the ware as part of San Agustín Blue on White (Cohen-Williams and Williams 2004:25).

General Description
This type has two shades of blue floral designs on white (Figure 4-24). Vessels are molded with a flat base (no ring foot) and scalloped rims. Several different designs have been described by Gilmore (1974:51 and Plates 10 and 11) and identified in collections from Presidio La Bahía, Mission San Juan Capistrano, and Mission San José. The sherds vary from tan to pinkish tan beneath the glaze, and their thickness varies from 5 mm at the base to 4 mm at the rim.

Vessel Forms
One plate segment was found at Mission Rosario near Goliad, Texas. The other sherds recovered in Texas appear to be fragments of plates and cups.

Estimated Dates
The estimated dates of production are the latter part of the eighteenth century, probably between 1775 and 1800 (see Figure 4-1).

Place of Manufacture
The Molded Blue on White was produced in Mexico, although the exact location is unknown.

LATE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY TO EARLY NINETEENTH CENTURY
THE ARANAMA POLYCHROME TRADITION The first attempt to formally describe these ceramics with predominantly orange and green decoration was published in Goggin's Spanish Majolica in the New World (1968:196-198). This polychrome group succeeded eighteenth-century blue on white types. Many archaeologists working in Texas sites have confused Aranama types with the late-seventeenth-century Abó Polychrome type, partially because recovered sherds are generally too small to be accurately identified, and partially because there has been a mistaken tendency to push the dating of Abó Polychrome type into the early eighteenth century. Study of the majolica types found at the 1726 to 1749 site of Presidio La Bahía has convinced the senior author that the decoration of the polychrome sherds often does not accurately match Goggin's illustrations and description of Abó Polychrome (1968:169-173, Plates 12a-c). The fact that it has been considered to be associated with Puebla Polychrome and San Luis Polychrome (Goggin 1968:171) does not guarantee that Abó Polychrome continued as late into the eighteenth century as they did. A number of types have been described by Barnes and May (1972:30) as being part of an Aranama Polychrome Tradition. Before that time, publications on majolica were primarily based on excavations at pre-1800 sites. Barnes and May were able to recover majolicas from sites occupied through the first half of the nineteenth century in Arizona and California. Several of these Aranama types have now also been recognized from Texas sites (Fox 2002;Nickels 2000).
The named types that are part of the Aranama Tradition are described below. All other orange-banded polychromes are included here in the general Aranama Polychrome type until they can be split into separate types in the future.
ARANAMA POLYCHROME This type was first described by Goggin (1968:196-198) and includes all the late eighteenth to midnineteenth century ceramics with an orange band and green coloration that have not been separated into  (Deagan 1987:86-87) and is the same as the Abó Aranama Polychrome type identified in California (Cohen-Williams and Williams 2004:8, 38-41).

General Description
A yellow or orange band bordered by narrow brown/black lines is located below the lip of the vessel and sometimes frames a central geometric or floral design in the base (Figure 4-25b). Basal designs can also CAR-UTSA Special Report #33 86 Fox and Ulrich 2008 consist of human figures in colorful costumes (Goggin 1968: Plate 2), some of which have been recorded by archaeologists (Goggin 1968: Plate 2l;Smith 1965:91). Central figures are sometimes surrounded by blue petal arrangements similar to those on Puebla Blue on White, or by orange, green, and brown balls surrounded by black lines and occasional blue dots (Figure 4-25a, b, d). Sherds have a pinkish tan to tan paste and vary from 5 mm at the center of the base to 4 mm near the rim.

Estimated Dates
It appears that the Aranama Polychrome was manufactured during the last half of the eighteenth century and the first half of the nineteenth century (Goggin 1968:198). We suggest a range of 1750 to 1850 (Barnes and May 1972:12, 34; see Figure 4-1).

Place of Manufacture
This type was most likely produced in Puebla, Mexico, but probably in other Mexican locations as well.

SAN DIEGO POLYCHROME
Barnes includes this in the Aranama type, whereas May separates it into a new type (Barnes and May 1972:36) within the Aranama Tradition. It shares the same color scheme as the rest of the Aranama Polychrome wares, but differs in its distinctive floral motif (Figure 4-26). San Diego Polychrome has been recovered from Spanish Colonial sites in Texas that were occupied between 1780 and 1825 including Presidio La Bahía, Mission Valero, Mission San Juan, and Mission Rosario. The type appears to be absent from Florida and in California it is classified as a variety of the Abó Aranama Polychrome (Cohen-Williams and Williams 2004:8, 46-48).

