PETROGRAPIIlC AND ELEl\.ffiNTAL ANALYSIS OF CLAYS AND WOODLAND PERIOD CERAMICS FROM BIG RICE LAKE, SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST, MINNESOTA: A STUDY IN TECHNOLOGY AND PROVENANCE

A THESIS SUBMITIED TO THE FACUL TY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

BY

ELIZABETH ANN SKOKAN

IN PARTIAL FULFILLI\IBNT OF THE REQUIREl\.ffiNTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASIBR OF SCIENCE

JUNE 1993 ABSTRACT Petrographic and instrumental neutron activation analysis of ceramics, sediment, and granite from a multi-component Woodland Period site at Big Rice Lake, northeastern Minnesota, was undertaken to provide information regarding the technology and movement of pottery and the people who made the pottery as well as the source of raw materials. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics, principal components analysis, and discriminant- function analysis. Differences in the percentages of inclusions in the pottery between the Initial Woodland Laurel and Terminal Woodland Blackduck, Selkirk, and Sandy Lake cultures imply a technological contrast between the two groups rather than the use of different raw materials. Petrographic analysis was found to be a poor indicator of provenance. Principal components and discriminant-function analysis of trace-element data showed that the pottery, sediment, clay, and granite excavated and collected at Big Rice Lake are chemically similar and may represent a single population. Pottery from Lake Winnibigoshish and clay from Deer River, Minnesota, analyzed to provide comparisons with the Big Rice Lake samples, were identified as a distinct group. Pottery is suggested to have been made at Big Rice Lake using local raw materials.

11 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract...... ii Table of Contents ...... iii List of Figures ...... v List of Tables ...... vi List of Plates ...... vi Acknowledgements ...... vii Introduction ...... 1 Study Area...... 8 Bedrock Geology ...... 9 Glacial Geology ...... 12 Vegetational History ...... 16 Cultural History of Northern Minnesota ...... 20 Paleoindian ...... 20 Archaic ...... 20 Laurel ...... 22 Blackduck ...... 25 Selkirk ...... 26 Sandy Lake ...... 26 Big Rice Site History ...... 27 Previous Work ...... 30 Petrographic Analysis ...... 30 Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis ...... 32 Graphical and Multivariate Statistical Analysis ...... 35 Analytical Methods ...... 37 Results and Discussion ...... 45 Conclusions ...... 75 References Cited ...... 78 Appendix A. Petrographic data from the point-counting of seventy-one thin sections ...... 88 Appendix B. Component scores from the petrographic data of seventy-one thin sections ...... 92 Appendix C. Table of elements referred to in study ...... 94

iii Appendix D. INAA elemental concentration values (ppm) for ninety samples of pottery, clay, sediment, and granite ...... 97 Appendix E. Table of detection limits provided by the University of Wisconsin- Madison Research Reactor for the twenty elements used in the statistical analysis and the lowest value among the ninety samples detected for each element...... 103 Appendix F. Component scores from the elemental concentration values of ninety samples that underwent INAA ...... 104

IV LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Map of Minnesota with location of Big Rice Lake ...... 2 Figure 2. Site map of Big Rice Lake ...... 3 Figure 3. Map of Minnesota with location of Big Rice Lake, Lake Winnibigoshish, and Dtrer . River...... 5 Figure 4. Geologic bedrock map of Minnesota ...... 10 Figure 5. Map of Minnesota showing composite of the Wisconsin ice advances ...... 13 Figure 6. Vegetational map of Minnesota ...... 18 Figure 7. Decoration on Woodland Period cerarnics ...... 24 Figure 8. Location of sediment sample collection at Big Rice Lake ...... 38 Figure 9. Location of granite collection near Big Rice Lake...... 40 Figure 10. Big Rice Site map showing Area A features ...... 42 Figure 11. Ternary diagrams of petrographic volume percent data of pottery ...... 46 Figure 12. Variable loadings for the petrographic data ...... 48 Figure 13. Plot of component 1 versus 2 petrographic data ...... : ...... 49 Figure 14. Components 1-4 PCA variable loadings for combined pottery data ...... 55 Figure 15. Components 5-8 PCA variable loadings for combined pottery data ...... 56 Figure 16. Plot of component 1 versus 2 INAA -pottery data and variable loadings ...... 57 Figure 17. Plot of component 4 versus 7 INAA pottery data and variable loadings ...... 58 Figure 18. Plot of component 3 versus 5 INAA pottery data and variable loadings ...... 60 Figure 19. Plot of component 3 versus 6 INAA pottery data and variable loadings ...... 62 Figure 20. Plot of component 1 versus 3 INAA sediment data and variable loadings ...... 63 Figure 21. Plot of component 5 versus 7 INAA sediment data and variable loadings ...... , ...... 64

v Figure 22. Plot of component 2 versus 6 INAA sediment data and variable loadings ...... 65 Figure 23. Plot of component 4 versus 6 INAA sediment data and variable loadings ...... 68 Figure 24. Plot of component 2 versus 6 and 3 versus 6 for all of the Big Rice Lake INAA data ...... 69 Figure 25. Plot of component 2 versus 6 and 3 versus 6 for the Lake Winnibigoshish pottery and Deer River clay INAA data ...... 71 Figure 26. Discriminant-function analysis plot of all INAA data with two groups defined ...... 72 Figure 27. Discriminant-function analysis plot of all INAA data with Big Rice Lake pottery left as unknowns ...... 73

LIST OF TABLES

Table. 1 Table of Minnesota archaeology including dates and cultural characteristics ...... 21 Table 2. Table of variability of INAA data for Deer River clay and all sediment, clay, and granite samples from Big Rice Lake ...... 68

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 1. Photomicrograph of sediment from Site 5 at Big Rice Lake showing large quantities of granite fragments with varied roundness ...... 51 Plate 2. Photomicrograph of a sherd excavated at Big Rice Lake (S-252) showing large quantities of granite fragments similar to Plate 1...... 52 Plate 3. Photomicrograph of a sherd excavated at Big Rice Lake (B-250) showing mixing of two different sediments ...... 53

vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project could not have been completed without the support of my family, friends, and advisor, Dr. Rip Rapp. Thanks are necessary to Gordon R. Peters for his almost endless supply of ceramics and useful remarks and insights into the cultures on which this thesis is based. Dr. Howard Mooers was extremely helpful in the interpretation of the statistics. Thank you to Angie Gowan, who figured out the statistics programs and then was kind enough to share the information with me! Special thanks to James K. Huber for his direction and sense of humor at the beginning, middle, and end of this project.

