Pot/Potter Entanglements and Networks of Agency in Late Woodland Period (c. AD 900-1300) Southwestern Ontario, Canada 9781407302270, 9781407333267

Citation preview

BAR S1828 2008  WATTS  POT/POTTER ENTANGLEMENTS AND NETWORKS OF AGENCY

Pot/Potter Entanglements and Networks of Agency in Late Woodland Period (c. AD 900-1300) Southwestern Ontario, Canada

Christopher Michael Watts

BAR International Series 1828 B A R

2008

Pot/Potter Entanglements and Networks of Agency in Late Woodland Period (c. AD 900-1300) Southwestern Ontario, Canada

Pot/Potter Entanglements and Networks of Agency in Late Woodland Period (c. AD 900-1300) Southwestern Ontario, Canada

Christopher Michael Watts

BAR International Series 1828 2008

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 1828 Pot/Potter Entanglements and Networks of Agency in Late Woodland Period (c. AD 900-1300) Southwestern Ontario, Canada © C M Watts and the Publisher 2008 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781407302270 paperback ISBN 9781407333267 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407302270 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by John and Erica Hedges Ltd. in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2008. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from: BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK E MAIL [email protected] P HONE +44 (0)1865 310431 F AX +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Abstract At its heart, this study considers how things may be said to ‘act’ and examines this idea in connection with the phenomenological principle that the world, including its material products, is an inextricable part of the human condition. Toward this end, various complementary strands of thought (including Actor-Network theory and Peircean semiotics) are woven together in an attempt to further the notion that people and things are at once entangled in interdependent webs of action. What emerges from this inquiry is a view of social life as engendered by the ways we apprehend and interact with the material world. By affording a prominent role for things in our social development, it is argued that material culture can be considered agential insofar as it serves to condition certain sensory responses from its users at the expense of others. This brings into sharp relief the efficacy of artifacts, through their morphological properties and surficial treatments, to organize artisanal practices and facilitate human intervention in their ultimate continuation or alteration. An analysis of Late Woodland period (ca. AD 900-1300) pottery production in southwestern Ontario provides the substantive case study through which these themes are explored. Over 800 earthenware vessels are analyzed from a series of seven sites which may be attributed to Iroquoian and Algonquian (Western Basin) groups. When interpreted within the conceptual framework outlined above, the results of this study suggest that Iroquoian potting practices were organized around a fairly well-knit design repertoire to which most potters subscribed. Among these groups, it would appear that aspects of form and decoration essentially served together to engender a broadly-based and unified design scheme internalized by potters through their experiences. These patterns contrast with data obtained from the Western Basin assemblages, which hint at a greater degree of design heterogeneity in qualities of morphology, decoration and symmetry and suggest a wider array of choice was available to Western Basin potters when compared with their Iroquoian contemporaries. In essence, the discordant nature of Western Basin decorative practices points to a form of human/nonhuman interaction markedly different from the milieu experienced by Iroquoian artisans.

i

ii

Acknowledgements This study, which originally took the form of a PhD thesis, would not have been completed without the help and support of numerous colleagues, institutions, family members and friends. I would like to extend my deepest thanks to the members of my thesis committee at the University of Toronto. Professors David G. Smith, Edward B. Banning and T. Max Friesen all served as ‘sounding boards’ during the development of this work and provided critical reviews of earlier drafts. I am particularly indebted to my supervisor, David G. Smith, for his expert guidance, assistance and friendship throughout my graduate tenure, and for always encouraging me to pursue my own research interests (even when they took me further away from his own). Professor Smith was also kind enough to draw Figures 9 through 11 for this report. Edward Banning offered keen analytical insights concerning the methods used in this study and also provided numerous suggestions for ways to make the text more effective. Max Friesen always gave freely of his time and his willingness to comment and advise on even the most (seemingly) mundane of topics was a tremendous help. A great deal of thanks is also owed to my external examiner, Professor Julian Thomas of the School of Arts, Histories and Cultures at the University of Manchester for his thoughtful appraisal and sound advice. As well, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Ronald F. Williamson of Archaeological Services Inc. and Professor Neal Ferris, formerly of the Ontario Ministry of Culture and now Lawson Chair of Canadian Archaeology in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Western Ontario. Ron Williamson served on the examination committee and has provided me with advice and encouragement throughout much of my academic career. Indeed, it was Ron who first instilled within me the desire to use the Ontario data to advance more conceptuallydriven themes and his knowledge and professionalism are virtues worthy of emulation. As well, Neal Ferris played a pivotal role in this study, from providing access to various Ministry collections to serving as a constant source of inspiration. His steadfast belief in my abilities helped to pull me through on more than one occasion and his willingness to help in whatever way he could stands as a testament to his character and serves as a debt which can never fully be repaid. Financial support for this research was provided by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) doctoral fellowship, as well as several University of Toronto Open fellowships. The Department of Anthropology at the University of Toronto has also supported me through various teaching assistantships, sessional lecturer positions and other forms of funding. The AMS radiocarbon assay obtained from the Krieger site was paid for by Professor David G. Smith while funding for the three conventional dates obtained from the Cassady site was generously provided by Mr. Jim Wilson of Archaeologix Inc. and Mr. James Hebb of Sifton Properties Ltd. I would also like to thank the following individuals and agencies who provided access to field notes, site mapping and collections from various southwestern Ontario sites: Professor Neal Ferris (University of Western Ontario), Mr. William Fox (Parks Canada), Professor Susan Jamieson (Trent University), Dr. Mima Kapches (Royal Ontario Museum), Ms. Karen Matilla (Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority), Ms. Karen Richardson (Princeton District Museum), Ms. Stephanie Suitor (Chatham-Kent Museum), Mr. Jim Wilson (Archaeologix Inc.), Mr. Robert von Bitter (Ontario Ministry of Culture) and Mr. Stanley Wortner.

iii

I am also deeply indebted to my wife, Ariane, for her encouragement and unwavering support over the years and for providing expert editorial assistance on earlier drafts. Also, to my parents, Michael and Carol, and to my sister, Heather, I say thank you for all your years of support.

iv

Table of Contents Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii List of Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Chapter 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Chapter 2 Being with Things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Cartesian Dualism and the Scientific Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Things in Processual Thought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Things in Post-Processual Thought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Toward an Agency of Things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 The Role of Actor-Network Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Peircean Semiotics and the Mediative Basis of Material Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Summary and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Chapter 3 The Late Woodland Cultural Traditions of Southwestern Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous Research and Taxonomic Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Late Woodland Period Lifeways in the Western Basin and Ontario Iroquois Traditions . . . . . . Qualities of Western Basin (Younge) Pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Qualities of Early Ontario Iroquoian Pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25 25 29 33 34 35

Chapter 4 Methodology and Discussion of the Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Approaches to Pottery Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pottery Code and Classification Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analytical Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Krieger (AcHm-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cherry Lane (AaHp-21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Van Bree (AgHk-32) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dymock (AeHj-2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kelly (AfHi-20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cassady (AfHi-265) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DeWaele (AfHd-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39 39 45 49 50 50 56 58 60 63 64 65 68

Chapter 5 Data Analysis and Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Attributes of Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 v

Attributes of Decoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exterior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plane-Pattern (Symmetry) Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73 73 75 76 77 78

Chapter 6 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methodological Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Culture-Historical Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

83 83 85 86 89

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Appendix A: Pottery Rim Section Analysis Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix B: Attribute Data (Tables) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix C: Graphical Depictions of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vi

111 127 169 209

List of Plates Plate I Plate II Plate III Plate IV Plate V Plate VI Plate VII Plate VIII Plate IX Plate X Plate XI Plate XII Plate XIII

Vessel Sections from the Krieger Site (AcHm-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rim Sherds from the Krieger Site (AcHm-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vessel Sections from the Dymock Site (AeHj-2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rim Sherds from the Dymock Site (AeHj-2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vessel Sections from the Cherry Lane Site (AaHp-21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vessel Sections from the Van Bree Site (AgHk-32) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rim Sherds from the Van Bree Site (AgHk-32) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reconstructed Vessel from the Kelly Site (AfHi-20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rim Sherds from the Kelly Site (AfHi-20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vessel Sections from the Cassady Site (AfHi-265) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vessel Sections from the Cassady Site (AfHi-265) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rim Sherds from the DeWaele Site (AfHd-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rim Sherds from the DeWaele Site (AfHd-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii

211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223

List of Tables Table 1 Table 2 Table B.1 Table B.2 Table B.3 Table B.4 Table B.5 Table B.6 Table B.7 Table B.8 Table B.9 Table B.10 Table B.11 Table B.12 Table B.13 Table B.14 Table B.15 Table B.16 Table B.17 Table B.18 Table B.19 Table B.20 Table B.21 Table B.22 Table B.23 Table B.24 Table B.25 Table B.26 Table B.27 Table B.28 Table B.29 Table B.29 Table B.30 Table B.31 Table B.32 Table B.33 Table B.34 Table B.35 Table B.36 Table B.37 Table B.38

The three forms of signification in the Peircean semiotic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Radiocarbon dates from sites selected for study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Nature of the Specimen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Interior Decorative Completeness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Lip Decorative Completeness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Exterior Decorative Completeness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Interior Surface Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Lip Surface Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Exterior Surface Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Castellation Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Lip Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Rim Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Upper Rim Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Interior Band 1 Tool (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Interior Band 1 Technique (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Interior Band 1 Motif (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Interior Band 2 Tool (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Interior Band 2 Technique (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Interior Band 2 Motif (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Interior Band 3 Tool (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Interior Band 3 Technique (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Interior Band 3 Motif (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Lip Band 1 Tool (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Lip Band 1 Technique (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 Lip Band 1 Motif (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Exterior Band 1 Tool (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 Exterior Band 1 Technique (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Exterior Band 1 Motif (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Exterior Band 2 Tool (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Exterior Band 2 Technique (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 Exterior Band 2 Motif (Level 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Exterior Band 2 Motif (Level 4) Indices of Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Exterior Band 3 Tool (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Exterior Band 3 Technique (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Exterior Band 3 Motif (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Exterior Band 4 Tool (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 Exterior Band 4 Technique (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Exterior Band 4 Motif (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Inter-Band (1-2) Symmetry on Vessel Exteriors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Inter-Band (2-3) Symmetry on Vessel Exteriors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Intra-Band (Neck) Symmetry on Vessel Exteriors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

viii

List of Figures Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Figure 10. Figure 11. Figure 12. Figure 13. Figure 14. Figure 15. Figure 16. Figure 17. Figure 18. Figure 19. Figure 20. Figure 21. Figure C.1 Figure C.2 Figure C.3 Figure C.4 Figure C.5 Figure C.6 Figure C.7 Figure C.8 Figure C.9 Figure C.10 Figure C.11 Figure C.12 Figure C.13 Figure C.14 Figure C.15 Figure C.16 Figure C.17 Figure C.18 Figure C.19 Figure C.20 Figure C.21 Figure C.22 Figure C.23 Figure C.24

Location of Late Woodland sites examined in this study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Diagram of Hodder’s (1989) critique of the Saussurean model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 The work of purification and translation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Schematic representation of the Ontario Iroquois Tradition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Vessels from the Western Basin Dymock site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Vessel from the Early Ontario Iroquoian Kelly site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 The three categories of patterned design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 The seven classes of one-dimensional infinite symmetry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Hierarchical chart for variable ‘Tool’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Hierarchical chart for variable ‘Technique’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Hierarchical chart for variable ‘Motif’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Calibrated calendrical date ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Plan view of the Krieger site (AcHm-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Plan view of the Cherry Lane site (AaHp-21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Setting (top) and plan view (bottom) of the Van Bree site (AgHk-32) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Plan view of the Dymock site (AeHj-2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Plan view of Dymock I (left) and Dymock II (right) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Plan view of the Kelly site (AfHi-20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Plan view of the Cassady site (AfHi-265) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Plan view of the DeWaele site (AfHd-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Pie charts of variable ‘Rim Form’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Lip Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Upper Rim Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Rim Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Histogram of Lip Thickness for Cassady . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Histogram of Lip Thickness for Cherry Lane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Histogram of Lip Thickness for DeWaele . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 Histogram of Lip Thickness for Dymock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Histogram of Lip Thickness for Kelly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 Histogram of Lip Thickness for Krieger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Histogram of Lip Thickness for Van Bree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Interior Band 1 Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Interior Band 1 Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Interior Band 1 Motif . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Interior Band 2 Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Interior Band 2 Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Interior Band 2 Motif . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Interior Band 3 Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Interior Band 3 Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Interior Band 3 Motif . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Lip Band 1 Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Lip Band 1 Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Lip Band 1 Motif . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Exterior Band 1 Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Exterior Band 1 Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 ix

Figure C.25 Figure C.26 Figure C.27 Figure C.28 Figure C.29 Figure C.30 Figure C.31 Figure C.32 Figure C.33 Figure C.34 Figure C.35 Figure C.36 Figure C.37

Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Exterior Band 1 Motif . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Exterior Band 2 Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Exterior Band 2 Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Exterior Band 2 Motif . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Exterior Band 3 Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Exterior Band 3 Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Exterior Band 3 Motif . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Exterior Band 4 Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Exterior Band 4 Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Exterior Band 4 Motif . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Inter-Band (1-2) Symmetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Inter-Band (2-3) Symmetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Intra-Band Neck Symmetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

x

195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207

Chapter 1 Introduction In a recent article by Bruno Latour (2000)1, the author discusses a perplexing form of lock and key found in the gates of suburban apartment courtyards throughout the former West Berlin. Through a fictitious scenario involving an archaeologist, Latour describes the frustration she encounters one night in attempting to remove the key from the gate after entering the courtyard. By virtue of an adroit design, it would seem the key cannot be recovered without first being rotated in a fashion that requires those entering to lock the gate behind them. Upon leaving the courtyard the next morning, the archaeologist is surprised to find that the gate must now remain unlocked before the key can be removed. As she soon discovers, it is through the use of a special master key, employed by a concierge, that the gate may be locked or unlocked depending on the time of day. The conceptual thrust of this and other works by Latour (e.g., 1993, 2005) is to explain how people and things cannot be understood in isolation from one another. To those of us steeped in the sacrosanct distinction between subject and object, this may seem like a paradox. Do we not manufacture the items that accompany us through daily life, ascribe a function to these things and dictate the terms by which they are to be used and understood? As Latour (2000) points out, this is simply not true: things not only influence our behaviour, but in so doing, can be said to take on an agency of their own. In the above example, the Berlin key compels the user to perform certain actions in the furtherance of day to day living. More importantly, however, the user must surrender a certain degree of autonomy to the key (and, by extension, its maker) to ensure the collective security of those who inhabit the apartment complex. Viewed in this fashion, the key becomes something more than just the materialization of an ideal. Were this an exemplar, we might reasonably regard it as nothing more than a cautionary tale. We might even dismiss the implications as facile. But the world we inhabit is peppered with similar human/non-human forms of interaction. Late model vehicles, for example, are now routinely fitted with electronic controls that prevent excessive speeds, while in a similar vein, “traffic calming measures” such as speed bumps and roadway narrowings obligate drivers to slow down in areas of significant pedestrian traffic. Where the material world is concerned, we may like to think of ourselves as catalysts, as initiators of actions that are only passively experienced by the things we create. The reality, however, is that things actively shape the course of our daily life in a multitude of ways.

It is within this conceptual milieu that I intend to situate this study and to explore what might be entailed by an approach to agency that seeks out the mediative properties of material culture. The primary goal of this work will be to consider how things, through their production and place in varied social settings, help to shape our existence in and experiences of the world. More specifically, I seek to understand how qualities of form and decoration in pottery can be seen to channel artisanal practices into discursive versus intuitive frames of reference, and how such practices articulate with broader notions of identity. To this end, over 800 earthenware vessels dating to the Late Woodland period (ca. AD 9001300) are analyzed from a series of seven precontact aboriginal sites in southwestern Ontario, Canada (Figure 1). It will be argued that to properly understand pottery production within this region, it is necessary to examine the role vessels played in provoking or precluding certain engagements with their manufacturers. In this sense, the deterministic tenor associated with an approach to agency that ‘fetishizes’ things will be mitigated by considering the intentionality of the craftsperson when attending to the process of materialization. This notion is furthered by an investigative framework whereby pottery is held to harbour a negotiation of agential states, both human and nonhuman in nature, as part of a broader web of action in which both social and material relations are simultaneously implicated. Among archaeologists, an agent-centred approach to understanding the past has been steadily gaining ground in recent years. As the current darling of the theory circuit, agency has been at the forefront of numerous conceptuallydriven papers and volumes (e.g., Barrett 2001; Dobres 2000; Dobres and Robb [eds.] 2000, Dobres and Robb 2005; Dornan 2002; Pauketat 2001) along with a burgeoning number of case studies. The popularity of agency theory may be explained, in part, by its ability to offer researchers a conceptually sound springboard from which to explore the ‘active human subject’ within an overall framework of society as shaped by normative structures. Indeed, through the writings of Bourdieu (1977, 1990), Giddens (1979, 1984) and Habermas (1987), many archaeologists have come to regard past lifeways as suspended within a structure-agency dialectic; as meaningfully constructed and mutable rather than given by obstinate conventions. In this way, the social can be seen

1

Hu

Ma

itla

nd

mb

it

Ontario

Canada

Lake Ontario

Ausable

Niagara

Lake Huron

er

Cr ed

Grand

Welland

VAN BREE Cr .

KELLY

te r

yd E. S

DEWAELE

CASSADY Ot

m

ha en

DYMOCK me

s

a Th

KRIEGER Lake St. Clair

Lake Erie CHERRY LANE

50 km

0 SCALE

N

Figure 1. Location of Late Woodland sites examined in this study. social structure on the other. What is more, when material culture is treated as akin to a tabula rasa, it follows that things must exist as meaningless entities prior to their embodiment, again reinforcing the subject-object divide (Thomas 2005a:199, 2005b:13). This perspective ignores the role material culture plays in shaping social relations and tends to mask the interplay between human and nonhuman forms of agency of the kind illustrated earlier by the Berlin key. As Gosden (1999:120) notes, if we can regard social relations as engendered through the medium of things, it then becomes possible for artifacts to be considered agents in their own right, and their formal properties and combination into assemblages both become important. I would suggest there is a need recast the structureagency dialectic as part of a broader investigative framework that concurrently privileges materialization and the experiential nature of the human condition. Instead of assuming an a priori passivity of objects, of things that are only brought forward and made meaningful by the thinking subject, it is necessary to employ a more sympathetic approach to the relationships that exist between person and thing. Along these lines, this study adheres to a number of

as something humans enact through daily practices, the results of which contribute to either a continuance or alteration of structure. As such, agency theory has made inroads among processualists who, despite the decline of systems-centred heuristics, are still concerned with retaining an emphasis on culture process and notions of causality. At the same time, agency appeals to those postprocessualists who seek to account for the role of purposeful human action within a revamped and historicized brand of structuralism (Pauketat 2001:73). While the structure-agency dialectic provides a useful mechanism for conceiving of social change, a number of issues remain unresolved within this new approach concerning the role of things. For example, there would seem to exist within applications of agency theory an undercurrent of thought that equates materialization with objectification. By this I mean that material culture is regarded within this scheme as an externalized canvas upon which we may attempt to locate the ‘active human subject’ as she complies with or combats the effects of totalizing structures. Things exist in social relations merely to encapsulate and chronicle an abstracted resolution between the forces of human agency on the one hand and

2

With regard to investigating the experiential nature of things, it will be argued that we might profitably conceive of this in terms of an interplay between discursive and intuitive forms of thought. A model will be presented whereby it is considered possible to partition stylistic practices into those that result from rational human action in the world and those that are generated through more visceral, taken-for-granted notions of artisanal protocol. This model will serve to guide an inquiry into how pottery design can bring about unique cultural expressions, whether they be local, regional or supra-regional in extent. By examining the discursive versus intuitive nature of pottery form and decoration, I propose that it is possible to see how stylistic conventions can give rise to a continuum of social relationships ranging from more fluid, localized expressions of community identity to more homogeneous pan-regional cultural entities. As mentioned earlier, pottery vessels associated with Late Woodland period (ca. AD 900-1300) cultural developments in southwestern Ontario comprise the case study materials. Throughout northeastern North America, the Late Woodland period heralded a number of significant shifts in the material culture, settlement systems and food procurement strategies of aboriginal groups. In southwestern Ontario, these developments brought about two ethnically distinct yet geographically contiguous cultural sequences labelled the Western Basin and Ontario Iroquoian Traditions. Archaeological components from southwestern Ontario (west of London), southeastern Michigan and northwestern Ohio are generally subsumed within the Western Basin Tradition, while sites from southwestern Ontario (east of London) through to southeastern Ontario are attributed to Ontario Iroquoian societies. Models pertaining to change within these two traditions indicate that, during the time period in question, Iroquoian communities developed a focus on maize horticulture and village life (e.g., Chapdelaine 1993:197; Ferris and Spence 1995:107; Williamson 1990:312), while Western Basin groups followed an economic orientation centred on hunting and gathering within a seasonally prescribed settlement system (e.g., Keenlyside 1976:213; Lennox 1982:108-109; Murphy and Ferris 1990:262). Pottery during this time generally consists of grittempered earthenware vessels, approximately four to 15 litres in volume, with vertical to everted rim orientations, collared or uncollared rim surfaces, constricted necks and pronounced shoulders. Vessels are typically decorated on interior, lip and exterior surfaces (above the shoulder) although undecorated specimens are also common, particularly within Iroquoian assemblages. Surface treatments are usually limited to cord roughening, which may be smoothed-over on rim and neck surfaces prior to

interdependent conceptual formulations which stress engagement and entanglement rather than categorical separation. Chief among these is an emphasis on phenomenology, which is employed both to overcome the subject-object dichotomy native to Western metaphysics and as a heuristic in the interpretation of past material remains. Phenomenological approaches to the past, while common in British archaeology (e.g., Gosden 1994; Thomas 1996; Tilley 1994, 2004) have garnered considerably less attention in Americanist circles. At its heart, phenomenological archaeology revolves around the fundamental interdependence of mind, body and world: it is through a practical engagement with things (e.g., landscapes, monuments, artifacts, etc.) that we first come to ‘know’ the world and take up our position within it. Conversely, things cannot be adequately grasped or understood outside of how they are experienced. These points have several important implications for the furtherance of human/non-human forms of co-agency. By influencing the way the world is revealed to us, things can be seen to prefigure certain experiences while concealing others. This brings into sharp relief the power of material culture to give rise to unique forms of human/non-human interaction along with historically or culturally contingent perceptions of the world. In an effort to further these themes, this study makes use of Actor-Network theory (ANT) as developed through the works of Bruno Latour, Michel Callon and John Law (e.g., Latour [1999, 2005]; Callon [1986]; Callon and Latour [1992]; Law [1992, 1999]). As both a conceptual frame and a methodological tool, ANT is decidedly antiessentialist in nature and adopts as its central tenet the notion that both humans and non-humans co-exist within vast heterogeneous spheres of influence. As such, ANT does not promote distinctions such as nature and culture or object and subject, but rather regards reality as collectively shaped and defined by imbroglios, mixtures and hybrids. Actor-Network theory is therefore an inclusive system that regards all matter as agential and a contributing force in the stabilization or transformation of groups. Analytically, ANT is interested in the ways in which networks of people and things organize and convert other elements — how they enlist, bestow qualities upon and facilitate or prevent actors from participating in various endeavours (C. Crawford 2004:1). What I find particularly appealing about ANT, however, is its semiotic overtones. Law (1999:4), for example, has suggested that ANT might be regarded as a ‘semiotics of materiality’ wherein the relational principles associated with the linguistic sign might also be extended to the material world. This concept is unpacked, explored and ultimately modified through a more robust conception of the sign offered by Charles Sanders Peirce (e.g., 1991).

3

understood, then, this region provides the perfect context within which to evaluate the notion that material culture establishes distinct yet richly-textured loci for human/nonhuman interactions, for an ebb and flow of agential intentions that can be seen to effectuate variable potting practices and social relations among communities. Having outlined the direction and goals of this study, I now turn to a chapter by chapter summary of the monograph. Chapter II explores in greater depth what is entailed by a human/non-human co-agency and how the relationships between people and things have been conceptualized within various theoretical frames. This necessarily calls for an examination of the subject-object dichotomy as given by Cartesian positivism, along with related issues such as style and function in artifacts. It also involves an inquiry into the ‘linguistic turn’ in archaeology whereby material culture was seen within an active and communicative framework and understood through textual analogies. From here, the merits of a phenomenological approach to understanding things are vetted preparatory to a discussion of Actor-Network theory and Peircean semiotics. An emphasis will also be placed in this chapter on discussing how ‘lower order’ iconic and indexical signs in the Peircean scheme, by pointing to the nonarbitrary characteristics of things, can help to bring about interpretants that are unencumbered by conventional symbol systems. In light of these traits, it will be argued that semiotic mediation provides a useful mechanism by which to investigate how agency functions in the material world. This sets the stage for a discussion of how things can establish modes of design into which craftspersons are inculcated through daily practice. Chapter III traces and comments upon the development of Late Woodland culture-historical constructs in the archaeology of southwestern Ontario. Our present understanding of this region is also described through time according to changes in the settlement-subsistence practices, material culture inventories and socio-political organization of Western Basin and Ontario Iroquoian groups. The assumption that the Ontario Iroquoian Tradition can be associated with antecedents of the historically-described Iroquois, while the Western Basin Tradition represents a coeval yet distinct emergence of Algonquian peoples, is also critically examined here. This chapter concludes with a discussion of Western Basin and Iroquoian lifeways and how these might be seen to influence the nature and extent of human/non-human interactions within the region. Chapter IV presents the methods used to classify and analyze the pottery. This chapter begins with a review of traditional approaches to Woodland pottery classification, including a systematic evaluation of typological versus

the application of decoration. Where present, decoration consists of stamped and incised surface modifications which are organized into a series of horizontal bands. These modifications commonly feature discontinuous line or string elements that, primarily among Western Basin groups, may be combined into a complex series of triangular- or diamond-shaped zones on vessel neck surfaces. For the past fifty years, pottery from this region has occupied a prominent place in the construction and refinement of Late Woodland cultural sequences (e.g., Fitting 1965; MacNeish 1952; Stothers and Pratt 1981; Wright 1966). Owing to the popularity of culture history at the time, including its more normative underpinnings, pottery attributes were quickly seized upon within these works and used to delimit archaeological cultures diachronically. This movement, coupled with a belief in the efficacy and saliency of ethnolinguistic markers, also prompted a view of the region as divided during Late Woodland times along Western Basin (Algonquian) and Ontario Iroquoian lines. While a number of recent studies are more reflexive in nature (e.g., Cunningham 1999, 2001; Fraser 2001; Howie-Langs 1998; Rankin 1998), it remains a truism that pottery from the region is largely employed in the refinement of existing spatio-temporal frameworks or placed in the service of distinguishing Algonquian from Iroquoian sites. As such, studies of Late Woodland pottery from southern Ontario are often looked upon by outsiders as offering little more than provincial accounts of localized design proclivities (Ferris 1999:18; Ramsden 1996:105). While I do not intend to challenge the analytical utility of this framework, I would like to suggest, following Ferris (1999:18), that we need to move beyond a view of the southern Ontario landscape as occupied by insular ethnic groupings. Instead, a more dynamic conception of the region, marked by subtle shifts in material culture ‘zones’, may be warranted. This is not to imply that regional developments cannot be placed, generally speaking, within an east versus west framework of ceramic traditions (as the data generated in the course of this study suggest). Rather, by deferring to notions such as ‘Algonquian’ or ‘Iroquoian’, which have deep roots in colonialism (Moreau et al. 1991), we ignore the more nuanced, localized identity formations that occur as groups engage with their material surroundings. It is precisely through such conditions that people come to experience and comprehend the world around them. Accordingly, through a site by site analysis of the formal and decorative properties of pottery from this area, I intend to evaluate the potting practices of Late Woodland groups with an eye towards exploring how they might differ in their respective encounters with the lifeworld. As it is currently

4

potters than to their Iroquoian neighbours. The discordant nature of Western Basin decorative practices, when placed within the theoretical account of pottery production described in Chapter II, points to a form of human/nonhuman interaction markedly different from the milieu experienced by Iroquoian artisans. The implications of these patterns are discussed more fully in Chapter VI in connection with the overall conceptual thrust and objectives of this study. Chapter VI also presents a summary of the theoretical, methodological and culture-historical contributions of this study, the results of which are then used to argue for a new conception of precontact aboriginal pottery production in southwestern Ontario. Appendix A contains a copy of the pottery code while tabular data pertaining to attributes of form, decoration and symmetry from each of the seven pottery collections appear in Appendix B. Appendix C contains complementary data in the form of Correspondence Analysis biplots and is followed by a series of Plates.

attribute-based schemes. A new approach, which includes an integrated examination of morphology, decoration and plane pattern symmetry in pottery is then discussed. A critical appraisal of symmetry, the process by which designs may be classified according to the motion used to move the fundamental part, is also provided, along with a discussion of the capacity for symmetry analysis to reveal the underlying structure of decoration. The work of symmetry proponents such as Dorothy Washburn (e.g., 1977, 1983, 1989, 1999) is also reviewed here prior to a description of symmetry classes and how they are employed in this study. This is followed by a summarization of the pottery code and classification procedures used herein, along with an enumeration of the variables of form and decoration selected for use. From here, analytical methods are described, including the features and benefits associated with using both the Robinson-Brainerd coefficient of agreement (Robinson 1951; Brainerd 1951) and Correspondence Analysis (e.g., Bølviken et al. 1982; Shennan 1988:283-286) in the search for attribute patterning. The sample used in this study, which consists of pottery drawn from seven Late Woodland sites, is also elaborated upon in Chapter IV. Each of these seven sites is described in terms of their nature and extent, previous work, excavation strategies and available radiocarbon determinations (including four new assays obtained for this study). The pottery is then evaluated for its suitability in furthering the research aims delineated above. This chapter concludes with a consideration of how the methods used in this study might be shown to disclose the semiotic mediation of things, including how attributes of form, decoration and symmetry can serve to channel an engagement with the craftsperson along discursivelyversus intuitively-understood lines. Chapter V presents the substantive results of the analyses described above and elaborates upon some of the more interesting patterns obtained during the course of the investigations. When aspects of vessel form, decoration and symmetry are considered, the results suggest that Iroquoian potting practices during this time were organized around a fairly well-knit design repertoire to which most potters subscribed. When interpreted within the conceptual framework outlined in Chapter II, it would appear that all three stylistic arenas (i.e., form, decoration and symmetry) essentially served together to engender a broadly-based and unified design scheme internalized by potters through their experiences. These patterns contrast with data obtained from the Western Basin assemblages, which hints at a greater degree of design heterogeneity in aspects of morphology, decoration and symmetry, and suggests that a wider array of choice was available to Western Basin

1

This article originally appeared in 1993 under the title “La clef de Berlin et autres leçons d’un amateur de sciences”. Editions La Découverte, pp. 25-46, Paris.

5

6

Chapter 2 Being with Things

dimensions of material culture and how things serve alongside people as co-constituents of influence within networks of action. Although many of the ideas raised in this discussion speak to qualities of material culture unaffected by geographical or temporal scope, a tacit emphasis will be placed here on the artifactual past and more specifically on how agency applies to artifacts that circulate among nonindustrial egalitarian communities. It takes as its point of departure a brief discussion of Cartesian dualism and the profound influence this mode of inquiry has had on processual and post-processual approaches to understanding the material world. The pervasiveness of the Cartesian ontology is explored through the distinctions drawn between nature and culture, mind and body, and style and function in processual and post-processual archaeologies. For processualists, particularly Lewis Binford, this is seen in an emphasis on model building and a systemic approach to culture. Among post-processualists, notably Ian Hodder and Christopher Tilley, the ardour shown to linguistic or textual / hermeneutical theory as a way of disclosing the voluble nature of material culture betrays a Cartesian view of the world. It will be argued that these approaches, while of critical interpretive value, inadequately conceptualize or problematize the role things play as arbiters in social life. Moreover, a longing on the part of archaeologists for realms beyond those immediately given by the material world inadvertently allows a tension to permeate the relationship between social and material forces. For processualists, this is revealed through an emphasis on ethnoarchaeology and concepts such as middle-range theory. For post-processualists, this is suggested by an attachment to Saussurean semiology — that things are infused with abstract meanings — and by confounding the rather nuanced differences between communication and signification in material culture. This discussion provides the background needed to explore the radical repositioning of things entailed by a consideration of Actor-Network theory (ANT) and the mediation of material culture as informed by Peircean semiotics.

In this chapter I outline the fundamental elements of a human/non-human co-agency. For a discipline still struggling to define agency in the context of social relations, such a question may seem to burden an already problematic state of affairs. Regrettable as this may be, the question is both timely and legitimate. With the ascension of agency theory in archaeology has come a perspective on history that greatly favours social relations as the locus for change and the ‘active human subject’ with the power to alter recalcitrant structures. Much of this, of course, is rooted in the works of Pierre Bourdieu (e.g., 1977, 1990) and Anthony Giddens (e.g., 1979, 1984), whose theories of practice and structuration respectively supply this view with its conceptual basis. In their estimation, the material world is regarded as the contested backdrop against which agents seek to either validate the social order or to assert themselves as forces of change. As discussed in the previous chapter, things may have an inherently social complexion in this view, but their subaltern role renders them rather inconsequential in matters of culture process. Furthermore, as little more than props, their status lends credence to the notion that we can look to things for encapsulations of the broader tug of war purported to exist between structure and agency. These views of material culture as deferential and objectified, I would argue, should be reassessed alongside any inquiry involving human agency and its products. As a corrective, this study regards both humans and non-humans as loci for action and instruments of change. It equalizes the two in a manner that calls for a parallel inquest into both social relations and materialization when speaking of agency. While suggesting that agency exists as a component of social life is fairly uncontroversial, fashioning an analytical parity between human and nonhuman forms of action is decidedly more contentious. It demands that a series of questions be addressed concerning how agency is manifest in material culture and how it might be seen to operate. For example, does agency reside within both the morphological and decorative properties of things? If so, are both arenas equally assertive in their engagements with humans? Along these lines, are the performative dimensions of agency the same among both people and things? Do artifacts ever truly act beyond the purview of human intentionality, independently eliciting and organizing sensory inputs from users, or do things merely extend the agential reach of people? In this chapter, I intend to work through some of these thorny questions in connection with a discussion geared toward the mediative

Cartesian Dualism and the Scientific Project In many ways, it is difficult to fathom an approach to material culture that does not espouse a Cartesian view of the world. So deeply-seated is the divide between humans and non-humans, bequeathed through the philosophy of René Descartes, that this opposition forms the

7

debate concerning the relative merits of an explanatory versus interpretive archaeology. More recently, some authors (e.g., Duke 1995:210-213; VanPool and VanPool 1999; Wylie 2002:171-178) have sought to reconcile these two approaches in various ways, or have argued that their differences amount to little more than metaphorical stripes on the zebra of “science”. In seizing upon the conceptual minutia of these programs, however, it would seem material culture is often overlooked or under-theorized in these schemes. When they are considered, things are held to act as surrogates for the behavioural or cognitive dimensions that we so desperately seek. What is more, the materiality of past social settings is perceived to result from historical and cultural processes that are not in essence material, leaving things with little or no causal or explanatory efficacy (Olsen 2003:90). In the following two sections, the doctrines of processual and post-processual thought will be explored in connection with this theme and an emphasis will be placed on how each conceives of things and their place in social life.

epistemological basis of the modern scientific project. Several overarching tenets may be seen to accompany this view, the most fundamental of which revolve around the distinction Descartes forged between body and mind. For Descartes, body and mind were conceived of as separate entities; the body was understood to have fixed spatial dimensions in the world, while the mind was regarded as an ethereal addition. While inherently different in substance and character, body and mind were nonetheless linked through the senses, and it is through somatic perceptions that the mind is able to fashion an understanding of the world. Although Descartes believed the mind was contained within a corporeal body and therefore susceptible to its inputs, he nonetheless considered it possible for the subject to disengage his mental processes from the ‘real’ world of the body in pursuit of knowledge and understanding. Within the Cartesian framework, knowledge and understanding are given by an apprehension of matter. As pure, predictable and governed by the immutable laws of nature, matter is objective and observable, and it is precisely from this basis that positivism proceeds (Leach 1982:90-91). As that branch of philosophy which emphasizes the factual over the metaphysical in the search for truth, positivistic approaches erect a barrier to divorce the outer world of matter (the material) from the inner world of the subject (the ideal). As an object of study, then, materials are regarded as the foundation of reality and knowledge arrived at through introspection alone is seen as duplicitous within this scheme. This ontological divide between subject and object, between idea and thing, has served to engender two prominent approaches to material culture within post 1960s archaeological discourse. The first, which we know as processualism, takes as its focus the object and seeks to provide a positivistic account of how material culture functions within a tripartite conception of culture. To this is added a concern with using things to explain human behaviour in terms of various environmentally-adaptive processes. The second, generally referred to as postprocessualism, is chiefly interested in the subject and an illumination of the ‘ideal’ as invested in material culture and organized by the binary oppositions of structuralism. Couched within a contextual approach, the meaning content of things and their role in guiding human behaviour is seen to derive from the specific circumstances of their use. Throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s, the leading proponents of these paradigms, notably Binford (e.g., 1988, 1989; see also Watson 1991) and Hodder (e.g., 1986, 1991; see also Leone 1986; Shanks and Tilley 1987) engaged in an often acrimonious and thoroughly divisive

Things in Processual Thought That material culture both discloses a behavioural realm and serves as an anchor in our reconstructions of that domain can be clearly seen within processual thought. These principles can be traced to the early writings of Lewis Binford (e.g., 1962, 1965) and his concern with how the functional and adaptive qualities of past lifeways, along with their material culture correlates, could be used to inform long-term cultural processes. As part of the New Archaeology, which would come to dominate Americanist approaches through the 1980s, Binford placed an emphasis on model-building and rigorous scientific methods of investigation. This ‘science of the archaeological record’ would ultimately crystallize in the form of middle-range theory wherein Binford (e.g., 1977) would reason that to accurately reconstruct cultural processes, the static nature of things must be effectively correlated with the dynamic character of past lifeways. Middle-range research is thus thoroughly positivistic in nature; only that which is observable and amenable to deductive forms of inquiry can lead to an understanding of human behaviour. As Trigger (1989:362) notes, middle-range theory encourages the classification and grouping of products in the archaeological record (e.g., tools, structures and site types) and the realm of culture in which they functioned. This is clearly grounded in Binford’s (1962:218-220) systemic model of culture, which itself closely resembles in spirit, if not kind, Christopher Hawkes’s (1954) “ladder of inference”. Both models recognize a hierarchical separation of cultural realms into economic, socio-political

8

scheme, style refers to those residual artifactual qualities that cannot be explained in strictly functional terms. These qualities, which were regarded as a separate domain of form, can traverse all three classes of artifacts and appear to be given by the essential properties of culture. From this we can infer that style might be vested in even the most prosaic of things, such as those items that circulate in the technomic sphere. Binford (1962:220, see also 1965:206208) wrote that style provides “a symbolically diverse yet persuasive artifactual environment promoting group solidarity and serving as a basis for group awareness and identity”. Thus, we can see in Binford’s early writings an attempt to tease the artifact apart into stylistic and functional properties, even though characteristics associated with the former (e.g., decoration) could be said to share similar purposive ends associated with the latter. In other words, style functions; it serves to symbolize group identity and, as Binford (1962:220) notes, is “most fruitfully studied when questions of ethnic origins, migration, and interaction between groups are the subject of explication”. Exploring this rather murky divide between style and function in things, as initially brokered by Binford (1962), constitutes a major theme in processual approaches to the past. This is apparent in the work of researchers such as Robert Dunnell (e.g., 1978; see also Rakita and Hurt [eds.] 2000) who sought to cast the style-function dichotomy in Darwinian terms, and others such as James Sackett (e.g., 1977, 1982) who attempted to expand upon this distinction without explicit recourse to evolutionary theory. Dunnell (1978:199) would come to equate style and function with the evolutionary concepts of neutral variation and natural selection, while Sackett (1977:378) argued that style, rather than something affixed to an artifact by its maker after functional considerations had been met, was instead inseparable from function. While Dunnell’s (1978) work is significant, particularly when viewed in connection with the school of neo-evolutionary archaeology it engendered (e.g., O’Brien and Lyman 2000, 2002; O’Brien and Lyman [eds.] 2003), it is Sackett’s work on which I will focus here. Style, which Sackett (1977) termed isochrestic variation, was thought to permeate the very choices people made from equally viable manufacturing options and therefore could potentially reside in all formal variation, including those artifactual dimensions governed by functional concerns. To Sackett, these choices were largely passive in nature and dictated by the craft traditions into which artisans were inculcated as members of social groups. A noteworthy corollary to this was Sackett’s later (1982) assertion that within isochrestic variation could be examined a peripheral class of style that he regarded as

and ideological dimensions. But while Hawkes believed that the socio-political and ideological dimensions of culture were difficult to get at, in the absence of textual aids, Binford (1962:219) suggested that all three realms were accessible to the archaeologist by virtue of their integrated and functional nature. To Binford (1962), each realm of culture was associated with one of three artifact types, which he termed technomic, sociotechnic and ideotechnic. Technomic objects consist of those artifacts (e.g., tools, pottery and clothing) that aid groups in their adaptation to the physical environment. Sociotechnic items serve to reinforce cultural cohesion and may reflect social status depending on the complexity of the group under observation. Badges of office and culturally-prescribed exotica were considered by Binford (1962:219, 222) to be artifacts of this type. Ideotechnic items, on the other hand, such as figures of deities and clan symbols, operate in the ideological sphere and function to “signify and symbolize the ideological rationalizations for the social system and further provide the symbolic milieu in which individuals are enculturated” (Binford 1962:219). Binford’s (1962) conception of culture carries with it quite pointed implications for the role material culture plays in social life. Clearly, things exist to further human behaviour; artifacts are imbued with form and function in accordance with the operational parameters of the subsphere in which they are located. They are beholden to behaviour, and behaviour in turn is determined by culture. As part of their station, then, artifacts can be seen to ‘act’ but only insofar as their prescribed use (Binford 1981:198). Thus, for technomic items, the shape of a stone tool is fashioned in such a way as to perform a specific processing task, while the surface treatment of a pottery vessel may be said to increase heat retention and resist breakage during cooking. Along these lines, sociotechnic and ideotechnic items convey socially-sanctioned qualities such as status, identity or authority. The terms by which an object is understood, therefore, are dictated by the particulars of the sub-sphere in which the object circulates and do not flow from its materiality or the intentions of its maker. Things are completely devoid of influence, either inherent in their formal properties or invested as a means of extending the agency of their manufacturer(s). Being pressed into service by the needs of the sub-sphere, the thing may be seen to ‘act’ but cannot be seen as agential inasmuch as it has no integral ability to affect behaviour or the direction of social life. Artifacts simply encapsulate an external reality, a picture of which we attempt to reconstruct through middlerange theory. The composition of this artifactual capsule was also discussed by Binford (1962:220) through the dichotomy he fashioned between style and function. In the processual

9

messaging necessitated careful consideration on the part of the artisan since the costs of transmitting messages in this fashion were higher than the costs associated with other modes of communication (Dietler and Herbich 1989:156). Since more energy was expended in their creation, it followed that a key consideration in the mind of the artisan would be visibility: the less visible an artifact was to members outside of a given social group, the less likely it would be encoded with messages of any kind (Wobst 1977:328-329; see also Friedrich 1970). Artifacts that circulated exclusively in domestic contexts, therefore, were unlikely to carry messages of social group affiliation. This model, which serves as the foundation for the information exchange view of style (see also Braun and Plog 1982; Conkey 1978, 1980; Kintigh 1985, Plog 1980), is not without its detractors. Several researchers (e.g., Hodder 1982:55, 1985; Plog 1983:138) have pointed out that, while aspects of identity and status may be signalled by high-profile items such as monuments and exotica, much less visible things such as household pottery, toolkits and dwelling arrangements may also reflect aspects of social identity, particularly those personal qualities associated with the artisan. This very concern was taken up by Polly Wiessner (1983, see also 1984, 1985) in her ethnoarchaeological analysis of stylistic variation in Kalahari San projectile points. Wiessner (1983), following the conceptual thrust of Wobst (1977), attempted to marry the communicative aspects of the information exchange model with human cognitive processes in an effort to illuminate how “the self is differentiated from others and the ingroup from the outgroup” (Wiessner 1983:257). She argued that material culture style is a domain in which notions of self and group identity can be reified. In turn, style will be subjected to processes of social comparison and ultimately conceptualized and expressed in terms of similarity and difference (i.e., ‘me/us’ versus ‘them’). To Wiessner, then, style clearly acts in a purposive and symbolic fashion, actively mediating social relations and social strategies among individuals and groups. In keeping with this approach, Wiessner (1983) suggested that there are at least two distinct realms of style which are generated by different social conditions, produce different kinds of variation, transmit distinct forms of information and entail different referents (Jones 1997:113). The first, known as emblemic style, constitutes formal variation in material culture that has a distinct referent and conveys a clear, conscious message to a defined target population about group affiliation or identity (Wiessner 1983:257). This differs from what Wiessner referred to as assertive style, which consists of formal variation in material culture that resides at the level of individual choice and which carries with it information pertaining to individual identity

iconic. In Sackett’s opinion, iconic style differed from isochrestic variation in that the former was seen as an adjunct (non-functional) and implicitly active concern on the part of the artisan with decorative embellishments. These embellishments existed “for the purposes of transmitting to various target populations symbolically encoded information about ethnic affiliation and identity” (Sackett 1985:154). Oddly enough, while Sackett’s (1977) notion of isochrestic variation can be considered a departure from Binford’s (1962) conception of style, his (1982) theory of iconic style seems more in keeping with the spirit of Binford’s original formulation. This is suggested by Sackett’s (1982) position that iconic style is something adjacent to the instrumental properties of artifact form but which nonetheless serves to symbolize group identity. In this sense, then, it might be said that both Binford (1962) and Sackett (1977, 1982) regard style as a formal property of artifact manufacture, not necessarily limited to decorative practices but which can serve both nonsymbolic and symbolic ends. Accordingly, artifactual style would be considered non-symbolic in Sackett’s estimation if it were borne of the more passive properties of isochrestic variation and symbolic if it could be shown to actively mediate social relations. Sackett’s (1982) addendum to the concept of isochrestic variation, wherein he carved out a niche for iconic style, might effectively be seen as a reaction to one of the more oft-cited and noteworthy contributions to the style literature to emerge during this time, namely Wobst (1977). In this article, Wobst advanced a conception of style exclusively governed by active communication as opposed to passive enculturation and shifted the phenomenon of interest from style as systemic variation to style as a medium of social communication (Boast 1997:176-177). Disillusioned with earlier treatments of style in the social interaction hypothesis (e.g., Deetz 1965; Friedrich 1970; Hill 1966, 1970, cf. 1985, Longacre 1970; Voss 1980; Whallon 1968) whereby artisans were seen to adopt certain decorative styles by virtue of their proximity to those who practised similar styles, Wobst argued instead that style was a conditioning force in the transmission of group identities. While keeping with the functional and adaptive qualities of style as asserted by Binford (1962) and Sackett (1977), Wobst’s approach maintained that style acts as a communicative device to convey information and meaning to viewers (Wobst 1977:321). Qualities such as identity, status, ownership, religious conviction and political allegiance, for example, can be invested in stylistic ‘messages’ and ‘read’ by those who come in contact with such missives. Set within a model of optimal energy use, Wobst (1977:322) suggested that this form of

10

conceptions of the material world. While the same orthodox distinctions can be discerned between object/subject and body/mind in processual and postprocessual schools of thought, emphasis in the latter is focussed on the symbolic and cognitive dimensions of artifactual designs. Where processual opinion sought to make evident a material basis for social life, postprocessual thought centres on the ideal and how the mind serves to structure rather than represent past cultural expressions. Not surprisingly, such a viewpoint is generally regarded within processualism as problematic, owing to a belief that accessing past mental phenomena is beyond the scope of inquiry afforded to archaeologists through logical positivism.

(1983:258). Wiessner believed that while emblemic style most often reflects and refers to the shared symbolic meanings associated with a particular social group, assertive style is conditioned by different processes and does not share the same referential properties. Assertive style, in Wiessner’s (1983:258) words “has no distinct referent as it supports, but does not directly symbolize, individual identity and may be employed either consciously or unconsciously”. Consequently, assertive style can be difficult to recognize archaeologically owing to its idiosyncratic, dynamic nature. In her case study, Wiessner (1983:270) noted that San projectile points were used to convey both emblemic and assertive style, as revealed through differences in point size, which she believed was a symbol of linguistic group boundaries, and differences in point tips, bodies and bases, which carried information related to individual expression. The various approaches to things described above have been grouped under the rubric of processualism for several reasons. First, there is an emphasis in each of the above works on the material basis of social life. Artifacts, through their formal properties, come to incorporate an externalized reality which can be understood by the archaeologist through an analysis of function. This is clear in Binford’s (1962) division of artifact types and his threefold conception of culture. In keeping with the systems-centred approach, each of his artifact types underscores the performative and adaptive qualities of things and highlights how these qualities provide material form to human behaviour. Through the concept of style, we have also seen how things come to passively (e.g., Binford 1962; Sackett 1977) or actively (e.g., Sackett 1982; Wiessner 1983; Wobst 1977) merge with ideas related to individual or group identity. While all adopt a functional and adaptive bent (to varying degrees), what these perspectives share at their core is a belief in the reified existence of cultural norms anticipatory to their investment in things. In Cartesian terms, the material is acted upon by the ideal in the representation of a fully-formed reality. Meaning can be said to flow from subject to object in a unidirectional and relatively unambiguous fashion. This may be imparted by various means and to various ends, but it nonetheless exists as something tangible and known. It is not understood through the myriad engagements people enter into with things, nor is it learned experientially. Likewise, while material culture may be seen to promote solidarity or expressly communicate, it serves at the pleasure of its human masters. Things play no role in channeling the nature and extent of these activities, or of enabling or constraining certain forms of action. As described below, the Cartesian basis for these views can also be seen to operate within post-processual

Things in Post-Processual Thought Outside processual circles, attempts were being made by archaeologists beginning in the late 1970s to explore how things might be said to constitute rather than represent the lifeworlds of past groups. This intellectual current, which began in earnest with Hodder’s Symbols in Action (1982), owes much of its initial vigour to the work of Claude Lévi-Strauss and the doctrine of structuralism. In developing the structuralist ontology, Lévi-Strauss combined tenets of Saussurean semiology with Freud’s work on the unconscious in an effort to demonstrate the complicated yet patterned nature of the ‘savage mind’. Through an exhaustive exploration of kinship patterns (1969 [1949]), myth (1973 [1955]), ritual (1963 [1958]) and totemism (1963 [1962]), Lévi-Strauss came to regard such dimensions of culture not as bounded and unique entities, but rather as components of a universal system of thought in which human life was ordered in terms of binary oppositions (e.g., nature/culture, male/female, light/dark). To Lévi-Strauss, the recurrence of these oppositions across numerous components of culture suggested it was not the parts that were meaningful in and of themselves but rather the structured relations between the parts. In other words, all human thought and action could be seen as ultimately derived from fundamental oppositions that serve to direct various cultural pursuits. Naturally, things were accorded considerable analytic attention in that they were seen to provide a material basis for these oppositions. Material culture was perceived to operate symbolically within structuralist interpretations and was likened to “girders framing an essentially cultural world and structuring thought processes” (Robb 1998:335). Conkey’s (1980) investigation of Palaeolithic bone artifacts from France, Washburn’s (1983, see also 1999) analysis of the symmetrical properties of painted designs on pottery from the American Southwest, McGhee’s (1977) treatment of

11

meaning, a process to which Derrida (1970:85) refers as ‘infinite play’, signifieds become new signifiers ad infinitum. The only phenomenon able to stop this process was what Derrida (1970:84), echoing Descartes and Husserl, describes as a ‘transcendental signified’, an ultimate centre of meaning that could not be adequately captured by any signifier and therefore impervious to a deferral of meaning. Because such centres do not exist in either language or culture, Derrida sought to ‘decentre’ or ‘deconstruct’ the structuralism of Lévi-Strauss by arguing that universal binary oppositions (e.g., nature/culture), like the Saussurean notion of stability in the signification process, were misleading concepts. This was illustrated through Derrida’s (1978) examination of the incest taboo, which he suggested belongs to both categories (i.e., nature and culture) since the prohibition against incest, while universal (natural), could also be regarded as contextspecific and therefore cultural (Derrida 1978:265). While Derrida wanted to dismantle structuralism and the monolithic base of Saussurean semiology upon which it was erected, others such as the Russian literary critic Mikhail Bakhtin (e.g. 1981, 1986) were primarily concerned with the privilege afforded by Saussure to langue at the expense of parole. Bakhtin regarded this dichotomy as overly simplistic and fundamentally incapable of characterizing the complex reality of language in actual use. Moreover, he dismissed the belief that speech acts simply consist of ‘instantiations’ of the more disembodied and timeless norms associated with langue. Bakhtin believed that while structural accounts of language might adequately capture its more systemic properties, this comes at the expense of a sensitivity toward the creative and emergent properties of linguistic forms (DeBernardi 1994:871). These forms, which are often unique to various communities of speakers, constitute the field of pragmatics. Working within this notion, Bakhtin regarded language as both a palimpsest and a site of conflict, a place where the hegemonic order associated with langue was interpreted and recast by a variety of speakers in accordance with their own histories and patterns of language use. As Bakhtin (1981:293) notes, “[a]ll words have the ‘taste’ of a profession, a genre, a tendency, a party, a particular work, a particular person, a generation, an age group, the day and hour. Each word tastes of the context and contexts in which it has lived its socially charged life...”. As such, for Bakhtin, the utterance was considered a social phenomenon and, accordingly, should itself constitute the goal of linguistic analysis (Bakhtin 1981:276, 1986:272). As well, in opposition to the synchronic nature of Saussurean semiology, he also sought to historicize language use as a means of accounting for the polysemic nature of words and the development of speech genres.

Thule antler and ivory items from the Canadian arctic and Hodder’s (1990) treatise on the European Neolithic, for example, all privilege a cognitive basis for action and share an affinity for structuralist interpretations of material culture. The structuralist notion that things function symbolically to reinforce cultural meaning is based to a large extent on linguistic analogy and the doctrines of Saussurean semiology. With the publication of Saussure’s Cours de linguistique générale in 1916, semiology became the principal means by which European scholars came to understand how meaning is generated within language. Through his notion of the linguistic sign, Saussure (1983:99) considered language to be a dyadic or two-sided entity which consisted of a signifier (word) and signified (meaning). To Saussure, this relationship was inherently arbitrary and based on cultural prescription. Thus, the articulation of a signifier (the word ‘tree’, for example) with a signified (the mental concept understood by a community of users as a tree) was a product of convention. The system of signifiers and signifieds, when employed according to general syntactic rules, produce what Saussure referred to as langue or language. Langue, which exists outside the mind of the subject, is a structured set of differences that serves to codify words and their meanings within a relational frame. Meaning in language is thus intimately connected to this notion of difference. According to Saussure, through enculturation we come to learn a language, which we then call upon to convey our thoughts. Individual acts of speech or discourse, referred to as parole, were considered by Saussure to be a necessary component of the signification process but beyond the scope of proper semiological study (Cobley and Jansz 2004:36). That the linguistic sign was offered as a stable mental concept, impervious to situated differences in interpretation, proved to be the central bone of contention in much of the criticism surrounding structuralism and its Saussurean footings (e.g., Bakhtin 1981, 1986; Derrida 1970, 1978). To Derrida, the idea of a lasting signified was considered particularly fallacious. Derrida (1978:25) argued that if signifiers in language acquire meaning through their articulation with one another, then this process in and of itself could be viewed as fundamentally mutable. This was based on his belief in différance, or the assertion that the syntactic structure of language is based on an abeyance of meaning. As the meaning of a sign (word) in a sentence is not immediately given but rather deferred until the next sign in the sentence is known, referents are always provisional and, ultimately, interwoven with one another. More importantly, however, since there is no way to halt this deferral or ‘flow’ of

12

connection between, for example, the signifier ‘tree’ and the signified concept of a tree, save for specific historical conventions. Material culture, Hodder stated, is ‘coded’ in far more complex ways than is language. This code is influenced by, among other things, the specific contexts of an item’s use and the predilections of artisans. Accordingly, the signification processes of language and material culture differ (Figure 2). In some cases, what things denote by way of their symbolism is not entirely motivated by arbitrary constraints; the functional and experiential properties of the thing itself as well as the contexts of practical action in which it may be seen to circulate are also significant. Thus, the meaning content of an artifact can be considered far more equivocal in nature than that of a word (Hodder 1989:257; Hodder 1992:201202). Hodder has long suggested (e.g., 1986:118-146, 1991, 2004:29-31; Preucel and Hodder 1986:305-307; see also Tilley [ed.] 1990, 1991), however, that to properly understand material culture, a hermeneutical approach is needed that regards things as ‘texts’ to be read. This approach is premised to a large extent on the work of Ricoeur (1971:530-531) who, like Bakhtin, stressed the dynamic and contested nature of meaning in language. As Hodder (1989:257) has stated, rather than placing an emphasis on the abstract thoughts that lie behind an artifact’s manufacture, as in a purely structuralist program, in a hermeneutical/contextual approach the archaeologist recognizes that the material world itself contributes to the structuring and constituting of thought. Thus the text or thing in this scenario derives its meaning from the specific role it plays within contexts of practical action. Meaning does not simply reside in something so much as in the way the user or ‘reader’ makes sense of it (Hodder 2004:29). A post-processual or post-structuralist rendering of material culture is not, however, without its own set of complications. Where a functional and adaptive account of artifacts was offered by processualists, meaning and communication were put forth as compulsory fields of study in a post-processual world. Things assumed a new relevance by virtue of their capacity to absorb messages that could then be extracted and ‘read’ by the archaeologist. This abstract communication system was enveloped in an atmosphere of symbols and meanings, of signifiers and signifieds, the latter of which were seen as subject to polysemic interpretations within varying contexts of artifact use. Nonetheless, through an emphasis on the more patterned and routinized occurrence of things in certain social settings, it was proposed that meanings could be discovered through exegesis, just as behaviour could be

Conceptually, this entailed a diachronic or what Bakhtin referred as ‘dialogic’ analysis of language-in-use, since any utterance is ultimately mediated by a historicallycontingent engagement with past utterances (Bakhtin 1981:269-270, 1986:91). Thus, meaning is not to be found in the systemic properties of Saussurean langue, but rather in an analysis of the deployment of speech in various social settings. By the late 1980s, it became increasingly apparent within post-processual circles that an earlier and explicitly structuralist account of symbolism left much to be desired. An emphasis on endless chains of signification and the decontextualized treatment of meaning in things, problems that Derrida and Bakhtin, respectively, had already identified in semiology, became the subjects of cogent critique (e.g., Bapty and Yates [eds.] 1990; Hodder 1992). Essentially, this appraisal revolved around three interrelated concerns: (1) the synchronic nature of structuralist interpretations, (2) an absence of any contextual grounding in the interpretation of artifact meaning(s), and (3) fundamental differences in the signification processes of linguistic and material culture signs. As Bapty and Yates (1990:5) note, the structuralist search for underlying rules between phenomena, illustrated by cultural products such as myths and kinship systems fixed in the ethnographic present, was considered particularly egregious in a cognitive interpretation of things. Historicizing such interpretations according to the subtle changes in various social structures through time has alleviated some of this concern and has since served as a key component in the Annales school of historical inquiry (e.g., Hodder [ed.] 1987; Knapp [ed.] 1992). As Bakhtin stated with respect to the Saussurean emphasis on langue, structuralist approaches can also be faulted for not paying adequate attention to specific social and historical contexts of object use (Preucel and Hodder 1996:303). With an emphasis on archaeological pragmatics (e.g., Pruecel and Bauer 2001), things are seen not to result from cognitive processes but rather from negotiation and the playing out of unique social practices. Individuals are not merely the ‘bearers’ of an unvarying abstract code, which is in turn invested in material culture, but instead actively create and apply meaning(s) to things that may change through the course of daily life (Gosden 1994:49; Hodder 1982:10; Tilley 1999:28). It was also around this time that Hodder (e.g., 1989, 1992) became discouraged with approaches that envisaged a parity between the semiotic properties of linguistic and material culture signs (e.g. Deetz 1967:87; Friedrich 1970; Hardin 1979). He argued that, as far as language is concerned, the relationship between signifier and signified is nearly always arbitrary. There is no necessary

13

Language

Signifier

Signified

Relationship

“tree”

[

arbitrary

]

concept

Material Culture

“

”

[ecology movement]

nonarbitrary

concept

Figure 2. Diagram of Hodder’s (1989) critique of the Saussurean model (after Preucel and Bauer 2001:87). both human and non-human alike. But to disregard how things might be ontologically understood prior to being known is to bypass an understanding of social life which is fundamentally different from that given by language and texts. Thus, while both processual and post-processual designs have widened our understanding of things and their place in social practices, neither approach can be seen to exclusively account for or effectively capture their use archaeologically. As such, we should expect that any study that purports to examine how the qualities of things intercede in the making of the human condition would be somewhat synthetic, an amalgam of complementary ways of thinking brought together to address a specific set of questions. Here I would like to argue that, rather than conceiving of material culture as a signature of behaviour or manuscript of meaning, there is instead a need to ameliorate the position of things in social life. To my mind, this begins with a fundamental shift away from seeing things as the handmaidens of culture process and toward a view of material culture as situated co-habitant in networks of thought and action. New questions need to be asked concerning how things might be regarded as agential creatures and to what extent their placement on an equal investigative plane involves scrutinizing the qualities we typically associate with the ‘active human subject’. As part of this shift, there is a need to pay attention to materiality and how the physical extension of artifacts affects perception and fosters or forestalls certain kinds of engagement. This reorientation essentially questions what it means to be human (and non-human) as well as the degree to which our place in the world is affected by our interaction with things.

gleaned from a processual analysis of artifact purpose and an understanding of the different cultural spheres in which things were distributed. Hodder’s post-processual approach to material culture has been viewed as somewhat dubious, in part because it leaves unanswered the question of how we can possibly characterize the nature of symbol systems long since departed. It may be one thing to assert the presence and, perhaps, duration of such systems, yet in the absence of a clearly-defined series of signifieds, archaeology practised in this fashion has been regarded as little more than a mental exercise. Perhaps more importantly, however, the metaphysical distinction between object and subject in processual thought, between material world and ideal mind, can also be said to beleaguer his post-processual conception of things. Meaning can be seen as something foisted upon an inherently voiceless base of material culture. The ideal in this view is applied through the body to the material, a unidirectional path with no expositive way for things to act recursively in the shaping of cognitive thought. While things may be seen to actively signify in post-processual formulations, they do so at the behest of the human subject and as part of a structured ordering of the material world. While contextual practices may influence how this ordering is interpreted, the Cartesian distinction of mind set over against body remains intact. This is not to suggest, however, that the linguistic or textual metaphor, like the more robust understanding of behaviour provided through ethnoarchaeology, is not informative. Such metaphors allow us to consider how things convey social meanings rather than reinforce cultural norms, and promote the idea that meaning is an ongoing and relational process which is entered into by

14

once as a stable product, but rather as a space where some beings appear while others are concealed. For Heidegger (1962:51), then, entities are encountered and made meaningful in a variety of ways. Moreover, presencing has a historical dimension; things are disclosed differently from one epoch to the next, all of which is to say that our being-in-the-world is a contingent and situated experiential process. To Heidegger, our understanding of phenomena within a complex of people and things, as opposed to their appearance as Cartesian objects before a sovereign consciousness, constituted the basis for a hermeneutical brand of phenomenology distinct from the transcendental phenomenology of Husserl. We come across entities and understand them within the totality and relationality of everyday life. In describing such relations, Heidegger makes the distinction here between things that are ready-to-hand versus those that are present-at-hand. The former refers to things which are available for practical use, and Heidegger’s (1962:97) famous example is that of a hammer which is first known to us through our habitual engagement with it, as well as through its existence within an ‘equipment totality’ of other tools and entities such as lumber and nails. Indeed, Heidegger argues, the world is understood in the first instance as a concatenation of entities, persons and events rather than as isolated objects. Our being-in-the-world is fundamentally shaped by our ‘concern’ with ready-to-hand entities since this comes before any kind of detached observation and contemplation (characteristics of things that are present-at-hand). Along these lines, the hammer ‘recedes’ from any explicit concern we might have with it when it is used as intended. It is only when the hammer breaks that it becomes present-at-hand, as something to consider in its uselessness (Thomas 2006:46-47). Building upon the phenomenological insights of Heidegger, as briefly outlined here, the remainder of this chapter explores several theoretical schools in an attempt to further understand how the actions of people and things are mutually reinforced. This begins with a review of agency theory as espoused by Bourdieu (1977, 1990), Giddens (1979, 1984) and Habermas (1984) and moves to a discussion of how agency might be applied to and furthered by a world of material things. From here, a review and assessment of Actor-Network theory is offered with an eye toward re-casting this approach with what we might call a ‘socio-semiotic’ treatment of things (see Knappett 2005:85-106; Thomas 1998). The linkage of Actor-Network theory with the semiotic writings of Charles Sanders Peirce is then explored and put forward as a useful heuristic program for explicating the mediative