General Description
The glaze is a creamy white with little evidence of crazing. Beneath the typical Aranama orange band are yellow, green, and brown balls outlined in black and seemingly suspended from groups of black stems.
Alternating with these are triangles, half yellow and half green, and small cobalt-blue dots (Figure 4-26).
The floral motif is presented as black vines with yellow, orange and green flowers exhibiting green leaves. The colors appear more intense than Abó Polychrome and the other varieties of Aranama Polychrome. Anthropomorphic figures sometimes appear as the central design of the vessel. Sherds are usually 3 to 5 mm thick. The paste is cream to red in color.

Estimated Dates
The estimated dates of production for this type range from 1770 to 1800 (Barnes and May 1972:35; see also

General Description
Beneath Sherds vary from 5 to 7 mm in thickness and the paste is pink to a yellowish cream in color.

Estimated Dates
Monterey Polychrome appears in the archaeological record between 1800 and 1830 in California (Barnes and May 1972:36). In Florida, the ware is found in sites occupied between 1784 and 1821 (Deagan 1987:88). In Texas, the type probably began in the late 1700s since it has been found in deposits at Mission Espíritu Santo and Presidio La Bahía in the locations they occupied after 1749. It also appears at Rancho de las Cabras near Floresville, Texas, which was built during the 1750s (Ivey and Fox 1981:35).
We suggest a date range of 1775 to 1830 (Figure 4-1).

General Description
This type has not been previously described by other authorities, nor has is been identified in any other region at this point. The decoration on this ware consists of blobs of yellow, orange, and green with dots and occasional slashes of blue covering the entire area between a brown-bordered, yellow-orange band below the rim and another around the cavetto (Figure 4-28). Very thin brown/black lines run up and down between the bands and are also used to accent the green and yellow blobs. The paste is pink. The entire design is much more delicate than that on the other Aranama types, and the color scheme does not appear as intense. No hint of the central design has so far been found.

Vessel Forms
The only form found so far is the usual deep plate with a ring foot. Sherds vary from 3 to 5 mm in thickness.

Estimated Dates
So far, this type has only been found on the site of Presidio La Bahía in Goliad, which would date it from the mid to the late 18 th century or slightly later. Here we suggest a date range of 1750 to 1820 (see Figure   4-1).

Place of Manufacture
The manufacture of the La Bahía Polychrome probably occurred in Puebla, Mexico, although it is possible it was produced in other areas of Mexico as well.

ORANGE BAND POLYCHROME
This type has been called Orange Band Polychrome by Barnes (Barnes and May 1972:12-13) and Orangeline Polychrome by Gerald (1968:36 (Barnes and May 1972:12-13) where it is one of the earlier majolicas produced during the 19 th century (Deagan 1987:88).

General Description
The pattern is identical to that of Puebla Blue on White and San Elizario Polychrome (below), except that the band under the rim is orange outlined by thin black lines and the suspended floral design is green rather than blue (Figure 4-29). The paste is either cream or pale pink.
Basal sherds are 6 mm and the thickness varies to about 3 mm near the rim.

Place of Manufacture
Orange Band Polychrome was possibly produced in Puebla, Mexico.

SAN ELIZARIO POLYCHROME
San Elizario Polychrome was first defined as a separate type by Gerald (1968:45). It had initially been called Puebla Polychrome II by David Snow (1965:28-29 (Deagan 1987:85-86) and is classified as a variety of the Puebla Polychrome in California (Cohen-Williams and Williams 2004:8, 30-33).

General Description
The overall design is identical to that of Puebla Blue on White with the blue rim band and pendant petals and floral designs below the band. The central design typically consists of a crane-like bird figure. The distinguishing characteristic is that the blue band under the rim has narrow brown/black bands on either side of a blue rim band. Other uses of the brown/black accents include the legs and beaks on a blue crane and/or on blue petals and flowers (Figure 4-30). In essence, this is Puebla Blue on White with brown/black accents added. The paste is primarily pale pink, but there are some cream colored sherds.

Vessel Forms
Common vessel forms encountered include deep, brimmed plates (platos, soperos), small bowls (escudillas), and cups (tazas, pocillos). Thickness of sherds varies from 6 mm near the base to 3 mm near the rim.