Vll

\ I c') INTRODUCTION An archaeological problem of importance in northern Minnesota is that of the differences in ceramic technology and practices among Woodland Period cultures. At Big Rice Lake, located approximately 20 km (12 miles) north of Virginia, Minnesota (Figure 1), pottery remains from a wild rice processing camp have allowed some of these questions to be addressed. The occurrence at the site of over forty thousand potsherds from four Woodland cultures, including Laurel, Blackduck, Selkirk, and Sandy Lake (G.R. Peters, personal communication), allows comparison within and among the cultures to illustrate technological and social changes. In addition, the question of where the cultures were acquiring pottery raw materials will be addressed. The final step in this ceramic ecological investigation will be to use this information to reconstruct and interpret the developments in technological and social aspects of the cultures. The archaeological site at Big Rice Lake was occupied almost continuously through the Woodland Period (Figure 2). The site was excavated from 1983 to 1985 by the National Forest Service, F.S. #09-09- 09-034 (Peters and Motivans, 1983). The first questions to be addressed by the investigation concern technology. Are the Initial Woodland Laurel, and Terminal Woodland Blackduck, Selkirk, and Sandy Lake ceramics different in composition and if so, how do they differ and what do these differences imply about changes in the cultures? These questions will be addressed with the use of petrography and trace-element analysis. The more intriguing question is that of clay procurement. Trace-element analysis will be used to determine if the raw materials used were the same or whether they differ for each culture, and to relate the pottery samples to sediment samples collected at the site. This investigation will test the hypothesis that both the Initial and Terminal Woodland cultural groups acquired their clay in the vicinity of Big Rice Lake and made all the pottery on the site. The reasons behind this pattern of behavior may be cultural or based on resource availability (Williams, 1983). Cultural patterns could include religious, historical, or ancestral reasons for selecting and treating a clay or making the vessel in a specific manner; whereas resource availability implies no conscious decision made on the part of the potter in selecting a clay or tempering material (Williams, 1983; Rice,

1 z L-----

0 :E ....OI >•

41 ..:.

Figure 1. Map of Minnesota with location of Big Rice Lake.

2 "Tl..... d ...... __ ...... I• "Tl N o·..., CD Cll Cl) ..... '-" CD --s ----... \ \ . SI) "O .....,0 0 I 2 I co. JOJ \Control ' I I I (1Q . . J. /(- (. Kll.OllElU!S

c:;· .. 0 CD "\. '\ \ I /. JI . I .. .. • t""' SI)

,.....

SI) "O 0= ::ti .. CD- e AlUUQ LEGEND SI) lfiA:00/100 . v.. -::r • POSITIVE SHOVEL TEST -CD . • NEGATIVE SHOVEL TEST Cf} .g a EXCAVATION UNITS CD ::i. 0 RICING JGS 0., z DATUM 1.61 U ABOVE LAKE LEVEL SI) .. N CONTOUR INlERVAL IOCU. s· 0 - SCAL£ SI)= - BIG RICE LAKE 0 5 10 15 El£VA llON UET£RS 111111 I I ABOVE SEA l£Vll. llElERS 1984). The choice of raw materials is entirely dictated by what is readily available in the area. The alternative hypothesis is that in one or both cultural periods people used clay from other locations around the region and either carried the raw clay or finished pottery from place to place. Again, this behavior may have been a result of cultural practices or the availability of resources in the region. Neither hypothesis is intended to be a rule governing the cultures, and it may be that some or most of the pottery was made on the site with individual pieces of pottery carried from elsewhere. Ethnographic and archaeological evidence have shown that the wild rice camps were inhabited only during the harvesting season, which extends from August through September (Johnson, 1969a; Vennum, 1988). According to anthropological principles of least cost, heavy clay would not have been transported as a raw material from one place to another (Bishop, et al., 1982; Rice, 1987). It is not efficient, especially if suitable clay can be found locally (Bishop, et al., 1982). Arnold (1971) observed among pre-industrial communities that 64% of the potters collected raw materials < 4 km from the place of manufacture and 91 % from < 7 km. It is often assumed that pottery is made at a time when people are more sedentary, because of the factors associated with procuring, making, and transporting the pottery (Clark, et al., 1992). In the Great Lakes region spring and fall fishing, maple sugaring, and ricing camps are the most sedentary activities (Clark, et al., 1992). This general pattern supports the hypothesis that the Woodland Period cultural groups made pottery when they arrived at Big Rice Lake to harvest and process the wild rice, and left the pottery behind when they travelled on their seasonal rounds. In order to test the hypothesis that pottery was made at Big Rice Lake from local materials, petrographic analysis of a sample of sherds from the four cultures represented at the site, and from areas around Lake Winnibigoshish and Round Lake (Figure 3) for comparison, was undertaken to provide information about the inclusions in the pottery. Of particular interest was the mineralogy and indication of which rocks and minerals occurred naturally with the clay and which were added by the potter. The petrographic information will be used to determine if differences exist between the pottery

4 <.[ ...... -J' z ,";"'/ <::)- , 'l'.J ' Q'.'. 01 /$1 > "'

./ \

0 (\J "' z I h:i::u "'- \ :i:: (/) 0 w _J ::;::: tn

0

n

f=1 _j z

Figure 3. Map of Minnesota with location of Big Rice Lake, Lake Winnibigoshish, and Deer River.

