CRYSTAL RIVER REVISITED. 411 
We were fortunate enough to find, this time, in sand tossed out on our former 
visit, another fragment which undoubtedly belonged to the same remarkable vessel. 
The ware is the same; the curvature is identical; and the decoration, in our 
opinion, is from the same bold hand that executed the design on the fragment 
first found by us. Unfortunately 
the two fragments do not join, 
though both belong to the upper 
part of the vessel and include 
parts of the rim. We have, 
altogether, less than half the cir- 
cumference of the upper six inches 
of a vessel originally about five 
inches in diameter. Тһе original 
height of the vessel cannot be 
determined, though judging from 
parts of the decoration which are 
missing, the height must have 
been considerably in excess of 
that of the fragments found by 
us. The fragment last found is 
shown in Fig. 5. 
Professor Holmes writes that 
the figures on these two fragments 
*are probably parts of a single 
design, or at least a group of re- 
lated designs, which covered the 
entire exterior surface of the ves- 
sel. They are, indeed, interest- 
ing, as you suggest, and illustrate 
the versatile genius of the south- 
ern potter; but they are not gen- 
erically distinct in character or 
execution from others. * * * * 
“ I do not see the least reason 
for attributing these figures to the 
whites or suspecting white influ- 
ence. They are aboriginal in 
every way." 
Two sherds belonging to a 
vessel of coarse, porous ware 
seem to have borne an interesting design where what may have been intended to 
represent the head of a bird, front view, appears in relief on the flaring neck of 
the vessel. At one side is seen an incised design perhaps showing part of a wing. 
бет 
) 
> 
( 
| 
I 
a i 
ccumsan comm 
ste Mr sen 
Fra. 3.—Fragment of vessel. Crystal River. (About full size.) 