Estimated Dates
The ware is estimated to been prominent in Texas between 1755 and 1780 (Ivey and Fox 1999:37).
Authorities suggest that San Elizario was in production from as early as 1750 to possibly 1850 (Goggin 1968;Gerald 1968; see also Figure 4-1).

Place of Manufacture
San Elizario was possibly produced in Puebla, Mexico since it appears to be a continuation of the Puebla Blue on White tradition. On the other hand, it may be a copy of wares made in Puebla that were made in other manufacturing centers.

PUEBLA BLUE ON WHITE II
This type is a variation of Puebla Blue on White that appears only on cups and small bowls. Puebla Blue on White II was first described by Goggin (1968:191) (Deagan 1987:84-85), and specimens of the type are lumped into Puebla Blue and White in California (Cohen-Williams and Williams 2004:8, 12-18).

General Description
The background enamel is identical to that of Puebla Blue on White. The design consists of two or three pale blue bands under the rim on the outside and continuing over onto the inside of the vessel. Below these bands, on the exterior of the vessel, are alternating floral-type arrangements of darker blue petalshaped dots (Figure 4-31). Two additional pale blue bands form the bottom of the design. On some vessels there is a band of smaller petals below this. Others exhibit a trio of dark blue dots that hang from the lowest blue band. The paste is pale tan in color.

Vessel Forms
The vessel forms encountered in Texas have been delicate cups and bowls only. Vessel walls are 3 mm thick. This type has a small ring foot on the base.

Place of Manufacture
Since this ware is a variation of Puebla Blue on White, it was most likely produced in Puebla, Mexico.

HUEJOTZINGO WAVY RIM BAND
This type is a later eighteenth-century version of Huejotzingo Blue on White. As the name indicates, the wavy band along the rim is what separates this type from Huejotzingo Blue on White (see Figure 4-23).
As in the case of the Huejotzingo Blue on White, the Wavy Rim Band also has a Blue on White and a

General Description
The only decoration on these vessels is a band up to, and slightly over, the rim. The lower edge of the band is wavy in shape (Figure 4-32). It is also sometimes found with a green or yellow band instead of a blue one (Figure 4-32e), and occasionally there is a thin band of the same color just below the wavy rim band, or several bands of paler blue beneath the wavy band. The paste is cream in color, but some sherds exhibit a pinkish paste. The glaze is of a creamy white color.

Vessel Forms
Typical vessel forms exhibiting this style are deep plates (platos, soperos) and cups (tazas, pocillos). The sherds vary from 4 to 5 mm in thickness.

Estimated Dates
Dates of popularity of this ware in Texas are from about 1775 to 1825 (Seifert 1977:71; see also Figure 4 1). May (1972:32) believes that the ware was in production from 1700 to 1800, though Deagan (1987:85) argues that the type was not in existence until 1760.

Place of Manufacture
Wavy Rim Band was produced in Puebla and perhaps elsewhere in Mexico.
CAR-UTSA Special Report #33 100 Fox and Ulrich 2008 PUEBLA BLUE ON BLUE In Texas, this type was first described by Schuetz (1969:56)

General Description
In manufacturing these vessels, the white glazed plate interiors were brushed with a thin blue wash over which dark blue floral and geometric designs with occasional black accents were painted (Figure 4-33). A dark blue rim band extends over the lip. Pale blue interconnected loops are on the reverse side of the vessel, similar to those on San Agustín plates.

Vessel Forms
The sherds recovered in Texas indicate that the vessels consisted of deep, brimmed plates (platos).

Estimated Dates
Puebla Blue on Blue appears to have been used in Texas during the late eighteenth century to early nineteenth century. We suggest a date range of 1775 to around 1830 (see Figure 4-1).

Place of Manufacture
This type was manufactured in Puebla, Mexico (Lister and Lister 1974:34).

THIN BLUE AND BROWN ON WHITE
Schuetz isolated this ware in her report on the Mission San Juan Capistrano excavations (Schuetz 1969:57). Additional sherds were recovered from Mission Rosario near Goliad (Gilmore 1975:Type Q) and Mission San José in San Antonio (Tomka and Fox 1998:25). It is possible that the distribution of the ware is limited to Texas since no identical specimens have been reported from Florida or California (i.e., Deagan 1987;Cohen-Williams and Williams 2004). We do not have a very good understanding of the relationship of this ware to other Spanish Colonial ceramics, and have chose not to type the ware.