5 of the cultural groups and between the same cultures that lived in different geographical regions. Ninety samples of pottery, clay, sediment, and granite from Big Rice Lake and several other areas in Minnesota (Figure 3) were then sent to the University of Wisconsin-Madison reactor facility for instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA). INAA is a sensitive analytical method used to identify and determine concentrations of elements, especially trace elements (Sayre and Dodson, 1957; Perlman and Asaro, 1969; Clark, 1991). The application of INAA to archaeological provenance studies is based on the concept that a group of samples from one geological source will be similar in composition and differ from samples from other geological sources (Arnold, et al., 1978). Data collected through petrographic analysis of the pottery and through trace-element analysis of pottery, clay, sediment, and granite were evaluated using basic descriptive statistics, principal components analysis, and discriminant-function analysis. Statistical and multivariate techniques provide an objective method of evaluation and comparison of the characteristics of artifactual and naturally occurring material (Tite, 1972). Identification of the actual clay bed used for pottery making is not feasible in most cases. Obviously, sampling clay deposits in the supposed region of resource procurement is necessary, but collecting samples from all possible localities and deposits .is not possible (Wilson, 1978; Howard, 1982; Neff, et al., 1992). The exact sources of clay utilized by ancient potters will likely not be sampled and potters may have altered the raw materials in a variety of ways (Perlman and Asaro, 1969; Darvill and Timby, 1982; Bishop, et al., 1982; Neff, et al., 1992). Treatment by the potter, such as addition of temper, or changes in the clay bed through time and space all combine to affect the perceived similarity between the two materials (Rice and Saffer, 1982; Neff, et al., 1988a). In addition, the pattern of seasonal subsistence and movement among the Woodland Period people will result in a more diffuse patterning of the analytical data (Clark, et al., 1992). Despite these difficulties it has been shown that pottery and clay can be assigned to "zones" of origin with a fair amount of certainty (Hall, 1971; Rice, 1978; Bishop, et al., 1988; Neff, et al., 1988b; Neff, et al., 1992). This concept of "zones" of origin has been referred to as macroprovenance (Rice and Saffer, 1982). The clay, sediment, and granite

6 collected at Big Rice Lake serve as a reference group against which the pottery excavated at the lake can be compared. The chemical composition of the raw material collected around the lake is characterized by analysis of a few samples and represent one resource zone. Based on the chemical signature of the sediment the origin of the pottery can be determined. The use of the natural sciences in conjunction with archaeological research has greatly changed both the philosophy and approach of many archaeologists (Peacock, 1970; Tite, 1972; Williams, 1983). Petrography and elemental analyses provide complementary information and have been important in the research of ceramics (Peacock, 1970; Wilson, 1978; Riley, 1982; Williams, 1983; Buko, 1984; Stoltman, 1989). It is for these reasons that both techniques were chosen to address the technological and provenance questions concerning the pottery from Big Rice Lake.

7 STUDY AREA The archaeological site at Big Rice Lake, St. Louis County, Minnesota is on the northern shore of the lake, just east of the present boat landing (Figure 2). The site is located in the NE 1/4, NE 1/4 of Section 9 and the NW 1/4, NW 1/4 of Section 10, T60N, R17W of the Biwabik NW 7.5 minute quadrangle, in the Superior National Forest. The lake is at 9229' W longitude and 4742' N latitude. The site sits on a terraced peninsula allowing most of the lake to be viewed (Rapp, et al., 1990). Little Rice Lake to the east drains into Big Rice Lake; which in tum is drained by the Rice River (Figure 1). Although navigable by canoe a portage from Pike River to the south shore of the lake is indicated by ethnographic and historical accounts (Peters and Motivans, 1983).

8 BEDROCK GEOLOGY The rocks in the western Lake Superior region preserve a complex history of magmatism, metamorphism, and deformation (Figure 4). Rocks north of the Mesabi Range are Early Precambrian (Archean) in age (Sims, 1972a). They comprise the Minnesota segment of the Superior Province of the Canadian Shield (Hough, 1958; Sims, 1972a). The batholitic Saganaga Tonalite, also Archean in age, was intruded into the eastern part of the district (Hanson, 1972). The region's oldest rocks are in the Vermilion district, a narrow east- west trending belt of volcanic rocks, felsic volcaniclastic rocks, graywacke, sandstone, slate, and conglomerate (Sims, 1972b). The sequence, from oldest to youngest, consists of the Ely Greenstone (including the Soudan Iron-formation member) and the Lake Vermilion formation comprised of dacitic volcaniclastic rock, graywacke, ·and slate (Sims, 1972b). The Vermilion district is bounded and engulfed on the south by the Archean Giants Range batholith; this granitic pluton was emplaced into the volcanic and sedimentary sequence during later stages of a volcanogenic cycle (Sims and Viswanathan, 1972). The Giants Range batholith forms a drainage divide between water bound for the Atlantic and for Hudson Bay (Wright, 1972b; Lehr and Hobbs, 1992). The granitic plutons, including the Saganaga, Vermilion, and Giants Range, are evidence of mountain-building at approximately 2.7 Ga (Sims, 1972a). To the east the Giants Range batholith is overlain and metamorphosed by the Duluth Complex (Sims and Viswanathan, 1972). To the south of the Giants Range lies the Mesabi Iron Range of Early Proterozoic age, lying unconformably beneath the Keweenawan Series of basaltic lavas. The sequence on the Mesabi Range is comprised of the Pokegama Quartzite, the Biwabik Iron-formation, and the Virginia Formation. The Virginia, comprised of argillite and siltstone is correlated with the Thomson Formation to the south near Duluth (Morey, 1972). The Thomson was folded and metamorphosed during a period of mountain-building 1.85 Ga (Green, 1972; Morey, 1972). Closer to the shores of Lake Superior is a thick sequence of basaltic lavas dated at 1.1 Ga, this part of the Keweenawan sequence is called the North Shore Volcanic Group in Minnesota (Green, 1972). These mafic rocks represent an abortive continental rift (Craddock, 1972; Green, 1972). As the lower part of the Middle Keweenawan volcanic sequence formed, it was

9 MANITOBA ONTARIO

9L.. ___..._ __ _.._ ....1 9" ,......