Such a view of people and things as mutually constitutive has been gaining ground among theorists since the volume The Social Lives of Things, edited by Arjun Appadurai, first appeared in 1986. One of the major themes to emerge from this publication was the notion that things in both past and present contexts embody value, not only in their role as sought-after commodities but also as forces that express and define the nature of social relations. Papers in this volume examined the ways in which items circulate in varied settings, and how they come to influence technological innovation, legitimize various political expressions and provide ways for people to understand their world.. A similar approach to understanding artifacts has been trumpeted by several archaeologists, notably Gosden (1994:62-84, 1999:120, 2005), Thomas (1996:55-82, 2000, 2006) and Tilley (1999:34-35, 2004:31) in connection with the phenomenological principle that the character of human experience, as shaped by our apprehension of the material world, cannot be taken for granted. For the phenomenologist Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), this involved recourse to a methodology he referred to as ‘phenomenological reduction’ which allows the researcher to reflect on the manner in which objectivity is constituted. Phenomenological reduction undertakes to reveal the essential, universal structures of the mind through a stepwise ‘bracketing’ and removal of particular experiences, objects (noema) and acts (noeses) of consciousness. It eschews any emphasis on correlating the objects of the real world with those that appear in consciousness and instead centres on describing the foundational knowledge and transcendental functioning from which such objects or acts ultimately emerge. By doing so, the researcher should be able to hone in on the essence of particular experiential phenomena or intentional objects. Tilley (2004:1) explicitly adopts such an approach to understanding landscape and place, which closely follows Husserl’s (e.g., 1983) belief that bracketing should separate out the ‘natural attitude’ or prejudicial assumptions that we bring to analyses of the lived-in world. While Husserl sought to pare down this lived-in world through bracketing, his student, Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), believed the everyday world was enmeshed in the very fabric of being. It could not be reduced to bare essences, Heidegger argued, since the world forms a horizon of intelligibility or ‘clearing’ within which things are ‘disclosed’. We encounter and experience things in the world in particular ways, as this or that tool, etc., within an elaborate network of possibilities. The kind of experience(s) we have of things contributes to their ‘presencing’ or the way(s) in which they are brought forward. The material universe does not simply exist all at

15

(Giddens 1979:55, 62-73; 1984:25). Structuration to Giddens encompasses a belief in the processual nature of structures — that they are constantly in a state of becoming rather than being. As such, they have situated spatial and temporal qualities (Giddens 1984:2) that illustrate the ‘unintended’ outcomes of agential action, while at the same time provide a medium for those effects to be realized. By ‘unintended’, Giddens is referring to a “tacit knowledge that is skilfully applied in the enactment of courses of conduct, but which the actor is not able to formulate discursively” (Giddens 1979:57) and, as such, can be seen as something different from the unconscious nature of Bourdieu’s habitus (Karp 1986:135). In developing his notion of tacit knowledge, Giddens refers to the term ‘practical consciousness’ which he regards as the “nondiscursive, but not unconscious, knowledge of social institutions” (Giddens 1979:24). This is contrasted with his belief in a more rational and explicit form of knowledge which he calls ‘discursive consciousness’. Of interest here is the fact that Giddens does not regard these two forms of knowledge as cognitively disparate so much as two sides of a coin, both of which are subject to reflexive monitoring on the part of the individual (Dornan 2002:307). In a sense, then, while Giddens attaches a certain significance to habituated action, he also maintains that individuals can access and reflect upon the content and meaning of those actions. What both Bourdieu and Giddens share in their respective conceptions of agency is a belief in discursive versus intuitive forms of knowledge. For Bourdieu, this is revealed through his conceptual separation between habitus and doxa; for Giddens, the distinction between the two is drawn along the lines of discursive versus practical forms of consciousness. In a similar vein, Jürgen Habermas (e.g., 1987:117, 1998:242) has discussed these forms of knowledge in connection with a social theory that, like those of Bourdieu and Giddens, recognizes two distinct realms of behaviour. In Habermas’s work, these realms are referred to as the ‘systems sphere’ and the ‘lifeworld’ or Lebenswelt. What separates the work of Habermas from that of Bourdieu and Giddens, however, is the grounding of these two forms of knowledge within the realm of pragmatics as described earlier. ‘Communicative practices’ in the systems sphere, Habermas suggests, involve discursive reasoning and purposeful behaviour. The lifeworld, on the other hand, represents the backdrop against which is set more latent or intuitive forms of ‘communicative action’ such as chatting, which has no discursive meaning, but rather is aimed at promoting a shared sense of understanding or Verständigung among social groups (Habermas 1998:21-28). As the lifeworld consists of those uncontested forms of knowledge that have

properties of artifacts along with the fundamental interdependence of people and things. Toward an Agency of Things By now, the notion that social life is fashioned from a dialogical relationship between the forces of structure and agency is a common premise in many archaeological studies (e.g., various papers in Dobres and Robb [eds.] 2000; Pauketat [ed.] 2001; Stark [ed.] 1998). The adoption of agency theory as the principal means by which to characterize past lifeways fits within a current of thought that attempts to shore up the more salient virtues of a systems-centred approach to culture with a role for human designs. In essence, agency theory seeks to avoid the more deterministic tendencies associated with processualism and structuralism where human action follows an ‘instantiation’ of systemic rules and relations. At its heart, this brand of social theory holds that human beings ultimately contribute to, and yet at the same time are constrained by, the historical conditions in which they find themselves situated. In agency theory generally, structure is regarded as an a priori condition of social life into which human beings (actors) are indoctrinated and through which they engage in routinized daily practices. For Pierre Bourdieu (1977:72), it is during the course of these practices that human beings come to develop what he terms a habitus, an unconscious and unique disposition toward certain forms of action based on the exposure of individuals to different groups, social situations and classes. These dispositions engender particular world views but more importantly, are thought by Bourdieu (1977:7678) to be both structured by and a structuring force in the overarching social norms of which they are a part. Given his belief in the unconscious nature of the habitus, coupled with the influence he extends to material conditions in the shaping of action, Bourdieu was of the opinion (1977:164) that social change in contemporary culture was largely non-existent. In cases where social change could be demonstrated in recent times, Bourdieu considered such events to be accidental in nature; change was affected through an inadvertent ‘mismapping’ of dispositions onto structured social conditions (Dornan 2002:306). This view was reinforced through Bourdieu’s idea of doxa, or the notion that extant structures are naturalized to such an extent within an individual as to be considered secondnature and, therefore, outside the scope of purposeful action. Anthony Giddens (1979) attempted to transcend Bourdieu’s habituated and unconscious conception of agency through his theory of structuration, which regards social systems as both the medium and outcome of practice

16

conception and thinking about things in connection with specific social settings allows us to see where the forces of human agency (including discursive and intuitive forms of knowledge) and materiality meet. Crucially, adopting such a perspective also affords us the opportunity to unseat the prevalent notion that agency may only be applied to the ‘active human subject’. If we accept the idea that things can influence social practices, as illustrated earlier through the example of the Berlin key, then it becomes possible to regard agency in a relational manner: as a quality internal to people and things and exercised by both through the connections that exist between them. In this light, agency may be seen not so much as a skill reserved for and deployed by individuals in the furtherance of ambition, but as a lineament defined by the very contexts in which humans and non-humans are found (see Barrett 2000:61, 2001:160-161; Boast 1997:185-189; Thomas 2000:150) and distributed across the networks that link them together. The adoption of a network metaphor is critical to a reconceptualization of agency for several reasons. Principally, it allows us to relinquish the Cartesian wedge between inert matter and thinking subject and to supplant this with a view of things and people as symmetrical in terms of agential scope and fused together within a larger interconnected form. Where once our analytical attention was focussed on observing the manipulation of material culture as evidence of a broader structure-agency dialectic, it is now possible to envisage a constellation of relations in which people and things contribute to the comportment of social life. All matter, whether embodied by persons, items or contexts, might profitably be regarded as nodes within an intricately spun web of influence, a view that is effectively captured and problematized within what is known as Actor-Network theory.

only intuitive meaning for social groups, these beliefs are not subject to human agency unless they are brought into the systems sphere and problematized. Thus, like Giddens’ conception of consciousness, the complexions of Habermas’s lifeworld and system are subject to alteration through reflexive monitoring. The theories of Bourdieu, Giddens and Habermas present a picture of agency as primarily defined in terms of praxis and the notion that meaningful human action is constituted within historically-based social conditions. Importantly, distinctions are drawn in all three conceptions between discursive and intuitive forms of knowledge, points which are echoed in the work of Hodder (e.g., 1992:205; 1993:255; 1999:76). Agency can therefore be viewed within these treatises as markedly nuanced in that it is affected by both visceral attitudes toward life (the habitus of Bourdieu or practical consciousness of Giddens) and rational forms of pragmatic action. In this way, these works provide an effective means by which to understand the roles of structure and agency as forces that intercede in the ongoing creation of social life. Yet it must also be acknowledged in such a view, particularly if agency is to be made serviceable in archaeological theory, that human beings do not act in isolation from the material world. Indeed, one the great challenges facing an agent-centred view of the past, I would reason, is getting around the idea that we must look to material culture for evidence of an essential tension between the forces of structure and agency; that we must somehow drill ‘down’ to the material in order to access a tangible manifestation of the social. This is an inherently precarious perch, chiefly because the social can never be known outside the material. We cannot ask things to point to the interplay between structure and agency any more than we can regard artifacts as detached from the very social fabric we seek to portray. There is a need to firmly establish a view of the social as entangled with the material, partly because the forces of materiality contribute to the very dialectic put forward by the agency theory of Bourdieu and Giddens. Fortunately, as archaeologists, we are well-positioned to advance such a claim. Material culture, with which we are intimately familiar, is often abundantly distributed among the vestiges of past social settings. Working ‘up’ from the material, it is possible to see not only how things are physically connected to such settings, but also how they contribute to an understanding of these contexts. After all, it is in the repertoire of material culture that memory and experience becomes embodied and it is through an association of such things with places that we come to comprehend the world. Bourdieu’s notion of the habitus and Habermas’s lifeworld are, of course, rooted in this very

The Role of Actor-Network Theory Actor-Network theory (ANT) was developed in the 1980s as a field of inquiry concerned with the sociology of science and technology. Through the writings of Bruno Latour, Michel Callon and John Law (e.g., Callon 1999; Callon and Latour 1992, 1995; Callon and Law 1997; Latour 1992, 1999, 2004, 2005; Law 1992, 1999; Law and Hassard [eds.] 1999), ANT provides a constructivist approach to society wherein all things, human and nonhuman alike, can be said to ‘act’. In this view, agency does not exclusively reside within human beings but rather exists as a property dispersed throughout heterogeneous networks. Agents or ‘actants’ in the vocabulary of ANT are thus defined by the connections they make with other agents and have no elemental substance prior to their integration into networks. Moreover, because these

17

process of establishing identities for actors and the conditions of interaction within networks. As Callon (1980:211) writes “[t]ranslation involves creating convergences and homologies by relating things that were previously different”. To Callon (1991:143) this is a threefold process that involves “a translator, something that is translated, and a medium in which that translation is inscribed”. Translations can become embodied through the agential properties material culture, to the extent that things “become their support, their more or less faithful executive”. As suggested by the example of the Berlin key, these ‘socialized non-humans’ (Latour 1994:793) permit influence at a distance. Things can act as both medium and message insofar as they imply the possibility of equivalence, the possibility that one thing (for example an actor) may stand for another (for instance a network). Networks can be characterized by a high level of convergence when they reveal compatibility through translation and inscription (Callon 1991). As C. Crawford (2004:2) notes, convergence in networks arises from the coordinated interests and actions of its constituents, which in turn are given by the degree to which networks share a common history and familiar space. Tightly converged networks therefore may influence the nature of subsequent translations and may also demonstrate strong irreversibility in that a return to a previous incarnation of the network is unlikely. Translation, however, is always at the same time a process of both social and physical displacement, like Heidegger’s presencing, since the realization of a set of networked possibilities entails that others are always precluded. Inscription, on the other hand, refers to the content of and mechanism(s) by which translations are realized within actor-networks (Akrich 1992:205-208; Akrich and Latour 1992:259; Latour 1991). Where material culture is concerned, inscriptions consist of the various performative roles embraced by things and revealed through patterns of use. As the name implies, inscriptions generate what are known as ‘scripts’ or the “scenarios played by human and nonhuman actors, which may be figurative or nonfigurative” in nature (Latour 1988:306). To be truly effective, however, inscriptions must be ‘black-boxed’ (Callon 1987:95) or rendered immutable through a takenfor-granted status. Like translations, inscriptions are forever subject to interpretation and in some cases may be met by ‘anti-scripts’ that seek to undermine their effectiveness.

connections are constantly in a state of becoming, agents have no fixed ontological status. ANT is therefore secern in its orientation: the ontological primacy afforded to humans in social and cultural research is rejected in favour of an analytical focus on the relations that emerge, endure and evanesce among equally-causative agential entities. This investigative impartiality is contained within a principle known as ‘general symmetry’ (e.g., Callon and Latour 1992:348), which states that the categorical divisions created by modernity (i.e., culture and nature, human and non-human, mind and body) have no essential basis and therefore should be abandoned (Figure 3). An important concern of ANT theorists revolves around the way in which social scientists assign traits to either the natural or the social in accordance with their fixed ontological statuses. Latour has sought to dismantle this opposition, in part through an investigation of what is meant by ‘the social’. He has argued (e.g., 1996:232-233, 2005:198; see also Callon and Latour 1981; Strum and Latour 1987) that humans alone cannot create social life, or rather can only achieve the kind of rudimentary social organization witnessed among baboons, if left to their own devices. This is because baboons have only their corporeal form, intelligence and a history of interactions with one another from which to organize themselves socially. What separates human social forms from those of baboons is the refuge we find in material cues (Strum and Latour 1987:796-797). Items and institutions (contexts) eliminate the need for a physical presence in the maintenance of social life. Things, working through their semiotic properties, extend the reach of human beings in sustaining certain forms of social order. Where the social life of baboons is tethered to the ‘here-and-now’, human social life may be extended through space and over time through the use of artifacts. What primarily separates an actor-network conception of material culture from the frameworks of processualism and structuralism, however, concerns the role things play (as actors) in achieving translation and inscription. Within ANT, the concept of translation builds upon the work of philosopher Michel Serres (1982; see also Brown 2002; Callon 1980) for whom historical developments in the sciences were understood in terms of re-interpreting and reordering varied sets of ideas and practices. Serres (1982:44, 1995 [1989]:6) refers to these developments as translations, as processes of establishing communications and connections between previously divergent networks of thought. For ANT theorists (e.g., Callon 1986, 1991; Callon and Latour 1981; Latour 1993, 1994, 2004; Law 1992, 1994, 1999) society and agency are seen in a similar light — that is, as phenomena that come into being through an alignment of otherwise diverse interests. Translation is a

18

modernity pre-modernity

work of purification

humans/ culture

nonhumans/ nature

hybrid networks (work of translation)

Figure 3. The work of purification and translation. After Latour 1991, Figure 1.1. outcome (i.e., that keys be deposited at the desk) is achieved. Through the notions of translation and inscription, ANT offers up a distinct view of action where neither the social nor the material may be identified as fixed agential locales. Instead, this dichotomous conception is replaced with a model of dispersion where action does not exist in any pure essentialized form but is instead found throughout the networks that link agential beings together. Each ‘node’ in this network can be seen to act and is made meaningful as part of its integration within a larger collective. Importantly, although linked together, this perspective should not be taken to imply that both humans and nonhumans exercise equivalent forms of agency. As intimated by the notions of translation and inscription, agency within Actor-Network theory can be seen as something that is imputed to things by virtue of their position within webs of action. On the surface, this would seem to bestow upon humans a guiding or causative role in effecting change, which is in keeping with the more traditional explanations of agency as given by Bourdieu and Giddens. Admittedly, while there can be little doubt that material culture influences our being-in-the-world, it would be mistaken to suggest that it evinces some form of intentionality. Indeed, as Pickering (1995:17-18) states, intentionality is a uniquely human trait that “appears to have no counterpart in the material realm”. This sentiment is echoed by Gell

Latour (1991) provides an illustration of translation and inscription through an actor-network analysis of hotel keys in France. In this account, a hotel manager attempts to implement a policy whereby guests must return their room keys to the front desk before leaving the premises. This policy is considered necessary both to improve security and curb the financial costs associated with replacing keys lost by guests during their travels. A translation is thus introduced in the form of a policy that seeks to align the interests of the hotel manager and his guests. To implement the policy, a series of inscriptions are initiated beginning with a verbal request. When this fails to work, a desk is located at the front door and a sign is installed above reminding guests to deposit their keys. This, however, is also unsuccessful. Guests often follow an anti-script by ignoring or forgetting to read the sign; in some cases, foreign speakers are unable to translate its meaning. To overcome these problems, the hotel manager decides to attach cumbersome fobs to the keys thereby making them a pain to carry around. The awkward shape and weight of the fob ultimately proves successful and guests consistently leave their keys at the desk before exiting. Thus, through translation and an incremental strengthening of the inscription (i.e., verbal, written, material), interests within the network are brought into line. Actors, in the form of human and non-human entities, are linked within the network through the distribution of a script and the desired

19

fundamental binary oppositions (i.e., subject/object, sender/receiver, helper/opponent) gave rise to a modèle actantiel or ‘actantial model’ from whose generative grammar the sequences of individual narratives take shape. Actants in the Greimas model could be either human or non-human, for example a knight or the holy grail, but they are always functionally defined by the places they occupy in broader narrative structures, just as they are, syntactically, in language. Accordingly, then, we can conclude that any semiotic timbre in ANT studies will be tuned to the primacy of positional difference (i.e., syntax) as the key criterion in defining the roles of actants. In keeping with the notions of translation and inscription described above, meaning follows as something idealized and imputed to things by virtue of their place and role within webs of action. In short, things, like words, symbolize. They accomplish their intended purpose only when externalized scripts are successfully cognized, executed and ‘blackboxed’. Such a view, of course, does not provide for the role materiality plays in the shaping of subjective experience and action. In the following section, I attempt to show that the material presence and significative qualities of things can be revealed in more than one way. More significantly, with recourse to the writings of Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) and his triadic conception of the sign, I believe it is possible to advance a better view of the signification process in ANT as well as a deeper understanding of the ways in which humans and non-humans interact.

(1998:19-20) in the distinction he draws between ‘primary agents’ (humans) and ‘secondary agents’ (objects), as well as by Robb (2005:131-135) who asserts that human ‘causative agency’ parts company from the ‘effective agency’ of things solely on the basis of will. These distinctions hold fast, however, only when agency is seen as tantamount to intentionality. The equivalency shown to these terms begins to unravel if we consider that rational human action is not so much given by ideal representations as it is formed through an experiential engagement with the lifeworld. It is precisely within such a realm that our ideal representations become reflexively influenced, extended and made meaningful by things. In this vein, we might suggest that intentionality is prefigured to a certain extent by the spatio-temporal siting of the human agent and her material products (see Knappett 2005:22; Pickering 1995:19; Preda 1999:350-351). It is through an embrace and inexplicit understanding of things that we deploy discursive forms of agency. The acts of eating with utensils, walking through automatic doors and coming to a stop at red traffic lights all suggest that it is things which reinforce an intuitive basis for our more goaloriented behaviour. While these things may not ‘act’ in a causative fashion, they nonetheless form part of the integrated human/non-human universe in which we find ourselves stationed and we need not formulate a series of questions regarding how to respond to such cues before acting (Thomas 2004:26, 2005a:199). In many ways, then, ANT provides a sound conceptual framework within which to situate an understanding of agency. We have seen through the principle of general symmetry how both people and things can be closely connected within such a scheme and it is possible within ANT to tease apart the notion that agency is a uniquely human affair. What is more, by elevating things to a position of influence in social practices, ANT makes feasible a discussion of what impacts the material world has on both intuitive and discursive forms of action. But simply stating that artifacts give rise to certain practices at the expense of others only takes us so far, and the task of describing how things might elicit the responses that they do still remains before us. For ANT theorists, this is realized through a “ruthless application of semiotics” (Law 1999:3; see also Akrich and Latour 1992:259) whereby things are understood to communicate via the distinct places they occupy within heterogeneous groups. This view, while consistent with the Saussurean approach to language discussed earlier, closely follows the thinking of structuralist semiotician Algirdas Greimas (e.g., 1966). As discussed by T. Hawkes (1977:87-95; see also Lenoir 1994:125; Whitridge 2004:454), Greimas proposed that a limited number of

Peircean Semiotics and the Mediative Basis of Material Culture Interest in the writings of Peirce has been growing in recent years among students of archaeology (e.g., Bauer 2002; Bernbeck 1999; Graves-Brown 1995; Knappett 2002, 2005; Preucel 2006; Preucel and Bauer 2001; Watts 2008), linguistic anthropology (e.g., Keane 2003a, 2003b, 2005; Parmentier 1994a, 1994b, 1997) and sociology (e.g., Gottdiener 1995), where it is seen to redress a number of deficiencies associated with Saussurean semiology. Where Saussure considered all signs to be arbitrary and idealized in nature, in keeping with his emphasis on language, Peirce’s semiotic is presented as a logical form of inquiry into the very foundations of knowledge. One of the more important implications of this orientation concerns the role Peirce attaches to things in the signification process. While Saussure regarded the sign as an immutable dyadic entity employed by members of a speech community, Peirce believed that the sign formed an ongoing triadic relationship between what he termed the representamen (the sign itself), an object (that which the sign stands for)

20

information is being signified about that object. For example, the cross in Christianity can be considered a symbol in the sense that it ‘stands for’ a religious doctrine, but implicated in this semiotic process is an index which links the object itself (the material cross) to the concept of Christianity as a religion. The index in this case makes use of the iconic properties of the cross in that it is considered by adherents of the religion as a proxy for the actual cross upon which Christ was crucified. The labelling of material culture signs, Parmentier (1994b) notes, often fails to separate semiotic classification from semiotic functioning, the latter of which has the potential to involve all three sign forms in the linkage between object and interpretant. The processual nature and characterization of sign types in the Peircean scheme immediately calls into question the usefulness of employing the term ‘symbol’ to elaborate upon the significative properties of material culture. Strictly speaking, properties such as form and decoration in material culture could only be considered ‘symbolic’ if we accept that historical convention alone dictates the semiotic relationship between object and interpretant. As such, it could be argued that symbols, based on the more robust conception of signs that Peirce affords us, account for only a modest number of all material culture signs (Knappett 2002:103) since the processes that link an object to its interpretant are potentially highly variable. This is made clear when we examine how interpretants are understood when one reads a ‘text’, for example, and compare these to the potentially myriad referents suggested by things. The character of Peirce’s semiotic offers a preeminent opportunity to reformulate the significative basis of action within ANT (Watts 2007). With its embrace of the subject as sign translator rather than lexicographer, the object-sign-interpretant triad obviates the need to reconcile meaning in material culture with Saussurean notions of an idealized and rarefied linguistic sign. A sign, to Peirce, is a dynamic rather than static entity; it is defined by the unique contours of its referent (the object) as well as by its significate effect. As such, semiotic functioning neither issues from cognitive faculties nor can it be circumscribed by the range of human action in the world. With respect to Peirce’s sign types, icons and indices are not defined by convention and therefore can operate beyond human purview. This much was observed by Gell (1998; see also Gosden 2005) in his approach to art objects as extensions of human agency. Yet what is truly insightful about Peirce’s thinking here is not that such ‘natural’ signs exist (Aristotle referred to these as semeions) but rather that icons and indices can be examined under the same analytical lens as those entirely motivated by ‘convention’

and an interpretant (the mental referent of the semiotic process). As part of this relationship, Peirce (1991:142) recognized that things were implicated in the process of signification. Hence, his model of the sign explicitly rejects Cartesian positivism; meaning cannot be separated into ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ forms since interpretants proceed from an experienced (situated) involvement with the lifeworld. Peirce (1991:239-240) identified three forms of signs, known as icons, indices and symbols, which he believed differed in the ways they link object to interpretant (Table 1). The sign was said to be an icon when the signifying process was characterized by formal resemblance. Thus, most photographs would be considered icons in the Peircean framework because there is a similarity in appearance between object and interpretant. Indices or indexes, on the other hand, involve a different process of signification whereby an existential or causal relationship is called upon when linking object to interpretant. In this case, the expression of the object does not resemble its mental referent but rather points to and brings about that referent based on an intimate connection. Examples of indices include the relationship between smoke and fire, thunder and lightning, or even a weathervane and the wind. The third type of sign is referred to as a symbol. To Peirce (1991:240), a symbol “is a sign which would lose the character which renders it a sign if there were no interpretant”. The connection between object and interpretant in a symbol is mediated by an established convention with which the subject must be familiar in order for meaning to be understood. The most obvious examples of symbols are words in a language and thus symbols in the Peircean view are essentially analogous to signs in Saussurean semiology. But while symbols are bound by agreed-upon conventions among a community of users, they are not limited exclusively to the domain of language. Things can also act as symbols. A flag or a wedding ring, as examples, share no physical likeness with the phenomena for which they stand, but their deployment in certain social and political contexts effectively acts to convey meaning to those familiar with the conventions of nationhood and marriage, respectively. Importantly, these sign types should also not be treated as mutually exclusive when dealing with signification in material culture. As Parmentier (1994b:388-389) writes, Peirce did not intend for icons, indices and symbols to be seen as essentialized concepts, but rather as processual ‘moments’ in a hierarchical complexity of semiotic functioning. A symbol necessarily encapsulates an index to specify the object between signified while an index embodies an icon to indicate what

21

Sign Type

Signifying Process

Examples

Symbol

By convention (the relation between sign and signified must be learned)

C C

words gestures

Icon

By resemblance (the sign looks like the signified)

C C C

photos paintings sculptures, etc.

Index

By causal or existential connection (the signifier suggests a signified based on experience)

symptoms, e.g., C cough suggests a cold C thunder suggests lightning C smoke suggests fire

Table 1. The three forms of signification in the Peircean semiotic (after Danesi 1993:32). humans and non-humans can be seen as jointly constitutive. It is as concerned producers, users and curators of things that we come to take up our position in the world. Through the adoption of a phenomenological frame of reference, we can see how things may be imbued with agency and, by virtue of their place within daily practices, serve to influence the conditions of their ongoing use and reproduction. Although much has been written in recent years regarding the efficacy of an agent-centred approach to understanding the past, it has been suggested that many of these inquiries suffer from a divisive ‘top-down’ approach that holds material culture as a discrete locus in which to observe the interplay between structure and agency. Such a perspective, I have argued, masks the significance of human/non-human interactions and tends to treat artifacts as little more than an externalized proxy for culture processes. Accordingly, social practices within such a frame are seen as metaphysically suspended over the material world; ubiquitous in scope, but forever detached. As Ingold (2000:53) writes, “[in such a view] culture and materials do not mix; rather culture wraps itself around the universe of material things, shaping and transforming their outward surfaces without even penetrating their interiority” (emphasis in original). To regard things in such a fashion is to unduly privilege the notion that structure and agency can exist outside of material settings. There is a need to embed material culture within social relations, both in the way it can be differentially experienced and apprehended but also as an arbitrator in direction of social life. Thus, I have stated here that we should recast the structure-agency dialectic as something entwined in the very fabric of material culture production and consumption. Rather than

(i.e., symbols). That we can regard all three sign types as operative within the object-sign-interpretant relata — which itself inherently links human being with external world — more than questions the modern distinctions between nature/culture and subject/object. Indeed, it puts paid to the notion that what we would traditionally classify as ‘symbolic’ should now be seen as but one of three modalities whereby interpretants are mediated by object-sign articulations. Semiotic functioning is always and at once an act of interpretation. When attempting to document the semiotic functioning of things, then, we should attempt to understand how people in the past experienced signs in the course of daily life and to what extent intuitive and discursive forms of knowledge were implicated in that process. An analysis of material culture that forefronts these concerns, I would suggest, is better equipped to deal with how things can truly ‘act’ in a semiotic fashion and can more easily appreciate how artifacts can influence the direction of purposeful human action. This, in turn, allows us to shift the focus of inquiry away from determining the meaning content of symbols to the processes and manners by which things present themselves as co-constituents in a fashioning of the lifeworld. Summary and Discussion This chapter has attempted to interlace various strands of thought in an effort to promote the idea that persons and things exist as entities within intertwined webs of influence. By obviating the more dichotomous notions of mind and body, subject and object, and nature and culture, it has been possible to explore how the actions of both

22

connection with the appearance of iconic and indexical sign types, helps us to develop an argument for an unbroken process of semiotic functioning wherein meaning does not issue from a detached mind. The very existence of humans and non-humans as meaningful entities inheres in the various connective properties that bring together object and sign. Thus, one of the more substantive implications of the Peircean semiotic is that people and things, including their interests, are conjoined through the principle of semiotic mediation. In light of the above, I propose that we might fruitfully conceive of humans and non-humans as a nexus of agential states linked together by virtue of their placement within actor-networks. As part of this orientation, material culture may be seen to occupy a recursive station within social life. When interpreted as loci of mediation, things may be perceived to exert agency through their many contextual, physical and artistic attributes, the totality of which attains a certain currency in educating both intuitive and discursive forms of human action. At the same time, however, things are set upon by their manufacturers and users, are grasped, manipulated and (re)positioned as a means by which to facilitate purposeful behaviour. This estimation invites us to reconsider the structure-agency dialectic as something entrenched within and profoundly affected by the material world, and to look upon things as more than just an ad hoc composition given by extraneous social relations. With regard to investigating how things might exert agency, I have suggested we look to the semiotic mediation of various material, morphological and decorative properties of things and consider how these features foster particular forms of engagement. For the purposes of this study, earthenware vessels from various Late Woodland (ca. AD 900-1300) contexts in southwestern Ontario provide the substantive basis from which to explore this very theme. Attributes of form and decoration are examined here for their ability to condition certain cultural expressions, which we may in turn interpret within the context of actor-networks. Analyses are conducted with an eye toward documenting how pottery provides convergency in such networks and how these developments might be illuminated through local, regional or supra-regional patterning. As part of a detailed analysis of pottery attributes, it is hoped that we might see how stylistic conventions can differentially prefigure a continuum of social relationships ranging from more fluid, localized expressions of community identity to more homogeneous pan-regional cultural entities. By simultaneously considering how pottery might have been apprehended, internalized and reproduced by artisans through their engagement with the material world, I also

adhere to a view of things as passively constituted, as only obliquely referenced by actors in the course of practice, an attempt has been made to show how both humans and nonhumans are caught up in relational webs. I have suggested that the structure-agency dialectic would be better situated within a network model, to the extent that we might see how social practices, organized along both intuitive and discursive lines, come to be impacted through recourse to the material world. This view finds favour with the constructivist approach to networks known as Actor-Network theory (ANT). This school of thought adopts as its organizing principle the idea that both humans and non-humans exist as ‘nodes’ within vast heterogeneous networks. Gone are the poles associated with the ‘natural’ and the ‘social’; reality is proffered within ANT as a closely-knit, yet at times incommensurate, product of the two. In accordance with the principle of general symmetry, ANT can be seen as an inclusive system in which all matter is agential and essential to the reproduction or alteration of networks. Through a reconsideration of the processes of translation and inscription, it has been shown how actors, both human and non-human alike, can be called upon in the working out of unique practices. As part of its relational framework, ANT is underwritten by what is referred to as a ‘semiotics of materiality’ (Law 1999:4) where the principles associated with Saussure’s linguistic sign (i.e., that meaning is given by the relation between a sign and what it stands for) might also be extended to things. This view would seem to indicate that, like the linguistic sign, meaning in material culture is fixed and exists as a syntactic (contrastive) property defined by its position as a node within the network. As was discussed earlier, however, applying Saussurean semiology to material culture is exceedingly problematic. This is due in large part to the fact that material culture signs do not always exist as abstract (arbitrary) conventions, that is, as mental concepts given by the relation between sign and signified. They can and often are motivated by things themselves and their role within contexts of discursive action. This results in situations where signification in material culture can be considered wholly dissimilar from the communicative properties of language. This problem, it has been argued, can be overcome with the aid of a semiotic framework based on the writings of Charles Sanders Peirce. I have argued, following Peirce’s notion of semiotic functioning and classification of sign types, that conceptions of a human/non-human coagency find a more sympathetic interpretive milieu if studied as part of a continuous process of sign generation and interpretation. The object-sign-interpretant triad, in

23

intend to speak to aspects of artisanal knowledge and how things contribute to the formation of intuitive and discursive practices. Before this can take place, however, it is necessary to examine how the theoretical position outlined above can be fleshed out in connection with the archaeology of the Late Woodland period in southwestern Ontario. The following chapter provides an initial step in this direction by reviewing the culture-historical framework and material culture inventories of Western Basin and Iroquoian communities.

24

Chapter 3 The Late Woodland Cultural Traditions of Southwestern Ontario

Clearville (1889) and Southwold (1891). His descriptions and insights, both from these and other sites, remain invaluable references to this day. In 1897, Boyle would have occasion to meet William J. Wintemberg, a young avocational archaeologist from Waterloo County. At an early age, Wintemberg had conducted systematic archaeological surveys of Waterloo and Oxford counties and began contributing to Boyle’s Archaeological Report after 1902. In 1911, Wintemberg was employed in the newly-established anthropology division of the Geological Survey of Canada. As an assistant to Harlan Smith, Wintemberg became the first prominent archaeologist to publish a series of important monographs on prehistoric Iroquoian sites in southwestern Ontario, including Uren (1928), Lawson (1939) and Middleport (1948). In a 1931 publication entitled “Distinguishing Characteristics of Algonkian and Iroquoian Cultures”, published by the National Museum, Wintemberg was also the first archaeologist to distinguish between what he believed to be Iroquoian and Algonquian materials and the first to order these materials in terms of cultural periods (Wright 1966:9). Additional work in southwestern Ontario was also conducted during this time by Wilfred Jury of the University of Western Ontario, himself an assistant to Wintemberg in the 1920s, at the Alway (1937) and Clearville (1941) sites. As well, between 1938 and 1939, Phileo Nash of the University of Toronto excavated the fourteenth century Pound site near Aylmer. The years immediately following the Second World War saw an increase in the number of sites investigated and, in parts of Ontario and New York, attempts to order these sites into rudimentary developmental frameworks. In southwestern Ontario, these two accomplishments were first realized by Thomas Lee of the National Museum of Canada. In 1949 and 1950, Lee surveyed vast tracts of land in southwestern Ontario and reported on hundreds of previously unknown sites throughout the area (Lee 1951, 1952). Following William Ritchie’s (1944) treatment of Late Woodland sites in New York state, Lee organized the sites he found according to McKern’s (1939) Midwestern Taxonomic Method. He built upon Ritchie’s earlier designation of Owasco, an aspect of the Woodland pattern considered in the Ritchie framework to be distinct from the Iroquois aspect of the Mississippian pattern (see also McKern 1939:309), by defining four regional foci for Owasco in Ontario. These four foci were termed Point Pelee, Port Royal, Krieger and Glen Meyer (Lee 1952:75). The Krieger focus was represented by the Krieger site near

This chapter seeks to situate the theoretical approach described previously within an analysis of Late Woodland period (ca. AD 900-1300) lifeways in southwestern Ontario. Beginning with a review of past research, this chapter traces the origin and development of various taxonomic frameworks and ethnohistoric inferences utilized by archaeologists to characterize the precontact aboriginal occupation of this part of the province. Where appropriate, it relates these efforts to those of other researchers working on similar problems in contiguous regions of the lower Great Lakes. This review sets the stage for an outline of the culture historical frameworks currently used to model the developmental trajectories of Late Woodland societies in southwestern Ontario and an examination of those features (e.g., settlement-subsistence programs, mortuary practices and pottery attributes) considered germane to a discussion of this nature. In keeping with the aims of this study, this chapter considers pottery production within a larger discussion, the theme of which revolves around how such items might be differentially shaped by people’s situated and relational experience of the material world. In this view, things are not sidelined with respect to how the social order is generated, but rather contribute to specific lifeways through their capacity for mediation within actor-networks. This view parts company from the more established notion that craft traditions can be seen to reify unspoken ‘ethnic’ or cultural norms by instead arguing that things physically maintain or modify the lifeworld based on their articulation and comprehension within various social settings. Previous Research and Taxonomic Foundations Prior to the late nineteenth century, much of what was known about the archaeological record of southwestern Ontario consisted of material remains collected by antiquarians and other avocationals enamoured of ‘relic hunting’. After 1885, first under the auspices of the Canadian Institute and later the Ontario Provincial Museum, David Boyle began investigating precontact and early contact-period sites throughout southwestern Ontario. Accounts of his site visits were published annually after 1887 in the Archaeological Report and Boyle became the first person in the history of Ontario archaeology to record and publish a systematic account of his excavation procedures and findings (Killan 1983:103). Before his death in 1911, Boyle would go on to examine and report upon numerous important sites from the region including

25

tradition, which was labelled Early Ontario Iroquois, resembled contemporaneous Owasco settlementsubsistence and material culture practices in upper New York state, but was reluctant to use this term. Instead, he asserted, following Ritchie (1961:32), that there were two distinct centres of Iroquoian development, one in Ontario and the other in New York state. Furthermore, Wright (1966:13) believed his Early Ontario Iroquois period could be subdivided into western and eastern branches, which he referred to as ‘Glen Meyer’ and ‘Pickering’ respectively. Both branches were thought to have evolved in relative isolation from one another between ca. AD 900-1300. In defining this substage of the tradition, Wright’s analysis was confined primarily to eight Glen Meyer sites, based on materials collected earlier by Lee from southwestern Ontario. Wright’s conception of Pickering was more limited in scope. Indeed, the ‘Pickering Culture’ had, at that time, only recently been defined by Walter Kenyon of the Royal Ontario Museum based on work conducted under his direction at the Miller site (W. Kenyon 1960). Thus, in his delineation of Pickering, Wright (1966:40-43) relied to a large extent on published accounts of what he deemed to be six Pickering components scattered throughout southeastern Ontario. Despite these limitations, however, he was confident that the various data pointed to a fusion of these two branches, which Wright (1966:94) believed was brought about by the military conquest of Glen Meyer groups by Pickering peoples around AD 1300. This conquest marked the inception in Wright’s (1966) scheme of the Middle Ontario Iroquois period, a cultural horizon in southern Ontario made up of two uninterrupted substages referred to as ‘Uren’ (ca. AD 1300-1350) and ‘Middleport’ (ca. AD 1350-1400). This century or so of Iroquoian development was distinguished by the establishment of a ‘classic’ Iroquoian cultural pattern (see Ritchie 1944) including an economic orientation tied to horticulture, clearly-defined longhouse architecture, a smoking pipe complex and year-round residency in large palisaded villages. The third and final stage of the tradition, the Late Ontario Iroquois, witnessed a fissioning of groups (from a common Middleport base), which would eventually culminate in the ethnographically-documented tribal affiliations of the Huron, Petun, Neutral and Erie (Wright 1966:94-101). Wright acknowledged that his treatment of the Ontario Iroquois Tradition was, in effect, a rather simplistic taxonomic tool and that many of his interpretations would be “subject to marked alterations” over time (Wright 1966:101). His synthesis, however, had an immediate and profound effect on the practice of Late Woodland archaeology in Southern Ontario. It provided for the first time a unified and orderly framework within which could

Chatham and was known to Lee through the work of Royal Ontario Museum archaeologist Kenneth Kidd at this site in 1949. The other foci were formulated by Lee based on materials collected during his surveys. Interestingly, while Ritchie (1944) did not believe that the Iroquois Aspect had developed out of an earlier Owasco base, Lee (1952:64) was confident that the materials he collected were part of a “continuum of culture in Ontario from Owasco to historical Neutral”. With the exception of a brief statement (Lee 1958a) pertaining to the nature of Glen Meyer sites, appended to a report by Frank Ridley on the Boys and Barrie sites, Lee neglected to describe any of his Ontario Owasco foci in detail. The early 1950s also saw the publication of Richard MacNeish’s (1952) Iroquois Pottery Types. MacNeish, together with Ritchie, had earlier established a typology and seriation for Middle Woodland and early Late Woodland (Owasco) pottery from upper New York state (Ritchie and MacNeish 1949). In this earlier paper, the authors had intimated that the Iroquois pattern might develop from an Owasco ancestry since their typology suggested “a long process of internal development with certain salient trends... all of which bear in the direction of the Iroquoian configuration” (Ritchie and MacNeish 1949:121). With a rim sherd typology and seriation in place for Owasco, MacNeish took it upon himself to establish a similar framework for Iroquoian pottery and attempted to extend this seriation back into earlier times. MacNeish was, in fact, able to demonstrate an uninterrupted union between the Owasco and Iroquois seriations and further suggested a lengthy sequence of cultural development in New York state extending as far back as the Middle Woodland period. MacNeish’s (1952) study had effectively founded an in-situ model for the development of Iroquoian culture in the Northeast, which ran contrary to earlier notions of a migration to explain the historic position of the Iroquois in the Northeast. As well, MacNeish’s seriation ultimately sounded the death knell in regards to earlier suggestions by Ritchie (1944) that the Owasco and Iroquois Aspects were spatially but not temporally proximal. If it can be said that the 1950s saw the genesis of working models aimed at classifying archaeological sites and materials in the Northeast, then the 1960s can be characterized by the fluorescence of pan-regional syntheses. In 1966, James V. Wright of the National Museum of Canada published The Ontario Iroquois Tradition, the first systematic treatment of Iroquoian archaeological remains from southern Ontario. He advanced a three-stage model of Iroquoian cultural change, consisting of early, middle and late phases (Figure 4). Wright (1966:94-95) believed the earliest stage of this

26

AD 1400contact

Erie

Neutral

Huron

AD 13001400

COMMON CULTURAL BASE (Uren / Middleport)

AD 9001300

Glen Meyer

Petun

Pickering

Figure 4. Schematic representation of the Ontario Iroquois Tradition. After Wright (1966:Figure 2). Quimby (1960:98) had suggested that Michigan Owasco was the westernmost extension of early Iroquoian culture, while Greenman (1956:12, 1958:90) was of the opinion that the Late Woodland materials he had examined in southeastern Michigan were manufactured by Iroquoian speakers. As well, Greenman had earlier (1939a:7, 1939b:26) remarked on the similarities between this material, collections from the Uren site in southwestern Ontario and artifacts associated with his newly-minted Whittlesey Focus of northcentral Ohio (Greenman 1937b:351). Wright (1966) did not speak to these issues, although he was aware of the Whittlesey Focus (e.g., Wright 1966:85) to which Lee (1958b:25) had earlier assigned pottery from the Parker Earthwork, and even commented on possible Whittlesey-Neutral connections at the Lawson site. Admittedly, Greenman’s (1939a, 1958) frameworks were largely speculative in nature and in the early 1960s, when Wright was developing his Ontario Iroquois Tradition, a well-developed precontact cultural synthesis did not yet exist for the western Lake Erie region. Much of this would change, however, with the publication in 1965 of James Fitting’s Late Woodland Cultures of Southeastern Michigan. Drawing upon the work of Greenman (e.g., 1937, 1939b) at various sites in the region, Fitting (1965:130) devised a four-phase developmental sequence for the Late Woodland period in southeastern Michigan, which he referred to as the ‘Younge Tradition’. These four phases, labelled Riviere au Vase (ca. AD 800-1000), Younge (ca. AD 1000-1200), Springwells (ca. AD 1200-1400) and Wolf (ca. AD 1400unknown) were named after several of the more prominent

be interpreted the whole of Iroquoian prehistory (Smith 1990:284) and its continued employment to this day stands as a testament to its utility. Having said this, Wright’s framework has not been without its detractors. As both the quantity and kind of archaeological data has increased over the past forty years, so too has the scrutiny of Wright’s (1966) model. In recent years, a number of scholars have pointed out the deleterious effects of Wright’s overarching framework, particularly with respect to its masking of regional variation and its failure to approximate the complex nature of culture change in Late Woodland times (e.g., Ferris 1999:6-15; Jamieson 1991:3-4; Spence 1994:17; Williamson 1990:295, Williamson and Robertson 1994:32-33, but see Wright 1990:498-499). Although Wright attempted to answer his critics with an introspective rejoinder to the model (Wright 1992), his framework remains in service today primarily as a “technical shorthand” (Ferris 1999:14) for the organization of artifactual materials through time. In addition to these criticisms, however, it is worth noting that Wright (1966) also neglected to address any potential relationships his Ontario Iroquois Tradition might share with neighbouring developments to the west (i.e., in extreme southwestern Ontario, southeastern Michigan and northwestern Ohio). Although he considered this region in Late Woodland times to be beyond the scope of Iroquoian influence (Wright 1966:55, 67), he was no doubt aware of the work of researchers such as George Quimby and Emerson Greenman, both of whom were advocates for an additional centre of Iroquoian development, a ‘Michigan Owasco’ focus, at the northwestern end of Lake Erie.

27

from northwestern Ohio. Alongside this work, however, has also emerged from Stothers a highly-involved interpretive framework for the region, consisting of population movements, conquests, displacements and the genesis of competing co-traditions. Stothers is a prolific author and is known to constantly tweak this framework, but according to his most recent synthesis (Stothers and Bechtel 2000) the Western Basin Tradition developed through succeeding Gibraltar (ca. AD 500-750), Riviere au Vase (AD 750-1000), Younge (ca. AD 1000-1200) and Springwells (AD 1200-1300) phases. These groups have long been considered by Stothers (e.g., 1975a, 1975b, 1995; Stothers and Pratt 1981, Stothers and Graves 1983) to be of an Iroquoian ethnic stock who migrated to the region by way of southern Ontario around AD 500 and who maintained over an eight-hundred year period an Iroquoian way of life. At the beginning of the fourteenth century, however, these populations were dispersed from the area by neighbouring peoples associated with the Sandusky Tradition, located slightly to the east. Refugee Western Basin groups were eventually absorbed into populations indigenous to southwestern Ontario, northern Michigan and eastern Indiana (Stothers et al. 1994:137). In the Western Lake Erie region, then, the Sandusky Tradition proceeds through Wolf (ca. AD 1250-1450), Fort Meigs (ca. AD 1450-1550) and Indian Hills (ca. AD 1550-1643) phases, and is thought to have been comprised of Central Algonquian groups who followed an Upper Mississippian settlement-subsistence orientation (Stothers et al. 1994:135). According to Stothers, these groups eventually developed into the Assistaeronon or ‘Fire Nation’ (Stothers et al. 1994:138) only to later became the target of raids by the Neutral during the 1630s and 1640s. The Stothers et al. (1994) synthesis was intended to rebuke earlier suggestions by Carl Murphy and Neal Ferris (1990) that a modified version of Fitting’s (1965) Younge Tradition was broadly applicable to the Late Woodland cultural traditions of southwestern Ontario, west of London. In the first cultural framework pertaining exclusively to this region, Murphy and Ferris (1990:194) argued that the Western Basin Tradition progressed through the original four stages identified by Fitting (1965) and made only slight revisions to his postulated temporal spans. Thus, the Murphy and Ferris (1990) framework includes the Riviere au Vase (ca. AD 600-800 or 900), Younge (ca. AD 800 or 900-1200), Springwells (ca. AD 1200-1400) and Wolf (ca. AD 1400-1550 or 1600) phases. Based on a comprehensive analysis by the authors of changes in material culture and mortuary practices and adjustments through time to various settlement and subsistence strategies, Murphy and Ferris (1990:218) suggested there was a “demonstrable transition [of the

multicomponent sites in the area. In a later publication, Fitting (1970:160) suggested the Wolf phase could be safely ascribed to a period between AD 1250 and 1450. Despite their lengthy occupational spans, Fitting felt each of these sites was representative of a particular phase in the tradition based on high frequencies of diagnostic ceramic types. His chronology, however, was largely informed by ceramic change among a small group of sites on the western shore of Lake St. Clair and the comparison of this material to securely-dated, stylistically similar assemblages from adjacent areas, including northern Michigan, southern Ontario and upstate New York. Like Greenman before him, Fitting noted the similarities of ceramics within the Younge Tradition to those of neighbouring Iroquoian groups in southwestern Ontario and upper New York State (Fitting 1965:142-150) but, unlike Greenman, was reluctant to label the Younge Tradition ‘Iroquoian’. Instead he wrote, “the sites within the Younge Tradition in southeastern Michigan are closely linked and more similarities are present among these sites, even at different temporal horizons, than between any single site and any surrounding cultural group” (Fitting 1965:152). In the years immediately following Fitting’s (1965) formulation of the Younge Tradition, a number of Late Woodland sites were identified and excavated along the southwestern shore of Lake Erie between Detroit and Cleveland (e.g., Cufr 1969; Prahl 1969). This area had been referred to by Fitting (1965:145) as a “cultural blank” during Late Woodland times, but it soon became apparent that a manifestation similar to the Younge Tradition was present in this region. In a paper given at a 1972 symposium of the Central States Anthropological Society, David Brose of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, along with Earl Prahl and David Stothers of the University of Toledo, placed a number of these sites within what they referred to as the ‘Western Basin Tradition’. This newlydefined cultural sequence, they believed, ascended from a localized Middle Woodland base and encompassed the first three phases, along with the geographic scope, of Fitting’s Younge Tradition (see Prahl et al. 1976:281). The Wolf phase, they argued, was too poorly defined at that time to warrant inclusion in either framework. Although an ethnic affiliation for the Western Basin Tradition was not explicitly discussed in this work, the authors noted that “[t]hroughout the temporal span of the Western Basin Tradition... major cultural influences tie our area to the north Erie shore as far east as the Niagara region” (Prahl et al. 1976:281) which would imply an Iroquoian ancestry. Since the mid-1970s, additional work carried out in the western Lake Erie environs by David Stothers and his colleagues has resulted in an impressive number of excavated Late Woodland period components, primarily

28

production of social realities, as well as something conditioned by diverse cultural practices and contexts (e.g., settlement-subsistence patterns, mortuary customs and socio-political organization). Accordingly, it is necessary to consider pottery not simply as another component of the material culture inventory, but rather as a dialectical locus within which the agential practices of humans and nonhumans alike were harmonized and brought forward through conditions of materialization. It is through such an approach, I would suggest, that pottery design can best be used to further a discussion of perceived differences between the Western Basin and Ontario Iroquoian Traditions. Having briefly reviewed the development of taxonomic constructs in the archaeology of the western Lake Erie region, the following section outlines the lifeways and ceramic traditions of Late Woodland period peoples from southwestern Ontario. This outline involves a discussion of both the Western Basin and Ontario Iroquois Traditions according to known settlement-subsistence, material culture (ceramic) and mortuary practices. While both traditions are described through time, emphasis is placed here on those cultural developments which took place during the tenth through fourteenth centuries AD. This period of time roughly encapsulates the Younge phase of the Western Basin Tradition and the Early Ontario Iroquoian period of the larger Ontario Iroquois Tradition, and marks the temporal scope associated with this study. Both earlier and later developments are briefly discussed in this review, however, in order to better contextualize the data pertaining to Younge and Early Ontario Iroquoian groups.

Wolf phase] from the preceding Springwells Phase in southwestern Ontario, which itself is firmly dated to the end of the fourteenth century A.D.”. This, of course, contradicts the assertions of Stothers and his colleagues, who have long regarded Wolf as intrusive to the region, occurring earlier in time and part of a separate tradition. Essentially, Murphy and Ferris (1990:230-263) see in southwestern Ontario the in-situ and continuous development of a single cultural expression over roughly one thousand years. Moreover, at a broad and generalized level, the authors believe the Western Basin Tradition represents an Algonquian cultural group (Murphy and Ferris 1990:276) based on material culture and settlementsubsistence strategies which do not resemble those of neighbouring Iroquoian groups to the east, but are more in keeping with later practices such as those described for the early eighteenth century Ojibwa of southwestern Ontario (see also Ferris 1989). In refuting earlier claims by Stothers and his colleagues of an Iroquoian affiliation for the Western Basin Tradition, Murphy and Ferris (1990:271-277) cite a litany of contradictory data from the region and point out numerous inconsistent or baseless arguments advanced by these researchers in support of this notion. One such argument by Stothers (1978:25) concerning pottery states that “there are striking similarities between the three sequential phases which form the Late Woodland terminus of the Western Basin Tradition... with contemporary developmental periods in the western branch of the Ontario Iroquois [Tradition]... The amazing correspondence of ceramic types, and common ceramic attribute clusters, suggests ethnic affiliation”. To this, Murphy and Ferris (1990:273) note that “we are not aware of even a single comparative study which has examined Western Basin and Ontario Iroquoian ceramic assemblages. Frankly, until such a study is accomplished, we can no more substantively demonstrate differences between Ontario Iroquoian and Western Basin ceramic assemblages than Stothers can demonstrate similarities”. This study intends to address this deficiency by offering a substantive, comparative analysis of Western Basin and Ontario Iroquoian Tradition pottery. Given that the primary aim of this study concerns the extent to which things might be said to shape the formation of unique social practices, ‘ethnicity’ as conceptualized in these frameworks is caught up in this analysis. But rather than rehash earlier normative conceptions of culture which equate ‘pots with people’, or assert that material culture determines social forms, this study examines pottery design within a more nuanced frame. As was suggested in the Introduction, this perspective sees pottery production within the region as both a contributing force in the

Late Woodland Period Lifeways in the Western Basin and Ontario Iroquois Traditions In their exhaustive review of Western Basin cultural developments in southwestern Ontario, Murphy and Ferris (1990:230-263) maintain that during the first six centuries of the Late Woodland period (i.e., between AD 600 and 1200), communities developed gradually from a highly mobile and seasonally-prescribed program of hunting, gathering and fishing to more sedentary population aggregations situated in key resource-rich environments. There is little evidence to suggest that early Younge phase settlement and subsistence practices differed dramatically from earlier Riviere au Vase patterns, save for the limited use of maize after AD 900. It has been proposed by Murphy and Ferris (1990:233, see also Keenlyside 1977, 1978) that during Riviere au Vase and Younge phase times, groups practised a seasonal round of warm-weather macroband exploitation of resource-rich environments,

29

the site (Fox 1982:3; Cooper 1982:10). While faunal and floral analyses have not been completed, a substantive amount of maize was also recovered from pit features at Van Bree (Archaeologix 1998:47), along with a sizable collection of deer bone. These practices hint at highlyvariable subsistence and settlement programs during the early stages of the Western Basin Tradition which would seem to result from localized adaptations (Murphy and Ferris 1990:261). Like subsistence-settlement practices, mortuary treatment during Riviere au Vase and Younge phase times can also be characterized as localized and lineage-based. At the late Riviere au Vase / Younge phase Silverman site near Windsor (MHCI 1996:9) six individual burials were encountered, consisting of four adult interments, one child and one infant. The adult burials contained bundle, semiflexed and partial interments, while the child was placed in a bundle. Mortuary treatment of the infant burial is not described. At the recently-excavated Roffelsen site near Chatham, which likely dates to late Riviere au Vase or early Younge phase times, an ovate secondary burial feature was encountered containing the remains of six or seven individuals of various ages (Archaeologix 2006a:33). While very little information concerning the burials is known at this time, the feature was encountered within the wall of a circular enclosure approximately 25 metres in diameter. This enclosure contained a series of refuse and storage pits, but no evidence of dwellings. At the nearby Younge phase Krieger site, Kidd (1954, 1956) described the presence of a similar secondary burial feature encompassing the remains of eight individuals, which included three adult females, one adult male, one child and two infants. In this feature, however, crania were assembled in elliptical fashion around the perimeter with articulated and disarticulated post-cranial elements deposited inside (Kidd 1954:171). Several other pit feature burials were noted at Krieger and 33 additional elements of human bone were found dispersed across the site (Murphy and Ferris 1990:266). At the Younge phase Dymock site, Fox (1982) encountered four burial features containing the remains of small post-cranial elements. He suggested larger elements were removed for secondary interment at another locale, perhaps at a site like Krieger, which may reflect the appearance of community burial scheduling during this time, where primary burials from other areas were later reinterred at sites which functioned as cemeteries (Fox 1982:7; Murphy and Ferris 1990:266). In addition to the mortuary practices described above, isolated, individual burials are also common on Western Basin sites during this time period (Murphy and Ferris 1990:266). In the latter part of the Western Basin Tradition (ca. AD 1200 to 1550), which encompasses the Springwells

such as those found in the littoral regions of Point Pelee and Rondeau Bay, followed by cold-weather microband utilization of nut and deer resources at inland locales. This is supported by data from the Younge phase occupations at sites such as 11H8 (Keenlyside 1977, 1978), Robson Road (Reid 1982; I. Kenyon et al. 1988), Cherry Lane (Reid 1981; Ferris and Mayer 1990) and Bruner-Colasanti (Lennox 1982), all of which are located in the Point Pelee environs, and the Indian Clearing site at Rondeau Bay (Stothers 1972). At the 11H8 site, 14 species of bird were identified, seven of which represent summer migrants, along with 12 species of mammal and 13 species of fish (Keenlyside 1977:663-675). Several black walnut and butternut shells, indicative of an early fall occupation were also recovered, along with a single carbonized kernel of corn (Keenlyside 1977:779). Significant seasonal resource use was also documented at the Indian Clearing site (Stothers 1972) where turtle remains represent 20% of the faunal sample, compared with mammals at 10% (Murphy and Ferris 1990:232). The Younge phase settlement patterns documented at these sites and others such as Silverman near Windsor (MHCI 1996, 1998) and Van Bree near Arkona (Archaeologix 1998) often consist of one or two small and poorly-defined houses, approximately 12 to 13 metres in length and six to seven metres in width. In addition to an absence of palisading, these sites are also known to produce large numbers of storage pits wherein the caching of resources during the seasonal round is thought to have occurred. The Robson Road site (I. Kenyon et al. 1988; Reid 1982) for example, produced hundreds of these pits which contained evidence of warm-weather faunal and floral remains. Fish constituted the majority of the recovered faunal remains (I. Kenyon et al. 1988:21). At the nearby Cherry Lane site (Ferris and Mayer 1990) floral, faunal and settlement data point toward a fall occupation based on the high frequency of nut remains and fall-spawning fish bone (Ferris and Mayer 1990:32). At present, it is not known if these littoral locales were exploited by the same populations that utilized the inland riverine resources associated with the Thames, Sydenham and Ausable River drainages (Murphy and Ferris 1990:244). Evidence from riverine sites such as Krieger (Kidd 1954), Van Bemmel (Ferris 1989b) and Dymock (Fox 1982), all of which are found near the Thames River between London and Chatham, suggest both warm- and cold-weather occupations by small groups. At the Dymock site, for example, spring-spawning walleye and sucker remains, in addition to deer skull fragments with signs of new antler growth, point toward a spring occupation, while large quantities of maize and squash, in addition to nutshell, indicate a late summer through early fall use of

30

extreme southwestern Ontario by the mid sixteenth century (Murphy and Ferris 1990:255, 263). The Murphy and Ferris (1990) characterization of Western Basin lifeways contrasts significantly with models of Ontario Iroquoian cultural development further east. During the early stages of the Late Woodland period, groups from southcentral Ontario, particularly those living along the lower Grand River, began experimenting with maize horticulture. Referred to as the Princess Point Complex, these groups are regarded by most researchers as ancestral to later Iroquoian developments (e.g., Noble 1975b; Smith and Crawford 1995:68; Stothers 1977:152153; Wright 1984:284; Warrick 2000:434; Williamson 1985:45). Princess Point peoples were initially thought to follow a seasonal round with warm weather aggregations situated in key riverine contexts, followed by cold weather, microband dispersals to upland locales associated with major river valleys such as the Grand (Stothers 1977:163164). In Stothers’s (1977:161) estimation, maize horticulture was simply appended to an entrenched and highly mobile way of life. Stable carbon and nitrogen isotope evidence from human skeletal remains suggest Princess Point groups, represented by burials from the Surma site in Fort Erie and Varden on Long Point, did indeed consume maize, but at levels well below those of later populations (Katzenberg et al. 1995:341-345). Recent research into the nature of Princess Point lifeways by Gary Crawford and David Smith (e.g., Crawford and Smith 1996; Crawford et al. 1997, Crawford, Smith and Boyer 1997; Smith and Crawford 1995, 1997), has sought to expand upon and evaluate the earlier approximations of Stothers. Crawford and Smith’s work in the Grand River valley has produced the earliest AMSdated maize in the Northeast (AD 540) from the Grand Banks site near Brantford (Crawford, Smith and Boyer 1997:114). This work also suggests that Princess Point groups occupied large (greater than 3 ha. in extent), year-round base settlements on extensive floodplain flats. As well, geoarchaeological research in this locale indicates that these flats were not prone to seasonal flooding during early Late Woodland times (Crawford et al. 1997:129132), which lends credence to the year-round settlement model. Settlement patterns, while ethereal at most Princess Point sites, are fairly well-preserved at Porteous (Noble and Kenyon 1972; Stothers 1977) and Holmedale (Pihl [ed.] 1999) also near Brantford, which mark the transition from Princess Point to Early Ontario Iroquoian times (Noble 1975b; Pihl and Williamson 1999; Smith and Crawford 1997:24; Warrick 2000:427). Incipient longhouses at these sites, on average, are three to four metres in width, five to six metres in length and contain one or two hearths. The overlapping nature of these

and Wolf phases, Murphy and Ferris (1990:254-255) have argued that subsistence-settlement patterns generally reflect a continuance of earlier practices, although greater sedentism and an intensification of maize horticulture is evident. Evidence of formal occupation areas complete with longhouses and palisades are reported during the Springwells phase from sites such as Liahn I near Wallaceburg (I. Kenyon 1988) and Lucier-E.C. Row in Windsor (Wintemberg 1936; Lennox and Dodd 1991; Lennox and Molto 1995). At Lucier-E.C. Row, a series of four, overlapping longhouse-like structures was encountered in 1984 by Ontario Ministry of Transportation archaeologists. Although producing a dearth of refuse pit features and artifacts, the site contained six secondary burial features with the remains of 23 individuals (Lennox and Molto 1995:25). As well, during excavations conducted by Wintemberg in July 1935, 25 individuals from 19 burial features were also encountered at the site. Flexed, bundle, torso and partial burials, including cremations, are described. It has been suggested that the primary and torso burials at this site might represent an earlier stage in the sequence of a scheduled, community- as opposed to lineage-based mortuary practice, which later involved secondary burial in an adjacent area or at another site nearby (Lennox and Molto 1995:33). To Murphy and Ferris (1990:254) an intensification of maize horticulture at these sites may have initiated a coalescence of several smaller, previously autonomous groups. That Western Basin groups continued to practice cold weather nuclear- or extended-family dispersal to inland camps, however, is supported by evidence from the Springwells phase Sherman site near Chatham (Murphy and Ferris 1990:255; Murphy 1991). Murphy (1991:15) has argued that this house resembles a traditional Central Algonquian winter cabin or ‘wigwam’. Also of interest during this time period is an apparent shift in the Western Basin settlement system; by the close of the 15th century, sites show signs of earthworked enclosures, such as the Parker Earthwork (Lee 1958b) and are no longer found at inland riverine contexts. Instead, these sites appear clustered in extreme southwestern Ontario around the shores of Lake St. Clair, the Detroit River and western Lake Erie. Around this time, Iroquoian villages appear in the archaeological record of the region at sites such as Savage near Chatham (Murphy 1985; Fraser 2001). This development is thought to culminate in the sixteenth century with the appearance of several large Iroquoian sites in the Chatham area such as Wolfe Creek (Foster 1990) and McGeachy. Perceived hostility over territory and decreased mobility due to cultigen use are cited as the major causes for Western Basin abandonment of all but