General Description
These vessels are covered with a creamy white glaze. Decoration consists of small blue and brown floral designs (Figure 4-34). The sherds encountered form cups that are extremely thin, 1.7 mm at the rim to 5.7 mm at the base. Plate sherds range in thickness from 4.5 mm to 5 mm. Thin Brown and Blue on White appears to have been a fine and delicate ware.

Vessel Forms
Pieces recovered are usually too small to determine anything more than that they represent small cups and heavier plates.

Estimated Dates
Production of this ware is estimated to the late eighteenth century, due to its recovery from Mission Rosario. We estimate a date range of 1775 to 1800 (Figure 4-1).

Place of Manufacture
Due to the little information known at the time concerning this ware, the location of manufacture is unknown.

General Description
All vessel surfaces are covered with thick pale blue enamel over a cream-colored paste (Figure 4-35).
Designs consist of a linear floral decoration below an undulating rim. Barnes (Barnes and May 1972:11) was able to identify three different rim designs and separate them into time periods based on stratification in deposits recorded at the Tucson Urban Renewal Project.
Tumacacori I -1780-1790 to 1810-1820 Tumacacori II -1810-1820 to 1830-1840 Tumacacori III -1830-1840 to 1850-1860 Tumacacori II and III have been found on sites in the San Antonio vicinity. Central floral designs are seldom represented in Texas sites, but Goggin (1968:199) mentions large floral designs as central decoration on plates.

Vessel Forms
Typical vessel forms encountered in Texas include shallow plates (platos), platters (lebrillos), cups (tazas, pocillos), and bowls (escudillas). Sherds from the base are about 5 mm in thickness. Near the rim they thin out to approximately 3 mm.

GUANAJUATO POLYCHROME
Father Hidalgo is said to have encouraged the development of a ceramic industry in Guanajuato, Mexico in the early 1800s (Lister and Lister 1974:1). By the early nineteenth century, a new ceramic type appeared which exhibited the use of color schemes unlike previously made ceramics. This type was named for the area where it was initially produced. These wares are found on all Spanish Colonial sites in the San Antonio River Valley, as well as early-nineteenth-century sites in Laredo (Clark and Juarez 1986;Folan et al. 1986) and at Mission Refugio (Fox 2002:12). The type is present in Florida (FLMNH 2007) but there appears to be no mention of it in California typologies.

General Description
The paste of these wares is dark terra cotta. The background enamel often has a slightly greenish cast, although sometimes it appears with a yellow tinge. Decoration is primarily geometric, dot patterns, and wavy lines in rust, green, yellow, and black-brown (McKenzie 1989:1). Stylized floral motifs and geometric patterns exhibited on the sherds from Texas sites are common to the type (Figure 4-36). There are various design motifs evident within the Guanajuato typology, which, though acknowledged, have not been separated into individual categories.

Vessel Forms
Typical vessel forms encountered from Texas colonial sites include deep, brimmed plates (platos, soperos), cups (tazas, pocillos), and shallow bowls. Basal sherds are 5 mm thick, gradually thinning to 3 mm near the rim.

Estimated Dates
Guanajuato is one of later-produced majolicas, appearing during the early nineteenth century. We estimate a range of 1800 to 1850 (Figure 4-1).

Place of Manufacture
Guanajuato, Mexico.

General Description
Tin-glazed earthenwares made in France have commonly been called faience. Lane (1970), Avery (2008), and Waselkov and Walthall (2002) provide excellent resources for further information on faience wares.
Although at first glance they may seem to be majolica, a closer study reveals basic differences between the two. For the most part, the paste is fine-grained, ranging from near white to pale buff. A common characteristic is the tendency of the enamel to flake off a sherd, leaving sections of the paste exposed.
There are two common types of faience found in Texas. Faience blanche has a white tin glaze covering all surfaces. Faience brune has white or very pale blue on the inside surface and dark brown lead glaze on the outside. Faience brune was made in Rouen, Normandy. The brown glaze was believed to withstand heat better and vessels of this type were used primarily for cooking. Faience blanche was used as tableware (Blanchette 1981:33). This type was decorated in simple blue rim bands and border patterns borrowed from Chinese porcelains (Figure 4-37). Ointment jars, often referred to as rouge pots (see Figure 3-4), in green and blue have interiors lined with white tin glaze. They have a rolled rim, probably to facilitate the attachment of some sort of protective lid or covering. A distinctly different type found on the first site of the presidio at Orcoquisac on the Trinity River consists of a yellow floral design on a white background. This has been identified as Provence Yellow on White (Walthall 1991:90).

