Histarchers, especially Carl and Ned:

The situation is far worse than you think.  I've got stuff that meets the
definition of colonoware throughout the Spanish colonies, in the Caribbean,
and as far south as Buenos Aires.  There's a very strong presence in the
Spanish Florida colony, where "colono-ware" is a standard category.  It's
called by different names in different areas, but it's always referred to
as "European influenced."  In some cases the definition is surprising.  For
example, wares made by the O'odham (Papago) in southern Arizona are
considered "Euro. inf." because they started using lead glaze, which they
did only for a fifty-year period at the end of the Spanish colonial period.
However, most of the forms remained typically local; very few or no
European shapes.  Wheel-thrown vessels are also considered "Euro. inf." in
some areas (California and Texas), where they are clearly made by local
Indian groups in the missions.  All of these meet the broad definition of
colonoware.

Those of you who think that colonoware was definitely proved to be strictly
slave-produced need to read Deetz's discussion in _Flowerdew Hundred_,
especially pp. 78-90.  Keep in mind that stuff called colonware occurs
outside those areas where Africans were brought in as slaves.

The end result of my research, at least so far:  "colonoware" is poorly
defined in some areas, and not used at all in others, but still,  "European
influenced" is a clearly-present ceramic in a lot of areas, and needs to be
recognized as such --- it's directly related to questions of acculturation,
among other things.  So if you're going to look at it, build tables
concerning it, and have blocks of discussion concerning it, you have to
have a name for it.  You can use the descriptive, "Euro. inf." sort of
phrase, or a name, like "colonoware."  Regardless of whether we use
"colonoware" or some descriptive phrase, we need to regularize the
definition, and be more aware of what it means.

Jake