Documentation of Ancestral Caddo Ceramic Vessels and Other Artifacts from East Texas Sites in the George T. Wright Collection at the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History

Cite this Record Perttula, Timothy K.; Walters, Mark; and Nelson, Bo (2018) "Documentation of Ancestral Caddo Ceramic Vessels and Other Artifacts from East Texas Sites in the George T. Wright Collection at the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History," Index of Texas Archaeology: Open Access Gray Literature from the Lone Star State: Vol. 2018, Article 3. https://doi.org/10.21112/ita.2018.1.3 ISSN: 2475-9333 Available at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ita/vol2018/iss1/3


Introduction to the George T. Wright Collection
From the early 1900s to the mid-1940s George T. Wright was a landowner (Kiomatia Plantation) and Vice-President of the Kiomitia Mercantile Company: General Merchandise in Kiomatia and Paris, Texas. He was also an avid Indian artifact collector at sites along the Red River in Red River County, Texas, as well as in McCurtain County, Oklahoma, especially the collection of Caddo ceramic vessels, and also dug at sites he knew in the area, including the Wright Plantation site (41RR7), which he owned, and the Sam Coffman site (now known as Sam Kaufman, 41RR16, and for a short time known as the Arnold Roitsch site), a few miles downstream along the Red River ( Figure 1). Most of these vessels were described as coming from the sandy banks of the Red River.
After George T. Wright died in 1944, his family sold his collections to the University of Oklahoma, where they are now part of the collections held by the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History (SNOMNH). His collection included 722 ceramic vessels, as well as ceramic pipes, arrow points, and various other kinds of artifacts. There is a notebook prepared by Wright in the SNOMNH holdings that we were able to review and glean some information from. It provides his numerical listing of artifacts, a few with specific provenience information-including County as well as B. R. R. (burial, Red River County), S. R. R. (surface, Red River County), B. L. (burial, Lamar County), and B. Titus (burial, Titus County)-as well as simple descriptions of each specific artifact, such as "pot," "red pot," and "bottle." Our interest in this report is in documenting the George T. Wright Collection of artifacts from East Texas Caddo sites in Red River, Lamar, and Titus counties. The majority of these collections are from burial features at sites in these counties, and almost 90 percent of the vessels are from the Wright Plantation and Sam Kaufman sites.

Sites and Their Settings
Based on 1940-1941 correspondence between A. T. Jackson and George T. Wright in the files of the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory at The University of Texas at Austin (TARL), the majority of the ceramic vessels in the George T. Wright collection from East Texas sites are from the Wright Plantation (41RR7) and Sam Kaufman (41RR16) sites (Perttula 2017b). In most cases, however, it is not possible to identify each vessel's specific site provenience, though there are hints in the correspondence regarding the ceramic vessels and other artifacts that came from Wright's 1940 excavations at the Sam Kaufman site (Perttula 2017b) as well as information Wright provided in his notebook.
The Wright Plantation site (41RR7) is a multiple mound center on the Red River, about 1 km north of the Fasken site (41RR14), another multiple mound center (Prikryl 2008). The site is 7 km upstream from the Sam Kaufman site (41RR16) (see Figure 1), a very large village with two constructed mounds and several discrete cemeteries (Perttula 2008 D. 1300-1700, or ca. A.D. 1400-1700) occupations at the site (the chronologies of the Caddo periods in this area have not been codified because not enough radiocarbon dates have been obtained from Caddo sites), and at least one of the mounds (B) at Wright Plantation (Figure 2) appears to have been constructed and used as a burial mound during the McCurtain phase; R. King Harris referred to this mound as a "low sandy mound." Mound A is a large platform mound, ca. 30 x 15 x 5 m in length, width, and height. Mound B is ca. 15 x 8 x 0.6 m in length, width, and height, and had been reduced in size by plowing. According to records on file at TARL, the Wright Plantation site had two other large mounds but they had eroded into the Red River before any investigations were conducted. During the early 1930s, the landowner, George Wright, recovered 24 ceramic vessels from this mound, sent them in 1935 to The University of Texas for restoration, and then apparently donated these vessels to the University of Oklahoma shortly thereafter. This collection is now in the holdings of the University of Oklahoma's Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History.
In about 1949, another 12 ancestral Caddo ceramic vessels were recovered in Mound A during the digging of a well just north of the 1818 plantation house that sits on the mound (see Figure 2). The location of this collection of vessels from the Wright Plantation site is not known.
The collections from TARL have three ancestral Caddo ceramic vessels from the Wright Plantation site on the George Wright Farm (Perttula 2017a); their specific provenience is not known. They were donated in the 1930s to the University of Texas by W. A. Rikard, a local avocational archaeologist. They include a portion of a shell-tempered jar, a grog-tempered Wilder Engraved bottle that was likely obtained in trade or exchange from a Titus phase group living in the Big Cypress or Sabine River basins 50+ miles south of the Red River (see Perttula 2012), and a Crockett Curvilinear Incised olla or short-necked bottle. The first two vessels were recovered by Rikard from a shallow (ca. 28 cm bs) Late Caddo McCurtain phase burial where the head of the deceased was to the east, and faced west, and two vessels had been placed by the feet and two others by the head (TARL files).