C.-eracaous Patcliy Cre1aceau1 day and sandstone end clay morl

. Granite

Crystalline rodts

Patchy C.-1taceous sand11ane end clay over fI Siliceous I Pierre Sltale crystal Ii.,. CCrttoceousl racks l'Gleoraic sandsrane,. dalomite " ...... ,______'"'- J ,. " IOWA WIS SlN

Figure 4. Geologic bedrock map of Minnesota. (After Wright, 1972a)

1 0 intruded by the Duluth Complex, which is comprised of an older gabbroic anorthosite and a younger layered gabbro which intrudes the gabbroic anorthosite (Green, 1972). The lava flows and gabbro are similar in composition and are overlain conformably by elastic sedimentary strata (Green, 1972). With cessation of volcanic and rifting activity, the entire sequence of rocks in Minnesota was tilted gently eastward and a thick wedge of sediments accumulated in the subsiding basin. These Late Precambrian sediments include the red Fond du Lac Formation and the buff Hinckley Sandstone (Ojakangas and Morey, 1982). Few rocks of Paleozoic age are preserved in the western Lake Superior region; a profound unconformity is represented by Quaternary deposits overlying the Precambrian basement (Wright, 1972a). The only younger rocks preserved in the area are the consequence of glacial activity in the Pleistocene epoch, discussed below. The study area is situated to the south and east of the Vermilion Formation and north of the Mesabi Iron Range (Sims and Viswanathan, 1972). Immediately to the north of Big Rice Lake lie Archean metagraywackes and slates. To the west are metabasalts and metadiabase of the Keweenawan Series. Granitic rocks, part of the Giants Range, lie to the south and east of Big Rice Lake (Sims and Viswanathan, 1972).

1 1 GLACIAL GEOLOGY Glaciers alternately advanced and retreated into the Lake Superior region during the Pleistocene Epoch. The Superior and Rainy lobes and St. Louis sublobe of the Des Moines lobe all influenced the landscape of northeastern Minnesota '(Wright and Watts, 1969). The Superior lobe generally followed the axis of the Lake Superior basin, carrying North Shore volcanics, Duluth Complex, and Precambrian sandstones (Wright, et al., 1973). The Rainy lobe flowed from the north-northeast, depositing Precambrian crystalline rock, including granite, gneiss, and gabbro, metasedimentary rocks, and iron-formation (Wright, 1972a). There were four phases of ice movement that affected the study area during the general retreat from the maximum Wisconsin Glaciation approximately 20,000 B.P. (Wright, 1976) (Figure 5). During the St. Croix phase the contiguous Superior and Rainy lobes covered most of the e.astem half of the state, terminating at the St. Croix moraine approximately 20,000 B.P. (Wright and Rube, 1965). Following this phase the Superior lobe retreated into the Lake Superior basin and the Rainy lobe to near the Canadian border; this phase probably extended to 14,000 B.P. (Wright and Watts, 1969). In the Automba phase, the Rainy lobe's position is uncertain, but it was probably in the area covered by St. Louis sublobe deposits (Lehr and Hobbs, 1992). The Superior lobe advanced to the Wright, Cromwell, and Highland moraines on its northern margin and terminated at the Mille Lacs moraine (Wright, et al., 1973). As Automba-phase ice melted, Glacial Lakes Upham I and Aitkin I ponded on the north side of the Mille Lacs, Wright, and Cromwell moraines (Wright and Watts, 1969). There are no dates for this phase, ·but bracketing may place it at approximately 13,000 B.P. The Superior lobe retreated far enough into the Lake Superior basin that a glacial lake formed at the ice front, in to which was deposited red clay (Wright, 1976). These fine-grained lacustrine clays were subsequently overridden by the Superior lobe during the Split Rock phase, leaving red clayey till over older glacial landforms (Wright, 1972a). The lobe then retreated into the Lake Superior basin.

1 2 r··-··-··J.\ ) ··-.. I. \ ! ) . PHASES OF ICE·LOBE \ MOVEMENT j

( o...... ·1 "'"' j\ ______}

Figure 5. Map of . Minnesota showing composite of the Wisconsin ice advances. (After Wright, 1972a)

1 3 During the Nickerson phase, about 12,000-10,500 B.P., the Superior lobe advanced to the Thomson-Nickerson moraine (Wright, 1972a). The St. Louis · sublobe extended eastward from the Des Moines lobe and overrode the Glacial Lakes Upham I and Aitkin I deposits. This sublobe came within 25 miles of the Lake Superior basin (Wright and Watts, 1969). The Superior lobe and St. Louis sublobe retreated together and Glacial Lake Upham II formed in front of the retreating St. Louis sublobe (Lehr and Hobbs, 1992). After retreat of the Superior lobe small proglacial lakes formed at the ice front and eventually merged to form Glacial Lake Duluth (Wright, et al., 1973). These glacial lakes occurred between 11,500 and 9,900 B.P. Elevations of Glacial Lake Duluth were 500 to 600 feet (152-183 m) above the present Lake Superior level of 602 feet (184 m)(Farrand, 1960). Recently it has been proposed that a glacial ice expansion called the Marquette advance occurred about 9,900 B.P., refilling the Lake Superior basin (Drexler, et al., 1983). Areas to the west of Lake Superior, and especially the area north of the Giants Range, appear to have been ice-free during the last glacial advance and the retreat of the Rainy lobe (Bjorck, 1990). Sedimentation in the lakes in the study area became "normal" about 10,200 B.P., representing the end of the melting of stagnant ice (Bjorck, 1990). Following the Pleistocene glaciations stagnant ice remained in moraines and out wash plains, consequently, the drainage in northern Minnesota is poor and lakes and swampy areas abound (Spaulding, 1946; Wright, 1976). Lakes in the area around Big Rice Lake have generally round basins and almost all may be kettle lakes (Bjorck, 1990). Glacial deposits in the area of Big Rice Lake are associated with the Late Wisconsin Rainy lobe, part of the Automba and Vermilion phases (Lehr and Hobbs, 1992). The deposits immediately bordering the lake are part of the Vermilion Moraine Association. These sediments are extremely sandy and stony, and contain only trace amounts of clay (Hobbs and Goebel, 1982). North and east of the lake lie the remnants of a ground moraine; the till is thin and patchy and covers a hilly terrain of scoured bedrock. To the south lies an end moraine generally lacking collapse features. Southwest of the lake Holocene- age peats cover much of the land. Soils at Big Rice Lake consist of loamy sands and sand over gravel (Peters and Motivans, 1983).