31

included, but was not reliant upon, maize horticulture. For example, while maize, bean, squash and sunflower have all been recovered from the Calvert site, an economic emphasis on hunting is demonstrated by significant quantities of deer remains, in excess of 80% of the identifiable faunal sample (Timmins 1997:94). Available isotopic and biophysical data from Early Ontario Iroquoian populations supports this view and suggests maize did not constitute a significant portion of the diet (i.e., 20 to 30%) until at least the late thirteenth century AD (Katzenberg 1984:107-110, 1989; Katzenberg et al. 1995:341-345; Patterson 1984; Schwarcz et al. 1985; van der Merwe et al. 2003:258). With regard to Early Ontario Iroquoian mortuary practices, Michael Spence (1994:14-16) has argued against depictions by Wright (1992:12) of standardized programs and instead has suggested that burial practices during this time demonstrate considerable regional variation. He suggests in one pattern from the Norfolk Sand Plain that scaffolding or some other temporary interment device was utilized during the cold season. Major skeletal elements such as long bones and crania were then recovered in the spring and jointly reburied in pit features at sites associated with the warm season movement to the north shore of Lake Erie (Spence 1994:15; see also Fox 1976:169-172; Williamson 1990:308). As these communal pit features would be composed of members from multiple longhouses, he also suggested they would be located outside of individual house structures as was demonstrated at the Elliott site (Spence 1994:9-12; 15). Spence also indicates that this practice may have persisted into Middle Ontario Iroquoian times within the region. This pattern, however, differs from mortuary treatments further west such as those observed at the Praying Mantis site near London. Here, efforts appear focussed on secondary burial within longhouses rather than community burial events which entail potentially longer durations between burial episodes. Variability is also noted in Early Ontario Iroquoian mortuary practices from the Rogers Ossuary in the Grand River valley (Mullen and Hoppa 1992), where Spence (1994:15) reports that an early development of ossuary burial with a cycle longer than that observed on the Norfolk Sand Plain may be characteristic of this area. An intensification of maize horticulture during the succeeding Middle Ontario Iroquoian period (ca.. AD 1300-1400) is cited as the lead catalyst in a sudden and rapid transformation of social, political and economic organization (e.g., Dodd et al. 1990:357; Ferris and Spence 1995:113-114). During this period, both longhouses and villages increased in size, likely due to population growth brought about by village amalgamations and an increasing tendency toward sedentism and maize horticulture (Dodd

structures, coupled with evidence of palisading, suggests these later Princess Point sites, like incipient Early Ontario Iroquoian villages, would have been occupied for 40 to 50 years (Warrick 2000:430). While tethered to these base settlements, smaller task groups would likely have attended upland locales for the purposes of nut and wild rice harvesting, and lacustrine environments for fishing (Fox 1990:175; MacDonald 1986; Smith 1997a). Williamson (1990:318-319) has characterized Early Ontario Iroquoian settlement-subsistence practices in a fashion similar to that of Smith and Crawford (1995, 1997) for Princess Point. Extended- and nuclear-families occupied base settlements with seasonal dispersal by task groups to various resource-abundant locales. Unlike contemporaneous Western Basin sites, most Early Ontario Iroquoian sites appear as small (less than 0.5 ha. in extent) and sometimes palisaded villages, and are situated in upland locales away from major floodplains and littoral environments. These sites are often found on sand plains within discrete regional clusters. Settlements typically consist of four to five longhouses approximately ten to 15 metres in length, with two to three centralized hearths and large storage and refuse pit features both inside and outside the houses (Warrick 2000:436). The presence of overlapping longhouses on these sites was initially thought by some researchers (e.g. Warrick 1984:54-61; Williamson 1985:334, 1990:306) to reflect an absence of community planning owing to weakly-developed matrilineages or low population densities. An analysis by Timmins (1997:87) of the thirteenth-century Calvert site near London, however, has demonstrated three successive and well-organized village layouts over the course of 50 to 60 years. In addition to these villages, numerous smaller sites have also been reported. These often consist of small, task-oriented camps or slightly larger hamlets with one or two longhouses, sometimes surrounded by a single row palisade (Williamson 1990:313-317). These short-term camp or hamlet sites appear to be situated to take advantage of seasonally-abundant resources such as fish and deer, while villages such as Roeland (Williamson 1985:335) near London, appear primarily oriented toward the cultivation of maize. At one time, it was suggested that the Early Ontario Iroquoian period marked a rapid transformation from earlier hunting and gathering practices to full-scale horticultural dependence (Noble 1975b; Stothers 1977:165). Current thought, however, suggests this was not the case (Chapdelaine 1993; Ferris 1999:29-32; Timmins 1997:94; Williamson 1985:349, 1990:312-313). There is sufficient evidence from southwestern Ontario sites such as Kelly, Roeland (Williamson 1985:342) and Calvert (Timmins 1997:100) to argue for a mixed economy which

32

primarily decorated with cord-wrapped stick motifs arranged in multiple horizontal bands across the rim area. This decorative treatment is often accompanied by the application of exterior punctates and interior bosses, and these vessels resemble contemporaneous specimens associated with the more easterly Princess Point Complex (Watts 1997:93-96, 1999:47). By the close of the tenth century AD, Wayne ware was largely supplanted in the western Lake Erie region by these forms, which Fitting (1965:40-41) refers to as Riviere ware. Four ‘types’ of Riviere ware with two variants were identified by Fitting (1965:42-47) for the Younge Tradition based on combinations of decorative tool and technique use. Fitting’s Riviere ware typology is not, however, generally applied by researchers to the pottery of Western Basin Tradition groups in southwestern Ontario (see Lennox 1982:110; Timmins 1997:221 for exceptions). Instead, archaeologists in this area generally adhere to a series of chronologically-sensitive attributes of form and decoration when describing the development of postWayne ware ceramic styles in the region. With the onset of the Younge phase, vessels display a larger capacity (approximately four to 15 litres) over earlier forms and are more elongated with slightly constricted necks and somewhat rounded to very pronounced shoulders. Vessel lip, rim and neck surfaces are often smoothed over. Decoration on the rim and lip typically consists of single or multiple horizontal bands of oblique or vertical impressions which are fashioned by cord-wrapped stick, dentate or linear stamping (see Plates I through V). That these rim and lip styles are also present on earlier Riviere au Vase phase vessels suggests ceramic change was slow to occur during early Late Woodland times and defies attempts by archaeologists to neatly truncate the two phases using attributes of rim decoration (Murphy and Ferris 1990:199). Unlike earlier forms, however, Younge phase vessels are routinely castellated and often contain incipient collars or ‘thickened’ rims. These incipient collars were manufactured by folding or rolling over clay from the lip and pressing it to the exterior before firing, and differ from the truly collared pottery associated with later Springwells phase times. As well, Younge phase vessels part company from earlier forms in terms of their lavish and often intricately-executed necks designs, which are recognized as a diagnostic feature of this time period (Figure 5). These designs are frequently applied to smoothed-over surfaces and consist of ‘zoned’ motifs often created using the same tools and techniques as those applied to the rim and lip areas of the vessel. Ostentatious in nature, these motifs routinely make use of alternating open and filled triangle or diamond shapes and are arranged in a variety of symmetrical compositions (see, for

et al. 1990:352; Trigger 1981:31-40). It is also thought that this period marks the development of a fully-integrated village political system based on extended matrilineal kinship and the introduction of clans. These patterns continued through the succeeding Late Ontario Iroquoian period, which is represented in southwestern Ontario at the Lawson (Wintemberg 1939) and Southwold (Boyle 1891; Jury 1946; Smith 1977) sites. Qualities of Western Basin (Younge) Pottery In the course of defining the Younge Tradition, Fitting (1965:40-41) identified two ceramic wares which he termed Wayne and Riviere. Wayne ware was regarded by Fitting as part of a widespread post-Middle Woodland ceramic horizon in the Northeast and Midwest typified by small, cord-roughened and largely undecorated ceramic forms (see also Ritchie and MacNeish 1949:106). Wayne ware was not included as part of Fitting’s (1965) Younge Tradition scheme and, in a later overview (Fitting 1970:150), was instead viewed as diagnostic of a separate yet temporally-overlapping Wayne Tradition. This Wayne Tradition, in Fitting’s (1970) estimation, was ultimately absorbed into or replaced by the developing Younge Tradition between AD 600 and 900. While the usefulness of the Wayne Tradition construct has since been debated (e.g., Brashler 1981; Halsey 1976; Lovis 1990; Stothers 1994), the ceramic trends identified in Fitting’s original (1965) sequence have largely been borne out by subsequent studies (e.g., Krakker 1983; Murphy and Ferris 1990). In southwestern Ontario, Wayne ware specimens are ascribed to the early portion of the Riviere au Vase phase and are considered transitional between the antecedent Middle Woodland ‘Couture’ Complex (ca. AD 1-500), and later Younge phase (ca. AD 900-1200) developments (Murphy and Ferris 1990:225; Spence et al. 1990:144). Wayne ware is typified by small (less than two litres in capacity), globular-shaped pottery vessels with constricted necks, pronounced shoulders, slightly elongated bodies and semi-conoidal or rounded bases. These vessels lack both collars and castellations and are predominantly cord-roughened in an oblique or vertical fashion from base to lip. There is little evidence of exterior decoration, but lips can be either cord roughened, smoothed-over (plain), or decorated with transverse or oblique dentate, suturestamp or cord-wrapped designs. Wayne ware interiors are largely smoothed-over and can also contain decoration (Fitting 1965:40-41, 158-159; see also Halsey 1968:124127; Murphy and Ferris 1990:195; Watts 1997). Toward the end of the Riviere au Vase phase, many Wayne ware vessels are replaced by slightly larger and thicker forms

33

example, Plate III). Punctates or incised lines are often used as delimiters to further enhance the decoration. Alternatively, but less frequently, neck areas can also be plain or decorated with oblique rows of plaits (Fitting 1965:154-165; Murphy and Ferris 1990:201-205). These elaborate neck designs are sometimes underlain by one or two horizontal bands of oblique or vertical tool impressions on the shoulder, which typically match those designs applied to the rim area. While shoulders and bodies retain a cord-roughened surface treatment characteristic of earlier pottery, the nature of the malleation differs in Younge phase times. Vessels exhibit a pitted or mottled appearance below the neck which Murphy and Ferris (1990:207) attribute to a change from cord-wrapped paddles to paddles covered with a twined fabric. During the succeeding Springwells phase (ca. AD 1200-1400), change in attributes of both pottery form and decoration is evident. Vessel rims are predominantly collared and castellated, while vessel necks are more elongated and vasiform in nature and are often devoid of marked shoulders. These attributes of form give Springwells phase pottery a rather unique appearance, described by Murphy and Ferris (1990:209) as “bagshaped”, which continues into later Wolf phase times as well. Vessel capacity is also thought to increase during this time period to approximately 40 litres. With respect to decoration, Springwells phase ceramics exhibit distinctive rim motifs which consist primarily of multiple rows of horizontal linear, corded or suture-stamp impressions. These designs are impressed into the clay using a drag-stamp or push-pull technique and were referred to by Fitting (1965:156-157) as “interrupted linear”. Rim decoration can also exhibit fine linear, dentate or crescentshaped elements which give these vessels a mesh-like appearance (Krakker 1983:154; Murphy and Ferris 1990:212), which Fitting (1965:141) erroneously refers to as net impressions. This decorative treatment can resemble a particular ware from northern Ohio known as Mixter (Shane 1967) which appears on Springwells phase sites in the Leamington and Windsor areas toward the end of the fourteenth century AD. Mixter wares are characterized by multiple horizontal or curvilinear bands of linear or dentate-stamp impressions applied to collarless or slightlycollared rim forms.

Figure 5. Vessels from the Western Basin Dymock site. 134) identified and defined nine pottery types for his Glen Meyer branch of the Early Ontario Iroquois stage and further incorporated four of MacNeish’s (1952:17-18) types in his analysis. Through an examination of type frequencies and a calculation of coefficients of agreement, Wright (1966:25) was able to establish a degree of chronological control over four of the eight Glen Meyer sites under examination. Of these four sites, three (Goessens, Stafford and Woodsmen) were drawn from an area near Long Point on the Norfolk Sand Plain, while the fourth (Smale) was derived from the London area on the Caradoc Sand Plain. While Wright’s seriation recognized several general temporal trends (as noted below), few researchers make use of his typology in their analyses of Early Ontario Iroquoian pottery. Timmins (1997:129) believes this is due to a methodological preference among Iroquoianists for attributes as opposed to types, which is reflected in several studies of Early Ontario Iroquoian pottery from the London area (e.g., Howie-Langs 1998; Timmins 1997; Williamson 1985). The next major attempt to characterize Early Ontario Iroquoian pottery can be found in Williamson’s (1985) doctoral research from the Caradoc Sand Plain southwest of London. Williamson excavated six sites (Roeland, Yaworski, Kelly, Berkmortel, Smale and Little) and identified numerous others from the area through survey. Pottery collected by Lee from the Smale Site, which was

Qualities of Early Ontario Iroquoian Pottery As noted earlier, Wright examined several collections of pottery from southwestern Ontario as part of his seminal (1966) study. In this work, he presented the first analytical treatment of Early Ontario Iroquoian pottery using a typological approach to classification. Wright (1966:111-

34

absence of ‘delimiters’ and a more thorough decoration of neck surfaces. Cord-wrapped stick decoration continues from Princess Point into succeeding Early Ontario Iroquoian times throughout southwestern Ontario and can comprise a significant portion of early vessel designs (e.g., Timmins 1997:142; Williamson 1990:298; Wright 1966:26). By the twelfth century AD, there is an apparent shift in Early Ontario Iroquoian decorative practices toward vessel rim and lip designs consisting of multiple rows of linearstamped oblique or incised horizontal lines (Williamson 1985:287, 1990:298; Timmins 1997:135), although decorative preferences vary from region to region. For example, according to Williamson (1990:298), linearstamped designs are more prevalent in the ‘west’ (London and area) while dentate-stamping appears more frequently in the ‘east’ (Brantford and area). In addition to linear- and dentate-stamped designs, crescent-stamping (or ‘Stafford Stamping’, after Wright 1966:118-119) and, with some frequency, superimposed linear-stamped obliques, can also be common treatments (e.g., Timmins 1997:142). Many of these trends continue into Middle Ontario Iroquoian (Uren) times, but decline sharply after the mid-fourteenth century AD (Dodd et al. 1990:332). Vessel necks can be entirely plain (see, for example, Figure 6 and Plate VIII), decorated with additional bands of linear-stamped oblique or incised horizontal lines (e.g., KL-002 from Plate IX), or contain plaits of stamped obliques (e.g., CA-022 from Plate XI). Vessels frequently contain evidence of interior punctation and exterior bossing on the neck, which is considered by some to be an attribute of chronological significance (e.g., Dodd et al. 1990:330; Wright 1966:25, 54; Noble 1975a:15-17) although Williamson (1985:289-290, 1990:298) regards this phenomenon as varying across space rather than time. In terms of surface treatment, Early Ontario Iroquoian vessels are cord-roughened below the shoulder and typically consist of smoothed-over neck and rim surfaces. Early vessel forms betray continuity with the sub-conoidal bases of Princess Point pottery, while later vessels exhibit a globular shape and rounded bottoms. Vessels can be collarless or may display incipient collaring (Williamson 1990:298), a trait which continues into succeeding Uren times (Dodd et al. 1990:330). Rims are usually vertical to everted in orientation and frequently contain gently undulating castellations (Ferris and Spence 1995:106; Timmins 1997:135; Williamson 1985:287, 1990:298).

used in Wright’s (1966) study, was also examined by Williamson (1985). In an effort to seriate this sample, Williamson studied attributes of rim form, tool technique and design motif, and for eight of these attributes calculated coefficients of agreement. He (1985:277-282) found a high degree of similarity between the various assemblages, which ultimately precluded an acceptable linear order. Individual attributes, some of which had been identified by Wright (1966) as temporally sensitive (e.g., presence/absence of punctates and bosses) were then compared against radiocarbon determinations in an effort to seriate the Caradoc sites. While some temporal trends were noted (see below), few chronologically sensitive traits were identified and Williamson (1985:289-290) attributed much of what little stylistic change was evident to spatial differentiation and/or interaction with Western Basin populations. Similar difficulties were encountered by Timmins (1997:221) in his efforts to measure ceramic change across regional clusters. Williamson (1985:45), echoing Noble (1975b), believed there existed an ancestry for Early Ontario Iroquoian pottery from the Caradoc Sand Plain among earlier assemblages associated with the more easterly Princess Point Complex (see also Timmins 1997:219). Referred to by Stothers (1977:54) as ‘Princess Point ware’, these assemblages are characterized by collarless, uncastellated vessels with everted rims, slightly-constricted necks, rounded shoulders and semi-conical or globular bases. Surface treatment is primarily confined to exterior cord-malleation from base to lip, although vessels may be partially smoothed in the neck area (Pihl 1999:29). Formal decoration on the rim and neck areas consists of multiple bands of horizontal, oblique or vertical tool impressions with a heavy reliance on cord-wrapped styli. Superimposed (criss-crossed) obliques occur in minor frequencies. One of these bands, typically at the rim/neck or neck/shoulder juncture, is often overlain by a row of exterior punctates which usually raise interior bosses (Bursey 1995:46-47; Fox 1990:175; Pihl 1999:25-40; Smith and Crawford 1997:24; Stothers 1977:78-98). Toward the interface between Princess Point and Early Ontario Iroquoian times (ca. AD 1000) in the Grand River valley, as represented by sites such as Middleport, Porteous and Holmedale, more intricate decorations involving contiguous zones of opposed oblique, vertical and/or horizontal lines appear on vessel necks. Similar designs involving panels of nested, right-angled impressions are also common, as are plaits of oblique lines (Pihl 1999:40; see also Stothers 1977:Plates V through XVII). These designs, while reminiscent of Younge phase neck decoration in terms of their complexity, differ from western analogues through an

Summary and Discussion As the above review intimates, the Late Woodland period in southwestern Ontario witnessed a notable series

35

between Algonquian and Iroquoian occupations and, after the publication of McKern’s (1939) Midwestern Taxonomic Method, an emphasis was placed on attributing artifactual remains to aspects and patterns infused with ethnolinguistic connotations. This is also reflected in Ritchie’s (1944) treatment of Late Woodland manifestations in New York and in Lee’s (1951, 1952) early cultural framework for southwestern Ontario. Lee, like Wintemberg before him, recognized a need to establish greater chronological control over materials for the region and went so far as to suggest that Glen Meyer was a development out of Ontario Owasco (Lee 1951:45, 1952:65). When temporal dimensions were later enshrined in culture-historical pursuits (after Willey and Phillips 1958), grand syntheses such as Fitting (1965) and Wright (1966) were to emerge, each of which was more than tacitly concerned with notions of ethnicity. Even Murphy and Ferris (1990:271-277), while cognizant of the dangers inherent in affixing such labels to the archaeological record, nonetheless felt compelled to argue for an Algonquian as opposed to Iroquoian identity for the Western Basin Tradition. Murphy and Ferris’s (1990) analysis notwithstanding, in tracing the development of taxonomic foundations we see a rather uncritical marriage of the precontact past with the ‘tyrannical’ (Wobst 1978) ethnohistoric record of the Northeast. This record, by virtue of its synchronic scope and assembly after rapid cultural change associated with European contact was initiated (Jamieson 1989:308; see also Trigger 1976:17-19) should be viewed with caution. But even when the ethnohistoric record is not directly involved, there remains a prevailing philosophy in studies of Late Woodland archaeology that pan-regional archaeological cultures can be equated with ethnic groups, although this has certainly waned in recent years. Ferris (1999:18), for example, has argued against using the word ‘Iroquoian’ when describing early Late Woodland developments in southcentral Ontario, preferring instead the more benign ‘Early Inter-Lakes Tradition’. For the purposes of this study, I retain the terminology employed by previous researchers (i.e., Western Basin and Ontario Iroquoian Traditions) to organize the materials under observation, but do not subscribe to the attendant view that these two sequences mark the evolution of distinct and undiversified ethnic stocks through time. Instead, in keeping with the theoretical approach described earlier, I regard ethnicity as a dynamic, situated concept which operates at various scales and to various ends in connection with the convergence and resiliency of human/non-human interactions. What is more, it is the extent to which such interactions produce coherent socialities through time that allows for patterning to emerge in the archaeological

Figure 6. Vessel from the Early Ontario Iroquoian Kelly site. of shifts in the settlement-subsistence strategies and material culture inventories of aboriginal societies. In the process, it has been suggested that these changes gave rise to two coterminous cultural sequences referred to as the Western Basin and Ontario Iroquoian Traditions. During the period AD 600-1200, the former, largely composed of antecedent Algonquian bands, is believed to have retained an economic orientation focussed on small-scale hunting and gathering activities at key resource-rich locales, while the latter is thought to have developed a emphasis on maize horticulture and rudimentary village life. At this point, we might reasonably ask to what extent the use of established archaeological taxa, such as ‘phase’ and ‘tradition,’ has constrained our understanding of group identity. Prior to the 1950s, much of the archaeological research conducted in southwestern Ontario was geared toward the identification of geographic as opposed to temporal patterns of cultural variation. The earliest of these endeavours, conducted by the likes of Boyle and Wintemberg, adopted a fundamentally static view of the precontact past which favoured the reconstruction of aboriginal lifeways through ethnographic analogy and the functional interpretation of artifacts. Wintemberg (1931:67) argued that such work could discriminate

36

ties concentrated at the village level. During Early Ontario Iroquoian times, there is evidence of emergent village life, with seasonal camps and hamlets likely used by various parties for fishing, hunting and the collection of plant foods. Villages, while relatively small (compared with later Iroquoian developments), are characterized by palisades, numerous houses, hearth events, storage pits and burials. In addition to higher frequencies of maize, when compared with contemporaneous Younge phase groups, cultigens such as bean and squash have also been recovered from Early Ontario Iroquoian sites. An emphasis on maize horticulture is thought to have prompted other developments such as communal (i.e. village-based) burial features, population increases, matrilocal residence (Trigger 1985:88-89; Warrick 1996:15, 2000:434; Williamson 1990:317) and matrilineal descent (Ritchie 1969:288; Timmins 1997:239). These patterns appear only to have been amplified in later developments associated with Middle Ontario Iroquoian times. Indeed, matrilocal residence and regional site distributions have been cited as determining factors in the rise of local ceramic traditions during Early Ontario Iroquoian times. At the Calvert site, for example, Timmins (1997:220-221) observed an unusually high frequency of both cord-wrapped stick decoration and exterior punctation. Above average frequencies of such attributes are more in keeping with earlier Princess Point assemblages in the Grand River valley. On the Caradoc Sand Plain, Williamson (1990:318) observed significant variability between sites in this region and those of the Norfolk Sand Plain, in attributes such as punctation, neck decoration and surface treatment. Thus, while Early Ontario Iroquoian pottery assemblages can be said to share similarities in certain core elements of form and decoration through time, local ‘micro-traditions’ are thought to occur alongside more regionally-based design practices. Western Basin potting practices during the AD 900-1200 period, on the other hand, are seen in the literature as internally heterogeneous and markedly different from Early Ontario Iroquoian forms. Indeed, Murphy and Ferris (1990:201) characterize Younge phase pottery as containing “a wide range of vessel forms, sizes, and decorative motifs. This heterogeneity may be interpreted as being due to informal, not-fixed marital and residential patterns among these people or due to a high degree of experimentation on the part of Younge phase potters”. This view is consistent with what we might expect from a loosely-knit social network given by a broadly-based, seasonally-distributed settlement pattern. In describing later Springwells phase ceramics, Murphy and Ferris (1990:209) note that while ceramic heterogeneity continues into the thirteenth century, a substantive growth and sustained use of horizontal linear

record. Applied to the Late Woodland traditions of southwestern Ontario, this view can be said to deviate from the received wisdom regarding the existence of homogeneous archaeological cultures and demands instead that continuity rather than change be explicated. In light of this more dynamic definition, it is necessary to evaluate the evidence for ‘convergency’ in the Western Basin and Ontario Iroquoian Traditions during the AD 600-1300 period in southwestern Ontario. The available evidence suggests Western Basin groups should be regarded as small, loosely-knit collectives who adapted to localized environmental niches, and who followed, for the most part, a seasonally-distributed settlement pattern. This pattern was altered with the introduction of maize around the eleventh century AD, but this does not appear to have significantly transformed settlement-subsistence systems, even toward the close of the precontact period. Murphy and Ferris (1990:254) have suggested that intensification of maize horticulture precipitated some changes in warm weather settlement practices, but this is not observed until at least the thirteenth century AD. This, they believe, is indicated by settlement patterns at Springwells phase sites such as Liahn I and Lucier-E.C. Row, where larger and more formal living areas have been documented. Unfortunately, the ecofactual data necessary to assess such a claim is presently lacking. As well, it is worth mentioning that the settlement data from Lucier-E.C. Row, like the Younge type site in Michigan (Greenman 1937), appears oriented toward mortuary ceremonialism rather than day-to-day village life. Indeed, the varied nature of mortuary behaviour among Western Basin groups, coupled with an absence of ossuaries, points to smaller-scale (lineagebased) burial events which were likely tied to the seasonal round of autonomous communities. This characterization finds conceptual support in more environmentally deterministic models such as Braun and Plog (1982) wherein social cohesion is seen as varying directly with the level of economic uncertainty and risk. If Western Basin communities adhered to a seasonal round marked by a mixed hunting and gathering economy, then it would follow in this scheme that highly-integrative social networks did not develop among these groups as the need for mitigating environmental risk was met at the local level. This is supported by the evidence from Riviere au Vase and Younge phase sites, where warm-weather exploitation of marshland environments, with a reliance on storable resources, is the dominant subsistence-settlement pattern. Conversely, the development and intensification of maize horticulture during this period among Iroquoian groups may have provided the impetus for stronger social

37

morphology and decorative attributes in cases where the agential effects of pottery presencing collide with attempts by emergent or experienced artisans to contest or defy conventional practices. We would not, however, expect the same patterning to be found within collections of Western Basin pottery. The apparent absence of village life, coupled with a high degree of seasonal mobility among lower population aggregates, would in theory foster an entirely different uptake of things. While potting practices would to some extent be routinized, in keeping with the idea that craft production would likely reoccur at certain sites and at regular intervals throughout the year, the absence of a fixed and long-term primary social context (i.e., a semi-sedentary village) might impact upon the experiential nature of vessels and the durability of certain designs. Although presumably still focussed on the household, the shorter-term duration and smaller-scale socio-political organization associated with Western Basin sites suggests young and/or inexperienced potters, who learn by imitation, would not have been exposed to the same contexts of production as their Iroquoian peers. As well, with smaller and more flexible groups, one would expect a more divergent array of both formal and decorative qualities in material culture as the absence of local artisanal communities and intensive regional interaction would preclude craft traditions from developing. With less cohesive social forms, pottery among Western Basin groups would not have been subject to the same processes of translation and inscription as seen in Iroquoian communities and would be open to more idiosyncratic and perhaps discursive interpretations. We would not foresee intuitive knowledge as reinforced through day-to-day routines and potters may have been less inclined to accept elements of craft production as noncontentious. In the remainder of this study, these hypotheses will be evaluated against ceramic data obtained from seven sites associated with the Western Basin and Ontario Iroquoian Traditions. These sites, along with their respective pottery samples, are described in detail in the following chapter. Before this takes place, however, it is necessary to properly situate the theoretical and culture-historical questions identified above within a suitable methodological framework. Accordingly, Chapter IV begins with a detailed description of the methods employed in this study and attempts to construct a model whereby it is considered possible to investigate the agential dimensions of pottery according to the capacity for these items (and their constituent elements) to elicit both discursive and intuitive stylistic practices.

motifs on collars also emerges. These innovations are also found on contemporaneous Iroquoian ceramics (Williamson 1990:319; Dodd et al. 1990:330) and throughout the greater Northeast at this time. It is during Springwells phase times that Murphy and Ferris (1990:209) believe more intensive regional interaction occurred among Western Basin groups. The depictions of Early Ontario Iroquoian and Western Basin (Younge) lifeways presented above carry with them important implications concerning the agentiality and role(s) of material culture in actornetworks. It would appear from the available settlementsubsistence data that, for Iroquoian groups, the emergence of village life after the tenth century AD set in motion a series of profound changes in socio-political organization and material culture production. We might suggest that developments which revolve around the village, such as matrilocal residence, matrilineality, population growth, regional interaction and ossuary burial, imparted a conception of reality which was fundamentally different in nature from earlier forms. For Iroquoian communities, it seems plausible to suggest that with the ascension of village life came an emergent sense of ‘social permanency’ whereby daily practices were increasingly understood as part of a more durable and intimate connection with localized environmental niches. This portrayal has significant import for things in terms of how they would have been apprehended and experienced by Iroquoian peoples. Such a reorientation, if true, might lead to a more patterned occurrence of artifact production and use in communities owing to the more frequent presence of people and things in the same social contexts. When speaking of pottery production, it is possible that artisanal forms of knowledge were brought forth through a protracted engagement with such settings, including specific settlement features such as longhouses. Practices oriented to particular spaces might imprint upon the process of craft transmission between generations to the point where a more conventional and delimited set of ceramic attributes would be intuitively passed on from expert to novice potters through observation and emulation (Dietler and Herbich 1998:246; see also Jones 1997:108). Pottery, like other items tethered to specific spaces, might have been understood through semiotic mediation to be part of a well-knit and taken-for-granted backdrop of everyday life. If pottery was indeed conceptualized in such a fashion, we might expect this to be reflected archaeologically in the consistent use of a more delineated suite of formal and decorative attributes. Here, however, it is also possible to speak specifically to the capacity for things to foster a negotiation of agential states. We might also expect, for example, a marked irregularity in vessel

38

Chapter 4 Methodology and Discussion of the Sample

Spaulding 1953a, 1953b). At issue was whether pottery types were simply analytical constructs imposed upon on the data or, rather, were more intrinsic constellations of attributes which the analyst discovered through statistical correlations. Ford (1953) was of the opinion that pottery types were created by the researcher for the purposes of chronological control and as a way to illuminate the mechanisms of culture change (e.g., diffusion and migration). Spaulding (1953b), on the other hand, took the position that types were inherently ‘real’; not only could they be disclosed by statistical measures but, and perhaps more importantly, types were the material embodiment of artisanal ideas and values. This polemic would later resurface in the literature pertaining to the Type-Variety method of pottery classification, perhaps the most detailed and ubiquitous of all such schemes in the Americas. The Type-Variety method was first proposed in 1958 by Wheat, Gifford and Wasley in response to a burgeoning assortment of pottery types from the southwestern United States (Rice 1987:282; Sinopoli 1991:52). With the rapid proliferation of excavated components in this area in the 1930s and 1940s, and an attendant rise in site-specific ceramic appellations, Wheat et al. (1958) recognized the need in the region for a consistent nomenclature. Theirs was also a reaction against the use of more intuitive typologies wherein criteria for membership within type classes were not explicit. Accordingly, the type-variety system was an attempt to bring together numerous local and often esoteric pottery descriptions into a single and methodical regional framework. While Wheat et al. (1958:34) noted that types should “look different” and have a finite spatial and temporal range, they were not primarily concerned with addressing more fundamental matters such as what types were and how exactly they should be defined (Sinopoli 1991:51). These tasks, however, were taken up in a later publication by Gifford (1960) entitled, “The Type-Variety Method of Ceramic Classification as an Indicator of Cultural Phenomena”. In this article, Gifford regarded pottery types as composite units characterized by a specific set of diagnostic attributes. Types were to be distinguished from one another through the use of a binary terminology. The first term was used to refer to the cultural or areal distribution of a type, which could be regional, local or even site-specific in nature. The second term was meant to denote some gross characteristic of paste, surface treatment, or decorative technique (e.g., incised, corded,

The goals of this chapter are to outline the methods employed in this report and to provide a brief description of the sites and assemblages used in the case study. With regard to the first task, attention is drawn to a review of the salient features associated with several classificatory conventions for pottery. In light of the study objectives described earlier, a research design is put forward that combines an attribute-based approach to pottery classification with an analysis of banded linear design symmetry. Specific variables pertaining to vessel morphology and decoration are then described in connection with a hierarchical coding scheme that utilizes both discontinuous and continuous measurement scales. From here, the merits of two data-reduction techniques (i.e., the Robinson-Brainerd Index of Agreement and Correspondence Analysis) are explored. This chapter concludes with an overview of the seven sites selected for analysis and reports on the nature and extent of their ceramic assemblages. Approaches to Pottery Classification At the heart of any empirical study involving artifactual remains is a concern with the classification of entities. Traditional classificatory schemes, particularly those involving pottery, proceed through the use of a typology, which necessitates the arrangement of artifacts into idealized categories or ‘types’. The process is one of class definition wherein groups are defined and arranged according to an internally-consistent array of properties or attributes. In ceramic typologies, the properties that define type membership will vary according to the questions being asked of the data. An analyst concerned with technology would likely want to emphasize construction techniques (e.g., raw materials, paste, surface treatments, etc.) in his or her type definitions, while those concerned with decoration would choose to focus on the nature and extent of motif design. Whatever the variables under examination, all typologies typically seek to capture nonrandom material culture patterning which the researcher, in turn, can attribute to habitual and meaningful decisionmaking processes. The connection between typologies and the behaviour they purport to capture is, however, a subject of considerable and recurrent debate. With regard to pottery types, this debate was initially thrust to the forefront of classificatory concerns during an exchange between James Ford and Albert Spaulding in 1953 (i.e., Ford 1953;

39

construction, could now be easily quantified through the use of computers and subjected to a whole host of multivariate statistical techniques. It was not long before an emphasis was placed on the isolation and study of individual attributes of pottery form and decoration at the expense of more qualitatively-derived ‘one-size-fits-all’ typologies. But by the early 1970s, there was also a concomitant shift in the way such attributes were perceived by archaeologists. The nagging question of whether types were created or discovered was itself largely circumscribed by the adoption of newer classificatory schemes based on the selection of individual attributes best suited to answering specific research questions. In keeping with the Binfordian model of culture outlined in Chapter II, different constellations of attributes were seen as more or less informative depending on the cultural sphere, process or function under investigation (Rice 1987:288). Rice (1987:282) notes that the importance of the typevariety system lies not in its impact on the concept of typology, but rather in its emphasis on providing frameworks for regional ceramic description. Within such frameworks, she points out, pottery from a variety of sites can be compared and spatial and/or temporal change may be discerned. While this objective can, in theory, be accommodated within the type-variety method, it is confronted by two notable barriers. The first concerns the definition of a region. While physiographic features, for example, could and often do aid in such explanations, precontact aboriginal populations frequently sat astride such neat divisions. And since there are no hard and fast rules to which an analyst must adhere when placing material culture in devised classifications, regional analytical entities can be grouped together or split apart at will. This problem is evident in the number and kind of ceramic typologies employed in the area that encompasses western Lake Erie and southern Lake Huron. For example, Fitting’s (1965:158) classification of Wayne ware from southeastern Michigan created one type with six variants. Janet Brashler’s (1973:103) revision of this typology for use in the adjacent Saginaw valley region produced two types with six variants and ten sub-variants. Following Brashler’s research, Halsey (1976:470) created a Saginaw phase for this area and wrote “[a]t the present time the distinction between a Riviere au Vase phase and a Saginaw phase is mainly a geographical convenience”. Such liberties in the creation of new phases and types were also taken by Stothers and Abel (1990:37) in their definition of the early Late Woodland Green Creek phase from northcentral Ohio. Attributes of vessel form and decoration, which in their (1990) estimation warranted the creation of new types (e.g., Green Creek Cordmarked / Fabric Impressed), essentially parallel those qualities that

stamped, etc.). When a minor discrepancy was found to occur in one or two of these attributes, such specimens were to be classed as varieties of the larger type. The typevariety method was seen as hierarchical in its approach to pottery classification: the more finite varieties, together with their more inclusive types, could be placed by the researcher within the broader analytic categories of ceramic systems, complexes or wares (Gifford 1960:344), provided each of these classes was bounded in both space and time. That this system could also be used to approximate cultural norms, in this case the mental templates of artisanal choice, is revealed throughout Gifford’s (1960) publication. For example, with regard to varieties, Gifford (1960:343) wrote that such constructs were “apt to reflect individual and small social group variation”. Such groups “indulged preferences as to the locale where temper or clay must be gathered” and were given to “artistic flairs” in their creation of varieties. Types, on the other hand, revealed the “combination of a number of pottery traits that were acceptable not only to the potter but to most others adhering to a given culture pattern”. These traits “coalesced, consciously or unconsciously, as an... ‘esthetic ideal’ - the boundaries of which were imposed through the value system operative in the society by virtue of individual interaction on a societal level”. Owing to its straightforward and verifiable nature, the type-variety method of pottery classification was quickly adopted throughout much of North and Central America after its initial statement in 1958 (e.g., Gifford 1976; Phillips 1958; Smith et al. 1960; Willey et al.1967). But with a reorientation of archaeological method and theory in the 1970s toward more positivistic models of culture (e.g., Binford 1965; Dunnell 1971; Hill and Evans 1972), concerns with chronology-building and the normative underpinnings associated with this aim soon waned (Rice 1987:286). It did not help that the need for relative measures of time, such as those afforded by ceramic seriation, was alleviated by the growth of radiometric dating techniques. Not surprisingly, the type-variety method came under vociferous attack in the early 1970s as new questions involving function, production and socioeconomic patterns were now being asked of ceramic data (see Dunnell 1971:115; Hill and Evans 1972). These questions called for more detailed and problem-oriented classifications and were advanced in concert with more sophisticated methodological procedures such as computeraided statistical tests and materials analyses. As researchers sought to bring more rigorous methods to bear on their data, they also began to turn their attention to a wider range of ceramic attributes to aid in this task. Interval and ratio scale data, given by variables such as vessel form and

40

which may be more sensitive to spatio-temporal change. Although not addressed by Wright, it is also virtually impossible to compare the types found in one ceramic tradition with those of another, unless each type is broken down and examined according to its constituent attributes. Given that a comparison of Western Basin and Iroquoian pottery forms the substantive portion of this study, the use of typological methods in the furtherance of such an aim would be problematic. An attribute-based approach to pottery classification, quite simply, offers a more objective method for the organization and comparison of assemblages. As well, because the unit of analysis in such an approach is much finer than that of a type, there exists a greater degree of consistency in the identification and measurement of attributes. Furthermore, as attribute definitions are not subject to the kind of periodic revision associated with typologies, the database generated in the course of a study that makes use of attributes is more robust and more easily reconciled with other pottery analyses. At a more fundamental level, however, an emphasis on attributes at the expense of types affords us with the requisite degree of sensitivity needed to investigate the agential qualities of pottery. In light of the conceptual framework outlined in Chapter II, I would suggest that properties of form and decoration in pottery, when properly isolated and studied, provide accessible archaeological correlates for the semiotic functioning of material culture. Elements of form and decoration, by virtue of their capacity for subtle variation and the ease with which they may be manipulated, allow for a differential imprinting of the senses along both discursive and intuitive lines. A marked degree of attribute variability, provided factors of artisanal skill can be accounted for, may reveal the heterogeneous nature of potting practices and point to a series of discursively-organized and locally-situated craft traditions. In contrast, a relatively undifferentiated sample of attributes may betray their functioning as part of a well-knit and more broadly-based craft tradition organized within intuitively-understood design conventions. A detailed, quantitative analysis of attribute variability would be able to speak to these very issues at both an intra- and inter-site level. Such interpretations, of course, must be underwritten by the caveat that attributes are not in and of themselves discursively or intuitively understood, but rather are construed as such by potters through the processes of semiotic mediation. In other words, it is through their emplacement within actor-networks (i.e., the experiential contexts of their production and circulation) that pots collectively shape certain stances and responses from people. To understand this dynamic and how it might vary among communities, it is necessary to appreciate the

Fitting (1965) originally described for Wayne ware. In short, the application of the type-variety method within this area has had the effect of hindering rather than promoting the regional comparisons of ceramic material. This is not to suggest that differences between local design repertoires did not exist in precontact times, but rather that such differences are difficult to discern when painted with a brush as broad as the type-variety method. The second major barrier to a productive comparison of regional pottery samples within the type-variety method concerns the nature of inter-observer bias. To be sure, this problem ensues within any devised classification wherein the criteria for membership within particular types is based on a gradation or overlapping of attributes. In assigning sherds to such types, different researchers can quite easily place the same specimen in different categories. In southern Ontario, for example, Ramsden (1977:16) outlined such a scenario with respect to how his classification of pottery from the Late Ontario Iroquoian Draper site differed from that of J. V. Wright (1966), despite the fact that the samples were drawn “from the same site and [were] virtually identical”. Incongruous frequencies were also observed by Ramsden (1977:16) in regard to the enumeration of types by both Emerson (1968:82) and Pendergast (1964) from the Payne site, and by M. Wright (1986) in his attempt to reconcile an analysis of pottery from the Uren site with a similar study conducted earlier by J. V. Wright (1966). Finally, in a hierarchical cluster analysis of Middle and Late Ontario Iroquoian sites conducted by Lennox and Kenyon (1984:18-20), the authors found a notable discrepancy between the type frequencies presented by Kapches (1981:183) and J. V. Wright (1966:147) from the Milroy and Robb sites. With respect to the former, they note “the Milroy (Kapches) site seems to have little relationship to the Milroy (Wright) site” (Lennox and Kenyon 1984:19). That J. V. Wright’s (1966) type frequencies were shown to be at odds with later studies of Iroquoian ceramics is not surprising, given the likelihood for interobserver bias in comparable typological analyses. But what is remarkable is that Wright would notably (e.g., Wright 1967, 1974, 1980) go on to champion the complete replacement of typological analyses by attribute-based approaches in the study of Iroquoian pottery (see also Pratt 1960, 1976; Ramsden 1977:16). As Wright (e.g., 1967; 1980) states, an attribute-based approach to pottery classification has many distinct advantages over typological methods. In addition to those problems mentioned above (i.e., that type definitions are overly rigid and unable to easily accommodate new data; that certain type definitions are not mutually exclusive) types also tend to obscure patterned variation in individual attributes,

41

degree to which particular lifeways impact on craft regimes as discussed in the previous chapter. Another classificatory means by which inter-observer bias may be controlled and intuitively- versus discursivelyorganized practices teased apart, is through an analysis of design symmetry. The principles of design symmetry originated during the early twentieth century with Russian crystallographers who sought to describe the structure of atoms. This approach makes use of a standardized and finite set of motion classes with which to characterize the spatial arrangement of geometrical forms and their movement across line and around point axes in the generation of a pattern. Because these classes are universal and exist as precise mathematical expressions, the language of symmetry mitigates against inter-observer bias. With respect to pottery decoration, the analytical potential of symmetry was first recognized by George Brainerd (1942) and subsequently developed for use on onedimensional designs by Anna Shepard in a 1948 monograph entitled The Symmetry of Abstract Design with Special Reference to Ceramic Decoration. Since the late 1970s, its most vocal proponent has been Dorothy Washburn, who has published a number of substantive case studies (e.g., 1977, 1983, 1989; Washburn and Matson 1985) and conceptual/methodological treatises (e.g., Washburn 1999; Washburn and Crowe 1988; Washburn and Crowe [eds.] 2004) aimed at exploring the use of design symmetry in various media. Symmetry analyses proceed from the identification of a basic unit or ‘fundamental part’ (Shepard 1976:268), which, when moved by the artisan, forms one of three plane-pattern axial configurations (Figure 7). The first of these configurations, known as finite, occurs when the fundamental part circulates around a point axis until it is met by the original part. Patterns are described as onedimensional infinite when the part travels along a line axis without superimposition upon the original part. Twodimensional infinite patterns operate in a similar fashion, but across two line axes simultaneously. If the fundamental part is not moved, the intended design is said to be asymmetrical. Since the pottery examined in this study is characterized by horizontal bands of decoration, we are primarily concerned with one-dimensional infinite designs within individual bands (intra-band symmetry). But since both Western Basin and Iroquoian potters fashioned designs that exhibit symmetry between bands (inter-band symmetry), it is also necessary to consider one-dimensional infinite configurations across bands. Of course, given the bounded nature of all media, applications of one- and twodimensional symmetrical designs are never truly infinite per se. Moreover, it should be noted that the realization of

a

b

c Figure 7. The three categories of patterned design. A: finite; B: one-dimensional; C: twodimensional. After Washburn and Matson (1985:79). symmetrical designs on pottery is often impacted by the asymmetrical curvature of the pot surface, careless execution, or artisanal intent. Concerning this last proviso, potters may modify a perfect symmetrical design by adding embellishments (Rice 1987:262).

42

propensity for similar symmetrical designs, which is imparted by spatio-temporal trends. Conversely, for more insular or distant groups, design preferences may be internally homogeneous but vary markedly when compared with the preferences of neighbouring populations. This position has been advanced by Washburn (1977:7, 1983:140; Washburn and Matson 1985:82) and others (e.g., Custer 1987a, 1987b; Friedrich 1970:332; Zaslow 1977, 1981:39) and conforms to more generalized equations of style with social distance (e.g., Deetz 1965; Hill 1970; Longacre 1970). The second of these hypotheses concerns the cognitive dimensions of symmetrical design preferences. Since the late 1980s, Washburn (e.g., 1989:158-160, 1999; Washburn and Crowe 1988:19-34) has sought to move past a concern with the use of symmetry as a measure of group interaction and identity, and instead has focussed on how design preferences “encapsulate and thus visually reiterate fundamental principles underpinning a culture’s thought and action” (Washburn 1999:558). Borrowing from the work of the Gestalt school of psychology, Washburn has argued that symmetry is a fundamental element of design form that the human perceptual system intuitively seeks out in the course of identifying and categorizing things. This perceptual process is not learned, but rather is an adaptive trait that is biologically hardwired in the human visual system. The visual system delimits and directs what we see and therefore prefigures our cognitive understanding of various stimuli, affecting the kinds of ‘cultural’ responses that are made (Washburn 1999:548). Gestalt principles of perceptual organization regard symmetrical forms as ‘good’ because their redundant structure reduces uncertainty in the process of categorization. A design with bilateral symmetry (horizontal or vertical reflection) can be predicted by the visual system through inspection of only one half of the form, while asymmetrical designs require more time and effort for the eye to make sense of them. So important is ‘good’ form to perception that individuals will even tend to characterize a slightly asymmetric form as symmetric, disregarding minor irregularities in shape (Freyd and Tversky 1984, quoted in Washburn 1989:159; see also Washburn 1999:551). While Washburn considers such principles universal (e.g., 1989:158, 1999:548) and therefore part of innate mental structures, culturally-specific (i.e., ethnic) styles are said to emerge from particular combinations and manipulations of these principles. Certain symmetry classes are regarded as more salient among particular groups than others and this has been demonstrated archaeologically by Washburn in her analyses of pottery design in the American Southwest (Washburn 1977, 1999;

Fundamental parts are classified according to the motion by which they are repeated. In all plane-pattern axial configurations, symmetry is confined to four forms of motion: translation, rotation, reflection and slide (or glide) reflection (Washburn and Crowe 1988:44-51, Appendix 1). Translation is accomplished by the repeated application of the fundamental part across an imaginary line without any substantive alteration to its orientation. Rotation occurs when the fundamental part is moved around a fixed point. This form of motion is typically executed in a bifold (or twofold) fashion that involves turning the fundamental part 180° (in two 90° segments), which produces opposed parts. In one-dimensional infinite designs, only bifold rotation is found. The third form of motion, reflection, produces a mirror image of the fundamental part across a plane. This motion gives rise to three classes of reflection: horizontal reflection, where the fundamental part is flipped across a horizontal axis; vertical reflection, where the fundamental part is mirrored across a vertical axis; and horizontal and vertical reflection, where the fundamental part is reflected across both axes simultaneously. The last of the four motion categories, slide reflection, makes use of both (horizontal) reflection and translation in an alternating fashion. The fundamental part is reflected across the horizontal axis but positioned ‘ahead’ of the previous part in a pattern that resembles footsteps. Also present in onedimensional infinite designs is what is referred to as alternate rotation and reflection, where the fundamental part is both rotated (180°) and reflected across a vertical axis. Taken together, these patterns result in seven classes of one-dimensional infinite symmetry: (1) translation, (2) bifold rotation, (3) horizontal reflection, (4) vertical reflection, (5) horizontal and vertical reflection, (6) slide reflection and (7) alternate rotation and vertical reflection (Washburn and Crowe 1988:52-56, Appendix 2 and Figure 8 of this study). These seven classificatory devices exhaust all possible symmetrical permutations found in onedimensional infinite designs. Although a crystallographic nomenclature is used by Washburn and Crowe (1988) to describe these seven classes, for ease of understanding, the descriptive labels introduced here will be employed in the remainder of this report. Two theoretical hypotheses have accompanied most previous applications of design symmetry in the classification of pottery decoration. The first of these hypotheses seeks to account for variability, both at the intra- and inter-group level, with respect to design inventories. This variability is most often understood within a model of interaction that treats decorative preferences, like other aspects of style, as a product of the frequency and intensity of contact. Put simply, populations engaged in regular and prolonged interaction will exhibit a

43

Translation

Horizontal Reflection

Vertical Reflection

Bifold Rotation

180°

180°

180° 180°

180°

Horizontal and Vertical Reflection

180°

180°

Alternate Rotation and Reflection 180°

Slide (Glide) Reflection

Figure 8. The seven classes of one-dimensional infinite symmetry (after Washburn and Crowe 1988:59).

44

(Lip Thickness, Collar Height and Basal Collar Thickness), and eight nominal-scale variables (Profile of the Core, Castellation Form, Lip Form, Rim Form, Upper Rim Profile, and Interior, Lip and Exterior Surface Modification). Rim decoration was recorded in connection with the arrangement of decorative elements into horizontal bands. Smith (1997b:69) defines a decorative element as “an observed individual mark or alteration on the surface of a vessel” and such elements can be broken down into three non-continuous variables of tool, technique and motif. While motif can be observed directly, tool and technique use is necessarily inferred from the nature and characteristics of the decorative element. All specimens were examined for evidence of horizontal bands of decoration on the interior, lip and exterior surfaces, and a maximum of four interior bands, two lip bands and eight exterior bands of decoration were recorded. At no point in the analysis did a specimen include more bands of decoration than could be accommodated within these parameters. In addition to attributes of form and decoration, five variables were also included for the purposes of cataloguing and tracking the specimens. These included Site Name, Vessel Number, Catalogue Number, Unit Number and Feature Number. The recording of decorative elements proceeded by means of a taxonomy that includes three levels of classification for tool, four levels for technique and five levels for motif (see Figures 9 through 11). Like biological taxonomies, the levels of decorative classification range from highly inclusive to very selective (Smith 1997b:70). For example, with regard to decorative tools, the most inclusive level (Level 1) makes only the distinction between simple and complex. Simple tools are expanded upon in Level 2 to include pointed styli and linear/curvilinear instruments, while complex tools include dentate and cord-wrapped implements. At the third level of analysis, pointed tools are broken down into round, elliptical, polygonal and annular, while linear/curvilinear tools include straight, curved and wavy/suture varieties. Dentate tools can be subdivided into round/ovate or polygonal varieties, while the direction of the cord twist (‘S’ versus ‘Z’) is noted for cord-wrapped implements. The code also allowed for instances where more than one decorative element was present within a band through the designations of superimposition, horizontal difference and vertical difference. The advantage to using a multiscalar framework such as this lies in the analyst’s ability to better investigate patterns of similarity and difference in the application of various attributes. Adjusting the level of detail afforded to the classification of elements also allows the analyst to more closely approximate what might be considered an ‘emic’ sense of meaningful design. In other

Washburn and Matson 1985), Greece (Washburn 1983) and highland Peru (Wasburn 2004). As well, she has documented this ethnoarchaeologically among cloth weavers from Laos and Zaire (Washburn 1989, 1990) and basket makers from California (Washburn 1986). The study of design symmetry complements an attribute-based approach to decoration by permitting us to further characterize the role pottery plays in organizing manufacturing practices. Although traditionally couched within a structuralist ontology defined by immutable cognitive templates and operationalized according to the social interaction hypothesis, an attempt is made to consider design symmetry within a more relational frame. In keeping with a move away from Cartesian positivism, design symmetry is treated here as a microcosm of the much broader inseparability that exists between mind and matter. Like other aspects of form and decoration in pottery, symmetry in this study is seen as a phenomenon shaped as much by the conditions of its materialization as it is by any mental template. Importantly, to assert such a position is not to argue against a cognitive (intuitive) basis for symmetrical choice, but rather to posit that the nature and extent of the semiotic mediation through which such choices are realized bears upon cognition at a fundamental level. In other words, it is the significative properties of the materials themselves, along with the contexts of their creation and use, that educate the mind, provide objects for interpretants and enable certain forms of action while excluding others. While we are certainly able to evoke an idealized image of things in the world (e.g., through the use of language), material culture makes it possible for the mind to think through the properties of things, in action, without recourse to abstract representation (Malafouris 2005:58). It is through a situated engagement with artifacts that cognitive structures such as symmetry preferences ultimately emerge and become transformed. Pottery Code and Classification Procedures Pottery specimens examined as part of this study are described according to a classificatory code originally developed by David G. Smith in the mid 1980s for use among Iroquoian assemblages (e.g., Smith 1991, 1997b). Since this time, Smith has subjected this code to a series of alterations and refinements that have broadened its analytical import and allowed for its successful application among earlier Late Woodland materials (Bekerman 1995; Watts 1997). A copy of this code appears in Appendix A. The code employs both discrete and continuous variables in the description of attributes of rim form and decoration. For each specimen, eleven attributes of rim form were examined, including three ratio-scale variables

45

Figure 9. Hierarchical chart for variable ‘Tool’. were recorded. For example, if one band contains Right Obliques, while the band underneath it contains Left Obliques, the inter-band symmetry would be recorded as reflection. Classificatory procedures for each of the seven collections under study began with a vessel sort. To ascertain the nature of a ceramic collection, the vessel is considered by most researchers to be the most appropriate analytical entity due to the nature of vessel fragmentation, the non-random distribution of pottery across a site and the vagaries of archaeological recovery (Wright 1980:22). Although the term ‘vessel’ implies a complete pot, these are rarely recovered from archaeological contexts in the Northeast and thus rim sherds are regarded as suitable proxies. Sorting was undertaken by first identifying and extracting rim and neck sherds from the pottery sample and placing these specimens on a table. Rim and neck sherds were then arranged according to their depositional context, either within units or features, to aid in the identification of physical and inferred mends. Physical mends involve the actual fitting together of two fragments, while inferred

words, rather than imposing a rigid and ‘etic’ classificatory scheme upon an assemblage, the use of a graduated pottery code affords us the flexibility to examine those levels of data which might best reveal purposeful design practices. The recording of one-dimensional infinite symmetry followed the seven motion classes indicated earlier and is intimately tied to the motif which characterizes a band. For example, the hierarchical chart for motif contained in Figure 11 indicates that, at Level 5, it is possible to distinguish between the orientations of line and punctate elements. Once this information is known, the analyst is then able to discern the underlying symmetrical property of a band. In the case of a band comprised entirely of Line Right Obliques, the intra-band motion class would be translation. Similarly, if a band were made up of alternating Right and Left Obliques, the intra-band motion class would be vertical reflection. When all bands of decoration for a specimen were known, it was then possible to examine each surface for evidence of inter-band symmetry, although in this study only the symmetrical properties of exterior surface bands

46

Figure 10. Hierarchical chart for variable ‘Technique’. it was therefore possible to admit specimens for analysis that did not meet all of these criteria. For our purposes, a specimen was considered analyzable if it contained two of the three vessel surfaces (i.e., any combination of interior, lip and exterior) with at least one band of decoration per surface. While these criteria permitted the analysis of several otherwise inadmissible specimens, they carried with them the unfortunate consequence that not all samples would be equal in their proportions of decoration under study. Accordingly, some of the decorative attribute totals from smaller and more fragmentary collections, particularly those totals pertaining to Bands 3 through 8 of the exterior, may be biased in relation to those collections with larger and more complete assemblages. Upon completion of the vessel count, data were then collected for each specimen according to the variables of form, decoration and symmetry identified above. Data were entered into a database designed specifically for this study. Eighty-two fields consisting of drop-down lists and userdefined boxes were organized according to variables of

mends are made on the basis that two specimens can be reasonably assigned to the same vessel due to close similarities in attributes of form, diameter, colour, surface treatment and decoration. Physical mends were made between rim and neck sherds wherever possible. Both physical and inferred mends between rims were then noted by systematically comparing each specimen to every other specimen on the table. Although time-consuming, this task was considered necessary to arrive at an accurate vessel count. An enumeration of vessels was performed once this task was complete. After the vessel sort, an assessment was made of each rim specimen’s analytical potential. Among Iroquoianists, the rim sherd is considered a suitable analytic entity only if it can be said to contain intact interior, lip and exterior surfaces including a portion of the neck (Ramsden 1977:61-62; Warrick 1984:122; Wright 1980). These surfaces are regarded as essential for the successful identification of types within the MacNeish (1952) framework (Smith 1997b:57). Since neither Iroquoian nor Western Basin types would be distinguished in this study,

47

Figure 11. Hierarchical chart for variable ‘Motif’.

48

both row and column headers, with the maximum similarity value of 200 placed along the principal diagonal indicating the complete agreement of an assemblage with itself. Indices are then inserted into the various cells to display similarity between two assemblages. As the matrix is symmetrical, the figures presented on one side of the principal diagonal are the ‘mirror image’ of figures that appear on the other side (Marquardt 1978:265). While the Robinson-Brainerd Index provides a gross measure of similarity between two assemblages according to a particular variable, a more powerful multivariate measure was needed to simultaneously assess similarity both within and between assemblages. Correspondence Analysis was selected as an appropriate technique because it is designed to analyze contingency tables that evince some measure of similarity between the rows and columns. It seeks to translate tabular (numerical) data into a graphical display whereby each row and each column is depicted as a point. This exploratory technique was developed in France by Jean-Paul Benzérci in the late 1960s (Benzérci 1973) and has only recently gained popularity among English-speaking statisticians (Shennan 1988:283). Important features of Correspondence Analysis include its ability to simultaneously examine relationships among multiple categorical variables and express these relationships in low-dimensional space. The multivariate nature of the analysis also permits the identification of relationships that would otherwise not be detected in simple pair-wise comparisons of a variable, like the Robinson-Brainerd method. As well, through the graphical display of row and column points in biplots, the analyst is better able to see structural relationships among cases and variables. Finally, unlike Principal Components and Factor Analysis, which require the pre-calculation of similarity coefficients and only work with variables of normallydistributed continuous-scale data, Correspondence Analysis has highly flexible data parameters. It works directly on raw frequencies contained in simple matrices, thereby contributing very little in the way of information loss. Moreover, unlike other multivariate techniques, Correspondence Analysis allows one to simultaneously measure relationships between cases, between variables and between cases and variables together, and can summarize the information on the same biplot (Shennan 1988:284). Correspondence Analysis works by first computing the relative frequencies of a data matrix, such that the sum of all the entries is equal to 1.0. It then examines how this figure, known as mass, is distributed across the cells and computes what is referred to as row and column masses. If the rows and columns in a table are entirely independent of one another, the relative frequencies in the table (i.e., the

provenience, nature and form, decoration, and symmetry. For reference purposes, once data from a sherd had been input, a series of up to three digital (.jpeg) images of the specimen was generated (one for each of interior, lip and exterior) using a flatbed scanner. Whole or partiallyreconstructed vessels that could not be scanned because of their size or morphology were instead photographed using a digital camera. Images of each specimen were then attached to corresponding records within the database. Again, while somewhat painstaking, this process proved quite valuable, particularly during the analysis stage when some collections were not immediately accessible for reference. Once all rim specimens from each collection had been classified, data were tabulated according to the levels of detail contained in the pottery code. While all levels of detail for each collection were initially examined, it quickly became apparent that Levels 1 and 2, owing to their more general nature, provided little in the way of analytical import. As such, only the more exhaustive formats (i.e., Level 3 and, where present, Level 4) were considered for further study. Analytical Methods Tabular data for each of the variables included in the analysis were subjected to two statistical measures of similarity: the Robinson-Brainerd Index of Agreement (Robinson 1951; Brainerd 1951) and Correspondence Analysis (Benzérci 1973; Bølviken et al. 1982). As Shennan (1988:208) notes, the Robinson-Brainerd index was specifically designed to measure similarity between pottery assemblages. It is based on the assumption that similar assemblages will have consistent attribute frequencies and is calculated by subtracting from 200 the sum of the absolute differences between two frequencies from all defined categories of a particular variable (Marquardt 1978:264). The sum of 200 (%) is used as this figure represents the maximum possible agreement between two assemblages. Likewise, a value of 0 (%) represents the maximum possible disagreement (difference) between any two assemblages. The formula is:

where P is the percentage representation of attribute or type k in assemblages I and j. Indices of agreement are best displayed in a symmetrical matrix, where assemblages are listed along

49

any substantive Western Basin or Early Ontario Iroquoian ceramic materials. Consequently, the composition of the sample used herein was influenced to a large extent by the availability of suitable and accessible collections. Fortunately, each of these collections can be ascribed to a temporal span of ca. AD 1100-1300 (see Table 2 and Figure 12), although this remained somewhat speculative for the Krieger and Cassady materials until the receipt of four new radiocarbon assays early in 2004. The number of vessels associated with each collection appears in Table B.1 of Appendix B.

distribution of mass) can be reproduced from the respective row and column totals alone. Correspondence Analysis makes use of the Chi-square statistic to test for this by computing expected frequencies, which are equal to each column total multiplied by each row total, divided by the grand total. Any deviations from the expected frequencies (given by a hypothesis of complete independence of the row and column variables) will contribute to the overall Chi-square statistic. Thus, in effect, Correspondence Analysis breaks down the Chi-Square statistic into its constituent parts and identifies the smallest number of dimensions upon which deviations from the expected values can be represented. These dimensions are then ‘extracted’ so as to maximize the distances between the row or column points, or both, and successive dimensions will explain less and less of the overall Chi-square value, also known as inertia. Correspondence Analysis biplots ‘explain’ as much of this inertia as possible according to two of these dimensions, represented by the x and y axes of the biplot. The inertia values represent the relative contributions each dimension makes to the overall Chisquare value. In other words, the higher the inertia value, the greater the number of relative frequencies (from the tabular data) that can be reconstructed according to the dimension associated with that figure. Having discussed the classificatory conventions, pottery code, laboratory procedures and analytical techniques employed in this report, what remains is a summary description of the seven ceramic assemblages under examination. Each of these collections is described according to their nature and extent, beginning with an assessment of site history and excavation methods, settlement patterning, available radiocarbon determinations and previous research.

Krieger (AcHm-1) Of the seven sites included in the analysis, Krieger is perhaps one of the better known and yet poorly understood of all Late Woodland occupations in southwestern Ontario. While a brief site report (Kidd 1954) and preliminary statement on the nature of its human burials (Kidd 1956) exists, as well as an analysis of ceramic materials recovered from a small portion of the site (Jarvis 1996), no detailed examination of Krieger materials has ever been undertaken for the site as a whole. Furthermore, as the vast majority of the site was excavated at a time when very little was known about the Late Woodland period in southwestern Ontario, Krieger has never been interpreted within a regional context. Krieger is located in Kent County, immediately east of the present-day city of Chatham. It is situated on a broad, flat terrace approximately 100 m south of the Thames River and is approximately 0.4 ha in extent (Figure 13). The site was brought to the attention of Kenneth Kidd, then a Curator in the Department of Ethnology at the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM), in November of 1948 by Neil Coppieters, a local avocational archaeologist. At that time, Coppieters, along with Stanley Wortner, had conducted limited surface survey and test excavations at the site, and had uncovered “23 pits and two or three burials” (Kidd 1954:141). Coppieters later donated the materials recovered during the course of his investigations to the ROM, although these materials were unprovenienced. In June of 1949, Kidd excavated more than 400 m2 of the site and recovered more than 4200 artifacts, primarily pottery sherds, bone and stone tools and chert debitage. A representative sample of faunal and some botanical remains were also collected. Although no structures were encountered during the excavations, some 54 discrete and overlapping pit features were documented, along with a small secondary burial feature containing eight individuals. Given this settlement pattern, Krieger likely represents a campsite which was occupied repeatedly over the course of several seasons. Measured drawings were made of each

The Sample A sample of pottery from both Western Basin and Ontario Iroquoian sites was selected to further the goals of this study. The sample consists of 825 vessels drawn from seven collections, three of which are attributable to Western Basin (Younge) populations (Krieger, Dymock and Cherry Lane), three to Early Ontario Iroquoian peoples (DeWaele, Cassady and Kelly), and one, Van Bree, to a purported co-occupation of both Western Basin (Younge) and Early Ontario Iroquoian groups. In an effort to generate materials for this study, it should be mentioned that a program of survey and test excavation was conducted during a 24-week period in the summers of 2000 and 2001 (see Smith and Watts 2001). While over 140 or previously unregistered sites were located, several of which were test excavated, these activities did not produce

50

Site Name

Lab No.

