UNDERSTANDING IROQUOIS POTTERY IN ONTARIO: A ...

many sites over vast areas that produces the "expert". Thus evenwith intelligence and good intentions the results produced by the"week end" or casual archaeologist can reach only a certain levelof competence, in the same way that few "weekend painters" become aRembrant or a Van Gogh. This is not meant to be discouragingbut I think it is both necessary and useful to see one's researchand work contribution in perspective. Looked at another way, if ayoung person of twenty years of age devoted a day a week toarchaeology up to the age of sixty, this would represent no meaneffort and would be the equivalent of six years study. This wouldbe a truly competent contribution in this particular field and sucha person would become quite "expert" in a particular area.All that has been said becomes even more important to meas a professional archaeologist because I realize that the day isgone, in fact it was never reached, in Ontario, where we can dependupon formally trained professional archaeologists to deal with allthe material that is coming out of the ground; and much of this isof a direct "salvage" nature. Many sites are being destroyedwithout salvage being done. Moreover I firmly believe thatarchaeology will gradually play a greater and greater part in oureducational and recreational life as both new methods of outdooreducation develop and as more individuals and families findthemselves coping with more leisure time. Consequently, I hope thatthis publication will provide the understanding guidance which theenthusiastic non-professional archaeologist requires and help toimprove the good relationship which continues to exist between thenon-professional and the professionals in their mutual interests as"archaeologists".As previously stated, this guide book is intended forthose who, as a group or as individuals, have excavated arelatively large body of material from a particular site. As arule of thumb established by MacNeish the sample studied shouldinclude two hundred rim sherds. Those of you with digging experiencewill realize that the accumulation of even a minimumsample of this size is a very considerable chore.I am assuming that the digging of such material has beenorganized and systematic following such detailed guidance asoffered by Robert Heizer in his "A Manual of Archaeological FieldMethods" 11 . In other words, data upon square and level location isavailable, as well as relationship to other site features. As willbecome evident in this revised text, since the publication ofWalter Taylor's "A Study of Archaeology" 12 , which I commend as amust to all advanced readers, ceramic studies ultimately have tobe done in terms of a total understanding of the site. Some of mynew research data and findings will deal with this later in thistext. Thus, if such digging has not been organized and systematic,the reader will realize that a great deal of information whichcould have been gleaned from the material is now lost foreverbecause of careless or unsystematic "non-problem orientated"digging.iii

The discussion which follows deals with three majortopics: first, how to describe your material; second, how to recordyour observations; and third, how to make the data meaningful. Thetreatment is, I believe, systematic and straightforward and iscouched as far as possible in simple language. It deals with theprocedures, observations and manipulations which one must followfrom the moment he first sits down with his collection before himand tries to make sense of it, until the time that he is prepared tosubmit a finished report to a reputable journal for publication.Publication is the ultimate end of such activity, for if we are notmaking a contribution to knowledge in our archaeological work, itwould be better if we had never scraped--a trowelful of dirt fromany site.iv

Chapter IHOW TO DESCRIBE THE MATERIALThose of you who have looked at Iroquois pottery pieceswill not need to be told that it is often difficult to tell whatyou are looking at because the pieces are broken and fragmented.It is like fitting a piece into a three dimensional jigsaw puzzle.It is sometimes hard to tell top from bottom, left from right,and even back from front. It might therefore be useful to considerfirst the formal aspects of a complete vessel such as illustratedin Fig. 1.You will readily see that this form of vessel has nodirect counterpart with vessels we know in our society today.Therefore, we have to invent words to describe it. As an entity wecall it a "pot", which does not tell us much about its shape. Aprofessional archaeologist would say:"This is a relatively squat, globular vessel with arounded bottom, constricted neck, and a well-developed overhangingcollar."This would not mean a great deal to the layman, for he isby no means certain of what makes up the "collar", or "neck" of avessel. It is for this reason that certain archaeological jargonmust be learned so that we can communicate with each other. Thereason why we refer to "pottery" instead of a jar, jug, orcrockery, or to "collar", instead of some other term, is largely amatter of historical and linguistic accident. The beginner iscalled upon to learn this language. Formal definitions arenecessary. First of all, the broken fragments of a broken vesselare known as "sherds" or "potsherds". The total vessel is dividedinto two major areas, the "rim" and the "body". The rim is dividedinto three major parts: the "collar", the "neck", and the"shoulders". The edge of the top of the vessel is usually known asthe "lip". This is also the top of the rim.If you look at a cross section of one of these potteryvessels the features are easier to define (Fig. 1-b). When youstart at the top edge of the vessel and look downward, you willsee that the pot becomes thickened. This produces the "collar"which is marked by a sharp point at the base. The outline of thevessel then begins to slope inwards, or to constrict. The point ofgreatest inslope (or constriction) defines the "neck" area. Fromthis point the vessel once more slopes outward, or expands. Theplace which marks the greatest outslope or expansion is the"shoulder". From this point the contour again slopes inward to therounded bottom. The portion below the "shoulder" is called the"body."1

F O R M A T T R I B U T E S O F T H E I R O Q U O I S P O T T E R Y V E S S E LF I G U R E 12

You will recognize that in any particular fragment it isdifficult to tell whether one is Looking at a lower portion of theneck or an upper portion of the shoulder. It is also possible that agiven fragment will include both neck and shoulder. Others mayinclude collar and neck. By definition, a rim includes all threeelements - collar, neck and shoulder. For analysis, however, weloosely consider a fragment with collar and neck intact a "rim".An order of preference is made in separating fragments foranalysis. If collar-neck-shoulder is present, it is classified as a"rimsherd". If collar and neck only are present it is alsoclassified as a "rimsherd". If there is a shoulder only or ashoulder with neck (but not collar) intact, the sherd is groupedwith shoulders. Neck or throat sherds include those parts of rimthat have neither collar nor shoulder. Finally any sherds notidentifiable as part of a rim are classified as "body sherds". Theseare, then, the general formal parts of the vessel which you arelikely to encounter.In some cases it is possible to define a sherd asbelonging to the "bottom" of a pot. This is particularly true of theearlier Iroquoian vessels where the bottom is pointed or slightlypointed; the terms "conoidal" or “subconoidal" are sometimes used.In such eases the curvature will indicate the pointed contour andshould be noted. Late prehistoric and historic Iroquois pots whichare rounded and of an even contour seldom allow one to distinguishfragments from the bottom of the vessel.The next problem is to consider the variations which may occurin the form of the collar. The collar is usually describedaccording to: (1) degree of development or demarcation, (2) thepresence or absence of interior channelling, and (3) the presenceexterior "concavity" or inward curve. The drawings in Fig. 2illustrate these differentiations. The collar is usually visualizedand described according to its cross section profile. In studying thecross section of a rimsherd one must to a degree think threedimensionally.One attempts to visualize what it would look like ifit had been cut through to produce a vertical section. As you mayknow, or will soon find out, pottery almost never breaks in such aconvenient way for observation. However, holding the rim vertical andat right angles will help. Holding a straight edge, such as a smallruler or pencil and rocking it vertically over the sherd andobserving what light gets through or not, and where, will help toassess the shape and curvature. Such observations should betransferred to drawings or index cards for future reference. Suchdrawings are preferably actual size, or if too large at least reducedto one third, or one half, as convenient. It is not bad practice tohave two or three people check such drawings for a consensus ofagreement. Eight such profiles are illustrated, and they probablyinclude the majority of basic forms of rim you will find amongOntario Iroquoian vessels. They are: (see Fig. 2),3

(a) Well-Defined, Unchannelled Collar. This collar is well-definedon the outside surface. A definite ridge shows at the pointwhere the vessel begins to narrow to produce the neck. Theinterior is a smooth, gently-flaring convex curve. This shapeis very popular on most late prehistoric and historic Huronsites.(b) Well-Developed, Overhanging, Unchannelled Collar. Thedifference between this form and (a) is not very great; thechief divergence is that on the outside there is a verydefinite concavity at the clearly-marked base of the collarwhere the throat begins to constrict rapidly, thus producingthe "overhanging" form. This is a common Huron form withlittle prehistoric popularity.(c) Well-developed, Overhanging, Channelled Collar. This collarform is in many ways the counterpart of (b). The collar iswell-defined and overhangs. The crucial additional feature isthe definite channel or deep concavity found upon the inside ofthe rim. This is a very popular form at the Roebuck Site andhas some popularity on prehistoric middle-period Iroquoissites. It appears to be replaced by form (b) on historic sites.(d) The Concave Collar Form. This is a form wherein the characteristicfeature is the concavity upon the exterior surface of thecollar from lip to collar base. At the same time the interiorshows a smooth convex curve from lip to shoulder as in forms (a)and (b).(e) The Rolled Rim or Incurved Collar. This is a very common formon early Ontario Iroquoian sites, but somewhat difficult todescribe. Its most characteristic feature is that at the lipthe rim curves inward. This incurving is enhanced by thepresence of deep channelling upon the interior surface. On theoutside, the base of the collar is often very poorly defined,if at all. It is more often rounded than marked by a definiteridge. This form has very little popularity after middleIroquois times.(f) The "High" Collar. Most Iroquois collars are about twice ashigh as they are thick. The "high" collar, however, is five orsix times as tall as it is thick. Such a type is justly named ahigh-collared form. It is nearly vertical in profile,4

and may or may not have slight interior channelling."Lalonde High Collared Ware" provides the most typicalexample (1).(g) The “0lla" Form. This form is included, not because it iseither important or popular, but because it may be found nowand then, and the reader may well wonder what to do with it.It is a simple uncollared form which has a gradually constrictingrim.(h) The Expanded Lip Form. This is somewhat more popular than (g),but not greatly so. It is a minority form on most sites. It isperhaps best described by saying that its lip is expanded orthickened rather than that it has a sloping or tapered collar.The forms described above are the basic ones to be foundin Ontario Iroquois archaeology. It should perhaps be mentionedduring our discussion of rim forms that certain features of formare sometimes used to name a certain pottery type; examples of thiswould include Ridley's "Lalonde High Collared" 13 and such forms asMacNeish's "Roebuck Low Collared" 14 . In each case certain featuresof the form of the collar appear to be the most characteristicattribute. Archaeologists refer to these as "diagnostic features".Theoretically, you should now be able to divide yourpottery or your index card drawings into the categories described.When this is done there should be only a few sherds or cards leftover. But there are a few words of caution:First, this classification does not take all-over sizeinto account. Sherds of the same proportions are all placedtogether, even though they differ considerably in gross size. Thusrims (a) to (d) in Fig. 3, could all be grouped together, for theyare variants of the same form and probably came from vessels thatsimply differ in size, a little bigger or smaller, a little thickeror thinner. Until our research demonstrates that a certain groupof Indians exclusively made pots of certain sizes, big only orsmall only, we will neglect such variations. If we do find such isthe case, then a new feature must be added to our classificationsystem, that of size.Second, this classification does not take into accountvariations in the degree of flare in the rim. The three variants(e) to (g) listed in Fig. 3, could all be included under form (a),Fig. 2, despite the fact that (e) has in general an inflaringconvex interior, (f) a nearly vertical convex flare, and (g) anoutflaring convex interior form. No Iroquoian research to date5

R E P R E S E N T A T I V E IROQUOIS RIM SHAPESFigure 2. Cross section of Iroquois pot rims: the outside of the vessel faceon the left side of the page, the interior portion, the right side.6

has indicated that the degree of flare of the pottery vesseldistinguished one site from another. If such is found, however,it will again be necessary to define new form types.Third, this classification does not take into accountvariations in the shape of the lip. The chief variations which maybe found are illustrated in Fig. 3. These include those which arebevelled from the inside to the outside (h) or from outside to theinside (i), or rounded (j). These variants normally are few innumber and again are lumped with the basic form (a), Fig. 2. It canbe seen that lip modification Fig. 3, (h) also nearly duplicatesflare modification Fig. 3, (g) and hence is at home in the basicform (a) in Fig. 3. Until research indicates that form types basedon lip modification are necessary, we shall ignore them in ouranalysis.Lip shape is a difficult problem to deal with, and canonly be solved by a study of whole or reconstructed vessels. Wemight make the assumption that the flat surface upon a rim shouldbe orientated in a similar flat or horizontal axis. If this weretrue for Fig. 3, (h) and (i), the two vessels would be obviouslyquite different. But for the moment, in the absence of data, wecan do little about this problem.Fourth, a final problem is the definition of collardevelopment. The overhanging form causes no difficulty, but thedistinction between a developed, weakly-developed, and roundedcollar may well cause some concern. At one end of the range, theminor difference between a slightly-rounded Fig. 3, (k) and wellroundedcollar Fig. 3, (1) is difficult to determine. In the' sameway, the difference between a moderately-developed Fig. 3, (m) anda well-developed collar is evident. There is no easy answer tothis problem - each sherd is a separate decision.You will readily see that on a site where a definitecollared form was just beginning to develop, the task will beformidable because sherds show a gradual change from one form toanother. Moreover, if one wishes to consult Fig. 23 which indicatesthe forms associated with MacNeish's definition of OnondagaTriangular, it will be observed that there is a greater range andcomplexity of form than certainly implied by our discussion to date.However, I feel that it is better to keep our analysis at arelatively simple level for the moment.In our discussion, we have used form (a) in Fig. 2 as abasic example. However, in other forms each sherd will again be adecision, which is one of the more frustrating aspects ofarchaeological research. But I believe that the forms outlinedinclude the majority of rims you will encounter and that the numberof new form categories which will have to be set up will berelatively few.7

VARIATIONS IN IROQUOIS COLLAR, RIM, AND LIP DEVELOPMENTFIGURE 38

You are now in the position to begin the analysis ofrim sherds. Take the fragments or drawings and separate them into thefollowing groups:(a) Unchannelled rims with well-developed collars.(b) Unchannelled rims with overhanging collars.(c) Channelled rims with overhanging collars.(d) Unchannelled rims with concave collars.(e) Rolled rim, or incurved rim sherds.(f) High-collared sherds (Lalonde, or Lalonde-like).(g) 011a form.(h) Expanded lip form.(i) Any other definite categories evident.You are now ready to tabulate and record the importantcategories of rim shapes found on your site in terms of presenceor absence of collar, degree of definition of collar development(rounded, weakly-developed, well-developed, overhanging), andpresence or absence of channelling. In this process each sherd isplaced into a category. When this has been accomplished, you willhave a number of groups of rim sherds, each group havingapproximately the same shape, but decorated with many varieddesigns. It might be convenient for handling purposes to place eachgroup in a paper bag or other container to be used when ready, forfrom here on you will deal with each group separately, if necessary.At the same time the appropriate index card drawings could bedivided into similar groups.I should digress momentarily to discuss the problem ofrecording rim sherds upon index cards for analysis - a topic which Idid not discuss in my original presentation, largely because I thenbelieved that the researcher could be working with the actualrimsherds. However, I have since realized that this is not the mostuseful, nor the most economic (particularly, of time) way to work.First of all, the index card is much easier to store andhandle than the actual rim sherd. Moreover, it is useful to recorddata such as hardness, colour, collar height-thickness data as wellas the form and design characteristics. Hence I am in favour of theindex card representation but I must emphasize immediately that ifthis approach is taken this represents the first step in abstractionor removal from the real data studied, and that for this reason thereliability of data recorded at this point is crucial and thus ahigh degree of accuracy must be maintained; otherwise seriousdistortion will intrude itself upon the data and hence the analysis.Only experience can reveal the degree of accuracy anddetail needed; such falls within certain perimeters and may callfor revision of drawings or data recorded upon the index cards asresearch sophistication proceeds. It may call for the use ofphotography and other devices to produce the data required. Butfor the moment I recommend the reduction of data to index cards(5" x 8") for the recording of researchable data.9

We are now interested in the designs which appear onthese rims and what techniques were used to produce the designs.Pottery decoration is capable of definition in at least threemajor ways: (1) the technique used to produce the design,(2) the motif produced, and (3) the section of the pottery vesselwhich is decorated. For the moment, since our discussion isrestricted to rim sherds, the decoration will refer only to thecollar and neck area of the vessel.Iroquoian pottery is predominantly decorated by atechnique known as "incising", but other techniques are also inevidence: trailing; interrupted linear, sometimes referred to asthe "push-pull" technique; notching; punctation; cord-wrapped twigimpressions; and thumbnail impressions. Let us clarify thesedistinctions.Incising. Incising is no doubt made with a styluslikeinstrument, probably a bone awl, which cuts a sharply-definedline into the wet clay to produce the design element. This is themost typical type of Iroquoian decoration (Fig. 4-a).Trailing. Trailing is very much like incising butlooks as if the stylus, instead of cutting into the clay, hasbeen drawn across it, producing very similar motifs. The impressionis less sharp and little ridges of clay sometimes pile up alongsidethe edges of the trailed area. No studies to date have attempted todefine a preference for either incising or trailing on a given site.The tendency has been to lump both under the term "incised". (Fig. 4- b).Interrupted Linear. The interrupted linear techniqueproduces a very distinctive result, sometimes referred to as a"push-pull" design. The suggestion here is that the stylus waspushed at an angle into the clay, drawn to the right, pushed backslightly into the clay and drawn to the right again, producing acontinuous line (Fig. 4 - c). This form of decoration was neververy popular but does occur most frequently upon early sites.Notching. Notching is a technique fairly widespread onmiddle and late Iroquois sites. It was usually employed toembellish other designs, but may be used as a design technique byitself. Any areas of the rim which protrude, such as the lipsurfaces, lip edges, and the base of the collar, may be decoratedby notching. The sharp (or dull) edge of the stylus was simplydrawn across the ridge to produce a notch. It is sometimesdifficult to tell notching from incising when it occurs upon thetop surface of a rim. Normally, if it is shallow it is consideredincising; if relatively deep notching. Notching was a highlypopular technique at Roebuck 15 , especially basal collar notching.Sometimes it is very difficult to distinguish notching frompunctation (Fig. 4 - d).10