1 4 A complication in the determination of provenance of raw materials at Big Rice Lake is that, especially in northern Minnesota, knowledge or sampling of the bedrock geology will not necessarily provide information on the source material for the clays. Glacially transported clays may have been derived from material that is not represented in the underlying bedrock (Shepard, 1965; Howard, 1982). Clays occur in former glacial lakes, till, and outwash deposits. Holocene and glacial clays can be composed of glacial rock flour with minor amounts of clay minerals (Hauck, et al., 1990).

1 5 VEGETATIONAL HISTORY In northeastern Minnesota the first pollen-bearing sediment above the Wisconsin glacial drift is the Compositae-Cyperaceae assemblage zone, including non-arboreal pollen types such as sedge (Cyperaceae), ragweed . (Ambrosia-type), wormwood (Artemisia), Tubuliflorae (subfamily of the Compositae family), and grass (Gramineae). Arboreal pollen includes spruce (Picea) and willow (Salix) (Birks, 1976; Huber, 1992). This zone dates to older than 10,550 B.P. at the type locality at Weber Lake, Lake County (Fries, 1962). A composite date of 12,040 B.P. has been acquired from Big Rice Lake (Huber, 1988). This zone represents a subarctic tundra of treeless or nearly treeless open vegetation of herbs and shrubs established in northern Minnesota following glacial retreat (Fries, 1962; Cushing, 1967; Wright, 1976). Above the Compositae-Cyperaceae zone lies the Betula-Picea assemblage zone (Fries, 1962; Cushing, 1967). Pollen is dominated by birch (Betula), spruce, and willow; the non-arboreal pollen is dominated by sedge and wormwood (Cushing, 1967; Huber, 1992). Dates for this zone range from 10,550- 10,180 B.P. at the type locality at Weber Lake, to an average radiocarbon date from Big Rice Lake of 12,000 B.P (Fries, 1962; Huber, 1988). The Betula-Picea zone represents a shrub parkland that began replacing the tundra environment by 12,000 B.P. in southern areas, reaching northern Minnesota by approximately 10,500 B.P. (Cushing, 1967). Above this zone a Picea-Pinus assemblage zone has been identified, including spruce and pine (Pinus), tamarack (Larix), alder (Alnus), birch, oak (Quercus), black ash (Fraxinus nigra-type), fir (Abies), and elm (Ulmus) (Huber, 1992). The type locality at Weber Lake has yielded a date of about 10,000 to 9,000 B.P. (Fries, 1962). This zone represents a conifer or conifer- hardwood forest (Cushing, 1967). The uppermost regional pollen assemblage zone is comprised of P inus- B e tu la-A lnus. Fir, oak, and elm occur in lesser quantities (Huber, 1992). The type locality at Weber Lake has a date of 9,150 to 7,300 B.P. (Fries, 1962). A date from the base of this zone at Big Rice Lake is 8,300 B.P. (Huber, 1987). This assemblage indicates a mixed conifer-hardwood forest (Cushing, 1967). Two other undefined zones occur in northeast Minnesota. The first zone above the Pinus-Betula-Alnus zone is composed of high values (greater than

I 6 50%) of pine and major birch and alder, representing a continuation of the mixed conifer-hardwood forest with red and/or jack pine being replaced by white pine; this change occurred in the region by about 7,000 B.P. (Fries, 1962). This zone has been dated at Big Rice Lake to 6,850 B.P. (Huber, 1987). A change from cooler, moister conditions to warmer and drier occurred around this time (Rajnovich, 1984). At Big Rice Lake an expansion of the Prairie Peninsula is indicated by the increase in regional pollen of deciduous trees and prairie-type plants (Huber, 1992). The uppermost zone is characterized by an increase in spruce and pine; birch and alder are still imponant (Fries, 1962). The changes in this zone indicate an increase of hardwoods in the mixed conifer-hardwood forest, dating to approximately 3,000 B.P. (Huber, 1992). The period between 3,000 and 2,500 B.P. was cooler and wetter; raised bogs in nonhem Minnesota and muskegs in nonhwest Ontario developed (Rajnovich, 1984). A final trend recognized in the pollen cores at Big Rice Lake and several other lakes in the area is an increase in ragweed, dating to pioneer settlement and logging at about 1890 (Huber, 1992). Presently nonheast Minnesota lies in an area of mixed coniferous and deciduous forest characterized by pine, in addition to typical species of adjacent areas of Canada, including spruce, fir, birch, and poplar, and typical species of deciduous forest to the south, including black/green ash (Fraxinus nigra/pennsylvanica), oak, maple (Acer), elm, basswood (Tilia), and ironwood (Ostrya) (Wright and Watts, 1969) (Figure 6). Nonh of the site at Big Rice Lake lies a mature stand of sugar maple. To the west and east of the site lowlands consisting of stagnant water, black spruce, sphagnum, and numerous varieties of bog species are present (Peters and Motivans, 1983). A floating mat of vegetation is located on the southwest end of the lake near the outlet. At Big Rice Lake wild rice grows abundantly as in many other lakes in nonhem Minnesota and Wisconsin. Wild rice, Zizania aquatica, an annual aquatic member of the grass (Gramineae) family, grows in much of Nonh America, from latitude 50° to the Gulf of Mexico and from the Atlantic to the Rockies (Jenks, 1977). The range of wild rice occurrence has shrunk considerably since the stan of widespread farming, industrial growth, and changes in water quality; it is presently concentrated in the . upper two-thirds