14

Krieger

S-620

Krieger

C age

Calibrated calendrical dates 68.2% prob. (1 sigma)

95.4% prob. (2 sigma)

1350 ± 140

AD 560-870

AD 400-1000

TO-11463*

770 ± 40

AD 1220-1275

AD 1180-1290

Dymock

I-12149

945 ± 80

AD 1010-1180

AD 900-920 (1.3%) AD 960-1260 (94.1%)

Dymock

I-12150

910 ± 80

AD 1030-1190 (67.4%) AD 1200-1210 (0.8%)

AD 990-1270

Dymock

I-12151

850 ± 80

AD 1050-1090 (12.2%) AD 1120-1140 (3.9%) AD 1150-1270 (52.1%)

AD 1020-1280

Dymock

I-12152

890 ± 80

AD 1040-1220

AD 1010-1280

Dymock

I-12478

940 ± 80

AD 1020-1180

AD 970-1260

Dymock

I-12479

1030 ± 80

AD 890-1050 (54.1%) AD 1080-1150 (14.1%)

AD 810-1210

AD 1030-1280

Cherry Lane

I-11902

850 ± 75

AD 1050-1090 (11.4%) AD 1120-1140 (2.5%) AD 1150-1270 (54.3%)

Cherry Lane

BGS-1266

770 ± 70

AD 1180-1290

AD 1040-1090 (4.5%) AD 1120-1320 (85.5%) AD 1350-1390 (5.5%)

Cherry Lane

BGS-1267

950 ± 70

AD 1020-1160

AD 970-1250

Cherry Lane

BGS-1268

875 ± 70

AD 1040-1100 (22.8%) AD 1110-1220 (45.4%)

AD 1020-1270

Cherry Lane

BGS-1269

830 ± 70

AD 1050-1070 (1.9%) AD 1150-1280 (66.3%)

AD 1030-1290

Van Bree

BGS-2149

947 ± 50

AD 1020-1060 (19.3%) AD 1070-1160 (48.9%)

AD 990-1210

51

Site Name

Lab No.

14

Van Bree

BGS-2150

Kelly

C age

Calibrated calendrical dates 68.2% prob. (1 sigma)

95.4% prob. (2 sigma)

970 ± 50

AD 1010-1060 (23.3%) AD 1070-1160 (44.9%)

AD 980-1190

I-11474

790 ± 80

AD 1160-1290

AD 1030-1310 (92.5%) AD 1360-1390 (2.9%)

Kelly

I-11475

1120 ± 80

AD 780-790 (1.3%) AD 810-1020 (66.9%)

AD 680-1040

Kelly

I-12061

850 ± 80

AD 1050-1090 (12.2%) AD 1120-1140 (3.9%) AD 1150-1270 (52.1%)

AD 1020-1280

Kelly

TO-8963*

770 ± 50

AD 1215-1280

AD 1160-1300

Cassady

BGS-2513

793 ± 35

AD 1215-1265

AD 1170-1280

Cassady

BGS-2514

931 ± 40

AD 1030-1160

AD 1020-1190

Cassady

BGS-2515

838 ± 40

AD 1160-1255

AD 1040-1090 (7.4%) AD 1120-1140 (2.1%) AD 1150-1280 (85.8%)

DeWaele

I-6411

900 ± 90

AD 1030-1220

AD 980-1280

DeWaele

I-6412

855 ± 55

AD 1050-1080 (11.8%) AD 1120-1140 (1.1%) AD 1150-1260 (55.3%)

AD 1030-1270

* AMS date. Calibrated using the program OxCal 3.10 (Bronk Ramsey 2005). Calibration dataset given by Reimer et al. (2004). Calendrical dates rounded to the nearest 10 years.

Table 2. Radiocarbon dates from sites selected for study.

52

Krieger S-620 1350 ± 140 BP Krieger TO-11463 770 ± 40 BP Dymock I-12149 950 ± 80 BP Dymock I-12150 910 ± 80 BP Dymock I-12151 850 ± 80 BP Dymock I-12152 890 ± 80 BP Dymock I-12478 940 ± 80 BP Dymock I-12479 1030 ± 80 BP Cherry Lane I-11902 850 ± 75 BP Cherry Lane BGS-1266 770 ± 70 BP Cherry Lane BGS-1267 950 ± 70 BP Cherry Lane BGS-1268 880 ± 70 BP Cherry Lane BGS-1269 830 ± 70 BP Van Bree BGS-2149 950 ± 50 BP Van Bree BGS-2150 970 ± 50 BP Kelly I-11474 790 ± 80 BP Kelly I-11475 1120 ± 80 BP Kelly I-12061 850 ± 80 BP Kelly TO-8963 770 ± 50 BP Cassady BGS-2513 800 ± 35 BP Cassady BGS-2514 930 ± 40 BP Cassady BGS-2515 840 ± 40 BP DeWaele I-6411 900 ± 90 BP

10 00 11 00 12 00 13 00 14 00 15 00

90 0

80 0

70 0

60 0

50 0

40 0

30 0

20 0

10 0

0

DeWaele I-6412 860 ± 55 BP

Calibrated calendrical date ranges (years AD) *AMS Date. Calibrated using the program OxCal 3.10 (Bronk Ramsey 2005); atmospheric data from Reimer et al (2004). Dates rounded to the nearest 10 years.

Figure 12. Calibrated calendrical date ranges.

53

FLOODPLAIN

Trent Excavations (1970)

SL OP

E

S-620 1350 ± 140 BP

BR

EA K-I N-

TO-11463 770 ± 40 BP

BARN

TERRACE

N

0

5 metres

10

Figure 13. Plan view of the Krieger site (AcHm-1) showing the location of the 1949 ROM excavations, the 1970 Trent excavations (top right) and the contexts from which the two radiocarbon dates were derived. The stylized circles represent pit features, while the stippled area in the lower lef-hand corner represents the location of the secondary burial feature. 54

With the exception of three rims recovered from the surface and 39 rim sherds and sections associated with the Coppieters donation, all of these specimens were provenienced. One of these specimens, recovered during the 1949 excavations, exists as a fully-reconstructed vessel (KR-104, illustrated in Kidd [1954:156 Figure 8, left]) and was on display in the Ontario Gallery of the ROM at the time of the analysis. This specimen was found in association with the faunal element selected for AMS dating. Only one physical crossmend was identified in the collection (KR-026), between a small rim sherd found during the 1949 excavations and a large vessel section associated with the Coppieters donation. Of the 103 vessels identified in the ROM collections, most are represented by highly fragmentary rim sherds. Approximately 70% of the collection (n=72) contains only one or two bands of exterior decoration. While numerous large sherds and reconstructed vessel sections are present in the collection, many of these vessels are not provenienced. Indeed, of those 31 vessels that display more than two bands of exterior decoration, only 13% (n=4) can be attributed to the ROM excavations. Attempts to re-fit both provenienced and unprovenienced rim sherds with applicable neck and shoulder sherds did not, sadly, increase the decorative completeness of the vessel collection. Additional pottery sherds recovered from the Krieger site during the 1970 excavations were loaned by Trent University to the University of Toronto at Mississauga for the purposes of this study and were examined in August of 2003. These sherds were the subject of an earlier analysis by Dale Jarvis (Jarvis 1996). In the present study, nine additional vessels were identified during the vessel sort and numbered sequentially in the database records using a ‘KT’ code (e.g., KT-001). Six rim sherds were fully provenienced, while two specimens were identified as surface finds. One rim sherd was unprovenienced with the exception of the initials “S.W.” (for Stanley Wortner) and the words “ceramic cluster”. No crossmends (physical or inferred) were identified either within this collection, or between these rim sherds and those found in the ROM collections. Finally, a fully-reconstructed vessel, donated to the Chatham-Kent Museum between 1949 and 1954 by Neil Coppieters, was examined in April of 2004. The existence of this specimen was suggested by Kidd (1954:157), who provided an illustration of a vessel along with the caption “Vessel excavated and restored by Mr. John Gazarek and now in the Kent-Chatham Museum at Chatham”. Upon arrival at the Museum, however, a different vessel, not illustrated anywhere in Kidd (1954), was presented for study. The specimen illustrated in Kidd (1954) could not be

feature during the 1949 excavation and a generalized plan of the excavation appears in Kidd’s (1954) publication (see Figure 13 herein). In October of 1970, Richard Inglis of Trent University returned to Krieger to conduct additional excavations. A 90 m2 area of the site immediately to the northeast of the 1949 excavations was examined at this time. According to Last (1974:15), while pottery and faunal remains constitute the largest part of the 1970 assemblage, one human skull was also recovered. A charcoal sample associated with this skull returned a radiocarbon date of 1350 BP ± 140 which, when calibrated, points to an occupation in the early eighth century AD (see Table 2 and Figure 12). Despite the early date, Last (1974) suggested the Krieger site was an Early Ontario Iroquoian manifestation, while Murphy and Ferris (1990:226) have instead assigned the site to the Younge phase of the Western Basin Tradition. To establish a temporal placement for Krieger, it was decided that a series of conventional radiometric assays should be obtained from suitable contexts at the site. Unfortunately, as flotation samples were not collected during the 1949 investigations, very little in the way of botanical remains exists within the ROM collections. Indeed, the entire carbonized wood sample weighs less than 500g, the minimum sample weight needed to obtain a conventional 14C date. As such, individual faunal elements were considered for AMS dating but, because of the higher cost associated with this technique, only one assay could be run. Permission was obtained from the curator of the collection, Dr. Mima Kapches, to remove one white-tailed deer scapula from the faunal collection and submit this to the IsoTrace Laboratory at the University of Toronto for AMS dating. This element was selected due to its relatively large size and its association with a reconstructed vessel recovered from a sealed context during the excavations (see below). A date of 770 BP ± 40 (TO-11463) was returned, which calibrates to between AD 1220 and 1275 at the 68.2% confidence interval (Table 2). While a thirteenth century placement was not anticipated, this confidence interval accords reasonably well with the late stages of the Younge phase (AD 900-1200). A late Younge phase assignment for Krieger is also suggested by the virtual absence of Springwells phase pottery within the collections. A total of 1416 fragments of pottery was recovered from the Krieger site during the 1949 excavations and as part of the Coppieters donation, of which 437 were classified by Kidd (1954:155) as rim, neck and shoulder sherds. In February and March of 2003, I examined this collection at the ROM. One hundred and three vessels were identified during the vessel sort and numbered sequentially in the database records using a ‘KR’ code (e.g., KR-001).

55

measuring approximately 7 m by 13 m was documented within the area between the two knolls. The house is characterized by a single row of postmolds that encapsulates three storage pits, hearths and a complex of smaller ash and refuse pits. Most of the western wall of this structure could not be identified in the field. Additional subsurface features located approximately 15 m northeast of this house may represent a second structure, but were destroyed during road servicing between March and June of 1988 (Ferris and Mayer 1990:8). The vast majority of the ceramic material recovered during the three investigations of the Cherry Lane site can be attributed to the Younge phase of the Western Basin Tradition. Exceptions include a small Middle Woodland presence represented by a thick, grit-tempered and crudely manufactured vessel from Feature 86b, and two Springwells phase rims recovered from Features 51 and 64 (Ferris and Mayer 1990:19). Neither Reid (1981) nor Timmins (1989) reported finding similar materials in their respective investigations of the site. Support for a primarily Younge phase occupation of Cherry Lane is enhanced by five conventional 14C dates obtained by both Reid and Ferris and Mayer (1990) from pit feature charcoal samples. As Table 2 indicates, these five dates fall within the early twelfth through mid-thirteenth century AD, which is consistent with a Younge phase temporal placement. One of these dates, 770 BP ± 70 (BGS-1266), obtained from Feature 14 and located within the house structure, is statistically identical to the AMS determination returned from the Krieger site. A total of 2400 pottery sherds was recovered from the 1988 investigations of the Cherry Lane site (Ferris and Mayer 1990:Appendix 1), of which five were classified as vessel sections, 44 as rim sherds and 254 as neck sherds. In February of 2004, arrangements were made with Neal Ferris of the Ontario Ministry of Culture for loan of this collection to the University of Toronto at Mississauga where it was examined. Thirty-four vessels were enumerated during the vessel sort, exclusive of those specimens identified by Ferris and Mayer (1990:19) as of Middle Woodland and Springwells origin. The vessels were represented for the most part by extremely fragmentary rim sherds and numbered sequentially in the database records using a ‘CH’ code (e.g., CH-001). All of these vessels were provenienced. Attempts to re-fit rim sherds with related neck and shoulder specimens did not yield any larger units beyond those already reconstructed by Ferris and Mayer (1990). Table B.4 in Appendix B provides data with respect to exterior decorative completeness. Fourteen vessels, or roughly 41% of the collection, contained only one band of decoration, while the remainder of the collection yielded only two bands of

located with the collections of the Chatham-Kent Museum, nor did the Museum have any documentation pertaining to this ‘new’ vessel other than a note that indicated it was from the Krieger site. The vessel was analyzed, photographed and assigned a ‘KC’ code. The addition of this specimen brought to 113 the total number of vessels analyzed as part of the Krieger collections. Cherry Lane (AaHp-21) Cherry Lane is located in Essex County, within the town limits of Leamington. The site is approximately 1 ha in extent and is situated on and around two sandy knolls immediately west of Leamington Creek (Figure 14). Cherry Lane is one of a series of multicomponent campsites within the Point Pelee environs and occupied intermittently from Middle Woodland through Springwells phase times (ca. AD 500-1400). In 1980, Dr. Peter Reid of the University of Windsor began examining several of these sites in advance of a proposed housing development and conducted a controlled surface collection of the Cherry Lane site in the process. His 1980 investigations (Reid 1981) also involved the excavation of two small test trenches within the eastern portion of the site, which revealed numerous large storage pit features. Based on the ceramic sample recovered, Reid suggested that the Cherry Lane site was occupied primarily between AD 900 and 1100 (Reid 1981:15) during Younge phase times. The Younge phase association was later confirmed by a conventional 14C date of 850 ± 75 (I-11902) (see Table 2), which Reid obtained from wood charcoal found within a subsurface feature. Two additional mitigative excavations were organized in the late 1980s by the Ontario Ministry of Culture when it became clear that the site was to be developed. The first was conducted in March of 1988 by the Museum of Indian Archaeology (now the Museum of Ontario Archaeology) under the direction of Peter Timmins (Timmins 1989). This work involved the mechanical removal of topsoils and hand excavation of subsurface features within a road allowance located in the northern portion of the site. The second of these excavations focussed on the remainder of the site and was carried out over a three-week period in June of 1988 by archaeologists associated with the CRM firm of Mayer, Poulton and Associates Inc. and the Ontario Ministry of Culture (Ferris and Mayer 1990). Topsoils were removed through the use of heavy equipment and the entire site area south of the road allowance was shovelshined and mapped. Eighty-eight settlement features, primarily storage and refuse pits, were then handexcavated, with a portion of the organically-rich features taken for flotation. The remains of a single house

56

10

0

N

Musuem of Indian Archaeology Excavations (1988) 0

20

0

metres

15

0

P. Reid Excavations (1980)

Disturbance

0

25

BGS-1266 770 ± 70

BGS-1268 875 ± 70

House 20 0

BGS-1267 950 ± 70

300

250

0

15

BGS-1266 770 ± 70

Disturbance

Hearth 200

Pit Feature

Figure 14. Plan view of the Cherry Lane site (AaHp-21) showing areas of excavation and disturbance, contexts from which the radiocarbon dates were derived, and settlement and topographic features. A stylized depiction of the house structure is visible in the centre of the figure. After Ferris and Mayer (1990:4).

57

20

(1998:44) that, while the vast majority of the ceramic designs were attributable to Younge phase potters, the presence of exterior criss-cross and horizontal rim motifs “gives a minority of the vessels in the assemblage a decided[ly] Glen Meyer look”. The presence of Early Ontario Iroquoian pottery at Van Bree was suggested by Archaeologix (1998:47) to have resulted from particularly strong ties between Younge phase groups and Early Ontario Iroquoian populations living on the Caradoc Sand Plain some 20 km to the east. That a substantive quantity of carbonized maize was also found in pit feature fills provided further support to the notion that “there was a good deal of communication between [Younge and Early Ontario Iroquoian] groups” (Archaeologix 1998:47). Pottery from Van Bree was initially analyzed by Jerimy Cunningham (1999) as part of a Masters thesis. Rather than representing a primarily Younge phase occupation augmented by Iroquoian influences or interaction, Cunningham (1999:45-66) instead argued that Van Bree consisted of a co-occupation by both Younge phase and Early Ontario Iroquoian groups. His intra-site analysis, which incorporated crossmend data, indicated that the arrangement of features across the site could be subdivided into three clusters, which he termed “West”, “Central” and “East”. Younge phase pottery was primarily confined to the West Cluster, which encompasses the house structure and pit features to its immediate southwest, and was characterized by “extreme diversity” in the kind and degree of decoration applied to vessel surfaces (Cunningham 1999:46). In contrast to this pattern, pottery from the Central Cluster, which includes those features found immediately to the east of the house structure, was described as “more decoratively homogeneous” than the West Cluster (Cunningham 1999:52) and largely representative of Early Ontario Iroquoian pottery designs. Cunningham (1999:53) understood the East Cluster, which includes a thin scatter of features bereft of crossmends, to represent an earlier Riviere au Vase occupation of the site. One conventional 14C date of 947 BP ± 50 (BGS-2149) from the West Cluster and another conventional 14C date of 970 ± 50 (BGS-2150) from the Central Cluster were obtained by Cunningham (1999:41) as part of his analysis and suggest that both clusters could have been used at the same time. The Van Bree pottery collection examined by Cunningham (1999) was obtained from Neal Ferris at the Ontario Ministry of Culture and re-analyzed at the University of Toronto at Mississauga in December of 2003. For the purposes of this study, it was decided, at least during the initial analysis, to treat the collection as a whole rather than subdividing it according to clusters. This decision was made in light of the fact that Cunningham

decoration. Two physical and two inferred crossmends were noted in regard to specimen CH-011, which was distributed across five features in the extreme northeast portion of the site. An additional inferred mend was recorded for CH-017 between two features located in the same portion of the site. In an effort to increase sample size and quality, attempts were made to examine the ceramic materials collected by Peter Reid during his 1980 investigation of the site. Although of a highly fragmentary nature as well, Reid (1981:24) notes that more than 4000 sherds were recovered during both survey and test excavation of the site. This collection includes “about 100 rims, and 125 other decorated sherds” which suggested to him “that at least 215 vessels [were] represented”. Reid was contacted in February 2004 but permission to examine the collection was denied. Van Bree (AgHk-32) The Van Bree site was encountered by the CRM firm Archaeologix Inc. in March of 1998 during an archaeological survey of a proposed aggregate extraction pit in Lambton County, near the modern town of Arkona. At that time, a roughly 0.5 ha artifact scatter was identified along a pronounced northeast-southwest trending ridge, which included five plough-disturbed features (Archaeologix 1998:1). Diagnostic artifacts recovered during a controlled surface collection and test excavation of the site suggested a primary occupation during Younge phase times, although materials associated with the Early Woodland (ca. 950-450 BC) and Early Late Woodland (ca. AD 600-900) periods were also found. Mitigative excavations, conducted between May and June of 1998, involved the mechanical removal of topsoils and hand excavation of subsurface features across the site area. These activities confirmed the temporal and cultural affiliation of the Van Bree site and resulted in the identification of 74 subsurface features, the remains of one house structure and several isolated posts (Archaeologix 1998:5; see Figure 15 herein). The house structure, which could not be completely identified in the field, measured 12 m in length and approximately 6-7 m in width, and would have enclosed several small refuse and storage pits. This house resembles the structure encountered on the Cherry Lane site in that both share similar dimensions, interior feature types and an incomplete exposure. The pottery assemblage recovered during the mitigative excavations at Van Bree consists of 49 rim sherds and reconstructed vessel sections, 131 neck sherds, 1069 body sherds and portions of two juvenile vessels (Archaeologix 1998:27, 44). It was noted by Archaeologix

58

ton C o

unty R

245

244

245

244 Lamb

oad 1

2

246 247

245

248

246

249

247

250

Site Area 251

254

252 253

N 100

metres

0

Building

Tree

5 24 46 7 2 24 8 24 9 24

0

25

345° orth etic N n g Ma

BGS-2149 950 ± 50 BP

N

BGS-2150 970 ± 50 BP

(Grid)

Block Excavation

0

metres

15

Feature

Postmold

Figure 15. Setting (top) and plan view (bottom) of the Van Bree site (AgHk-32). Pit features from which the two radiometric dates were obtained are depicted in the plan view of the site. After Archaeologix (1998:6). (1999) does not explicitly define which attributes of form and decoration he considers to be Younge and which he regards as Early Ontario Iroquoian. References are made to Younge vessels having triangular motifs and elongated necks (Cunningham 1999:35) while Early Ontario

Iroquoian pottery contains rows of oblique and/or hatched linear stamps (Cunningham 1999:40), but in the absence of expressed criteria for membership in either category, it was considered prudent here to explore alternative interpretations for the intra-site patterning at Van Bree.

59

collection were typified by fragmentary rim sherds, although several rim sections and reconstructed vessel sections are present in the collection. Efforts aimed at refitting some of the smaller specimens in the collection with neck and shoulder sherds, beyond those mended previously by Archaeologix (1998) and Cunningham (1999), failed to produce any appreciable change in decorative completeness. With regard to the number of exterior bands under observation, of the 47 specimens examined, 30% (n=14) contained evidence of decoration on Band 1, while 23% (n=11) provided attribute data for both Bands 1 and 2. Fully 34% (n=16) contained three bands of decoration, while 13% (n=6) had between four and five bands of decoration.

If we accept that both the West and Central Clusters were occupied at the same time, one such alternative would be that we are witnessing at Van Bree a form of syncretic social identity, to the extent that this is encapsulated in pottery styles. Due, however, to “distinct tendencies in attribute selection” (Cunningham 1999:40) between the two clusters, this approach is never fully explored. While Cunningham (1999:46-58) later describes these tendencies, it would appear that none are unique to either Younge or Early Ontario Iroquoian design repertoires. Moreover, while clearly beyond his control, these patterns are based on relatively small sample sizes. For example, with regard to rim decoration (Band 1), the West Cluster is represented by only 15 vessels, while 25 vessels are associated with the Central Cluster (Cunningham 1999:122). Distinct differences between the clusters are, however, apparent, particularly in regard to attributes of form and the decorative variability and complexity associated with each of the sub-samples. Indeed, this last observation would appear to inform much of Cunningham’s (1999:58-66) discussion of how Younge and Early Ontario Iroquoian potters can be recognized archaeologically and his treatment is instructive. Highly variable designs are indicative of Younge phase groups, while more standardized practices of pottery production are typical of Early Ontario Iroquoian artisans, a sentiment discussed in Chapter III of this study and examined in more detail later on. Thus, rather than approach Van Bree with any a priori assumptions regarding its ‘ethnic’ makeup, the collection was treated as a single entity during the analysis. This includes vessels recovered from the East Cluster and identified by Cunningham (1999:53) as having a Riviere au Vase “character”. A cursory examination of this subsample revealed that one large vessel section may indeed be defined as Wayne ware, but since Murphy and Ferris (1990:225) regard Wayne in southwestern Ontario as a transitional ware between Riviere au Vase and Younge phase times, it was included in the present analysis. Other vessels recovered from the East Cluster are more clearly associated with later developments, particularly those specimens recovered from Feature 8. Forty-seven vessels, all of which are provenienced, were identified during the vessel sort and assigned a ‘VB’ code. Vessel number designations conform, for the most part, to those given in previous analyses by Archaeologix (1998) and Cunningham (1999). Exceptions include two inferred mends not identified in the two previous assessments of this collection. An additional specimen, VB-050, was established during the analysis, but does not appear to have been counted by either Archaeologix (1998) or Cunningham (1999). Vessels from the Van Bree

Dymock (AeHj-2) Like Krieger, the Dymock site is well-known to students of Ontario archaeology, in part because it is regarded as the eastern-most extension of the Western Basin Tradition (Younge phase) in the region. Located in Elgin County, approximately 2 km south of the town of Glencoe, Dymock was encountered by avocational archaeologist Stanley Wortner in April 1981 during the construction of a bridge across the Thames River. Wortner brought the site and its imminent destruction to the attention of William Fox at the Ontario Ministry of Culture and a mitigative excavation was organized by this agency for the summer of 1981. Heavy equipment was used to remove topsoils within and adjacent to the road allowance, which revealed a series of subsurface features spread across two terraces on the south bank of the Thames (Figures 16 and 17). As Figure 16 indicates, construction activities associated with Elgin County Road 5 had destroyed much of the site prior to its investigation. Dymock was understood by Fox (1982:2-3) to contain two campsites or hamlets (Figure 17), one on each terrace, separated by a distance of approximately 20 m. On the lower terrace was found Dymock I, which Fox (1982:3) suggests was slightly earlier in age than the occupation of Dymock II, found on the upper terrace. Dymock I contained 23 storage and refuse pits, along with one hearth and an alignment of postmolds which Fox (1982:2) believes were the remains of a palisade. Murphy and Ferris (1990:242), however, have argued that these posts likely represent the remains of a house wall, which is more in keeping with the arrangement of features and the presence of a hearth. A hillside midden was found to lie adjacent to this structure. Three conventional radiocarbon determinations were obtained by Fox (1982:4) (Table 2 herein) from Features 12, 28 and 29 at Dymock I, which suggest an early to mid-twelfth century placement for this

60

205

206 207

208

EL G IN

209

CO U N TY

210

RO A D 5

Block Excavation

Dymock 1

211 D AT U M

N

0

metres

Dymock 2

30

Figure 16. Plan view of the Dymock site (AeHj-2) showing the location of settlement and topographic features. The block excavation represents the location of the hillside midden. After Fox (1982). assays were returned from Features 50 (I-12151), 60 (I-12152) and 63 (I-12479) at Dymock II, two of which suggest a mid- through late twelfth century AD temporal assignment. Based on these dates, Fox (1982:8) suggests Dymock II may have been occupied “slightly later” than Dymock I, although both components are essentially contemporary twelfth century sites.

component. With respect to Dymock II, 59 features were examined, including two hearths, four incomplete primary burials, a dog burial and additional postmold alignments suggestive of house walls. Fox (1982:7) notes that, in addition to the disturbance caused by construction activities, portions of this component had also suffered from wind deflation. Three conventional radiocarbon

61

I-12152 890 ± 80 BP

I-12149 945 ± 80 BP

Hillside Midden

Concession Road Allowance

Concession Road Allowance

House Wall or Palisade

N

0

House Wall or Palisade

metres

5

Postmold Hearth Pit (1-19 cm deep)

I-12150 910 ± 80 BP I-12151 850 ± 80 BP

Pit (20-50 cm deep) Pit (51+ cm deep) Burial

Figure 17. Plan view of Dymock I (left) and Dymock II (right) showing settlement features, including contexts from which the radiometric dates were obtained. After Fox (1982:4-5). sherds, where possible, to provide a more complete picture of decorative practices. Retter (2001:65) was unable to demonstrate any clear distinction in either vessel form or decoration between the two assemblages, which, when coupled with an absence of crossmends across the two components, suggests the site was likely occupied repeatedly over a short period of time by the same group of people. As to the identity of the site’s occupants, Retter (2001:105) indicates unequivocally that they were associated with the Younge phase. Arrangements were made with Neal Ferris of the Ontario Ministry of Culture in June 2003 for a loan of the Dymock pottery collection to the University of Toronto at Mississauga, where it was examined in September of that year. Ninety-five vessels were identified during the vessel sort. Given Retter’s (2001) findings, no attempt was made to subdivide the collection into two components (i.e.,

Fox (1982:9) noted that the pottery assemblage from Dymock contained “a wide range of vessel forms, sizes and decorative motifs” and he indicated these ceramics were associated with the Younge phase of the Western Basin Tradition. The pottery collection, however, remained unanalyzed until it was examined by Retter (2001) as part of a Masters thesis. Retter’s (2001:13) analysis focussed on three aims, the first of which was to determine if both Dymock components were occupied at the same time. The second was to identify different activity areas of the site while the third was to assess the “ethnic” character of the group or groups who had used the site. Physical and inferred crossmends were identified by Retter in an effort to address the first and second of these aims, which resulted in the enumeration of 96 vessels. Twelve of these displayed crossmends across two to three features (Retter 2001:15). Neck and shoulder sherds were mended with rim

62

Dymock I and II). Specimens were numbered sequentially in the database using a ‘DY’ code (e.g., DY-001) and, where possible, were assigned the same numbers as those given by Retter (2001). All of these vessels were provenienced. Five inferred crossmends were identified between vessels not previously mended during the earlier analysis. Three small rim sherds (DY-097, 098 and 099) which were not included in Retter’s (2001) study, were also distinguished during the vessel sort and included in the present study.

when calibrated (Table 2), suggest the site was occupied in the late twelfth through early thirteenth century AD, which is consistent with the temporal placement of other Early Ontario Iroquoian occupations in the area. The third date (I-11475), which places the Kelly occupation in the early tenth century AD, was rejected by Williamson (1985:282). A later rather than earlier occupation of the site is further suggested by a recent AMS date (TO-8963) of 770 ± 50 BP which was obtained by Hart et al. (2002) from a common bean sample associated with Feature 7. This date, when calibrated, indicates the site may have been occupied into the mid- thirteenth century AD. Pottery from the Kelly site was examined by Williamson as part of his (1985) study. Rim sherds were extracted and sorted into 101 vessels, and each vessel was subjected to an attribute analysis in the furtherance of a regional seriation. As noted in the previous chapter, ceramics from each of the Early Ontario Iroquoian sites included in Williamson’s (1985) report were found to be relatively homogeneous with respect to both attributes of form and decoration. Some decorative traits, however, such as kind and frequency of simple motifs employed, and the presence of cord-wrapped stick stamping on collars, were found to be chronologically-sensitive at a “microtemporal” level (Williamson 1985:285). Others traits, such as collar development and the frequency of plain lip and neck surfaces, were found to reflect more generalized trends through time, although, in some instances, change in the frequency of these traits was also revealed within the occupational span of a single site (Williamson 1985:290). Due to differences between the pottery code employed by Williamson (1985) and the one used in this study, it was decided that the Kelly site ceramic assemblage should be re-analyzed. In June of 2003, the Kelly site ceramic assemblage was loaned by Karen Matilla of the Longwoods Road Conservation Area to the University of Toronto at Mississauga, where it was examined in November of that year. Despite the best efforts of Ms. Matilla to maintain the integrity and extent of the collection since Williamson’s analysis in the early 1980s, only 70 vessels could be counted during the vessel sort. With few exceptions, fragmentary rim sherds dominate the Kelly vessel assemblage. Vessels were numbered sequentially in the database records using a ‘KL’ code (e.g., KL-001) and attempts to reconcile these number assignments with those of Williamson (1985) were, unfortunately, unsuccessful. All but seven of the Kelly site vessels were provenienced. Attempts to re-fit rim specimens with associated neck and shoulder sherds failed to produce any larger analytical units beyond those already reconstructed by Williamson during his analysis. Table B.4 in Appendix B provides data with respect to exterior

Kelly (AfHi-20) Located within the Longwoods Road Conservation Area, southwest of the town of Lambeth in Middlesex County, the Kelly site was first documented by Brian Deller in 1978. It was subsequently investigated in 1979 and 1980 by Ronald Williamson as part of a PhD dissertation concerning the nature of Early Ontario Iroquoian cultural development on the Caradoc Sand Plain (Williamson 1985). As Williamson (1985:224) notes, prior to its excavation, the Kelly site had witnessed numerous impacts associated with both agricultural production and the construction of service roads and utility trenches within the conservation area. Given these impacts, most of the 0.8 ha site area was stripped of ploughzone topsoils prior to excavation through the use of heavy equipment. The site was then shovel-shined to define the settlement pattern and all subsurface features were mapped and their fills removed for flotation. These efforts resulted in the documentation of one house structure, one midden, a palisade and numerous postmolds and subsurface refuse pits, which Williamson (1985:225-234) interprets collectively as a hamlet (Figure 18). The house structure at Kelly measured approximately 20.5 m in length and 6 m in width and was represented by a single row of postmolds on both its eastern and western sides. A complete exposure of the north and south ends of the house was not possible in the field due to disturbance. The house was associated with 12 interior and four exterior features; two of the interior features were hearths while another was an ash pit. An examination of feature clusters and their contents by Williamson (1985:230-232) suggests that area-specific tasks, such as the processing of deer, seeds and nuts, were undertaken by occupants of the site. A limited-use fall through spring occupation of the Kelly site was proposed (Williamson 1985:245) based on the absence of substantive activity areas within the house and the lack of extensive midden and storage features. Three conventional 14C determinations were obtained by Williamson (1985:284) from Features 7 (I-11474), 66 (I-11475) and 102 (I-12061) at Kelly. Two of these dates,

63

Excavation Limits

I-11474 1120 ± 80

N

Road

I-12061 850 ± 80

House

Block Excavation (Midden)

Excavation Limits

TO-8963 770 ± 50 Excavation Limits

I-11474 790 ± 80

0

metres

10

Figure 18. Plan view of the Kelly site (AfHi-20) showing settlement features, including pit features from which the radiocarbon dates were obtained. After Williamson (1985:226). Cassady (AfHi-265)

decorative completeness. Approximately 44% of the collection (n=31) contained one band of decoration, 26% (n=18) yielded two bands and 14% (n=10) produced three bands. Roughly 16% of specimens (n=11) were represented by four bands of decoration. One physical and two inferred crossmends were found within the collection, in addition to those previously identified by Williamson.

The Cassady site was first identified in the spring of 2001 during an archaeological assessment of a proposed housing development near the town of Byron, immediately west of London, in Middlesex County. During their assessment of the property, the CRM firm Archaeologix Inc. came upon the remains of a nineteenth century stone and concrete foundation atop a high sandy plateau, bounded by steep slopes to the east and south. Subsequent testpitting and test excavation of the adjacent area revealed

64

which were examined by means of an attribute analysis. Timmins found a close relationship between the use and frequency of stamped, simple motifs at Cassady and those employed at the nearby Praying Mantis site, examined by Linda Howie-Langs (1998) as part of a Masters thesis. A similar correspondence was not revealed, however, between Cassady ceramic designs and those found at the more distant Calvert site near Dorchester, which was also examined by Timmins (1997). His analysis lends further support to the notion that there were distinct regional trends during Early Ontario Iroquoian times with regard to pottery design. Owing to the nature of the pottery code used by Timmins during his analysis of the Cassady ceramics, it was decided that these materials should be fully reanalyzed as part of this study. In June of 2003, pottery from the Cassady site was loaned by Jim Wilson of Archaeologix Inc. to the University of Toronto at Mississauga, where it was examined in December of that year. Due to the relatively undisturbed nature of the site, the Cassady collection was typified by the presence of numerous large rim sherds and reconstructed vessel sections. As Table B.4 in Appendix B indicates, fully 40% of the assemblage has three or more bands of exterior decoration. In addition to those vessel sections reconstructed by Timmins, eleven additional rim sherds and sections were found to mend with neck and shoulder sherds, which provided additional crossmend data. Once this task was complete, the collection was examined to establish a vessel count. Three physical and 13 inferred mends, beyond those identified by Timmins, were made between various specimens, which resulted in a revised vessel count of 144. Vessels were assigned a ‘CA’ code in the database and numbered in accordance with the designations assigned by Timmins during his investigation. All specimens were provenienced.

a substantive mid-nineteenth century Euro-Canadian presence, as well as what appeared to be a small Early Ontario Iroquoian campsite spread across a roughly 225 m2 area (Archaeologix 2002:3). Additional mitigative excavations, which followed in the summer and fall of 2001, revealed the presence of a much larger Early Ontario Iroquoian community which occupied a roughly 0.25 ha area. As the site was located within a mature woodlot and had therefore not been subject to repeated episodes of ploughing and wind deflation, much of the site’s structure was found to be intact. Accordingly, Cassady was primarily removed through the block excavation of 1560 one metre square units, prior to the mechanical removal of trees and undergrowth. Subsurface features were recorded and excavated both during and after the block excavation, which exposed a series of 119 refuse, storage and ash pits, in addition to seven hearths and 509 postmolds (Archaeologix 2002:40 and Figure 19 herein). While several postmold alignments were suggestive of house structures at Cassady, none could be positively identified in the field, although at least six small houses are inferred based on the settlement pattern (Archaeologix 2002:44). When it was decided that Cassady would make an ideal candidate site for this study, owing to its size and preservation, its ca. AD 1100 temporal assignment was based “on the range of decorative motifs and techniques present” in the pottery assemblage (Archaeologix 2002:3). To establish a more precise sense of chronology for the site, three conventional radiometric determinations were obtained from wood charcoal samples associated with feature contexts. As Table 2 indicates, two of these dates (BGS-2513 and 2515) are suggestive of an early through mid-thirteenth century AD occupation, while the third (BGS-2514) would seem to argue for an earlier twelfth century AD use of the site. That Feature 93, from which this earlier date is derived, was found during the crossmend analysis to have been used at the same time as Feature 80, from which one of the two later dates was produced, suggests the early date may have been obtained from wood charcoal that predates the occupation. When this is considered alongside the dearth of overlapping features at the site and the relative homogeneity of the pottery sample (as described in Chapter V), a later rather than earlier occupation of the Cassady site seems likely. The pottery sample from Cassady was first analyzed by Peter Timmins in connection with the licence report of the site excavations (Archaeologix 2002:21-39). From the more than 35,400 pottery sherds recovered from the site, Timmins identified 646 rim sherds, 1323 fragmentary rim sherds, 1258 neck sherds, 109 neck-shoulder sherds and 1923 body sherds. His reconstruction efforts and sorting procedures resulted in the enumeration of 159 vessels,

DeWaele (AfHd-1) The DeWaele site is found along the upper reaches of Big Otter Creek, southeast of the present-day town of Norwich in Oxford County. It is one of a series of wellknown Early and Middle Ontario Iroquoian villages in the area, which also includes the Van Besien (Noble 1975a) and Uren (M. Wright 1986) sites. William Fox conducted preliminary testing of the site in the late 1960s (Fox 1969), which indicated the presence of a roughly 0.33 ha village attributable to the Early Ontario Iroquoian period. Subsequent excavations in the summer of 1971 produced an artifact sample and settlement pattern consistent with Fox’s earlier cultural assignment. Two conventional 14C determinations obtained by Fox (I-6411 and I-6412)

65

N

BGS-2513 840 ± 40

Burial

BGS-2513 790 ± 35

BGS-2514 930 ± 40

Pit Feature Hearth Ash Pit Postmold Tree

0

metres

20

Figure 19. Plan view of the Cassady site (AfHi-265) showing settlement features, including contexts from which the radiocarbon dates were obtained. After Archaeologix (2002:41). 1976:178-180). As well, the northwestern portion of House 5 appears to be have been destroyed by the construction of an oval structure. Within the village plan, both single and double rows of posts appear to connect a number of the houses, which Fox (1976:178) suggests functioned in a defensive manner. Longhouses at the site are characterized by an interior mid-line positioning of oval hearths which are associated with a series of ash pits. As none of these houses was completely exposed during the 1971 investigations, few conclusive statements regarding their architectural features can be made. Entrances and bunks appear to have been placed along the side walls,

suggest, when calibrated (Table 2), that the DeWaele site dates to the early through late twelfth century AD. The site is situated atop a promontory within the Big Otter Creek valley and consists of at least four longhouses alongside what would appear to be three rectangular structures (Figure 20). Remains of a three row palisade are present along the western and northwestern margins of the site, while a two row palisade is found at the northeastern limits of the excavated area. At least two episodes of village construction are suggested by the superposition of House 1 over House 5 and the rectangular structure that overlaps the northern portion of the palisade (Fox

66

4.5

5.0

N metres

0

20 0.5

Midden 3

0.0

4.0

Midden 2

4 3 5 4.0

2 1

6

3.5

0.5

3.0 I-6411 900 ± 90 I-6412 855 ± 90

2.5 2.0 0.5 1.5

0.0

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

3.5 3.0

1.0 0.5

Excavated Area Midden 1 Area of Gradall Stripping (?) Postmold

4

0.0

House

Figure 20. Plan view of the DeWaele site (AfHd-1) showing excavated areas and location of settlement / topographic features. Two radiocarbon dates were obtained from the area containing houses 1 through 6. After Fox (1976:177). 67

of decorative completeness with regard to the number of exterior bands examined. Of the 322 vessels present in the sample, 64% (n=219) contained evidence only of Band 1, although the vast majority of these specimens were plain. Approximately 20% (n=64) provided attribute data for both Bands 1 and 2, while nearly 10% (n=31) contained three or more bands of decoration. Eight specimens lacked an exterior surface.

particularly in Houses 1 and 4, and Houses 1, 5 and 6 would have had rounded ends (Fox 1976:179). Of interest at the site was the occurrence of House 3, which was completely exposed and contained an arrangement of large storage pits around the interior margins, three centrallylocated hearths, ash and refuse pits, and a number of large and small postmolds. A preliminary analysis of both faunal and floral remains from DeWaele suggests its occupants had a diffuse subsistence program which was perhaps oriented toward the taking of small game and fish. A significant quantity of fish bone, including sturgeon, suggests parties from the site travelled south along the creek in the spring to take advantage of those species which spawn in the streams associated with Lake Erie (Fox 1976:175). Both carbonized hickory and maize remains were recovered from feature contexts within the houses, although low moisture retention and natural fertility in the local soils may have limited horticultural production. Collectively, these data suggest the site’s inhabitants might have followed a semi-sedentary settlement regime which saw the occupation of seasonal campsites along the Lake Erie shore during times of resource abundance (Fox 1976:176). No published, quantified accounts exist for the material culture assemblage recovered from the DeWaele site. While Fox (1976:188) provides a summary description of ceramic design trends and comments as to the morphological characteristics of the projectile points, to my knowledge there has never been a systematic appraisal of the various ceramic, lithic or faunal collections from the site. The rim sherd assemblage from the DeWaele site was, thus, identified during the present study as a potential and valuable source of information regarding Early Ontario Iroquoian pottery design practices in the region. As well, this collection was accessible by virtue of its loan to Professor David Smith of the University of Toronto at Mississauga from the Ontario Ministry of Culture. Permission to include this sample within the present research was granted by Professor Smith and the collection was examined in December of 2003. Vessels were given a ‘DW’ code during the analysis and were assigned number designations based on an earlier, preliminary vessel sort conducted by Professor Smith. For this report, an additional vessel sort was conducted on the DeWaele collection, which yielded one physical and fourteen inferred crossmends. These efforts produced a revised vessel count of 322, all but six of which were provenienced. Rim sherds from the DeWaele site were, with few exceptions, highly fragmentary in nature. Attempts to re-fit specimens in the collection with complementary neck and shoulder sherds were unsuccessful. Table B.4 in Appendix B provides a measure

Summary and Discussion The methodology employed in this study seeks to provide an analytical means by which to investigate the agential properties of Late Woodland pottery. It considers how aspects of vessel morphology and decoration, including the organizational structure of motif design, might have been apprehended, internalized and reproduced by artisans through their engagements with the material world. More specifically, the methodology provides an inductive framework within which to explore the idea that elements of form and decoration might channel artisanal intentions along both intuitive and discursive lines. It has been argued that an attribute-based approach to pottery classification, coupled with an analysis of plane-pattern symmetry in decoration, allows us to speak to this very occurrence. An emphasis on attributes over types is regarded as particularly significant for several reasons. First, it facilitates the comparison of pottery that originates from different ceramic traditions. As well, an analytical focus on attributes provides a more exacting degree of control over the process of classification and lessens the potential for inter-observer bias. The precision gained by measuring attributes also advances the search for distinct potting practices since subtle variation in form and decoration will not be obscured by attempts to ‘pigeonhole’ specimens into one of several predetermined types. With the aid of symmetry analysis, the arrangement of decorative attributes into bands may in turn be used to comment on the structural principles of design among groups of potters. Patterning at both the intra- and interassemblage level will be revealed through the use of Robinson-Brainerd Indices of Agreement and the multivariate exploratory technique of Correspondence Analysis. The analysis of vessel form and decoration proceeds by means of a hierarchical coding scheme wherein both discontinuous- and continuous-scale measurements of rim morphology and banded linear decoration are recorded. Properties of decoration are further examined in terms of their constituent elements (i.e., attributes of tool, technique and motif) and are classified taxonomically according to a series of inclusive through selective levels. The recording

68

of one-dimensional infinite symmetry follows the seven motion classes of (1) translation, (2) bifold rotation, (3) horizontal reflection, (4) vertical reflection, (5) horizontal and vertical reflection, (6) slide reflection and (7) alternate rotation and vertical reflection, and is used to characterize both the intra- and inter-band arrangement of decorative elements. The sample utilized in this study is comprised of both Western Basin (Younge) and Early Ontario Iroquoian vessels and is drawn from a series of seven sites in southwestern Ontario. Admittedly, while the sites included in this analysis are widely spaced and likely representative of localized traditions, potting practices and the lifeways of which they are a part can still be effectively illuminated within the present framework. The nature of previous research, when paired with extant and recently-obtained radiocarbon assays, allows for an accurate assessment of each site’s cultural affiliation and temporal placement. As such, it is possible to state with a comfortable degree of certainty that the vast majority of the vessels under examination were produced during the twelfth through thirteenth centuries AD, with the exception of the Van Bree assemblage which originates slightly earlier in time. Thus, we can be reasonably confident that any patterning which emerges from the data described in the following chapter can be used to speak to the agentiality of pot/potter designs among contemporaneous Western Basin and Iroquoian groups.

69

70

Chapter 5 Data Analysis and Interpretation coordinates (i.e., attribute states of flat, rounded and pointed) is substantial, suggesting their frequency profiles are quite dissimilar. It may also be said, based on the column coordinates, that the Cassady, DeWaele and Van Bree collections share quite similar proportions of these three attributes, as do Kelly and Dymock. The more variable proportions associated with the sites of Krieger, Dymock and Cherry Lane, while similar when compared with the Iroquoian sites, nonetheless results in a more loosely-knit association. A similar dichotomy between Iroquoian and Western Basin sites was observed in connection with the variable Upper Rim Profile. Vessels associated with the same Western Basin sites show a high frequency of concave profiles when compared to their Iroquoian counterparts, which returned higher convex rim curvature values (Table B.11). Apart from the Dymock collection, Western Basin vessels also appear to have a lower than average frequency of straight profiles. As the Correspondence analysis for this variable illustrates (Figure C.2), the Cassady, Kelly and Van Bree sites share similar proportions of concave, convex and straight rim profiles, as do Krieger and Cherry Lane. Both Dymock and DeWaele are set off from these two groups owing to their more unusual profiles. The remaining eight attributes cannot be considered good indicators of difference between Western Basin and Iroquoian potting practices at the supra-regional scale. For example, no discernable differences between these two entities were noted with regard to the variable Rim Form which measures the presence or absence of a collar along with a separate attribute state for incipient forms. All seven collections display somewhat similar frequencies with respect to collar development, with the exception of DeWaele, whose vessels exhibit a higher than average frequency of incipient collars (27.3% compared with ranges of 9.5% to 12.5% at other sites [see Table B.10 and Figure 21]). This is reflected in the Correspondence Analysis for this variable (Figure C.3) which shows a loose cluster of all sites with the exception of DeWaele. Within this cluster, two tightly-knit associations consisting of Dymock, Van Bree and Cherry Lane on the one hand, and Krieger and Kelly on the other, betray the more finite differences in proportions of incipient collar, collared and non-collared forms at these sites. The notion that fullydeveloped collars do not occur until later Springwells times within the Western Basin Tradition (Murphy and Ferris 1990:203) and until later Uren times within the Iroquoian

This chapter provides a systematic examination of the various attributes selected for study, as outlined in the previous chapter, and comments upon some of the more salient trends identified in the data. More specifically, trends associated with those entities of form, decoration and symmetry are highlighted and interpreted in connection with the tabular summaries of data, and with various Robinson-Brainerd Indices of Agreement and Correspondence Analysis biplots. Both the tabular summaries of data and Robinson-Brainerd Indices of Agreement are presented in Appendix B while the Correspondence Analyses are contained in Appendix C. Where possible, these trends are also compared with data from contemporaneous sites within the study area. The data described below provide the analytical context for a subsequent discussion in Chapter VI regarding the role Late Woodland vessels might have played in conditioning both Western Basin and Early Ontario Iroquoian potting practices. Attributes of Form As noted in the previous chapter, eleven attributes of rim form were recorded for each of the ceramic specimens included in this study. One of these, Profile of the Core, which measures the nature and extent of lamination within a sherd, was excluded from subsequent analyses. This was necessitated by the fact that several different lamination types were often observed within the same specimen which limited the usefulness of this attribute. Of the remaining ten attributes, two of these (Lip Form and Upper Rim Profile) suggest that distinct differences do exist between Western Basin and Iroquoian vessel-manufacturing processes. With regard to Lip Form, as Table B.9 in Appendix B indicates, Western Basin vessels, as represented by the Dymock, Krieger and Cherry Lane samples, have a higher frequency of rounded lip surfaces (Range= 24.2% to 37.2%) when compared with other sites (Range=2.1% to 14.1%). Flat lip surfaces, on the other hand, tend to occur more often on Iroquoian vessels as suggested by the data obtained from the DeWaele, Cassady, Kelly and Van Bree collections (Range=81.4% to 95.7%). By comparison, fully 82% of vessels from the Iroquoian Praying Mantis site exhibit flat lip surfaces (Howie-Langs 1998:135). All of the collections examined had a low frequency of pointed lips. These trends are evident in Figure C.1 of Appendix C which displays the results of the Correspondence Analysis associated with this variable. The distance between the row

71

In d e te rm i n a te , 4 , 1 2 %

In de term i na t e , 2 , 1% In ci p i e n t Co l l a r, 1 8 , 1 3 %

In ci p i en t Co l l ar, 8 8, 2 7%

In ci p i e n t Co l l a r, 4 , 1 2 %

Co l l a re d , 2 , 1 %

Co l l a re d , 1 , 3 % Co l l a re d , 5 , 2 %

No t Co l l a re d , 1 2 2 , 8 5 %

No t Co l l a re d , 2 2 8 , 7 1 % No t Co l l a re d , 2 4 , 7 3 %

CASSADY

DEWAEL E

CHERRY LANE

In d e te rm i n a te , 9 , 9 %

In d e te rm i n a te , 5 , 7 %

In ci p i en t Co l l ar, 9 , 9 % Co l l a re d , 4 , 4 %

In ci p i e n t Co l l a r, 1 4 , 1 2 %

Co l l a re d , 4 , 6 %

DYMOCK

Co l l a re d , 6 , 5 %

No t Co l l a re d , 8 7 , 7 7 %

No t Co l l a re d , 5 4 , 7 7 %

No t Co l l a re d , 7 3 , 7 7 %

In d e te rm i n a te , 6 , 5 %

In ci p i e n t Co l l a r, 7 , 1 0 %

KELLY

KRIEGER

In d e te rm i n a te , 2 , 4 % In ci p i e n t Co l l a r, 5 , 1 1 % Co l l a re d , 2 , 4 %

No t Co l l a re d , 3 8 , 8 1 %

VAN BREE

Figure 21. Pie charts of variable ‘Rim Form’. exclusively treated with cord malleation. As Table B.4 indicates, interior surfaces from each of the seven collections examined in this study exhibited either smoothed-over-cord or wiped surfaces. Several examples of textured lip surfaces were present among the Cassady (n=3, 2.1%), DeWaele (n=7, 2.2%) and Kelly (n=1, 1.4%) specimens, as Table B.5 suggests, which took the form of cord malleation being applied prior to decoration. Similar practices were noted on several exterior surfaces from all sites (see Table B.6) with the exception of Cherry Lane. In a few cases, at both the DeWaele and Van Bree sites, both smoothed-over cord and textured exterior surfaces can be found on the same specimen. In a similar fashion, the variable Castellation Form, which specifies the presence or absence of a castellation (see Table B.7), did not prove instructive with regard to distinguishing between Western Basin and Iroquoian pottery. Similar ratios of uncastellated versus castellated specimens were reported from DeWaele (1:3.1) and Krieger (1:3.5) and from Kelly (1:8.5) and Van Bree

developmental continuum (Williamson 1990:298; Williamson and Robertson 1994:38) is supported by the large number of uncollared specimens within each sample (Range = 72.7% at Cherry Lane to 84.7% at Cassady; see Table B.10). These contentions are further buttressed by data from contemporary sites such as Bruner-Colasanti, where 75.9% of vessels are uncollared (Lennox 1982:36) while 89.1% and 96.5% of vessels exist as uncollared specimens at Calvert (Timmins 1997:133) and Praying Mantis (Howie-Langs 1998:133) respectively. Due to the high frequency of uncollared specimens within each sample, two interrelated ratio-scale variables (Collar Height and Basal Collar Thickness), while measured, were not examined in detail. As well, no significant differences between Western Basin and Iroquoian pottery were noted with respect to surface modification, which was recorded for interior, lip and exterior surfaces above the shoulder (Tables B.4 through B.6). For those specimens that exhibited interior and exterior surfaces below the shoulder, these were

72

analysis. The remainder of this section describes these trends by sherd surface (i.e., interior, lip and exterior) and according to the use of various decorative tools, techniques and motifs for each band. While the pottery code allowed for a graduated classification of decoration ranging from an inclusive to selective treatment of tool, technique and motif, trends were not apparent in the data at the first two levels of classification. Trends were discerned, however, at both the Level 3 and 4 scales, although these were rarely inconsistent enough to warrant separate treatments by scale. Accordingly, only those patterns associated with Level 4 are described below unless significant departures in the data were found at Level 3. As well, only those data associated with Level 4 appear in Appendix B.

(1:8.5) but these figures are likely misleading. As Table B.7 indicates, this variable could not be measured for most specimens owing to the highly fragmentary nature of the various samples. This is reflected in the large number of “indeterminate” specimens from all sites, particularly DeWaele, Dymock and Kelly. As such, the usefulness of this variable was called into question during the analysis by the fact that it would be impossible to accurately assess the absence of a castellation on a small specimen, but would be possible to identify the presence of a castellation on another similarly-sized sherd. Were the samples less fragmentary, this variable may have provided some analytical import. For the ratio-scale variable Lip Thickness, some differences between Western Basin and Iroquoian construction preferences were visible. As Table B.12 and Figures C.4 through C.10 suggest, Iroquoian vessels from both the DeWaele and Cassady sites have a mean thickness of 6.2 and 6.7 mm respectively, with fairly low (i.e., < 2 mm) standard deviations. By comparison, mean lip thickness at the Iroquoian Calvert site is 7.3 mm (Timmins 1997:133). On the other hand, Western Basin vessels, represented by the Cherry Lane, Dymock and Krieger sites, have slightly thicker lip profiles which range from 7.8 mm to 8.8 mm. Standard deviations range from 2.6 mm at Krieger to a high of 3.0 mm at Dymock. Exceptions to these patterns include mean lip thickness within both the Kelly (8.3 mm) and Van Bree (9.0 mm) collections. As the histogram for lip thickness at Kelly indicates (Figure C.8), this collection shows an overall distribution more in keeping with Krieger than any other sample, although similarities are present between Kelly and Van Bree, particularly in terms of frequencies between 6-8 mm, 8-10 mm and 10-12 mm (see Figures C.8 through C.10).