TARL files indicate that a Joseph K. Long III excavated a Hudson Engraved bottle from the plow zone of Mound B. Lloyd Harper had collected a turquoise pendant from the surface of Mound B.
The ceramic sherds in the TARL collections from the Wright Plantation site were primarily donated in 1930 by George T. Wright, and likely came from a surface collection when the site was plowed. One distinctive engraved sherd was donated to the University of Texas in March 1942. The 61 sherds in the collection from the site are from plain ware, utility ware, and fine ware vessels tempered with either shell, grog, grog-hematite, and bone (Perttula 2017a: Table 1). About 65.6 percent of the sherds (and 61.9 percent of the decorated sherds) are from vessels tempered with crushed and burned mussel shell; these are from vessels made by Late Caddo period McCurtain phase (ca. A.D. 1400-1700) potters. The remainder of the sherds are likely from a ca. A.D. 1000-1200 Early Caddo period component that is represented by at least the previously mentioned Crockett Curvilinear Incised vessel, and by sherds from primarily grog-tempered vessels.
There are also collections from the Wright Plantation site at the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) at the Smithsonian Institution (Dorothy Lippert, May 2017 personal communication). The R. King Harris Collection from the site includes ca. 15 ceramic vessel sherds and three arrow points from the Late Caddo period component, along with a large shell-tempered and red-slipped Avery Engraved compound bowl (Perttula 2016a: Figure 2). Such vessels are present in McCurtain phase contexts in this stretch of the Red River (see Perttula 2008:Figure 57c-d), most likely from post-A.D. 1500 contexts. Site records on the Texas Historic Sites Atlas indicate that a Hudson Engraved vessel, also dating to late McCurtain phase times, came from the "low sandy mound" along with a turquoise pendant.
The historic Caddo component at the Wright Plantation site is represented by two gunflints, ca. 15 glass beads (plus another 18 glass beads to be discussed below in the Wright Collection), two brass tinklers, two metal buttons, an iron gun main spring, and a brass gun ramrod guide. A second collection from the site was obtained by Joseph Long, and donated to the NMNH in 2002. This collection has projectile points (n=4), one perforator, scrapers (n=3), and flakes (n=3), plus daub (n=2) and ceramic vessel sherds: decorated grog or shell-tempered rims (n=33), red-slipped sherds (n=33), and 259 plain grog-or shell-tempered body sherds.
George T. Wright donated one vessel to the University of Texas from the Sam Kaufman site. Correspondence in the TARL files (Perttula 2017b) indicates that he did conduct excavations in 1940 in the northeastern quadrant of the East Mound at the Sam Kaufman site (Figure 3), where a number of ancestral burial features were excavated. The Sam Kaufman site is a large ancestral Caddo village and mound center, with extensive cemeteries that began to be exposed along the eroding bank of the Red in the 1940s and 1950s. The burials are from upper and lower cemeteries of post-A.D. 1500 McCurtain phase and ca. A.D. 1700 Historic Caddo age that are both north and east of the principal mound (or East Mound) at the site (see Perttula 2008;Skinner et al. 1969). The more recent work conducted in the late 1960s and early 1990s in the East Mound uncovered a burned and buried rectangular Caddo specialized structure, a shaft tomb with eight individuals, and other burial and non-burial features ( Figure 4).
The one vessel in the TARL collections from the Sam Kaufman site is a Simms Engraved, var. Darco carinated bowl; this vessel was donated by George T. Wright. This type has notched lips and discontinuous engraved elements with downward-pointing tick marks (Perttula and Selden 2014: Figure  37a-b). Most have four repeating sets of curvilinear to semi-circular ticked engraved lines. Other early historic Caddo sites in East Texas with var. Darco vessels include the Hatchel (41BW3) and Clements (41CS25) sites on the Red River and Black Bayou, respectively, and several Kinsloe phase (or Nadaco Caddo) sites in the mid-Sabine River basin in East Texas (see Jones 1968). During Wright's excavations in the East Mound he recovered an iron knife blade fragment from one burial feature (TARL files; see also Perttula 2017b).
The T. M. Sanders site (41LR2) is one of the more important ancestral Caddo sites known in East Texas, primarily because of its two earthen mounds and the well-preserved mortuary features of Caddo elite persons buried in Mound No. 1 (the East Mound). The Sanders site is located on a broad alluvial terrace just south of the confluence of Bois d'Arc Creek and the Red River. A large number of ceramic vessels are from burial features excavated by University of Texas archaeologists in Mound No. 1 (East Mound) in July and August 1931 (Jackson et al. 2000); others are from excavations in midden deposits between the two mounds (see Krieger 1946: Figure 9). One vessel in the George T. Wright collection at SNOMNH is from a near-mound burial feature at the Sanders site, probably in the midden deposits between the mounds.

Ancestral Caddo Ceramic Vessels
There are 85 ancestral Caddo ceramic vessels and vessel sections in the George T. Wright collection from East Texas sites at the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History (SNOMNH); each vessel or vessel section is described in this section. The vessels and vessel sections are from sites in Red River (96.4 percent), Lamar (2.4 percent), and Titus (1.2 percent) counties, virtually all from the excavation of burial features. Three of the Red River County vessels (3.6 percent) were designated by Wright as S. R. R., meaning they were found on the surface of a Caddo site. We take that to mean that these were found on the surface of disturbed burial features, likely exposed during plowing activities or from cut bank erosion.