I 7 0 so mt lat 0 100 I I I I ...I I I. I SCA.LE

Marsh

Madolia

Figure 6. Vegetational map of Minnesota. (After Wright and Watts, 1969)

1 8 of Wisconsin, the portion of Minnesota lying east of the Misissippi River, and in Ontario and Manitoba (Lofstrom, 1987; Vennum, 1988). It grows in shallow lakes, ponds, and slow moving streams, generally 50-100 cm deep, that have a muddy sediment bed (Johnson, 1969b; Jenks, 1977; Yourd, 1988). The growth and distribution of wild rice depend on water level, weather, water quality, sunlight, and the composition of the bed in which it grows (Vennum, 1988; Yourd, 1988). The headwaters of the Mississippi River are the center of the Minnesota wild rice beds (Johnson, 1969b). The earliest known occurrence of wild rice is at Wolf Creek, central Minnesota dated at about 10,550 B.P. (Birks, 1976). Wild rice was present in small quantities in Marquette Pond at about 3,500 B.P. (Yourd, 1988). Other evidence for wild rice in northern Minnesota is at Rice Lake, Becker County, with a radiocarbon data of 1,935+ 100 B.P. (McAndrews, 1969). While there is no date for the introduction of wild rice into Big Rice Lake a date of 1,670+45 B.P. (Pitt 0349) does exist from an Initial Woodland parching pit associated with wild rice and Laurel ceramics on the site (Rapp, et al., 1990). Wild rice was distributed in northeast, northwest, and east central Minnesota by the beginning of the late Holocene, a period of increased precipitation and cooler temperatures (Yourd, 1988). The spread of wild rice may have been due to climatic change and changes in water quality or to shallowing of lakes by sedimentation (McAndrews, 1969; Birks, 1976; Yourd, 1988).

1 9 CULTURAL HISTORY OF NORTHERN MINNESOTA Brief highlights from this section are compiled in Table 1. PALEO INDIAN Retreat of glacial ice from the Upper Great Lakes region 12,000 years ago allowed people to inhabit the region by approximately 10,000 years ago (Quimby, 1960; Johnson, 1969a; Mason, 1981). Sites around the Lake Superior basin are dated to as early as 9,900 B.P., including the Cummins and Brohm sites in Ontario (Dawson, 1983; Clark, 1991). These two sites were quarry workshops and habitation sites (Dawson, 1983). The first people to have arrived in the area are referred to as Paleoindians, and may have come from the south and the west (Johnson, 1969b; Dawson, 1983). In northern Minnesota they used finely made unfluted (Plano) points to hunt large animals such as mastodon, deer, elk, and caribou (Quimby, 1960; Clark, 1991). These people were nomadic hunters who travelled in small social groups (Dawson, 1983). Some evidence of their spiritual beliefs has been recovered, including a cremation at the Cummins site and a burial at the Browns Valley Site in Minnesota (Dawson, 1983). No dwellings dating to the Paleoindian have been found in the Upper Great Lakes region (Johnson, 1969a). Isolated "campsites" have been found located on vistas overlooking modem or ancient water systems (Fiedel, 1987). These vistas were commonly glacial features, such as eskers and moraines. The vistas provided expansive views where caribou, and other large animals such as mastodon and bison, migrations could be observed (Fiedel, 1987).

ARCHAIC The Archaic culture followed the Paleoindian and has been dated from 7,000 to 2,500 B.C.; in northern Minnesota and Canada it is referred to as the Shield Archaic (Dawson, 1983). The Shield Archaic appear to be linear descendants of the Plano culture (Dawson, 1983). Although hunting was of prime importance, other modes of subsistence appeared, such as fishing, and gathering of seeds, tubers, and nuts (Anfinson and Wright, 1990). They moved away from a hunting emphasis to focus on water resources. This culture used ground stone and copper tools in addition to chipped stone tools (Johnson, 1969a; Fiedel, 1987). Projectile points changed from

20 --1 c::r DATE CULTURAL PERIOD CULTURE TRAITS -0 n- i:r • SW MINNESOTA NE MINNESOTA

--1 NOMADIC HUNTERS, ALSO FISHED n OJIBWA .... c::r HISTORIC HISTORIC AND HARVESTED WILD RICE. 0 - ::::!. 0 A.D. 1650 SIOUX ::.Vl 0 SANDY LAKE A.D. LATE TERMINAL 3 DISTINCT CULTURES . . a:5 1200/1300 WOODLAND WOODLAND EMPHASIS ON WILD RICE. ::s 0 SELKIRK, Vl ....0 A.D. 800 BLACKDUCK HUNTERS AND GATHERERS WITH ::r EMPHASIS ON FISHING. 0 MIDDLE INITIAL LAUREL LARGE BURIAL MOUNDS. 0 WOODLAND WOODLAND STEMMED & NOTCHED PROJECTILE N ,_. -0 POINTS, ALSO BONE & ANTLER. FIRST POTTERY. 200 B.C. 5n a- 0.. EARLY LOCALIZED ADAPTA TIO NS BASED 5 (IQ 2 500 B.f" WOODLAND ON HUNTING, FISHING, c. COLLECTING PLANTS. ARCHAIC SHIELD ARCHAIC CENTRALIZED AND SEASONAL 0 Vl MOVEMENT. ARCHAIC SIDE-NOTCHED & STEMMED ::s c. PROJECTILE POINTS, ALSO COPPER n TOOLS. c:: a 7,000 B.C. BIG GAME HUNTERS. PALEOINDIAN PALEOINDIAN PLANO UNFLUTED PROJECTILE POINTS. ISOLATED "CAMPSITES". 10,000 B.C. lanceolate to side-notched and stemmed (Anfinson and Wright, 1990). Although the points were more varied in style, they were not as well made as Paleoindian points (Johnson, 1969b; Fiedel, 1987). In the western Great Lakes region the manufacture of copper tools was particular to a regional Archaic tradition and may represent the first use of fabricated metal by Indians in North or South America (Johnson, 1969a). The tools usually made of copper included new woodworking tools such as the adze, axe, gouge, and chisel; probably used for the construction of canoes (Dawson, 1983). Neither the Paleoindian nor the Archaic cultures used pottery; they adapted bark and leather for use as containers (Anfinson and Wright, 1990). Food utilization became more centralized and required less travel. In addition, movement became cyclical with the seasons to allow better usage of the available plants and animals (Johnson, 1969b). A population increase that resulted in restricted movement and the formation of social barriers such as language contributed to the emergence of more regional cultures in this period. Widespread burial practices first appear in the Archaic (Fiedel, 1987).