Interior Several notable trends are present within the data with regard to interior decoration. As depicted in Table B.14, there is a propensity among those sites identified as Iroquoian (i.e., Cassady, DeWaele, Kelly and Van Bree) for superimposed linear-stamped decoration on Band 1, which is often referred to in the literature as crosshatching. This tendency is particularly prevalent at the Cassady site where, as Table B.14 indicates, approximately 22% of specimens show signs of left over right or right over left obliques on Band 1. The prominence of this attribute state at Cassady is further illustrated by the high frequency of linear tool use (Table B.12) and parallel stamping (Table B.13) on Band 1 at this site and by the distance shown between Cassady and the other sites in the Correspondence Analysis for interior Band 1 motif (Figure C.14). Crosshatching is also found, albeit to a more limited extent, on Band 2 within this collection (see Table B.17). Both Timmins (1997:143) and Howie-Langs (1998:153) report comparable frequencies of crosshatching on the interiors of specimens derived from the Calvert and Praying Mantis sites, respectively, which suggests that the pattern we see at Cassady is somewhat anomalous. That the DeWaele collection displays only meagre frequencies of this motif suggests that it may represent a regional decorative preference favoured by groups living in the western portion of the study area. A single occurrence of this motif at the Krieger site (Table B.14), however, would seem to indicate that crosshatching is not entirely confined to Iroquoian collections. It would also appear that the Iroquoian sites selected for study contain a much higher frequency of punctates on Bands 2 and 3 of the interior than do those sites identified as Western Basin. This is reflected in pointed tool use (Tables B.15 and B.18), the technique of perpendicular

Attributes of Decoration As described in Chapter IV, attributes of decoration were recorded for the interior, lip and exterior surfaces of each specimen according to the arrangement of elements into horizontal bands. A maximum of four interior bands, two lip bands and eight exterior bands of decoration was recorded for each specimen. Due to the fragmentary nature of the collections, however, as suggested by Tables B.1 through B.4, few observations could be made beyond the upper rim/neck interface for most specimens. This placed a number of constraints on the use of data from more complete specimens since comparatively few sherds contained decoration beyond the third interior band or the fourth exterior band. As such, only those patterns associated with the first three interior bands, the lip and the first four bands of exterior are considered in the present

73

Correspondence Analyses (e.g., Figures C.12 and C.13). There would also appear to be a strong tendency for cordwrapped implement use on all three interior bands at Krieger (Tables B.12, B.15 and B.18) and, to a lesser extent, Cassady. Cord-wrapped tool use is also pronounced on Band 1 at Dymock along with suture stamp use and incising on Bands 1 and 2 at this site. Dentate tool use, by comparison, is well-represented on Band 1 at the Cherry Lane and Krieger sites as are linear tool use, parallel stamping and linear vertical motifs on Band 1 at Cherry Lane (Tables B.12 through B.14). With regard to Krieger, the variability in tool use present on Band 1 and 2 interior surfaces corresponds with a lower than average frequency of decoration applied with linear tools (see Tables B.12 and B.15). Linear tool use and parallel stamping are, however, quite common on Band 3 at Krieger (Tables B.18 and B.19) while linear tool use is also prevalent on Bands 2 and 3 at Van Bree. With regard to overall design profiles on interior surfaces, the results of the various Robinson-Brainerd Indices of Agreement and Correspondence Analyses suggest fairly similar decorative preferences exist among most sites on Band 1 while quite dissimilar profiles are found between sites on Bands 2 and 3 (see Tables B.12 through B.20; Figures C.12 through C.20). For Band 1, high Indices of Agreement can be found between most sites for variables involving tool, technique and motif use. Notable exceptions include lower than average values associated with DeWaele and, where tool profiles are concerned, Cherry Lane. For DeWaele, these values are affected by the high number of plain specimens found at this site, while for Cherry Lane, low Indices of Agreement likely reflect a preference for dentate-stamping coupled with low sample sizes. Generally speaking, the Correspondence Analyses paint a similar picture of agreement between the various sites, although Krieger and Van Bree are shown to share a unique association with one another (for each of tool and technique) while Cassady is being ‘pulled’ away from the other collections where motif profiles are concerned on Band 1 (Figure C.14) due to the high frequency of crosshatched designs within this collection. There is a greater degree of distance present between each of the various sites on Band 2, which is particularly evident in the Correspondence Analyses. This is not readily seen, however, in the Indices of Agreement, which show fairly strong associations between Cassady, Kelly, Van Bree and to some extent DeWaele. Indeed, most sites display similar overall design profiles in the various Indices, with the notable exception of Cherry Lane, which is likely affected again by low sample sizes and the preponderance of specimens that display a plain Band 2.

stamping (Tables B.16 and B.19) and the motif of punctate horizontal (Tables B.17 and B.20). Interior punctates are encountered to a large extent at the Cassady site where approximately 34% of specimens contain this attribute. When punctates are superimposed over linear-stamped decoration at Cassady, this figure grows to approximately 42% and climbs to a high of 64% if punctate use on Band 3 (Table B.18) is considered. Interior punctate use is also prevalent at the DeWaele (23%), Kelly (26%) and Van Bree sites (21%) on Band 2 (Table B.15), and is especially common on Band 3 (59%) at Kelly and at Van Bree (18%) (see Table B.18). At Kelly, this results in a high incidence of perpendicular stamping on Band 3. Overall, these figures are comparable in extent to frequencies of interior punctation obtained by Timmins (1997:133) from the Calvert site. These values contrast significantly, however, with numbers returned from the Cherry Lane (0%), Dymock (6%) and Krieger (5%) collections and, surprisingly, with data published by Howie-Langs (1998:151-152) from the Iroquoian Praying Mantis site. The low frequency of interior punctation at Cherry Lane, Dymock and Krieger is reflected in the modest use of perpendicular stamping on Band 2 at these sites (see Table B.16). Conversely, at Dymock, Krieger and Van Bree, there is a higher than average occurrence of interior bossing on both Bands 2 and 3 (Tables B.16 and B.19). Other interesting interior decorative trends, which appear limited to one or two sites within the sample, are revealed through specific tool, technique and motif affinities. For example, there is an extremely high frequency of completely plain interior surfaces (73%) within the DeWaele collection (Table B.12) which far outnumbers the frequency of similar specimens at the Cassady (22%), Kelly (30%) and Van Bree sites (21%). This is reflected in the various Correspondence Analyses related to interior tool, technique and motif preferences on Band 1 (Figures C.12 through C.14) which depict considerable distance between DeWaele and the other sites. It is also worth pointing out that interior surfaces at Cherry Lane are completely plain beyond Band 1 (Table B.16) whereas at sites such as Cassady and Van Bree, there is a lower than average occurrence of plain specimens below the first band (Table B.15). As well, there would appear to be a disposition toward crescent stamping on Bands 1 and 2 at both Krieger and Van Bree as suggested by the number of specimens at these sites that show pointed (annular) tool use (Tables B.12 and B.15) and oblique stamping (Tables B.13 and B.16). This results in various permutations of the crescentstamped motif (see Tables B.14 and B.17). The preference for crescent stamping at these two sites is reflected in their close association within several of the interior surface

74

slight tendency within the Iroquoian collections for crosshatching as suggested by the frequency of superimposed linear discontinuous elements at Cassady (6%), Kelly (13%) and Van Bree (17%), compared with values of 3% at Cherry Lane, 0% at Dymock and 3% at Krieger (see lines 17 and 19 of Table B.21). The paucity of crosshatching witnessed on interior surfaces at DeWaele is again revealed on lip surfaces from this site where only a single specimen (0.3%) shows this attribute state. Many of the sample-specific or localized patterns witnessed in regard to interior decoration can also be seen in the tool, technique and motif preferences for lip decoration. For example, there again appears to be a strong tendency for crescent stamping on lip surfaces at both the Krieger and Van Bree sites which produced higher than average frequencies of pointed annular tool use, oblique stamping and crescent horizontal motifs (see Tables B.21 through B.23). As well, there is a notable affinity for cordwrapped implement use at Krieger (Table B.21) with similar frequencies also reported for lip specimens from the Dymock site. Suture stamp use is again also prevalent on lip specimens from the Dymock and Van Bree sites, as is incising at Dymock (Table B.22) and dentate tool use at Cherry Lane and Krieger. At Cherry Lane, there is again a high incidence of linear tool applications coupled with parallel stamping and the use of linear vertical and right oblique elements. As Tables B.21 through B.23 indicate, there are also a number of specimens at Krieger that contain varieties of superimposed (pointed) tool use not witnessed at other sites. In these instances, a continuous horizontal line is incised over linear-stamped elements. Varieties of this motif, however, can also be found at Kelly (n=1) and Van Bree (n=1). The various Indices of Agreement and Correspondence Analyses conducted for tool, technique and motif profiles on lip surfaces (Tables B.21 through B.23; Figures C.21 through C.23) suggest a close overall association between DeWaele and Cassady to the exclusion of other sites in the study. This no doubt results from the comparable number of plain specimens within each of these two collections. These same analyses also reveal similar design profiles between the sites of Cherry Lane and Dymock, particularly with regard to technique and motif use. This may be explained by comparable frequencies of plain, linear stamped and incised lip decoration at these sites. With regard to technique use, fairly similar overall distributions are also found between Krieger, Dymock and Van Bree. In terms of motif profiles (see Table B.23), the Indices of Agreement suggest a distinction may be drawn between the Iroquoian and Western Basin sites, with fairly strong associations found between DeWaele, Cassady and Kelly on the one hand,

As well, Krieger is portrayed in the Band 2 Indices as having lower than average agreements with both Cassady and Van Bree. Where Band 3 is concerned, because of the number of specimens at Kelly that display interior punctation, both the Indices of Agreement and the Correspondence Analyses suggest little agreement between this site and the others. These same analyses also point to a fairly strong association between Cassady and Van Bree, while the Indices tend to suggest a greater overall similarity in design profiles exists among the various collections than the Correspondence Analyses would indicate. Lip One of the more notable trends to emerge from an examination of lip decoration is the high frequency of plain specimens within those collections attributed to Iroquoian groups (see Table B.21). Fully 65% of specimens in the DeWaele collection, for example, exhibit plain lip surfaces, while 51% of sherds from Cassady and 30% of sherds at Kelly bear this feature. With the exception of DeWaele, these figures are comparable to the 39% of plain lip surfaces reported by Timmins (1997:135) for the Calvert site and the 54% of plain lip surfaces reported by HowieLangs (1998:155) from the Praying Mantis site. These figures contrast strikingly, however, with relatively low frequencies of plain lip surfaces at the Western Basin sites of Cherry Lane (12%), Dymock (12%) and Krieger (16%). These figures are consistent with data from the Western Basin Bruner-Colasanti site (Lennox 1982:38) which indicates that only 17% of vessels display plain lip surfaces. The high frequency of plain lip surfaces at DeWaele and Cassady results in the spatial separation of these two sites from the others in the Correspondence Analyses where variables of lip decoration are concerned (see Figures C.21 through C.23). The very high frequency of plain lip surfaces at DeWaele would appear to be part of a larger trend at this site toward vessel rims that are entirely lacking in decoration. Along with a high frequency of plain lip surfaces among the Iroquoian assemblages, there would also appear to be fewer occurrences of motifs consisting of linear discontinuous elements at these sites, which is revealed at the Level 3 scale of analysis, but can also be seen in lines 2 through 6 of Table B.21. The use of such elements is limited to approximately 27% of specimens from DeWaele, 33% of sherds from Cassady, 31% of sherds from Kelly and 39% of lip surfaces from Van Bree. These figures are rather dissimilar to those returned from the Western Basin sites of Cherry Lane (76%), Dymock (68%) and Krieger (53%). At the same level of analysis, we can also see a

75

DeWaele and 6% at Kelly. Approximately 15% of specimens from Van Bree were treated with exterior punctates, while this attribute was not observed within the Cherry Lane sample. One of the more significant trends to emerge from an examination of exterior decoration is the frequency and diversity of motifs that exhibit horizontal (intra-band) difference among Western Basin assemblages. This is particularly clear for Bands 2, 3 and 4 at Dymock and Krieger but can also be found on exterior specimens from the Van Bree and Cherry Lane sites (see Tables B.29, B.32 and B.35). In terms of frequencies, as these tables indicate, fully 43% of vessels from Dymock and 32% of vessels from Krieger are decorated with motifs that show intraband difference on either Bands 3 or 4. Overall, these trends contrast strikingly with motifs that exhibit intraband difference at Cassady (5%), DeWaele (1%) and Kelly (4%) on Bands 3 and 4. In terms of diversity, seven attribute states for Dymock and five for both of Krieger and Van Bree were needed to effectively characterize the horizontal difference in Band 3 motifs, compared with only one state for both of DeWaele and Kelly (Table B.32). These figures do not, however, take into account the occurrence of plaits which may also be considered a form of horizontal (intra-band) difference. Plaits consisting of linear oblique and horizontal elements can be found on Band 2 at both Cassady and DeWaele, and on Bands 3 and 4 at Cassady, DeWaele and Van Bree. Plaits are particularly prevalent on Bands 3 and 4 at Cassady (see Tables B.32 and B.35) and are also reported on approximately 18% of vessels from Calvert (Timmins 1997:137). As with those trends identified on vessel interiors and lips, several patterns are present at the site or regional level with respect to exterior decoration. At DeWaele, again, there is a tendency for exterior surfaces to be plain; fully 33% of sherds lack decoration beyond the first band, 25% lack decoration beyond the second band while 52% are plain beyond the third band. As well, there would appear to be a higher than average occurrence of crescent stamping on the first four exterior bands at both the Krieger and Van Bree sites which is suggested by the number of specimens with pointed annular tool use, oblique stamping and crescent horizontal motifs. At both Krieger and Dymock, we also see a substantive preference for cord-wrapped implements along with a lack of linear tool use on all four exterior bands (see Tables B.24, B.27, B.30 and B.33). Suture stamp use is again also prevalent on exterior (Band 1) surfaces from the Dymock and Van Bree sites, although appreciable suture stamp use can also be found on all four exterior bands at Cassady. Pointed tools and incised decorative techniques continue to be employed in high

and Krieger, Dymock and Cherry Lane on the other. This, however, is not particularly apparent from an examination of the Correspondence Analysis for motif (Figure C.23). In this case, the distance between the row coordinates (i.e., attribute states) is likely more substantial than the distance between the column (site) coordinates. Exterior In keeping with patterns witnessed on the interior and lip of sample specimens, there is again a strong tendency for Iroquoian vessels to display crosshatched decoration on exterior surfaces, particularly on Band 1 (see Table B.26). When lines 11 and 13 of this table are taken together, we see crosshatching on approximately 31% of sherds at Cassady, 19% at Kelly, 15% at DeWaele and 11% at Van Bree. By comparison, approximately 13% of exterior surfaces at the Iroquoian Praying Mantis site (HowieLangs 1998:143) show some form of crosshatched decoration, while only 5% of rim specimens at Calvert display this feature (Timmins 1997:136). With the exception of Calvert, these figures are quite dissimilar from those with frequencies returned from the Cherry Lane (3%), Dymock (1%) and Krieger (1%) sites. As well, the high frequency of punctate use found on interior specimens within the Iroquoian samples manifests itself, not surprisingly, in comparably high frequencies of exterior bossing, as suggested by lines 12 and 25 through 28 of Table B.29, and by lines 11 and 20 through 23 of Table B.32. When Bands 2 and 3 are examined together, bossed decoration occurs on approximately 34% of specimens from Cassady, 48% from Kelly and 14% from Van Bree. The frequencies of exterior bossing at both Cassady and Kelly compare favourably with results obtained by Timmins (1997:133) for the Calvert site (37%) and Howie-Langs (1998:163) for the Praying Mantis site (45%). Surprisingly, while 23% of specimens at DeWaele produced interior punctates, only 5% of sherds at this site showed exterior bosses which is less than the 9% of sherds at Dymock that display this attribute. Exterior bossing is found on only 3% of specimens from Krieger and was completely absent within the Cherry Lane assemblage. Conversely, there is preference for exterior punctate use at the Western Basin sites of Dymock (31%) and Krieger (21%) when both simple and superimposed decorative treatments are examined on Bands 2 and 3. These figures correspond with higher than average use of pointed tools and perpendicular stamping on Bands 2 and 3 (see Tables B.27 and B.28; B.30 and B.31) and lower than average use of linear tools and parallel stamping, particularly on Band 2. The frequency of punctation at both Krieger and Dymock contrasts with figures of 7% at Cassady, 4% at

76

Plane-Pattern (Symmetry) Analysis

frequencies on exterior vessel surfaces at Dymock while linear tool use and parallel stamping are common on Band 3 at DeWaele, Cassady and Van Bree (Tables B.18 and B.19). The higher than average frequencies of dentate tool use at Cherry Lane on interior and lip surfaces is, again, repeated on exterior surfaces (e.g., Bands 1 and 2, see Tables B.24 and B.27). Comparable frequencies of dentatetool use from the nearby Bruner-Colasanti site (see Lennox 1982:35, 39) suggests this tool may represent a common decorative property in this region (i.e., the Point Pelee environs). In terms of overall exterior design profiles, the various Indices of Agreement suggest the strongest associations are found between the Iroquoian sites of Cassady, DeWaele and Kelly. This is particularly prevalent in the data pertaining to Band 1 tool and technique use, but is also apparent in tool, technique and motif designs across each of the first three bands. Strangely enough, the profiles associated with the Cherry Lane site appear more closely aligned with the Iroquoian sites than with either Krieger or Dymock. This stems, in part, from comparable frequencies of linear stamping at Cassady, DeWaele, Kelly and Cherry Lane (see Tables B.24 through B.29) and perhaps from the small sample sizes at Cherry Lane. Van Bree shows moderately strong Indices of Agreement across the first three exterior bands with all other sites in the sample. On Band 2, these agreements slightly favour the Iroquoian sites of DeWaele, Cassady and Kelly over the others (see Tables B.28 through B.30). Krieger tends to show a modest agreement with Dymock overall but Indices are never particularly strong and at times are only marginally higher than relationships between Krieger and the various Iroquoian sites. Indeed, for Band 2 motif (Table B.29), Krieger shows the weakest relationship with Dymock; for Band 3, Krieger shows a stronger relationship with Kelly for each of tool (Table B.30) and motif (Table B.32). The reason for these patterns is made clear when we examine the Correspondence Analyses (see Figures C.24 through C.35). From a review of these biplots, the Western Basin sites of Krieger and Dymock can be characterized as more internally heterogeneous than their Iroquoian counterparts. This is seen with regard to the Krieger site, which is consistently set apart from the other sites in terms of tool, technique and motif preferences across all four exterior bands. To a more limited extent, this is also true of the Dymock site, which displays fairly unique decorative preferences on Bands 1 and 2. In opposition to this pattern, the Iroquoian sites of DeWaele, Cassady and Kelly generally appear in closer proximity to one another when tool, technique and motif profiles are examined across Bands 1, 2 and 3.

As described in the previous chapter, an analysis of plane-pattern symmetry was also conducted on the exterior surfaces of all vessels. This involved characterizing both intra- and inter-band decoration according to the seven classes of one-dimensional infinite symmetry identified in Chapter IV (i.e., translation, bifold rotation, horizontal reflection, vertical reflection, horizontal and vertical reflection, slide reflection and alternate rotation and vertical reflection). While all exterior bands were classified according to one of these seven states, the fragmentary nature of the various samples precluded the collection of data for most specimens beyond the upper rim/neck interface of each vessel as indicated by Tables B.1 and B.4. Despite these limitations, several intriguing trends were identified in both intra- and inter-band patterning on vessel rim surfaces and in connection with intra-band symmetry on vessel necks. With regard to patterning on vessel rims, the seven assemblages examined in the course of this study can all be characterized by the use of translation, to the exclusion of all other symmetry classes, as the method for movement (repetition) of design elements within horizontal bands. The only exception to this was the occurrence of vertical reflection on one vessel from Van Bree (VB-037, Band 3 [Plate VI]). Where the same is not true, however, is in the use of inter-band symmetry on rim surfaces, which were examined for Bands 1 and 2, and 2 and 3 (see Tables B.36 and B.37). As these tables suggest, there are differences between the frequencies of “translation”, “reflection” and “none” across the seven samples, although these differences cannot be understood in terms of an Iroquoian / Western Basin dichotomy (see also Figures C.36 and C.37). For example, if we examine the ratio of reflection to translation across Bands 1 and 2, we arrive at figures of 1:4 for Krieger, roughly 1:3 for each of Cassady, Cherry Lane and DeWaele, 1:2 for Kelly and 1:1 for Dymock (see Table B.36). At the same time, there would appear to be few substantive differences between these sites in terms of specimens that display asymmetrical configurations across Bands 1 and 2. Exceptions include a somewhat lower than average frequency of “none” at Kelly (31%) and a higher than average frequency of “none” at DeWaele (60%), the latter of which reflects the number of plain specimens at this site. In regards to Bands 2 and 3, however, these same ratios do not hold. There is a roughly 1:1 ratio of reflection to translation at Krieger, Dymock, Kelly and Cherry Lane (which contained no evidence of either translation or reflection) and a roughly 1:2 ratio at Cassady and DeWaele. Sherds that display asymmetrical preferences

77

Dymock, Krieger and Van Bree. As with the previous discussion of inter-band symmetry, however, the fragmentary nature of the collections hinder more conclusive statements regarding these preferences since both Cherry Lane (n=11) and Kelly (n=12) produced relatively small samples of vessels containing neck decoration.

across these two bands range from a low of 44% at Kelly to a high of 100% at Cherry Lane. When interpreting these figures, it is important to note that small sample sizes (n=10 at Cherry Lane; n=18 at Kelly, for example) may contribute to the distribution of these values. Where we do see a clear distinction between Iroquoian and Western Basin symmetry preferences, however, is in the realm of intra-band neck decoration. As Table B.38 and Figure C.38 suggest, while all sites display fairly high frequencies of “translation” in neck decoration, the Iroquoian collections adhere for the most part to patterns involving “translation” or “none”. These symmetrical preferences reflect designs that consist primarily of decorative plaits (translation), horizontal lines (translation) or plain neck surfaces (none). Exceptions to this include the presence of vessels that display vertical reflection at both Cassady (CA-087 [Plate XI]) and Kelly (KL-022 [Plate IX], 037 and 070). In each of these four cases, multiple bands of decoration on rim surfaces are eschewed in favour of one large rim/neck ‘canvas’ upon which are placed incised discontinuous oblique elements. The unconventional nature of the decoration hints at the possibility that these vessels may have been manufactured by juvenile potters, although construction techniques in each case are in keeping with more established (i.e., skilled) practices. These exceptions notwithstanding, the limited use of symmetry classes at Cassady, DeWaele and Kelly contrasts markedly with the range of classes employed at the Western Basin sites of Krieger and Dymock, and the Van Bree site. Indeed, all seven classes of one-dimensional infinite symmetry are present in the Krieger collection while five of the seven classes can be found in the Dymock collection and four of the seven are present at Van Bree (see Table B.38). Designs consisting of vertical reflection are especially well-represented at Krieger, Dymock and Cherry Lane and relate to the frequency of zoned triangular and diamond forms, which Murphy and Ferris (1990:205) regard as “hallmarks” of the Younge phase decorative repertoire. The propagation of such designs along and across line axes, however, can also be furthered by bifold rotation (e.g., vessel CH-011 at Cherry Lane [Plate V]), horizontal and vertical reflection, (e.g., vessel DY-001 at Dymock [Plate III]), alternate rotation and reflection (e.g., KR-101 at Krieger [Plate I]), slide reflection (KR-075 [Plate II]) and, occasionally, translation (e.g., KR-010 [Plate I]). That these distinctions between Iroquoian and Western Basin symmetry preferences can be considered statistically significant is suggested by the results of a Correspondence Analysis (Figure C.38) which shows a clear left to right separation of, on the one hand, Cassady, DeWaele and Kelly, and on the other, Cherry Lane,

Summary and Discussion Several noteworthy patterns were observed in connection with the analysis of Iroquoian and Western Basin vessel forms and decorative properties. While these trends will be considered more fully in Chapter VI, a brief discussion of their significance vis-a-vis the identification of Iroquoian and Western Basin potting practices is offered here. Generally speaking, it would seem that notions of supra-local identity, whether they be Iroquoian or Western Basin in nature, can be detected in aspects of vessel morphology and the symmetrical underpinnings of decoration. With regard to vessel morphology, this contention is supported by distinctive patterns of lip construction (i.e., form and thickness) and overall rim profile. Rounded lip surfaces tend to occur more frequently on Western Basin vessels while flat lip surfaces are more common to Iroquoian pottery. Each of the seven collections examined displayed low frequencies of pointed lips. Additional morphological qualities involving vessel lips, such as castellation nature and development, may also prove informative but unfortunately these attributes could not be effectively measured in this study due to the fragmentary nature of the various samples. Data pertaining to the mean thickness and standard deviation of vessel lips were somewhat inconclusive although differences were apparent between the Iroquoian sites of DeWaele and Cassady on the one hand, and the Western Basin sites of Cherry Lane, Dymock and Krieger on the other. The exceptions to this pattern, which include both Van Bree and Kelly, suggest that lip thicknesses in these collections more closely resemble Western Basin than Iroquoian construction practices. With regard to Van Bree, there are several possible ways to interpret these findings. When considered in connection with the decorative data and the results of the symmetry analysis (see below) there is every indication that the Van Bree collection, on the whole, cannot be attributed to a strictly Western Basin (Younge) or Early Ontario Iroquoian occupation. These data certainly lend themselves well to Cunningham’s (1999, 2001) argument for a co-occupation of the site by both Western Basin and Iroquoian groups. In just about every trend identified in the data, the Van Bree collection shows a wavering

78

That these vessels do not resemble specimens from either Krieger or Dymock and yet display aspects of form and decoration associated with Western Basin wares, hints at the possibility of a design coalesce. Interestingly, it would seem that those vessels that we can identify as Early Ontario Iroquoian in nature (from the central cluster) do not appear to display features found on Western Basin pottery. In other words, it would appear that design influences were unidirectional in nature. What is more, recent mitigative excavations immediately north of Van Bree (see Archaeologix 2006b) have resulted in the documentation of at least two sites (AgHk-40 and 41) with ceramic inventories that strongly resemble the collection examined here. It may be, then, that the patterning we are seeing locally at Van Bree is more the rule than the exception in this region. These interpretations, however, do nothing to aid our understanding of the anomalous lip thickness data from Kelly. By all accounts, the Kelly collection can be safely ascribed to an Iroquoian occupation and can be firmly dated to the late twelfth through mid-thirteenth centuries. As such, it may be that this variable is simply unsuited to the task of distinguishing between Western Basin and Iroquoian groups at the supra-regional scale. The efficacy of this statement, however, is belied by the fact that the lip thickness variable can be considered instructive where the other five sites are concerned, four of which (e.g., DeWaele and Cassady; Dymock and Cherry Lane) are separated by distances of 40 km or more. It may be, then, that lip thickness is useful in distinguishing between Iroquoian and Western Basin practices and the anomalous data from the Kelly site can perhaps be attributed to other factors such as sampling error. Attributes of vessel decoration (i.e., decorative tool, technique and motif) also reveal several supra-regional trends such as the tendency for Iroquoian vessels to bear crosshatching on interior, lip and exterior rim surfaces (particularly demonstrable at Cassady), and for these same collections to exhibit a much higher frequency of plain lip surfaces and interior punctates / exterior bosses than their Western Basin counterparts. That these trends might be considered defining features of Early Ontario Iroquoian pottery collections is perhaps not surprising given their identification as such by earlier researchers (e.g., Timmins 1997, Wright 1966 and Williamson 1990). Nevertheless, what is noteworthy is the absence of similar pan-regional decorative conventions on Western Basin vessel surfaces. Such trends were not identified in either the Krieger or Dymock collections, for example, which were instead characterized by a broad array of attribute states, particularly on exterior Bands 2 and 3 (see Tables B.29 and B.32). This heterogeneity is influenced, in part, by the

‘allegiance’ to one group or the other, or at times appears as an amalgam of the two. These patterns, however, do not necessarily point to a co-occupation of the site, at least in the traditional sense. Indeed, it may be that what we are seeing at Van Bree is evidence of a syncretic social form composed of both Western Basin and Iroquoian peoples and engendered by an experiential setting unique to the spatial interstices between these two traditions. As Lightfoot and Martinez (1995:472) note, such ‘frontier’ zones might be conceptualized as “socially charged places where innovative cultural constructs are created and transformed”. Assuming this is a single component site, we might expect in such pluralistic settings that material culture would be apprehended in ways which differ markedly from other contexts. Owing to the momentary and dynamic nature of these places, it seems likely that actor-networks would exist as divergent entities where human/non-human interactions would be uncoordinated and subject to interpretation. Consequently, the semiotic functioning of material culture within such schemes would be only weakly-constituted or contested and might encourage the production of new admixed forms and designs. Cunninghan (1999:66) disfavours such an interpretation of the Van Bree site and instead argues that the occupation may be demarcated by feature clusters and associated vessel styles. As was noted in Chapter IV, Western Basin (Younge) pottery is associated with a cluster of features on the western periphery of the site while Early Ontario Iroquoian vessels are found within a central cluster. While there can be little doubt that pottery from the central cluster is the product of Iroquoian artisans, as suggested by vessels VB-012 through VB-014 from Feature 41, VB-015 from Feature 45 (Plate VII) and vessels VB-025 through VB-027 from Feature 30 (Plate VII), vessels which Cunningham (1999:47) attributes to the west cluster do not entirely resemble Western Basin forms from sites such as Krieger or Dymock. Three of these, which are sizable, partially reconstructed vessels, come from Feature 71. VB-035 has a flat lip, interior punctation and a convex rim orientation, and lacks the elongated neck surface common to Western Basin vessels. VB-037 (Plate VI) displays similar features but has an elongated neck upon which is incised a complex panel of triangular elements. Although not uncommon on Western Basin forms (e.g., KC-001), such elements are typically delimited by punctates or clearly separated by undecorated space (e.g., KR-069 [Plate I], 070 [Plate II]; DY-006, 059 [Plate IV]). Finally, VB-048 (Plate VI), which resembles a Western Basin vessel in terms of its overall morphology, contains a convex rim orientation, flat lip, interior slash punctates and exterior decorative plaits.

79

The preceding discussion essentially paints a picture of potting practices within the study area as influenced by two distinct yet complementary realms of material agency. The first of these might be seen as embedded within the formal properties of pottery and experienced by the artisan through attributes of vessel morphology. Here it would seem that among both Western Basin and Iroquoian potters, practices related to the shaping of vessels subscribe to a material imperative that is supra-local in extent and governed by an intuitive understanding of what constitutes ‘proper’ design. Morphology was likely not subject to direct (discursive) manipulation by artisans during the course of vessel construction, but rather existed both literally and figuratively as a palette upon which decorative attributes were realized and more actively combined. Among Iroquoian potters, when aspects of vessel form are considered in concert with decorative practices, it is possible to suggest that these features served to promote a fairly well-knit design repertoire. Interpreted in light of the conceptual framework outlined in Chapter II, it would appear that pottery was well-entrenched within Iroquoian actor-networks to the extent that both form and decoration channelled craft production, transmission and notions of a collective pan-regional identity. Not all Iroquoian potting practices, however, can be interpreted in this fashion, as suggested by the evidence for design heterogeneity. In these instances, it might be reasonable to assert that at the nexus where the intentionality of Iroquoian artisans was met by the effective agency of pottery design, there existed the potential for ‘anti-scripts’ to be brought forward and materialized. When the data pertaining to Western Basin morphology, decoration and symmetry is examined, we can see numerous deviations from the above-noted characterization of Iroquoian potting practices. If we look to both the scope of decorative attributes and the classes of design symmetry employed in their arrangement, it would appear that the agential qualities of Western Basin vessels engendered a wholly dissimilar manner of craft production and transmission than what is seen among Iroquoian communities. Although regional trends are present, particularly in the use of vessel necks for zoned decorative treatments, there is little in the way of evidence to suggest that Western Basin potters experienced a climate of design that was limited by a finite set of attribute constellations and understood beyond the local level. These data, when situated within an artifact-oriented approach to pottery manufacture, seem to intimate that a weaker form of material agency is found within the realm of Western Basin decorative conventions when compared with the agential nature of vessel morphology. Indeed, we might suggest that decorative practices and design symmetry represent aspects

frequency and diversity of motifs consisting of horizontal differences on vessel necks. Accordingly, it would seem Iroquoian decorative practices can be portrayed as more simplified and internally-homogeneous, especially at the sites of DeWaele and Kelly. Having said this, there appear to be instances of artisanal choice in decorative practices at both Iroquoian and Western Basin settlements. Potters at both Krieger and Van Bree, for example, show a propensity for crescent stamping, samples from Krieger and Dymock (and to some extent Cassady) display an affinity for cord-wrapped implement use, while Cherry Lane potters exhibit a preference for dentate-stamped decorations. Among the Iroquoian samples, DeWaele reveals a very high incidence of plain (undecorated) surfaces while potters at both Cassady and Kelly exhibit a strong penchant for crosshatching and interior punctates / exterior bosses, respectively. Given these tendencies, we might suggest that where vessel decoration is concerned (as opposed to construction techniques and design symmetry [see below]), there is a certain degree of discursive practice or individual choice at play among both Iroquoian and Western Basin potters, despite adherence to more of a rigid design aesthetic among the former. With regard to plane pattern symmetry, the analyses of exterior design configurations (intra- and inter-band) suggest few differences can be observed between Iroquoian and Western Basin practices where rim surfaces are concerned. With the exception of VB-037, all vessels displayed intra-band configurations consisting of “translation” while ratios of “translation” to “reflection” between bands failed to illuminate differences that can be understood in terms of either an Iroquoian or Western Basin pattern. Of interest, however, is the preference among Iroquoian potters for symmetrical classes involving “translation” or “none” (asymmetry) on vessel necks, which differs substantially in extent from the broad array of classes found on Western Basin neck surfaces. Indeed, all seven classes of one-dimensional infinite symmetry are found in the Krieger collection while five of the seven classes are found in the Dymock collection. As an aside, the absence of standardization in the Krieger collection is particularly striking, not only with respect to design symmetry but also in the variability associated with vessel morphology and decoration. Like those properties associated with vessel rim morphology, the overall patterning which emerges from the analysis of intra-band symmetry on vessel necks suggests that there is an element of group identity associated with this particular design realm. As such, this variable seems particularly well-suited to differentiating between Iroquoian and Western Basin potting practices regardless of the actual decorative attributes used to further such designs.

80

of vessel use that were not firmly placed or collectively understood within Western Basin actor-networks. These qualities, it would seem, were actively manipulated by potters in the course of daily social life and point to more ephemeral material directives consistent with smaller-scale, and perhaps shorter-term, experiential settings. Having briefly explored some of the more substantive implications of these data, what remains is to consider the above patterns in connection with a broader focus on Iroquoian and Western Basin lifeways. This objective is advanced within the following chapter alongside an overall summary of the theoretical, methodological and culturehistorical contributions of this study.

81

82

Chapter 6 Summary and Conclusions

between material culture, the nature of human experience and the mechanisms of social change. Things, it would seem, are regarded within this new framework as simply one of many loci where we might profitably look for the negotiation of a structure-agency dialectic. We might expect, for example, to see how issues of gender or ethnicity are manipulated in various communities over time vis-à-vis changes in the production and consumption of items. Such a perspective, however, tends to gloss over the significance of human/non-human interactions by treating material culture as a “passive store of goods, dominated and exploited by humanity” (Thomas 1996:13). To treat things so obsequiously is to unduly privilege the notion that structure and agency can exist outside of material settings. Thus, as I have suggested throughout this study, there is a need to recast the structure-agency dialectic as something enmeshed in the very fabric of material culture production and use. Rather than adhere to notions of material culture as passive, as something referenced only obliquely by actors in the course of practice, an attempt has been made to show how both people and things can be equally implicated in configurations of thought and action. In advancing this position, efforts have been made to point out how things may be considered agential beings in their own right. This seemingly paradoxical statement was explored throughout Chapter II in connection with a phenomenological approach that emphasizes consciousness as engendered by the ways we apprehend and interact with the material world. In contrast to Cartesian positivism, a phenomenological perspective seeks to obviate the subjectobject dichotomy inherent in most Western thought by instead suggesting that our being-in-the-world is bound up in a practical concern with things. It is through such concerns that the world becomes known to us; neither mind nor world are given as traditional idealisms and realisms would suggest. Moreover, our very identity and sociality can be understood through the medium of material culture — as Brück (2005:46) puts it, “things make us, just as we make things”. Once things can be afforded such a role in our social development, it becomes possible to envisage a world in which artifacts themselves can be considered agents insofar as they serve to condition certain states of mind among their users. This brings into sharp relief the potency of material culture, through its properties of design, to facilitate human intervention in its ultimate continuation or alteration. As part of such a conceptual orientation, it is also necessary that we consider how material imperatives

The primary goal of this study has been to explore the agentiality of human/non-human interaction within the context of Late Woodland period pottery production in southwestern Ontario. By moving past notions of Cartesian dualism, of polemics involving people and things on opposite sides of a categorical boundary, this treatise has considered how agency may be thought of as a property of the lifeworld and thereby exercised as part of the manifold linking potter and pot together. Toward this end, an investigative program has been proposed in an attempt to conceptualize such entanglements and to understand how their positions within actor-networks can serve to encourage or constrain specific design practices. This chapter attempts to draw out and critically evaluate this proposition with reference to the theoretical, methodological and culture-historical research described in this study. It begins with an examination of the key theoretical tenets outlined in Chapter II and continues with an evaluation of how effectively the methodological framework can be said to operationalize these positions. The results of this study, as presented in the previous chapter and in Appendices B and C, are then further considered in light of these aims and in connection with current interpretations regarding Iroquoian and Western Basin lifeways. Theoretical Contributions Much has been written in recent years regarding the efficacy of an agent-centred understanding of the past. Despite the myriad interpretations of this approach, as proffered by its adherents (see Dobres and Robb 2000:9 for examples), an emphasis on agency theory marks a particularly felicitous development for the discipline of archaeology. Through the works of Bourdieu (e.g., 1977, 1990) and Giddens (e.g., 1979, 1984), for example, archaeologists are now better able to conceptualize the interplay between objective and subjective experience, between structure and agency, and how these two forces may be reconciled in the course of daily life. Indeed, archaeologists now routinely model culture change in terms of a structure-agency dialectic, according practice a significant role in explaining individual experience while at the same time couching this knowledge within an array of obdurate norms and values. While this move has enjoyed considerable traction as of late, particularly in Americanist quarters, there remain several unresolved issues concerning the articulations

83

sign, meaning in material culture is never fixed but rather exists as a relational and contrastive concept defined by its position as a node within the network. As Hodder (e.g., 1989:257, 1992:201-202) points out, however, applying Saussurean semiology to material culture is fraught with difficulty. This is due in large part to the fact that material culture signs do not always exist as abstract (arbitrary) conventions — that is, as mental concepts given by the relation between sign and signified. They can be, and often are, motivated by the things themselves and their role within contexts of discursive action. This results in situations where signification in material culture can be considered more equivocal than signification in language. This problem, it has been argued, can be overcome with the aid of a semiotic framework based on the writings of Charles Sanders Peirce. He believed that the signification process was not limited to an arbitrary, ethereal relationship between sign and signified (as suggested by Saussure) but instead held that signification was rooted in the connections that come about between internal representation and external reality. I have suggested that we might advance the cause of ANT through the more sophisticated treatment of signs afforded by Peircean semiotics wherein interpretants can proceed from a variety of imperatives. Importantly, the Peircean scheme specifically references sign types that are motivated by direct experience (i.e., icons and indices) and can therefore be considered unburdened by convention. The frame of reference produced by a rendering of ANT that embraces Peircean semiotics allows us to get past the gambit that cognitive inference is tied to a detached contemplation or interpretation or ‘symbolic meaning’. Instead, we can speak of material forms of agency where things guide the process of signification and take part in the construction of the lifeworld. With regard to investigating the interpretants of such signs and the imbrication between material agency and states of mind, it has been suggested that we might reasonably conceive of potting practices as being channelled along both discursive and intuitive lines. Couched in an experiential framework, a model has been presented whereby it is considered possible to differentiate between designs that result from rational action and those that are generated through more visceral, taken-for-granted notions of artisanal protocol. A pronounced degree of attribute variability, provided factors of skill can be accounted for, may reveal the diversified nature of potting practices and point to a series of discursively-organized and locally-situated production regimes. By contrast, a relatively homogeneous sample of attributes may betray their functioning as part of a more broadly-based craft tradition organized within intuitively-understood design

become embedded in various physical settings. It is through the consort of things with places that the world is disclosed, and thinking about the emergence of artifacts in connection with specific contexts allows us to see where the forces of human agency and materiality meet. Along these lines, agency may be seen not so much as an innate ability of humans but rather as a quality given by the very contexts in which people and things are found and exercised as part of these linkages. Where once it was suggested that the manipulation of an externalized material culture would point to the negotiation of a broader structure-agency dialectic, it is now possible within this frame to see a network of relations in which the producers, users and contexts of things each contribute to the complexion of social life. It was suggested in Chapter II that this perspective may be partially explicated within the context of ActorNetwork theory (ANT) as developed by Bruno Latour, Michel Callon and John Law. ANT adopts as its central belief the idea that both humans and non-humans exist within heterogeneous networks that serve to fashion and habituate forms of social order. As inclusive systems, actor-networks are given shape by the connections that exist between people and things. Reality, therefore, cannot be seen to exist in either cultural or natural essences but rather in constellations of the two. Agents or ‘actants’ in the parlance of ANT are defined by the relations that exist within such systems and have no fundamental substance prior to their translation and inscription within networks of action. Within ANT, the term ‘translation’ refers to the processes by which actors become caught up and integrated within spheres of influence. In an effort to promote stability, these processes seek to create connections and convergence between previously dissimilar interests. The term ‘inscription’, on the other hand, pertains to the content associated with translations and mechanism(s) by which they might be rendered within such schemes. As was illustrated with the examples of the Berlin key (Latour 2000) and the hotel key fob (Latour 1991), the intersections of human and non-human forms of agency can be revealed through a study of how things permit influence at a distance, and the extent to which they either facilitate ‘scripted’ actions or are contested by ‘antiscripts’. An additional yet no less attractive feature of ANT can be found in its semiotic basis for such actions. Law (1999:4), for example, has suggested that ANT might be regarded as a “semiotics of materiality” wherein the principles associated with the Saussurean linguistic sign (i.e., that meaning is given by the relation between a sign and what it stands for) might also be extended to the material world. This would suggest that, like the linguistic

84

variations in decorative practices and can therefore look to the widespread use or unique manipulation of individual attributes for evidence of how potters experience their craft. Perhaps more importantly, however, a focus on attributes over types provides a more accessible archaeological position from which to study the machinations of things, particularly their semiotic functioning. Elements of form and decoration, through their collective capacity for subtle variation and ease of use, can serve to direct craft production by promoting degrees of discursive practice or reinforcing kinds of intuitive thought. Quantifying decorative attributes in such a multifaceted way allows us to get at these very distinctions, both from an intra- and inter-site perspective. The analysis of plane-pattern symmetry conducted as part of this study also makes several key methodological contributions. Firstly, by recognizing the finite and universal number of one-dimensional symmetry classes, it is possible for several independent analyses to reach the same conclusion regarding the underlying structure of decorative motifs. This minimizes the extent of interobserver bias, common in more typologically-based approaches, and allows for design symmetry to be detected across multiple regions. This may be seen as particularly appealing within areas such as the Eastern Woodlands where numerous classificatory schemes and cultural traditions often fall within the purview of regional research endeavours. If placed in a diachronic context, it would also be possible to look for change through time in the design structure of individual social groups. This would be attractive, for example, to those scholars whose work is rooted in the Annales school of historical inquiry where temporal change is conceptualized as operating at several different levels. When examined in concert with attributes, as in this study, one might consider how changes in symmetrical preferences can speak to the more deeplyseated currents of social change. That design symmetry can be applied to different classes of artifacts, irrespective of their cultural or geographical origins, marks another environment for fruitful applications of this approach. Although only pottery was considered in this analysis, the methodology described in Chapter IV, including the intra- versus interband framework, is broadly applicable to other media, and there is potential for future studies of Woodland materials to incorporate additional artifact classes (e.g., smoking pipes and textiles) in the search for underlying decorative structures. In such a scenario, it may be possible to detect multiple processes of craft transmission and production within a corpora of things. The use of design symmetry complements an attribute-based approach to decoration by allowing us to

conventions. By interpreting attribute patterning within such a framework, it is possible to see how stylistic conventions can prefigure a continuum of socialities ranging from more fluid, localized expressions of community identity to more homogeneous pan-regional cultural entities. Importantly, however, these interpretations must recognize that attributes are not in and of themselves discursively or intuitively understood by potters but rather are construed as such through the semiotic mediation of material culture. It is through their placement within actor-networks (i.e., the experiential contexts of their production and circulation) that pots, like other items, act together to shape certain engagements with their users. Future studies exploring the relationship between material culture and group identity in Woodland contexts might benefit from such an orientation, insofar as it can be demonstrated that qualities of artisanal knowledge and intent are profoundly influenced by the material world. Indeed, by adopting such a perspective, we are in effect recognizing the power of things to hold sway over specific culture-historical developments. Methodological Contributions In advancing the theoretical framework outlined above, the methodology of this study has considered how Late Woodland pottery might have been taken up and reproduced by artisans through their being-in-the-world. It has sought to identify how aspects of vessel morphology and decoration might serve to establish certain potting practices and promote or constrain a range of ‘accepted’ design considerations. Accordingly, the analysis described in Chapter IV proceeded by means of a relatively detailed coding scheme wherein both discrete and continuous attributes of form were recorded alongside various decorative properties. Decorative properties were further examined in terms of their constituent elements (i.e., attributes of tool, technique and motif) and the symmetrical classes by which they were organized and manipulated. It was hoped that against such a backdrop it would be possible to explore how vessels channel artisanal skill, accommodate intention and promote specific constructions of social identity. The attribute-based approach described in Chapter IV represents one of the more significant methodological contributions of this study. By mitigating against the potential for inter-observer bias and resisting the more normative conceptions of culture given by various typological methods, an emphasis on decorative attributes allows for a more fine-grained analytical scope and makes possible the detection of nested, agential practice. Within such a scheme, we are better able to distinguish between

85

further characterize the context and content of material forms of agency. Although more of a conceptual than methodological contribution per se, this study attempts to decouple symmetry theory from its links to ceramic sociology, and applies a new approach to our concern with social identities and how they are constructed. Together with a move away from essentialist equations of style with ethnicity, it has been argued that symmetry, like other aspects of pottery form and decoration, might be more effectively examined as a quality of design that is subject to a variety of inputs, including the vagaries of materialization. Of course, it would ludicrous to suggest that an established potter worked without any ideal conceptions of symmetrical choice. But it would also be a mistake, I believe, to argue that design symmetry does not issue from a practical, habitual and ultimately relational engagement between artisan and craft. Finally, the methods employed in this study contribute to a more nuanced understanding of data reduction in the analysis of pottery decoration through the use of Correspondence Analysis (CA). While the BrainerdRobinson Index of Agreement (IA) may be a useful measure of gross similarity between sites or collections according to a specific variable, applications of CA allow for a more informed picture of similarity and difference. This is given by its ability to incorporate multiple categorical variables both within and between assemblages in the search for patterning. This feature was considered particularly valuable herein where subtle distinctions in vessel form and decoration are used to elaborate upon the varied dimensions of pottery manufacture. Where attribute states were numerous, such as in the analysis of tool, technique and motif configurations, CA proved particularly useful in its ability to reduce the number of dimensions needed to adequately capture patterning among the seven assemblages. Its analytical import was realized to a considerable extent through the use of biplots, which graphically depict the intersection between row and column coordinates in low-dimensional space. The most obvious advantages to using CA, in tandem with IA, include the ability to proceed through a series of exploratory stages whereby broader patterns identified in the IA can be more specifically examined and teased apart in the CA. This is seen through an analysis of inertia, as described in Chapter IV, to which each dimension of row and column coordinates contributes. By looking at how much inertia is explained by the first two dimensions, which influences the arrangement of row and column co-ordinates in the biplot, the analyst is provided with a detailed picture of similarity and difference between entities.

Culture-Historical Contributions As outlined in Chapter IV, this study enlisted pottery from seven Late Woodland (ca. AD 900-1300) sites in southwestern Ontario in an effort to marry the conceptual and methodological framework described above with a substantive case study. Generally speaking, this case study sought to evaluate, within a synchronic framework, the potting practices of both Iroquoian and Western Basin groups with an eye towards exploring how such groups might differ in their respective engagements with things. At issue was the notion, developed in Chapter II, that potting practices entail a negotiation between human and non-human forms of agency. Rather than look to material culture for evidence of an abstracted tug-of-war between social structure and human agency, we need to recognize that people and things establish relational microcosms of their own. These microcosms serve as distinct yet richlytextured loci for human/non-human interaction, for an ebb and flow of agentialities which give rise to potting practices within a community. Attributes of vessel form, decoration and symmetry were systematically recorded and analyzed in a manner that permitted us to speak to this very idea, and several salient patterns were observed among the Iroquoian and Western Basin data as described in Chapter V. It is not enough, however, to simply recognize that patterns exist. Rather, if our goal is to address the notion that things mediate human actions and perceptions of the world, it is necessary that we attend to the contexts or conditions under which such patterns emerge. In our case, this requires recourse to an appreciation of the lifeways that would have existed within the various Iroquoian and Western Basin communities under examination. By doing so, we might more fully understand how pottery comes to exhibit the kind and arrangement of agential qualities that allow for its participation within actor-networks. Accordingly, for the remainder of this section, the patterns documented in Chapter V are discussed in connection with the Iroquoian and Western Basin lifeways of which they are a part. It is hoped that by interpreting these patterns in such a way, this study can contribute to a more refined understanding of Late Woodland culture-historical dynamics in southwestern Ontario. Among Iroquoian groups, as represented by collections from the DeWaele, Cassady and Kelly sites, an overall pattern of design homogeneity was revealed in aspects of vessel form, decoration and plane pattern symmetry. Beginning with vessel form, these three collections displayed evidence of supra-regional design preferences in lip morphology where flat surfaces were prevalent and consistently thinner in profile, for the most

86

emergent sense of permanency whereby daily social life was increasingly understood to be part of a long-term and more intimate connection with the local landscape. Interpreted phenomenologically, this portrayal has important implications for vessels with regard to how they would have been experienced and internalized by Iroquoian peoples. If it is true that nascent village life ushered in a newfound sense of stability, it follows that such developments might have fostered a more patterned occurrence of craft production, owing to their more routinized and frequent appearance within the same social contexts. When speaking of craft production and transmission, it is possible that artisanal knowledge was understood through an attachment to these social contexts, including specific settlement features such as longhouses. Moreover, if such dwellings were organized in a matrilocal fashion and it can be said that Iroquoian pottery was produced by women, we might realistically expect the uselife of things to be centred on the longhouse. Pottery, like other items circulating in particular spaces, might have been firmly entrenched within Iroquoian actor-networks and, as such, may have been regarded and apprehended by artisans intuitively. If pottery was indeed conceptualized in such a fashion, this would likely be reflected in attributes of form, decoration and design symmetry and may help to explain the patterning described in Chapter V. Here, however, it is also possible to speak specifically to material forms of agency — in this case, to the ability of pottery to map out a conventional and delimited set of practices to be passed on from expert to novice potters. Where this material agency abuts attempts by emergent or experienced craft practitioners to contest such practices, marked irregularities in vessel morphology and decorative attributes ensue. Among Iroquoian groups, the fact that we see such patterns is in some ways remarkable when we consider that, for the period AD 900-1300, emergent village life could just as easily have increased rather than decreased opportunities for design heterogeneity. Through the aggregation of previously autonomous communities into larger villages, and the arrangement of larger villages into regional socio-political frameworks, potters were likely exposed to previously disparate practices and design aesthetics. These occurrences would seem to argue for a more fluid interpretation of design among potters and against the ability of vessels to restrict the reproduction of form and decoration along narrower lines. This interpretation would certainly hold for sites such as Van Bree which, by all accounts, appears to represent a coming together of Western Basin and Iroquoian groups. But what of the larger and less fleeting occupations such as DeWaele and Cassady which can be considered villages? As well,

part, when compared with the Western Basin communities of Krieger, Dymock and Cherry Lane. As well, these same vessels were predominantly constructed with convex rim orientations which contrasts with the more frequent occurrence of concave rim profiles in Western Basin pottery. In terms of decoration, the Iroquoian collections also exhibited evidence of several widespread trends as suggested by the frequency of crosshatching on interior, lip and exterior surfaces and the use and placement of punctates and bosses. Having said this, there is evidence for several localized decorative affinities as indicated by the above-average use of cord-wrapped implements at Cassady and the frequency of plain specimens at DeWaele. Where design symmetry was observed, the data suggest that Iroquoian groups adhere to patterns involving either simple translation of a fundamental part or to patterns that were classified as asymmetrical (plain) in nature. When aspects of vessel form, decoration and symmetry are considered in tandem, it is possible to suggest that Iroquoian potting practices during this time adhered to a fairly well-established repertoire of designs. When interpreted within the conceptual framework outlined earlier, it would appear that all three stylistic components (i.e., form, decoration and symmetry) served together to engender a broadly-based design scheme internalized by potters as part of an implicit or ‘doxic’ arena, to use Bourdieu’s terminology, or the uncontested ‘lifeworld’ of Habermas. If true, this would imply that the subject matter of Iroquoian potters would have been difficult to rationalize and deploy discursively by virtue of a collective, material-centred process that semiotically channelled the production of pottery design into more cohesive frames of reference. Not all Iroquoian potting practices, however, may be explained by this process, as suggested by the evidence for design heterogeneity. In these instances, we might reasonably conclude that at the intersection between human and non-human forms of agency there exists the potential for ambiguity and contradiction, and the degree to which this shows up in material culture reflects a negotiation of sorts between these two agential states. In many ways, this interpretation fits within established culture-historical depictions of Iroquoian lifeways in southwestern Ontario. During the AD 900-1300 time period, Iroquoian groups would have been living in small, semi-sedentary villages with an economy oriented toward the production of maize. As noted in Chapter III, this emphasis on horticulture is thought to presage certain socio-political developments such as matrilocal residence, matrilineality, population growth, regional interaction and ossuary burial. These events suggest that Iroquoian lifeways during this time might be infused with an

87

production of vessel neck decoration — the only group in this study to do so — while Dymock potters made use of five symmetry classes. This is significant when we consider that, among Iroquoian potters, one class (translation) was repeatedly employed to the virtual exclusion of all others. When elements of Western Basin vessel morphology, decoration and symmetry are examined as part of a design repertoire, we can see numerous departures from Iroquoian conventions. The breadth of diversity present in decorative practices and design symmetry would seem to indicate that Western Basin potters did not adhere, in either kind or degree, to the potting practices associated with Iroquoian groups. The notion that Western Basin potters might have subscribed to any central or dominant design template, beyond that associated with vessel morphology, finds little empirical support in the data presented in Chapter V. The discordant nature of Western Basin decorative practices, when placed within the theoretical account of pottery production described earlier, hints at a form of human/nonhuman interaction markedly different from the milieu experienced by Iroquoian artisans. Where decoration and symmetry are concerned, we might suggest that these practices were understood by Western Basin potters to be heterodoxic in nature and open to rational ‘play’ within an overall corpus of design. While the idea that symmetry might be grasped by potters in a discursive fashion runs contrary to more traditional (structuralist) interpretations regarding its nature, this view fits within an approach that regards pottery production as relational and as something which preconditions cognition at a basic level. A less contentious interpretation might hold that Western Basin groups simply understood and had access to a wider range of symmetry classes than did Iroquoian potters. If true, the variety and employment of symmetry classes we see in pottery from sites such as Krieger and Dymock may merely signal a more fluid but nonetheless intuitively-based exercise. In either case, the diversity of attribute states and symmetry classes associated with Western Basin pottery would have allowed for these vessels to operate in a fashion quite dissimilar from Iroquoian wares. In their promotion of more nuanced forms of expression and engagement with the craft, these ceramics might have nurtured a more ostentatious display of artisanal skill, as reflected in such trends as elaborate neck decoration, and provided for a synchronicity of human/non-human agency at the experiential nexus where things and people meet. This perspective is strengthened by the Murphy and Ferris (1990) assessment of Western Basin lifeways during the AD 900-1200 period. As outlined in Chapter III, these groups would have followed a hunter-gatherer economic

what of Kelly, which, while not a village, was nonetheless likely tethered to a larger site such as Roeland (Williamson 1985, 1990)? It may be that at these sites, which date from the mid-twelfth to mid-thirteenth centuries AD, any sense of instability associated with an earlier merging of communities had dissipated by these times. If true, this would suggest that the more uniform dynamics of social life as described above emerged within a short time, perhaps over the course of one or two generations during the twelfth century AD. It may also be, in light of the data from Van Bree, that prior to the establishment of an Iroquoian ‘pattern’ at some point after the thirteenth century AD, Iroquoian communities did not exclusively merge with one another but rather lived alongside their Western Basin contemporaries. The same patterns and interpretations cannot, however, be applied to Western Basin groups. As suggested in Chapter V, there would appear to be a greater degree of design heterogeneity both within and among the assemblages associated with Krieger, Dymock and Cherry Lane, and within aspects of the Van Bree collection. Chiefly, attributes of decoration and plane-pattern symmetry suggest a wider array of choice was available to Western Basin potters when compared with their Iroquoian neighbours. With regard to Western Basin vessel morphology, there is evidence of both supra-regional trends, including a preference for rounded lip surfaces and concave rim orientations, and localized patterning. Vessel lips, for example, tended to be thicker overall but displayed a greater range of internal variation when compared with the Iroquoian specimens. In keeping with the notion of heterogeneity, very few expansive trends were observed in Western Basin decorative practices which contrasts with the repeated occurrence on many Iroquoian vessels of traits such as crosshatching and interior punctation / exterior bossing. As mentioned in Chapter V, Correspondence Analyses associated with interior, lip and exterior decoration frequently classify Krieger and, to a lesser extent, Dymock as outliers. In some cases, the distance between these sites is just as great as the distance each shows to the other sites in the study. Where Western Basin design practices can, however, be seen to converge is in the presence of elaborate, nested panels of decoration on vessel necks. Interestingly, while these designs may be similar in their symmetrical configurations, they nonetheless often vary among sites in the kinds of tools, techniques and motifs employed in their realization. As well, while similarities in design symmetry are common, particularly between the sites of Krieger and Dymock, there are also numerous examples of variability within each of these assemblages. Potters at Krieger, for example, utilized all seven symmetry classes for the

88

material culture plays in affecting or precluding certain actions must be paramount. As such, this study has sought to carve out a conceptual niche whereby things, in this case pottery, can be shown to maintain a negotiation of agential states — both human and non-human in nature — as part of a broader web of action that simultaneously affects both material and social relations. To aid in this endeavour, two key schools of thought (i.e., Actor-Network theory and Peircean semiotics) have been discussed in connection with Late Woodland period (ca. AD 900-1300) potting practices in southwestern Ontario. The results of this thesis suggest that where emergent forms of village life are in evidence, such as among Early Ontario Iroquoian groups, pottery is predominantly understood within a narrowly defined and intuitively-based sense of craft tradition. It is argued that this results from a firmly situated engagement with the material culture universe. Through a longer-term and more intimate connection with regional settings, stylistic practices are instinctively perceived by Iroquoian potters as durable and this in turn contributes to a supra-local sense of community. Where such lifeways cannot be shown to exist, such as among Western Basin groups, a different form of material agency is understood to operate. As these artisans experience and apprehend their craft within shorter-term and more varied social settings, pottery serves to encourage a broader array of design practices which appear organized along both discursive and intuitive lines. These positions have been advanced through a detailed exploration of design practices and how these can be expanded or constricted in keeping with the mediative properties of vessel morphology and decoration. In this study, construction techniques, the use of various decorative elements and the symmetrical basis of motif configurations have all been examined in an effort to situate these occurrences within an experiential frame of reference. It has been suggested that attributes of form and decoration work together, at times, to reinforce certain practices and promote certain lifeways. At other times, however, the semiotic functioning of these two material domains may be at odds with one another, which results in contested and more heterogeneous regimens of design. Placing material culture within such a framework allows us the opportunity to critically evaluate more normative conceptions of culture wherein a one-to-one correlation between style and ‘ethnic’ identity is often uncritically asserted. The approach advocated in this study permits new insights into the formation of group identity by providing for a subtle investigation of how people and things interact, and how it is that forms of artisanal knowledge are differentially referenced and reinforced by these engagements.

orientation and there is little in the way of archaeological evidence from the region to suggest that semi-sedentary village life or food production developed in earnest until at least the fourteenth century AD. Sites during this period, typified by Krieger, Dymock and Cherry Lane, essentially consisted of one or two small dwellings around which were placed numerous large storage pits. They show few signs of having been occupied intensively by large groups of people and were instead likely reoccupied by smaller, extended families on a seasonal or semi-annual basis. The absence of Western Basin village life can be viewed as significant in several respects. First, with the high degree of mobility necessary to sustain such lifeways, pottery would not have enjoyed the same conditions of materialization or entrenched positions within actornetworks as were likely found within Iroquoian communities. Although presumably still focussed on the household, the shorter-term duration and smaller-scale socio-political organization associated with Western Basin sites suggests that young or inexperienced potters, who learn by imitation, would not have been exposed to the same societal dynamics as their Iroquoian peers. With regard to duration, the lack of a fixed household unit may have served to disrupt the development of a lineal craft tradition, particularly if pottery was not experienced by users within long-term social and material settings. Coupled with an absence of larger potting communities, in which aesthetics might be organized and sustained along household, community and regional lines, we can see how more flexible and incoherent forms of craft production might take shape among Western Basin groups. It may be, then, that only smaller-scale decorative practices, particular to each generation and family, could be sustained within such lifeways. Assuming that the symmetrical undertones of such practices were understood intuitively, these practices would not have been influenced by notions of a supra-regional identity. It is also possible to see within such a framework how both the agency of people and things can act symbiotically to promulgate discursivelyorganized decorative practices. Conclusions Of interest to this study has been the phenomenological tenet that our experience of the world, including its material products, is not reducible to a detached subject given before its relation to an object. When speaking of the structure-agency dialectic as a directive in social relations or as a force in specific historical trajectories, things are at once thoroughly implicated in such processes. It has been argued that to properly understand social life, an exploration of the role

89

90

Bibliography

Bakhtin, M. M. 1981 The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, edited by M. Holquist. Translated by M. Holquist and C. Emerson. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Akrich, M. 1992 The De-Scription of Technical Objects. In Shaping Technology / Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, edited by W. Bijker and J. Law, pp. 205-224. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

1986 Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, edited by C. Emerson and M. Holquist. Translated by V. W. McGhee. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Akrich, M., and B. Latour 1992 A Summary of a Convenient Vocabulary for the Semiotics of Human and Nonhuman Assemblies. In Shaping Technology / Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, edited by W. Bijker and J. Law, pp. 259-264. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Bapty, I. and T. Yates (eds.) 1990 Archaeology after Structuralism: Post-Structuralism and the Practice of Archaeology. Routledge, London.

Appadurai, A. (ed.). 1986 The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bapty, I. and T. Yates 1990 Introduction: Archaeology and Post-Structuralism. In Archaeology after Structuralism: Post-Structuralism and the Practice of Archaeology, edited by I. Bapty and T. Yates, pp. 1-32. Routledge, London.

Archaeologix Inc. 1998 Archaeological Assessment (Stage 4), AgHk-32, Greenway Environmental Management Pit, Warwick Township, Lambton County, Ontario. Report on file, Archaeologix Inc., London, Ontario.

Barrett, J. C. 2000 A Thesis on Agency. In Agency in Archaeology, edited by M.-A. Dobres and J. E. Robb, pp. 61-68. Routledge, London. 2001 Agency, the Duality of Structure, and the Problem of the Archaeological Record. In Archaeological Theory Today, edited by I. Hodder, pp. 141-164. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

2002 Archaeological Assessment (Stage 4) Cassady Site (AfHi-265), Precontact Component, River Bend Development Area, Part of Lot 49, Concession B, Geographic Township of Westminster, City of London, County of Middlesex, Ontario. Report on file, Archaeologix Inc., London, Ontario.

Bauer, A. A. 2002 Is What You See All You Get? Recognizing Meaning in Archaeology. Journal of Social Archaeology 2(1):37-52.

2006a Archaeological Assessment (Stage 4), Roger Laprise Consent Application B121/95. The Roffelsen Site (AcHn-33), AcHn-32 & AcHn-34, South Half of Lot 16, Concession 1, Township of Dover, County of Kent, Ontario. Report on file, Archaeologix Inc., London, Ontario.

Bekerman, A. 1995 Relative Chronology of Princess Point Sites. Unpublished MSc Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Toronto. Benzérci, J. 1973 L'analyse des données (Tomes I et II). Dunod, Paris.

2006b Archaeological Assessment (Stage 4), AgHk-40, AgHk-41, AgHk-47, Bingo West Pit, Part Lot 2, South Boundary Concession, Township of Bosanquet, County of Lambton, Ontario. Report on file, Archaeologix Inc., London, Ontario.

Bernbeck, R. 1999 Structure Strikes Back: Intuitive Meanings of Ceramics from Qale Rostam, Iran. In Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory,

91

Brainerd, G. W. 1942 Symmetry in Primitive Conventional Design. American Antiquity 8(2):164-166.

edited by J. E. Robb, pp. 90-111. Occasional Paper No. 26, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

1951 The Place of Chronological Ordering in Archaeological Analysis. American Antiquity 16(4):301-313.

Binford, L. R. 1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28(2):217-225. 1965 Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Process. American Antiquity 31(2): 203-210.

Brashler, J. 1973 A Formal Analysis of Prehistoric Ceramics from the Fletcher Site. Unpublished MA Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

1977 General Introduction. In For Theory Building in Archaeology, edited by L. R. Binford, pp 1-13. Academic Press, New York. 1981 Behavioral Archaeology and the “Pompeii Premise”. Journal of Anthropological Research 37(3):195-208.

1981 Early Late Woodland Boundaries and Interaction: Indian Ceramics of Southern Lower Michigan. Michigan State University Anthropological Series 3(3), East Lansing.

1988 Review of “Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology” by Ian Hodder. American Antiquity 53(4):875-876.

Braun, D. P., and S. Plog 1982 Evolution of “Tribal” Social Networks: Theory and Prehistoric North American Evidence. American Antiquity 47(3):504-525.

1989 Science to Seance, or Processual to “PostProcessual” Archaeology. In Debating Archaeology, pp. 27-40. Academic Press, San Diego.

Brück, J. 2005 Experiencing the Past? The Development of a Phenomenological Archaeology in British Prehistory. Archaeological Dialogues 12(1):45-72.

Boast, R. 1997 A Small Company of Actors: A Critique of Style. Journal of Material Culture 2(2):173-198.

Bursey, J. 1995 The Transition from the Middle to Late Woodland Periods: A Re-evaluation. In Origins of the People of the Longhouse, edited by A. Bekerman and G. Warrick, pp. 55-70. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Symposium, Ontario Archaeological Society, North York.

Bølviken, E., E. Helskog, K. Helskog, I. M. Holm-Olsen, L. Solheim and R. Bertelsen 1982 Correspondence Analysis: An Alternative to Principal Components. World Archaeology 14(1):41-60. Bourdieu, P. 1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Translated by R. Nice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Callon, M. 1980 Struggles and Negotiations to Define What is Problematic and What is Not: The Sociologic of Translation. In The Social Process of Scientific Investigation: Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook 4, edited by K. D. Knorr, R. Krohn and R. D. Whitley, pp. 197-219. D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

1990 The Logic of Practice. Polity Press, Cambridge. Boyle, D. 1889 Clearville Earthworks. Annual Archaeological Report for Ontario, 1888. Toronto.

1986 Some Elements of A Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fisherman of St. Brieuc Bay. In Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge, edited by J. Law, pp. 196-233. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.

1891 The Southwold Earthworks. Annual Archaeological Report for Ontario, 1890. Toronto.

92

Social Archaeology: Beyond Subsistence and Dating, edited by C. L. Redman, M. J. Berman, E. V. Curtin, W. T. Langhorne, Jr., N. M. Versaggi, and J. C. Wanser, pp. 61-85. Academic Press, New York.

1987 Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological Analysis. In The Social Construction of Technical Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, edited by W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes and T. J. Pinch, pp. 83-103. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

1980 Context, Structure, and Efficacy in Paleolithic Art and Design. In Symbol as Sense, edited by M. J. LeCron Foster and S. H. Brandes, pp. 225-248. Academic Press, New York.

1991 Techno-economic Networks and Irreversibility. In A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, edited by J. Law, pp. 132-161. Routledge, London.

Cooper, M. 1982 A Preliminary Report on the Carbonized Plant Remains from the Dymock Villages (AeHj-2). Kewa 82(4):2-10.

1999 Actor-Network Theory — The Market Test. In Actor Network Theory and After, edited by J. Law and J. Hassard, pp. 181-195. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

Crawford, C. S. 2004 Actor Network Theory. In Encyclopedia of Social Theory, edited by G. Ritzer, pp. 1-3. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.

Callon, M., and B. Latour 1981 Unscrewing the Big Leviathan: How Actors Macrostructure Reality and How Sociologists Help Them To Do So. In Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Toward an Integration of Micro- and Macro-Sociologies, edited by K. D. Knorr-Cetina and A. V. Cicourel, pp. 277-303. Routledge and Kegan Paul, Boston.

Crawford, G. W., and D. G. Smith 1996 Migration in Prehistory: Princess Point and the Northern Iroquoian Case. American Antiquity 61(4):782-790. Crawford, G. W., D. G. Smith, and V. Boyer 1997 Dating the Entry of Corn (Zea mays) into the Lower Great Lakes Region. American Antiquity 62(1):112-119.

1992 Don’t Throw the Baby Out with the Bath School! A Reply to Collins and Yearley. In Science as Practice and Culture, edited by A. Pickering, pp. 343-368. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Crawford, G. W., D. G. Smith, J. Deslogues, and A. Davis 1997 Floodplains and Agricultural Origins: A Case-Study in Southcentral Ontario, Canada. Journal of Field Archaeology 25(2):123-137.

1995 Agency and the Hybrid Collectif. South Atlantic Quarterly 94:481-507. Callon, M., and J. Law 1997 After the Individual in Society: Lessons in Collectivity from Science, Technology and Society. Canadian Journal of Sociology 22(2):165-182.

Cufr, R. J. 1969 The Cufr Site. Toledo Area Aboriginal Research Club Bulletin 1(2):12-35.

Chapdelaine, C. 1993 The Sedentarization of the Prehistoric Iroquoians: A Slow or Rapid Transformation? Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 12(2):173-209.

Cunningham, J. J. 1999 Pots and Incoherent Culture: Recovering Borderlands at the Van Bree Site (AgHk-32). Unpublished MA Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.

Cobley, P., and L. Jansz 2004 Introducing Semiotics. Icon Books, London.

2001 Ceramic Variation and Ethnic Holism: A Case Study from the “Younge-Early Ontario Iroquoian Border” in Southwestern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 25(1-2):1-27.

Conkey, M. W. 1978 Style and Information in Cultural Evolution: Toward a Predictive Model for the Paleolithic. In

93

1998 Habitus, Technique, Style: An Integrated Approach to the Social Understanding of Material Culture and Boundaries. In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, edited by M. Stark, pp. 232-269. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC.

Custer, J. F. 1987a Problems and Prospects in Northeastern Prehistoric Ceramic Studies. North American Archaeologist 8(2):97-123. 1987b Late Woodland Ceramics and Social Boundaries in Southeastern Pennsylvania and the Northern Delmarva Peninsula. Archaeology of Eastern North America 15:13-27.

Dobres, M.-A. 2000 Technology and Social Agency: Outlining a Practice Framework for Archaeology. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

Danesi, M. 1993 Messages and Meanings: An Introduction to Semiotics. Canadian Scholars’ Press, Toronto.

Dobres, M.-A., and J. E. Robb (eds.) 2000 Agency in Archaeology. Routledge, London.