Punctation. Like notching, punctation was most oftenused as an embellishment to other design techniques, but it hasoccurred as a design technique by itself. It does occur alone asa favourite form of shoulder decoration. Punctation is punching orstabbing the clay with variously shaped instruments held at variedangles. Hollow bone tubes are sometimes used to produce the"circular punctate" so characteristic of the Roebuck site. 16 Otherinstruments produce a multitude of forms -- leaf-shaped, oval,wedge-shaped and others which defy classification. In ouranalysis, apart from the Roebuck circular punctate, we havelumped the various different shapes together and simply calledthem "punctates". Research to date has not demonstrated thateither the particular shape of punctates (Roebuck excepted) northe angle at which they are made is restricted to any particularsite or time periods in Iroquois development (Fig. 4 - e).Cord-wound twig impressions. Very early Iroquoian sitesand those which may be earlier from the earlier Owasco culture willoften yield many sherds decorated by a cord-wound twig or stickdesign. The suggestion here is that a fibre of some type was woundaround a stick and that this was used to impress the design upon thewet clay. It is interesting to note that the designs so producedoften parallel motifs produced by incising (Fig. 4 - f).Thumbnail Impressions. A particular type of punctationmay be noted for it has some popularity as a minority decoration onearly Iroquoian sites, and has appeared where no other kind ofpunctation was used. This is thumbnail impressing. It appearsevident that the artist has decorated the vessel by punching itwith his thumbnail to produce crescent-shaped designs.The above techniques do not exhaust all the possible onesto be found upon Iroquois sites; but they will probably account forthe majority of any collection to be studied. The sherds left overwill probably be relatively unimportant and possibly unique. Itshould be noted that in some cases we may name a pottery type by thetechnique used to apply the decoration when this appears to be themost distinctive feature of the particular rim sherds at a givensite or series of sites. MacNeish has suggested several such types;for example, "Sidey Notched", "Chance Incised", "Genoa Frilled", or"Oak Hill Corded", represent types based on the criterion oftechnique.¹ 7The next and perhaps most important task faced by thearchaeologist is to describe the design motifs found upon the rimsof pottery vessels. Iroquois designs are almost completelygeometric and are many, varied and profuse. But, with some guidancethe newcomer can reduce these to systematic form. Once again itbecomes necessary to learn new "jargon" to describe these designs insuch a way that they will be meaningful to other archaeologists.11

IROQUOIS CERAMIC DECORATIVE TECHNIQUESFIGURE 4.12

Ninety-four design alternatives are listed in theaccompanying charts. These are by no means exhaustive, but theywill form a systematic approach to design description which willallow a newcomer to describe almost all the design elements hewill encounter. It is to be stressed that the analyst should beprepared to record the number of design elements which occur onhis sites, even if they are few or unique. Later they may belumped together as variants of some basic types, but the originalcounting and description must be available for other researchersto study.The basic elements of Iroquois geometric art are simple.There are right–to-left and left-to-right oblique lines, andvertical and horizontal lines drawn upon the collar of the rim,while the neck is left plain (Fig. 5, a - d). These simple designswill account for many rim sherds on most Iroquois sites. It willsimplify our task a great deal if we realize that, when thesebasic designs are modified in a number of minor ways, they willproduce the great bulk of remaining designs. These modificationsare: interruption; cross hatching; combination; forming opentriangles; filling triangles; and triangles outlined withpunctates. These modification principles account for the remainderof the designs in Figures 5 and 6."Interruption" refers to either short or continuouslines that have been drawn across or that "interrupt" the basicdesigns described above. They may be horizontal (Fig. 5, e - g, k- m) or slanting obliquely (h - j). They may be just singlelines (k - m), or occur in parallel pairs (n - p). MacNeish hasbeen so impressed with the occurrence of some of these designsthat they are used to name certain of his pottery types. Theshort, interrupting lines help define his "Warminster Crossed",(he used the term "crossed" where we use "interrupted"), whilethe continuous line variant helps define his "Sidey Crossed"ware. 18We may also add that we see reference to our basicsimple designs when we find MacNeish referring to such types as"Lawson Oblique", "Ontario Horizontal", and "Huron Oblique". 19The second major modification is "cross hatching". Bytaking our same basic elements and drawing evenly spaced oblique,vertical or horizontal lines across them, a number of variantsare formed; we call these "cross hatched". (Fig. 5, q - v).For the person who begins to study the production ofincised and trailed lines it becomes inevitable in the case ofcross hatching, for example, to observe which lines were producedfirst and which elements were then drawn next and "over" whichlines. Such observations can also be perhaps related to studiesof left and right "handedness". This thought is intruded at thispoint as a possible area of analysis which has not been13

IROQUOIS DECORATIVE DESIGN MOTIFS APPEARING UPON THE COLLARBASIC ELEMENTS"INTERRUPTED" ELEMENTS" CROSS-HATCHED" ELEMENTS FIGURE 514

pursued to any degree - and of course if certain consistentpatterns could be isolated it could then become important inpottery type definition. At the moment, however, I have noreason to believe that such is true.The third modification is achieved by taking the basicelements and combining them in a multitude of ways: obliques withverticals, obliques with horizontals, etc. (Fig. 6, a - 1).MacNeish2O has again been impressed with certain of these designs.The combination of the left-right and the right-left obliqueswhich I prefer to call "alternate oblique" decoration, MacNeishcalls "Lawson Opposed" (referring to the back-to-back nature ofthe slanting oblique lines).The fourth process is the use of the basic oblique andvertical elements to produce "blank" and "open" triangles (Fig.6, m - p). Areas encompassed by the lines are left completelyundecorated, but at the same time appear to be part of thedecorative scheme. MacNeish has noted the popularity of thisparticular design technique on the Pound Village near Aylmer,Ontario, and has called it "Pound Blank". ²¹The fifth step seems to have been to develop sometechnique for dealing with these "blank" areas. One way was tofill them with horizontal or vertical lines (Fig. 6, q - t),another was to outline the triangular area partially or fullywith punctate design elements (Fig. 6, m - x). Such rim decorationsoccur on most sites, but never seem to have great popularity.With the next modification, we turn to a fairly largenumber of variants which are "neck decorated" (Fig. 7, a - p).This was achieved by duplicating collar decorations upon theneck of the vessel. In actual practice the obliques, horizontals,and alternating obliques occur most frequently. The collar designsassociated with such neck designs include most of the motifsdescribed previously for the cross-hatched and open or filledtriangular variants. MacNeish was again impressed with the presenceof neck decoration upon the rim sherds from the Black Creek site.He has used this feature to delineate his pottery type known as"Black Necked". 2 2 With all due respect to MacNeish's native geniusfor the invention of type names, I would much prefer to designatethis pottery "Black Creek Complex". I feel this is much moredignified than the stark "Black Necked" which at best conjures up areference to the great unwashed. After all, the pottery so named isnot black.The final modification of Iroquois rim sherds is achievedby "notching" and "punctation". The elements so produced usuallyact as secondary embellishments to other basic designs (Fig. 7, a -p and Fig. 8, a - 1). They may be added to the lip, the base of thecollar, or to both at the same time. We have already noted the useof punctates to outline triangles, (Fig. 6, u - x). They alsoappear to be used to segregate different areas of the15

IROQUOIS DECORATIVE DESIGN MOTIFS APPEARING UPON THE COLLARSIMPLE COMBINATIONS OF BASIC ELEMENTS"OPEN-TRIANGLE" ELEMENTS" FILLED-TRIANGLE" ELEMENTS" PUNCTATE-TRIANGLE OUTLINED" ELEMENTSFIGURE 616

complex neck-decorated sherds (Fig. 7, m - p). In the case of theRoebuck circular punctates (made with a hollow bone tube), theyappear to be an important part of the design motif being used evenin the production of a stylized face (Fig. 8 - 1). It should alsobe noted (Fig. 8, n - p) that notching and punctation can occureither alone or in combination to produce the basic design motifsupon a given collar.One final design is included: the Roebuck "corn ear"design, 23 because it is a popular type not readily classified intothe categories already described. In essence it simulates thearrangement of the kernels found on a cob of corn. It is deeplygrooved vertically and then notched across horizontally to producethis distinctive result (Fig. 8, m).At this point you should be prepared to describe thedesign elements found upon your own rim sherd collection. Ifyou are fortunate you will find that you do not have to referto all ninety-four variants listed upon our charts. On the otherhand, if you are analyzing a site like the Hardrock Site onBalsam Lake, you will find the number of discrete design motifsnumbering close to one hundred and fifty. At this point it shouldbe reiterated that the analyst should diagram all variants foundon his site as a preliminary step.Before proceeding, you should note some features ofdesign description which are not taken into account by thisclassification:1. The thickness and thinness of the lines drawn. Ourdescription has not attempted to differentiate between the sizeof the lines drawn, nor the exact size and shape of the punctatesor notches which are produced. It may be that on certain sitesyou will find exaggerations in one direction or another. If suchis the case, it will likely become necessary to reconsider ourclassification system.2. The degree of skill in execution. Our classificationmakes no attempt to indicate the degree of skill and craftsmanshipexhibited by the pottery maker. Such observations, however, maywell be made about the pottery of a given site with references tothe fineness or sloppiness of execution, if one so desires.3. The number of lines actually involved. No attempt ismade to diagram exactly the actual number of lines involved in agiven design motif, whether there are few or several linesdecorating the collar (Fig. 7, o - p), or whether there aremany or few oblique lines enclosing the open blank triangles(Fig. 6, m). It is possible that future research may call forstricter segregation of such elements, but for the moment acertain amount of lumping seems desirable.17

IROQUOIS DECORATIVE DESIGN MOTIFS INCLUDES COLLAR AND NECK DECORATIONCOMPLEX NECK-DECORATED VARIANTS COLLAR ONLYPUNCTATE- DECORATED VARIANTSFIGURE 718

IROQUOIS DECORATIVE DESIGN MOTIFS - COLLAR ONLYNOTCHED VARIANTSNOTCHED AND PUNCTATE VARIANTSFIGURE 819

Now at this point you have your material separatedinto different bags or containers, each containing the rimsherds which have the same shape or cross-section profile, andthe associated drawings and observations upon the drawings onindex cards.The task now is to separate the material in each ofthese groups into the design variants found. These in turn canbe put in smaller bags and placed in the appropriate "form" bag.Once this is done, our basic pottery typing record can commence.Then our next problem is: "How to Record the Data".20

CHAPTER IIHOW TO RECORD THE DATAThe previous chapter dealt mainly with the problemof how to recognize and describe in a systematic way thepottery rimsherds that have been recovered. The study has beenrestricted to rimsherds because they are the most useful andprolific data for analysis purposes. I now assume that thematerial to be studied has been cleaned and cataloguedaccording to their site location. I cannot overemphasize thiscleaning and cataloguing. It is tedious, time consuming andmonotonous work; but it must be done before the material canbe handled, grouped and regrouped into categories asnecessary. The reader can now proceed in a number of ways, butI have found the following procedure most helpful. It isimportant to number all the rimsherds because the occasion mayarise when one wishes to refer once again, or even severaltimes, to a specific rimsherd to reassess certain features.Such a numbering system also allows ready reference to theindex card drawings mentioned in the previous chapter and toany photographs taken of particular sherds. I also nowreemphasize that the use of index card drawings, rather thanthe actual rim-sherds will greatly facilitate the handling ofthe data. However, it must be stressed that the index cardmust record all the pertinent information which the analystconsiders relevant to the problem at hand. Our immediate taskis, of course, to record the information upon form and designrelated to the task of isolating the pottery types. Certainlysuch information as square, level, colour, hardness, collarheight, collar thickness, interior rim decoration, temperingmaterial, friability and other features can quite conven- 'iently be recorded upon the record card for analysis purposesas the researcher sees fit.However, to return to our concept of pottery type,I have found in Ontario that such are definable by determiningwhat vessel forms occur in association with what designelements. I also believe that the pottery type represents theminimal basis of comparison between sites. For example, it ispossible for certain designs to pass from one group to anotherwithout a great deal of social interaction, or even for certaindesigns to be invented in two or more different areas withoutany social interaction whatsoever between the groups. Thus themere tracing and comparison of designs alone is a dubiousprocedure by which to attempt to determine culture contact andthe exchange of ideas. The same, of course, could be said forvessel shape. However, when we consider designs which areconsistently combined with certain shapes, I feel we are uponmuch safer grounds for21

postulating cultural interrelationships and sharing. This isparticularly true when we consider the number of complexchoices to be made in the manufacture of a pottery vesselwhich involve quite different and complex motor habits.In order to assemble the data in such a way tomost readily allow the recording of the necessary design-formdata, I have devised what I now call the Ceramic Master Chart.Such a chart is simple in principle but can be quite difficultto produce in practice. In essence it is a chart which listsall the designs encountered upon the horizontal axis across thepage and lists all the form variants upon the vertical axisdown the side of the page. This thus produces a number of cellsor boxes into which the number of appropriate form-designcombinations can be inserted.There are two alternative ways to organize the constructionof the Ceramic Master Chart. The first, for example,is to attempt to anticipate all the possible form and designcombinations which are likely to occur working from, say,MacNeish's Iroquois Pottery Types diagrams, or utilizing thedescriptions in Chapter I of this book, and to simply proceed toproduce a huge chart and then plotting what does occur. Thesecond, and I believe the much more preferable approach, is towork with your known data, namely the information you haverecorded upon your rimsherd index cards which does reflect theactual range of design-form elements encountered. The researchercan take these cards and separate them into formcategories; there will be a group of cards which all have, forexample, rims with well developed collars and interior convexcurvature, others with overhanging collars and concave interiorcurvature, and so on. Thus the exact number and variety of formscan be ascertained and the appropriate drawings made forplacement in the vertical axis column. Once this has been donethen a similar procedure can be followed to separate the designelements into similar index card groups.Because the Ceramic Master Chart is essentially avehicle to assist in the abstraction of the ceramic types, theresearcher will find that additional planning in the placement ofthe form and design elements upon the chart will help in thispart of the work. Considering forms first, it is useful to listthose which indicate rims which have a concave interior rimcurvature, then those which are approximately vertical ofinterior curvature, and then those which exhibit convex interiorrim curvature. Within these three large categories, it is alsoquite possible that the researcher can distinguish groups whichexhibit a rounded or "rolled rim" form, poorly defined collars,well defined collars with straight exteriors, and well developedcollars with concave exterior curvature, and overhanging collars.Deviant and odd forms such as those with no collars but anexpanded lip development can be inserted into the series withreference to interior rim curvature as22

convenient. If the above organization is followed, the researcherwill find that in general the Neutral type potteryas defined by MacNeish will be grouped in the upper sectionsof the chart. These involve concave interior rim curvature.On the other hand the Huron ceramic types, which involve convexinterior rim curvature, will be grouped in the lower sections ofthe chart. This organization has been followed in the productionof the Payne site Ceramic Master Charts, which are produced forthe reader's consideration in Charts XIX to XXIII.Turning now to design elements, an organized approachis again helpful. One hundred and three discrete designs werefound at the Payne site. Thus it was realized that to reproducethem would require a long linear type chart, or as was decidedfor publication purposes, four sequential linear charts weremade, rather than a single lengthy foldout chart. Thus eachchart involved roughly sixteen horizontal form columns andtwenty-five vertical design columns resulting in four hundreddesign-form cell units for consideration.Just as the form elements were presented in an orderlyfashion related to Neutral and Huron ceramic types, so were thedesign elements similarly organized. In doing this, certainguiding principles were found to be quite useful; namely,1. It is useful to group upon separate segments ofthe Master Chart those rimsherds which have plainnecks and those in turn which exhibit neckdecoration.2. Within the above large categories it is next useful toorder the designs in terms of the most basic single ,simple designs and combinations of these.3. Within the above two large categories it is next usefulto order the design elements in terms of what I call"secondary design modifications".4. Finally certain unique or non-geometric designs involvingspecial methods of design application may well call forspecial consideration. These will generally be uniqueoccurrences.In general practice, I have found in the analysis ofOntario Iroquois rimsherds that the above principles lead tothe following design categories which the researcher: should bealert to observe:1. Plain vs. Neck Decorated Rimsherds:Neck decorated sherds involve horizontal lines (usuallyassociated with Pound Necked type), oblique lines left toright and right to left, and combinations of these two,(usually associated with Black Necked type). It is23

necessary to add separate vertical columns for each ofthe separate collar design elements associated withthese neck decorated sherds.2. Basic Simple Design ElementsThe ordering of these is a matter of choice but I havefound that the following is useful:1. oblique lines slanting from right to left2. horizontal lines3. vertical lines4. oblique lines slanting from left to rightcombinations involving any two of the above, such as5. right to left oblique lines, plus horizontals6. oblique lines and vertical lines7. right to left, and left to right, or "alternating"or "opposed" oblique lines8. "cross-hatching" involving various combinationscombinations involving three elements of the above, such as9. horizontal, oblique and vertical lines, etc.3. Secondary Design ModificationsThe following secondary design modifications I have founduseful to record diagramatically:1. circular punctates at the base of the collar2. circular punctates at the top of the collar3. circular punctates at the collar top and base4. incised lines or "gashes" having the samedistribution as the above circular punctates5. lip notching6. basal collar notching7. lip and basal collar notching8. combinations such as lip notching and basal collarpunctates, and other various combinations of theabove categories9. crossing lines10. underlining11. blank triangles12. design punctate outlining13. Roebuck circular punctate elements14. punctate "face" elements15. appliqued, modelled human faces24

