Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society, Vol. 54, No. 1 ...

BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSEITS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, VOLUME 54(1), 1993 15
instances, results were confirmed with my own
observations (Table 1).
Coil breaks, defined as a concave or convex
surface across the edge of a sherd (Nassaney,
1991 personal communication), were identified on
at least five sherds (three by Conant [1990] and
two by the author).
The surface treatment of each sherd included
two distinct processes applied in the following
order: interior and exterior cord-wrapped paddling
and interior and exterior wet wiping (Figure 3).
Although Tessier (1990) discerned this pattern on
only four sherds, it was easily recognized on
most. One body sherd (2.32) was eliminated
from the lot by the author because it possessed a
fabric impression of five twines per cm rather
than the aforementioned pattern.
Food residue, identified as a "...carbon-black,
distinct surface layer on the vessel interior," was
discerned on four body sherds. Soot was not detected
on any sherd in the lot (Madore 1990;
Table 1).
INTERPRETAnONS/DISCUSSION
Several unique characteristics emerge from
the preceding analysis. The coil breaks on several
sherds indicate that the vessel was manufactured
by a coiling technique. The general shape of the
vessel consists of a rounded bottom sloping
outward to a point of maximum diameter and then
in to a somewhat constricted but large orifice.
The use of a cord-wrapped paddle undoubtedly
contributed as much to the construction of the
vessel as it did to decoration, the action of the
paddling bonding the coils together. In addition,
interior/exterior cord-markings are a stylistic
marker of the Early Woodland (Luedtke 1986:
120-121) as is the lack of a well developed neck
(Dincauze 1991, personal communication); we can
be confident, therefore, ofthe vessel's assignment
to that period.
The existence of the two bottoms (Figure 4)
within the vessel lot may at first seem an anomaly.
Neither base could be separated from the lot
on the basis of temper characteristics. The possibility
of a dual-bottomed pot (the lower part ofthe
vessel consisting of two spaces, side by side) can
not be dismissed, as we have seen this phenomenon
in basketry (Dincauze 1991, personal communication).
But it is highly unlikely here due to
the nearly 2 mm difference in thickness between
the two sherds (Table 1). Obviously, two pots are
represented, but in light of my inability to separate
them, they were considered part of the same
vessel for analysis. Perhaps the two vessels were
made from the same body of clay, this explaining
their structural similarities. Research with more
advanced analytical techniques, Braun's (1982)
radiographic analysis for example, would undoubtedly
shed a great deal more light on the problem.
The presence of food residue on several
sherds indicates that the vessel was used as a
cooking pot. The lack ofsoot, normally expected
on cooking vessels, may be explained by the
simple fact that the entire pot is not represented in
the lot. Those sherds that accumulated soot are
probably missing from the collection (Hally
1986).
The general shape of the vessel is also in line
with its interpretation as a cooking pot. Vessels
lacking comers or "sharp changes of direction"
best absorb and distribute heat (Rye 1976: 114).
In addition, the large diameter of the orifice
(nearly 20 cm across) and lack of a substantially
constricted neck would allow for easy manipulation
of the contents (Hally 1986:279).
But for a cooking vessel, how do its temper
particles--quartz, feldspar, mica, and grog-- relate
to the function? An important characteristic of
any cooking vessel is its ability to withstand the
thermal stresses of the cycles of heating and
cooling normally associated with cooking. When
a vessel is heated, its structural constituents
expand. Thermal expansion, expressed as a per-