Vessel Forms
Typical vessel forms recovered in Texas include shallow bowls, plates, platters, cups, and ointment jars.
Sherds are on the whole thicker and clumsier than majolica.

Estimated Dates
Production of faience was begun in the early part of the eighteenth century and reached its height of development by 1730 (Brain 1979:35). The presence of faience on Spanish sites in Texas is probably indicative of contact with French outposts in Louisiana (Calhoun 1999:350). The French were active traders and it is interesting to note that the closer a Spanish site was to that border, the larger the percentage of faience versus majolica in the collection.

Place of Manufacture
Most faience brune was made in Normandy, particularly in and around Rouen. Faience blanche was also made in Normandy as well as in the south of France (Blanchette 1981:33).

CHINESE PORCELAIN
Porcelain vessels were regularly transported on galleons from the Philippines to Acapulco throughout the eighteenth century. They were off-loaded there and packed onto mules for the arduous trip to Mexico City. They were then purchased by procurators for the missions and presidios and loaded again onto mules for the long trip to the Texas frontier.

General Description
Chinese porcelain can generally be differentiated from European porcelain by its slightly blue-gray tint and the delicate thinness of the sherds. Two common varieties of Chinese porcelain are found in Texas.
One exhibits decoration with predominant designs in under-glaze blue (Figure 4-38 a-f). The second variety exhibits designs painted in over-glaze red-orange and gold ( Figure 4-38 g-m) that began to appear about 1750. Places of manufacture within China can be determined from the theme of the designs on the vessels (Longoria 2007).

Vessel Forms
The Chinese vessel forms encountered at Texas sites are primarily cups without handles (tea bowls) and small plates or saucers. Sherds are generally 3 mm in thickness.

Estimated Dates
The Chinese porcelain imported and brought to Texas was from the Ching Dynasty . The first variety with under-glaze gold and red and under-glaze blue dates to the first half of the eighteenth century (Deagan 1987:100-101). The second variety with over-glaze gold and red dates to the last half of the eighteenth century. In Texas, we suggest a range of from 1680 to 1820 (Figure 4-1).