4. Unique and Deviant ElementsSuch cases do not concern us greatly here but they wouldinvolve the possibility of sherds lacking collars; somedecorated with cordwound stick impressions, or perhapssherds where lip notching is the only design.One final category of design should be mentioned andallowed for in the design element series; that is the type ofdesign encountered upon the surface of the lip or top rim ofthe sherd. Few of these were encountered at the Payne site,but the two sherds include design 21 and forms M and O.These are Sidey Notched type. This incising can be designatedby the use of a three dimensional block diagram which indicatesthe neck, collar and lip surface areas. Such designs can involveleft to right lines, right to left lines, incisions atright angles to the lip contour, cross hatching, and in somecases a horizontal grooving. Such data should be recorded.Study of lip treatment is only in the beginning stages, but asa ceramic attribute and possibly as a type feature it may wellprove crucial in the formulation of Petun-Huron differentiation.It is obvious from the above that the recording ofdesign variants for the Ceramic Master Charts is no mean task.It is a tedious task and one calling for great patience anddiscrimination. This is true particularly if one is dealingwith a sample of several hundred rimsherds. Each one is adefinite decision. Each must be placed in a category. However,that is the nature of research.One might well ask, is it necessary to go to allthe trouble of producing such complex and laborious charts?Is it not sufficient that I simply list my findings as thepercentage occurrence of the types I have found? The answerto this is really no; I believe each archaeologist has theobligation through publication to present to his colleaguesas complete a picture of his findings as possible. I considerthe production of Ceramic Master Charts just one way to do this.It is quite possible, as discussed later in this text, thatarguments may be made to combine, or to separate currentlydefined types, or new types will be recognized. At that pointany interested person can return to basic information in themaster chart and reassess the data in the light of new thoughtsand information upon the subject. I do not consider the ceramicmaster charts to be the last word as an analytical tool, but Ido believe they represent a minimal start for comparativepurposes between sites, and for the abstraction of ceramic typeinformation which is discussed in some detail in Chapter III. Ihave used the charts from the Payne site report as my medium ofillustrating the technique; some comment upon the inadequacy ofthese is pertinent at this point.25

The reader may have realized that certain importantinformation about the rimsherds studied is not available orrecorded in these charts. Such important information as whatmidden deposit or what strata or level in the site the rimsherdsare located. It would have been possible to record suchinformation perhaps by using some system of subscript orsuperscript numbers or symbols, perhaps using Roman numerals toindicate strata or level. In the process of analyzing the Paynesite, it rapidly became evident that the production of such achart would become too complex and unwieldy. In the case of thePayne site, this did not appear to be a serious matter becauseit gave every indication of being a single component site ofrelative short and shallow occupation, and it did not seeminadequate to study it as a single unit, which of course waswhat was done. However, the time will come when much morediscrete analysis will be necessary. At the Cahiague site whichwe are investigating near Orillia, Ontario, it is quite evidentthat the village is clearly divided into an eastern and westernsegment. It is extremely important to keep these midden areasdistinctly separate for analytical purposes. Moreover, themiddens exhibit considerable depth and it may prove importantand significant to contrast the materials from the upper andlower levels in such middens.I have also written as if all rimsherds come frommidden deposits. We of course know this is not so; many areassociated with particular longhouses and such knowledge canbe of great importance. It would become very much so if wewere able to associate certain broken fragments found inhouses with fragments found in a particular midden. Thiswould allow us to begin to deal with the problem of homecraft, andthe possibility that certain households were the producers of whatwe now think of as ceramic types. So far in Ontario Iroquoianarchaeology, to my knowledge no research has been done upon thisvery important problem.At the Benson site, near Bexley, Ontario anothervery interesting phenomenon was encountered. Fragments ofrimsherds which fitted together were found in two middendeposits which were located one hundred and twenty-five feetapart. This fact raises certain interesting research possibilities.First a program would have to be pursued to see howmany other rimsherds fit together which would argue for thesimultaneous buildup of these two middens; or to determine thatperhaps one began first, then a second began, and the secondperhaps being a final stage. The implications for stratigraphicanalysis are extremely complex. It would certainly argue that,when we are analyzing a series of middens from a site, we couldnot assume that all ground surface strata are necessarilycontemporaneous.26

CHAPTER IIIHOW TO MAKE THE DATA MORE MEANINGFULIn rethinking this section of the handbook, I realizethat my original approach was very dogmatic. In essence, I said,"If you want to make your data more meaningful, do as I do". Ithen presented the reader with a ready-made framework foranalysis. I suggested that the reader first isolate and organizethe information upon the percentage distribution of the ceramictypes at the site he was studying. Then, armed with thisinformation, he could calculate the coefficients of similaritybetween his site and the ten Iroquois sites which were presentedfor comparison.Once the coefficients were known I then suggested thatthese could be fitted into the coefficient of similarity chart bythe use of a "trial and error" method to determine the bestplacement of the site to assure the best degree of "fit".I did digress to indicate that an order based on crossdating or cross referencing of trade sherds, and-an order basedupon time and geographical location, did differ somewhat from thatbased upon the coefficient of similarity chart analysis. I thenpresented what I called a "combined sequence" and used this as thebasis for producing the chart of "Ceramic Trends at ten OntarioIroquois Sites". This was essentially a seriation chart indicatinggraphically the occurrence of the various ceramic types based uponthe "combined sequence order". The data upon the percentagedistribution of ceramic types from the Parsons site, which wasbeing studied, was then inserted into the seriation ceramic trendschart at the point where it seemed to least distort the originalchart configuration. This seemed to confirm Parsons' historiclocation as somewhere about McKenzie and Lawson times. This tendedto confirm my own general thinking upon the subject and thus I waspleased to present the analysis in the way I did.I then suggested that organizing the data using twographic techniques could prove useful. I then returned to thecoefficient of similarity chart to produce what I called a"configuration chart". This chart was produced by charting allthe sites and connecting by lines those which showed the highestcoefficients of similarity. This technique produced a pattern orconfiguration which allowed me to comment upon and interpret therole of the Parsons site in the story of Iroquois prehistory.Next I produced a chart indicating ceramic influencesseen at the Parsons site. This chart which involved many arrowswhich indicated influences, both upon and stemming from theParsons site, involved considerable abstraction, selection27

and interpretation of the data. I however felt that theinterpretation offered was consistent and an outcome of theanalysis that had gone before.I then stated that "the constructed picture has now beenproduced". I now emphasize the word "constructed" because we sooften hear that the role of the archaeologist is to "reconstruct"history. The difference is a subtle but important one. If we"reconstruct" something, we can do this because we know what it wasand have an object or pattern to put together. If we drop a cup,all we have to do is glue it together and fill in any of themissing pieces. Thus the problem of "re-construction" is almost amechanical process and , rather simple and straightforward. Itactually contributes little new knowledge because the basis ofreconstruction is already known.Construction of history and prehistory is a much moredifficult and subtle process, and is, of course, what mostarchaeologists do. Such construction is based upon "educatedguesses", and the interpretation of mathematical models such asthe coefficient of similarity and the seriation charts. Itdepends upon the theoretical assumptions which underlie thesemodels, such as the concept of pottery typing. Thus in the lastanalysis, such construction is a function of the archaeologist'smind. It is thus problematical and tentative and is directlyrelated to the archaeologist's mind. It is a product of hismind, background, experience, knowledge, and most important,scientific training and integrity.Thus, with reference to the Parsons site which wasunder investigation, I repeat the results of the investigationof ceramics which was carried out at that time. Once again,asking the indulgence of the reader, I repeat what was saidthen:"The Parsons Site appears to be one of aseries of sites located in the Black Creek andHumber Valleys. They are part of a prehistoricnorthward migration that ultimately producedhistoric Huron at sites such as Warminster andOrr Lake. Parsons is most closely related toMcKenzie in this northward series. Itsantecedents appear to lie with Black Creek tothe south and ultimately with the Middleporttradition. This relationship is somewhatobscured, however, as there appear to havebeen very considerable western and easterninfluences playing upon Parsons from theLawson, Pound and Roebuck Sites. We maysuspect the cosmopolitan nature of Parsons, asreflected in these many and diverseinfluences. We are thus made aware of28

the broad unfolding development ofHuron as a gradual migration process,but taking place under the stress andinfluence of other sites, exhibitingthe exchange of ideas and artifactsever a large Iroquoian area."At that time, I rather optimistically said, "Inour last paragraph, we have added our own significant additionto the study of Ontario prehistory".It must be stated in retrospect that what I consideredas a "significant" statement in 1956 was essentially ahistorical one (or prehistorical statement in this case) aboutthe site under study. Since that time I have broadened myconcept of what constitutes "meaningful" statements which canbe derived from the ceramic data. Such a broadening of"meaningful" statements is based upon research done in theinterim, and the development of a broader understanding of theaims and objectives of archaeological studies. Insofar asthese new aims will influence the kind of research done andthe method of analysis pursued, a brief statement of theseaims is offered below.First, the archaeologist seeks to place the particularsite he is studying in its historical context. This is done uponthe basis of a time and space comparative study. Seriationmethods have proved the most useful method here, along with thecoefficient of similarity studies. This objective, I believe, wasadequately achieved in my initial handbook.Second, the archaeologist seeks to make statementsabout the basic cultural factors which have produced the sitewhich he is investigating. Here he seeks to indicate theinfluence of such processes as diffusion, inventiveness, traderelationships, changing basic economy, isolation or hostilityupon the site studied. Clues to certain of these processes canbe obtained through a study of the ceramics, but such studyalmost inevitably gains strength by a study of the total sitecomplex. Such is, however, beyond the scope of this handbook.Third, the archaeologist today, as far as possible,seeks to gain as much insight as possible into the social andpsychological aspects of the people he is investigating. Thislatter area of study is the least well established and mostopen to criticism. But it is novel and exciting, and exampleswill be produced later in the text. Such studies can only berejected or verified by the multiplication of test cases and Ihope that the reader will be inspired to subject his data tosuch analysis.29

In the light of this brief statement of the aims ofarchaeological investigation, I shall now return to ourceramic material to see to what degree we can shed light uponthe problems considered. I shall begin with the problem ofseeking to place the site in its historical context by meansof analysis of the ceramic types encountered.30

LAWSON INCISEDFIGURE 931

In beginning this analysis I have decided to start bystudying and pursuing the data used in the Payne Site analysis.The problem is to abstract the ceramic types from theinformation recorded in the master charts. In order toillustrate the method I have selected just three of MacNeish'sceramic types for study, namely, Lawson Incised, Huron Incisedand Black Necked.In Figure 9 I have abstracted into chart form theforms and designs which MacNeish describes as "diagnostic" forthe Lawson Incised ceramic type. In general it can be seen thatthe rimsherd profile involves one which is characterized byinterior concave curvature and a collar which is poorlydeveloped and not too sharply defined. The associated designsare right to left oblique, left to right oblique, and verticalincised lines.If we now consider the Payne site master charts, it isevident that the forms C and E are nearly identical to thosedescribed by MacNeish. At the same time forms B, D and H areonly close to the forms described by MacNeish. The deviation inshape in these latter cases is in the direction of a moresharply defined collar. There seems to be no logical reason toexclude these forms, for this would call for the definition of anew type.When the design elements from the Payne site mastercharts are considered, designs number 1, 4 and 11 are quitepopular and are those described by MacNeish. Additional designelements are included as Lawson Incised. These involve secondaryminor design modifications such as collar punctates, basal collarincisions, crossing lines and cross hatched elements. These rimswere included because their form was correct and the designgroups were too few to merit the designation of a new type. Theseparticular variants, moreover, were not known to be popular anddominant enough at any other known site to designate them as atype.As an aid to the reader, I have circled all thoserimsherds in Master Chart A which are abstracted as Lawson Incised.As one observes these, it will be seen that the majority of casespresent little or no problem as each cell is considered. Cell Cl,which combines form C and design 1, coincides exactly withMacNeish's definition. Cell C3, however, calls for a decision. Herewe observe the presence of punctate design elements. As suggestedabove, however, these do not seem sufficiently deviant to call forthe definition of a new type. Cell C15 is a more difficult decision.The form is quite acceptable as Lawson Incised, but the crosshatched design does seem to be very deviant and distinctive. Onemight be tempted to set up a category of Lawson Cross Hatched.However, the number of cases involved are so few that theintroduction of a new type at this time is not merited.32

HURON INCISEDFIGURE 1 033

Thus the process of analysis is to consider eachcell of your master chart and if possible to assign the designformcombination to one of MacNeish's ceramic types. For thepurpose of future comparative analysis it is useful to assemblethe design-form data for each particular site and ceramic typestudied as I have presented for Lawson Incised at the Payne sitein Figures 12a and 12b.Returning once again to Master Charts A and B, we canturn to the task of abstracting all those examples to be definedas Huron Incised. Figure 10, based upon the design-formcombinations for Huron Incised as defined by MacNeish, is againused as an initial guide. Upon Master Charts A and B from thePayne site, I have placed a black dot to indicate thosecombinations which I consider to be classifiable as HuronIncised. These I have also assembled in Figures 13a and 13b. Thetwelve design-form combinations coincide almost exactly withMacNeish's type definition. Such a case as J35 was rather deviantboth in terms of design and form, but once again it seemeddesirable to include it within the Huron Incised type rather thanto define a new type.I have suggested that a ceramic type is a dynamic conceptand in some cases a type does reflect change. In such a case, theassignment of a particular rimsherd to a category may well presentdifficulty. The dynamic features of the type Black Necked ceramictype are of this nature. It would seem that the shape of the vesselis changing from one with a concave interior curvature to one witha convex interior curvature. At the same time there seems to be arelationship between Pound Necked and Black Necked in terms ofdesign elements. The former stresses horizontal line designs uponthe neck of the vessel, while the latter tends to involve obliqueline decoration. Thus we find ourselves in the difficult positionthat if we have a rimsherd with horizontal line decoration upon theneck, if it has a concave interior curvature, we classify it asPound Necked; if the interior curvature is convex, we classify itas Black Necked. In Figure 11 I have presented the design and formcombinations for this type as defined by MacNeish. Upon MasterCharts D and E from the Payne site I have again circled all thosecell combinations which I consider to be Black Necked. These I havealso abstracted and reproduced for the reader in Figures 14a and14b. If the reader studies these carefully it will be evident thatsometimes the decision to include the particular rimsherd in theBlack Necked category is dictated by a consideration of designemphasis, and sometimes by a form emphasis.34

BLACK NECKEDFIGURE 1 135

One final comment upon ceramic typing; the type SideyNotched is a normally well defined type whose most diagnosticfeature is the presence of incised lines upon the lip of thevessel. Usually the neck of the vessel is plain. However, I havefound in my studies, not at the Payne site but at others, that itis possible to find anumber of rim-sherds which in almost allfeatures would be defined asBlack Necked type, except the lip ofthe rim has been incised. Because the incising of the lip of avessel calls for certain definite organized and oriented motormovements of the arm and hand, I have had the tendency to weightthis characteristic to the degree that I would classify such arimsherd as Sidey Notched rather than Black Necked. It isfortunate that such cases are in the minority, and the problem ofassigning a particular rimsherd to its defined category is seldomdifficult. But the reader is warned that cases such as that notedabove will occur. It is usually possible to argue in favour of oneassignment rather than another. Such considerations as knownceramic trends and the relative or actual age of the site willhelp the analyst make a decision in the case of particularrimsherds. For example, lip incising tends to be a lateprehistoric and historic characteristic; thus in the case of theexample cited above, it is sort of a final feature added to theBlack Necked type and thus seems justifiably classified as SideyNotched.At this point, having studied the problem of abstractingthe Lawson Incised, Huron Incised and Black Necked rimsherds fromthe Payne site master charts, I do not feel that any particularlyuseful service would be served by pursuing the complete process ofanalysing the balance of the Payne site master charts. The readerhas been presented with a method and an approach to the subjectwhich I hope will provide a sufficient framework of analysis toproceed with his own studies once they are reduced to master chartform. In so doing, I hope that the charts in the appendix uponceramic types will prove adequate and useful.I would now like to return to the rimsherd dataobtained from the Parsons site in order to pursue our methodof analysis and interpretation. The material from this sitewas analysed by Robert C. Dailey, and the followingdistribution of ceramic type percentages was obtained:36

Lawson IncisedHuron Incised31%16%Lawson Opposed 15%Pound Necked 11%Onondaga Triangular 10%Black Necked 8%Lalonde High Collared 3%Pound Blank 1%Dutch Hollow Notched 1%Miscellaneous 4%Total 100%In order to gain initial understanding of thehistorical placement of the Parsons site, I have organized thedata to allow its placement in the sequence of ceramic trends.This material is presented in Chart I. This chart is produced bycombining the information upon Chart II into four main ceramiccategories: namely, those defined by MacNeishas Huron, such as Huron Incised, Warminster Crossed, Sidey Notchedand others; second, those which are neck decorated such as PoundNecked and Black Necked; third, those defined as Lalonde HighCollared (a type which was not encountered by MacNeish, but wasdefined by Frank Ridley); fourth, those defined by MacNeish asNeutral, such as Lawson Incised, Pound Blank, Lawson Opposed andothers. Finally, those defined as miscellaneous, or trade sherdssuch as Onondaga Triangular, Durfee Underlined, or Richmond HillsIncised and others, are represented as the open area upon the bargraph. This area left blank provides the reader with a roughestimate of the degree of trade or inventive specialization presentat any particular site.As we survey this graph certain ceramic trends appearto stand out which allow us to make a sound preliminaryassessment of the historical position of the Parsons site. Atleast two major trends are evident. As the chart is organizedthe Huron types increase and the Neutral types decrease in aconstant ratio. Two minor trends are also evident: the neckdecorated and the Lalonde High Collared types both appearfairly early in the series, increase somewhat and then graduallydecrease. They never quite die out, but last into the historicperiod proper.It is interesting also to observe that when the Huronand neck decorated types are considered together and inapposition to the Neutral series, the trends thus formed are evenmore contrasting and convincing. It seems quite possible to arguethat neck decorated pottery, particularly Black Necked, is aHuron ceramic type.37

