NO. 14 ARCIIKOr.OGY OF RAY ISLANDS, HONDURAS STRONG I45 



at the different offertories will be mentioned later. All these matters, 

 however, require more extensive and careful work before they can be 

 fully answered. 



The occurrence and association of the known Bay Island ceramic 

 types are indicated in table 2. Plain monochrome ware is present at 

 all the sites and occurs by itself at five sites (table 2). The latter sites, 

 with the possible exception of Pine Ridge, are either places of ha1)ita- 

 tion or water holes. Elaborate monochrome is the next most abundant 

 and occurs at 13 sites, nearly all of which seem to be ceremonial. 

 These two wares blend imperceptibly into one another and are cer- 

 tainly related. At Black Rock Basin, and again at Indian Hill site i, 

 there were stratigraphic indications that the plain type predominated 

 in the earlier periods. The more elaborate monochrome ware seems 

 to have come into vogue later and is most often associated with Poly- 

 chrome I. Polychrome I occurs definitely at eight sites, all of which 



Table 2. — Association of Bay Island Ceramic Types 



» Site numbers given in table i. 

 b Rare. 



are ceremonial. At Indian Hill site i, it occurred in the upper portions 

 of the ceramic deposit in association with elaborate monochrome. 

 These two wares are also definitely related in form and decoration. 

 Definite Polychrome II was found in small quantities at just three 

 sites. All of these were ceremonial in nature. Stylistically, Poly- 

 chrome II suggests a degeneration or simplification in style from Poly- 

 chrome I, to which ware it seems definitely related. As to sequence, 

 there is therefore some stratigraphic evidence that plain monochrome 

 precedes elaborate monochrome ware and Polychrome I. The elabor- 

 ate monochrome is evidently contemporaneous with Polychrome I. 

 On stylistic grounds Polychrome II appears to be later than Poly- 

 chrome I, but there are no stratigraphic clues as to its age. Finally, 

 the Mitchell-Pledges collection with its considerable number of aber- 

 rant ceramic pieces indicates that the above is at best only a partial 

 picture of the development of pottery styles in the Bay Islands. 



The above evidence in part answers the question as to whether 

 ceramic differences in offertories indicate differential age or social 



