archaeological and textual records - eCommons@Cornell - Cornell ...

[the rings] came and went with the Jesuits” (Beauchamp 1903:37). Mason also notes
that Wood’s 1974 data “at least partially contradicts” Cleland’s analysis (Mason
2003:238) and also reminds us that both Cleland and Wood also relied on the Wray
and Schoff site sequence, which again has since been updated. Pertaining to the rings
of Upstate New York, Mason writes:
A major area where the sequence is so violated as to diminish any confidence
of accuracy is New York. Granting that the latest dates for the Seneca sites are
correct (Sempowski and Saunders 2001), the distribution of engraved and
stamped rings does not accord with what might be expected, given the opinion
that the stamped-embossed rings are the base types from which the others
evolved (Mason 2003:248-249).
Moreover, the terminology used in discussing ring style and features has varied
from author to author over time, causing an unnecessary amount of confusion. In
Mason’s words:
Cleland (1971, 1972) began using the term “bezel” to describe what others
have called “plaques,” and then described the designs as either “cast” or
“engraved.” Mainfort, (1979:42) used the term “raised bezel” to refer to what
Cleland called cast, and Wood (1974) used the term “stamp embossed” to
describe the same thing. (Mason 2003:235)
Because of this, she suggests the terms supplied by Wood (1974) should
become standard, as Mason herself has used them in her articles and arguing over
semantics would only breed confusion. Thus for clarity’s sake, the rings mentioned in
this thesis will either be referred to as “incised” or “stamp embossed.” Carol Mason’s
2005 article, “Jesuit Rings of Metals Other Than Brass,” discusses the issues with
dating Jesuit rings by material as Quimby (1966) had suggested. As most of the piece
concentrates on case studies in the Midwest, it does not much intersect this thesis,
except for the three “pewter” rings (one blank, two “stamped”) found at Ganondagan,
43