CHART I. _PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF CERAMIC GROUPSHuron Neutral.NeckDecorated Lalonde OthersWarminster 92 2 2 0 4Orr Lake 88 5 3 0 4MacMurchy 84 0 0 2 14Graham-Rogers 83 1 0 1 15Seed 74 10 4 0 12Sidey-Mackay 69 10 5 0 16McKenzie 64 17 2 0 17Black Creek 29 29 33 0 9Bosomworth 28 36 25 11 0Payne 17 42 32 1 8Parsons 16 47 19 3 15Pound 0 53 46 0 1Lawson 1 64 11 0 23Middleport 0 87 5 0 8Uren 0 98 0 0 238

CHART II.__CERAMIC GROUP PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION GRAPH39

CHART III. _ CERAMIC TRENDS AND THE PARSONS SITE40

Thus the Parsons site, which has 47% Neutral types,19% Neck Decorated and only 16% Huron types, evidently fitsinto the lower end of the sequence. It could even beconsidered a Neutral site. However, as our analysis proceedsit will be perhaps better to consider it a developing Huronsite at a time when Neutral influences upon Huron sites was atits height. Chart III, which indicates the major Neutral -Huron ceramic trends, and also separately plots thedistribution of Pound Necked and Black Necked types, appearsto locate the Parsons site correctly in relation to all fourmajor developing trends. This seems to assure its relativelyearly placement in the series and to indicate relationships toboth the Neutral and developing Huron cultures.The next step in our ceramic analysis is to seek torefine the varied relationships between the sites studied bycalculating the coefficients of similarity. This method,pioneered by George W. Brainerd, 24 I have adapted to OntarioIroquois studies. The data necessary to calculate thecoefficients between each of the sites studied is availablein Chart IV, which presents the percentage distribution ofthe types found at each of the sites studied. Chart Vindicates the process of calculating the coefficient betweenthe Parsons and Bosomworth sites.41

CHART IV. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION42

CHART VCALCULATION OF "THE COEFFICIENT OF SIMILARITY" FOR ANY TWO SITESPottery TypesPercentageat ParsonsPercentageat Bosomworth DifferenceLawson Incised 31.0 47.0 17.0Huron Incised 16.0 11.0 5.0Lawson Opposed 15.0 4.0 11.0Pound Necked 11.0 3.0 8.0Onondaga Triangular 10.0 10.0Black Necked 8.0 19.0 11.0Lalonde High Collared 3.0 12.0 9.0Pound Blank 1.0 1.0Dutch Hollow Notched 1.0 1.0Ontario Horizontal 1.0 1.0Warminster Crossed 1.0 1.0Miscellaneous 4.0 2.0 6.0*Total 100.0 100.0 81.0Coefficient of similarity between Parsons and Bosomworth:200 - 81 = 119*Note that whereas all other differences are reached bysubtraction, the "miscellaneous" column is a case ofaddition for each series represent differences.43

When I first came in contact with coefficient orsimilarity and the associated coefficient charts as outlinedby Brainerd, I was fascinated by the entire approach. I stillam, but have learned that extreme caution is needed ininterpreting the results and that there may well be seriouslimits to the data which can be reasonably expressed in asingle chart. I shall continue to use this approach asbroadly as I can in this analysis. In Chart VI I haveassembled the coefficients of similarity for the fifteenOntario Iroquois sites under study. Certain generalobservations can be made.First of all, the reader will observe that the charthas both a horizontal and a vertical orientation. In generalthe lower portion of the chart represents early sites such asUren, while the upper part of the chart represents latehistoric sites such as Graham-Rogers and Warminster. In asimilar way the right hand side of the chart involves earlysites, the left hand side recent sites.Next, we observe that as one proceeds from theoutside limits of the chart towards the set of X's whichdivide it in half, making each side a "mirror image", thenthe size of the coefficients of similarity increase in magnitude.This means that each site is now located in the list beside thesite which it is most like. We would like to be able to say thatthis order will bring together sites which are closest inculture, in time and in geographic location. In general this istrue but the pattern is not completely consistent.I would also point out that the coefficients uponthe chart do not increase in magnitude in all cases. It hasbeen my experience that a completely consistent pattern is notobtainable because we are perhaps attempting to lump togetheritems which are too diverse in nature. However, the chartpresented is as close as possible to the ideal of continualincrease.A study of the magnitude of the coefficients is alsoof interest. These vary from 0 to 145. This means that somesites are ceramically completely unlike, MacMurchy and Pound,for example. This does not mean that one is not an Iroquoiansite. They both evidently are, but it does indicate the greatamount of change that has taken place in Iroquois culture andceramics through time. If we study the chart carefully, we cansee that the coefficients of similarity increase in incrementsof roughly 30 points for each group of three or four sites asone proceeds across the chart. This represents a gradualincrease of about 15%. This would seem to suggest the degree ofchange and cultural continuity that exists between the sitesstudied. The highest degree of44

C H A R TVITHE COEFFICIENTS OF SIMILARITY BASED UPON CERAMIC TYPES AT FIFTEEN IROQUOISSITESGRAHAM'R0GERSMcMURCHYWARMINSTER0RRLAKESEED' SIDEY'MACKAYGraham—Rogers X 145 65 63 61 87 86 36 34 44 28 8 4 2 _ 4McMurchy 145 X 101 99 88 112 120 48 38 36 26 4 0 0Warminster 65 101 X 144 82 106 106 65 38 38 42 6 4 4 4Orr Lake 63 99 144 X 92 104 110 . 64 46 46 40 14 6 6 4Seed 61 88 82 92 X 122 122 84 60 68 52 26 14 14 4Sides — MacKayMacKenzie8786112 106120 106104110122 X122 143143X8596637068725454263213301222410Black Creek 36 48 65 64 84 85 96 X 86 118 96 44 62 50 28Parsons 34 38 38 46 60 63 _ 70 86 X 136 119 108 34 38 2Payne 44 36 38 46 68 68 72 118 136 X 124 94 50 54 8Bosomworth 28 26 42 40 52 54 , 54 96 119 124 X 112 32 22 4LawsonMiddleport84406414626142613323044621083494 112 X 4050 32 40 X38108690PoundUren24004464144124221050 38, 28 , 2548,224386108 X 5090 50 XMACKENZIEBLACKCREEKPARS0NSPAYNEB0S0MW0RTHLAWS0NMIDDLEP0RTP0UNDUREN45

similarity encountered is 145 or 72.5% similarity. However,only six of the sites studied achieve this degree of similaritynamely, Graham-Rogers and MacMurchy, Warminster and Orr Lake,and Sidey-Mackay to McKenzie. In the light of this informationand the expectation of an index of 145, it would suggest thatthere are great gaps in the sequence which need to be filled.This would be indicated where even the highest coefficient isvery low. For example, the low coefficient of 40 between Lawsonand Middleport.Two further interesting possibilities present themselves;namely, that first a large increase might indicate amajor cultural difference such as the differentiation oftribal groupings. For example, in considering the Graham-Rogers coefficients, the increase from 65 at Warminster to 145at MacMurchy could represent the differentiation into a Petunrather than a Huron tribal grouping.Second, a close scrutiny of the coefficients,especially as the number of sites available for study increasecould perhaps yield some clues to the degree and rate ofcultural change. In order to carry out such a study, we wouldrequire much greater control of dating information thanpresently available. However, as such chronology becomes morefirmly established, then an increase of 10 points, as opposedto an increase of 30, would seem to allow the possibility forthe calculation of the rate of change.To return specifically to the Parsons site, ourceramic analysis has thus far indicated its relatively earlyplacement in the series of ceramic trends and its locationupon the coefficient of similarity chart. The next step is toprepare our "configuration" chart. In order to do this I haveorganized the data in the Order of Similarity chart so thatthe first, second and third degree of similarity isindicated. (See Chart VII.)46

CHART VII ORDER OF SITE SIMILARITY1st Degree 2nd Degree 3rd DegreeGraham-Rogers MacMurchy Sidey-Mackay McKenzieMacMurchy Graham-Rogers McKenzie Sidey-MackayWarminster Orr Lake McKenzie Sidey-MackayOrr Lake Warminster McKenzie Sidey-MackaySeed Sidey-Mackay McKenzie Orr LakeSidey-Mackay McKenzie Seed WarminsterMcKenzie Sidey-Mackay Seed MacMurchyBlack Creek Payne Bosomworth McKenzieParsons Payne Bosomworth LawsonPayne Parsons Bosomworth Black CreekBosomworth Payne Parsons LawsonLawson Bosomworth Parsons PayneMiddleport Pound Uren LawsonPound Middleport Uren LawsonUren Middleport Pound Black Creek47

Using this information, it is then possible toconstruct the configuration chart (see Chart VIII). This is acomplex chart, involving fifteen sites, but it does go a longway to clarify the historical position of the Parsons site.Certain general observations can be made. There are evidentclusterings of sites which are obviously more closely relatedto each other than to other sites. The number of linesradiating from or to a given site vary from 5 to 9, whichgives some idea of nuclear centres of influence. Sites such asOrr Lake, Uren, Warminster or Black Creek seem to exhibit theleast degree of interrelationship, while a site like McKenzieor Sidey-Mackay seems to exhibit cultural connections in manydirections, both in time and space.Another important observation to make involvesthe sites which are designated as solid black dots, incontrast to those which are designated by white circles.The former are prehistoric sites, and the latter are contactand historic period sites. In so far as the sites are placedin their geographic location, it becomes evident that thereis a southern prehistoric group and a northern historic group.There are also evidently considerable interconnections betweenthese southern and northern segments, which gives rise to whathas been called the "MacNeish-Emerson theory of northwardmigration" which is opposed to Ridley's theory of a migrationfrom north to south. 25It is also interesting to note that sites which aregeographically closest together are also usually most closelyrelated culturally. This is not, however, always the case.Bosomworth, for example, is more closely related to the fardistant Payne site than it is to the much closer McKenzie andSeed sites. It is quite possible that such cases as the lattercan be explained as time differences rather than regionaldifferentiations.48

CHART V I I I . ___CONFIGURATION CHART49

As I observed above, when the coefficients from allsites were plotted upon the coefficient chart, it was quiteimpossible to obtain a perfect numerical "fit". I suggestedthat perhaps I was attempting to combine too many diverseelements together. I believe this to be true and it does aidour analysis of the Parsons site if we study smaller sitecombinations in detail. The configuration chart is ofconsiderable help here, because the clusterings which areevident provide a basis for study.In Chart IX I have combined the sites in southwesternOntario and the Black Creek and Parsons sites andhave indicated the coefficients of similarity. The mathematicalfit is reasonably satisfactory. The series tracedthrough Uren, to Middleport, to Pound, and to Lawson wenormally recognize as the developmental sequence in theNeutral area of southwestern Ontario. It is interesting tonote how adequately both the Black Creek and Parsons sitescan be fitted into this sequence. This provides an initialbasis for interpretation; namely, that the earliest Iroquoisdevelopment taking place in the series of sites studiedbegan at Uren and led towards a consistent development throughtime in the Neutral area. However, at a point in time afterthe Pound site, influences or a migration eastward took placeto produce the Black Creek site. At the stage of developmentof the Lawson site a similar set of influences, or evenmigration of peoples may have similarly effected the Parsonssite.50

CHART IX5 1

The next series of sites to consider includesParsons, Payne, Bosomworth and Lawson. The configurationchart certainly indicated a clustering here. Theircoefficients of similarity are assembled in Chart X.Once again the mathematical "fit" is relatively satisfactoryThese sites appear to be relatively close in time, but quitewidely spaced in terms of geographic location. I wouldsuggest that this was a period of widespread inter-change,contact and trade throughout much of the Ontario Iroquoisarea. Thus the prehistoric location and position of theParsons site is gradually becoming clearer.CHART X.52

Once these relationships are described, theposition of Parsons becomes less clear. It does not seem toform part of other obvious clusters. It is helpful at themoment to consider the other clusters which do appear on theconfiguration chart. In Chart XI I have assembled thecoefficients which pertain to a northern cluster involvingthe Graham-Rogers, MacMurchy and Sidey-Mackay sites, and amseeking to determine their relationship to the Seed andMcKenzie sites to the south. The degree of mathematical fitis quite good and consistent, except that the coefficientbetween MacMurchy and Sidey-Mackay should be higher, or thatbetween MacMurchy and McKenzie lower. The configurationpresented suggests that here we have evidence for thedifferentiation of a "Petun branch" of the Ontario Iroquois.This coincides with the thinking of James V. Wright, 26 andthe late William J. Wintemberg, who defined the Sidey-Mackaysite as likely Petun. 27 A similar statement is contained inmy doctoral thesis.28 I consider that this Petun traditionstems back to McKenzie at least; Wright carries it back muchfurther in time. However, I leave the reader to pursue thisproblem, it is well beyond even the expanded scope of thisguidebook. It should be noted in relation to the main problemat hand, the Parsons site does not appear to participate toany large degree in this development.CHART XI.53

I would now like to turn to a consideration of onefurther cluster of northern sites, that involving theWarminster and Orr Lake sites, in order to define theirpossible relationships to the McKenzie site tradition throughthe medium of the Sidey-Mackay site. In Chart XII I haveassembled the coefficients of similarity for these sites, andfor a special reason, evident later, I have also included thecoefficients for the MacMurchy and Graham-Rogers sites. Onceagain the mathematical fit involving the first four sites isquite consistent and allows one to offer the interpretationthat here we have quite reasonable evidence for thedifferentiation of a "Huron branch" which contrasts with the"Petun branch" noted above.In order to emphasize that these are distinctdivisions in Iroquois prehistory, I have included thecoefficients for Graham-Rogers and MacMurchy in the samechart, but separated by broad black lines. The reader isinvited to study the coefficients and to note the greatdegree of distortion which is now introduced into themathematical fit of the chart. The distortion is so greatthat I am convinced we are no longer dealing with a culturalsequence, but a condition of differentiation as suggestedabove.CHART XII.54

To summarize our study of the Parsons site to thispoint: we have demonstrated that it is part of an off shootmigration from southwestern Ontario. It participated in arather widespread expansion of influences broadly spreadalong the north shores of both Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.It is not so clearly evident that it participates in theorigins of the differentiation of the Huron and Petunbranches to the north. James V. Wright, however, sees itclearly as part of the Huron development, 29 and I shall agreewith him below. In order to deal withthis problem, I have assembled in Chart XIII the coefficientsof similarity for those sites which I consider important inthe origin and development of Huron, in terms of theparticular sites being studied. The mathematical fitexhibited by these six sites, as so arranged, is quitesatisfactory and highly consistent. I do not believe it isnecessary to labour the analysis at this point, other than tosay that this chart does seem to give evidence that theParsons site is definitely part of a series of sites,probably stemming from Black Creek which participated in adeveloping prehistoric Ontario Iroquois tradition which ledto the Sidey-Mackay site about white contact times and thendifferentiated into Huron and Petun.CHART XIII.55

In the foregoing pages, I have tried to insert theParsons site into the Ontario Iroquois sequence, but only inthe most general terms. We must now deal with this problem.In our study of major ceramic trends the following sequencewas suggested:WarminsterOrr LakeMacMurchyGraham-RogersSeedSidey-MackayMcKenzieBlack CreekBosomworthPayneParsonsPoundLawsonMiddleportUrenWhen a study of the coefficients of similarity wereassembled, despite the "misfits" in the chart, the bestsequence was as follows:LateEarlyGraham-RogersMacMurchyWarminster OrrLakeSeedSidey-MackayMcKenzieBlack CreekParsonsPayneBosomworthLawsonMiddleportPoundUrenThere is an obvious conflict of order between theceramic trend sequence and the one based upon the coefficientsabove. These two orderings have to be reconciled, which means"rationalized", in so far as archaeology is the "construction"of prehistory.Next, realizing I was dealing with too large a massof data, I broke this down, and what we might call the56

following "sub-sequences" were obtained based upon theclusterings evident in the configuration chart:1. Relevant to Southwestern (Neutral) Ontario:ParsonsLawsonBlack CreekPoundMiddleportUren2. Relevant to Parsons and broad influences:ParsonsPayneBosomworthLawson3. Relevant to the fact that Parsons did not appear toparticipate in the tradition producing Petun:Graham-RogersMacMurchySidey-MackayMcKenzieSeed4. Relevant to the fact that Parsons did not appear toparticipate in the tradition producing Huron:and finally,WarminsterOrr LakeSidey-MackayMcKenzie5. Relevant to the fact that Parsons was participating inthe process of developmental Huron:Sidey-MackayMcKenzieSeedBlack CreekPayneParsons57