As with other ancestral Caddo ceramic vessel documentation studies completed of ceramic assemblages from East Texas sites (cf. Perttula et al. 2013Perttula et al. , 2015, the following consistent set of attributes were employed in the study and documentation of the ceramic vessels from the George T. Wright Collection at the SNOMNH: Non-plastics: Deliberate and indeterminate materials in the paste (Rice 1987:411), including a variety of tempers (i.e., grog or crushed sherds, bone, hematite, and shell, as well as combinations of different temper inclusions) and "particulate matter of some size." The grog, bone, hematite, or shell appears to have been deliberately added to the paste as tempers. The bone or shell used for temper had been burned and calcined, then crushed, before it was added to the paste.
Vessel Form: Vessel form categories include open containers (bowls of several sizes, including effigy bowls, carinated bowls, and compound bowls) and restricted containers, including jars and bottles, as well as plates. As restricted containers, jars allow access by hand, but bottles do not (Brown 1996:335). Other form attributes that were recorded include the rim profile (outflaring or everted, vertical or standing, and inverted), lip profile (rolled to the exterior, rounded, flat, or thinned), and base shape (flat or rounded).
Core Colors: Observations on ceramic cross-section colors permit consideration of oxidation patterns (Teltser 1993:Figure 2A-H;Perttula 2005:Figure 5-30), and thus the conditions under which the vessel was fired and then cooled after firing. Comments are included for these attributes on the presence and location of fire-clouding, sooting, or smudging from cooking use (Skibo 1992), and the preservation of any charred organic remains.
Wall Thickness: Thickness was recorded in millimeters, using a vernier caliper, at the lip, along the rim, at several points along the body when possible, and at the base when possible (only for the vessels that were not complete).
Interior and Exterior Surface Treatment: The primary methods of finishing the surface of the vessels includes either smoothing, burnishing, and rarely polishing (Rice 1987:138). Brushing, while a popular method of roughening the surface (particularly the body) of large and small Middle (ca. A.D. 1200-1450) and Late Caddo (ca. A.D. 1450-1680) period cooking jars in several parts of the Caddo area (Perttula 2015a), is here considered a decorative treatment rather than solely a functional surface treatment (cf. Rice 1987:138), although not all Caddo ceramic analysts treat brushing as a decorative treatment. Smoothing creates "a finer and more regular surface… [and] has a matte rather than a lustrous finish" (Rice 1987:138). Burnishing, on the other hand, creates an irregular lustrous finish marked by parallel facets left by the burnishing tool (perhaps a pebble or bone). A polished surface treatment is marked by a uniform and highly lustrous surface finish, done when the vessel is dry, but without "the pronounced parallel facets produced by burnishing leather-hard clay" (Rice 1987:138).
The application of a hematite-rich clay slip (Ferring and Perttula 1987), either red or black after firing in an oxidizing or reducing (i.e., low-oxygen) environment, respectively, is another form of surface treatment noted in many East Texas assemblage, and the frequency of red-slipped vessels is a notable characteristic of the George T. Wright vessel assemblages. On these vessels, the clay slip is more frequently applied on the vessel exterior, or on both surfaces, than on the interior surface, and then was burnished after it was leather-hard or dry.
Height and Orifice Diameter: These attributes, measured in centimeters, were recorded with a ruler.
Diameter at Bottom of Rim and Base Diameter: Also recorded in millimeters using a ruler, these attributes permit characterization of the overall contour and shape of the vessel.
Volume: With measurements of height and orifice diameter obtained from the vessels, as well as other measurements of size (i.e., base diameter and maximum body width), volumes were estimated by comparison with known vessel volumes of specific forms (i.e., carinated bowl, jar, bottle, compound bowl, and bowl) in many other recently documented Caddo vessel assemblages.
Base Diameter and Shape: these attributes were either measured in centimeters or by shape attributes: circular or square, and flat, rounded (convex), or concave.
Decoration: Decorative techniques present in the vessel collection include engraving, incising, trailing, punctating, pinching, brushing, and appliquéing, and on certain vessels, combinations of decorative techniques (i.e., incised-punctated) created the decorative elements and motifs. Engraving was done with a sharp tool when the vessel was either leather-hard, or after it was fired, as were the tick marks often seen on vessels in this collection, while the other decorative techniques were executed with tools (trailing, incising, and punctation), by adding strips of clay to the wet body (appliqué), using frayed sticks or grass stems (brushing) dragged across the body surface, or fingernails (certain forms of punctations and pinching), when the vessel was wet or still plastic. Excising is considered a form of engraved decoration, where the clay is deliberately and closely marked/scraped and carved away with a sharp tool, usually to create triangular elements, tick marks, or excised punctations.
Use of Pigments: Another form of vessel decoration is the use of red (hematite or ochre) or white (kaolin clay) clay pigments that have been smeared or rubbed into the engraved lines of certain vessels.
Type: The kinds of ceramic types and defined varieties in the George T. Wright collections follow Suhm and Jelks (1962), Schambach and Miller (1984), Fields et al. (2014), and for any post-1962 ceramic types: Perttula and Selden (2014).