Place of Manufacture
China.
CORE: a black or gray zone in the interior cross section of a vessel wall. Usually associated with incomplete removal of carbonaceous matter from the clay during relatively low-temperature firing.
CRAZING: a defect characterized by a fine network of cracks in the glaze, occurring when the glaze is in tension because it shrinks more that the body.
CRITICAL POINT: The point in the drying of a clay article at which shrinkage has largely ceased and the piece is rigid and leather-hard; also referred to as the critical moisture content.
DOCKING: Soaking a freshly fired article in cold water for a short period to prevent or reduce spalling of the ware if it contains calcareous inclusions. EARTHENWARE: A glazed or unglazed nonvitreous ceramic material, usually low fired, porous, and permeable, and red or brown in color.
FABRIC: the composition of a fired ceramic, including clay, inclusions, and pores, excluding surface treatment; often used synonymously with paste and body.
FAIENCE: French term for earthenware with an opaque tin-lead glaze.
FIRE: To heat a ceramic material in order to permanently harden it. The composition of the clay, the temperature and length of time at which it is fired, the uniformity of the heat, and the presence or absence of oxygen in the atmosphere around the vessel all affect the outcome of firing.
FIREBOX: A combustion chamber of a kiln (usually one fired by wood), typically beneath the ware chamber.
FIRECLOUD: A darkened area on a vessel's surface resulting from uneven firing and the deposit of carbon in the pores during firing, characteristic of firings in which fuel and vessels are in immediate proximity.
FLUX: A substance in a clay body, slip, or glaze that lowers the melting point of the mixture and promotes vitrification.
FOOT: The base of a ceramic vessel, usually a ring-like projection formed by tooling or by adding a coil.
GLASS: A silicate mixture that has been heated to a melt and then cooled to a solid without crystallizing.
GLAZE: A glassy coating melted onto the surface of a ceramic article, applied as a liquid suspension to a ware that has usually been fired once and is subsequently re-fired.
GREEN: Formed but unfired ceramic articles; used as greenware, green strength, etc.
GROG: Pre-fired clay (or potsherds) crushed or ground to small particle size and added to a clay as a type of temper to modify its properties. muffle (a kiln constructed so that the ware is not directly subjected to the radiant heat from the flame or heating elements); pit (a clamp that is excavated partially into the ground); and updraft (a kiln in which the heat or flame passes upward through the ware and then is vented outside).
LEATHER-HARD: Clay that is dried to the critical point so that individual clay particles touch and the body is rigid but retaining sufficient moisture to be carved, burnished, or joined. LIP: The edge or margin of the orifice of a vessel; sometimes refers more specifically to a modification of a rim of a vessel for pouring.
MAJOLICA (MAIOLICA): Earthenware covered with an opaque tin-lead glaze, best known from fifteenthto nineteenth-century Europe. The name comes from the island of Majorca, from which Italy obtained these wares in trade, but the term is commonly used as a technological class without reference to origins of the ware. Delft ware and faience are two types of tin-lead glazed earthenwares that fall under the rubric majolica.
MINERAL: A homogenous, inorganic, naturally occurring solid with a characteristic chemical composition and a regularly ordered atomic structure.
NECK: The part of a vessel between the shoulder and the rim, typically characterized by a marked constriction of the maximum body diameter. If there is little constriction, the region is called the collar.
SAND: A particle size grade ranging from 2 mm to 0.05mm in diameter.
SHERD (POTSHERD, SHARD): A term archaeologists use to refer to a broken fragment of pottery.
SHOULDER: The upper part of the body or a restricted vessel; that portion between the maximum diameter and the neck.
SILICATE: A compound in which SiO 4 tetrahedrons are major constituents. Clays, for example are alumina-silicates in which tetrahedrons are joined primarily in sheets.
SILT: A particle size grade in which particles are between 0.05 and 0.002mm in diameter; a sediment consisting of 80% or more silt-sized particles and less than 12% clay-sized particles.
SLIP: A fluid suspension of fine clay and water, used to coat a body before firing or poured into a mold to cast a piece; a non-vitreous coating on a pottery vessel.
TEMPER: To mix or modify to a proper consistency; a material-mineral or organic, but usually non plastic-added to a clay to improve its working, drying, or firing properties; see also additive, inclusion, nonplastic.
TERRA COTTA: an unglazed earthenware body, usually red, with a relatively coarse, low-fired paste.
TEXTURE: the general character of a fired fabric as viewed in cross section, described in terms of particle size (fine vs. coarse), characteristics of fracture (friable, blocky), and density (dense vs. porous).
THIN SECTION: a piece of ceramic ground to 0.03 mm or less, mounted between glass slides, usually for study under a microscope.
THROAT: the point of maximum restriction of the diameter of the neck or collar of a vessel.
THROW: to form a ceramic object on a potter's wheel, making use of the centrifugal force produced by rapid motion of the wheel.
UNDERGLAZE: a type of colored decoration applied to either unfired or biscuit ware before the glaze is applied and the vessel re-fired.
VITRIFICATION: the action or process of becoming glass; the fusing of particles in a clay body during high-temperature firing to become a homogenous mass.
WARE: 1) a class of pottery whose members share a similar technology, fabric, and surface treatment; 2) a ceramic material (e.g. greenware, earthenware, stoneware, etc.) WHEEL: a device capable of sustained rotation with a flat surface on which a potter builds a vessel.

APPENDIX B BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH AT SPANISH COLONIAL SITES IN TEXAS BARBARA A. MEISSNER
The following bibliography is as comprehensive as possible; however it does not claim to contain a reference for every published archaeological report on Spanish Colonial sites in Texas. It is likely that there may be more publications of which we are unaware, but the search for references was as thorough as could be. Several of the mission and presidio sites have not undergone archaeological testing or investigations. In these instances, a reference that would include historical background and/or a possible location may be listed. Analyses of materials from the colonial sites that are not part of archaeological site reports are included when readily available. We have included a few unpublished excavation reports and artifact analyses, most of which are Masters Theses that are readily available. Most of the rest of the unpublished reports are available upon request from the Center for Archaeological Research.
Each different location is considered separately, so that there may be several listings of the same name when a mission was moved several times without changing its name. Sites whose locations are not known (such as the first sites of San Antonio de Valero and Nuestra Señora del Espíritu Santo) are not listed.
Mission sites are listed first, then presidios and settlements, in roughly geographic order from west to east. The archaeological site number assigned by the UT-TARL is included, when appropriate.
Publications that cover more than one site are listed under each site.
The intensity of Spanish occupation at San Antonio presents a challenge to this system. Six missions, some of which had several locations, the presidio, also with several locations, the Villa San Fernando, and