Now if the reader studies these various orderingsof sites, there are evident conflicts to be reconciled.I do not consider it either useful or profitable to go intothe whole process at this time. Rather I would point outsome of the problems.For example, in the ceramic trends chart and thecoefficient chart the placement of Warminster and Orr Lake,with reference to MacMurchy and Graham-Rogers are reversed.The same is true of the ceramic Bosomworth-Payne-Parsonssequence, as opposed to the Parsons-Payne-Bosomworth sequencesuggested by the coefficient chart. If one studies all thesequences involved, additional contradictions anddiscrepancies are observed. The position of the Seed site,which is a prehistoric site, is often placed before thelater, contact period, historic period Sidey-Mackay site,which, of course, seems impossible. Thus evidence andargument must be brought to bear to resolve these problems.One of the best methods is by means of crossreferencing,or the technique of cross-dating, by means oftrade and aberrant sherds. We have already noticed thepresence at the Parsons site of 10% Onondaga Triangular,3% Lalonde High Collared, and 1% Dutch Hollow Notched. Theoccurrence, and frequency, of these rimsherd types may be ofsome help to us. The presence of Onondaga Triangular sherds atParsons, Payne, Black Creek, McKenzie and Sidey-Mackaycertainly confirms Parsons as closely related to the sequencein Chart XIII. It does not allow us to be specific as to justhow this sequence should be best arranged. However, when weconsider the occurrence of the type Dutch Hollow Notched, wefind it restricted to Parsons, Payne, Seed, Graham-Rogers andMacMurchy. The absence of this type from sites such as BlackCreek and McKenzie would lead me to believe that both Parsonsand Payne should be perhaps placed somewhat later in thesequence at a time when the differentiation into Petun istaking place. The distribution of the Lalonde High Collaredrimsherds are also suggestive here. This type occurs atParsons, Payne, Bosomworth, Graham-Rogers and MacMurchy. Thisdistribution suggests again that Parsons should be placedsomewhat late in the sequence when the differentiation intoPetun and Huron branches was taking place.I would now suggest that the following orderingof the sites under consideration can be made. This isindicated in Chart XIV.58

CHAR T X I V .5 9

This chart is of course a crystallization of manythings said above, and it does, once more, I believe put theParsons site in its historical, and I hope, culturalperspective, at least in part. The priority of developmentin the Neutral area is evident. However, I believe, as moresites are studied, there will be eastern and central Ontarioantecedents which will take their place in the chart. (Iwill freely admit that I am working with a limited number ofsites; however, it was not my intention, nor do I considerit good or useful at this point, to confront the reader withthe full impact of the growing and accumulating knowledge ofOntario Iroquois archaeology.I am seeking to outline an approach and a method of analysis.To attempt to cover the whole current field would vitiate thisaim.) The chart clearly indicates the central position theParsons site occupies in the cultural development anddifferentiation which is gradually taking place, to produceHuron and Petun from some type of a Pan-Iroquoian base,stemming at least in part from Southwestern Ontario. It alsoindicates the need for research to fill this later sequenceout to the historic period.I have made reference more than once to JamesV. Wright's "The Ontario Iroquois Tradition", 30 and repeatthat all readers should study and read this excellent publication.In his analysis Wright deals with fifty-eightsites relevant to his analysis of the Ontario IroquoisTradition. This will, of course, indicate to the reader thelevel of simplicity, roughly 25%, with which we are dealingwith our problem. I hesitate to say it, but this is anindication of what we all have to learn just to begin tocatch up. However, just out of interest, in Chart XV,I have abstracted Wright's data and organization of Iroquoissites as he sees it upon the basis of a very competent anddetailed analysis. In this chart I have simply included thesites which are referred to in both our studies. I have alsoincluded the dates which are suggested in Wright's chart.It can be seen that there are some significantdifferences in the two charts, and yet an overall degree ofagreement. The main difference in our theories seems to liein the fact that Wright considers the ancestry of Petun andHuron to lie much further back in time than I do; and thereis some degree of difference in designating the sites whichcontribute to these developing trends.The fact that Wright refers to such developments asthe "Huron-Petun Branch", 3 1 indicates that the differentiationof such sites into one category or the other is notwithout difficulty and depends also upon a consideration ofthe whole site assembly. Such analysis is beyond the60

CHART XV. _IROQUOIS SITE SEQUENCE ABSTRACTED FROM WRIGHTNEUTRAL PETUN HURON DATEMacMURCHY WARMINSTER 1650ORR LAKEGRAHAM-ROGERSSIDEY-MACKAYWOODBRIDGE +SEED1600LAWSONBOSOMWORTHPARSONS 1550McDONALD *BLACK CREEK 15001450POUND 1400MIDDLEPORT 1350UREN1300+ Also called McKenzie* Also called Payne61

scope of this text. However, I consider it important forthe-reader to realize that he will encounter diversity ofopinion as he approaches the analysis of his own data.A final step in presenting the historical status ofthe Parsons site is to produce what I have called a"relational chart".' This is done by placing the sitesstudied upon a map in their geographic location and connectingthem by arrows which indicate the dominant ceramicinfluences which appear to be operative. We have thus goneFull circle in our analysis where I - could be tempted torepeat the historical analysis presented above (see page 28)However, even this statement has to be expanded at thispoint in the light of new knowledge; namely, "The Parsonssite is also involved in the bifurcation of culture into aPetun and a Huron division of the Ontario Iroquois, adivision which was to become clearer in the northernIroquois area at a later time period". This bifurcation isclearly recognized in general, but far from completelydocumented in detail. The subtle relationships of thisprocess, revealed most adequately to date by Wright, 32 willno doubt become clarified by additional excavation in thefuture.62

Following now upon my statement made above (see page29) as regards the aims of archaeological research, I wouldlike to comment briefly upon the Parsons site in relationshipto aims two and three; namely, to consider the basic culturalfactors which have produced the site under investigation, andalso to indicate if possible what insights have been gainedconsidering the social and psychological aspects of the peoplebeing investigated. Some understanding of operative factorscan be gained from a survey of the ceramic types encountered.The first thing which strikes one is the high percentageOccurrence of ceramic types which are more at home uponNeutral sites in southwestern Ontario. These make up fiftyeightpercent. Huron types, including Black Necked, make uponly twenty-four percent. At first glance it would seem tostretch the facts to relate this site to Huron. However, thesite does exist at a time when widespread contacts seemevident across the whole Ontario Iroquois area, as seen in theten percent occurrence of the eastern Iroquoian OnondagaTriangular type present. The latter is very popular at theRoebuck site in eastern Ontario. Thus rather than consider thesite Neutral, I interpret it as a "developmental Huron"village under the stress of much outside contact. The site isalso evidently part of the semi-sedentary occupation patternof the Ontario Iroquois villages. It is one of a serieslocated upon Black Creek and part of a group moving northwardtowards McKenzie and ultimately to Huronia proper. It ispalisaded and covers about eight acres, which suggests anincreasing population and an increased need for protection.However, the presence of Dutch Hollow Notched pottery seems tosuggest that no major threat was yet felt from the Iroquois inwestern New York. The ceramic types give almost no indicationof inventiveness; there is little that is unique; and thosepresent fit quite consistently into the major trends of thetime.In summary, the Parsons village is a product oftrends which see the Ontario Iroquois in a state of transitionand development towards village life expansion and development,probably under the increased influence of agriculture. Thisdevelopment was to reach its height to the north, where trendstowards a bifurcation into Huron and Petun, already begun, wereto intensify and crystallize.To turn now to a consideration of socio-psychologicalcharacteristics manifest in the Parsons ceramics, I am offeringthe reader an analytical approach not present in the previoushandbook. This method has been inspired by the work of John L.Fischer. 33 He was able to demonstrate a very high correlationbetween the type of art a people produced and the type of socialorganization they possessed.64

His studies were carried out on ethnographic populationsbut he hoped that the findings would be useful for archaeologicalanalysis. He distinguished two types of society, onelabelled "egalitarian", and the other "hierarchical". Theegalitarian was a society such as perhaps the FrenchRevolution sought to achieve: a society of equals, wheredivision of labour was minimal, and where social status andspecial privilege was minimal and unvalued. The hierarchicalsociety was quite the reverse, perhaps historically typifiedby the English manorial system. Here rank, privilege andsocial status was great. There were leaders and followers,great division of labour, rights and privileges and statuswas highly valued, even by the "good servant". Fischer alsosought to obtain information on male and female dominancewithin the particular societies studied, but the findingswere much less conclusive.In brief, the salient characteristics of the artproduced by these two types of society were as follows: Theegalitarian art1. made use of the repetition of simple units2. made use of symmetry, "mirror-images"3. made use of blank spaces in the design4. avoided underlining and enclosing lines.The hierarchical art was the reverse of this, and thecharacteristics used emphasize this:1. An absence of blank spaces2. The integration of many and diverse elements3. Great use of enclosures and underlining4. Minimal use of repetition and symmetry.If we now consider the ceramic types found atthe Parsons site, it is immediately evident that much of thedecoration is of an egalitarian type. For example, LawsonIncised and Huron Incised, which make up forty-seven percentof the sample, are both characterized by the repetition ofsimple elements (oblique lines, vertical lines). LawsonOpposed, making up fifteen percent, involves symmetry, orthe mirror-image art of "opposed elements", usually alternatingright and left oblique lines. Pound Blank, makes useof blank, undecorated triangular elements in the design.This makes up only one percent of the sample. It is interestingthat Fischer suggests that this element psychologically65

indicates "fear of the stranger". The types describedabove constitute sixty-three percent of the sample, andthus would argue strongly in favour of the egalitariannature of the Parsons site social organization. DutchHollow Notched would seem to add to this picture in termsof the simple repetition of the notched design motif.Consideration of the remaining ceramic typesprovides some evidence for the growth of hierarchicaltendencies. The ceramic types Pound Necked and Black Necked,both involve neck decoration as well as a variety ofdecorations upon the collar of the vessel. Thus, although ofnot great complexity, there is a trend towards theintegration of a number of diverse elements, which is anhierarchical trait. When punctations, basal collar notching,and such additional features are added, the complexitybecomes even greater. This is most true of the Black Neckedtype. Lalonde High Collared also combines some diversity ofelements, and often has horizontal lines at the base of thecollar, suggesting a form of underlining or enclosure.Onondaga Triangular, which makes up ten percent ofthe sample, is a quite complex ceramic type from the pointof view of design. It is quite popular at the Roebuck site. 34It involves enclosures, underlining, and the integration ofdiverse elements. Its presence at Parsons suggests adefinitely hierarchical trend within the society. It is ofinterest that Onondaga Triangular often exhibits thecircular punctate elements so characteristic of Roebuckceramics. These occur at Parsons. Psychologically, it ispossible to interpret such circular elements as theimportance of female dominance. Such a suggestion would notbe inconsistent with likely developing social trends withinIroquois society at this time period.In summation, an analysis of the Parsons site art, asmanifest in the ceramic types, using the Fischer Hypothesis asa framework, allows us to suggest that here we have a basicallyegalitarian type of society in which individuals are seen ascooperating equals. Status and privilege are minimized. Yetsome hierarchical trends are definitely present and the statusof women may be improving as some steps towards an increasedagricultural base to Iroquoian society develops. Thedevelopment of hierarchy could also be related to divisionswhich could later culminate in the Huron and Petun at a laterdate.The foregoing represents my attempt to make thedata more "meaningful". The examples are not considered tobe exhaustive, or the last word upon the subject. In fact,they may well be modified, and even rejected. I hope theywill serve as an inspiration to those who want to do just a66

little more with their rimsherds. As studies increase,I believe it will help to expand the contribution archaeologycan make both to the understanding of human prehistory and tothe understanding of human behaviour.67

Chapter IVTHOUGHTS UPON ADDITIONAL RESEARCHThe following section of this handbook follows theoriginal and is meant to be suggestive. It seeks to offerthe enthusiastic researcher ideas which might be investigated.The suggestions are far from complete, for problems of researchare only limited by the individual's energy and imagination toconceive of fruitful avenues of investigation. We areunfortunately never sure what will be important to study untilwe have proved or disproved the merit of an idea by actualinvestigation. It is in this manner that knowledge grows andexpands into a solid structure. It is with this in mind thatthe following problems are suggested for investigation:1. Are there any significant changes in the potteryfound upon a site during its period of occupation? This isa very important question and since the writing of my originalhandbook, I am not aware of any studies which have coped withthis question. At that time I suggested that if a site had beencarefully excavated and the material kept separated andcatalogued according to the various refuse deposits and thedifferent levels within these deposits, it is possible to seewhether there are any important deviations in pottery typesfrom deposit to deposit or from earlier to later levels.I should expand upon my previous statement toindicate that the researcher should be on the lookout for both""horizontal" and "vertical" stratigraphy. The later conditionwould be manifest between the different levels studied. Theformer would be perhaps indicated by changes from the centre tothe outside edges of a refuse deposit, or perhaps betweenrefuse deposits.The method of study is to compare the percentagedistribution of types from different parts and levels withthe percentage distribution of the types on the whole site.Such study may suggest that a site had been occupied at twodifferent periods in time where one overlays the other, or itmay suggest that two different areas of the site, divorced inspace, were occupied at different times. The researches ofFather William Russell, S.J. at the Fournier Site, near theMartyr's Shrine in Simcoe County, Ontario, seem to suggestthis latter condition. My own research upon the Cahiaguevillage, near Orillia, Ontario, produced the reverse effect.68

Our excavations have revealed that this village is divided intotwo major segments, each covering about nine acres, and each isheavily palisaded. The problem naturally arises: do we have twosegments of one village, or do we have two villages? A study wasthen carried out to determine the coefficient of similarity ofceramic types between these two areas. The coefficient was 162.The reader will realize that this coefficient of similarity wassignificantly higher than that obtained to date between any twoHuron or Iroquois sites studied. For this reason, I am confidentthat we are dealing with two segments of one village, not twovillages.As I stated above, since the publication of myoriginal handbook, I am not aware of research being done inthis area. Therefore, I would reiterate that those of youwho have been investigating sites with refuse deposits of considerabledepth (2 - 3 feet), or where you are suspicious oflinear differences, should be stimulated to analyse your datain the above terms.2. What are the aesthetic qualities of the pottery found?There may well be individuals with an interest in design andcraftsmanship who are interested to find out how such featuresare exhibited in the Indian material. It is possible to set upsuch criteria as the sharpness and regularity of the incisingdone, the neatness of the designs produced, and other featureswhich may occur to the researcher. The collection is thensurveyed and tabulated with this purpose in view. When this isdone, the researcher is in a position to offer suggestiveobservations as to the artistic qualities of the potteryproduced. Having suggested this area of research over a decadeago, I can only say that I have seen no significant Iroquoisresearch done in this area. Many years ago, a gentleman who isnow my colleague, Dr. William Dunning, did do a study which Ishould mention for it is of interest to Iroquoianists. We haveall dug up those little vessels which we have referred to as"seed pots" or "children's toys". The seed pot theory is verydubious for we have never dug up one containing seeds, so we haveno reason for such a statement. As "children's toys" we haveanother problem. Were they produced by children imitating theirelders, or were they small pots produced by the elders for theirchildren to play with in the way that we have miniature sets forchildren? I cannot answer these questions, but Dr. Dunning didthrow some light upon the problem. He did submit these potteryfragments to the scrutiny of a number of his friends, who wereaccomplished artists in the field of ceramics, for study andobservation. Their considered opinion was that these weresophisticated productions and were thus not the result of childexperimentation. This statement is very helpful but69

still leaves a number of questions to be answered. Adultscould be making these vessels for children, or they couldserve a special function (seed pots). The answer to thisquestion will only be answered by a study of their sitedistribution, in the way that utilitarian and ceremonialware has been defined among the Hopewell people. 35 Thus,I would say that I hope readers of this book will be inspiredto pursue similar research studies.3. What are the conservative or progressive trendsseen in t h e Indian pottery? I have gone on record as sayingthat if it were not for the high degree of conservatism seenin the Iroquois ceramics, we could not type them. If there wasgreat room for the village "idiots" and the Iroquoian"hippies" to produce pottery, the results would be soindividual and deviant that typing would be impossible. Thusone must emphasize the conservatism of the Iroquois. I hadsuggested that a study of the ceramics from a particular sitecould demonstrate that it was a virtual "melting pot" wheremany people were meeting and exchanging ideas. In retrospect Ifind that my study of ceramics over a decade belies this"melting pot" idea. Site after site seems to proceed in termsof the broad trends and indicates little change from outsideinfluences. I consider this a very important fact forarchaeology, and for anthropology in general. The theory ofthe United States being a "melting pot" has long been apopular one. The fact we do recognize is that there are stillghettos and segregated ethnic areas in all the major cities.The "hill folk" are still distinct from the "bottomsfolk" inthe river areas of Southern Illinois. Thus we must veryseriously question the melting pot concept. If we candemonstrate this by archaeological studies, then we canproceed to the next important problem: why is it that peopledo not integrate and intermingle? The answer to this questioncan have great implications for life today.Despite the great evidence for conservatism, Ibelieve the study of aberrant and trade sherds can be donewith profit to p rovide some assessment of the degree ofcultural exchange. Isolation can also be assessed, as in thecase of the presence of Seed Incised and Seed Corded at theSeed site. Degrees of inventiveness may also be assessed. Thepresence of twenty percent of Genoa Frilled at the Orr Lakesite seems to suggest it may have been the result of an actualmigration of people into this village. Whatever the actualcase, and the difficulties of formulating interpretations, theorganizing of such information would be a useful and welcomeaddition to any report,70