There are 85 ancestral Caddo ceramic vessels in the George T. Wright collection from sites in Red River and Lamar counties, Texas. They include bottles, deep bowls, bowls, carinated bowls, compound bowls, and jars.         SITE NAME OR SITE NUMBER: George T. Wright Collection, Lamar County, Texas. According to Wright's notebook (see also Wright 1943:92) (Wright 1943:95). A recent examination of images of this vessel by Drs. Matt Peeples, Barbara Mills, and David Snow (July 2017 personal communication) has led them to conclude that it is not a Zuni vessel, but more like early to mid-19 th century Keres Pueblo pottery. They also note that the shape of the vessel is more like Tewa vessels from the Rio Grande. "The painted lip is right for early to mid-19 th century" age for the vessel. Overall, "1800-1880 is the most likely date range." However, the use of sherd temper and the character of the paste is consistent with a 19th century Zuni ceramic vessel (Matt Peeples, September 7, 2017 personal communication). Observations on the aplastics, paste, and paint of the vessel are provided by Matthew C. Pailles in Appendix I of this report.       The vessel section has parts of two appliqued rattles covered with small appliqued nodes at the center of a series of three concentric engraved circles. The appliqued rattle is 4.0 cm in diameter and 3.3 cm in length. Between the rattle nodes are bracket-shaped engraved elements filled with circles and ovals as primary motifs (Figure 71) as well as vertical, diagonal, and horizontal hatching as secondary motifs (see Nash 2017: Table 2    SITE NAME OR SITE NUMBER: George T. Wright Collection, Lamar County, Texas. Wright's notebook indicates this vessel came from a burial at the Sanders site (41LR2), near but not from either of the two mounds at the site (Jackson et al. 2000;Krieger 1946).

Miscellaneous Ceramic Artifacts
The first of the two miscellaneous ceramic artifacts in the George T. Wright collection from Red River County, Texas, is a large piece (43.1+ mm in height) of a vessel pedestal leg with a flat base (GTW-1017, TX 224/1, B. R. R.). The 32.0 mm diameter pedestal leg is from a bone-tempered vessel ( Figure 85).
The second miscellaneous ceramic artifact is a shell-tempered vessel effigy head (GTW-1020, TX 226/1, B. R. R.) probably of a canid, with a slotted clay base, probably to fit the effigy head into a hole in an effigy. The head has an engraved open mouth, two eyes, and two upturned ears (Figure 86), and is 25.0 mm in height and 19.0 mm in width.

Summary of the George T. Wright Collection Vessel Assemblage from East Texas Sites
The 85 ceramic vessels in the George T. Wright Collection are from sites in Red River County (n=82), Lamar County (n=2), and Titus County (n=1). Of those vessels from Red River County, 74 are from either the Wright Plantation (41RR7) or Sam Kaufman (41RR16) sites in the Red River basin (likely 24 from the Wright Plantation site and the other 50 from the Sam Kaufman site, excavated by Wright in 1940), and eight others are from several sites in the Sulphur River basin, including one site on Ward's Creek and two others on Cuthand Creek. As best as can be determined from Wright's correspondence with A. T. Jackson about his 1940 excavations at the Sam Kaufman site (see Perttula 2017b), where he mentions specific vessels associated with burial features, information about 30 of the likely 50 vessels he recovered from the site is available, but nothing more specific is available about the other 20 vessels: • six Hudson Engraved bottles with spool necks; • one red-slipped Avery Engraved compound bowl; • one Emory Punctated-Incised jar; • six Nash Neck Banded jars; • 16 Simms Engraved carinated bowls; and • one small "cup" that held a green glauconitic clay pigment The two vessels from Lamar County sites include a Sanders Engraved vessel from the Middle Caddo period Sanders phase component there (see Jackson et al. 2000;Krieger 1946;Perttula et al. 2016) and a 19 th century jar from the northern Rio Grande area of the Southwestern United States, and the one Titus County vessel is a 15-17 th century Ripley Engraved, var. Gandy carinated bowl. This vessel was likely made in the Big Cypress Creek basin (see Perttula 2012;Fields et al. 2014) and traded/exchanged with the Late Caddo McCurtain phase community in the Mound Prairie area along the Red River near its confluence with the Kiamichi River (see Figure 1). A single grog-tempered Wilder Engraved bottle from the same Titus phase communities is in the TARL collections from the Wright Plantation site.
The vessels from the Wright Plantation and Sam Kaufman sites can be divided into those tempered with grog (n=13) or those vessels tempered with mussel shell (n=61). The shell-tempered vessels were made by Late Caddo period McCurtain phase potters in the Mound Prairie community (Figure 87), most likely between ca. A.D. 1550-1680, but some of the vessels (i.e., a Keno Trailed, var. Phillips bowl and Simms Engraved, var. Darco carinated bowls) suggest that shell-tempered vessels continued to be made in this area until ca. A.D. 1730; the iron knife blade found in one of the burials by Wright is corroboration for a post-A.D. 1680 use of the East Mound at the Sam Kaufman site. So too is the recovery of glass beads in a few of the burials excavated there since the 1950s. The McCurtain phase shell-tempered vessels include fine wares, utility wares, and plain wares (Table 1).