LAUREL The Laurel culture is first identified at approximately 200-100 B.C. in the Boundary Waters area on the border between Minnesota and Canada and continued until A.D. 1,000-1,200 (Stoltman, 1973; Dawson, 1983; Arthurs, 1986; Reid and Rajnovich, 1991). One radiocarbon date of about A.D. 280 exists from the Big Rice Lake site (Rapp, et al., 1990). The Initial Woodland Laurel culture relied heavily on fishing to supplement its subsistence strategy (Anderson, 1979; Anfinson and Wright, 1990). People were primarily hunters and gatherers, with pronounced seasonal migration habits (Anderson, 1979). Agriculture first appears in the Woodland period, serving to separate economically the Archaic from the Woodland period, although it is not necessarily observed in the Lake Superior region (Johnson, 1969b; Fiedel, 1987). There is circumstantial evidence that wild rice was being utilized as early as the Laurel period on the Lake of the Woods, Ontario, and Rice Lake, Minnesota (Rajnovich, 1984). In Minnesota people built large burial mounds and interred the bodies in a flexed position (Quimby, 1960; Stoltman, 1973; Anderson, 1979). There appears to be a major population increase during this

22 period and a change from the previous period's simple egalitarian society (Johnson, 1969a). Lithics were characterized by end-scrapers and stemmed and notched projectile points; their tool kit also included bone and antler objects (Stoltman, 1973). In the Lake Superior basin area native copper was also fashioned into awls, beads, and simple objects, although use of copper decreased from the Archaic period (Johnson, 1969b; Stoltman, 1973). The first pottery appears during this period. Pottery production is generally considered to be the technological development that separates the Archaic from the Woodland Period (Mason, 1981). The appearance of pottery in Minnesota suggests an influx of people into the region (Dawson, 1983). G.R. Peters (personal communication) believes that ceramics in northern Minnesota were created to allow the parching of wild rice over an open fire. The birch bark and leather containers, which up to this time period sufficed for all uses, were not suitable for the processing of wild rice. In northern Minnesota the use of pottery was an adaptation to a change in the subsistence pattern and is not just a temporal mark of the passage of time (Brown, 1986). The pottery was conical shaped with wide mouths and non-thickened lips (Anderson, 1979) (Figure 7). The shape of the pottery allowed it to be placed directly in a fire and the rice to be easily stirred. It usually had a smooth external surface with a tooth or dentate stamp decorating the upper rim (Johnson, 1969b; Lenius and Olinyk, 1990). Pseudo-scallop shell, push- pull, boss and/or punctate, and linear stamping are also common forms of decoration (Lenius and Olinyk, 1990). Laurel pottery varied widely in texture, hardness, color, and thickness, suggesting that the culture did not discriminate between vessels on these bases (Stoltman, 1973). Temper, however, was always "grit"; never the abundant shells from the lakes and rivers near which they camped. This discrepancy suggests that the type of temper used may have had customary meaning (Stoltman, 1973). The Laurel moved further to the north and west of Lake Superior approximately 700-1,000 A.D. and greater populations are documented as one approaches the Lake Winnipeg-Manitoba area (Arthurs, 1986). Throughout much of the United States south of the Great Lakes an Early, Middle, and Late Woodland period exists; the Middle Woodland period is represented by the Hopewell culture (Mason, 1981; Gibbon, 1986; Anfinson and

23 Figure 7. Decoration on Woodland Period ceramics. Clockwise from upper left: Laurel, Blackduck, Selkirk, and Sandy Lake. (After L.S. Radzak, in Anderson, Anfinson, Birk, and Lugenbeal, 1979)

24 Wright, 1990). This period has not been identified in the Great Lakes region; therefore, the Initial Woodland Period is followed directly by the Terminal Woodland Period (Table 1). The Terminal Woodland period began about A.D. 600-700 and is distinguished by the interchanges between three linguistic groups (Clark, 1991).

BLACKDUCK The Blackduck culture is early Terminal Woodland, dating from approximately A.D. 600/800 to A.D. 1200/1300 (Lugenbeal, 1979). The beginning of the Terminal Woodland marks a time in the Upper Great Lakes in which three linguistic groups had complex interactions (Clark, 1991). Blackduck was an Algonkian speaking group related to the Ojibwa (Chippewa), but not ancestrally (Lugenbeal, 1979). They may have been related to the Sautaux (G.R. Peters, personal communication). Their distribution was quite similar to that of the Laurel, from northwest Michigan and the Upper Peninsula across to northern Minnesota, southeast and south central Manitoba and into east central Saskatchewan (Lugenbeal, 1979). During this period wild rice became more utilized and the population increased (Anfinson and Wright, 1990). Its intense utilization is inferred by the location of sites near major wild rice stands, the occurrence of ricing jigs on the sites, and the actual recovery of wild rice grains (Anfinson and Wright, 1990). Ricing jigs are pits that are either lined with clay or hides, in which parched rice is trampled to separate the rice from the chaff (Vennum, 1988). Although wild rice was an important crop, actual horticultural practices have not been identified (Lugenbeal, 1979; Clark, 1991). The pottery of the Blackduck tradition was globular (circular) in shape with thinner walls, a constricted neck, and a flaring, thickened mouth at the rim, which may indicate copying of Mississippian pottery forms to the south (Cooper and Johnson, 1964; Johnson, 1969b; Lugenbeal, 1979) (Figure 7). Cord- wrapped stick impressions on the exterior of the pottery are diagnostic (Anderson, 1979). Circular punctates, exterior boss decoration, or vertical brushing or combing on the neck exterior are also characteristic (Lenius and Olinyk, 1990). The pottery may have been made by constructing a basket and