4. Are there other significant features of the potterytypes which have been overlooked? I repeat, the researchpossibilities are legion and tedious, and the following areonly the most obvious suggestions. Are there any correlationsbetween hardness (or softness, or friability, where sherdsbreak in half) and certain designs, or shapes, or certaindesign - shape combinations? Hardness can be measured by anarbitrary, Mohs scale, i.e. what minerals will scratch thesurface, and which ones will not? Is there a relationshipbetween colour and hardness? What is the firing temperature ofthe pottery? This can be determined by placing samples in akiln and heating them just to the point where they changecolour. 36 Are there significant differences in the amount orsize or kind of tempering material used? Tempering is thematerial, usually "rotten" granite, which is mixed with theclay to prevent breakage during the manufacture; or at leastthat is the theory.I also asked whether the size of the collars, orthe total size of a vessel upon a given site was important. Ihave seen no answers to these questions. Was collarindex significant, that is, the ratio of collar width x 100?collar heightI suggested that the total size of pots could be studiedby the measurement of rim diameters. Once again I am notaware of new knowledge in this area. The foregoing suggestionswere only offered as suggestive at that time. The fact that fewof them have been investigated is not discouraging, for Ibelieve the readers have been more occupied with the interestingproblem of ceramic typing, and this latter with considerablesuccess. 37 As a source, I hope, of inspiration to the reader inthe research areas described above, I would commend the readerto some of the findings in the Payne Site report. 38 There I wasable to find what I considered to be significant differencesbetween the exterior and interior hardness and colour of rim,shoulder and body sherds which allowed certain theories ofpottery manufacture to be evolved.One further study I would like to bring to theattention of the reader because I believe it will producesignificant and rewarding research. This is the study of rimform. I repeat in some detail the analysis of rim formcontained in the Payne Site report. 39 The results of thestudy produced the following data:71

Interior Rim CurvatureRimsherds with interior concavity 57.7%Rimsherds with interior convexity 35.6%Others 6.6%Collar DevelopmentRimsherds with poorly defined collars 37.3%Rimsherds with well defined collars 56.0%Others 6.6%Collar Development and Interior Curvature RelatedRimsherds with interior concavityand poorly defined collars 37.3% Rimsherds withinterior concavityand well defined collars 20.4% Rimsherds withinterior convexityand well defined collars 35.6%Others 6.6%Now it is difficult to document with specificfigures, but a knowledge of Iroquois and pre-Iroquois ceramicsmakes it possible to make a fairly accurate statement about thenature of form changes which have taken place during thedevelopment of such ceramics. The reader is invited to studythe ceramic description as seen at the Uren and Middleportsites as described by Wintemberg, 40 and those from Warminster 41and Sidey-Mackay. 42 I consider it accurate to make the followingstatement about form changes based upon the documents notedabove:1. The interior curvature of the rim changed fromconcave to convex; and2. The collar of the vessel changed from a rounded,poorly defined one to a discrete, well defined one.Thus it becomes possible to define two ideal potteryvessels, each of which represents the 100% production ofvessels at an early and at a late period in Iroquois history.The former is a vessel which has a concave interior rimcurvature and a poorly defined collar; the latter is a vesselwhich has a convex interior rim curvature and a well definedcollar. This can , be defined by Chart XVII.72

CHART XVII.___ CHRONOLOGY AND COLLAR DEVELOPMENTIDEALEARLY IROQUOISFORMIDEALLATE IROQUOISFORM73

This chart indicates the change in collar developmentfrom the ideal early to the ideal late forms asdescribed above, in terms of interior rim curvature anddegree of collar development. The percentage occurrence ofeach of the four characteristics as found at the Payne siteare indicated by the vertical arrows. It can be quickly seenthat the Payne site occupies a mid-point inthe series as regards interior rim curvature, and a somewhatlater position as far as collar development and definition isconcerned. Balancing these two sets of factors together itbecomes possible to make the preliminary statement that thePayne site, is well established as a middle-period Iroquoissite. This fact has been established by other types ofanalysis in the Payne report. As more and more data isaccumulated from various sites, the reader should be able toadd additional vertical arrow information to this chart,including his own sites. I believe this will serve as arelatively simple device to begin to make an assessment ofthe chronological position of his site under study.5. The problem of "type" versus attribute" studies.Since the time of the writing of the original handbook,considerable interest has developed as regards the meritof analysis by "type" or by "attribute". Analysis accordingto ceramic types has a long and respectable history throughoutthe new world; and of course this has largely been theapproach used in this presentation, and I have found myinspiration largely in MacNeish's writing. However, the veryreputable writings of Irving Rouse, dealing with "Prehistoryin Haiti, a study in method",43 have set a model for thestudy of "modes" and "attributes" in ceramic studies. InOntario James V. Wright has to date been the foremostprotagonist of this type of analysis.44In its most simple form the basis of attributeanalysis is to select individual significant features of aceramic vessel and trace their occurrence in time and spaceto assess their diagnostic value as significant time andculture markers. One could mention such significantfeatures of Iroquois vessels as handles, casteilations, interiorlip decoration, punctates and nodes, to mention but a few. Suchfeatures are almost never included as diagnostic features of aceramic type; moreover, they are often found associated withseveral ceramic types, e.g, handles, or interior lip decoration.Thus each attribute must be studied on its own merits. I have notcarried out any serious attribute studies myself which I canoffer to the reader as significant cases in point. However, I dobelieve that study would demonstrate, for example, that handlesare a late prehistoric and historic period attribute increasingin abundance with the historic period; that lip incising is asimilar attribute; that the production of nodes, or designs74

impressed with a cord wound stick are both quite early in thesequence. Thus I myself am definitely in favour of theutility and desirability of attribute studies. Thebrief analysis of two of the attributes of collar developmentpresented above does represent a step in this direction.James V. Wright presented a recent evaluationupon type and attribute analysis, 45 which merits considerableconsideration. He agrees that the strengths of typeanalysis are "the reduction of a large body of data tomanageable proportions and the expression of generaltime/space relationships which allow the formulation ofchronologies and the tracing of patterns of cultural change". 46This is a very fair statement and I hope that some of thematerial in this handbook demonstrates the truth of Wright'sstatement.Wright goes on, however, to suggest that theweaknesses of type analysis appear to be five-fold; namely,typing leads to1. the "pigeon-holing" of attributes whose trendsextend beyond the type.I agree completely that this pigeon-holing is verydangerous and seems to stem from the desire of theresearcher, particularly the novice, to find a solidcategory into which his rimsherd can be placed. To offer anexample, it has never been quite clear to me why MacNeishsaw it necessary to set up categories of Lawson Incised versusLawson Opposed. Let us face it, the distinction is basedlargely upon what some researchers could consider ratherminor variations in collar design motifs. Or having done this,should not MacNeish, to have been consistent, divided HuronIncised also into a category of Huron Opposed? I do not quiteknow the answer, but the pigeon-holing that Wright refers tois a problem to which we must address ourselves more andmore.2. "The range of attribute variation within a type oftenresults in types not being clearly exclusive from one another,thereby creating a situation where the same sample can beclassified somewhat differently by two researchers."This is a very valid observation by Wright and I donot need to tell the reader how such analysis will distort thefinal result. If the reader will take time to refer back to mydiscussion of the problem of distinguishing Pound Necked fromBlack Necked, which can often be only separated upon the basisof subtle differences of interior75

im curvature, then I believe the eminent validity ofWright's criticism here is quite clear. I had alsowarned at that time that ceramic types were dynamic andchanging, which was bound to complicate the analysis.At the same time, it would make the "pigeon-holing"noted above most difficult.3. "The association of attributes within a typeincreases the chances of researchers classifying thesame sherd by giving different diagnostic weight to thevarious attributes making up the type."Once again I agree completely with Wright'sobservation and again I refer the reader to my discussionabove of Sidey Notched. At that time I indicated that I wasvery impressed (i.e. I gave strong "diagnostic weight") bythe fact that incising the lip of the vessel involvedcertain motor habits which were (to me) sufficientlyimportant that I would categorize a vessel, which was inevery other way Black Necked, as Sidey Notched. Now it isreadily evident that another analyser could take anotherstand. Once again the results for analysis could be perilous.Once again I do not know the answer; for a while yet we mustperhaps stay within the "established categories". But it isevident that we must have discussion, and perhaps conferencesdedicated to this problem of the "weighting" of ceramicattributes.4. "The advent of new data continually demands therevision of the established types which are closed systems andare, therefore, incapable of supporting changes which modifytheir original definition."Again, I agree completely with Wright, theadvent of new data is an area of constant harassment. Thereis the demand and need for the definition, of new types on thepart of the field investigator and analyser who almost"intuitively" realizes these rims are new and different and mustbe recognized as such. I believe the reader will have realizedthat my bias is not to proliferate types, but to consider them"variants" of established types until the force of numericalnumbers (percentage, not defined) causes me to recognize them asa type. I felt unhappy when I found the late W.D. Belldefining types such as Blue Mountain Grooved, CollingwoodCollarless, Innisfil Plain and several others as types.47 But Iknew that Bell, who was completely immersed in the problem ofIroquois ceramics, would not have done so unless he felt and knewthat these were so "different" that they had to merit thestatus of "type". It left me with the uneasy feeling that Ishould76

go back to all my data to make sure I had not encounteredthese types and classified them as something else.5. "The attempts to incorporate new data into theestablished typology disrupts communication by creating ahost of new types, revised types, and additions or deletionsof certain attributes under an earlier type name or newdesignation."This again is an extremely valid observation and avery difficult one to deal with, but a problem with which wemust come to grips in the future. Wright's statement thatsuch a problem "disrupts communication" is very pertinent.When we are faced with such problems of novelty anddiversity, we tend to give in and work with the definitionsmost available to us. For example we are well aware thatMacNeish was not aware of Ridley's "Lalonde High Collared"as a ceramic type, but it now is generally recognized andused. It is quite possible that at least some Lalonde HighCollared rimsherds are hidden away and unrecognized in thefigures produced in MacNeish's work.By the same token, which of us wish to combinetypes like Lawson Incised or Lawson Opposed, or subdivide atype like Huron Incised into an additional category of HuronOpposed? For myself, I will go along with the future policydecided by students of Iroquois ceramics; but at the moment,I shudder at all the work I should do. In my analysis,percentage distributions will change and perhapscoefficients of similarity will change - and the wholefabric of analysis that I have painstakingly put togetherwill change. This is a very great problem for a researcherto face, but I believe it must be in the future.The foregoing are the strengths and weaknesses ofthe ceramic type analysis approach as cogently outlined byWright. I find myself in general agreement and pain-fullyaware of the problems. What is the solution? Wright is noteither confident or enthusiastic but does state that "theonly solution I can see is to discard type analysis infavour of attribute analysis".Before coming to the above conclusion, Wrightdoes suggest that the establishment of a central ceramiclaboratory and periodic conferences for the revision oftypes might be ideally feasible and perhaps help solve theproblem. However, he states that this would call for "anunrealistic degree of cooperation". In terms of presentcircumstances this seems a quite legitimate objection, butI think we must consider both past and possible futureaspects of the problem. The ceramic77

epository at the University of Michigan developed byJames B. Griffin I feel sure has had far-reaching andpositive results. In the American Southwest, it seems tome that the researchers there have been able to cope withand systematize a proliferation of ceramic types, farbeyond any numbers we are likely to encounter in Ontarioand adjacent areas, and to put such typology to usefulpurposes. Thus, past experience should at least offerhope.As for the future, Wright has stressed thatcommunication certainly is the key word and that periodicconferences are also essential. I agree that the need forconferences is paramount and that there is no realsubstitute for face-to-face relationships and the actualseeing and handling of type sherds. But we must alsoconsider that we are going into the computer age, and thatthe key to this age is the vast storage and rapidcommunication potential of data and knowledge. We are in aposition where material recorded on tapes and punch cardsmakes the rapid exchange of data possible in a way that wasformerly quite beyond our capabilities. Not only this, butwith the advent of video tapes, it is quite possible topresent visual data and verbal commentary which is nearly asubstitute for personal face-to-face relationships.Moreover, it should be possible to send the interestedresearcher not only the video tape but a box containing theactual rimsherds which are discussed in the recording. Ibelieve such developments are almost inevitable and that wemust explore them. This is a very large order becausearchaeology in Ontario, and in fact Canada, is really avery recent development in any significant and systematicway. Only in March 1968 wasa Canadian Archaeological Association formed at a foundingmeeting in Winnipeg. This was the first time thatarchaeologists, professional and non-professional, metrepresenting all areas of Canada and sharing a recognizedcommon interest. In this sense Canadian archaeology has justbegun. However, the essential process of communication is nowunder way.To return now to attribute analysis, Wrightindicates that the strengths of such analysis are consistencyor invariability, continuity, and accuracy. This isa valid and powerful statement. Wright does admit thatthere can be difficulty in the recognition of an attributewhere linear stamping might be confused with incising. Imyself am well aware of an area of confusion betweenincising and what I call "trailing". But these areproblems that can be solved by greater discussion andcommunication. I agree with Wright also when he78

suggests that the attribute is probably more sensitive as atime - space indicator than is the type; and also beingideally the smallest definable unit, it should be andlikely is the most accurate unit of analysis. FinallyWright suggests, and I concur, that the attribute is veryamenable to data processing. This of course brings us backto our IBM cards and our computers as discussed above.The weakness of attribute analysis, as stated byWright, lies in the number of possible attributes to beconsidered. As he states, "Thus, a situation could arisewhere the forest could not be seen for the trees". This is avery, very serious problem faced by all researchers. Iconsider it the problem of what I call "lumpers" and"splitters". In some cases data is "lumped" together, wheresuch association may not be justified. I have raised theproblem as to why Huron Incised should not be split intoHuron Incised and Huron Opposed to make it logically conformto Lawson Incised and Lawson Opposed. Or, conversely, whyshould not the two latter types be "lumped" together. Thisis the ever-present problem of the "lumper" and the"splitter". I am not sure of the answer, but it must befaced. At the moment I suggest that the presence upon a siteof say ten percent of a certain design-form combination maywell justify its designation as a type. Also, as I havesuggested in the case of Sidey Notched, evidence of certainparticular and rather unique designs which must have beenthe product of a particular set of restricted manual motorhabits could form the basis of a type designation. I haverecently been looking at a number of rimsherds from theMacMurchy site which could only be classified as SideyNotched. I was rather concerned as I began to study thenotched (or incised) lip surfaces which are diagnostic ofthis type. I will not go into detail, but what should havebeen a rather simple process of lip incising or notching wasquite capable of being broken down into at least sixteendistinct categories. What should be done? It did not seem toserve any useful purpose to break Sidey Notched into sixteennew types, or even subtypes. Therefore, I felt it best toleave the category Sidey Notched intact, but felt itnecessary to comment upon the varied ways in which the"notching" might be done. Thus I continued as a "lumper",which I have admitted above is my probable bias.Wright does not really wish to negate typeanalysis, although he takes a stand in favour of attributeanalysis as the more productive approach. He does not sayso in so many words, but he recognizes as I do, that in79

the area of attribute and type analysis we are reallydealing with the same thing at different levels ofintegration. As he says, "The anticipated body ofattribute data could eventually be categorized into Pan-Iroquois attribute constellations, or, possibly, Pan-Iroquois types to allow for simplicity of communication".He realizes that "doing type analysis prior to attributeanalysis is putting the cart before the horse". This istrue, but MacNeish, who has demonstrated his analyticalastuteness upon many occasions, has been a "lumper" typeanalyst and it is not surprising that he thought in termsof types - the combination of features (or attributes)which his computer-type mind just knew went together,based upon the observation of many thousand rimsherdsspread over time and space. This leads us to the finalconsideration of the problem facing us and its possiblesolution.The beginning point is always to record attributes,whatever they may be, and to record these preferably upon anIBM card, sherd by sherd. I need not tell the reader thatthere are many, many, and quite definable attributes which canbe recorded. But once the obvious is done, as Spaulding seemsto feel is quite possible, 48 there are a host of other subtleand possible attributes to be recorded. These can only beadded by the analytical archaeologist, which means we mustreturn time and time again to add new categories to our IBMcards. But this will be the may. Once such attributes aretabulated and recorded upon the IBM cards, Spaulding wouldlead us to believe our work is done.4 9 Using tests ofassociation, levels of significance and Khi-square analysisthe machine will tell us better than we know what are the"types" and associations which should be of concern to us. Ibelieve that Marian White rather concurs in this point ofview. Her analysis 50 gives us excellent guidance in the "punchcard" approach. But I must reiterate we must turn to some ofthe "ceramic giants" for guidance. We must pay attention toJames B. Griffin, James Wright, R.S. MacNeish, and I mustmodestly add myself, for information upon what are the verysignificant attributes which must be part of a typedesignation which we feed into our computers for information.Once all this is done, then I am sure we will be able to carryout both our attribute analysis and our type analysis as faras we can reach agreement upon the concept of type based uponeither IBM analysis or upon analysis experience which we canrequest of the electronic sorter. In the last analysis, itseems to me that we are using the same building blocks. Thedifference is the way we sort and combine them for particularpurposes.80

I offer one final example in defense of theceramic type approach. There are those who feel that ceramictyping is impossible because of the degree of individualchoice and performance within a given community. I havealready gone on record that this is not the case; it isactually the lack of freedom of expression and the highdegree of conservatism that does make ceramic typingpossible. More serious is the point that Wright makes thattwo researchers could type individual sherds differently. Ibelieve this is true but covers a very minimum of the rimsstudied. The problem also hinges upon the degree of clarityand usefulness, or not, of MacNeish i s typology. I quiteinadvertently became involved in a test case upon just thispoint. James Pendergast 5 1 and I, unknown to each other, wereboth independently involved in the excavation and analysisof the same site, namely, the Payne site. It was not untilboth of these papers were in the hands of the NationalMuseum of Canada for publication that it was realized thatthey were the same site under different names; I had calledthe site the MacDonald site. The reader, if he studies thesereports, will find that Pendergast and I came to remarkablysimilar conclusions and interpretations of the site. We bothused MacNeish's typology. In Chart XVIII I have reproducedour findings and have calculated the coefficient ofsimilarity between the two samples. This was 151. This is avery high coefficient and is greater than the coefficientobtained between any two Iroquois sites studied to date.This result is as it should be, and seems to argue in favourof the method. However, should not the sharing be closer to100% than to the 75% obtained? If we study Chart XVIII, itis evident that it involves twenty-five ceramic types.Pendergast and I encountered thirteen that were common toeach of our samples. This might seem very low but I must addimmediately that these correspondences involve 88.8% of hissample and 91.96% of my sample. This would seem to indicaterather a basic agreement in our recognition of types. Thefact that there were differences in the percentage of theseparticular types found does not indicate the lack of abilityto recognize these types but the differences found doindicate normal expected differences within different areasor deposits within a single site. I have found similardifferences between the deposits at the Cahiague site. Thereader may note that the largest difference encountered wasfound for the type Black Necked. This is certainly one ofthe most readily identifiable types in the Iroquoian series.Having argued rather strongly that these resultsseem to prove the method, I would not be entirely honestunless I commented upon the remaining 10% where Pendergast81