Simms Plain  ----1  --1  Plain bowl  -1  -----1  Plain carinated bowl  ----1  --1  Plain jar  ------1  The shell-tempered fine ware vessels from the Wright Plantation and Sam Kaufman sites in the George T. Wright Collection comprise 60.7 percent of the assemblage (see Table 1), followed by utility ware (32.8 percent) and plain ware (6.6 percent). The principal fine wares include Simms Engraved carinated bowls, Hudson Engraved spool-necked bottles, Taylor Engraved deep bowls and bottles, as well as Avery Engraved deep bowls, bottles, and a compound bowl, beaker, and rattle bowl. Carinated bowls and bottles are the most common fine ware vessel forms in the vessel assemblage (see Table 1).
The shell-tempered utility ware vessels are primarily of the Nash Neck Banded, Emory Punctated-Incised, and cf. McKinney Plain types (see Table 1). One unique jar has a neck banded rim and the body has an Avery Engraved motif. Other such vessels have been documented from the Rowland Clark site (41RR77, Perino 1994). Another Nash Neck Banded jar has a red-slipped body, but is not otherwise decorated on this part of the vessel.
The few plain shell-tempered vessels include carinated bowls, bowls, and jars. One of these vessels is a Simms Plain form with its distinctive sharp-angled rim panel, as more commonly seen in Simms Engraved carinated bowls.
The grog-tempered vessels from the Wright Plantation and Sam Kaufman sites are from both pre-A.D. 1200 and post-A.D. 1600 components. The Early Caddo period vessels from these sites include a Holly Fine Engraved bottle, an East Incised effigy bowl, and a Pennington Punctated-Incised bowl, two plain jars, a plain carinated bowl, and a typologically unidentified engraved bottle. The post-A.D. 1600 grog-tempered vessels from the two sites are represented by a Keno Trailed, var. Phillips bowl, a Hodges Engraved bowl, three Simms Engraved carinated bowls, and a Nash Neck Banded jar. These six vessels likely are intra-regional trade ware that originated in a Texarkana phase community downstream on the Red River (see Figure 87).
The eight vessels from sites in the Sulphur River basin include five vessels with grog or grog-bonehematite temper and three vessels with burned mussel shell temper. The vessels with grog temper include a plain bottle, a vessel with unidentified engraved elements, and three Late Caddo period vessels: an Emory Punctated-Incised jar, a cf. McKinney Plain jar, and a cf. Barkman Engraved carinated bowl. The temper of these vessels suggests they are affiliated with post-A.D. 1400 Texarkana phase components (see Perttula 2015b:84). The shell-tempered vessels from these sites are likely the same age, but may have originated in a different Caddo ceramic tradition. They include an engraved effigy bowl with a hollow body, an Emory Punctated-Incised jar, and a Nash Neck Banded jar.

Comparisons to other nearby Red River County, Texas, Vessel Assemblages
Compilations of ancestral Caddo vessel assemblages from a number of village sites and cemeteries along the Red River in Red River County, Texas, provide specific information on the stylistic character of the fine wares and utility wares in assemblages of Early Caddo (ca. A.D. 900-1200, Albion phase), Middle Caddo (ca. A.D. 1200-1400, Sanders phase), and Late Caddo (ca. A.D. 1400-1680+, McCurtain phase) age, but also information on the range of vessel forms made by Caddo potters for each of the wares. The compilation discussed below includes 811 vessels, including 18.6 percent from Early Caddo period contents, 12.0 percent from Middle Caddo period contexts, and 69.4 percent from Late Caddo period contexts. These proportions suggest a considerable increase in the ancestral Caddo population of the Red River basin after ca. A.D. 1400, as well as perhaps the increased visibility in modern times of Caddo cemeteries on sites of this age, primarily because of plowing and river channel erosion.
In the Early Caddo period vessel assemblages from Red River County sites, fine wares are most prevalent, particularly Spiro Engraved vessels (Table 2). Utility wares primarily include Crockett Curvilinear Incised, East Incised, and Davis Incised vessels. Plain wares account for 27.8 percent of the Early Caddo ceramic vessels (Table 2). Only a small number of the George T. Wright Collection vessels from Red River sites are of Early Caddo period age, including only a Holly Fine Engraved bottle, an East Incised effigy bowl, and a Pennington Punctated-Incised bowl. A few plain grog-tempered vessels may also be part of the Early Caddo vessel assemblage: two jars and one carinated bowl.  Banks and Winters 1975;Perino 1994Perino , 1995Perttula 1995Perttula , 2016aSkinner et al. 1969*Perino 1995 Bottles are the most common vessel form in Early Caddo period Albion phase assemblages, accounting for 58 percent of the available vessel sample, in both the fine wares (80 percent) and plain wares (50 percent), followed by carinated bowls (11 percent among the fine wares, 31 percent among the utility wares, and 30 percent among the plain wares); overall 19.7 percent of the vessels of Early Caddo period age are carinated bowls (Table 3). Bowls (12.2 percent) and jars (9.9 percent) comprise the remainder of this vessel assemblage.  Perino's (1995) vessel data from the Holdeman site (4RR11) could not be used because of inconsistencies in vessel form identifications, especially between bowls and carinated bowls, but also because none of the plain ware vessels were identified to form.