DeBernardi, J. 1994 Social Aspects of Language Use. In Companion Encyclopedia of Anthropology: Humanity , Culture and Social Life, edited by T. Ingold, pp. 861-890. Routledge, London.

Dobres, M.-A., and J. E. Robb 2000 Agency in Archaeology: Paradigm or Platitude. In Agency in Archaeology, edited by M.-A. Dobres and J. E. Robb, pp. 1-17. Routledge, London.

Deetz, J. 1965 The Dynamics of Stylistic Change in Arikara Ceramics. University of Illinois Press, Chicago.

2005 “Doing Agency”: Introductory Remarks on Methodology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12(3):159-166.

1967 Invitation to Archaeology. Anchor Books, New York.

Dodd, C. F., D. R. Poulton, D. G. Smith, and G. A. Warrick 1990 The Middle Ontario Iroquoian Stage. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A. D. 1650, edited by C. J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 321-360. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter No. 5, Ontario Archaeological Society, London, Ontario.

Denny, J. P. 2001 Symmetry Analysis of Ceramic Designs and Iroquoian-Algonquian Interactions. In A Collection of Papers Presented at the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Canadian Archaeological Association, edited by J.-L. Pilon, M. W. Kirby and C. Thériault, pp. 128-145. The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc., Ottawa.

Dornan, J. 2002 Agency and Archaeology: Past, Present and Future Directions. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 9(4):303-329.

Derrida, J. 1970 Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences. In The Structuralist Controversy: The Languages of Criticism and the Sciences of Man, edited by R. Macksey and E. Donato, pp. 247-72. The John Hopkins Press, Baltimore.

Duke, P. 1995 Working Through Theoretical Tensions in Contemporary Archaeology: A Practical Attempt from Southwestern Colorado. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2(3):201-229.

1978 Writing and Difference. Translated by A. Bass. Routledge, London.

Dunnell, R. C. 1971 Systematics in Prehistory. Free Press, New York.

Dietler, M., and I. Herbich 1989 Tich Matek: The Technology of Luo Pottery Production and the Definition of Ceramic Style. World Archaeology 21(1):148-164.

1978 Style and Function: A Fundamental Dichotomy. American Antiquity 43(2):192-202.

94

Fox, W. A. 1976 The Central North Erie Shore. In The Late Prehistory of the Lake Erie Drainage Basin: A 1972 Symposium Revised, edited by D. Brose, pp. 162-192. Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland.

Emerson, J. N. 1968 Understanding Iroquois Pottery in Ontario: A Rethinking. Special Publication of the Ontario Archaeological Society, Toronto. Ferris, N. 1989a Continuity Within Change: Settlement-Subsistence Strategies and Artifact Patterns of the Southwestern Ontario Ojibwa, A.D. 1780-1861. Unpublished MA Thesis, Department of Geography, York University, Toronto.

1982 An Initial Report on the Dymock Villages (AeHj-2). Kewa 82(1):2-9. 1990 The Middle to Late Woodland Transition. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, edited by C. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 171-188. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter No. 5, Ontario Archaeological Society, London, Ontario

1989b A Preliminary Report on the 1987-1988 London Chapter Excavations at the Van Bemmel Site, Kent County, Ontario. Kewa 89(6):2-22. 1999 Telling Tales: Interpretive Trends in Southern Ontario Late Woodland Archaeology. Ontario Archaeology 68:1-62.

Fraser, M. A. 2001 Lengthy Longhouses, Eccentric Ceramics, and Other Quandaries: An Exploration of Identity at the Savage Site (AdHm-29). Unpublished MA Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.

Ferris, N., and R. Mayer 1990 Rescue Excavations of the Younge Phase Cherry Lane (AaHp-21) Site, Leamington, Essex County, Ontario. Report on file, Ontario Ministry of Culture, London, Ontario.

Friedrich, M. H. 1970 Design Structure and Social Interaction: Archaeological Implications of an Ethnographic Analysis. American Antiquity 35(3):332-343.

Ferris, N. and M. W. Spence 1995 The Woodland Traditions in Southern Ontario. Revista de Arqueologia Americana 9:83-138.

Gell, A. 1998 Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Fitting, J. E. 1965 Late Woodland Cultures of Southeastern Michigan. Anthropological Papers No. 24, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Giddens, A. 1979 Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. Macmillan Press, London.

1970 The Archaeology of Michigan. Natural History Press, Garden City.

1984 The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Polity Press, Cambridge.

Ford, J. A. 1953 Measurements of Some Prehistoric Design Developments in the Southeastern States. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, Vol. 44, Part. 3.

Gifford, J. C. 1960 The Type-Variety Method of Ceramic Classification as an Indicator of Cultural Phenomena. American Antiquity 25(3):341-347.

Foster, G. A. 1990 The Wolfe Creek Site AcHm-3: A Prehistoric Neutral Frontier Community in Southwestern Ontario. Monographs in Ontario Archaeology 3, Ontario Archaeological Society, Toronto.

1976 Prehistoric Pottery Analysis and the Ceramics of Barton Ramie in the Belize Valley. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, Vo. 18. Peabody Museum, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

95

Habermas, J. 1987 The Theory of Communicative Action Volume 2 Lifeworld and System, translated by T. McCarthy. Polity Press, Cambridge.

Gosden, C. 1994 Social Being and Time. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. 1999 Anthropology and Archaeology: A Changing Relationship. Routledge, London.

1998 On the Pragmatics of Communication, edited by M. Cooke. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

2005 What Do Objects Want? Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12(3):193-211.

Halsey, J. 1968 The Springwells Mound Group. In Contributions to Michigan Archaeology, Anthropological Papers No. 24, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Gottdiener, M. 1995 Postmodern Semiotics: Material Culture and the Forms of Postmodern Life. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

1976 The Bussinger Site. A Multicomponent Site in the Saginaw Valley of Michigan, with a Review of Early Late Woodland Mortuary Complexes in the Northeast Woodlands. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Graves-Brown, P. M. (ed.) 2000 Matter, Materiality and Modern Culture. Routledge, London. Graves-Brown, P. M. 1995 Fearful Symmetry. World Archaeology 27(1):88-99. Greenman, E. F. 1937 The Younge Site: An Archaeological Record from Michigan. Occasional Contributions of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 6, Ann Arbor.

Hardin, M. 1979 The Cognitive Basis of Productivity in a Decorative Art Style: Implications of an Ethnographic Study for Archaeologists’ Taxonomies. In Ethnoarchaeology: Implications of Ethnography for Archaeology, edited by C. Kramer, pp. 75-101. Columbia University Press, New York.

1939a Cultural Relationships of Archaeological Sites in the Upper Great Lakes Region. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts and Letters 24(4):1-10.

Hart, J. P., D. L. Asch, C. M. Scarry, and G. W. Crawford 2002 The Age of Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in the Northern Eastern Woodlands of North America. Antiquity 76:377-385.

1939b The Wolf and Furton Sites, Macomb County, Michigan. Occasional Contributions of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 8, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Hawkes, C. 1954 Archaeological Theory and Method: Some Suggestions from the Old World. American Anthropologist 56:155-168.

1956 The Woodland Culture in Michigan. Michigan Archaeological Society News 2(3):7-12.

Hawkes, T. 1977 Structuralism and Semiotics. University of California Press, Berkeley.

1958 Prehistoric Detroit. Michigan Archaeologist 4(4):81-98.

Heidegger, M. 1962 Being and Time, translated by J. Macquerrie and E. Robinson. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

Greimas, A. J. 1966 Sémantique Structurale. Librairie Larousse, Paris.

Hill, J. N. 1966 A Prehistoric Community in Eastern Arizona. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 22(1):9-30.

96

1999 The Archaeological Process: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

1970 Broken K Pueblo: Prehistoric Social Organization in the American Southwest. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No. 18, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

2004 The “Social” in Archaeological Theory: An Historical and Contemporary Perspective. In A Companion to Social Archaeology, edited by L. Meskell and R. W. Preucel, pp. 23-42. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.

1985 Style: A Conceptual Evolutionary Framework. In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by B. A. Nelson, pp. 362-385. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.

Howie-Langs, L. 1998 The Praying Mantis Site: A Study of Ceramic Variability and Cultural Behaviour at an Early Iroquoian Village. Unpublished MA Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.

Hill, J. N., and R. K. Evans 1972 A Model for Classification and Typology. In Models in Archaeology, edited by D. L. Clarke, pp. 231-273. Methuen, London. Hodder, I. (ed.) 1982 Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Husserl, E. 1983 Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy, First Book, translated by F. Kersten. Nijhoff, The Hague.

1987 Archaeology as Long-Term History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Ingold, T. 2000 Making Culture and Weaving the World. In Matter, Materiality and Modern Culture, edited by P. M. Graves-Brown, pp. 50-71. Routledge, London.

Hodder, I. 1982 Symbols in Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1985 Boundaries as Strategies: An Ethnoarchaeological Study. In The Archaeology of Frontiers and Boundaries, edited by S. W. Green and S. M. Perlman, pp. 141-159. Academic Press, New York.

Jamieson, S. M. 1989 Precepts and Percepts of Northern Iroquois Households and Communities: The Changing Past. In Households and Communities, Proceedings of the 21st Annual Chacmool Conference, edited by S. MacEachern, D. J. W. Archer, and R. D. Garvin. Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary.

1986 Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

1991 A Pickering Conquest? Kewa 91(5):2-18.

1989 This is Not an Article About Material Culture as Text. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8(3):250-269.

Jarvis, D. 1996 Analysis of the Trent University Ceramic Collection From the Krieger Site Near Chatham. Kewa 96(2):2-13.

1990 The Domestication of Europe. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. 1991 Interpretive Archaeology and its Role. American Antiquity 56(1):7-18.

Jones, S. 1997 The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present. Routledge, New York.

1992 Material Practice, Symbolism and Ideology. In Theory and Practice in Archaeology, edited by I. Hodder, pp. 201-212. Routledge, London.

Jury, W. 1937 The Alway Prehistoric Site in Lobo Township, Middlesex County, Ontario. Museum of Indian Archaeology, Bulletin 1.

1993 Social Cognition. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 3(2):253-257.

97

1941 Clearville Prehistoric Village Site, Oxford Township, Kent County, Ontario. Museum of Indian Archaeology, Bulletin 2.

1977 Late Prehistory of Point Pelee, Ontario and Environs (2 volumes). Manuscript Report No. 227, National Sites Branch, Parks Canada, Ottawa.

Kapches, M. 1981 The Middleport Pattern in Ontario Iroquoian Prehistory. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Toronto.

1978 Late Prehistory of Point Pelee, Ontario and Environs. Mercury Series No. 80, Archaeological Survey of Canada, National Museum of Man, Ottawa. Kenyon, W. 1969 The Miller Site - 1959. Ontario History 52(1):6367.

Karp, I. 1986 Agency and Social Theory: A Review of Anthony Giddens. American Ethnologist 13:131-137.

Kenyon, I. T. 1988 Late Woodland Occupations at the Liahn I Site, Kent Co. Kewa 88(2):2-22.

Katzenberg, M. A. 1984 Chemical Analysis of Prehistoric Human Bone from Five Temporally Distinct Populations in Southern Ontario. Mercury Series No. 129, Archaeological Survey of Canada, National Museum of Man, Ottawa.

Kenyon, I. T., N. Ferris, and W. Hagerty 1988 Western Basin Occupations of the Robson Road (AaHp-20) Site. Kewa 88(5):3-24. Kidd, K. E. 1954 A Woodland Site Near Chatham, Ontario. Transactions of the Royal Canadian Institute 30(2):141-178.

1989 Stable Isotope Analysis of Archaeological Faunal Remains from Southern Ontario. Journal of Archaeological Science 16(3):319-329. Katzenberg, M. A., H. Schwarcz, M. Knyf, and F. Melbye 1995 Stable Isotope Evidence for Maize Horticulture and Paleodiet in Southern Ontario, Canada. American Antiquity 60(2):335-350.

1956 A Brief Study of the Human Remains from the Krieger Woodland Site in Southwestern Ontario. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 26(1):15-26. Killan, G. 1983 David Boyle: From Artisan to Archaeologist. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

Keane, W. 2003a Self-Interpretation, Agency, and the Objects of Anthropology: Reflections on a Genealogy. Comparative Studies in Society and History 45(2):222-248.

Kintigh, K. 1985 Social Structure, the Structure of Style, and Stylistic Patterns in Cibola Prehistory. In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by B. A. Nelson, pp. 362-385. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.

2003b Semiotics and the Social Analysis of Material Things. Language and Communication 23(3):409-425. 2005 Signs are not the Garb of Meaning: On the Social Analysis of Material in Things. In Materiality, edited by D. Miller, pp. 182-205. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina.

Knapp, A. B. (ed.) 1992 Archaeology, Annales, and Ethnohistory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Knappett, C. 2002 Photographs, Skeumorphs and Marionettes: Some Thoughts on Mind, Agency and Object. Journal of Material Culture 7(1):97-117.

Keenlyside, D. L. 1976 The Point Pelee Region. In The Late Prehistory of the Lake Erie Drainage Basin: A 1972 Symposium Revised, edited by D. Brose, pp. 193-213. Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland.

98

by P. M. Graves-Brown, pp. 10-21. Routledge, London.

2005 Thinking Through Material Culture: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

2004 On Using ANT for Studying Information Systems: A (Somewhat) Socratic Dialogue. In The Social Study of Information and Communication Technology: Innovation, Actors, and Contexts, edited by C. Avgerou, C. Ciborra, and F. F. Land, pp. 62-76. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Krakker, J. J. 1983 Changing Sociocultural Systems During the Late Prehistoric Period in Southeastern Michigan. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

2005 Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford University Press, New York.

Last, J. H. 1974 Archaeological Site Record Forms and Field Notes. Trent University Expedition (under the supervision of R. Inglis) October 1970. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough.

Law, J., and J. Hassard (eds.) 1999 Actor Network Theory and After. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

Latour, B. 1988 Mixing Humans and Nonhumans Together: The Sociology of a Door-Closer. Social Problems 35(3):298-310.

Law, J. 1992 Notes on the Theory of the Actor Network: Ordering, Strategy and Heterogeneity. Systems Practice 5:379-393. 1994 Organizing Modernity. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

1991 Technology is Society Made Durable. In A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, edited by J. Law, pp. 103-131. Routledge, London.

1999 After ANT: Complexity, Naming and Topology. In Actor Network Theory and After, edited by J. Law and J. Hassard, pp. 1-14. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

1992 Where are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts. In Shaping Technology / Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, edited by W. Bijker and J. Law, pp. 225258. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Leach, E. 1982 Social Anthropology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

1993 We Have Never Been Modern. Translated by C. Porter. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Lee, T. E. 1951 A Preliminary Report on an Archaeological Survey of Southwestern Ontario in 1949. National Museum of Canada, Bulletin 123:42-48.

1994 Pragmatogonies: A Mythical Account of How Humans and Nonhumans Swap Properties. American Behavioral Scientist 37(6):791-808.

1952 A Preliminary Report on an Archaeological Survey of Southwestern Ontario for 1950. National Museum of Canada, Bulletin 126:64-75.

1996 On Interobjectivity. Mind, Culture, and Activity 3/4:228-245.

1958a Appendix to The Boys and Barrie Sites By Frank Ridley. Ontario Archaeology 4.

1999 On Recalling ANT. In Actor Network Theory and After, edited by J. Law and J. Hassard, pp. 15-25. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

1958b The Parker Earthwork, Corunna, Ontario. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 29(2):80-92.

2000 The Berlin Key or How to do Words With Things. In Matter, Materiality and Modern Culture, edited

99

Lévi-Strauss, C. 1969 [1949] The Elementary Structures of Kinship, edited by R. Needham. Translated by J. H. Bell, J. R. von Sturmer, and R. Needham. Beacon Press, Boston.

Lightfoot, K. G., and A. Martinez 1995 Frontiers and Boundaries in Archaeological Perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology 24:471-492.

1973 [1955] Tristes Tropiques. Translated by J. Weightman and D. Weightman. Athenium Press, New York.

Longacre, W. A. 1970 Archaeology as Anthropology: A Case Study. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No. 17, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

1963 [1958] Structural Anthropology. Translated by C. Jacobson and B. G. Schoepf. Basic Books, New York. 1963 [1962] Totemism. Translated by R. Needham. Beacon Press, Boston. Leone, M. 1986 Symbolic, Structural and Critical Archaeology. In American Archaeology Past and Future: A Celebration of the Society for American Archaeology, 1935-1985, edited by D. J. Meltzer, D. D. Fowler, and J. A. Sabloff, pp. 187-215. Smithsonian Press, Washington, DC. Lennox, P. A. 1982 The Bruner-Colasanti Site: An Early Late Woodland Component, Essex County, Ontario. Mercury Series No. 110, Archaeological Survey of Canada, National Museum of Man, Ottawa. Lennox, P. A., and C. F. Dodd 1991 The LaSalle-Lucier Site: Two Components of the Western Basin Tradition, Essex County, Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 52:17-54. Lennox, P. A., and I. T. Kenyon 1984 Was That Middleport Necked or Pound Oblique? A Study in Iroquoian Ceramic Typology. Ontario Archaeology 42:13-26. Lennox, P. A., and J. E. Molto 1995 The Archaeology and Physical Anthropology of the E. C. Row Site: A Springwells Phase Settlement, Essex County, Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 60:5-39. Lenoir, T. 1994 Was the Last Turn the Right Turn? The Semiotic Turn and A. J. Greimas. Configurations 2:119-136.

Lovis, W. A. 1990 Accelerator Dating the Ceramic Assemblage From the Fletcher Site: Implications of a Pilot Study for Interpretation of the Wayne Period. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 15(1):37-50. MacDonald, J. 1986 The Varden Site: A Multi-Component Station on Long Point, Ontario. Report on file, Ontario Heritage Trust, Toronto. MacNeish, R. S. 1952 Iroquoian Pottery Types: A Technique for the Study of Iroquoian Prehistory. Bulletin of the National Museum of Canada 124:1-166. Malafouris, L. 2005 The Cognitive Basis of Material Engagement: Where Brain, Body and Culture Conflate. In Rethinking Materiality: The Engagement of Mind with the Material World, edited by E. DeMarrais, C. Gosden and C. Renfrew, pp. 53-62. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge. Marquardt, W. H. 1978 Advances in Archaeological Seriation. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 1, edited by M. Schiffer, pp. 257-314. Academic Press, New York. McGhee, R. 1977 Ivory for the Sea Woman: The Symbolic Attributes of a Prehistoric Technology. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 1:141-159. McKern, W. C. 1939 The Midwestern Taxonomic Method as an Aid to Archaeological Culture Study. American Antiquity 4(4):301-313.

100

Noble, W. C., and I. Kenyon 1972 Porteous (AbHb-1): A Probable Early Glen Meyer Village in Brant County, Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 19:11-38.

MHCI (Mayer Heritage Consultants Inc.) 1996 Archaeological Mitigative Excavation (Stage 4) Silverman Site (AbHr-5), Registered Plan 12R-13025, Town of St. Clair Beach, Essex County, Ontario. Report on file, Mayer Heritage Consultants Inc., London, Ontario.

O’Brien, M. J., and R. L. Lyman (eds.) 2003 Style, Function, Transmission: Evolutionary Archaeological Perspectives. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

1998 Addendum to Archaeological Mitigative Excavation (Stage 4) Silverman Site (AbHr-5), Registered Plan 12R-13025, Town of St. Clair Beach, Essex County, Ontario. Report on file, Mayer Heritage Consultants Inc., London, Ontario.

O’Brien, M. J., and R. L. Lyman 2000 Applying Evolutionary Archaeology: A Systematic Approach. Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishing, New York.

Moreau, J.-F., E. Langevin, and L. Verreault 1991 Assessment of the Ceramic Evidence for Woodland-Period Cultures in the Lac Saint Jean Area, Eastern Québec. Man in the Northeast 41:33-64.

2002 Evolutionary Archeology: Current Status and Future Prospects. Evolutionary Anthropology 11:26-36. Olsen, B. 2003 Material Culture after Text: Re-Membering Things. Norwegian Archaeological Review 36(2):87-104.

Mullen, G. J. and R. D. Hoppa 1992 Rogers Ossuary (AgHb-131): An Early Ontario Iroquois Burial Feature from Brantford Township. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 16:32-47.

Ortner, S. 1984 Theory in Anthropology Since the Sixties. Comparative Studies in Society and History 26:126-166.

Murphy, C. 1985 Preliminary Report of the 1982 Archaeological Investigations of the Savage Site (AdHm-29). Report on file, Ontario Ministry of Culture, Toronto.

Parmentier, R. J. 1994a Signs in Society: Studies in Semiotic Anthropology. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

1991 A Western Basin Winter Cabin from Kent County, Ontario. Kewa 91(1):3-17. Murphy, C., and N. Ferris 1990 The Late Woodland Western Basin Tradition in Southwestern Ontario. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, edited by C. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 189-278. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter No. 5, Ontario Archaeological Society, London, Ontario.

1994b Comment on A. Martin Myers, “Symboling and the Middle-Upper Palaeolithic Transition: A Theoretical and Methodological Critique”. Current Anthropology 35(4):388-389.

Noble, W. C. 1975a Van Besien: A Study in Glen Meyer Development. Ontario Archaeology 24:3-83.

Patterson, D. 1984 A Diachronic Study of Dental Palaeopathology and Attritional Status of Prehistoric Ontario Pre-Iroquois and Iroquois Populations. Mercury Series No. 122, Archaeological Survey of Canada, National Museum of Man, Ottawa.

1975b Corn and the Development of Village Life in Southern Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 25:37-46.

1997 The Pragmatic Semiotics of Cultures. Semiotica 116(1):1-115.

101

Pauketat, T. R. (ed.) 2001 The Archaeology of Traditions: Agency and History Before and After Columbus. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Plog, S. 1980 Stylistic Variation in Prehistoric Ceramics: Design Analysis in the American Southwest. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1983 Analyses of Style in Artifacts. Annual Review of Anthropology 12:125-142.

Pauketat, T. R. 2001 Practice and History in Archaeology. Anthropological Theory 1(1):73-98. Peirce, C. S. 1955 Philosophical Writings of Peirce, edited by J. Buchler. Dover Publications, New York. 1991 On the Nature of Signs. In Peirce on Signs: Writings on Semiotic by Charles Sanders Peirce, edited by J. Hoopes, pp. 141-143. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Pendergast, J. F. 1964 The Payne Site. Contributions to Anthropology 1961-1962, Part I. National Museum of Canada, Bulletin 193. Phillips, P. 1958 Application of the Wheat-Gifford-Wasley Taxonomy to Eastern Ceramics. American Antiquity 24(2):117-125.

Prahl, E. 1969 Preliminary Comparison of Three Prehistoric Sites in the Vicinity of the Western Lake Erie Shore. Toledo Area Aboriginal Research Club Bulletin 1(1):36-63. Prahl, E., D. Brose and D. Stothers 1976 A Preliminary Synthesis of Late Prehistoric Phenomena in the Western Basin of Lake Erie. In The Late Prehistory of the Lake Erie Drainage Basin: A 1972 Symposium Revised, edited by D. Brose, pp. 251-282. Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland. Pratt, P. P. 1960 A Criticism of MacNeish’s Iroquois Pottery Types. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 30(3-4):106110. 1976 Archaeology of the Oneida Iroquois, Vol. 1. Occasional Publications in Northeastern Anthropology, No. 1.

Pickering, A. 1995 The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency and Science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Pihl, R. (ed.) 1999 Turning the First Millennium: The Archaeology of the Holmedale Site (AgHb-191): A Princess Point Component on the Grand River. Report on file, Archaeological Services Inc., Toronto. Pihl, R. 1999 Ceramics. In Turning the First Millennium: The Archaeology of the Holmedale Site (AgHb-191): A Princess Point Component on the Grand River, edited by R. Pihl, pp. 25-42. Report on file, Archaeological Services Inc., Toronto. Pihl, R., and R. F. Williamson 1999 Interpretations and Conclusions. In Turning the First Millennium: The Archaeology of the Holmedale Site (AgHb-191): A Princess Point Component on the Grand River, edited by R. Pihl, pp. 100-107. Report on file, Archaeological Services Inc., Toronto.

Preda, A. 1999 The Turn to Things: Arguments for a Sociological Theory of Things. The Sociological Quarterly 40(2):347-366. Preucel, R. W. 2006 Archaeological Semiotics. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. Preucel, R. W., and A. A. Bauer 2001 Archaeological Pragmatics. Norwegian Archaeological Review 34(2):85-96. Preucel, R. W., and I. Hodder 1996 Material Symbols. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, edited by R. W. Preucel and I. Hodder, pp. 299-314. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. Quimby, G. I. 1960 Indian Life in the Upper Great Lakes. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

102

Rakita, G., and T. Hurt (eds.) 2000 Style and Function: Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Archaeology. Bergin and Garvey Publishers, Westport.

Ricoeur, P. 1971 The Model of the Text: Meaningful Action Considered as a Text. Social Research 8(3):529-562.

Ramsden, P. 1977 A Refinement of Some Aspects of Huron Ceramic Analysis. Mercury Series No. 63, Archaeological Survey of Canada, National Museum of Man, Ottawa.

Ritchie, W. A. 1944 The Pre-Iroquoian Occupations of New York State. Rochester Museum of Arts and Science, Memoir No. 1. 1961 A Typology and Nomenclature for New York Projectile Points. New York State Museum and Science Service, Bulletin 384.

1996 The Current State of Huron Archaeology. Northeast Anthropology 51:101-112. Rankin, L. K. 1998 Historical Context and the Forager/Farmer Frontier: Re-Interpreting the Nodwell Site. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, McMaster University, Hamilton. Reid, P. 1981 Investigations at the Cherry Lane Site (Essex County, Ontario) in 1980. Manuscript on file, Ontario Ministry of Culture, London, Ontario.

1969 The Archaeology of New York State, Revised Edition. Natural History Press, Garden City. Ritchie, W. A., and R. S. MacNeish 1949 The Pre-Iroquoian Pottery of New York State. American Antiquity 15(2):97-124. Robb, J. E. 1998 The Archaeology of Symbols. Annual Review of Anthropology 27:329-346. 1999 Secret Agents: Culture, Economy, and Social Reproduction. In Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory, edited by J. E. Robb. Occasional Paper No. 26, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

1982 Investigations at the Robson Road Site (Essex County, Ontario) in 1981. Manuscript on file, Ontario Ministry of Culture, London, Ontario. Reimer, P. J., M. G. L. Baillie, E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J. W. Beck, C. J. H. Bertrand, P. G. Blackwell, C. E. Buck, G. S. Burr, K. B. Cutler, P. E. Damon, R. L. Edwards, R. G. Fairbanks, M. Friedrich, T. P. Guilderson, A. G. Hogg, K. A. Hughen, B. Kromer, F. G. McCormac, S. W. Manning, C. B. Ramsey, R. W. Reimer, S. Remmele, J. R. Southon, M. Stuiver, S. Talamo, F. W. Taylor, J. van der Plicht, and C. E. Weyhenmeyer 2004 IntCal04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 26 - 0 ka BP. Radiocarbon 46:1029-1058. Retter, M. J. 2001 Enigmatic Pots: Enculturating Identity at the Dymock Site (AeHj-2). Unpublished MA Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario. Rice, P. M. 1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

2005 The Extended Artefact and the Monumental Economy: A Methodology for Material Agency. In Rethinking Materiality: The Engagement of Mind with the Material World, edited by E. DeMarrais, C. Gosden and C. Renfrew, pp. 131-139. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge. Robinson, W. S. 1951 A Method For Chronologically Ordering Archaeological Deposits. American Antiquity 16(4):293-301. Sackett, J. R. 1977 The Meaning of Style in Archaeology: A General Model. American Antiquity 42(3):369-380. 1982 Approaches to Style in Lithic Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1(1):59-112.

103

Manuscript Report No. 314, National Sites Branch, Parks Canada, Ottawa.

1985 Style and Ethnicity in the Kalahari: A Reply to Wiessner. American Antiquity 50(1):154-159.

1990 Iroquois Research. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, edited by C. J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 279-290. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter No. 5, Ontario Archaeological Society, London, Ontario.

de Saussure, F. 1983 [1916] Course in General Linguistics. Translated by R. Harris. Duckworth and Company, London. Schwarcz, H. P., F. J. Melbye, M. A. Katzenberg, and M. Knyf 1985 Stable Isotopes in Human Skeletons of Southern Ontario: Reconstructing Paleodiet. Journal of Archaeological Science 12(3):187-206.

1991 Keffer Site (AkGv-14) Pottery and Ceramic Smoking Pipes. Research Report No. 23, London Museum of Archaeology, London, Ontario. 1997a Recent Investigations of Late Woodland Occupations at Cootes Paradise, Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 63:4-16.

Serres, M. 1982 Hermes: Literature, Science, Philosophy, edited by J. V. Harari and D. F. Bell. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

1997b Archaeological Systematics and the Analysis of Iroquoian Ceramics: A Case Study for the Crawford Lake Area, Ontario. Bulletin 15, London Museum of Archaeology, London, Ontario.

1995 [1989] Introduction. In A History of Scientific Thought: Elements of a History of Science, edited by M. Serres, pp. 1-16. Translated by I. Stengers. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. Shane, O. C. 1967 The Mixter Site. In Studies in Ohio Archaeology, edited by O. Prufer and D. McKenzie, pp. 121186. Western Reserve University Press, Cleveland. Shanks, M., and C. Tilley 1987 Re-Constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Smith, D. G., and G. W. Crawford 1995 The Princess Point Complex and the Origins of Iroquoian Societies. In Origins of the People of the Longhouse, edited by A. Bekerman and G. Warrick, pp. 55-70. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Symposium, Ontario Archaeological Society, North York, Ontario. 1997 Recent Developments in the Archaeology of the Princess Point Complex in Southern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 21(1):9-32.

Shennan, S. 1988 Quantifying Archaeology. Academic Press, San Diego. Shepard, A. O. 1948 The Symmetry of Abstract Design, with Special Reference to Ceramic Decoration. Publication No. 574, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC. 1976 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC. Sinopoli, C. M. 1991 Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics. Plenum Press, New York. Smith, D. G. 1977 The Archaeological Investigations at the Southwold Earthworks, 1935 and 1976.

Smith, D. G., and C. M. Watts 2001 Initial Late Woodland (ca. AD 500-1000) in the Thames River Drainage System, Southwestern Ontario, Canada. Paper presented at the 66th Annual Meeting, Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans. Smith, R. E., G. R. Willey, and J. C. Gifford 1960 The Type-Variety Concept as a Basis for the Analysis of Maya Pottery. American Antiquity 25(3):330-340. Spaulding, A. C. 1953a Review of “Measurements of Some Prehistoric Design Developments in the Southeastern States” by J. A. Ford. American Anthropologist 55(4):588591.

104

1953b Statistical Techniques for the Discovery of Artifact Types. American Antiquity 18(4):305-313. Spence, M. W. 1994 Mortuary Programmes of the Early Ontario Iroquoians. Ontario Archaeology 58:6-26. Spence, M. W., R. H. Pihl, and C. R. Murphy 1990 Cultural Complexes of the Early and Middle Woodland Periods. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, edited by C. J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 125-169. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter No. 5, Ontario Archaeological Society, London, Ontario. Stark, M. T. (ed.) 1998 The Archaeology of Social Boundaries. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Stothers, D. M. 1972 A Preliminary Report on an Archaeological Survey of Rondeau Provincial Park, Pointe Aux Pins, Ontario. Report on file, Ontario Ministry of Culture, Toronto. 1975a The Western Basin Tradition: A Preliminary Note. Toledo Area Aboriginal Research Club Bulletin 4(1):44-48. 1975b The Emergence and Development of the Younge and Ontario Iroquois Tradition. Ontario Archaeology 25:21-27. 1977 The Princess Point Complex. Mercury Series No. 58, Archaeological Survey of Canada, National Museum of Man, Ottawa. 1978 The Western Basin Tradition: Algonquin or Iroquois? Michigan Archaeologist 24(1):11-36. 1994 The “Wayne” Taxonomic Construct in Michigan Prehistory. North American Archaeologist 15(1):1-15.

Stothers, D. M., and T. J. Abel 1990 Filling the Gap: Baker I and the Green Creek Phase in Northcentral Ohio. Ohio Archaeologist 40(1):36-49. Stothers, D. M., and S. K. Bechtel 2000 The Land Between the Lakes: New Perspectives on the Late Woodland (ca. A.D. 500- 1300) Time Period in the Region of the St. Clair-Detroit River System. In Cultures Before Contact: The Late Prehistory of Ohio and Surrounding Regions, edited by R. A. Genheimer, pp. 2-51. The Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus. Stothers, D. M., and J. R. Graves 1983 Cultural Continuity and Change: The Western Basin, Ontario Iroquois, and Sandusky Traditions A 1982 Perspective. Archaeology of Eastern North America 11:109-142. Stothers, D. M., and M. Pratt 1981 New Perspectives on the Late Woodland Cultures of the Western Lake Erie Region. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 6(1):91-121. Stothers, D. M., J. R. Graves, S. K. Bechtel and T. J. Abel 1994 Current Perspectives on the Late Prehistory of the Western Lake Erie Region: An Alternative to Murphy and Ferris. Archaeology of Eastern North America 22(2):135-196. Strum, S. S., and B. Latour 1987 Redefining the Social Link: From Baboons to Humans. Social Science Information 26(4):783-802. Stuiver, M. and P. J. Reimer 1993 Extended 14C Database and Revised CALIB Radiocarbon Calibration Program. Radiocarbon 35:215-230. Thomas, J. 1996 Time, Culture and Identity: An Interpretive Archaeology. Routledge, London.

1995 The “Michigan Owasco” and the Iroquois Co-Tradition: Late Woodland Conflict, Conquest, and Cultural Realignment in the Western Lower Great Lakes. Northeast Anthropology 49:5-41.

1998 The Socio-Semiotics of Material Culture. Journal of Material Culture 3(1):97-108. 2000 Reconfiguring the Social, Reconfiguring the Material. In Social Theory in Archaeology, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 143-155. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

105

2004 The Great Dark Book: Archaeology, Experience, and Interpretation. In A Companion to Archaeology, edited by J. L. Bintliff, pp. 21-36. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

Trigger, B. G. 1976 The Children of Aataensic: A History of the Huron People to 1660 (2 volumes). McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal.

2005a Comments VIII: Between ‘Material Qualities’ and ‘Materiality’. Archaeometry 47(1):198-201.

1981 Prehistoric Social and Political Organization: An Iroquoian Case Study. In Foundations of Northeast Archaeology, edited by D. R. Snow, pp. 1-50. Academic Press, New York.

2005b Materiality and the Social. In Global Archaeological Theory: Contextual Voices and Contemporary Thoughts, edited by P. P. Funari, A. Zarankin and E. Stovel, pp. 11-18. Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York. 2006 Phenomenology and Material Culture. In Handbook of Material Culture, edited by C. Tilley, W. Keane, S. Külcher, M. Rowlands and P. Spyer, pp. 43-59. Sage Publications, London. Tilley, C. (ed.) 1990 Reading Material Culture. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. 1991 The Art of Ambiguity: Material Culture and Text. Routledge, London. Tilley, C. 1994 A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments. Berg Publishers, Oxford. 1999 Metaphor and Material Culture. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. 2004 The Materiality of Stone: Explorations in Landscape Phenomenology. Berg Publishers, Oxford. Timmins, P. A. 1989 The Archaeological Mitigation of a Portion of the Cherry Lane Site (AaHp-21) Essex County, Ontario. A Plea for Responsible Archaeological Resource Management. Report on file, Ontario Ministry of Culture, London, Ontario.

1985 Natives and Newcomers. Canada’s ‘Heroic Age’ Reconsidered. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal. 1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. van der Merwe, N. J., R. F. Williamson, S. Pfeiffer, S. Cox Thomas, and K. Oakberg Allegretto 2003 The Moatfield Ossuary: Isotopic Dietary Analysis of an Iroquoian Community, using Dental Tissue. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22(3):245-261. VanPool, C. S., and T. L. VanPool 1999 The Scientific Nature of Postprocessual Research. American Antiquity 64(1):33-53. Voss, J. A. 1980 Tribal Emergence During the Neolithic of Northwestern Europe. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Warrick, G. 1984 Reconstructing Ontario Iroquoian Village Organization. Mercury Series No. 124, Archaeological Survey of Canada, National Museum of Man, Ottawa. 1996 Evolution of the Iroquoian Longhouse. In People Who Lived in Big Houses: Archaeological Perspectives on Large Domestic Structures, edited by G. Coupland and E. B. Banning, pp. 11-26. Prehistory Press, Madison.

1997 The Calvert Site: An Interpretive Framework for the Early Iroquoian Village. Mercury Series No. 156, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Canadian Museum of Civilization, Ottawa.

2000 The Precontact Iroquoian Occupation of Southern Ontario. Journal of World Prehistory 14(4):415-466.

106

Washburn, D. K., and D. W. Crowe (eds.) 2004 Symmetry Comes of Age: The Role of Pattern in Culture. University of Washington Press, Seattle.

Washburn, D. K. 1977 A Symmetry Analysis of Upper Gila Area Ceramic Design. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Volume 68. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1983 Symmetry Analysis of Ceramic Design: Two Tests of the Method on Neolithic Material from Greece and the Aegean. In Structure and Cognition in Art, edited by D. K. Washburn, pp. 138-164. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1986 Symmetry Analysis of Yurok, Karok, and Hupa Indian Basket Designs. Empirical Studies of the Arts 4:19-45.

Watson, R. A. 1991 What the New Archaeology Has Accomplished. Current Anthropology 32(3):275-291. Watts, C. M. 1997 A Quantitative Analysis and Chronological Seriation of Riviere au Vase Ceramics from Southwestern Ontario. MSc Research Paper, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Toronto. 1999 The Magic of Names: Cultural Classification in the Western Lake Erie Region. In Taming the Taxonomy: Toward a New Understanding of Great Lakes Prehistory, edited by R. F. Williamson and C. M. Watts, pp. 37-49. Eastend Books, Toronto.

1989 The Property of Symmetry and the Concept of Ethnic Style. In Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, edited by S. J. Shennan, pp. 157-173. Unwin Hyman, London. 1990 Style, Classification, and Ethnicity: Design Categories on Bakuba Raffia Cloth. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 80(3):1157.

2007 From Purification to Mediation: Overcoming Artifactual ‘Otherness’ with and in Actor-Network Theory. Journal of Iberian Archaeology 9/10:39-54.

1999 Perceptual Anthropology: The Cultural Salience of Symmetry. American Anthropologist 101(3):547-562. 2004 Symmetry Analysis of Ica Valley Ceramics: Insights into Ica-Inca Interactions. In Symmetry Comes of Age, edited by D. K. Washburn and D. W. Crowe, pp. 215-231. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Washburn, D. K., and R. G. Matson 1985 Use of Multidimensional Scaling to Display Sensitivity of Symmetry Analysis of Patterned Design to Spatial and Chronological Change: Examples From Anasazi Prehistory. In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by B. A. Nelson, pp. 75-101. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. Washburn, D. K., and D. W. Crowe 1988 Symmetries of Culture: Theory and Practice of Plane Pattern Analysis. University of Washington Press, Seattle.

2008 On Mediation and Material Agency in the Peircean Semeiotic. In Material Agency: Toward a Non-Anthropogenic Approach, edited by C. Knappett and L. Malafouris. Springer, New York (forthcoming). Wiessner, P. 1983 Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points. American Antiquity. 48(2):235-276. 1984 Reconsidering the Behavioral Basis for Style: A Case Study Among the Kalahari San. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3(3):190-234. 1985 Style or Isochrestic Variation? A Reply to Sackett. American Antiquity 50(1):160-166. Willey, G. R., and P. L. Phillips 1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

107

Willey, G. R., T. P. Cuthbert, and R. E. W. Adams 1967 Maya Lowland Ceramics: A Report from the 1965 Guatemala City Conference. American Antiquity 32(3):289-315. Williamson, R. F. 1985 Glen Meyer: People in Transition. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, McGill University, Montreal.

Wilkie, L. A. and K. M. Bartoy 2000 A Critical Archaeology Revisited. Current Anthropology 41(5):747-777. Wintemberg, W. J. 1928 Uren Prehistoric Village Site, Oxford County, Ontario. National Museum of Canada, Bulletin 51. 1931 Distinguishing Characteristics of Algonkian and Iroquoian Cultures. In Annual Report for 1929, National Museum of Canada, Bulletin 67:65-126.

1990 The Early Iroquoian Period of Southern Ontario. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, edited by C. J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 291-320. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter No. 5, Ontario Archaeological Society, London, Ontario.

1936 Excerpt from News and Notes (Northeastern Area). American Antiquity 1(3):232. 1939 Lawson Prehistoric Village Site, Middlesex County, Ontario. National Museum of Canada, Bulletin 94.

Williamson, R. F., and D. A. Robertson 1994 Peer Polities Beyond the Periphery: Early and Middle Iroquoian Regional Interaction. Ontario Archaeology 58:27-44. Whallon, R. 1968 Investigations of Late Prehistoric Social Organization in New York State. In New Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by S. R. Binford and L. R. Binford, pp. 223-244. Aldine Press, Chicago. Wheat, J. B., J. C. Gifford, and W. W. Wasley 1958 Ceramic Variety, Type Cluster, and Ceramic System in Southwestern Pottery Analysis. American Antiquity 24(1):34-47. Whitridge, P. 2004 Whales, Harpoons, and Other Actors: Actor-Network Theory and Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology. In Hunters and Gatherers in Theory and Archaeology, edited by G. M. Crothers, pp. 445-474. Occasional Paper No. 31, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

1948 The Middleport Prehistoric Village Site. National Museum of Canada, Bulletin 109. Wobst, H. M. 1977 Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. In For the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, edited by C. E. Cleland, pp. 317-342. Academic Press, New York. 1978 The Archaeo-Ethnology of Hunter-Gatherers or the Tyranny of the Ethnographic Record in Archaeology. American Antiquity 43(2):303-309. Wright, J. V. 1966 The Ontario Iroquois Tradition. National Museum of Canada, Bulletin 210. 1967 Type and Attribute Analysis: Their Application to Iroquois Culture History. In Iroquois Culture History and Prehistory, Proceedings of the 1965 Conference on Iroquois Research, edited by E. Tooker, pp. 99-100. New York State Museum and Science Service, Albany. 1974 The Nodwell Site. Mercury Series No. 22, Archaeological Survey of Canada, National Museum of Man, Ottawa.

Wilkie, L. A. 2001 Communicative Bridges Linking Actors Through Time: Archaeology and the Construction of Emancipatory Narratives at a Bahamian Plantation. Journal of Social Archaeology 1(2):225-243.

1980 The Role of Attribute Analysis in the Study of Iroquoian Prehistory. In Proceedings of the 1979 Iroquois Pottery Conference, edited by C. F. Hayes III, pp. 21-26. Research Record No. 13, Rochester Museum and Science Center.

108

1984 The Cultural Continuity of the Northern Iroquoian-Speaking Peoples. In Extending the Rafters: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Iroquoian Studies, edited by M. Foster, J. Campisi, and M. Mithun, pp. 259-281. State University of New York Press, Albany. 1990 Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650: A Critique. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, edited by C. J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 493-503. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter No. 5, Ontario Archaeological Society, London, Ontario. 1992 The Conquest Theory of the Ontario Iroquois Tradition: A Reassessment. Ontario Archaeology 54:3-15. Wright, M. J. 1986 The Uren Site AfHd-3: An Analysis and Reappraisal of the Uren Substage Type Site. Monographs in Ontario Archaeology 2, Ontario Archaeological Society, Toronto. Wylie, A. 2002 “Heavily Decomposing Red Herrings”: Middle Ground in the Anti-/ Postprocessualism Wars. In Thinking From Things: Essays in the Philosophy of Archaeology, pp. 171-178. University of California Press, Berkeley. Zaslow, B. 1977 A Guide to Analyzing Prehistoric Ceramic Decorations by Symmetry and Pattern Mathematics. In Pattern Mathematics and Archaeology, Anthropological Research Papers No. 2., Arizona State University, Tempe. 1981 Pattern Dissemination in the Prehistoric Southwest and Mesoamerica: A Comparison of Hohokam Decorative Patterns with Patterns from the Upper Gila Area and from the Valley of Oaxaca. Anthropological Research Papers No. 25, Arizona State University, Tempe.

109

110

Appendix A: Pottery Rim Section Analysis Code

111

112

Appendix A: Pottery Rim Section Analysis Code (after Smith 1997b:Appendix A) Note:

The values of some of the following variables have exponentially increasing labels such that combinations of values can be recorded without overlap.

Variables of Rim Shape Nature of Specimen (NATSPEC) Description: Specifies which parts of the vessel are represented by the rim section under study. Values: 00001 00002 00004 00008 00014 00016 00032 00046 00062

Whole Pot Interior (Int) Lip Upper Rim (UR) Int+Lip+UR Castellation (Cas) Neck Int+Lip+UR+Neck Int+Lip+UR+Neck+Cas

00064 00128 00256 00512 01024 02048 04096 09192

Shoulder Body Base Handle Lug Foot Fragmentary Sherds Effigy

Profile of the Core - Firing (PROFCORE) Description: Specifies the nature of the core in cross-section. Values: A BA BB BC CA CB

CC DA DB DC DD

Castellation Form (CASTFORM) Description: Specifies the presence or absence of protrusions along the rim. Values: Present, Not Present, Indeterminate Lip Form (LIPFORM) Description: Specifies the nature of the lip surface in terms of its overall morphology. Values: Flat, Rounded, Pointed, Indeterminate Upper Rim Profile (UPRIMPROF) Description: Specifies the orientation of the rim relative to the rest of the vessel, if observable. Values: Concave, Convex, Straight, Indeterminate Rim Form (RIMFORM) Description: Specifies the shape of the upper rim portion of the rim section.

113

Values: Collarless, Collared, Incipient Collar, Indeterminate Lip Thickness (LIPTHICK) Description: Measures the thickness of the rim section at the lip. Values: 1 - 98mm, 99 Indeterminate Collar Height (COLHEIGHT) Description: Measures the vertical height of the collar on rim sections where this feature is present. Values: 1 - 998mm, 999 Indeterminate Basal Collar Thickness (BASCOLTHICK) Description: Measures the thickness of the rim section at the base of the collar on collared vessels. Values: 1 - 98mm, 99 Indeterminate Surface Modification (e.g., INTSURFMOD) Description: Specifies the nature of non-decorative modifications to the interior, lip and exterior rim surfaces. More than one type of surface modification may occur for each area specified. Values: Smooth, Wiped, Textured (i.e., corded or fabric impressed), Geometric (i.e., basket impressed), Combing, Indeterminate

Variables of Rim Decoration Decorative Completeness (e.g., INTDECCOMP) Description: Specifies number and completeness of decorative bands on the interior, lip and exterior surfaces of the vessel section. Values: pB1>Break B1>Break B1>pB2 >Break B1>B2>Break B1>B2>pB3>Break B1>B2>B3>Break B1>B2>B3>pB4>Break B1>B2>B3>B4>Break B1>B2>B3>B4>pB5>Break

B1>B2>B3>B4>B5>Break B1>B2>B3>B4>B5>pB6>Break B1>B2>B3>B4>B5>B6>Break B1>B2>B3>B4>B5>B6>pB7>Break B1>B2>B3>B4>B5>B6>B7>Break B1>B2>B3>B4>B5>B6>B7>pB8>Break Indeterminate

Tool (e.g., INTB1TOOL, INTB2TOOL, etc.) Description: Refers to the inferred tool with which the decoration was applied. Recorded for each decorative band on interior, lip and exterior surfaces. SI=superimposed; HD=horizontal difference. Values: Plain Linear (Straight) Linear (Curved) Linear (Wavy)

Linear (Suture) Pointed (Round) Pointed (Elliptical) Pointed (Polygonal)

114

Pointed (Annular) Cord Cord Wrapped Instrument Dentate (Polygonal)

Dentate (Round) Indeterminate

SI Pointed (Round) over Pointed (Elliptical) SI Pointed (Round) over Pointed (Polygonal) SI Pointed (Round) over Pointed (Annular) SI Pointed (Round) over Linear (Straight) SI Pointed (Round) over Linear (Curved) SI Pointed (Round) over Linear (Wavy) SI Pointed (Round) over Linear (Suture) SI Pointed (Round) over Dentate (Round) SI Pointed (Round) over Dentate (Polygonal) SI Pointed (Round) over CWI SI Pointed (Round) over Cord SI Pointed (Elliptical) over Pointed (Round) SI Pointed (Elliptical) over Pointed (Polygonal) SI Pointed (Elliptical) over Pointed (Annular) SI Pointed (Elliptical) over Linear (Straight) SI Pointed (Elliptical) over Linear (Curved) SI Pointed (Elliptical) over Linear (Wavy) SI Pointed (Elliptical) over Linear (Suture) SI Pointed (Elliptical) over Dentate (Round) SI Pointed (Elliptical) over Dentate (Polygonal) SI Pointed (Elliptical) over CWI SI Pointed (Elliptical) over Cord SI Pointed (Polygonal) over Pointed (Round) SI Pointed (Polygonal) over Pointed (Elliptical) SI Pointed (Polygonal) over Pointed (Annular) SI Pointed (Polygonal) over Linear (Straight) SI Pointed (Polygonal) over Linear (Curved) SI Pointed (Polygonal) over Linear (Wavy) SI Pointed (Polygonal) over Linear (Suture) SI Pointed (Polygonal) over Dentate (Round) SI Pointed (Polygonal) over Dentate (Polygonal) SI Pointed (Polygonal) over CWI SI Pointed (Polygonal) over Cord SI Pointed (Annular) over Pointed (Round) SI Pointed (Annular) over Pointed (Elliptical) SI Pointed (Annular) over Pointed (Polygonal) SI Pointed (Annular) over Linear (Straight) SI Pointed (Annular) over Linear (Curved) SI Pointed (Annular) over Linear (Wavy) SI Pointed (Annular) over Linear (Suture) SI Pointed (Annular) over Dentate (Round) SI Pointed (Annular) over Dentate (Polygonal) SI Pointed (Annular) over CWI SI Pointed (Annular) over Cord SI Linear (Straight) over Pointed (Round) SI Linear (Straight) over Pointed (Elliptical) SI Linear (Straight) over Pointed (Polygonal)

SI Linear (Straight) over Pointed (Annular) SI Linear (Straight) over Linear (Curved) SI Linear (Straight) over Linear (Wavy) SI Linear (Straight) over Linear (Suture) SI Linear (Straight) over Dentate (Round) SI Linear (Straight) over Dentate (Polygonal) SI Linear (Straight) over CWI SI Linear (Straight) over Cord SI Linear (Curved) over Pointed (Round) SI Linear (Curved) over Pointed (Elliptical) SI Linear (Curved) over Pointed (Polygonal) SI Linear (Curved) over Pointed (Annular) SI Linear (Curved) over Linear (Straight) SI Linear (Curved) over Linear (Wavy) SI Linear (Curved) over Linear (Suture) SI Linear (Curved) over Dentate (Round) SI Linear (Curved) over Dentate (Polygonal) SI Linear (Curved) over CWI SI Linear (Curved) over Cord SI Linear (Wavy) over Pointed (Round) SI Linear (Wavy) over Pointed (Elliptical) SI Linear (Wavy) over Pointed (Polygonal) SI Linear (Wavy) over Pointed (Annular) SI Linear (Wavy) over Linear (Straight) SI Linear (Wavy) over Linear (Curved) SI Linear (Wavy) over Linear (Suture) SI Linear (Wavy) over Dentate (Round) SI Linear (Wavy) over Dentate (Polygonal) SI Linear (Wavy) over CWI SI Linear (Wavy) over Cord SI Linear (Suture) over Pointed (Round) SI Linear (Suture) over Pointed (Elliptical) SI Linear (Suture) over Pointed (Polygonal) SI Linear (Suture) over Pointed (Annular) SI Linear (Suture) over Linear (Straight) SI Linear (Suture) over Linear (Curved) SI Linear (Suture) over Linear (Wavy) SI Linear (Suture) over Dentate (Round) SI Linear (Suture) over Dentate (Polygonal) SI Linear (Suture) over CWI SI Linear (Suture) over Cord SI Dentate (Round) over Pointed (Round) SI Dentate (Round) over Pointed (Elliptical) SI Dentate (Round) over Pointed (Polygonal) SI Dentate (Round) over Pointed (Annular) SI Dentate (Round) over Linear (Straight) SI Dentate (Round) over Linear (Curved)

115

SI Dentate (Round) over Linear (Wavy) SI Dentate (Round) over Linear (Suture) SI Dentate (Round) over Dentate (Polygonal) SI Dentate (Round) over CWI SI Dentate (Round) over Cord SI Dentate (Polygonal) over Pointed (Round) SI Dentate (Polygonal) over Pointed (Elliptical) SI Dentate (Polygonal) over Pointed (Polygonal) SI Dentate (Polygonal) over Pointed (Annular) SI Dentate (Polygonal) over Linear (Straight) SI Dentate (Polygonal) over Linear (Curved) SI Dentate (Polygonal) over Linear (Wavy) SI Dentate (Polygonal) over Linear (Suture) SI Dentate (Polygonal) over Dentate (Round) SI Dentate (Polygonal) over CWI SI Dentate (Polygonal) over Cord SI CWI over Pointed (Round) SI CWI over Pointed (Elliptical) SI CWI over Pointed (Polygonal) SI CWI over Pointed (Annular)

SI CWI over Linear (Straight) SI CWI over Linear (Curved) SI CWI over Linear (Wavy) SI CWI over Linear (Suture) SI CWI over Dentate (Round) SI CWI over Dentate (Polygonal) SI CWI over Cord SI Cord over Pointed (Round) SI Cord over Pointed (Elliptical) SI Cord over Pointed (Polygonal) SI Cord over Pointed (Annular) SI Cord over Linear (Straight) SI Cord over Linear (Curved) SI Cord over Linear (Wavy) SI Cord over Linear (Suture) SI Cord over Dentate (Round) SI Cord over Dentate (Polygonal) SI Cord over CWI

HD Pointed (Round) * Pointed (Elliptical) HD Pointed (Round) * Pointed (Polygonal) HD Pointed (Round) * Pointed (Annular) HD Pointed (Round) * Linear (Straight) HD Pointed (Round) * Linear (Curved) HD Pointed (Round) * Linear (Wavy) HD Pointed (Round) * Linear (Suture) HD Pointed (Round) * Dentate (Round) HD Pointed (Round) * Dentate (Polygonal) HD Pointed (Round) * CWI HD Pointed (Round) * Cord HD Pointed (Elliptical) * Pointed (Polygonal) HD Pointed (Elliptical) * Pointed (Annular) HD Pointed (Elliptical) * Linear (Straight) HD Pointed (Elliptical) * Linear (Curved) HD Pointed (Elliptical) * Linear (Wavy) HD Pointed (Elliptical) * Linear (Suture) HD Pointed (Elliptical) * Dentate (Round) HD Pointed (Elliptical) * Dentate (Polygonal) HD Pointed (Elliptical) * CWI HD Pointed (Elliptical) * Cord HD Pointed (Polygonal) * Pointed (Annular) HD Pointed (Polygonal) * Linear (Straight) HD Pointed (Polygonal) * Linear (Curved) HD Pointed (Polygonal) * Linear (Wavy) HD Pointed (Polygonal) * Linear (Suture) HD Pointed (Polygonal) * Dentate (Round) HD Pointed (Polygonal) * Dentate (Polygonal) HD Pointed (Polygonal) * CWI HD Pointed (Polygonal) * Cord HD Pointed (Annular) * Linear (Straight)

HD Pointed (Annular) * Linear (Curved) HD Pointed (Annular) * Linear (Wavy) HD Pointed (Annular) * Linear (Suture) HD Pointed (Annular) * Dentate (Round) HD Pointed (Annular) * Dentate (Polygonal) HD Pointed (Annular) * CWI HD Pointed (Annular) * Cord HD Linear (Straight) * Linear (Curved) HD Linear (Straight) * Linear (Wavy) HD Linear (Straight) * Linear (Suture) HD Linear (Straight) * Dentate (Round) HD Linear (Straight) * Dentate (Polygonal) HD Linear (Straight) * CWI HD Linear (Straight) * Cord HD Linear (Curved) * Linear (Wavy) HD Linear (Curved) * Linear (Suture) HD Linear (Curved) * Dentate (Round) HD Linear (Curved) * Dentate (Polygonal) HD Linear (Curved) * CWI HD Linear (Curved) * Cord HD Linear (Wavy) * Linear (Suture) HD Linear (Wavy) * Dentate (Round) HD Linear (Wavy) * Dentate (Polygonal) HD Linear (Wavy) * CWI HD Linear (Wavy) * Cord HD Linear (Suture) * Dentate (Round) HD Linear (Suture) * Dentate (Polygonal) HD Linear (Suture) * CWI HD Linear (Suture) * Cord HD Dentate (Round) * Dentate (Polygonal) HD Dentate (Round) * CWI

116

HD Dentate (Round) * Cord HD Dentate (Polygonal) * CWI HD Dentate (Polygonal) * Cord

HD CWI * Cord

Technique (e.g., INTB1TECH, INTB2TECH, etc.) Description: Refers to the inferred motion with which the decoration was applied. Recorded for each decorative band on interior, lip and exterior surfaces. SI=superimposed; HD=horizontal difference. Values: Plain Stamp (Parallel) Stamp (Perpendicular) Stamp (Oblique) Stamp (Rocker) Drag-Stamp

Push-Pull Incised Bossed Indeterminate

SI Stamp (Parallel) over Stamp (Perpendicular) SI Stamp (Parallel) over Stamp (Oblique) SI Stamp (Parallel) over Stamp (Rocker) SI Stamp (Parallel) over Drag-Stamp SI Stamp (Parallel) over Push-Pull SI Stamp (Parallel) over Incised SI Stamp (Parallel) over Bossed SI Stamp (Perpendicular) over Stamp (Parallel) SI Stamp (Perpendicular) over Stamp (Oblique) SI Stamp (Perpendicular) over Stamp (Rocker) SI Stamp (Perpendicular) over Drag-Stamp SI Stamp (Perpendicular) over Push-Pull SI Stamp (Perpendicular) over Incised SI Stamp (Perpendicular) over Bossed SI Stamp (Oblique) over Stamp (Parallel) SI Stamp (Oblique) over Stamp (Perpendicular) SI Stamp (Oblique) over Stamp (Rocker) SI Stamp (Oblique) over Drag-Stamp SI Stamp (Oblique) over Push-Pull SI Stamp (Oblique) over Incised SI Stamp (Oblique) over Bossed SI Stamp (Rocker) over Stamp (Parallel) SI Stamp (Rocker) over Stamp (Perpendicular) SI Stamp (Rocker) over Stamp (Oblique) SI Stamp (Rocker) over Drag-Stamp SI Stamp (Rocker) over Push-Pull SI Stamp (Rocker) over Incised SI Stamp (Rocker) over Bossed

SI Drag-Stamp over Stamp (Parallel) SI Drag-Stamp over Stamp (Perpendicular) SI Drag-Stamp over Stamp (Oblique) SI Drag-Stamp over Stamp (Rocker) SI Drag-Stamp over Push-Pull SI Drag-Stamp over Incised SI Drag-Stamp over Bossed SI Push-Pull over Stamp (Parallel) SI Push-Pull over Stamp (Perpendicular) SI Push-Pull over Stamp (Oblique) SI Push-Pull over Stamp (Rocker) SI Push-Pull over Drag-Stamp SI Push-Pull over Incised SI Push-Pull over Bossed SI Incised over Stamp (Parallel) SI Incised over Stamp (Perpendicular) SI Incised over Stamp (Oblique) SI Incised over Stamp (Rocker) SI Incised over Drag-Stamp SI Incised over Push-Pull SI Bossed over Bossed SI Bossed over Stamp (Parallel) SI Bossed over Stamp (Perpendicular) SI Bossed over Stamp (Oblique) SI Bossed over Stamp (Rocker) SI Bossed over Drag-Stamp SI Bossed over Push-Pull SI Bossed over Incised

HD Stamp (Parallel) * Stamp (Perpendicular) HD Stamp (Parallel) * Stamp (Oblique) HD Stamp (Parallel) * Stamp (Rocker) HD Stamp (Parallel) * Drag-Stamp HD Stamp (Parallel) * Push-Pull HD Stamp (Parallel) * Incised

HD Stamp (Parallel) * Bossed HD Stamp (Perpendicular) * Stamp (Oblique) HD Stamp (Perpendicular) * Stamp (Rocker) HD Stamp (Perpendicular) * Drag-Stamp HD Stamp (Perpendicular) * Push-Pull HD Stamp (Perpendicular) * Incised

117

HD Stamp (Perpendicular) * Bossed HD Stamp (Oblique) * Stamp (Rocker) HD Stamp (Oblique) * Drag-Stamp HD Stamp (Oblique) * Push-Pull HD Stamp (Oblique) * Incised HD Stamp (Oblique) * Bossed HD Stamp (Rocker) * Drag-Stamp HD Stamp (Rocker) * Push-Pull HD Stamp (Rocker) * Incised

HD Stamp (Rocker) * Bossed HD Drag-Stamp * Push-Pull HD Drag-Stamp * Incised HD Drag-Stamp * Bossed HD Push-Pull * Incised HD Push-Pull * Bossed HD Incised * Bossed

Motif (e.g., INTB1MOTIF, INTB2MOTIF, etc.) Description: Specifies the pattern in which elements are combined to form the decoration on a rim section. Recorded for each decorative band on interior, lip and exterior surfaces. SI=superimposed; HD=horizontal difference. Values: Plain Linear Right Oblique (LRO) Linear Left Oblique (LLO) Linear Vertical (LV) Linear Horizontal (LH) Linear Dash (LD) Crescent Right Oblique (CRO) Crescent Left Oblique (CLO) Crescent Vertical (CV) Crescent Horizontal (CH) Crescent Dash (CD) Punctate Right Oblique (PRO) Punctate Left Oblique (PLO) Punctate Vertical (PV) Punctate Horizontal (PH)

SI LRO over LLO SI LRO over LV SI LRO over LH SI LRO over LD SI LRO over CRO SI LRO over CLO SI LRO over CV SI LRO over CH SI LRO over CD SI LRO over PRO SI LRO over PLO SI LRO over PV SI LRO over PH SI LRO over PD SI LRO over BRO SI LRO over BLO SI LRO over BV SI LRO over BH

Punctate Dash (PD) Bossed Right Oblique (BRO) Bossed Left Oblique (BLO) Bossed Vertical (BV) Bossed Horizontal (BH) Bossed Dash (BD) Plaits Linear Right Oblique (Plaits LRO) Plaits Linear Left Oblique (Plaits LLO) Plaits Linear Vertical (Plaits LV) Plaits Linear Horizontal (Plaits LH) Plaits Punctate Right Oblique (Plaits PRO) Plaits Punctate Left Oblique (Plaits PLO) Plaits Punctate Vertical (Plaits PV) Plaits Punctate Horizontal

SI LRO over BD SI LRO over Plaits LRO SI LRO over Plaits LLO SI LRO over Plaits LV SI LRO over Plaits LH SI LRO over Plaits PRO SI LRO over Plaits PLO SI LRO over Plaits PV SI LRO over Plaits PH SI LLO over LRO SI LLO over LV SI LLO over LH SI LLO over LD SI LLO over CRO SI LLO over CLO SI LLO over CV SI LLO over CH SI LLO over CD

118

SI LLO over PRO SI LLO over PLO SI LLO over PV SI LLO over PH SI LLO over PD SI LLO over BRO SI LLO over BLO SI LLO over BV SI LLO over BH SI LLO over BD SI LLO over Plaits LRO SI LLO over Plaits LLO SI LLO over Plaits LV SI LLO over Plaits LH SI LLO over Plaits PRO SI LLO over Plaits PLO SI LLO over Plaits PV SI LLO over Plaits PH