CHART XVIII. COMPARATIVE SAMPLE OF PAYNE SITE CERAMICSPendergast Emerson(1963) (1966) DifferenceLawson Incised 20.3 21.84 1.54Huron Incised 14.6 12.48 2.12Black Necked 13.6 20.28 6.68Pound Necked 9.4 12,09 2.69Lawson Opposed 8.4 11.70 3.30Warminster Horizontal 5.4 .39 5.01Lanoraie Crossed 4.9 - 4.90Ontario Horizontal 4.6 3.12 1.48Durfee Underlined 3.7 1.95 1.75Dutch Hollow Notched 3.4 4.60 1.20Warminster Crossed 3.4 1.17 1.23Sidey Crossed 2.3 - 2.30Sidey NotchedOtstungo Incised1.41.1.78-.621.10Roebuck Low CollaredThurston Horizontal.9.6--.90.60Swarthout Dentate .6 - .60Otstungo Notched .6 - .60Lalonde High Collared .3 .78 .48Syracuse Incised .3 - .30Onondaga Triangular .3 .78 .48Middleport Oblique - 5.07 5.07Seed Incised - 1.95 1.95Richmond Incised - .39 .39Iroquois Linear - .39 .39Aberrant - 1.17 1.17% of differences 48.85Coefficient of Similarity 200 - 49 = 15182

found types that I. did not encounter (or recognize?), andwhere I found types that he did not encounter (or, again,recognize?). It may be of interest to note that a number ofthe types he defined such as Otstungo Incised, OtstungoNotched, Swarthout Dentate and Syracuse Incised are to alarge degree “eastern" Iroquois types; while those Iencountered such as Middleport Oblique, Iroquois Linear andRichmond Incised are "western" Iroquois types. It ispossible that we may both have been biased to put certainsherds into categories better known and more familiar to usbecause of the areas in which we had worked and which werethus most familiar to us. This example has been ratherlengthy but I believe it does two things; it, first, ingeneral does justify the ceramic type approach even in termsof current typology; but, second, it does point out areas ofdifficulty which can only be solved, as pointed out above, bygreater communication, face-to-face relationships and thedevelopment of a. central ceramic repository and the greateravailability end mobility of sample type collections.The foregoing concludes my present thoughts uponadditional research. They must by no means be consideredexhaustive, but rather, suggestive. I hope the exampleshave been sufficiently instructive to lead the readerto conduct similar research to build up our data pool andanalytical information. But even more so, I hope it willinspire the reader to define and pursue problems of hisown.83

Chapter VFINAL THOUGHTSA final word of advice should be offered to thenew researcher. "Rome was not built in a day" - nor will theresults of your efforts mature into a grandiose andimpressive structure in a short time. In fact the excavationand analysis of a site is a much more time consuming andarduous task than most people realize. Such a realizationcan often seriously dampen the initial enthusiasm of thebeginner. This warning should be seriously considered by allwho embark upon site excavation, and I believe this isparticularly true of school boards who are plunging into thearchaeological area. The problem is a long term one. Tooffer a concrete example, the Department of Anthropology ofthe University of Toronto has been working at the Cahiaguesite for some nine years; we have excavated over threethousand five-foot squares, over seventy-five thousandsquare feet, or about two acres of the site. This onlyamounts to ten percent of the area to be investigated! Atour current rate of investigation, simple mathematics wouldsuggest that the total investigation of this particularvillage could occupy about a century. Moreover, thissituation would not particularly be improved by theintroduction of high powered earth moving equipment. This isnot the nature of archaeology. Archaeology proceeds slowlyand with great patience. This is equally true of bothexcavation and analysis, of which ceramic analysis is just asmall but important part. Many hands reduce the work, butthey may confuse it also. Experience, thought and the actualhandling and the study of material develops trainedstudents. You may have false starts and find yourself inblind alleys. You start again. Much evidence will benegative; you wi l l not always find what you had hoped orexpected to find. It is perhaps small comfort but we mustremember that negative evidence, well reported and welldocumented, is not a loss, it will save others from similarpitfalls. In science you never know until you haveinvestigated. It is useful to investigate problems which arelikely to be productive, and to deal with others only astime and energy permits. The researcher should approach allhis activities with a sense of problem and a respect forfact, a point of view which I hope I have followed in thepresentation of this handbook.Finally, I would like to advise that the resultsof most research will not be "world shattering" or84

spectacular, but as each of the pieces of the great threedimensional, time-space jigsaw puzzle are assembled, thegreat developmental picture of Ontario prehistory willgradually emerge in all its complexity. This should bethe aim of Ontario archaeologists - to build a solidlybased structure that portrays as validly as possible thedevelopment of our early people and cultures.85

REFERENCES CITED1. Emerson, 1956a2. Chang, 19673. Wright, J.V., 19664. White, M.E., 19615. Pendergast, 19636. Pendergast, 19657. Lenig and Miller, 19538. Emerson, 19669. MacNeish, 195210. Rouse, 193911. Heizer, 195012. Taylor., Walter, 194713. Ridley, 1952a1 1 4. MacNeish, 1952, p.6115. Wintemberg, 1936, p. 14716. Ibid., p. 14717. MacNeish, 1952, p. 3318. Ibid., p. 3219. Ibid., p. 14, 16 and 3420. Ibid., p. 1321. Ibid.22. Ibid., p. 3623. Wintemberg, 1936, p. 1002 1 4. Brainerd, 195125. Emerson, 1956b26. Wright, J.V., 196627. Wintemberg, 194628. Emerson, 195 1 129. Wright, J.V., 196630. Ibid., 196631. Ibid., 196632. Ibid., 196633. Fischer, 196134. Wintemberg, 193635. Quimby, 196036. Greenman, 193737. Pendergast, 1965; White, 1961; Wright, 196638. Emerson, 1966, pp. 145 - 15339. Ibid., pp. 139 - 14440. Wintemberg, 1928 and 194841. MacNeish, 195242. Wintemberg, 194643. Rouse, 193944. Wright, 196745. Ibid., 196746. Ibid., 196747. Emerson, 196148. Spaulding, 196049. Ibid., 196050. White, 196151. Pendergast, 196386

APPENDIXA DISCUSSION OF ONTARIO IROQUOIS POTTERY TYPESThe following discussion of Iroquois pottery types isbased rather closely upon MacNeish's pioneer work in the field.The types to be described are greatly simplified and deal onlywith those which are of peculiar interest in the Ontario area. Ihave attempted to simplify MacNeish's presentation by bringingtogether in a single diagram both the forms and the designelements which are associated in a given type. I believe thiswill allow the beginner to learn much more readily. At the sametime, I have attempted to present a hypothesis of potterydevelopment which differs only slightly from that postulated byMacNeish.Being somewhat unfamiliar with the twilight zone inwhich Owascoid forms are becoming Iroquoian, I am followingMacNeish's lead here completely. It would appear that Uren Noded,Uren Corded, Iroquois Linear, Uren Dentate and Iroquois Obliquetypes have their beginnings in prior Owasco cultures. MiddleportCriss Cross may even have ancestors in Late Point Peninsula. Ihave chosen to ignore these types in my discussion for they alldie out rapidly and are seldom encountered past Middleport times.It is with the emergence of Ontario Horizontal that themore familiar and popular Iroquoian types make their appearance.It will greatly simplify our discussion, moreover, if we recognizethat the crucial features defining an Ontario Iroquoian potterytype will be some feature of design or some aspect of form, or acombination of these two. If we project ourselves mentally intothe position of the Iroquois potter we may find a fairly soundbasis for a developmental hypothesis. In almost every case it wasthe rim area of the Iroquoian vessel that captivated the interestof the maker and it is here that we find the range of variationwhich allows us to define our types. There is every reason tobelieve that the Iroquois pottery makers were traditional andculture-bound. Seldom, if ever, did they seriously vary themanufacture of the body area of the vessel. They producedglobular, round-bottomed, grit-tempered vessels with a ratherrestricted colour range controlled largely by the firing methodsand temperatures. It seems that their escape from traditionalismwas found in modifications in rim decoration and shape. It issignificant, however, that even here variation was so restrictedthat many types occur throughout almost the entire Iroquois periodwith little change.The manufacture of traditional incised Iroquoianceramic wares apparently commenced in the peninsular area ofsouthwestern Ontario. Here we encounter three major and87

persistent types: Ontario Horizontal, Lawson Incised andLawson Opposed. These three types show certain features incommon: namely, they all occur upon a rim which has a poorlydefined and weakly developed collar; the interior contour ofthe rim is always concave and channelled. Figure 27, (OntarioHorizontal, p.111) is an exception to this description, but itis also extremely rare and I am dubious as to the validity ofMacNeish's inclusion of this form under Ontario Horizontal.It should be noted also that in these three types the decorationalways occurs upon the collar while the neck (or throat) area isalways undecorated. The lip surface is never incised or notchedand punctation is rare as a decorative technique.Thus it becomes evident that all three of these typesare capable of rather simple definition. When associated withthe shape described above, the type is Ontario Horizontal if thedesigns are encircling horizontal (Fig. 27, p.111). It is LawsonOpposed if the designs are alternating or "opposed" sets ofoblique incised lines (Fig. 28, p.112), and it is Lawson Incisedif the designs are simple oblique or vertical line elements(Fig. 9, p. 31).Related to, and perhaps developing from these "Neutral"pottery types in southwestern Ontario are two "Huron" ceramic typespopular upon historic Huron sites in Simcoe County. These areWarminster Horizontal and Huron Incised. The development hereevidently represents a basic change in shape. It would appear thatthe pottery maker, instead of producing a concave, channelledinterior rim, produced one which was convex and in a few cases,nearly vertical in contour. Moreover, instead of a poorly definedand weakly developed collar, the potter produced one which was welldeveloped and sharply defined. Apart from this basic change in rimshape which seems to MacNeish to be a crucial distinction between"Neutral" and "Huron" pottery, the types considered are nearlyidentical. The encircling horizontal line design elements ofOntario Horizontal are duplicated and maintained by WarminsterHorizontal (Fig. 29, p.113), while the design elements of bothLawson Incised and Lawson Opposed are found duplicated in thecollar decoration of Huron incised (Fig. 10, p.33). This is not theplace to consider the problem of whether or not Huron Incised mightbe broken down into both Huron Incised and Huron Opposed types. Itis evident that the basic clue to the identification of bothWarminster Horizontal and Huron Incised is a consideration of theshape associated with the appropriate designs. It should also benoted with respect to both these types, that punctation as adecorative element has become much more popular, that lips areneither incised nor notched and that decoration is confined to thecollar with the neck being left plain.A type which appears closely related to Huron Incisedand perhaps developed from it is Sidey Notched. Here the shapeand design elements upon the collar conform to those characteristic88

of Huron Incised. No punctation is present however. The crucialfeature of this type is the presence of notching or, much moreoften, incised-line decoration upon the lip surface of the rim.It should be noted that lip incising is virtually absent upon allother types, hence it serves a useful diagnostic purpose (Fig.30, p. 114).In southwestern Ontario it is evident that other types havestemmed from the Neutral area. Pound Necked is a case in point. Herethe new type is introduced by the addition of incised decoration uponthe neck area of the pot. This neck decoration comprises simplehorizontal incised lines encircling the vessel (Fig. 32, p.116). Inrare cases punctation is also added. It is to be noted that thecollar decoration duplicates the design motifs of both Lawson Incisedand Lawson Opposed. The shape of the rim similarly duplicates theshape of these two types and that of Ontario Horizontal. It becomesevident that the horizontal neck decoration is the diagnostic featureexcept in the case of design element 7, Fig. 32, where we must dependupon a consideration of the rim shape as well as the neck decorationto clinch the identification.In each area and at various time periods we will encounterceramic types which appear to bear no direct and close relationshipsto existing types. These we may well credit to Iroquois inventivenessand deviation from the traditional. Pound Blank is such a type as this(Fig. 33, p.116). It is characterized by the presence of so-called"open triangles" where areas of the collar are left undecorated insuch a way as to produce blank triangular motifs in the design.Otherwise, this type conforms in shape and other features to thetypical Neutral types previously described.A final development, apparently having some roots in theNeutral tradition, produced the type known as "Black Necked". Thisdevelopment appears to be a complex one involving both changes in formand the addition of decorative motifs. It appears to have beeninspired initially by a type like Pound Necked (Fig. 11, p.35), for wefind that the horizontal line combinations form a neck decorationmotif. Much more important and much more characteristic is thepresence of alternate or opposed oblique-line forms as a much-preferredneck decoration. When we consider the collar embellishmentsalone, we find that Black Necked includes all the variations alreadyfamiliar to us from a survey of Ontario Horizontal, Lawson Incised,Lawson Opposed and Pound Necked. It will be recognized that it may bedifficult to distinguish Black Necked from Pound Necked, but hereconsiderations of shape come to our aid. Black Necked is almostinvariably associated with a "Huron-like" rim shape; in other words, itpossesses a rim with a well-developed collar and a convex interior rimcontour. This is sharply distinguished from the Neutral shapepreviously described. It will be recognized that Black Necked shape(e), Fig. 11, might cause some confusion because of its interiorchannelling. However, it will be noted that despite this concavitypresent, the rim does present a well-developed exterior collar whichwill clinch the identification.89

Besides the addition of a new type or neck decoration, wefind that Black Necked has also included new collar designs. Theseinvolve crossing or interrupting elements (Fig. 11, designs 4 and 5,and 15-17). Number 17 involves a rare case of lip incising usuallyassociated with the previously described Sidey Notched. This could, ofcourse, be involved with the origin of this decorative technique.Number 14, Fig. 11 is a unique form of Black Neckedwhere punctation makes up the only decorative element upon the collar.Two pottery types may have developed from Black Necked.These are Sidey Crossed and Warminster Crossed. My opinion herediffers from MacNeish's, who tends to consider that these werestrongly influenced by Huron Incised. Sidey Crossed appears to meto have been produced from Black Necked by simply dropping thecomplex neck decoration (compare Fig. 34, designs 1-4 with Fig. 11,designs 4, 5, 15, 16 and 17). It will also be noted that SideyCrossed shapes duplicate Black Necked.Warminster Crossed is less convincing as a developmentfrom Black Necked. It does occur upon typical Huron shapes and hasa limited range of collar design which is not duplicated in theBlack Necked collar series. It is easier to accept MacNeish'sderivation of this type from Huron Incised by the addition of thecrossing line motif (Fig. 31, p.115).The last three ceramic types to be described are included,not because they are popular at Ontario Iroquois sites, but becausethey represent innovations which may be encountered upon sites yetto be investigated, or are among the more popular types of tradesherds. The first of these is Seed Incised (Fig. 35, p.118). Thistype is largely restricted to the Seed Site and appears to representan experiment in decoration restricted to punctation and notchingtechniques. The usual Iroquois incising is absent and the range ofrim form is quite restricted.Onondaga Triangular is a favourite ceramic type at theRoebuck Site and appears as a trade sherd at many sites in thecentral Iroquois area. The complex decoration is the most typicalfeature (Fig. 36, p.119) especially the horizontal lines and smallvertical lines near the top of the collar, underlaid in turn byvarious triangular-line motifs. These designs occur upon a widerange of rim forms.The final, Niagara Collared (Fig. 37, p.120) is includedbecause it is a rather distinctive plain ware. Such plain ware ismoderately uncommon amid the usually-decorated Iroquois pottery.It is hoped that the foregoing outline of the ceramic typeswill serve as a useful guide to the analyst and lead to moresystematic research. This outline is by no means complete and final,and the reader is advised to supplement this information by a carefulreading of MacNeish's "Iroquois Pottery Types" and other relatedpublications as they appear.90

Figures 12 to 26 are reproduced from the PayneAnalysis through the kind cooperation of the National Museumof Canada. These charts indicate the actual frequencies ofthe form and design combinations which occurred at that siteand should provide a helpful basis of comparison for theresearcher.91

F i g u r e 1 2 a . L A W S O N I N C I S E D9 2

Figure 12b. Form-design relationships93

Figure 13b. Form-design relationships94

1 4 a . BLACK NECKED95

Figure 14b. Form-design relationships96

Fi g ur e 15a. MIDDLEPORT OBLIQUEFigure 15b. Form-design r e l a t i o n s h i p s97

Figure 16a. ONTARIO HORIZONTALFigure 16b. Form-design relationships98

F i g u r e 1 7 a . L A W S O N O P P O S E D9 9

Figure 17b. Form-design relationships100

F i g u r e 1 8 a . P O U N D N E C K E D1 0 1

Figure 18b. Form-design relationships102

Figure 19a. SEED INCISEDFigure 19b. Form-design relationships103

Figure 2Oa. DURFEE UNDERLINEDFigure 20b. Form-design relationships104

Figure 21a. LALONDE HIGH-COLLAREDFigure 21b. Form-design relationships105

Figure 22a. SIDEY NOTCHEDFigure 22b.Form-design relationships106

Figure 23a. WARMINSTER CROSSEDFigure 23b. Form-design relationships107

Fi g ur e 24a. WARMINSTER HORIZONTALFigure 24b. Form-design r e l a t i o n s h i p s108