The Middle Caddo period Sanders phase vessel assemblage from Red River County sites is dominated by plain wares (Table 4), accounting for more than 71 percent of the vessel sample. Fine ware vessels are primarily Maxey Noded Redware bottles, while utility wares are from Canton Incised jars. There are no Middle Caddo period vessels in the George T. Wright collection from Red River County, Texas, sites, but he did excavate a Sanders Engraved bowl from the Sanders site.  Harris 1953;Perino 1995;Perttula 1995;Perttula et al. 2012 *form not specified in Perino 1995 Supplemented by vessel data from Middle Caddo period burial features from the Sanders site on the Red River in Lamar County, Texas (see Perttula 2016: Table 3), fine ware vessels are most common (51.4 percent) in the vessel assemblage. These tend to be bottles, bowls, and carinated bowls (Table 5). Utility wares (14.9 percent) are primarily jars, while plain wares (33.8 percent) are mainly bowls and carinated bowls.  Table 3) Note: Perino's (1995) vessel data from the Holdeman site (4RR11) could not be used because of inconsistencies in vessel form identifications, especially between bowls and carinated bowls, but also because none of the plain ware vessels were identified to form.
The Late Caddo period McCurtain phase vessel assemblage is dominated by fine wares (57.4 percent) and utility wares (25.7 percent); plain wares comprise 17.1 percent of the assemblage ( Table 6). The majority of the George T. Wright Collection of vessels from sites on the Red River in Red River County are from McCurtain phase contexts; the proportions of fine ware (60.6 percent) and utility ware (32.8 percent) vessels in the collection (see Table 1) are quite comparable to the much larger assemblage of vessels from the Red River basin in Red River County. Plain ware vessels only account for 6.6 percent of the George T. Wright collection, however.
In the larger assemblage of McCurtain phase vessels from Red River basin sites, the fine wares are dominated by Avery Engraved and Simms Engraved vessels, with lesser amounts of Clark Engraved (defined by Perino 1994Perino , 1995 and may be an early variety of Simms Engraved), Hudson Engraved, and Taylor Engraved (see Table 6). In the Wright collection, Simms Engraved (including both shell and grog-tempered vessels) is by far the most common fine ware, suggesting these vessels came from post-A.D. 1550 Late McCurtain phase features. Simms Engraved, var. Darco vessels in the Wright collection point to a post-A.D. 1680 use of the Wright Plantation and Sam Kaufman sites. Other common fine ware vessels in the Wright collection include Hudson Engraved, Taylor Engraved, and Avery Engraved (see Table 1).  Banks and Banks 2002;Banks and Winters 1975;Cobb 1983;Harris et al. 1954;Harris and Wilson 1956;Huff 1960;Perino 1983Perino , 1994Perino , 1995Perttula et al. 2012;Perttula 1995Perttula , 2008Perttula , 2016aPerttula , 2016bPerttula , 2017aSkinner et al. 1969 *trade ware from a Titus phase community **plain ware form not specified by Perino (1995) Utility wares in the lager sample of McCurtain phase vessels are dominated by Nash Neck Banded and Emory Punctated-Incised jars (see Table 6), with a few McKinney Plain and Moore Noded vessels. Nash Neck Banded, Emory Punctated-Incised, and cf. McKinney Plain jars are the most common shelltempered utility wares in the George T. Wright collection (see Table 1).
Bowls and bottles are the principal vessel forms in the McCurtain phase vessel assemblage (see Table 6). The shell-tempered plain wares in the George T. Wright collection include a plain jar, two plain carinated bowls, and a plain bowl. One of the plain carinated bowls has been classified as Simms Plain; Perino (1994) identified five Simms Plain vessels in the large McCurtain phase vessel assemblage (n=202) at the Rowland Clark site.
The diversity of vessel forms is impressive in the McCurtain phase vessel assemblages, particularly in the fine wares (Table 7). Fine wares are principally bottles (30.8 percent), carinated bowls (26.9 percent), and deep bowls (25.8 percent), but there are also fine ware bowls (8.3 percent), compound bowls (7.7 percent), and a jar (0.5 percent). In the George T. Wright vessel collection, the fine wares include mainly carinated bowls (43.2 percent), bottles (29.7 percent), and deep bowls (13.5 percent). There are only a few bowls or compound bowls in the Wright collection (see Table 1).  Perino 1994) and Holdeman (41Rr11, Perino 1995) cannot be used in the table because Perino used the terms bowls and carinated bowls, interchangeably, but also used the term bowl rather than deep bowl. Perino (1995) also did not identify the plain ware vessels by form.
The utility wares are almost all jars (see Table 7), while 100 percent of the shell-tempered utility ware vessels in the Wright collection are jars (see Table 1). McCurtain phase vessel assemblages include plain bottles, carinated bowls, bowls, and jars (see Table 7). The George T. Wright Collection of McCurtain phase vessels differs in that there are no plain ware bottles, but only carinated bowls, bowls, and jars (see Table 1).