SI LV over LRO SI LV over LLO SI LV over LH SI LV over LD SI LV over CRO SI LV over CLO SI LV over CV SI LV over CH SI LV over CD SI LV over PRO SI LV over PLO SI LV over PV SI LV over PH SI LV over PD SI LV over BRO SI LV over BLO SI LV over BV SI LV over BH SI LV over BD SI LV over Plaits LRO SI LV over Plaits LLO SI LV over Plaits LV SI LV over Plaits LH SI LV over Plaits PRO SI LV over Plaits PLO SI LV over Plaits PV SI LV over Plaits PH SI LH over LRO SI LH over LLO SI LH over LV SI LH over LD SI LH over CRO SI LH over CLO SI LH over CV SI LH over CH SI LH over CD SI LH over PRO SI LH over PLO SI LH over PV SI LH over PH SI LH over PD SI LH over BRO SI LH over BLO SI LH over BV SI LH over BH SI LH over BD SI LH over Plaits LRO SI LH over Plaits LLO SI LH over Plaits LV SI LH over Plaits LH SI LH over Plaits PRO SI LH over Plaits PLO

SI LH over Plaits PV SI LH over Plaits PH SI LD over LRO SI LD over LLO SI LD over LV SI LD over LH SI LD over CRO SI LD over CLO SI LD over CV SI LD over CH SI LD over CD SI LD over PRO SI LD over PLO SI LD over PV SI LD over PH SI LD over PD SI LD over BRO SI LD over BLO SI LD over BV SI LD over BH SI LD over BD SI LD over Plaits LRO SI LD over Plaits LLO SI LD over Plaits LV SI LD over Plaits LH SI LD over Plaits PRO SI LD over Plaits PLO SI LD over Plaits PV SI LD over Plaits PH SI CRO over LRO SI CRO over LLO SI CRO over LV SI CRO over LH SI CRO over LD SI CRO over CLO SI CRO over CV SI CRO over CH SI CRO over CD SI CRO over PRO SI CRO over PLO SI CRO over PV SI CRO over PH SI CRO over PD SI CRO over BRO SI CRO over BLO SI CRO over BV SI CRO over BH SI CRO over BD SI CRO over Plaits LRO SI CRO over Plaits LLO SI CRO over Plaits LV SI CRO over Plaits LH

119

SI CRO over Plaits PRO SI CRO over Plaits PLO SI CRO over Plaits PV SI CRO over Plaits PH SI CLO over LRO SI CLO over LLO SI CLO over LV SI CLO over LH SI CLO over LD SI CLO over CRO SI CLO over CV SI CLO over CH SI CLO over CD SI CLO over PRO SI CLO over PLO SI CLO over PV SI CLO over PH SI CLO over PD SI CLO over BRO SI CLO over BLO SI CLO over BV SI CLO over BH SI CLO over BD SI CLO over Plaits LRO SI CLO over Plaits LLO SI CLO over Plaits LV SI CLO over Plaits LH SI CLO over Plaits PRO SI CLO over Plaits PLO SI CLO over Plaits PV SI CLO over Plaits PH SI CV over LRO SI CV over LLO SI CV over LV SI CV over LH SI CV over LD SI CV over CRO SI CV over CLO SI CV over CH SI CV over CD SI CV over PRO SI CV over PLO SI CV over PV SI CV over PH SI CV over PD SI CV over BRO SI CV over BLO SI CV over BV SI CV over BH SI CV over BD SI CV over Plaits LRO SI CV over Plaits LLO

SI CV over Plaits LV SI CV over Plaits LH SI CV over Plaits PRO SI CV over Plaits PLO SI CV over Plaits PV SI CV over Plaits PH SI CH over LRO SI CH over LLO SI CH over LV SI CH over LH SI CH over LD SI CH over CRO SI CH over CLO SI CH over CV SI CH over CD SI CH over PRO SI CH over PLO SI CH over PV SI CH over PH SI CH over PD SI CH over BRO SI CH over BLO SI CH over BV SI CH over BH SI CH over BD SI CH over Plaits LRO SI CH over Plaits LLO SI CH over Plaits LV SI CH over Plaits LH SI CH over Plaits PRO SI CH over Plaits PLO SI CH over Plaits PV SI CH over Plaits PH SI CD over LRO SI CD over LLO SI CD over LV SI CD over LH SI CD over LD SI CD over CRO SI CD over CLO SI CD over CV SI CD over CH SI CD over PRO SI CD over PLO SI CD over PV SI CD over PH SI CD over PD SI CD over BRO SI CD over BLO SI CD over BV SI CD over BH SI CD over BD

SI CD over Plaits LRO SI CD over Plaits LLO SI CD over Plaits LV SI CD over Plaits LH SI CD over Plaits PRO SI CD over Plaits PLO SI CD over Plaits PV SI CD over Plaits PH SI PRO over LRO SI PRO over LLO SI PRO over LV SI PRO over LH SI PRO over LD SI PRO over CRO SI PRO over CLO SI PRO over CV SI PRO over CH SI PRO over CD SI PRO over PLO SI PRO over PV SI PRO over PH SI PRO over PD SI PRO over BRO SI PRO over BLO SI PRO over BV SI PRO over BH SI PRO over BD SI PRO over Plaits LRO SI PRO over Plaits LLO SI PRO over Plaits LV SI PRO over Plaits LH SI PRO over Plaits PRO SI PRO over Plaits PLO SI PRO over Plaits PV SI PRO over Plaits PH SI PLO over LRO SI PLO over LLO SI PLO over LV SI PLO over LH SI PLO over LD SI PLO over CRO SI PLO over CLO SI PLO over CV SI PLO over CH SI PLO over CD SI PLO over PRO SI PLO over PV SI PLO over PH SI PLO over PD SI PLO over BRO SI PLO over BLO SI PLO over BV

120

SI PLO over BH SI PLO over BD SI PLO over Plaits LRO SI PLO over Plaits LLO SI PLO over Plaits LV SI PLO over Plaits LH SI PLO over Plaits PRO SI PLO over Plaits PLO SI PLO over Plaits PV SI PLO over Plaits PH SI PV over LRO SI PV over LLO SI PV over LV SI PV over LH SI PV over LD SI PV over CRO SI PV over CLO SI PV over CV SI PV over CH SI PV over CD SI PV over PRO SI PV over PLO SI PV over PH SI PV over PD SI PV over BRO SI PV over BLO SI PV over BV SI PV over BH SI PV over BD SI PV over Plaits LRO SI PV over Plaits LLO SI PV over Plaits LV SI PV over Plaits LH SI PV over Plaits PRO SI PV over Plaits PLO SI PV over Plaits PV SI PV over Plaits PH SI PH over LRO SI PH over LLO SI PH over LV SI PH over LH SI PH over LD SI PH over CRO SI PH over CLO SI PH over CV SI PH over CH SI PH over CD SI PH over PRO SI PH over PLO SI PH over PV SI PH over PD SI PH over BRO

SI PH over BLO SI PH over BV SI PH over BH SI PH over BD SI PH over Plaits LRO SI PH over Plaits LLO SI PH over Plaits LV SI PH over Plaits LH SI PH over Plaits PRO SI PH over Plaits PLO SI PH over Plaits PV SI PH over Plaits PH SI PD over LRO SI PD over LLO SI PD over LV SI PD over LH SI PD over LD SI PD over CRO SI PD over CLO SI PD over CV SI PD over CH SI PD over CD SI PD over PRO SI PD over PLO SI PD over PV SI PD over PH SI PD over BRO SI PD over BLO SI PD over BV SI PD over BH SI PD over BD SI PD over Plaits LRO SI PD over Plaits LLO SI PD over Plaits LV SI PD over Plaits LH SI PD over Plaits PRO SI PD over Plaits PLO SI PD over Plaits PV SI PD over Plaits PH SI BRO over LRO SI BRO over LLO SI BRO over LV SI BRO over LH SI BRO over LD SI BRO over CRO SI BRO over CLO SI BRO over CV SI BRO over CH SI BRO over CD SI BRO over PRO SI BRO over PLO SI BRO over PV

SI BRO over PH SI BRO over PD SI BRO over BLO SI BRO over BV SI BRO over BH SI BRO over BD SI BRO over Plaits LRO SI BRO over Plaits LLO SI BRO over Plaits LV SI BRO over Plaits LH SI BRO over Plaits PRO SI BRO over Plaits PLO SI BRO over Plaits PV SI BRO over Plaits PH SI BLO over LRO SI BLO over LLO SI BLO over LV SI BLO over LH SI BLO over LD SI BLO over CRO SI BLO over CLO SI BLO over CV SI BLO over CH SI BLO over CD SI BLO over PRO SI BLO over PLO SI BLO over PV SI BLO over PH SI BLO over PD SI BLO over BRO SI BLO over BV SI BLO over BH SI BLO over BD SI BLO over Plaits LRO SI BLO over Plaits LLO SI BLO over Plaits LV SI BLO over Plaits LH SI BLO over Plaits PRO SI BLO over Plaits PLO SI BLO over Plaits PV SI BLO over Plaits PH SI BV over LRO SI BV over LLO SI BV over LV SI BV over LH SI BV over LD SI BV over CRO SI BV over CLO SI BV over CV SI BV over CH SI BV over CD SI BV over PRO

121

SI BV over PLO SI BV over PV SI BV over PH SI BV over PD SI BV over BRO SI BV over BLO SI BV over BH SI BV over BD SI BV over Plaits LRO SI BV over Plaits LLO SI BV over Plaits LV SI BV over Plaits LH SI BV over Plaits PRO SI BV over Plaits PLO SI BV over Plaits PV SI BV over Plaits PH SI BD over LRO SI BD over LLO SI BD over LV SI BD over LH SI BD over LD SI BD over CRO SI BD over CLO SI BD over CV SI BD over CH SI BD over CD SI BD over PRO SI BD over PLO SI BD over PV SI BD over PH SI BD over PD SI BD over BRO SI BD over BLO SI BD over BH SI BD over BV SI BD over Plaits LRO SI BD over Plaits LLO SI BD over Plaits LV SI BD over Plaits LH SI BD over Plaits PRO SI BD over Plaits PLO SI BD over Plaits PV SI BD over Plaits PH SI Plaits LRO over LRO SI Plaits LRO over LLO SI Plaits LRO over LV SI Plaits LRO over LH SI Plaits LRO over LD SI Plaits LRO over CRO SI Plaits LRO over CLO SI Plaits LRO over CV SI Plaits LRO over CH

SI Plaits LRO over CD SI Plaits LRO over PRO SI Plaits LRO over PLO SI Plaits LRO over PV SI Plaits LRO over PH SI Plaits LRO over PD SI Plaits LRO over BRO SI Plaits LRO over BLO SI Plaits LRO over BH SI Plaits LRO over BV SI Plaits LRO over BD SI Plaits LRO over Plaits LLO SI Plaits LRO over Plaits LV SI Plaits LRO over Plaits LH SI Plaits LRO over Plaits PRO SI Plaits LRO over Plaits PLO SI Plaits LRO over Plaits PV SI Plaits LRO over Plaits PH SI Plaits LLO over LRO SI Plaits LLO over LLO SI Plaits LLO over LV SI Plaits LLO over LH SI Plaits LLO over LD SI Plaits LLO over CRO SI Plaits LLO over CLO SI Plaits LLO over CV SI Plaits LLO over CH SI Plaits LLO over CD SI Plaits LLO over PRO SI Plaits LLO over PLO SI Plaits LLO over PV SI Plaits LLO over PH SI Plaits LLO over PD SI Plaits LLO over BRO SI Plaits LLO over BLO SI Plaits LLO over BH SI Plaits LLO over BV SI Plaits LLO over BD SI Plaits LLO over Plaits LRO SI Plaits LLO over Plaits LV SI Plaits LLO over Plaits LH SI Plaits LLO over Plaits PRO SI Plaits LLO over Plaits PLO SI Plaits LLO over Plaits PV SI Plaits LLO over Plaits PH SI Plaits LV over LRO SI Plaits LV over LLO SI Plaits LV over LV SI Plaits LV over LH SI Plaits LV over LD SI Plaits LV over CRO SI Plaits LV over CLO

SI Plaits LV over CV SI Plaits LV over CH SI Plaits LV over CD SI Plaits LV over PRO SI Plaits LV over PLO SI Plaits LV over PV SI Plaits LV over PH SI Plaits LV over PD SI Plaits LV over BRO SI Plaits LV over BLO SI Plaits LV over BH SI Plaits LV over BV SI Plaits LV over BD SI Plaits LV over Plaits LRO SI Plaits LV over Plaits LLO SI Plaits LV over Plaits LH SI Plaits LV over Plaits PRO SI Plaits LV over Plaits PLO SI Plaits LV over Plaits PV SI Plaits LV over Plaits PH SI Plaits LH over LRO SI Plaits LH over LLO SI Plaits LH over LV SI Plaits LH over LH SI Plaits LH over LD SI Plaits LH over CRO SI Plaits LH over CLO SI Plaits LH over CV SI Plaits LH over CH SI Plaits LH over CD SI Plaits LH over PRO SI Plaits LH over PLO SI Plaits LH over PV SI Plaits LH over PH SI Plaits LH over PD SI Plaits LH over BRO SI Plaits LH over BLO SI Plaits LH over BH SI Plaits LH over BV SI Plaits LH over BD SI Plaits LH over Plaits LRO SI Plaits LH over Plaits LLO SI Plaits LH over Plaits LV SI Plaits LH over Plaits PRO SI Plaits LH over Plaits PLO SI Plaits LH over Plaits PV SI Plaits LH over Plaits PH SI Plaits PRO over LRO SI Plaits PRO over LLO SI Plaits PRO over LV SI Plaits PRO over LH SI Plaits PRO over LD

122

SI Plaits PRO over CRO SI Plaits PRO over CLO SI Plaits PRO over CV SI Plaits PRO over CH SI Plaits PRO over CD SI Plaits PRO over PRO SI Plaits PRO over PLO SI Plaits PRO over PV SI Plaits PRO over PH SI Plaits PRO over PD SI Plaits PRO over BRO SI Plaits PRO over BLO SI Plaits PRO over BH SI Plaits PRO over BV SI Plaits PRO over BD SI Plaits PRO over Plaits LRO SI Plaits PRO over Plaits LLO SI Plaits PRO over Plaits LV SI Plaits PRO over Plaits LH SI Plaits PRO over Plaits PLO SI Plaits PRO over Plaits PV SI Plaits PRO over Plaits PH SI Plaits PLO over LRO SI Plaits PLO over LLO SI Plaits PLO over LV SI Plaits PLO over LH SI Plaits PLO over LD SI Plaits PLO over CRO SI Plaits PLO over CLO SI Plaits PLO over CV SI Plaits PLO over CH SI Plaits PLO over CD SI Plaits PLO over PRO SI Plaits PLO over PLO SI Plaits PLO over PV SI Plaits PLO over PH SI Plaits PLO over PD SI Plaits PLO over BRO SI Plaits PLO over BLO SI Plaits PLO over BH SI Plaits PLO over BV SI Plaits PLO over BD SI Plaits PLO over Plaits LRO SI Plaits PLO over Plaits LLO SI Plaits PLO over Plaits LV SI Plaits PLO over Plaits LH SI Plaits PLO over Plaits PRO SI Plaits PLO over Plaits PV SI Plaits PLO over Plaits PH SI Plaits PH over LRO SI Plaits PH over LLO SI Plaits PH over LV

SI Plaits PH over LH SI Plaits PH over LD SI Plaits PH over CRO SI Plaits PH over CLO SI Plaits PH over CV SI Plaits PH over CH SI Plaits PH over CD SI Plaits PH over PRO SI Plaits PH over PLO

SI Plaits PH over PV SI Plaits PH over PH SI Plaits PH over PD SI Plaits PH over BRO SI Plaits PH over BLO SI Plaits PH over BH SI Plaits PH over BV SI Plaits PH over BD

SI Plaits PH over Plaits LRO SI Plaits PH over Plaits LLO SI Plaits PH over Plaits LV SI Plaits PH over Plaits LH SI Plaits PH over Plaits PRO SI Plaits PH over Plaits PLO SI Plaits PH over Plaits PV

HD LRO * LRO HD LRO * LV HD LRO * LH HD LRO * LD HD LRO * CRO HD LRO * CLO HD LRO * CV HD LRO * CH HD LRO * CD HD LRO * PRO HD LRO * PLO HD LRO * PV HD LRO * PH HD LRO * PD HD LRO * BRO HD LRO * BLO HD LRO * BV HD LRO * BH HD LRO * BD HD LRO * Plaits LRO HD LRO * Plaits LLO HD LRO * Plaits LV HD LRO * Plaits LH HD LRO * Plaits PRO HD LRO * Plaits PLO HD LRO * Plaits PV HD LRO * Plaits PH HD LLO * LV HD LLO * LH HD LLO * LD HD LLO * CRO HD LLO * CLO HD LLO * CV HD LLO * CH HD LLO * CD HD LLO * PRO HD LLO * PLO HD LLO * PV HD LLO * PH HD LLO * PD HD LLO * BRO HD LLO * BLO

HD LLO * BV HD LLO * BH HD LLO * BD HD LLO * Plaits LRO HD LLO * Plaits LLO HD LLO * Plaits LV HD LLO * Plaits LH HD LLO * Plaits PRO HD LLO * Plaits PLO HD LLO * Plaits PV HD LLO * Plaits PH HD LV * LH HD LV * LD HD LV * CRO HD LV * CLO HD LV * CV HD LV * CH HD LV * CD HD LV * PRO HD LV * PLO HD LV * PV HD LV * PH HD LV * PD HD LV * BRO HD LV * BLO HD LV * BV HD LV * BH HD LV * BD HD LV * Plaits LRO HD LV * Plaits LLO HD LV * Plaits LV HD LV * Plaits LH HD LV * Plaits PRO HD LV * Plaits PLO HD LV * Plaits PV HD LV * Plaits PH HD LH * LD HD LH * CRO HD LH * CLO HD LH * CV HD LH * CH HD LH * CD

HD LH * PRO HD LH * PLO HD LH * PV HD LH * PH HD LH * PD HD LH * BRO HD LH * BLO HD LH * BV HD LH * BH HD LH * BD HD LH * Plaits LRO HD LH * Plaits LLO HD LH * Plaits LV HD LH * Plaits LH HD LH * Plaits PRO HD LH * Plaits PLO HD LH * Plaits PV HD LH * Plaits PH HD LD * CRO HD LD * CLO HD LD * CV HD LD * CH HD LD * CD HD LD * PRO HD LD * PLO HD LD * PV HD LD * PH HD LD * PD HD LD * BRO HD LD * BLO HD LD * BV HD LD * BH HD LD * BD HD LD * Plaits LRO HD LD * Plaits LLO HD LD * Plaits LV HD LD * Plaits LH HD LD * Plaits PRO HD LD * Plaits PLO HD LD * Plaits PV HD LD * Plaits PH HD CRO * CLO

123

HD CRO * CV HD CRO * CH HD CRO * CD HD CRO * PRO HD CRO * PLO HD CRO * PV HD CRO * PH HD CRO * PD HD CRO * BRO HD CRO * BLO HD CRO * BV HD CRO * BH HD CRO * BD HD CRO * Plaits LRO HD CRO * Plaits LLO HD CRO * Plaits LV HD CRO * Plaits LH HD CRO * Plaits PRO HD CRO * Plaits PLO HD CRO * Plaits PV HD CRO * Plaits PH HD CLO * CV HD CLO * CH HD CLO * CD HD CLO * PRO HD CLO * PLO HD CLO * PV HD CLO * PH HD CLO * PD HD CLO * BRO HD CLO * BLO HD CLO * BV HD CLO * BH HD CLO * BD HD CLO * Plaits LRO HD CLO * Plaits LLO HD CLO * Plaits LV HD CLO * Plaits LH HD CLO * Plaits PRO HD CLO * Plaits PLO HD CLO * Plaits PV HD CLO * Plaits PH HD CV * CH HD CV * CD HD CV * PRO HD CV * PLO HD CV * PV HD CV * PH HD CV * PD HD CV * BRO HD CV * BLO HD CV * BV

HD CV * BH HD CV * BD HD CV * Plaits LRO HD CV * Plaits LLO HD CV * Plaits LV HD CV * Plaits LH HD CV * Plaits PRO HD CV * Plaits PLO HD CV * Plaits PV HD CV * Plaits PH HD CH * CD HD CH * PRO HD CH * PLO HD CH * PV HD CH * PH HD CH * PD HD CH * BRO HD CH * BLO HD CH * BV HD CH * BH HD CH * BD HD CH * Plaits LRO HD CH * Plaits LLO HD CH * Plaits LV HD CH * Plaits LH HD CH * Plaits PRO HD CH * Plaits PLO HD CH * Plaits PV HD CH * Plaits PH HD CD * PRO HD CD * PLO HD CD * PV HD CD * PH HD CD * PD HD CD * BRO HD CD * BLO HD CD * BV HD CD * BH HD CD * BD HD CD * Plaits LRO HD CD * Plaits LLO HD CD * Plaits LV HD CD * Plaits LH HD CD * Plaits PRO HD CD * Plaits PLO HD CD * Plaits PV HD CD * Plaits PH HD PRO * PLO HD PRO * PV HD PRO * PH HD PRO * PD HD PRO * BRO

124

HD PRO * BLO HD PRO * BV HD PRO * BH HD PRO * BD HD PRO * Plaits LRO HD PRO * Plaits LLO HD PRO * Plaits LV HD PRO * Plaits LH HD PRO * Plaits PRO HD PRO * Plaits PLO HD PRO * Plaits PV HD PRO * Plaits PH HD PLO * PV HD PLO * PH HD PLO * PD HD PLO * BRO HD PLO * BLO HD PLO * BV HD PLO * BH HD PLO * BD HD PLO * Plaits LRO HD PLO * Plaits LLO HD PLO * Plaits LV HD PLO * Plaits LH HD PLO * Plaits PRO HD PLO * Plaits PLO HD PLO * Plaits PV HD PLO * Plaits PH HD PV * PH HD PV * PD HD PV * BRO HD PV * BLO HD PV * BV HD PV * BH HD PV * BD HD PV * Plaits LRO HD PV * Plaits LLO HD PV * Plaits LV HD PV * Plaits LH HD PV * Plaits PRO HD PV * Plaits PLO HD PV * Plaits PV HD PV * Plaits PH HD PH * PD HD PH * BRO HD PH * BLO HD PH * BV HD PH * BH HD PH * BD HD PH * Plaits LRO HD PH * Plaits LLO HD PH * Plaits LV

HD PH * Plaits LH HD PH * Plaits PRO HD PH * Plaits PLO HD PH * Plaits PV HD PH * Plaits PH HD PD * BRO HD PD * BLO HD PD * BV HD PD * BH HD PD * BD HD PD * Plaits LRO HD PD * Plaits LLO HD PD * Plaits LV HD PD * Plaits LH HD PD * Plaits PRO HD PD * Plaits PLO HD PD * Plaits PV HD PD * Plaits PH HD BRO * BLO HD BRO * BV HD BRO * BH HD BRO * BD HD BRO * Plaits LRO HD BRO * Plaits LLO HD BRO * Plaits LV HD BRO * Plaits LH HD BRO * Plaits PRO HD BRO * Plaits PLO HD BRO * Plaits PV HD BRO * Plaits PH HD BLO * BV HD BLO * BH HD BLO * BD

HD BLO * Plaits LRO HD BLO * Plaits LLO HD BLO * Plaits LV HD BLO * Plaits LH HD BLO * Plaits PRO HD BLO * Plaits PLO HD BLO * Plaits PV HD BLO * Plaits PH HD BV * BH HD BV * BD HD BV * Plaits LRO HD BV * Plaits LLO HD BV * Plaits LV HD BV * Plaits LH HD BV * Plaits PRO HD BV * Plaits PLO HD BV * Plaits PV HD BV * Plaits PH HD BH * BD HD BH * Plaits LRO HD BH * Plaits LLO HD BH * Plaits LV HD BH * Plaits LH HD BH * Plaits PRO HD BH * Plaits PLO HD BH * Plaits PV HD BH * Plaits PH HD BD * Plaits LRO HD BD * Plaits LLO HD BD * Plaits LV HD BD * Plaits LH HD BD * Plaits PRO

HD BD * Plaits PLO HD BD * Plaits PV HD BD * Plaits PH HD Plaits LRO * Plaits LLO HD Plaits LRO * Plaits LV HD Plaits LRO * Plaits LH HD Plaits LRO * Plaits PRO HD Plaits LRO * Plaits PLO HD Plaits LRO * Plaits PV HD Plaits LRO * Plaits PH HD Plaits LLO * Plaits LV HD Plaits LLO * Plaits LH HD Plaits LLO * Plaits PRO HD Plaits LLO * Plaits PLO HD Plaits LLO * Plaits PV HD Plaits LLO * Plaits PH HD Plaits LH * Plaits LV HD Plaits LH * Plaits PRO HD Plaits LH * Plaits PLO HD Plaits LH * Plaits PV HD Plaits LH * Plaits PH HD Plaits LV * Plaits PRO HD Plaits LV * Plaits PLO HD Plaits LV * Plaits PV HD Plaits LV * Plaits PH HD Plaits PRO * Plaits PLO HD Plaits PRO * Plaits PV HD Plaits PRO * Plaits PH HD Plaits PLO * Plaits PV HD Plaits PLO * Plaits PH HD Plaits PV * Plaits PH

Symmetry (e.g., INTB1SYM, INTB2SYM, etc.) Description: Specifies the motion employed in repeating the fundamental part of a design. Recorded for each decorative band on interior, lip and exterior surfaces (intra-band) and between Bands 1 and 2, 2 and 3, and 3 and 4 on exterior surfaces (inter-band). Values Translation:

unit moved without change in orientation parallel to a horizontal plane.

Horizontal Reflection:

the translation of a unit parallel to a horizontal plane and the reflection of the same unit over a horizontal axis.

Vertical Reflection:

reflection only of a unit parallel to a horizontal plane.

Bifold Rotation:

unit is repeatedly rotated 180 degrees parallel to a horizontal plane.

125

Horizontal & Vertical Reflection:

unit is reflected across both the horizontal and vertical axes, resulting in a radial effect.

Slide Reflection:

composed of alternating right and left images, resembles a braid or footprints in the sand.

Alternate Rotation & Reflection:

“The latter motion may be most noticeable, but the quality of the of design is influenced by rotation which has the effect of inverting alternate figures” (Sheppard 1948:269).

126

Appendix B: Attribute Data (Tables)

127

128

27 18.75% 10 6.94% 0.69% 1 44 30.56% 15 10.42% 19 13.19% 17 11.81% 4 2.78% 4.86% 7 144 100.00%

Cassady

Table B.1: Nature of the Specimen

W hole pot In+Lp Lp+UR In+Lp+UR In+Lp+UR+Cs Lp+UR+Nk In+Lp+UR+Nk In+Lp+UR+Nk+Cs In+Lp+UR+Nk+Sh In+Lp+UR+Nk+Cs+Sh In+Lp+UR+Nk+Sh+Bd In+Lp+UR+Nk+Cs+Sh+Bd Total 9 3 26.47% 17.65% 2.94% 11.76% 5.88%

26.47% 8.82%

Cherry Lane

9 6 1 4 2 34 100.00%

0.93% 13.04% 0.93% 1.86% 72.05% 6.21% 2.48% 2.48%

DeWaele

3 42 3 6 232 20 8 8 322 100.00%

Key Bd - Body; Cs - Castelation; In - Interior; Lp - Lip; Nk - Neck; Sh - Shoulder; UR - Upper Rim

1 2.11% 29.47%

1.05%

Dymock

2 28 1 1.05% 29 30.53% 10 10.53% 8 8.42% 8 8.42% 7 7.37% 1 1.05% 95 100.00%

20 1 38.57% 12.86% 8.57% 8.57%

28.57% 1.43%

Kelly

27 9 6 6 1.43% 1 70 100.00%

1.77% 3.54%

Krieger 2 4 9 7.96% 6 5.31% 6.19% 7 36 31.86% 14 12.39% 15 13.27% 15 13.27% 3 2.65% 2 1.77% 113 100.00%

17.02% 6.38%

Van Bree

8 3

16 34.04% 4 8.51% 5 10.64% 7 14.89% 1 2.13% 3 6.38% 47 100.00%

Total 3 0.36% 0.48% 4 5 0.61% 143 17.33% 26 3.15% 1.82% 15 393 47.64% 9.45% 78 7.52% 62 65 7.88% 17 2.06% 1.70% 14 825 100.00%

129

9.03% 18.75% 25.00% 6.25% 24.31% 0.69% 9.72% 1.39% 3.47% 0.69%

1 0.69% 144 100.00%

13 27 36 9 35 1 14 2 5 1

Cassady

Table B.2: Interior Decorative Completeness

pB1>Break B1>Break B1>pB2 >Break B1>B2>Break B1>B2>pB3>Break B1>B2>B3>Break B1>B2>B3>pB4>Break B1>B2>B3>B4>Break B1>B2>B3>B4>pB5>Break B1>B2>B3>B4>B5>Break B1>B2>B3>B4>B5>pB6>Break Indeterminate Total 32.35% 8.82% 55.88% 2.94%

Cherry Lane 11 3 19 1

34 100.00%

1.86% 66.15% 5.59% 14.29% 3.73% 4.35% 0.62% 0.62% 0.31%

DeWaele 6 213 18 46 12 14 2 2 1 8 2.48% 322 100.00%

35.79% 5.26% 32.63% 2.11% 16.84% 18 13 17 1 9 1 10 1.43%

25.71% 18.57% 24.29% 1.43% 12.86% 1.43% 14.29%

Kelly

34 5 31 2 16 1.05% 1

Dymock

1 1.05%

70 100.00%

1 1 1.05% 4 4.21% 95 100.00%

4.42% 14.16% 19.47% 34.51% 7.96% 8.85% 3.54% 1.77%

Krieger 5 16 22 39 9 10 4 2

5.31% 6 113 100.00%

2.13% 27.66% 17.02% 6.38% 25.53% 8.51% 8.51% 2.13% 2.13%

Van Bree 1 13 8 3 12 4 4 1 1

47 100.00%

Total

88 10.67% 290 35.15% 151 18.30% 101 12.24% 93 11.27% 30 3.64% 35 4.24% 7 0.85% 9 1.09% 1 0.12% 1 0.12% 2.30% 19 825 100.00%

130

144 100.00%

144 100.00%

Cassady

Table B.3: Lip Decorative Completeness

pB1>Break W hole - B1 W hole - B1>B2 Indeterminate Total

Cherry Lane

DeWaele 3 319

0.93% 99.07%

2 31 322 100.00%

5.88% 91.18%

1 2.94% 34 100.00%

2.11% 97.89%

Dymock 2 93 95 100.00%

Krieger 5 103 5

Kelly 70 100.00% 113 100.00%

4.42% 91.15% 4.42%

70 100.00%

2.13% 95.74%

Van Bree 1 45

1 2.13% 47 100.00%

Total 13 1.58% 805 97.58% 5 0.61% 2 0.24% 825 100.00%

131

5.56% 11.81% 21.53% 5.56% 22.22% 4.17% 20.14% 1.39% 6.25% 0.69%

0.69%

144 100.00%

1

8 17 31 8 32 6 29 2 9 1

Cassady

Table B.4: Exterior Decorative Completeness

pB1>Break B1>Break B1>pB2 >Break B1>B2>Break B1>B2>pB3>Break B1>B2>B3>Break B1>B2>B3>pB4>Break B1>B2>B3>B4>Break B1>B2>B3>B4>pB5>Break B1>B2>B3>B4>B5>Break B1>B2>B3>B4>B5>pB6>Break B1>B2>B3>B4>B5>B6>Break B1>B2>B3>B4>B5>B6>pB7>Break B1>B2>B3>B4>B5>B6>B7>Break B1>B2>B3>B4>B5>B6>B7>pB8>Break Indeterminate Total 9 2 13 20.59% 5.88%

26.47% 5.88% 38.24%

Cherry Lane

7 2

1 2.94% 34 100.00%

55 28 64 51 47 36 23 10 2 4 1 0.31%

17.08% 8.70% 19.88% 15.84% 14.60% 11.18% 7.14% 3.11% 0.62% 1.24% 0.31%

DeWaele

1 322 100.00%

29 3 35 2 18 3.16% 1.05% 2.11%

30.53% 3.16% 36.84% 2.11% 18.95%

1

3

7

11 5 26 4 12

1.43%

4.29%

10.00%

15.71% 7.14% 37.14% 5.71% 17.14%

Kelly

3 1 2 1.05%

Dymock

1 1.05%

1.43% 1 70 100.00%

1

95 100.00%

5.31% 15.04% 26.55% 9.73% 14.16% 7.08% 6.19% 1.77% 1.77% 3.54% 2.65% 0.88% 0.88%

Krieger 6 17 30 11 16 8 7 2 2 4 3 1 1

1 0.88% 4 3.54% 113 100.00%

2.13% 19.15% 17.02% 2.13% 19.15% 4.26% 17.02% 4.26% 2.13% 6.38% 2.13% 4.26%

Van Bree 1 9 8 1 9 2 8 2 1 3 1 2

47 100.00%

Total

64 7.76% 108 13.09% 171 20.73% 90 10.91% 145 17.58% 7.88% 65 92 11.15% 30 3.64% 27 3.27% 10 1.21% 1.21% 10 0.48% 4 0.12% 1 2 0.24% 0.24% 2 6 0.73% 825 100.00%

132

95 65.97% 48 33.33% 1 0.69% 144 100.00%

Cassady

Table B.5: Interior Surface Modification

Smoothed W iped Indeterminate Total

Cherry Lane 25 73.53% 8 23.53% 1 2.94% 34 100.00%

230 71.43% 84 26.09% 8 2.48% 322 100.00%

DeWaele 69 72.63% 22 23.16% 4 4.21% 95 100.00%

Dymock 67.14% 32.86%

Kelly 47 23 70 100.00%

Krieger 60 53.10% 47 41.59% 6 5.31% 113 100.00%

Van Bree 21 44.68% 20 42.55% 6 12.77% 47 100.00%

Total 547 66.30% 252 30.55% 3.15% 26 825 100.00%

133

90.28% 2.08% 7.64%

144 100.00%

130 3 11

Cassady

Table B.6: Lip Surface Modification

Smoothed Textured W iped Indeterminate Total 33

97.06%

Cherry Lane

2.94% 1 34 100.00%

91.30% 2.17% 6.52%

DeWaele 294 7 21 322 100.00%

92 3.16%

96.84%

Dymock

3 95 100.00%

74.29% 1.43% 24.29%

Kelly 52 1 17 70 100.00%

107 5.31%

94.69%

Krieger

6 113 100.00%

37

78.72%

Van Bree

3 6.38% 7 14.89% 47 100.00%

Total 745 90.30% 1.33% 11 7.39% 61 0.97% 8 825 100.00%

134

59.03% 38.19% 2.78%

144 100.00%

85 55 4

Cassady

Table B.7: Exterior Surface Modification

Smoothed W iped Textured Combing Vertical VERDIF Smoothed / Textured VERDIF Textured / Smoothed VERDIF Textured / W iped VERDIF W iped / Textured Indeterminate Total

85.29% 14.71%

Cherry Lane 29 5

34 100.00%

200 99 16 1 1 0.31% 1.24%

62.11% 30.75% 4.97% 0.31% 0.31%

DeWaele

1 4 322 100.00%

86.32% 10.53% 3.16%

Dymock 82 10 3

95 100.00%

64.29% 32.86% 2.86%

Kelly 45 23 2

70 100.00%

69.03% 24.78% 2.65%

Krieger 78 28 3

3.54% 4 113 100.00%

30 6 3

2.13% 2.13%

63.83% 12.77% 6.38%

Van Bree

1 1

6 12.77% 47 100.00%

Total

549 66.55% 226 27.39% 31 3.76% 1 0.12% 2 0.24% 0.12% 1 1 0.12% 4 0.48% 1.21% 10 825 100.00%

135

23 15.97% 49 34.03% 72 50.00% 144 100.00%

Cassady

Table B.8: Castellation Form

Not Present Present Indeterminate Total

Cherry Lane 2 5.88% 13 38.24% 19 55.88% 34 100.00%

3.11% 10 9.63% 31 281 87.27% 322 100.00%

DeWaele 13 13.68% 19 20.00% 63 66.32% 95 100.00%

Dymock Kelly 2.86% 2 17 24.29% 51 72.86% 70 100.00%

Krieger 11 9.73% 39 34.51% 63 55.75% 113 100.00%

Van Bree 2 4.26% 17 36.17% 28 59.57% 47 100.00%

Total 63 7.64% 185 22.42% 577 69.94% 825 100.00%

136

Cassady 86.81% 3.47% 9.72%

144 100.00%

125 5 14

Table B.9: Lip Form

Flat Pointed Rounded Indeterminate Total

Cherry Lane 23 67.65% 2 5.88% 8 23.53% 2.94% 1 34 100.00%

Kelly 57 1 12

Dymock

70 100.00%

DeWaele 68 2 25

81.43% 1.43% 17.14%

95 100.00%

71.58% 2.11% 26.32%

309 5 8 95.96% 1.55% 2.48%

322 100.00%

53.10% 9.73% 37.17%

Krieger 60 11 42 113 100.00%

45

95.74%

Van Bree

2.13% 1 1 2.13% 47 100.00%

Total 687 83.27% 3.15% 26 110 13.33% 2 0.24% 825 100.00%

137

18 12.50% 2 1.39% 122 84.72% 1.39% 2 144 100.00%

Cassady

Table B.10: Rim Form

Incipient Collar Collared Not Collared Indeterminate Total

Cherry Lane 4 11.76% 1 2.94% 24 70.59% 5 14.71% 34 100.00%

88 27.33% 5 1.55% 228 70.81% 1 0.31% 322 100.00%

DeWaele 9 9.47% 4.21% 4 73 76.84% 9 9.47% 95 100.00%

Dymock

Kelly 7 10.00% 4 5.71% 54 77.14% 7.14% 5 70 100.00%

Krieger 14 12.39% 6 5.31% 87 76.99% 5.31% 6 113 100.00%

Van Bree 5 10.64% 2 4.26% 38 80.85% 2 4.26% 47 100.00%

Total 145 17.58% 24 2.91% 626 75.88% 30 3.64% 825 100.00%

138

35 24.31% 57 39.58% 51 35.42% 1 0.69% 144 100.00%

Cassady

Table B.11: Upper Rim Profile

Concave Convex Straight Indeterminate Total

Cherry Lane 25 73.53% 5.88% 2 3 8.82% 4 11.76% 34 100.00%

78 24.22% 166 51.55% 70 21.74% 8 2.48% 322 100.00%

DeWaele 47 49.47% 6 6.32% 34 35.79% 8 8.42% 95 100.00%

Dymock

Kelly 16 22.86% 29 41.43% 21 30.00% 4 5.71% 70 100.00%

Krieger 86 76.11% 2.65% 3 18 15.93% 5.31% 6 113 100.00%

Van Bree 15 31.91% 14 29.79% 14 29.79% 4 8.51% 47 100.00%

Total 302 36.61% 277 33.58% 211 25.58% 35 4.24% 825 100.00%

139

Cassady

Plain Linear (Straight) Linear (Curved) Linear (Suture) Linear (W avy) Pointed (Round) Pointed (Annular) Cord W rapped Instrument Dentate (Polygonal) Dentate (Round) SI Pointed (Round) over CW I SI Pointed (Round) over Pointed (Annular) SI Pointed (Annular) over Linear (Straight) SI Pointed (Annular) over Pointed (Round) SI CW I over Pointed (Annular) Total 21.68% 42.66% 0.70% 9.79% 0.70% 2.10% 2.10% 17.48% 2.80%

Cherry Lane

5.88%

20.59% 50.00%

2 5.88% 14.71% 2.94%

7 17

2 5 1

34 100.00%

3 16 4

229 54 2 5

0.32%

0.96% 5.10% 1.27%

72.93% 17.20% 0.64% 1.59%

DeWaele

1

314 100.00%

Dymock

14.02% 18.69%

10 14

10.64%

21.28% 29.79%

Van Bree 15 20

5

Krieger

30.00% 32.86%

2.80%

Kelly 21 23

3

19.78% 17.58%

7.14%

18 16 5

2.13% 23.40% 12.77%

16.48%

1 11 6

15

0.93% 15.89% 37.38% 8.41% 4 4 9 2 1

1 17 40 9

14.29% 3.30% 27.47%

5.71% 5.71% 12.86% 2.86% 1.43%

13 3 25

47 100.00%

0.93% 0.93% 1 107 100.00%

1

1.10% 1.43%

ee Br Va

70 100.00%

1

1

91 100.00%

n

1 5 5 . 63

k

ge ie Kr

e

1 17 . 6 5

ne

Ke

r

1 6 3 .0 6

La

lly D

oc ym

1 3 7 . 66

l ae

D

eW

96.86

92.23

11 6. 77

ry

C

80 . 27

95. 88

r he

148.05

1 12 . 23

1 38 .6 6

dy

******

C

9 8 .25

132.38

89.24

132.22

157.63

******

132.75

130.20

88.31

******

******

115.75

******

******

******

sa as

143 100.00%

31 61 1 14 1 3 3 25 4

Cassady

Table B.12: Interior Band 1 Tool (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Indices of Agreement

DeW aele

Cherry Lane

Dymock Kelly Krieger Van Bree

Total

331 41.07% 205 25.43% 0.37% 3 47 5.83% 0.12% 1 2.98% 24 41 5.09% 123 15.26% 24 2.98% 0.25% 2 0.12% 1 0.12% 1 1 0.12% 1 0.12% 0.12% 1 806 100.00%

140

Cassady

Plain Stamp (Parallel) Stamp (Perpendicular) Stamp (Oblique) Drag-Stamp Incised SI Stamp (per.) over Incised SI Stamp (per.) over Stamp (obl.) SI Stamp (per.) over Stamp (par.) SI Stamp (obl.) over Incised SI Incised over Stamp (obl.) SI Push-Pull over Stamp (par.) Total

31 106 1 4 0.70%

21.68% 74.13% 0.70% 2.80%

y

5.88%

20.59% 73.53%

Cherry Lane 7 25

2

ne

34 100.00%

La

72.93% 25.48%

DeWaele 229 80 0.96% 0.32%

0.32%

3 1

1

314 100.00%

e

19.78% 61.54% 1.10% 3.30%

Dymock 18 56 1 3 12.09% 1.10%

1.10%

11 1

1

91 100.00%

14.02% 62.62%

1

11

10 25

2.13%

23.40%

21.28% 53.19%

Van Bree

15 67

18.69% 1.87%

Krieger

30.00% 57.14%

20 2

Kelly 21 40

5.71%

0.93% 0.93% 0.93% 1 107 100.00%

1 1

5.71%

1.43%

4

1

70 100.00%

ee Br

47 100.00%

4

n Va

r ge ie Kr lly Ke

1 5 5 .9 3

k

1 5 8. 87

oc ym D

1 6 4. 6 4

l ae

D

1 7 1 .0 3

9 5 . 42

1 5 1 . 81

eW

C

96.22

8 2. 1 8

1 5 3 .2 7

ry

C

189.63

11 2. 8 7

1 6 5 .7 9

r he

**** **

92.43

156.79

17 4 . 4 0

157.71

164.62

******

171.87

171.80

92.13

******

******

153.75

******

******

******

d sa as

143 100.00%

1

Cassady

Table B.13: Interior Band 1 Technique (Level 4) w ith Indices of Agreement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Indices of Agreement

DeW aele

Cherry Lane

Dymock Kelly Krieger Van Bree

Total

331 41.07% 399 49.50% 0.25% 2 5.58% 45 0.37% 3 2.36% 19 1 0.12% 1 0.12% 2 0.25% 0.12% 1 1 0.12% 1 0.12% 806 100.00%

141

Cassady

Plain Linear Right Oblique Linear Left Oblique Linear Vertical Linear Horizontal Punctate Horizontal Crescent Right Oblique Crescent Left Oblique Crescent Horizontal Crescent Dash HD LinV / LinR SI LinR over LinL SI LinR over CreH SI LinL over LinR SI LinL over LinV SI LinH over LinR SI PunH over LinR SI PunH over LinV SI PunH over CreH SI CreH over LinR Total 229 61 5 9 0.32%

72.93% 19.43% 1.59% 2.87%

DeWaele

21.68% 48.25% 0.70% 2.80% 1 0.64%

Cherry Lane

31 69 1 4 1.40% 2

20.59% 38.24% 11.76% 26.47%

2 2.10%

7 13 4 9

3 0.96% 0.96%

3 3

0.70% 2.10%

2.94%

314 100.00%

0.32%

1 3

1

34 100.00%

1

19.58% 0.70%

143 100.00%

1

3

1

18 47 5 15

1.10%

1.10%

3.30%

1.10%

19.78% 51.65% 5.49% 16.48%

Dymock

1

91 100.00%

2

21 28 8 2

2.86%

2.86%

30.00% 40.00% 11.43% 2.86%

1

12

15 35 18 15 1 2 5

0.93%

11.21%

14.02% 32.71% 16.82% 14.02% 0.93% 1.87% 4.67%

Krieger

2

1.43%

Kelly

1

7.14%

1 0.93% 1 0.93% 1 0.93% 107 100.00%

5

1 1.43% 70 100.00%

n

1 9 1

10 13 6 5

4.26%

2.13% 19.15% 2.13%

21.28% 27.66% 12.77% 10.64%

Van Bree

2

47 100.00% ee Br Va

k

1 17 . 5 7

e

ge ie Kr

ne

1 0 9 .3 1

La

Ke

r

1 5 1 . 69

lly D

oc ym

1 4 9. 45

l ae

D

eW

94.30

ry

C

dy

124.64

sa as

******

C

93.51

1 4 1. 3 0 79 . 59

1 45 . 0 2 1 13 . 48

133.74

14 6 . 2 2 88.61

143.14

140.67

1 5 9 .9 9 ******

141.98

152.59

88.95

******

******

137.20

******

******

******

r he

28 1

Cassady

Table B.14: Interior Band 1 Motif (Level 4) w ith Indices of Agreement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Indices of Agreement

DeW aele

Cherry Lane

Dymock Kelly Krieger Van Bree

Total

331 41.07% 266 33.00% 5.83% 47 59 7.32% 1 0.12% 0.62% 5 8 0.99% 1 0.12% 31 3.85% 1 0.12% 1 0.12% 8 0.99% 1 0.12% 38 4.71% 0.12% 1 0.12% 1 1 0.12% 0.25% 2 0.12% 1 2 0.25% 806 100.00%

142

Plain Linear (Straight) Linear (Suture) Linear (Curved) Pointed (Round) Pointed (Annular) P o i n te d ( El l i p ti ca l ) Pointed (Polygonal) Cord W rapped Instrument Dentate (Polygonal) SI Pointed (Round) over CW I SI Pointed (Round) over Dentate (Polygonal) SI Pointed (Annular) over CW I SI Pointed (Elliptical) over Dentate (Polygonal) SI Pointed (Elliptical) over Linear (Straight) SI Pointed (Elliptical) over CW I SI Pointed (Polygonal) over CW I Total 24 19 2 1 24 6.80% 3.88% 11.65% 0.97% 2.91% 1.94% 0.97% 0.97% 0.97%

23.30% 18.45% 1.94% 0.97% 23.30%

21 100.00%

Cherry Lane

21 100.00% ne

18 1 4

55 9 1

6.32% 1.05%

18.95% 1.05% 4.21%

57.89% 9.47% 1.05%

DeWaele

6 1

95 100.00%

1

26 5 7 1 8 1 2

1.92%

1.92%

50.00% 9.62% 13.46% 1.92% 15.38% 1.92% 3.85%

Dymock

1

52 100.00% k

lly

Kelly

Krieger

Van Bree

18.18% 30.30% 3.03%

56 6 1

6 10 1

46.15% 15.38% 5.13%

65.12% 6.98% 1.16% 25.64%

24.24% 9.09% 9.09%

18 6 2

8 3 3

10

2.33% 6.98% 2.33%

6.06%

2 6 2

2

2.56%

11.63% 1.16% 1.16%

1

10 1 1

2.56% 2.56%

ee Br

33 100.00%

1.16%

n

1

86 100.00%

1 1

39 100.00%

r Va

oc ym

ge ie Kr

e

Ke

l ae

D

eW D

La

36. 36

149. 46

ry

9 9.7 1

r he

C

130. 23

y

9 2.3 1

1 40. 05

ad

C

1 00. 00

1 1 7 .9 6

1 1 7 .8 1

107.81

115.79

1 5 7 .9 9

131.93

128.54

1 63 . 6 2

135.60

******

165.47

125.34

46.60

******

******

161.54

88.02 ******

******

******

**** **

s as

0.97% 1 103 100.00%

7 4 12 1 3 2 1 1 1

Cassady

Table B.15: Interior Band 2 Tool (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Indices of Agreement Cassady Cherry Lane DeW aele

Kelly

Dymock

Krieger Van Bree

Total

206 48.02% 55 12.82% 3.26% 14 2 0.47% 70 16.32% 11 2.56% 19 4 . 4 3% 4 0.93% 32 7.46% 4 0.93% 5 1.17% 0.47% 2 0.23% 1 0.23% 1 0.23% 1 1 0.23% 1 0.23% 429 100.00%

143

Plain Stamp (Parallel) Stamp (Perpendicular) Stamp (Oblique) Drag-Stamp Incised Bossed Rocker SI Stamp (per.) over Stamp (par.) SI Stamp (obl.) over Stamp (par.) SI Bossed over Stamp (par.) Total 24 34 34 1 0.97%

23.30% 33.01% 33.01% 0.97%

21 100.00%

Cherry Lane

21 100.00% ne

57.89% 17.89% 23.16% 1.05%

DeWaele 55 17 22 1

95 100.00%

18 10 9 1

46.15% 25.64% 23.08% 2.56%

Kelly

50.00% 25.00% 3.85% 3.85% 2.56%

Dymock 26 13 2 2 1

39 100.00%

3.85% 9.62% 1.92% 1.92%

52 100.00%

2 5 1 1

lly

65.12% 15.12% 1.16% 10.47% 3.49%

4

6 13 5 5

12.12%

18.18% 39.39% 15.15% 15.15%

Van Bree

56 13 1 9 3

2.33%

Krieger

2

ee Br

33 100.00%

2.33%

n

2

86 100.00% r Va

k oc ym

ge ie Kr

e

Ke

l ae D

eW

D

36. 36

136 .57

La

87 .69

ry

1 30 .2 3

r he

C

9 2 .31

145. 98

dy

C

100. 00

1 0 4 .5 6

1 1 2.0 2

120.98

115.79

1 50 . 4 5

123.08

130.65

1 7 6 .3 6

148.75

******

145.59

129.99

46.60

******

******

160.26

94.50 ******

******

******

******

sa as

7 6.80% 0.97% 1 1 0.97% 103 100.00%

1

Cassady

Table B.16: Interior Band 2 Technique (Level 4) w ith Indices of Agreement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Indices of Agreement Cassady Cherry Lane DeW aele

Kelly

Dymock

Krieger Van Bree

Total

206 48.02% 100 23.31% 73 17.02% 19 4.43% 0.70% 3 3 0.70% 2.80% 12 1 0.23% 10 2.33% 1 0.23% 0.23% 1 429 100.00%

144

Plain Linear Right Oblique Linear Left Oblique Linear Vertical Linear Horizontal Linear Dash Punctate Vertical Punctate Horizontal Crescent Right Oblique Crescent Horizontal Bossed Horizontal SI LinL over LinR SI PunH over LinR SI PunH over LinL SI BosH over LinR Total 24 25 3 1

33.98%

23.30% 24.27% 2.91% 0.97%

Cherry Lane 21 100.00%

21 100.00%

26 13 3.85% 1.92%

50.00% 25.00%

Dymock

2 1 5.77%

DeWaele

1.05% 3 1.92% 9.62%

57.89% 15.79%

1 23.16% 1 5

55 15

22 1.05%

1 1.92%

1.05%

52 100.00%

1

1

95 100.00%

18 9 2

25.64%

46.15% 23.08% 5.13%

Kelly

10

39 100.00%

1 4 1 5 2

56 9 1 4 1

2.33%

1.16% 4.65% 1.16% 5.81% 2.33%

65.12% 10.47% 1.16% 4.65% 1.16%

Krieger

2

86 100.00%

n

6 7 5 1

21.21% 3.03% 6.06% 12.12%

18.18% 21.21% 15.15% 3.03%

Van Bree

7 1 2 4

33 100.00% ee Br Va

k

1 3 0.9 2

e

ge ie Kr

ne

84. 99

La

Ke

r

1 4 9 .8 6

lly D

oc ym

114. 41

3 6 .36

l ae

D

1 12 . 4 7

eW

126.60

1 4 8 .1 3

130. 23

ry

C

92. 31

r he

46.60

17 0 . 2 0

dy

******

C

10 0.0 0

119.46

145.22

148.75

* ** ***

150.00

93.59

131.47

115.79

******

******

124.87

******

******

******

sa as

0.97% 1 5 4.85% 7 6.80% 1 0.97% 1 0.97% 103 100.00%

35

Cassady

Table B.17: Interior Band 2 Motif (Level 4) w ith Indices of Agreement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Indices of Agreement Cassady

DeW aele

Cherry Lane

Dymock Kelly Krieger Van Bree

Total

206 48.02% 78 18.18% 11 2.56% 1.86% 8 2 0.47% 1 0.23% 1 0.23% 81 18.88% 0.47% 2 9 2.10% 2.80% 12 6 1.40% 8 1.86% 0.70% 3 1 0.23% 429 100.00%

145

Cassady

Plain Linear (Straight) Linear (Suture) Linear (Curved) Pointed (Round) Pointed (Annular) Po i n te d ( El l i p ti ca l ) Pointed (Polygonal) Cord W rapped Instrument Dentate (Polygonal) SI Pointed (Polygonal) over Linear (Curved) Total 11 1 2

34 5 1

5.08% 3.39%

18.64% 1.69% 3.39%

57.63% 8.47% 1.69%

0.00%

Cherry Lane

0

22 2 1 1

9.68% 6.45%

70.97% 6.45% 3.23% 3.23%

DeWaele

3 2 31 100.00%

53.85% 26.92%

5

12 4

22.73%

54.55% 18.18%

Van Bree 14 7

3.85%

Krieger

36.36% 4.55%

1

Kelly 8 1

40.91%

Dymock

9

4.55%

71.43% 4.76% 4.76%

1

14.29%

3.85% 11.54%

1 3

26 100.00%

ee Br

22 100.00%

1 8 .1 8%

22 100.00%

4

3

n

15 1 1

1 4.76% 21 100.00%

r Va

ne

lly

ge ie Kr

k Ke

oc ym D

1 70.1 1

e

******

l ae

1 4 9. 2 8

1 21. 99

eW

D

1 25 . 8 9

******

La

1 5 6 . 74

1 3 3 .5 0

ry

C

141.72

******

r he

C

******

8 1. 82

y

******

******

147.19

157.91

136.36

******

97.20

124.91

******

******

110.39

159.44 ******

******

******

******

d sa as

59 100.00%

3 2

Cassady

Table B.18: Interior Band 3 Tool (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Indices of Agreement

DeW aele

Cherry Lane

Kelly

Dymock

Krieger Van Bree

Total

105 58.01% 20 11.05% 3 1.66% 1 0.55% 29 16.02% 0.55% 1 8 4.42% 3 1.66% 4.42% 8 1.10% 2 1 0.55% 181 100.00%

146

Plain Stamp (Parallel) Stamp (Perpendicular) Stamp (Oblique) Drag-Stamp Incised Bossed SI Stamp (obl.) over Stamp (par.) Total 57.63% 18.64% 20.34% 3.39%

0.00%

Cherry Lane

0 ne

70.97% 19.35% 9.68%

DeWaele 22 6 3

31 100.00% e

71.43% 9.52%

Dymock 15 2

4.76% 1 2 9.52% 4.76% 1 21 100.00% k

lly

36.36% 4.55% 50.00% 9.09%

Kelly 8 1 11 2

22 100.00%

1 1

14 9

3.85%

3.85% 3.85%

53.85% 34.62%

Krieger

1

26 100.00% r

n

12 4 4

9.09%

54.55% 18.18% 18.18%

Van Bree

2

22 100.00% ee Br Va

oc ym

ge ie Kr

l ae

Ke

eW D

La D

ry

******

1 8 1 . 82

r he

C

******

1 5 1. 7 6

dy

C

******

12 9 . 2 8

1 6 4. 81

******

146.32

1 3 4 . 30

1 4 6 .4 0

******

134.43

171.90

81.82

10 1 . 1 7

118.18

******

******

160.98

89.51

******

******

******

151.75 ******

******

******

sa as

59 100.00%

34 11 12 2

Cassady

Table B.19: Interior Band 3 Technique (Level 4) w ith Indices of Agreement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Indices of Agreement Cassady

Cherry Lane

Dymock

DeW aele

Kelly Krieger Van Bree

Total

105 58.01% 33 18.23% 30 16.57% 2.76% 5 0.55% 1 1 0.55% 5 2.76% 1 0.55% 181 100.00%

147

Plain Linear Right Oblique Linear Left Oblique Linear Vertical Linear Horizontal Punctate Horizontal Crescent Horizontal Bossed Horizontal Bossed Dash SUPIMP LinR over LinL SUPIMP LinL over LinR SUPIMP PunH over LinV Total 34 9 1.69%

57.63% 15.25%

Cassady

1 22.03% 1.69%

1.69%

13 1

1 59 100.00%

0.00%

Cherry Lane

0 ne

9.68%

70.97% 16.13% 3.23%

DeWaele 22 5 1 3

31 100.00%

1

15 2

9.52%

4.76%

71.43% 9.52%

Dymock

2

k

1 4.76% 21 100.00%

oc ym

lly

1

8

59.09%

4.55%

36.36%

Kelly

13

22 100.00%

14 6 2 1 1 1

3.85%

53.85% 23.08% 7.69% 3.85% 3.85% 3.85%

Krieger

1

26 100.00% r

n

4

12 2 1

4.55% 4.55% 4.55%

18.18%

54.55% 9.09% 4.55%

Van Bree

1 1 1

22 100.00% ee Br Va

e

ge ie Kr

l ae

Ke

eW D

La D

ry

******

1 63.64

r he

C

******

1 4 9 . 28

y

******

1 16 . 8 0

ad

C

******

1 3 7 . 69

1 5 3 .0 8

******

1 5 4 .0 9

136.36

165.12

9 8.5 3

118.18

******

160.98

89.51

142.12

******

**** **

******

72.73

150.35 ******

******

******

******

s as

Table B.20: Interior Band 3 Motif (Level 4) w ith Indices of Agreement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Indices of Agreement Cassady Cherry Lane DeW aele

Kelly

Dymock

Krieger Van Bree

Total

105 58.01% 24 13.26% 5 2.76% 1.66% 3 1 0.55% 34 18.78% 0.55% 1 2.21% 4 1 0.55% 1 0.55% 1 0.55% 1 0.55% 181 100.00%

148

Cassady

Plain Linear (Straight) Linear (Suture) Linear (Curved) Linear (W avy) Pointed (Round) Pointed (Annular) P o i n t e d ( E ll ip t i c a l ) Cord W rapped Instrument Dentate (Round) Dentate (Polygonal) HD Pointed (Annular) / Linear (Straight) SI Pointed (Round) over Linear (Straight) SI Pointed (Round) over CW I SI CW I over Linear (Straight) Total 2

3

4 18 2

12.12%

6.06%

9.09%

12.12% 54.55% 6.06%

6

210 62 8 4 2 5 3 1 21 1.86%

65.22% 19.25% 2.48% 1.24% 0.62% 1.55% 0.93% 0.31% 6.52%

DeWaele

50.69% 21.53% 4.86% 0.69%

4

Cherry Lane

73 31 7 1

3.47%

322 100.00%

2.78% 1.39% 0.69% 13.89%

33 100.00%

5

144 100.00%

Dymock

5 16 7

10.87% 34.78% 15.22%

Van Bree 15.93% 20.35% 2.65%

Krieger 18 23 3

Kelly 30.00% 32.86% 8.57%

4.35% 19.57%

21 23 6

2 9

11.58% 16.84% 16.84% 1.05%

0.88% 15.04%

11 16 16 1

1 17

6 4

8.57% 5.71%

16.84% 5.26%

15.22%

16 5

7

12.86% 1.43%

ee Br

46 100.00%

32.74%

9 1

6.19% 7 0.88% 1 3 2.65% 2 1.77% 0.88% 1 113 100.00%

37

29.47% 1.05% 1.05%

70 100.00%

28 1 1

95 100.00%

n Va

k

1 1 0. 6 3

e

ge ie Kr

ne

1 1 7 .1 5

La

Ke

r

1 46 . 8 3

y

lly D

oc ym

1 0 6 .1 7

l ae

D

eW

168.62

83 . 23

124 .24

ry

C

9 5. 7 4

96 .5 4

ad

101.64

12 1 . 4 9

131. 34

s as

******

C

84.03

135.51

10 1.3 7

135.50

150.43

******

129.47

130.05

86.67

******

******

116.79

******

******

******

r he

4 2 1 20

Cassady

Table B.21: Lip Band 1 Tool (Level 4) w ith Indices of Agreement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Indices of Agreement

DeW aele

Cherry Lane

Dymock Kelly Krieger Van Bree

Total

342 41.56% 189 22.96% 49 5.95% 6 0.73% 0.24% 2 37 4.50% 40 4.86% 0.24% 2 124 15.07% 2 0.24% 23 2.79% 1 0.12% 3 0.36% 2 0.24% 0.12% 1 823 100.00%

149

Plain Stamp (Parallel) Stamp (Perpendicular) Stamp (Oblique) Drag-Stamp Incised Push-Pull Rocker HD Stamp (obl.) / Stamp (par.) SI Incised over Stamp (par.) SI Push-Pull over Stamp (par.) SI Push-Pull over Stamp (obl.) Total 6

73 60

3.47%

4.17%

50.69% 41.67%

Cherry Lane

9.09%

12.12% 75.76%

3 3.03%

4 25

1

33 100.00% ne

65.22% 29.50% 0.31% 3.42% 0.31% 1.24%

DeWaele 210 95 1 11 1 4

322 100.00%

Dymock

5 30

10.87% 65.22%

Van Bree 15.93% 59.29%

Krieger 18 67

Kelly 30.00% 55.71%

21 39

2.17%

21.74%

11.58% 66.32%

1

10

11 63

15.93% 0.88%

4

18 1

5.26%

ee Br

46 100.00%

5.71%

5

r

0.88% 1 2 1.77% 3 2.65% 1 0.88% 113 100.00%

1.77%

7.14%

n

2

5

1.43% 70 100.00%

1

16.84%

lly

16

95 100.00% k

Va

oc ym

ge ie Kr

e

Ke

l ae D

eW

D

1 17 . 7 5

La

1 5 6 .5 2

ry

1 42 . 8 3

12 3 . 5 3

r he

C

15 8. 6 1

y

1 4 9 .9 6

ad

C

1 2 1. 7 7

90 . 06

1 7 3 .9 7

167.05

85.73

98.32

148.94

169.71

128.32

152.27

******

91.48

157.57

114.52

******

******

159.40

172.18 ******

******

******

******

s as

144 100.00%

5

Cassady

Table B.22: Lip Band 1 Technique (Level 4) w ith Indices of Agreement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Indices of Agreement Cassady

Cherry Lane DeW aele

Kelly

Dymock

Krieger Van Bree

Total

342 41.56% 379 46.05% 1 0.12% 6.56% 54 0.24% 2 4.13% 34 2 0.24% 1 0.12% 1 0.12% 2 0.24% 0.49% 4 0.12% 1 823 100.00%

150

Plain Linear Right Oblique Linear Left Oblique Linear Vertical Linear Horizontal Linear Dash Punctate Right Oblique Punctate Left Oblique Punctate Horizontal Crescent Right Oblique Crescent Horizontal Plaits Linear Horizontal HD LinR / LinL HD LinL / LinD HD LinV / LinR HD CreR / LinR SI LinR over LinL SI LinR over LinH SI LinL over LinR SI LinL over LinV SI LinH over LinR SI LinH over LinL SI LinH over LinV SI LinD over LinR SI LinD over LinH SI PunH over LinR Total