Figure 25a. ONONDAGA TRIANGULARFigure 25b. Form-design relationships109

110

FIGURE 27. ONTARIO HORIZONTAL111

FIGURE 28. LAWSON OPPOSED112

FIGURE 29. WARMINSTER HORIZONTAL113

F I G U R E 3 0 . S I D E Y N O T C H E D1 1 4

FIGURE 31. WARMINSTER CROSSED115

FIGURE 32. POUND NECKEDFIGURE 33. POUND BLANK116

FIGURE 3 4 . SIDEY CROSSED1 1 7

FIGURE 3 5 . SEED INCISED1 1 8

FIGURE 36. ONONDAGA TRIANGULARFIGURE 37. NIAGARA COLLARED119

CHART XIX. _ PAYNE SITE CERAMIC MASTER CHART A120

CHART XX. PAYNE SITE MASTER CERAMIC CHART B121

CHART XXI.__PAYNE SITE MASTER CERAMIC CHART C122

CHART XXII.__PAYNE SITE MASTER CERAMIC CHART D123

CHART XXIII.__PAYNE SITE MASTER CERAMIC CHART E124

SUGGESTED READING LISTThe following list of suggested readings havebeen updated from the 1956 publication; at the same timea number of items less useful for analytical purposeshave been dropped.The list below does not seek to be definitive,but it does include a number of the more comprehensivesite reports, particularly those which have ceramicinformation. It also includes examples of analyticaltechniques for specific purposes to serve as an inspiration;and finally appropriate books on general archaeologicaltheory so that the broader aims of research may bekept in sight.Bell, W.D. 1963. "The Guyatt Site." Pennsylvania Archaeologist,Vol. 33, No. 1-2, July.Bodsworth, Fred, 1952. "They're Looting Our History." Maclean'sMagazine, LXV (21), Nov. 1, pp. 18-19, 30-1, 34.Brainerd, George W. 1951. "A Place of Chronological Orderingin Archaeological Analysis." American Antiquity,XVI 293-301 (4) :Chang, K.C. 1967. Rethinking Archaeology. Yale University.Random House, New York. Pp. 1-172.Channen, E.R., and N.D. Clark, 1965. "The Copeland Site: aPre-contact Huron Site in Simcoe County, Ontario."Anthropological Paper No. 8, National Museum ofCanada, Ottawa.Donaldson, William S. 1962. "Archaeological Research in theRouge." Ontario Archaeological Society, Series A,No. 5, Toronto.Emerson, J.N. 1949. "Preliminary Report on the Excavationsof the Kant Site, Renfrew County, Ontario." Bulletin113, National Museum of Canada, Ottawa. Pp. 17-22.--- 1054. "The Archaeology of the Ontario Iroquois.Doctoral Thesis, University of Chicago, Chicago. Pp. 1-302.--- 1955. "Castellation Development among the Iroquois."Ontario Archaeological Society, Publication No. 2, Toronto.--- 1956a. "Understanding Iroquois Pottery in Ontario."Ontario Archaeological Society, Publication No. 3, Toronto.Pp. 1-64.125

Emerson, J.N. 1956b. "A Rejoinder Upon the MacNeish-EmersonTheory." Pennsylvania Archaeologist, Vol. 29, No. 2,August, pp. 98-107.--- 1960. "A Further Note on the McDonald Site,Prince Edward County, Ontario." Ontario History, Vol.LII, No. 1. Toronto.--- 1961. "Problems of Huron Origins." AnthropologicaN.S. Vol. III, No. 2. Canadian Research Centre forAnthropology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa.--- 1966. "The Payne Site: An Iroquoian Manifestationin Prince Edward County, Ontario." National Museum ofCanada, Bulletin No. 206, Contributions to Anthropology,1963-64. Part 1, Paper 5, pp. 126-258. Ottawa.--- and Popham, Robert E. 1952. "Comments upon theHuron and Lalonde Occupations of Ontario." AmericanAntiquity, XVIII (2), October.Fenton, William N. 1940. "Problems Arising From The HistoricNortheastern Position Of The Iroquois." SmithsonianMiscellaneous Collections, Vol. 100, pp. 159-251.Fischer, J.L. 1961. "Art Styles as Cultural Cognitive Maps."American Anthropologist, Vol. 63, Menasha, Wisconsin.Greenman, Emerson F. 1937. The Younge Site. University ofMichigan Press, Ann Arbor.--- 1951. "Old Birch Island Cemetery and the EarlyHistoric Trade Route, Georgian Bay, Ontario."Occasional Contributions from the Museum of Anthropologyof the University of Michigan, No. 11,pp. viii, xxvi, 69.Griffin, James B. 1943. "The Iroquois in American Prehistory."Papers of The Michigan Academy of Science, Arts andLetters, Vol. XXIX, Norwood.Harper, J. Russell. 1952. "The Webb Site: A Stage in EarlyIroquoian Development." Pennsylvania Archaeologist,XXII (2), July, pp. 49-64.Heizer, Robert. 1950. A Manual of Archaeological FieldMethods. The National Press, California.Hunt, George T. 1940. The Wars of The Iroquois. Madison.126

Hunter, Andrew F. 1900. "Notes on Sites of Huron Villagesin the Township of Tay (Simcoe County)." AnnualArchaeological Report, Ontario, 1899, pp. 51-82.--- 1902. "Notes on Sites of Huron Villages inthe Township of Medonte (Simcoe County)." AnnualArchaeological Report, Ontario, 1901, pp. 56-100.--- 1907. "Huron Village Sites." Annual ArchaeologicalReport, Ontario, 1906, pp. 1-56.Jones, Arthur E. 1909. "Old Huronia." Fifth Report of theBureau of Archives for the Province of Ontario, Toronto.Jury, Wilfrid. 1937. "The Alway Prehistoric Site." Universityof Western Ontario, Bulletin No. 1. London.--- 1941. "The Clearville Prehistoric Site."University of Western Ontario, Bulletin No. 2.London.--- 1946. "Southwold Prehistoric Earthworks."Canadian Historical Review, XXVII (4), pp. 391-3.--- 1948a. "The Flannigan Prehistoric Huron VillageSite." University of Western Ontario, Bulletin No. 6.--- 1948b. "The Crawford Prehistoric Village Site."University of Western Ontario, Bulletin No. 7. London.--- and Fox, W. Sherwood. 1948. "A Pre-White HuronVillage in Simcoe County, Ontario." Transactions ofThe Royal Society of Canada, XLIII, Sec. 2, pp. 85-89.Toronto.Jury, Elsie McLeod. 1950. "A Guide to Archaeological Researchin Ontario." Ontario Library Review, May.Kenyon, W.A. 1959a. "A Late Woodland Site Near Pickering."Ontario History, Vol. 51, No. 1. Toronto.--- 1959b. "The Inverhuron Site." Art and Archaeology,Occasional Paper 1, The Royal Ontario Museum. Toronto.--- 1960. "The Miller Site - 1959." In New Pagesof Prehistory, 1959. Ontario History, Vol. LII,No. 1. Toronto.--- 1967. The Miller Site. Doctoral Thesis,University of Toronto, Toronto.Kidd, Kenneth E. 1949. "The Identification of French MissionSites in the Huron Country: A Study in Procedure."Ontario History, XLI (2), April, pp. 89-94.127

Kidd, Kenneth E. 1950. "Orr Lake Pottery." Transactions ofThe Royal Canadian Institute, pp. 165-185. Toronto.--- 1952. "Sixty Years of Ontario Archaeology."Archaeology of the Eastern United States, Ed. JamesB. Griffin. Chicago, The University of ChicagoPress, pp. 71-82.--- 1953. "The Excavation and Historical Identificationof a Huron Ossuary." American Antiquity,XVIII (4), April.--- 1954. "A Woodland Site Near Chatham, Ontario."Transactions of The Royal Canadian Institute,Vol. XXX, Pt. II. Toronto.Kineitz, W. Vernon. 1940. "The Indians of the Western GreatLakes, 1615-1760." Occasional Contributions of theMuseum of Anthropology of the University of Michigan.No.10.Kraus, Bertram S. 1944. "Acculturation, A New Approach To TheStudy of The Iroquois Problem." American Antiquity,IX (3).Krieger, Alex. 1944. "The Typological Concept." AmericanAntiquity, Vol. 9. Menasha.Laidlaw, George E. 1891. "Balsam Lake." Annual ArchaeologicalReport, Ontario, 1891, pp. 73-77.--- 1897. "Balsam Lake." Annual ArchaeologicalReport, Ontario, 1896-97, pp. 80-89.--- 1899. "North Victoria County." AnnualArchaeological Report, Ontario, 1899, pp. 41-50.--- 1902. "Notes on North Victoria." AnnualArchaeological Report, Ontario, 1901, pp. 100-108.--- 1917. "Indian Sites in Victoria County andVicinity." Annual Archaeological Report, Ontario, 1917,pp. 91-105.Lee, Thomas E. 1951. "A Preliminary Report on an ArchaeologicalSurvey of Southwestern Ontario in 1949." NationalMuseum of Canada Bulletin 123, pp. 42-48. Ottawa.--- 1952. "A Preliminary Report on an ArchaeologicalSurvey of Southwestern Ontario for 1950." NationalMuseum of Canada Bulletin 126, pp. 64-75. Ottawa.--- 1956. "New Light on Iroquois Origins." OntarioHistory, Vol. LVIII, No. 4. Toronto.128

Lennig, Donald and P. Schuyler Miller. 1953. "An EarlyOwasco Sequence in Eastern New York." New York StateMuseum, Circular 32. Albany.MacNeish, Richard S. 1952a. "The Archaeology of the NortheasternUnited States." Ed. James B. Griffin,University of Chicago Press, pp. 46-58. Chicago.1952b. "Iroquois Pottery Types." NationalMuseum of Canada, Bulletin 124. Ottawa.McCarthy, Richard L. 1962. The Portage Site. Buffalo andErie County Historical Society. Buffalo.Mcllwraith, T.F. 1946. "Archaeological Work in Huronia, 1946:Excavation Near Warminster." Canadian HistoricalReview, XXVII (4) December, pp. 394-401.--- 1947. "On The Location of Cahiague." Transactionsof The Royal Society of Canada, XLI,Series 3, Section II, pp. 99-102.Needler, G.H. 1949. "Champlain's Route with the Huron WarParty in 1615." Ontario History, XLI (4), pp. 201-206.Pearson, R. 1959. "The MacDonald Site." Ontario History,Vol. 51, No. 1. Toronto.Pendergast, James F. 1962. "The Crystal Rock Site, An EarlyOnondaga-Oneida Site in Eastern Ontario." PennsylvaniaArchaeologist, Vol. XXXIII, No. 1. Gettysburg.--- 1963. "The Payne Site." National Museum of Canada,Bulletin 193, Contributions to Anthropology. Ottawa.--- 1964. "Nine Small Sites on Lake St. Francisrepresenting an Early Iroquois Horizon in the UpperSt. Lawrence River Valley." Anthropologica, 6 (2),pp . 183-222.--- 1965. "Three Prehistoric Iroquois Components inEastern Ontario." National Museum of Canada, Bulletin208, Ottawa.--- 1966. "The Berry Site." National Museum ofCanada, Bulletin 206. Ottawa.--- 1967. "A Comparison of St. Lawrence River ValleyIroquoian Sites with the Dawson Site." OntarioArchaeology, No. 10, June, pp. 3-11.Popham, Robert E. 1950. "Late Huron Occupations of Ontario:An Archaeological Survey of Innisfil Township."Ontario History, XLII, No. 2, pp. 81-90. Toronto.129

' Pratt, Peter P. 1960. "A Criticism of MacNeish's PotteryTypes." Pennsylvania Archaeologist, Vol. XXX,No. 3-4, Gettysburg.Quimby, George I. and Spoehr, Alexander. 1951."Acculturation and Material Culture." Fieldiana:Anthropology, XXXVI (6), July, pp. 107-47.Quimby, George I. 1960. Indian Life In The Upper GreatLakes. University of Chicago Press. Chicago.--- 1966. "Indian Culture and European Trade Goods."The Archaeology of The Historic Period in theWestern Great Lakes Region. University of WisconsinPress, Madison.Ridley, Frank. 1947. "A Search For Ossossane and Its Environs."Ontario History, XXXIX. Toronto.1952a. "The Huron and Lalonde Occupations of Ontario."American Antiquity, XVIII (3), January, pp. 197-210.1952b. "The Fallis Site." American Antiquity,XVIII (1), July, pp. 7-14.1954. "The Frank Bay Site, Lake Nipissing, Ontario."American Antiquity, Vol. 20. No. 1. Salt Lake City.1958. "The Boys and Barrie Sites." The OntarioArchaeological Society, Publication No. 4. Toronto.1959. "Did The Hurons Really Migrate North From TheToronto Area?" Pennsylvania Archaeologist, Vol. 28,No. 3-4. December.1961. Archaeology of the Neutral Indians. EtobicokeHistorical Society, Port Credit, Ontario.1963. "The Iroquoian Controversy." Ontario History,Vol. LV, No. 1. Toronto.Ritchie,William A. 1944. "The Pre-Iroquoian Occupation of NewYork State." Rochester Museum of Arts and Science,Museum Memoir No. 1.1949. "An Archaeological Survey of The Trent Waterwayin Ontario, Canada, and Its Significance For New YorkState Prehistory." Research Records, Rochester Museumof Arts and Science, No. 9, pp. 1-52. Rochester.1951. "A Current Synthesis of New York Prehistory."American Antiquity, XVII (2), October, pp. 130-36.130

Ritchie, William A. 1952. "The Chance Horizon: An EarlyStage of Mohawk Cultural Development." New YorkState Museum, Circular 29. Albany.1961a. "Iroquois Archaeology and Settlement Patterns."In Symposium on Cherokee and Iroquois Culture, eds.William N. Fenton and John Glulick. SmithsonianInstitution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 180.Washington, D.C.1961b. "A Typology and Nomenclature for New YorkProjectile Points." New York State Museum and ScienceService Bulletin 384. Albany.1965. The Archaeology of New York State. The NaturalHistory Press, Garden City, New York. Pp. 1-357.Robinson, W.S. 1951. "A Method tor Chronological Ordering InArchaeological Deposits." American Antiquity, XVI (4).Sagard, Father Gabriel. 1939. The Long Journey To The CountryOf The Hurons. The Champlain Society. Toronto.Ritchie, William A. and MacNeish, Richard S. 1949. "The Pre-Iroquoian Pottery of New York State." AmericanAntiquity, Vol. 15, No. 2. Menasha.Snyderman, George S. 1948. "Behind The Tree Of Peace: ASociological Analysis of Iroquois Warfare." PennsylvaniaArchaeologist, XVIII (3-4), Fall, pp. 2-93.Spaulding, Albert C. 1960. Statistical Description and Comparisonof Artifact Assemblages, in the Applicationof Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. QuadrangleBooks, Chicago.Speck, Frank G. 1945. "The Iroquois: A Study in CulturalEvolution." Cranbrook Institute of Science, BulletinNo. 23. Bloomfield Hills.Taylor, Walter A. 1947. "A Study of Archaeology." Memoirs ofThe American Anthropological Association, No. 79.White, Marian E. 1958. "Dating The Niagara Frontier IroquoisSequence." New York State archaeologist BulletinNo. 14. Albany.1961. "Iroquois Culture History In The Niagara FrontierArea of New York State." University of MichiganAnthropological Papers No. 16. Ann Arbor.131

Wintemberg, William J. 1900. "Indian Village Sites in theCounties of Oxford and Waterloo." Annual ArchaeologicalReport, Ontario, 1899, pp. 83-92: and for 1900, pp. 37-40.1903. "Archaeology In Blenheim Township." AnnualArchaeological Report, Ontario, 1902.1913. "Archaeology Of Blandford Township." VictoriaMemorial Museum, Bulletin No. 1.1928. "The Uren Village Site, Oxford County, Ontario."National Museum of Canada, Bulletin 51.1936. "The Roebuck Prehistoric Village Site, GrenvilleCounty, Ontario." National Museum of Canada, Bulletin 83.1939. "The Lawson Prehistoric Site, Middlesex County,Ontario." National Museum of Canada, Bulletin 94.1942. "The Geographical Distribution Of AboriginalPottery in Canada." American Antiquity, VIII (2),October, pp. 129-141.1946. "The Sidey-Mackay Village Site." AmericanAntiquity, XI (3), pp. 154-182.1948. "The Middleport Prehistoric Village Site."National Museum of Canada, Bulletin 109.Wray, Charles Foster. 1948. "Varieties and Sources of Flintin New York State." Pennsylvania Archaeologist,XVIII (1-2), Spring, pp. 27-45.Wright, Gordon K. 1950. "The Long Point Site." PennsylvaniaArchaeology Bulletin, XX (3-4), July-December.1963. The Neutral Indians: A Source Book. OccasionalPapers of the New York State Archaeological Association,No. 4. New York State Archaeological Association,Rochester, N.Y.Wright, James V. 1960. "The Middleport Horizon."Vol. II, No. 1. Ottawa.Anthropologica,1966. The Ontario Iroquois Tradition. National Museumof Canada, Bulletin 210. Ottawa.1967. "Type and Attribute Analysis in Iroquois Culture,History and Prehistory." Proceedings of the 1965 Conferenceon Iroquois Research, Ed. Elizabeth Tooker, Universityof The State of New York. The State Education Department.New York State Museum and Science Service. Pp. 99-100.132