Ceramic Pipes
There are both long-stemmed and elbow ceramic pipes and pipe sherds in the George T. Wright Collection. The long-stemmed Red River style pipe stem sherds are from the surface of Red River County sites (GTW-1004, TX 221/1, S. R. R.), and are from bone-tempered (n=3) and grog-tempered (n=1) pipe stems (Figure 88). Stem diameters that range from 7.3-10.2 mm are consistent with the Graves Chapel variety of Red River pipe (Hoffman 1967:9), and likely these long-stemmed pipes date from ca. A.D. 1000-1200, the Albion phase of the Early Caddo period. The five elbow pipes, four biconical and one L-shaped, in the collection are from Red River County sites, most likely from the Wright Plantation (41RR7) and Sam Kaufman (41RR16) sites. Such pipes were made and used by the Caddo living on the Red River after ca. A.D. 1300 and into the 18 th century A.D. (see Hoffman 1967).
Three of the pipes are from surface contexts and the other two are from burial features; Wright did mention in 1941 correspondence with A. T. Jackson that he did recover a ceramic pipe from one of the burial features he excavated in the East Mound at Sam Kaufman (Perttula 2017b). The first of the pipes from surface contexts (GTW-1039, TX 232/1, S. R. R.) is from a site described in Wright's notebook as being near Manchester, Texas, which suggests it is from the nearby Wright Plantation site. It is a simple exterior burnished grog-tempered biconical elbow pipe with a rounded shoulder, flat lips on the stem and bowl, and broad bowl and stem orifice diameters ( Figure 89); a single straight engraved line is on the stem lip. The pipe is 37.5 mm in height and 40.5 mm in length; the bowl thickness is 5.2 mm and the stem thickness is 8.2 mm. Elbow pipes of similar form have been reported by Harris (1953:Plate 4:8), Skinner et al. (1969: Figure 24c), Perino (1983:Figure 19d), and Perttula (2008: Figure 47b) from the Sam Kaufman site.
The second biconical elbow pipe (GTW-1038, TX 231/1, S. R. R.) from surface contexts at a Red River County site is shell-tempered and was fired and cooled in a reducing environment. It also has a broad bowl (31.2 mm orifice diameter) and stem (20.3 mm in diameter), both with flat lips, but the shoulder is a near right-angle. The stem is 5.4 mm in thickness, and the bowl is 4.7 mm thick. The lip of the bowl has been lip notched from right to left, and there are engraved elements on both the bowl and the lower stem. The engraved elements on the bowl include upper and lower horizontal engraved lines, with open pendant triangles on the upper horizontal line. On the lower stem and shoulder area, the engraved lines consist of a series of four concentric curvilinear engraved lines (Figure 90a-b).
The third elbow pipe from a surface context (GTW-1023, TX 227/1, S. R. R.) is a grog-tempered elbow pipe stem fragment. The stem is 29.0 mm in orifice diameter, and 7.1 mm in thickness, and it has two lower ear-shaped extensions on the lower part of the stem, below the stem hole. The elbow pipe stem also has two horizontal engraved lines below the lip as well as an oval-shaped zone farther down the stem that is filled with cross-hatched engraved lines (Figure 91a-b). Perino (1983: Figure 19b) recovered a keeled elbow pipe from the Bob Williams part of the Sam Kaufman site that had a similar cross-hatched engraved decoration on the stem. One of the two elbow pipes from a burial feature in the George T. Wright collection is a shelltempered L-shaped pipe (GTW-1032, TX 230/1, B. R. R.). The pipe was fired and cooled in an oxidizing environment and has been smoothed on its exterior surface. There are two horizontal engraved lines on the stem (Figure 92). This pipe is 77.0 mm in length, with a 31.8+ mm bowl height (an unknown portion of the bowl has been broken off the pipe). The orifice diameter of the bowl is 21.1 mm, while the stem diameter is 24.0 mm. The second of the two elbow pipes (GTW-1031, TX 229/1, B. R. R.) from a burial feature context (likely from the Sam Kaufman site) in the George T. Wright collection is a fragment of a keeled elbow pipe (i.e., where that portion of the stem that extended past the bowl was folded up against it while the clay was still plastic) (see Todd and Turner 2010;Turner 1978:71). The bowl is intact, and has a rounded lip, but an unknown portion of the stem has been broken away. It is a grog-tempered pipe that was fired and cooled in a reducing environment, and burnished on its exterior surface. The bowl height is 30.2 mm, the orifice diameter of the bowl is 37.7 mm, and the stem diameter near its intersection with the bowl is 14.0 mm. The lower part of the stem has a deliberately raised or non-smoothed area that is covered with rows of small circular punctations (Figure 93a

Arrow points
A variety of arrow point types made from several different kinds of lithic raw materials are represented in the George T. Wright collection from Red River County sites (Table 8). They are all from surface contexts, again most likely collected from the Wright Plantation and Sam Kaufman sites.

Marine Shell
The George T. Wright Collection has three poorly preserved marine conch columella beads ( Figure  99) from a burial at the Sanders site (GTW-1006, TX 222/1, B. L.) (see Krieger 1946:Plate 19a-b). They range from 65.0-80.0 mm in length and 8.6-12.1 mm in width.