DeWaele 65.22% 12.11% 6.52% 6.83% 4.35% 1.55%

Cherry Lane 210 39 21 22 14 5

12.12% 48.48% 9.09% 18.18% 9.09%

50.69% 15.97% 5.56% 3.47% 7.64% 8.33%

0.93%

0.62%

4 16 3 6 3

73 23 8 5 11 12

3 0.62% 0.31% 0.31%

0.31%

0.31%

322 100.00%

1

1

2 1 1

2

3.03%

33 100.00%

1

1.39%

1.39%

0.69%

2 4.17% 0.69%

2

6 1

144 100.00%

21 13 6 2 12 1

30.00% 18.57% 8.57% 2.86% 17.14% 1.43%

Kelly

11.58% 38.95% 18.95% 9.47% 13.68% 1.05%

Dymock 11 37 18 9 13 1

2.86%

1.43% 4.29%

2

8.57%

1 3

6

1.43%

5.26%

1.05%

1

1.43% 1.43% 1 70 100.00%

1

5

1

95 100.00%

15.93% 23.89% 17.70% 10.62% 2.65% 0.88% 0.88% 0.88% 0.88% 3.54% 10.62% 0.88% 1.77%

Krieger 18 27 20 12 3 1 1 1 1 4 12 1 2

0.88% 2.65%

3.54% 0.88% 0.88%

1 3

4 1 1

113 100.00%

n

4

4

1 1 8

5 8 7 2 4 1

2.17%

8.70%

8.70%

2.17% 2.17% 17.39%

10.87% 17.39% 15.22% 4.35% 8.70% 2.17%

Van Bree

1

46 100.00% ee Br Va

r ge ie Kr

ne

lly Ke

k oc ym D

e

106. 64

l ae

9 5.8 8

eW D

1 40. 79

La

93. 32

ry

C

159.20

83 . 23

1 0 6 . 85

dy

C

92.30

9 4. 2 2

1 2 2. 0 7

sa as

***** *

117 . 0 2

125.68

1 0 8 .1 4

133.91

86.75

142.90

1 5 6 .3 6

118.53

******

******

121.20

83. 87

******

137.17 ******

******

******

r he

1

Cassady

Table B.23: Lip Band 1 Motif (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Indices of Agreement Cassady

DeW aele

Cherry Lane

Kelly

Dymock

Krieger Van Bree

Total

342 41.56% 163 19.81% 83 10.09% 7.05% 58 60 7.29% 2.55% 21 0.12% 1 0.12% 1 5 0.61% 0.73% 6 33 4.01% 0.12% 1 4 0.49% 1 0.12% 1 0.12% 1 0.12% 12 1.46% 1 0.12% 2.07% 17 0.12% 1 0.61% 5 2 0.24% 0.12% 1 0.12% 1 0.12% 1 1 0.12% 823 100.00%

151

Plain Linear (Straight) Linear (Suture) Linear (Curved) Linear (W avy) Pointed (Round) Pointed (Annular) P o i n t e d ( E ll ip ti c a l ) Pointed (Polygonal) Cord W rapped Instrument Dentate (Round) Dentate (Polygonal) HD Pointed (Annular) / CW I SI Linear (Straight) over CW I SI Linear (Suture) over Pointed (Round) SI Pointed (Round) over Linear (Straight) SI Pointed (Round) over Pointed (Annular) SI Pointed (Round) over CW I SI Pointed (Round) over Dentate (Round) SI Pointed (Annular) over Linear (Straight) SI Pointed (Elliptical) over Linear (Straight) SI Pointed (Elliptical) over CW I SI Dentate (Polygonal) over Linear (Straight) Total 5 18 1 9.09%

15.15% 54.55% 3.03%

Cherry Lane

3

DeWaele

Dymock

Kelly

Krieger

Van Bree

17.02% 31.91% 12.77%

10.00% 42.86% 7.14%

8 15 6

7 30 5

8.26% 18.35% 3.67% 0.92%

7.37% 18.95% 15.79% 2.11%

9 20 4 1

7 18 15 2

6.38% 17.02%

18.94% 55.90% 4.66% 3.11% 0.93%

3 8

61 180 15 10 3

2.75% 18.35%

11.43% 5.71%

3 20

8 4

1 42

12.77%

17.14%

6

12

0.92% 38.53%

14.74% 6.32% 1.05%

6.06%

14 6 1

2

0.93% 0.31%

9.72% 44.44% 11.81% 1.39% 1.39% 2.78% 2.78% 0.69% 3 1

18.75%

5.50%

14 64 17 2 2 4 4 1

6

27

4.29%

38 1 5

3

12.12% 0.31%

ee Br

47 100.00%

2.13%

n

1

28.42% 2.11% 1.05%

4 1

1.43%

r

109 100.00%

0.92% 0.92% 0.92%

27 2 1

4.17% 0.69% 0.69%

1

70 100.00%

1 1 1

11.80% 0.31% 1.55%

6 1 1

95 100.00%

1.05% 1.05%

lly

1 1 0.31% 0.62%

1 0.31% 322 100.00%

2

1

33 100.00%

0.69%

144 100.00% ne

e

k

Va

oc ym

ge ie Kr

l ae

Ke

eW

D

La

D

ry C

1 25. 08

1 4 3 . 53

dy

87 .91

1 19 . 28

sa as

C

15 0.6 5

1 32. 65

1 7 3 .1 7

129.09

9 1.1 0

90 .96

13 2 . 5 1

137.69

160.68

14 3.6 0

15 2 .7 3

137.59

147.84

******

******

95.59

120.34

14 0 .4 0

******

******

125.63 ******

******

******

r he

1

Cassady

Table B.24: Exterior Band 1 Tool (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Indices of Agreement Cassady Cherry Lane

Dymock

DeW aele

Kelly Krieger Van Bree

Total

111 13.54% 345 42.07% 63 7.68% 15 1.83% 0.61% 5 35 4.27% 45 5.49% 3 0.37% 1 0.12% 154 18.78% 0.37% 3 25 3.05% 1 0.12% 0.24% 2 1 0.12% 3 0.37% 1 0.12% 2 0.24% 1 0.12% 1 0.12% 1 0.12% 1 0.12% 1 0.12% 820 100.00%

152

Plain Stamp (Parallel) Stamp (Perpendicular) Stamp (Oblique) Drag-Stamp Incised Push-Pull Rocker SI Stamp (par.) over Incised SI Stamp (per.) over Stamp (par.) SI Stamp (per.) over Stamp (obl.) SI Stamp (per.) over Incised SI Stamp (obl.) over Stamp (par.) SI Incised over Stamp (par.) SI Bossed over Stamp (par.) SI Push-Pull over Stamp (par.) HD Stamp (obl.) / Stamp (par.) Total 14 118 1 6 2.08%

9.72% 81.94% 0.69% 4.17%

0.69%

9.09% 3.03%

15.15% 72.73%

Cherry Lane 5 24

3 1

33 100.00% ne

61 244 1 6 5 0.62%

18.94% 75.78% 0.31% 1.86% 1.55%

DeWaele

2 0.31%

0.31% 0.31%

1

1 1 322 100.00%

10.00% 71.43%

9 67

Krieger

7 50 5.71%

Kelly

7.37% 67.37% 4

Dymock 7 64 7.37%

8.26% 61.47%

7

24 3 1

22.02% 2.75% 0.92% 11.43%

0.92%

8

1

1.83%

13.68%

2

0.92%

13

1

0.92%

1.05% 1.05%

r

109 100.00%

1

1 1

1.43%

70 100.00%

1

2.11%

95 100.00%

2

lly

n

1

3 1

8

8 25

2.13%

2.13%

6.38% 2.13%

17.02%

17.02% 53.19%

Van Bree

1

47 100.00% ee Br Va

k

ge ie Kr

oc ym

Ke

e D

l ae

15 3 . 7 1

1 3 8 .3 3

eW

D

1 49 . 6 2

La

1 4 1 .2 8

ry

1 7 4 .8 0

r he

C

1 8 1 . 04

y

C

1 67 . 66

1 4 5 .3 9

1 6 1 .9 7

148.62

177.00

1 4 6. 90

150.58

175.97

1 6 7. 2 0

157.91

******

153.20

152.71

169.07

******

******

183.76

158.77 ******

******

******

******

d sa as

0.69% 1 144 100.00%

1

3

Cassady

Table B.25: Exterior Band 1 Technique (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Indices of Agreement Cassady

Cherry Lane DeW aele

Kelly

Dymock

Krieger Van Bree

Total

111 13.54% 592 72.20% 0.24% 2 6.71% 55 0.98% 8 3.78% 31 4 0.49% 2 0.24% 0.12% 1 3 0.37% 0.12% 1 3 0.37% 0.12% 1 2 0.24% 0.24% 2 1 0.12% 0.12% 1 820 100.00%

153

Plain Linear Right Oblique Linear Left Oblique Linear Vertical Linear Horizontal Crescent Right Oblique Crescent Left Oblique Crescent Horizontal Punctate Left Oblique Punctate Horizontal SI LinR over LinL SI LinR over LinH SI LinL over LinR SI LinL over LinH SI LinV over LinR SI LinV over LinL SI LinV over LinH SI LinH over LinR SI LinH over LinV SI LinH over LinR / LinL / LinV SI CreH over LinR SI PunH over LinR SI PunH over LinV SI PunH over CreH SI PunH over Plaits LinH SI BosH over LinR HD LinR / LinL HD LinL / LinH HD LinH / LinV HD CreH / LinR HD LinL / LinR / LinH HD LinH / LinV / LinR HD Plain / LinR / LinL / LinV Total 4 1 2 8

14 65 4 5

25.00% 0.69%

2.78% 0.69% 1.39% 5.56%

9.72% 45.14% 2.78% 3.47%

0.69% 0.69% 0.69%

3.03%

3.03%

15.15% 45.45% 21.21% 9.09% 3.03%

Cherry Lane 5 15 7 3 1

1

1

33 100.00% ne

DeWaele

Dymock

8.26% 44.04% 16.51% 5.50%

Krieger 9 48 18 6

Kelly

2.86%

2

7 31 9 2

10.00% 44.29% 12.86% 2.86%

7.37% 56.84% 8.42% 9.47% 2.11%

18.94% 51.55% 5.59% 5.59% 0.31% 0.31%

7 54 8 9 2

61 166 18 18 1 1

0.92%

0.92% 1

0.92%

4.59% 0.92% 12.84% 2.86%

1

0.92%

1

2

1

0.92% 1.83% 0.92%

109 100.00%

1 2 1

5 1 14

6.32%

0.31% 6

1

4.29%

1 1

3

0.31% 4.35% 1.05% 1.05%

1 14

14.29%

10.25% 0.31% 0.31% 0.31%

10

33 1 1 1

1.43%

1.43%

2.11%

1.43%

1

2

1.05%

1

1.43%

70 100.00%

1

1

1

1.05% 1.05%

2.11% 95 100.00%

2

1 1

0.62%

0.31%

0.31% 0.31%

2

1 1

1

322 100.00%

n

Van Bree

2.13% 14.89%

4.26% 1 7

4.26% 2.13% 6.38%

17.02% 38.30% 6.38%

2 1 3

2.13%

2

1

2.13%

8 18 3

1

47 100.00% ee Br Va

r ge ie Kr

e

lly Ke

1 2 8 .4 3

k oc ym D

13 1 . 7 9

l ae

12 6 . 3 1

1 4 4 .3 4

eW D

1 6 3 .3 7

1 5 0 .4 6

123.05

La

1 3 0 .0 6

1 4 6 .0 6

13 0. 47

ry C

153.90

1 4 4 . 88

146.96

r he

C

128.28

150.25

1 5 7 .0 2

dy

******

******

138.65

136.35

******

138.90

146.03

******

149.28

******

******

******

sa as

1 0.69% 144 100.00%

1

1 1

36 1

Cassady

Table B.26: Exterior Band 1 Motif (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Cassady

Indices of Agreement

Cherry Lane

Dymock

DeW aele

Kelly Krieger Van Bree

Total

111 13.54% 397 48.41% 67 8.17% 43 5.24% 6 0.73% 8 0.98% 2 0.24% 4.15% 34 1 0.12% 5 0.61% 28 3.41% 1 0.12% 84 10.24% 2 0.24% 1 0.12% 1 0.12% 0.12% 1 5 0.61% 1 0.12% 1 0.12% 1 0.12% 3 0.37% 0.24% 2 1 0.12% 1 0.12% 3 0.37% 3 0.37% 1 0.12% 0.12% 1 1 0.12% 2 0.24% 1 0.12% 1 0.12% 820 100.00%

154

Plain Linear (Straight) Linear (Suture) Linear (Curved) Linear (W avy) Pointed (Round) Pointed (Annular) P o i n t e d ( E ll ip ti c a l ) Pointed (Polygonal) Cord W rapped Instrument Dentate (Polygonal) Dentate (Round) SI Linear (Straight) over Pointed (Round) SI Linear (Straight) over Dentate (Polygonal) SI Linear (Suture) over Pointed (Round) SI Pointed (Round) over Linear (Straight) SI Pointed (Round) over Dentate (Polygonal) SI Pointed (Round) over CW I SI Pointed (Elliptical) over Linear (Straight) SI Pointed (Elliptical) over Linear (Suture) SI Pointed (Elliptical) over Pointed (Annular) SI Pointed (Elliptical) over Pointed (Round) SI Pointed (Elliptical) over CW I SI CW I over Pointed (Round) HD Plain / Pointed (Round) HD Plain / Pointed (Round) / CW I HD Plain / Pointed (Annular) HD Pointed (Round) / Linear (Suture) HD Pointed (Round) / Pointed (Annular) HD Pointed (Round) / Pointed (Polygonal) HD Pointed (Round) / CW I Total 1

17 45 16 1 1 6

18.18% 3.31%

0.83%

14.05% 37.19% 13.22% 0.83% 0.83% 4.96%

2.48% 3.31%

0.83% 4.76%

9.52% 9.52%

9.52%

9.52% 57.14%

Cherry Lane 2 12

2

2 2

1

21 100.00% ne

87 98 16 4 1 12 1 3 1 30 7 1 3 0.37% 0.75%

32.58% 36.70% 5.99% 1.50% 0.37% 4.49% 0.37% 1. 1 2 % 0.37% 11.24% 2.62% 0.37% 1.12%

DeWaele

1 2

267 100.00%

1

14 14

1.15%

16.09% 16.09%

3 13 4

8.11% 35.14% 10.81%

Van Bree

5.66% 26.42% 7.55%

Krieger

3 14 4

Kelly

16.92% 9.23% 7.69%

16.22% 5.41% 5.41%

Dymock 11 6 5

6 2 2

1.15%

1.15%

11.49% 13.79% 1.15%

1

1

1.15%

1.15%

2.70%

10 12 1

5.66%

1

1.15% 2.30%

1

1 2

1.15%

ee Br

37 100.00%

1

24.53% 1.89%

3

1.89% 1.89%

13 1

1 1

8.11% 2.70%

1.54% 1.54%

3 1

1.54%

27.59% 3.45%

1 1

24 3

1

3.08%

1

87 100.00%

2.70% 2.70%

16.98% 5.66%

2

1.54% 1.54%

1 1.89% 53 100.00%

r

1 1

9 3

n

24.62% 1.54% 1 0 . 7 7% 3.08% 15.38%

lly

16 1 7 2 10

1 1

65 100.00% k

Va

oc ym

ge ie Kr

e

Ke

l ae

D

eW D

La

1 27 .1 6

1 4 6. 7 1

ry

100. 82

1 1 8 .7 8

r he C

13 3 . 5 1

y

113. 57

ad C

75. 60

1 3 1 .9 2

1 0 7 .3 6

115.68

125.74

1 0 7 .8 7

140.85

154.25

1 1 5. 0 9

112.08

******

99.50

115.72

129.00

******

******

133.93

108.42 ******

******

******

******

s as

121 100.00%

1

3 4

22 4

Cassady

Table B.27: Exterior Band 2 Tool (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Indices of Agreement Cassady Cherry Lane DeW aele

Kelly

Dymock

Krieger Van Bree

Total

137 21.04% 202 31.03% 45 6.91% 6 0.92% 0.31% 2 9.98% 65 2.61% 17 2 . 1 5% 14 3 0.46% 100 15.36% 20 3.07% 1 0.15% 3 0.46% 1 0.15% 0.15% 1 6 0.92% 3 0.46% 8 1.23% 0.31% 2 1 0.15% 1 0.15% 1 0.15% 2 0.31% 0.15% 1 3 0.46% 1 0.15% 0.15% 1 0.15% 1 1 0.15% 1 0.15% 1 0.15% 651 100.00%

155

Cassady

Plain Stamp (Parallel) Stamp (Perpendicular) Stamp (Oblique) Drag-Stamp Push-Pull Incised Bossed SI Stamp (par.) over Incised SI Stamp (par.) over Bossed SI Stamp (per.) over Stamp (par.) SI Stamp (per.) over Stamp (obl.) SI Stamp (per.) over Incised SI Stamp (obl.) over Stamp (par.) SI Stamp (obl.) over Incised SI Incised over Bossed SI Bossed over Stamp (par.) SI Bossed over Incised HD Plain / Incised HD Plain / Incised / Stamp (par.) HD Plain / Incised / Stamp (per.) HD Stamp (par.) / Incised HD Stamp (par.) / Bossed HD Stamp (per.) / Incised HD Stamp (obl.) / Incised Total

17 88 1 1

14.05% 72.73% 0.83% 0.83%

0.83% 0.83%

2.48%

1 1 0.83% 5.79% 0.83%

2 15 4.76%

9.52% 71.43%

Cherry Lane

1 9.52%

4.76%

2

1

21 100.00%

0.75%

32.58% 55.43% 1.50% 0.37% 3.00% 0.37% 3.00% 1.50% 1.50%

DeWaele 87 148 4 1 8 1 8 4 4

2

267 100.00%

16.92% 32.31% 16.92% 6.15% 7 4

1

3 30

13.21% 7.55%

1.89%

5.66% 56.60%

Kelly

11 21 11 4 10.77% 1.54%

1.89%

Dymock

7 1 1

2 1

1.54% 1.54%

3.08% 1.54%

1 1

7.55% 3.77%

1.54% 3.08% 1.54% 1.54%

1.89%

53 100.00%

1

4 2

1 2 1 1

65 100.00%

1

1

1

1 4

14 38 2 15 1 1 7

1.15%

1.15%

1.15%

1.15%

1.15% 4.60%

16.09% 43.68% 2.30% 17.24% 1.15% 1.15% 8.05%

Krieger

1

87 100.00%

n

1 2

2 1

3 21 3 2

2.70%

2.70% 5.41%

5.41% 2.70%

8.11% 56.76% 8.11% 5.41%

Van Bree

1

2.70% 1 37 100.00% ee Br Va

k

1 4 5. 0 5

e

ge ie Kr

ne

1 21 . 06

La

Ke

r

1 44 . 3 6

y

lly D

oc ym

1 0 5 .4 8

l ae D

eW

145.86

1 41 . 3 1

1 4 0 .5 4

ry

C

13 3 . 8 2

1 2 7. 0 9

r he

161.90

13 3. 4 2

1 4 3 .5 8

ad

******

C

1 0 2 . 71

130.98

11 2.69

140.55

157.47

******

117.33

132.09

141.89

******

******

124.62

******

******

******

s as

121 100.00%

1 7 1

3

Cassady

Table B.28: Exterior Band 2 Technique (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Indices of Agreement

DeW aele

Cherry Lane

Dymock Kelly Krieger Van Bree

Total

137 21.04% 361 55.45% 21 3.23% 24 3.69% 10 1.54% 0.31% 2 5.07% 33 2.00% 13 0.61% 4 1 0.15% 1.08% 7 1 0.15% 0.15% 1 2 0.31% 0.15% 1 1 0.15% 16 2.46% 1.08% 7 0.31% 2 1 0.15% 0.31% 2 0.15% 1 0.15% 1 1 0.15% 0.15% 1 651 100.00%

156

Plain Linear Right Oblique Linear Left Oblique Linear Vertical Linear Horizontal Linear Dash Crescent Right Oblique Crescent Left Oblique Crescent Horizontal Punctate Right Oblique Punctate Horizontal Bossed Horizontal Plaits Linear Right Oblique Plaits Linear Left Oblique Plaits Linear Horizontal Plaits Punctate Left Oblique SI LinR over LinL SI LinR over LinH SI LinR over BosH SI LinL over LinR SI LinL over LinV SI LinL over LinH SI LinL over BosH SI LinH over LinR SI BosH over LinR SI BosH over LinL SI BosH over LinV SI BosH over LinH SI PunH over LinR SI PunH over LinL SI PunH over LinH SI PunH over CreH HD Plain / LinR / LinL HD Plain / LinR / LinL / LinV HD Plain / LinR / LinL / PunV HD Plain / LinR / LinL / PunH HD Plain / LinR / LinL / LinH HD Plain / LinR / LinH / LinV HD Plain / LinL / LinV / LinH / PunH HD LinR / LinL HD LinR / LinL / LinH HD LinR / LinL / CreH HD LinH / BosH Total 2 3 0.83% 0.83%

1.65% 2.48%

14.05% 52.07% 7.44% 1.65%

1 1 0.83% 0.83% 0.83% 7.44%

4.96% 0.83%

1 1 1 9

6 1 0.83%

0.83%

1 0.83% 0.83%

121 100.00%

1 1

1

17 63 9 2

Cassady 9.52% 52.38% 19.05% 9.52% 4.76%

4.76%

21 100.00%

1

2 11 4 2 1

Cherry Lane

Table B.29: Exterior Band 2 Motif (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

DeWaele

1.50% 1.50% 0.37% 0.37%

32.58% 37.83% 14.23% 4.12% 3.00%

4 4 1 1 0.75% 1.12%

87 101 38 11 8

2 3 0.37% 0.37% 0.37%

0.37%

1 1 1

0.75%

0.37%

1

2

1

267 100.00%

Dymock 16.92% 15.38% 13.85% 1.54% 9.23%

1.54%

11 10 9 1 6

1

1.54% 1.54%

20.00% 1.54%

1 1

3.08% 1.54% 3.08% 1.54% 1.54%

13 1

2 1 2 1 1

3.08%

1.54%

2

1.54%

1

1

65 100.00%

1

3 22 8 3 3

7.55%

1.89%

5.66% 41.51% 15.09% 5.66% 5.66%

Kelly

4

1.89%

9.43%

1

5

1.89% 1.89%

1.89%

1 1

1

53 100.00%

1

1

14 27 7 3 3 1 1 1 10 1 4

1.15%

1.15%

1.15%

16.09% 31.03% 8.05% 3.45% 3.45% 1.15% 1.15% 1.15% 11.49% 1.15% 4.60%

Krieger

1

2.30% 1.15% 1.15% 1.15%

2.30% 2.30% 2 1 1 1

1.15% 1.15% 1.15%

2 2

1 1 1

87 100.00%

Van Bree

8.11% 2.70% 2.70%

8.11% 21.62% 29.73%

1 1

8.11% 2.70%

3

3 1

2.70%

3 8 11

1

5.41%

2.70%

2

1

1 2.70% 2.70% 1 37 100.00%

Total

137 21.04% 242 37.17% 86 13.21% 22 3.38% 24 3.69% 1 0.15% 0.61% 4 2 0.31% 1.69% 11 1 0.15% 26 3.99% 2.00% 13 1 0.15% 2 0.31% 1 0.15% 0.15% 1 4 0.61% 5 0.77% 1 0.15% 1.54% 10 1 0.15% 2 0.31% 0.15% 1 0.31% 2 2.00% 13 3 0.46% 0.15% 1 0.92% 6 0.61% 4 5 0.77% 0.31% 2 1 0.15% 0.46% 3 1 0.15% 0.31% 2 0.15% 1 2 0.31% 1 0.15% 0.15% 1 2 0.31% 1 0.15% 0.15% 1 0.15% 1 651 100.00%

157

Cassady

ne r

n

ee Br Va

lly

ge ie Kr

k Ke

oc ym

D

e

89. 66

l ae

1 14 .96

eW

D

130. 70

La

91. 24

ry

C

134.83

1 0 7 . 70

1 07. 08

r he

C

141.36

1 0 6 .6 2

1 13. 30

y

******

1 1 3 .9 2

90.96

1 4 5 .3 7

110.43

9 0.1 1

89.88

108.12

111.65

******

******

97.18

137.40

******

100.84 ******

******

******

d sa as

Table B.29: Exterior Band 2 Motif (Level 4) w ith Indices of Agreement (continued)

Indices of Agreement

DeW aele

Cherry Lane

Kelly

Dymock

Krieger Van Bree

158

Plain Linear (Straight) Linear (Suture) Linear (Curved) Linear (W avy) Pointed (Round) Pointed (Annular) Po i n te d ( El l i p ti ca l ) Pointed (Polygonal) Cord W rapped Instrument Dentate (Polygonal) SI Pointed (Round) over Linear (Straight) SI Pointed (Round) over Linear (Suture) SI Pointed (Round) over CW I SI Pointed (Round) over Dentate (Polygonal) SI Pointed (Elliptical) over Linear (Suture) HD Plain / Pointed (Round) HD Plain / Pointed (Round) / CW I HD Plain / Pointed (Round) / Dentate (Polygonal) HD Pointed (Round) / Linear (W avy) HD Pointed (Round) / Dentate (Polygonal) HD Pointed (Round) / Dentate (Round) Total 1

13

9 21 6 1

19.28% 4.82% 7.23% 3.61% 2.41% 1.20%

1.20%

15.66%

10.84% 25.30% 7.23% 1.20%

Cassady

16 4 6 3 2 1

83 100.00%

22.22%

66.67%

2 11.11%

6

Cherry Lane

1

9 100.00% ne

0.57%

25.14% 40.57% 4.57% 1.14% 0.57% 10.29% 0.57% 1.71% 0.57% 12.00% 1.71% 0.57%

DeWaele 44 71 8 2 1 18 1 3 1 21 3 1

1

e

175 100.00% l ae

5.88% 8.82% 5.88% 5.88% 8

3 5 1

33.33%

12.50% 20.83% 4.17%

Kelly

2 3 2 2 32.35%

Dymock

11

17.78% 2.22%

6 2

1 10 5

10.71%

21.43% 7.14%

3.57% 35.71% 17.86%

Van Bree 8 1

22.22% 11.11%

3

Krieger

10 5

22.22% 6.67% 4.44% 10 3 2

8.89% 2.22%

12.50% 4.17% 4.17%

4 1

2.22%

ee Br

28 100.00%

3.57%

n

1

r

45 100.00%

1

8.33%

24 100.00%

2

35.29%

2.94%

12

lly

3 1 1

1

k

1 2.94% 34 100.00%

oc ym

Va

eW

ge ie Kr

La

Ke

ry

D

r he

D

y C

ad

C

7. 14

12 9 . 7 8 1 7. 7 8

130. 86

12 8. 4 1 25. 0 0

100.84

1 4 9 . 50 11 . 76

90 .29

128.57

1 13 . 47 50.29

1 24. 14

110.98

135.27 ******

85.41

126.11

21.69

******

******

127.45

118.57 ******

******

******

******

s as

Table B.30: Exterior Band 3 Tool (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Indices of Agreement Cassady Cherry Lane DeW aele

Kelly

Dymock

Krieger Van Bree

Total

65 16.33% 118 29.65% 23 5.78% 5 1.26% 0.25% 1 66 16.58% 8 2.01% 4 1.01% 1 0.25% 65 16.33% 11 2.76% 10 2.51% 3 0.75% 5 1.26% 1 0.25% 0.25% 1 1.51% 6 1 0.25% 0.25% 1 0.25% 1 1 0.25% 1 0.25% 398 100.00%

159

Cassady

Plain Stamp (Parallel) Stamp (Perpendicular) Stamp (Oblique) Drag-Stamp Incised Bossed Push-Pull SI Stamp (per.) over Stamp (par.) SI Bossed over Stamp (par.) SI Bossed over Incised HD Plain / Incised HD Plain / Incised / Stamp (par.) HD Plain / Incised / Stamp (obl.) HD Incised / Stamp (par.) HD Incised / Stamp (per.) Total 9 48 2 1 2.41% 10.84%

10.84% 57.83% 2.41% 1.20%

14.46%

6

22.22% 11.11%

66.67%

Cherry Lane

2 1

9 100.00% ne

25.14% 57.71% 2.86% 0.57% 1.71% 8.00% 2.29% 0.57%

DeWaele 44 101 5 1 3 14 4 1 0.57%

0.57%

1

1 175 100.00%

Dymock

1

11

2.94%

2.94%

2.94%

32.35%

5.88% 52.94%

1

2 18

1

34 100.00%

Kelly

12.50% 12.50%

12.50% 41.67% 4.17%

3 3

12.50% 4.17%

3 10 1

3 1

24 100.00%

1 1

20 2 8 1 6

6.67% 2.22% 2.22% 2.22%

2.22% 2.22%

44.44% 4.44% 17.78% 2.22% 13.33%

Krieger

3 1 1 1

45 100.00%

n

14.29%

3.57% 60.71% 3.57% 10.71%

Van Bree

4

3.57%

1 17 1 3

1

3.57% 1 28 100.00% ee Br Va

r ge ie Kr lly Ke

1 42 . 0 0

k

7. 14

oc ym D

1 0 5 .3 8

14 6. 5 7

e

1 7. 7 8

l ae

1 6 1 . 35

1 1 7 . 46

eW

D

25. 00

La

1 2 2. 47

1 35 . 76

ry

C

153.61

17 . 65

r he

C

21.69

134.79

y

******

******

50.29

129.76

141.60 121.11

128.89 ******

120.10

148.57 ******

******

******

******

d sa as

83 100.00%

12

2 9

Cassady

Table B.31: Exterior Band 3 Technique (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Indices of Agreement

DeW aele

Cherry Lane

Kelly

Dymock

Krieger Van Bree

Total

65 16.33% 214 53.77% 11 2.76% 13 3.27% 1.01% 4 40 10.05% 16 4.02% 0.25% 1 2 0.50% 18 4.52% 1 0.25% 5 1.26% 3 0.75% 1 0.25% 0.75% 3 1 0.25% 398 100.00%

160

Cassady

Plain Linear Right Oblique Linear Left Oblique Linear Vertical Linear Horizontal Crescent Right Oblique Crescent Left Oblique Crescent Horizontal Punctate Horizontal Punctate Dash Bossed Horizontal Plaits Linear Left Oblique Plaits Linear Horizontal Plaits Punctate Horizontal SI LinR over LinL SI LinR over LinH SI LinL over LinR SI PunH over LinR SI PunH over LinL SI BosH over LinR SI BosH over LinL SI BosH over LinH SI BosH over SI LinL over LinR HD Plain / LinR HD Plain / LinR / LinL HD Plain / LinR / LinL / LinH HD Plain / LinR / LinH / LinV / PunR HD Plain / PunV SI LinR over LinL HD LinR / LinL HD LinR / LinL / LinH HD LinR / LinL / LinH / LinV HD LinV / LinH HD LinH / PunH HD Plaits LinV / LinH Total 1.20%

10.84% 34.94% 7.23%

3.61%

1

3 10.84% 1.20% 6.02%

9.64% 13.25% 1.20%

6

22.22% 11.11%

66.67%

Cherry Lane

2 1

ne

9 100.00% La

DeWaele 25.14% 49.71% 5.71% 2.86% 7.43%

2.29%

2.29%

44 87 10 5 13

4 0.57% 0.57% 1.14%

4

1 1 2 1.14%

0.57%

0.57%

2 1

1

175 100.00% e

Dymock

1

1

1

8.82%

2.94%

2.94%

2.94%

5.88% 23.53% 5.88% 8.82% 20.59%

3

5.88% 2.94% 2.94% 2.94%

2 8 2 3 7

2 1 1 1

1 2.94% 34 100.00%

8.33%

12.50% 20.83% 20.83%

Kelly

2

4.17%

8.33% 4.17% 4.17%

4.17% 12.50%

3 5 5

1 3

2 1 1

1

24 100.00%

Krieger 26.67% 20.00% 2.22% 6.67% 2.22%

2.22%

12 9 1 3 1

1

2.22% 2.22%

8.89% 8.89%

1 1

2.22% 8.89% 2.22% 2.22% 2.22%

4 4

1 4 1 1 1

45 100.00%

n

1

1

1 1

1 1 1

1 9 6

3.57% 3.57%

3.57%

3.57%

3.57% 3.57%

3.57% 3.57% 3.57%

3.57% 32.14% 21.43%

Van Bree

1 1

7.14% 3.57%

2 1

28 100.00% ee Br Va

r ge ie Kr lly Ke

k

109 .72

oc ym D

8 1 .87

l ae

118. 57

eW D

73. 00

96.86

1 4. 2 9

ry C

119.32

89.40

22.22

r he C

21.69

98.67

25 . 00

dy

******

29 . 41

84.87

91.97

98.69

120.24

******

93.63

120.95

50.29

******

******

99.44

******

******

******

sa as

83 100.00%

1

11

8

9 1 5

9 29 6

Cassady

Table B.32: Exterior Band 3 Motif (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Indices of Agreement

DeW aele

Cherry Lane

Dymock Kelly Krieger Van Bree

Total

65 16.33% 150 37.69% 9.55% 38 9 2.26% 27 6.78% 0.50% 2 1 0.25% 4 1.01% 3.02% 12 2 0.50% 16 4.02% 1 0.25% 1.76% 7 1 0.25% 2 0.50% 0.25% 1 2.51% 10 1 0.25% 0.25% 1 16 4.02% 0.50% 2 1 0.25% 0.25% 1 2 0.50% 4 1.01% 8 2.01% 0.25% 1 1 0.25% 4 1.01% 4 1.01% 1 0.25% 1 0.25% 1 0.25% 0.25% 1 398 100.00%

161

Cassady

Plain Linear (Straight) Linear (Suture) Pointed (Round) Pointed (Annular) P o i n t e d ( E l l i p t i c a l) Pointed (Polygonal) Cord W rapped Instrument Dentate (Polygonal) Dentate (Round) SI Pointed (Round) over Linear (Straight) SI Pointed (Round) over Linear (Suture) SI Pointed (Round) over Pointed (Annular) HD Plain / Pointed (Round) / Linear (Suture) HD Plain / Pointed (Round) / CW I HD Pointed (Round) / Pointed (Annular) Total 11 15 4 7 2.27%

25.00% 34.09% 9.09% 15.91%

4.55% 6.82%

2.27% 0.00%

Cherry Lane

0

DeWaele

Dymock Kelly

Krieger 28.57% 9.52%

6 2

6 2

1

46.15% 15.38%

33.33% 6.67% 13.33% 20.00%

23.81% 14.29%

5 1 2 3

15.38%

5 3

51.85% 17.28% 2.47% 14.81% 1.23% 2

7.69%

42 14 2 12 1 20.00%

7.69% 7.69%

4.76% 14.29%

3

1 1

13 100.00%

1 4.76% 21 100.00%

1 3

8.64% 2.47% 1.23%

6.67% 15 100.00%

1

7 2 1

81 100.00%

n

1

4 3 1 4 1 1

5.88%

5.88%

23.53% 17.65% 5.88% 23.53% 5.88% 5.88%

Van Bree

1

1 5.88% 17 100.00% ee Br Va

r ge ie Kr

1 39.5 7

ne

lly Ke

******

k

1 0 9. 9 6

1 3 0 .4 3

oc ym D

******

e

1 05 . 2 4

1 2 5 .5 7

l ae

******

eW D

1 2 2 . 42

1 5 5. 7 5

La

******

ry

C

133.16

131.85

r he

C

******

******

y

******

******

104.98

123.92 120.15

139.05 ******

126.15

146.22 ******

******

******

******

d sa as

44 100.00%

1

2 3

1

Cassady

Table B.33: Exterior Band 4 Tool (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Indices of Agreement

DeW aele

Cherry Lane

Kelly

Dymock

Krieger Van Bree

Total

74 38.74% 37 19.37% 9 4.71% 32 16.75% 5 2.62% 1.05% 2 1 0.52% 18 9.42% 2.62% 5 1 0.52% 0.52% 1 0.52% 1 0.52% 1 1 0.52% 0.52% 1 2 1.05% 191 100.00%

162

Cassady

Plain Stamp (Parallel) Stamp (Perpendicular) Stamp (Oblique) Drag-Stamp Incised Bossed SI Bossed over Stamp (par.) SI Bossed over Stamp (obl.) SI Bossed over Incised HD Plain / Incised / Stamp (par.) HD Plain / Incised / Push-Pull HD Incised / Stamp (per.) HD Incised / Stamp (obl.) Total 11 24 1 1 11.36%

25.00% 54.55% 2.27% 2.27%

2.27% 2.27%

0.00%

Cherry Lane

0 ne

42 24 1 2.47% 12.35% 2.47%

51.85% 29.63% 1.23%

DeWaele

2 10 2

81 100.00%

6.67%

20.00%

33.33% 40.00%

Dymock 5 6

3

1

15 100.00%

Kelly 46.15% 30.77%

4

6 5 1 4

28.57% 23.81% 4.76% 19.05%

3

4 5 2

17.65%

23.53% 29.41% 11.76%

Van Bree

19.05%

5.88% 5.88%

ee Br

5.88% 1 17 100.00%

1 1

Krieger

7.69%

6 4

1

15.38%

4.76% 21 100.00%

1

2

13 100.00%

n Va

e

137.7 0

La

ge ie Kr

r

1 29 . 4 4

lly Ke

******

k

1 26.9 2

1 3 3 .0 4

oc ym D

******

141.18

l ae

1 5 2 . 73

1 31 . 9 2

eW

D

******

142.86

ry

134.46

******

1 6 6 .9 5

r he

******

C

******

143.59

dy

******

C

******

******

150.62

121.27

******

139.50

120.15 ******

******

*** ** *

sa as

44 100.00%

1 1

5

Cassady

Table B.34: Exterior Band 4 Technique (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Indices of Agreement Cherry Lane

Dymock

DeW aele

Kelly Krieger Van Bree

Total

74 38.74% 68 35.60% 2.62% 5 2.62% 5 2 1.05% 26 13.61% 2 1.05% 2 1.05% 1 0.52% 2 1.05% 1 0.52% 0.52% 1 1 0.52% 0.52% 1 191 100.00%

163

Plain Linear Right Oblique Linear Left Oblique Linear Vertical Linear Horizontal Crescent Left Oblique Crescent Horizontal Punctate Horizontal Punctate Dash Bossed Horizontal Plaits Linear Right Oblique Plaits Linear Left Oblique Plaits Linear Horizontal Plaits Punctate Right Oblique SI LinR over LinL SI LinR over LinH SI LinL over LinR SI BosH over LinR SI BosH over LinL SI BosH over LinH SI BosH over CreR HD Plain / LinR / LinL HD Plain / LinR / LinL / LinH HD Plain / LinR / LinL / LinV / LinH / PunR / PunL / PunV HD Plain / LinV HD LinR / LinL HD LinR / LinL / CreH Total 42 21 2 1 11 1.23%

51.85% 25.93% 2.47% 1.23% 13.58%

DeWaele

2.27%

25.00% 34.09% 2.27%

1

Cherry Lane

1

11 15 1

4.55%

2

81 100.00%

2.47%

2.27% 4.55% 6.82% 2.27% 2.27%

0.00%

2

1 2 3 1 1 6.82%

0

1.23%

3 2.27%

2.27% 2.27%

1

1 1 44 100.00%

20.00%

33.33% 26.67% 6.67%

Dymock

3

6.67% 6.67%

5 4 1

1 1

15 100.00% k

lly

28.57% 9.52% 14.29%

Krieger 46.15% 30.77%

6 2 3

4.76%

7.69%

1

9.52%

4.76% 4.76% 9.52% 9.52%

7.69% 7.69% 2

4.76%

21 100.00%

1

1 1 2 2

Kelly 6 4 1

1 1

13 100.00%

r

n

1

1 1

1 3

4 3

5.88% 5.88%

5.88%

5.88% 5.88%

5.88% 17.65%

23.53% 17.65%

Van Bree

1 1

5.88% 1 17 100.00%

ee Br Va

oc ym

ge ie Kr

e

Ke

l ae

D

ne eW D

La

******

105.08

ry C

******

87.23

dy

******

116.08

sa as C

******

112.42

11 4.4 5

******

9 3.1 2

115.88

159. 54

97.74

117.65

******

150.62

85.71

112.38

******

**** **

******

******

87.39

135.38

******

******

******

r he

1

Cassady

Table B.35: Exterior Band 4 Motif (Level 4) with Indices of Agreement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Indices of Agreement

Cassady Cherry Lane DeW aele

Kelly

Dymock

Krieger Van Bree

Total

74 38.74% 49 25.65% 3.66% 7 2 1.05% 20 10.47% 1 0.52% 1.05% 2 6 3.14% 1 0.52% 2 1.05% 2 1.05% 2 1.05% 4 2.09% 1 0.52% 1 0.52% 1 0.52% 1.57% 3 1 0.52% 1 0.52% 2 1.05% 1 0.52% 1.57% 3 1 0.52% 1 0.52% 1 0.52% 1 0.52% 0.52% 1 191 100.00%

164

47 32.64% 14 9.72% 69 47.92% 14 9.72% 144 100.00%

Cassady 10 30.30% 3 9.09% 14 42.42% 6 18.18% 33 100.00%

Chery Lane

Table B.36: Inter-Band (1-2) Symmetry on Vessel Exteriors

Translation Reflection None Indeterminate Total 89 27.64% 34 10.56% 194 60.25% 5 1.55% 322 100.00%

DeWaele 14 14.74% 11 11.58% 40 42.11% 30 31.58% 95 100.00%

Dymock

Kelly 23 32.86% 10 14.29% 22 31.43% 15 21.43% 70 100.00%

Krieger 36 31.86% 7.96% 9 52 46.02% 16 14.16% 113 100.00%

Van Bree 8 17.02% 6 12.77% 25 53.19% 8 17.02% 47 100.00%

Total 227 27.55% 87 10.56% 416 50.49% 94 11.41% 824 100.00%

165

Cassady 31 37.35% 13 15.66% 39 46.99% 0 0.00% 83 100.00%

Chery Lane 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 10 100.00% 0 0.00% 10 100.00%

43 24.71% 20 11.49% 111 63.79% 0 0.00% 174 100.00%

DeWaele 3 9.38% 3 9.38% 26 81.25% 0 0.00% 32 100.00%

Dymock

Table B.37: Inter-Band (2-3) Symmetry on Vessel Exteriors

Translation Reflection None Indeterminate Total

Kelly 4 22.22% 6 33.33% 8 44.44% 0 0.00% 18 100.00% 9 18.75% 8 16.67% 31 64.58% 0 0.00% 48 100.00%

Krieger

7 25.00% 6 21.43% 15 53.57% 0.00% 0 28 100.00%

Van Bree

Total 97 24.68% 56 14.25% 240 61.07% 0 0.00% 393 100.00%

166

22 52.38% 0.00% 0 1 2.38% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 16 38.10% 3 7.14% 42 100.00%

Cassady 4 36.36% 0.00% 0 3 27.27% 1 9.09% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 27.27% 11 100.00%

Cherry Lane

Table B.38: Intra-Band (Neck) Symmetry on Vessel Exteriors

Translation Horizontal Reflection Vertical Reflection Bifold Rotation Horizontal & Vertical Reflection Slide Reflection Alternate Rotation and Reflection None Indeterminate Total 5 20.83% 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 11 45.83% 8 33.33% 24 100.00%

DeWaele 8 29.63% 3.70% 1 9 33.33% 3.70% 1 2 7.41% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3.70% 1 5 18.52% 27 100.00%

Dymock

Kelly 2 16.67% 0.00% 0 3 25.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 5 41.67% 2 16.67% 12 100.00%

Krieger 11 31.43% 2.86% 1 7 20.00% 3 8.57% 2 5.71% 2 5.71% 2 5.71% 2 5.71% 5 14.29% 35 100.00%

Van Bree 3 37.50% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 0.00% 0 1 12.50% 0 0.00% 2 25.00% 8 100.00%

Total

55 34.59% 2 1.26% 24 15.09% 5 3.14% 5 3.14% 2 1.26% 1.89% 3 35 22.01% 28 17.61% 159 100.00%

167

168

Appendix C: Graphical Depictions of Data

169

170

2D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates; Dimension: 1 x 2 Input Table (Rows x Columns): 3 x 7 Standardization: Row and column profiles 0.3

Dymock

0.2

Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .00784 (4.563% of Inertia)

Kelly Rounded

0.1 Van Bree 0.0

Flat

DeWaele

Cassady

Cherry Lane Krieger

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4 Pointed

-0.5

-0.6 -0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .16403 (95.44% of Inertia) Figure C.1: Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Lip Form

171

Row.Coords Col.Coords

2D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates; Dimension: 1 x 2 Input Table (Rows x Columns): 3 x 7 Standardization: Row and column profiles 0.4 Dymock Straight

Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .03252 (12.49% of Inertia)

0.3

Cassady

0.2

Van Bree Kelly

0.1

0.0 Concave

-0.1

ConvexDeWaele

Krieger

-0.2

Cherry Lane

-0.3

-0.4 -0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .22786 (87.51% of Inertia) Figure C.2: Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Upper Rim Profile

172

Row.Coords Col.Coords

2D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates; Dimension: 1 x 2 Input Table (Rows x Columns): 3 x 7 Standardization: Row and column profiles 0.3

0.2 Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .00584 (12.05% of Inertia)

Cassady 0.1 NotCollared Cherry Lane Van Bree Dymock

0.0

DeWaele IncipientCollar

Krieger Kelly

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5 -0.6

Collared

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .04260 (87.95% of Inertia) Figure C.3: Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Rim Form

173

Row.Coords Col.Coords

60 39%

50

30%

Number of Observations

40

30 19%

20 10% 10

1%

1%

0%

0 2

4

6

8

10

12

0% 14

0% 16

0% 18

LIP THICKNESS (mm) LIPTHICK: N = 143, Mean = 6.73426573, StdDv = 1.90607276, Max = 12, Min = 2 Figure C.4: Histogram of Lip Thickness for Cassady

174

14

36%

12

Number of Observations

10

8 21% 18%

6

12%

4

9% 2 3% 0

0%

0% 2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0% 16

0% 18

LIP THICKNESS (mm) LIPTHICK: N = 33, Mean = 7.84848485, StdDv = 2.65896141, Max = 14, Min = 3 Figure C.5: Histogram of Lip Thickness for Cherry Lane

175

180

50%

160

140

Number of Observations

120 32% 100

80

60

40

10% 7%

20

0

0%

0% 2

4

6

8

10

0% 12

0% 14

0% 16

0% 18

LIP THICKNESS (mm) LIPTHICK: N = 317, Mean = 6.21135647, StdDv = 1.50824644, Max = 10, Min = 3 Figure C.6: Histogram of Lip Thickness for DeWaele

176

26

26%

24 23%

22 20

20%

Number of Observations

18 16 14

14%

12

12%

10 8 6 4 2

3% 1%

1% 0%

0 2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0% 16

18

LIP THICKNESS (mm) LIPTHICK: N = 95, Mean = 8.77894737, StdDv = 3.01830919, Max = 19, Min = 2 Figure C.7: Histogram of Lip Thickness for Dymock

177

28 37%

26 24 22 20

26%

Number of Observations

18 16 14 17%

12 10

11%

8 6 4 3%

2 0

3%

3%

0%

0% 2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0% 18

LIP THICKNESS (mm) LIPTHICK: N = 70, Mean = 8.32857143, StdDv = 2.45965373, Max = 16, Min = 4 Figure C.8: Histogram of Lip Thickness for Kelly

178

35 29% 27%

30

Number of Observations

25

20 16% 14% 15

10 7% 5%

5

2% 0

0%

0% 2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0% 18

LIP THICKNESS (mm) LIPTHICK: N = 111, Mean = 8.76576577, StdDv = 2.62489811, Max = 15, Min = 4 Figure C.9: Histogram of Lip Thickness for Krieger

179

22 43%

20

18

Number of Observations

16

14

12 23% 10 17%

8

6 9%

4 6% 2 2% 0

0%

0% 2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0% 16

0% 18

LIP THICKNESS (mm) LIPTHICK: N = 47, Mean = 8.95744681, StdDv = 2.46680084, Max = 14, Min = 4 Figure C.10: Histogram of Lip Thickness for Van Bree

180

2D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates; Dimension: 1 x 2 Input Table (Rows x Columns): 15 x 7 Standardization: Row and column profiles 2.5

Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .11621 (19.26% of Inertia)

2.0

13 15

1.5

1.0

7

9

0.5

Krieger

Van Bree

11

DeWaele 1 3

0.0

8

Cherry 2 Lane Kelly Cassady 10 14 5 4 Dymock

-0.5

6

-1.0

-1.5 12

-2.0

-2.5 -1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Row.Coords Col.Coords

Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .31186 (51.68% of Inertia) Figure C.11: Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Interior Band 1 Tool (Level 4)

181

2D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates; Dimension: 1 x 2 Input Table (Rows x Columns): 12 x 7 Standardization: Row and column profiles 2.5

2.0

Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .11270 (23.87% of Inertia)

12 8

1.5 5 9

1.0

4

Krieger Van Bree

0.5

0.0

DeWaele 1

2 Cassady Kelly Cherry Lane 10

-0.5

Dymock

-1.0

3 6

-1.5 11 7

-2.0

-2.5 -1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

Row.Coords Col.Coords

Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .28576 (60.53% of Inertia) Figure C.12: Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Interior Band 1 Technique (Level 4)

182

2D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates; Dimension: 1 x 2 Input Table (Rows x Columns): 20 x 7 Standardization: Row and column profiles 1.5 19 5

Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .18701 (27.81% of Inertia)

1.0

0.5

10 8 16 7 18 3 9 Krieger 20 4

Van Bree Cherry Lane

17

DeWaele 1

Dymock

0.0

13

Kelly 2 6 12

-0.5

Cassady -1.0

14

-1.5

11 15

-2.0

-2.5 -1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Row.Coords Col.Coords

Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .30101 (44.76% of Inertia) Figure C.13: Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Interior Band 1 Motif (Level 4)

183

2D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates; Dimension: 1 x 2 Input Table (Rows x Columns): 17 x 7 Standardization: Row and column profiles 1.5

3

Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .07714 (18.85% of Inertia)

1.0 4

Dymock 0.5 Kelly 5

Van Bree 2 7

DeWaele

0.0

Cherry Lane

1

10

Cassady 11

6 Krieger 9

-0.5 15 14 13 12 17 8

-1.0

16

-1.5 -1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Row.Coords Col.Coords

Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .21608 (52.81% of Inertia) Figure C.14: Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Interior Band 2 Tool (Level 4)

184

2D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates; Dimension: 1 x 2 Input Table (Rows x Columns): 11 x 7 Standardization: Row and column profiles 1.6 1.4

7

8

Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .12470 (27.86% of Inertia)

1.2 1.0 Van Bree 0.8

4

6

0.6 Dymock 0.4 2

0.2

5

Krieger

9

0.0 Kelly

Cassady

1

-0.2

11 10

3

DeWaele -0.4 Cherry Lane -0.6 -0.8 -1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Row.Coords Col.Coords

Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .22030 (49.22% of Inertia) Figure C.15: Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Interior Band 2 Technique (Level 4)

185

2D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates; Dimension: 1 x 2 Input Table (Rows x Columns): 15 x 7 Standardization: Row and column profiles 2.0

9

Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .14084 (28.66% of Inertia)

1.5 11

3

Van Bree 1.0 10 4 5

0.5 7

Dymock Krieger

2

14

0.0

Kelly

1

8 Cassady 13

DeWaele Cherry Lane

12

15

-0.5 6

-1.0

-1.5 -1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Row.Coords Col.Coords

Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .23674 (48.17% of Inertia) Figure C.16: Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Interior Band 2 Motif (Level 4)

186

2D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates; Dimension: 1 x 2 Input Table (Rows x Columns): 11 x 6 Standardization: Row and column profiles 1.6 1.4 11

Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .10036 (21.67% of Inertia)

1.2 1.0 4 8

0.8 3

0.6 Dymock

0.4 DeWaele

Kelly 5

0.2

7

1

Cassady 6Bree Van10

0.0 -0.2 -0.4 9

-0.6

2 Krieger

-0.8 -1.0 -2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Row.Coords Col.Coords

Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .22534 (48.65% of Inertia) Figure C.17: Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Interior Band 3 Tool (Level 4)

187

2D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates; Dimension: 1 x 2 Input Table (Rows x Columns): 8 x 6 Standardization: Row and column profiles 2.5 6 8

Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .10878 (27.74% of Inertia)

2.0

1.5

1.0 Dymock 7

0.5

Kelly

3

Van Bree 1 Cassady DeWaele

0.0

4

2

Krieger

-0.5

-1.0

-1.5

-2.0 -2.0

5

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Row.Coords Col.Coords

Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .21698 (55.33% of Inertia) Figure C.18: Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Interior Band 3 Technique (Level 4)

188

2D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates; Dimension: 1 x 2 Input Table (Rows x Columns): 12 x 6 Standardization: Row and column profiles 3.0

10 9

Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .09763 (20.61% of Inertia)

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

Van Bree

8

0.5

12

3

Dymock

6Kelly

1

0.0 5

KriegerDeWaele 2 Cassady 4

-0.5 11 7

-1.0

-1.5 -2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Row.Coords Col.Coords

Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .22027 (46.50% of Inertia) Figure C.19: Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Interior Band 3 Motif (Level 4)

189

2D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates; Dimension: 1 x 2 Input Table (Rows x Columns): 15 x 7 Standardization: Row and column profiles 2.0

Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .11908 (24.15% of Inertia)

1.5

10

1.0

6 3 Dymock

0.5

Kelly Cherry Lane Van Bree 2 Cassady DeWaele 8 1 4

0.0

5

9

11

-0.5

7

Krieger

-1.0

-1.5 15 14 13 12

-2.0

-2.5 -1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Row.Coords Col.Coords

Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .27963 (56.72% of Inertia) Figure C.20: Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Lip Band 1 Tool (Level 4)

190

2D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates; Dimension: 1 x 2 Input Table (Rows x Columns): 12 x 7 Standardization: Row and column profiles 2.5

Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .10617 (27.15% of Inertia)

2.0

8

1.5 6

1.0

Cherry Lane Dymock 0.5 Cassady

0.0

Kelly

2

1 DeWaele

3

Van Bree 4. Krieger

-0.5 5

-1.0

11

-1.5 10 12 7 9

-2.0

-2.5 -1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Row.Coords Col.Coords

Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .23209 (59.34% of Inertia) Figure C.21: Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Lip Band 1 Technique (Level 4)

191

2D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates; Dimension: 1 x 2 Input Table (Rows x Columns): 26 x 7 Standardization: Row and column profiles 2.5 24 26

Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .10868 (19.27% of Inertia)

2.0

1.5

19

1.0

20 17

Kelly 6

0.5

Van Bree

5

Cassady

22 11

9 1

0.0

2 Dymock Cherry3Lane

DeWaele

4

-0.5

18

10

Krieger

15 14 25

21 13

-1.0 12 16 23 8 7

-1.5

-2.0 -1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Row.Coords Col.Coords

Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .27460 (48.69% of Inertia) Figure C.22: Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Lip Band 1 Motif (Level 4)

192

2D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates; Dimension: 1 x 2 Input Table (Rows x Columns): 23 x 7 Standardization: Row and column profiles 2.5

2.0

Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .09422 (22.54% of Inertia)

22 21 20 9

1.5

1.0 Krieger

7

0.5

18 23 12

DeWaele 1 5 24 14 Cassady Cherry Lane Kelly 13

10 17 Van Bree

0.0

3

-0.5

Dymock 19

16 8

6

-1.0 11

-1.5 15

-2.0

-2.5 -2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Row.Coords Col.Coords

Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .21107 (50.49% of Inertia) Figure C.23: Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Exterior Band 1 Tool (Level 4)

193

2D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates; Dimension: 1 x 2 Input Table (Rows x Columns): 17 x 7 Standardization: Row and column profiles 2.0 16

1.5

Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .08715 (29.77% of Inertia)

10

1.0

5

4

0.5

Krieger

11 13

Van Bree 0.0

8

DeWaele 1 Cassady 2 7 17

15 3

Cherry Lane Kelly 14

Dymock

-0.5

12

-1.0

6

-1.5 9

-2.0

-2.5 -2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

Row.Coords Col.Coords

Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .11608 (39.65% of Inertia) Figure C.24: Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Exterior Band 1 Technique (Level 4)

194

2D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates; Dimension: 1 x 2 Input Table (Rows x Columns): 33 x 7 Standardization: Row and column profiles 3.5 3.0

12 24

Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .08799 (18.81% of Inertia)

2.5 2.0 7

1.5

30 33 9

22

1.0

Van Bree 8

0.5

5

17 19 21

10

6 Krieger

0.0

1 Kelly 2 20 29 27 DeWaele 26

3

Dymock4 Cherry Lane

23

-0.5

13 14 Cassady 11

16 15 25 32

18

-1.0

31

-1.5

28

-2.0 -2.5 -2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Row.Coords Col.Coords

Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .17974 (38.43% of Inertia) Figure C.25: Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Exterior Band 1 Motif (Level 4)

195

2D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates; Dimension: 1 x 2 Input Table (Rows x Columns): 31 x 7 Standardization: Row and column profiles 3.0 2.5 14 20 24 30

Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .16927 (26.38% of Inertia)

2.0 25

1.5

7

Krieger

1.0 0.5

16 11 Lane 10 Cherry 4 31

0.0

Kelly 1.2 DeWaele Van18Bree Cassady

6 28 29

13 12 17 5 15 22

3

-0.5

Dymock 8

19

-1.0 9

-1.5 21 23 27 26

-2.0 -2.5 -2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Row.Coords Col.Coords

Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .21464 (33.45% of Inertia) Figure C.26: Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Exterior Band 2 Tool (Level 4)

196

2D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates; Dimension: 1 x 2 Input Table (Rows x Columns): 25 x 7 Standardization: Row and column profiles 2.5

Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .12446 (21.58% of Inertia)

2.0

10 24

1.5 21 6

1.0 4

Krieger

11

5

19

0.5

9 1

Cherry Lane DeWaele 2

7

0.0

Cassady

Dymock

Kelly Van Bree 17

3

-0.5

8

13 16

14 12 15 20

-1.0

18 22

-1.5

23 25

-2.0

-2.5 -2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Row.Coords Col.Coords

Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .21074 (36.54% of Inertia) Figure C.27: Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Exterior Band 2 Technique (Level 4)

197

2D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates; Dimension: 1 x 2 Input Table (Rows x Columns): 43 x 7 Standardization: Row and column profiles 3.0 2.5 16 32 37 41

Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .20393 (25.62% of Inertia)

2.0 1.5 43 42

28 24

31

Dymock 11

1.0

Van Bree 5

0.5

1225

3

30

0.0

7 8 29

Kelly DeWaele 1 Cassady 13182622 21 14 20 15 19 2 Cherry 4 Lane 17

-0.5 33

Krieger40

-1.0

35 9

-1.5

10 23 27 34 36 39 38 6

-2.0 -2.5 -2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Row.Coords Col.Coords

Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .25500 (32.03% of Inertia) Figure C.28: Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Exterior Band 2 Motif (Level 4)

198

2D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates; Dimension: 1 x 2 Input Table (Rows x Columns): 22 x 7 Standardization: Row and column profiles 1.5

1.0

20 5 9

Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .22741 (29.15% of Inertia)

8 1

DeWaele

0.5

2

34

Cassady 13 15 Kelly Van Bree 14

0.0

10

6 Dymock

Cherry Lane

1112

-0.5

16 22

19

-1.0

Krieger 7

-1.5 17

-2.0 18 21

-2.5

-3.0 -7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

Row.Coords Col.Coords

Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .25363 (32.51% of Inertia) Figure C.29: Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Exterior Band 3 Tool (Level 4)

199

2D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates; Dimension: 1 x 2 Input Table (Rows x Columns): 16 x 7 Standardization: Row and column profiles 2.5 Cherry Lane

Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .18181 (25.85% of Inertia)

2.0

1.5

12 13

1.0 1 8

0.5 5

DeWaele

0.0 Dymock -0.5

2

Cassady Kelly 7

6

15

Krieger

3

10

11

Van Bree

9 4

-1.0

14 16

-1.5

-2.0 -3.0

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Row.Coords Col.Coords

Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .24297 (34.55% of Inertia) Figure C.30: Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Exterior Band 3 Technique (Level 4)

200

2D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates; Dimension: 1 x 2 Input Table (Rows x Columns): 34 x 7 Standardization: Row and column profiles 2.0

18 32 31 34

Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .25585 (20.85% of Inertia)

1.5

1.0 15 14

4

Dymock 29

Cherry Lane 21 5 DeWaele 1

0.5

24

2

0.0

17

-0.5 12 23

11 Cassady

Kelly 22

13 20

26

25 30 3

Van 9 Bree Krieger

10

-1.0

33 7 6

-1.5

16 19 28 27 8

-2.0 -2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Row.Coords Col.Coords

Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .34130 (27.82% of Inertia) Figure C.31: Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Exterior Band 3 Motif (Level 4)

201

2D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates; Dimension: 1 x 2 Input Table (Rows x Columns): 16 x 6 Standardization: Row and column profiles 3.5 3.0

12 11

Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .17575 (27.31% of Inertia)

2.5 2.0 1.5 Kelly 7

1.0 0.5

Krieger

8 1 10Dymock DeWaele 14

0.0

2

16 4

Van Bree 13

Cassady 3

-0.5

5

9

6

-1.0

15

-1.5 -2.0 -2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Row.Coords Col.Coords

Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .19496 (30.29% of Inertia) Figure C.32: Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Exterior Band 4 Tool (Level 4)

202

2D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates; Dimension: 1 x 2 Input Table (Rows x Columns): 14 x 6 Standardization: Row and column profiles 2.5 2.0

13 4

Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .18112 (26.59% of Inertia)

1.5 1.0

Krieger 8

0.5

Kelly 5DeWaele 7 1 Dymock 12 2 6 Cassady 11

0.0 -0.5

3

-1.0

Van Bree 10

-1.5 -2.0 14 9

-2.5 -3.0 -3.5 -2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Row.Coords Col.Coords

Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .20675 (30.35% of Inertia) Figure C.33: Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Exterior Band 4 Technique (Level 4)

203

2D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates; Dimension: 1 x 2 Input Table (Rows x Columns): 27 x 6 Standardization: Row and column profiles 2.0 12 15 14 17 26 25

1.5

Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .26090 (23.63% of Inertia)

13

1.0

Cassady

0.5 16 24 7 6

Krieger

3

8

2

22

0.0

1 DeWaele Kelly Dymock 23

-0.5

10 5

11 20

19 18

Van Bree

-1.0

4

-1.5

21 27 9

-2.0

-2.5 -3.5

-3.0

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Row.Coords Col.Coords

Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .36769 (33.30% of Inertia) Figure C.34: Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Exterior Band 4 Motif (Level 4)

204

2D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates; Dimension: 1 x 2 Input Table (Rows x Columns): 3 x 7 Standardization: Row and column profiles 0.30

Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .00727 (28.71% of Inertia)

0.25

0.20

Reflection

Kelly

Dymock

0.15

Van Bree 0.10

0.05

0.00

Chery Lane

Translation Cassady

None

DeWaele

-0.05 Krieger -0.10

-0.15 -0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Row.Coords Col.Coords

Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .01805 (71.29% of Inertia) Figure C.35: Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Inter-Band (1-2) Symmetry on Vessel Exteriors

205

2D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates; Dimension: 1 x 2 Input Table (Rows x Columns): 3 x 7 Standardization: Row and column profiles 0.3

0.2

Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .01726 (23.28% of Inertia)

Translation

Cassady 0.1

DeWaele Chery Lane None

0.0

Dymock Krieger

-0.1 Van Bree -0.2 Reflection

-0.3

-0.4

Kelly

-0.5

-0.6 -0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Row.Coords Col.Coords

Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .05688 (76.72% of Inertia) Figure C.36: Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Inter-Band (2-3) Symmetry on Vessel Exteriors

206

2D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates; Dimension: 1 x 2 Input Table (Rows x Columns): 8 x 7 Standardization: Row and column profiles 1.6 AlternateRotation&Refl

1.4

Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .10225 (15.93% of Inertia)

1.2 1.0 SlideReflection

Van Bree

0.8 0.6 0.4

Horizontal&VerticalRefl Krieger

0.2

Cassady

DeWaele

Translation BifoldRotation

None

0.0

HorizontalReflectio

-0.2

Cherry Lane Dymock VerticalReflection

Kelly

-0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -1.2

-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Row.Coords Col.Coords

Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .41487 (64.65% of Inertia) Figure C.37: Correspondence Analysis (Biplot) of Intra-Band (Neck) Symmetry on Vessel Exteriors

207

208

PLATES

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223