Bone Tools
The George T. Wright collection of artifacts from Caddo sites in East Texas include two large animal bone tool fragments from the Sam Kaufman site (GTW-1018, TX 225/1, B. R. R.). These unburned large mammal bones have smoothed exterior surfaces (Figure 100a-b), as if they may have been used to polish animal hides. The two fragments range from 60-88.5 mm in length, 45.9-55.9 mm in width, and 29.0-31.3 mm in thickness.
Correspondence between A. T. Jackson and George T. Wright mentions these bone tools as coming from a burial feature at the Sam Kaufman site. Along with a pair of copper-covered wood ear spools with the burial, Wright noted: …It may be of further interest to you to know what else was buried with this skeleton. Four pieces of pottery, none of any particular potter that would mark it odd or outstanding. This includes one small…flattish bottle with a bulbous neck. This was buried right between the legs in the crotch. Another bottle, by the way, was found in a similar location with another skeleton. At the waist, or hips, were two rather kidney shaped "nodules" of bone that had been much polished, as shown by the undisintegrated end of one, 3 1/4" x 2 1/4" x 1 1/2". These were pretty soft and badly eroded. Evidently they cut out of a large animal bone-buffalo at a guess. These we took to be pot smoothers. Also with these, was a bone needle about 6" long, polished and smoothed. This would lead me to believe the skeleton was that of a woman. Another thing you will want to know -this grave was in the eastern or smaller mound (East Mound] on the Coffman farm [ Figure 2] about 10 miles below my farm [at Wright Plantation] (Perttula 2017b).

Glass Beads
There are 18 glass beads (Figure 101) in the George T. Wright Collection from the Wright Plantation site in Red River County (GTW-1014, TX 223/1, B. R. R.). They can be sorted into two groups of large turquin (see Walthall 2015) or turquoise blue drawn or rounded beads. The first group includes 15 opaque beads between 5.9-7.3 mm in diameter; in the Kidd and Kidd (1970) system, they are IIa40/41 beads. The second group has three large translucent beads between 5.6-5.9 mm in diameter; these are IIa31 beads in the Kidd and Kidd 91970) system. Such beads are present on Caddo sites dating from ca. A.D. 1690-1730 (Perttula and Glascock 2017: Table 22.7).

Figure 101. Glass beads from the Wright Plantation site, GTW-1014.
In some instances, mound centers were not directly associated with permanent settlements or middens. The McCurtain phase mounds were generally constructed in one or two stages over important public structures, with the structure abandoned, dismantled and/or burned, then capped with a rituallycharged zone of soil scraped from nearby deposits or clay sources. Simple and elaborate single and multiple burials were also placed in the mounds, as with the East Mound at the Sam Kaufman site (41RR16) on the Red River.
The density of McCurtain phase sites indicates that greater numbers of Caddo people were living in closer proximity than before in the Red River valley. At the Sam Kaufman site, the mound in McCurtain phase times was used as a place for the burial of the social elite, as a shaft tomb with 11 individuals and many grave goods was located near the center of the mound. Special purpose salt-processing sites, such as the Salt Well Slough site (41RR204), are also common in the vicinity of the Sam Kaufman site.
Late Caddo period vessel assemblages are stylistically diverse across East Texas, and there are very specific differences in vessel shapes, designs, and decorative attributes between Caddo ceramics in individual drainages, or even within specific smaller segments of river and creek basins. The stylistic and functional diversity in Late Caddo Titus phase, Frankston phase, and McCurtain phase (see Figure 87) fine ware and utility ware ceramics, for example, can be reasonably interpreted to be representative of the ceramic traditions of specific Caddo social groups.
McCurtain phase ceramics are exclusively shell-tempered, with the exception of certain grogtempered vessels apparently obtained from contemporaneous Texarkana phase Caddo communities living downstream along the Red River. Fine ware vessels in McCurtain phase sites include Avery Engraved, Hudson Engraved, Keno Trailed, and Simms Engraved bottles, bowls, and carinated bowls, along with a plain red-slipped fine ware (Clement Redware). Simms Engraved, var. Darco is a post-A.D. 1650 fine ware style present in late McCurtain phase contexts as well as in the early part of the Historic Caddo period, and this variety is quite common in the George T. Wright collection. The utility ware jars are from Nash Neck Banded and Emory Punctated-Incised types. Clay elbow pipes were made, used, and discarded in the different village areas and farmstead compounds as well as placed in graves as funerary offerings, along with likely quivers of arrow points and other goods. Paste: durable and relatively fine; the interior color is light gray varying to darker gray in the center of the cross-section ( Figure A1-2), with no sharp breaks in the color. The outside of the vessel is fired to a buff/tan color. Scraping/wipe marks are easily observable on the interior of the vessel.
There are large spalls on the lower portion of the vessel, likely post burial-exfoliation.
Paint: slip is a white color that appears polished-lustrous. The red paint is matte ( Figure A1-3); clear brush strokes are inferrable from uneven color: the elements are outlined and then in-filled. Some granularity visible in the red paint under magnification with hand-lens. The boundaries of the red paint are relatively sharp. The dark paint is a root-beer color. The edges are sharp with no evidence of running. There is some gradation in the color with a darker interior of strokes and lighter margins. A few locations suggest bubbling in the paint, most likely this is a glaze or sub-glaze paint.