25 forming the vessel inside, then either removing the basket or firing the pottery with the basket still attached (Lugenbeal, 1979). The Laurel and Blackduck cultures coexisted temporally but not spatially from approximately A.D. 700-1000 (Dawson, 1983; Reid and Rajnovich, 1991). Generally, their lifestyles were the same; they maintained distinct pottery forms with limited exchange of traits, and Blackduck burials were interred in Laurel mounds (Lenius and Olinyk, 1990). At A.D. 700 Laurel people disappear from this area and at about A.D. 1,000 from the Lake Winnipeg-Manitoba area; during this time evidence of the Blackduck culture is found in Minnesota (Reid and Rajnovich, 1991). At about A.D. 1000 both cultures disappear in the Rainy River area; they are replaced by a culture similar to Selkirk which produced Rainy River Composite ceramics.

SELKIRK The Selkirk culture was contemporaneous with and related to the Blackduck, another Algonkian culture, and represent the prehistoric Cree (Anfinson, 1979; Clark, 1991). It is still unclear whether the Blackduck culture is also prehistoric Cree (G.R. Peters, personal communication). Selkirk are first recognized at about A.D. 750/800 and are in this area until about A.D. 1750. They lived north and west of Lake Superior (Clark, 1991). The descendants of the Selkirk now live in northern Ontario and Manitoba to Hudson Bay. Selkirk pottery was similar to Blackduck and was globular in shape with a fabric-impressed exterior surface (Anfinson, 1979) (Figure 7). The rims are not thickened and flare out slightly (Lenius and Olinyk, 1990). Selkirk composite ceramics exclusively use punctate designs on the exterior (Anfinson, 1979). Selkirk ceramics included bowls and plates, unknown in contemporary Algonkian ceramics (Dawson, 1983 ). No evidence of the Blackduck and Selkirk cultures has been found in the Superior National Forest area after about 1200 A.D.; the cultures were replaced by the Sandy Lake culture (G.R. Peters, personal communication).

SANDY LAKE The Terminal Woodland Sandy Lake culture is the ancestor of the modem day Assiniboine ("Warriors of the Rocks") and northern Sioux (Jenks,

26 1977). They separated from their kinsmen, the Dakota, as early as the 16th century (Jenks, 1977). They first appear approximately 900 years ago and were in the area at the time of the first French contact in the mid-seventeenth century. After this time they moved west and were replaced in this area by the Ojibwa. The largest concentrations of Sandy Lake artifacts are in the Mississippi headwaters region (Birk, 1979). Wild rice was a staple food by this time, as indicated by the distribution of sites associated with lakes and the occurrence of ricing jigs, threshing pits, and fire hearths on the sites (Johnson, 1969b; ·Birk, 1979; Anfinson and Wright, 1990). Selkirk pottery in southern areas was shell tempered, and granite tempered in northern areas, suggesting a greater . Mississippian influence in the south (Birk, 1979). The use of shell temper and some of the vessel forms may indicate contact with the Oneota in southeastern Minnesota, although the size of the shell temper differs (Cooper and Johnson, 1964; Anfinson and Wright, 1990). The dms are not thickened at the lip, but are flattened, straight, and undecorated (Cooper and Johnson, 1964) (Figure 7). In historic times the Algonkian speaking Ojibwa (Chippewa) came to inhabit the Upper Great Lakes region in great numbers, with the greatest population density in Ontario (Quimby, 1960; Johnson, 1969b). They were middlemen in the French-Sioux fur trade and eventually forced the Sioux into the west (Swanton, 1952). The Ojibwa were nomadic hunters for the most part, but they also fished, harvested wild rice, and in southern Minnesota planted com (Quimby, 1960). By the early eighteenth century many Chippewa concentrated on wild rice (called "manoomin") harvesting and replanted a portion of the harvest to insure the next years crop (Vennum, 1988).

BIG RICE SITE HISTORY The Big Rice Site was found by Archaeological Technicians of the Superior National Forest during a survey conducted prior to a timber sale. Although the north shore of the lake is three miles long, most of this area is swampy; the site occupies one of several currently dry areas bordering the lake. The site itself is approximately 85 meters ·east-west by 55 meters north- south and was used almost continuously from the Initial Woodland through the Historic Period (Peters and Motivans, 1983). The stratigraphy was quite

27 complex because of continual digging of ricing jigs and parching pits, mixing the uppermost 33 cm of the site (Rapp, et al., 1990). At Big Rice Lake the Paleoindian component represents the first occupation of the site; a miniature Brown's Valley and an Agate Basin point were found. This occupation is estimated at 10,500 to 7,000 B.P. based on dates known for these points in other parts of the United States (Huber, 1987). For the first season of excavation pottery artifacts totalled 8,801 sherds. This can be compared with the 70 stone tools and 1,969 waste flakes recovered (Peters and Motivans, 1983). Totals were not compiled for subsequent years. Other materials excavated from the site include red ochre, copper, floral remains, including wild rice, and historic materials including glass beads, nails, and gun shell casings. The stone tools were made of Hudson Bay Lowland Chert, Knife River Flint, associated only with Laurel components, Gunflint Silica, Jasperlite (Jasper-Taconite), Knife Lake Siltstone, Lake of the Woods Chert, quartz, and Shequindah quartzite. Hudson Bay Lowland Chert was the most frequently used, Gunflint Silica was second, whereas quartzite was the least frequently used. Hudson Bay Lowland Chert is found as cobbles in glacial sediment near the site and Gunflint Silica is found in outcrops along the Border area. Quartz is also found as cobbles near the site, Knife Riyer Flint is found only in North Dakota. Knife Lake Siltstone and Lake of the Woods Chert are both likely acquired from the siltstone outcrops in the Knife Lake border area. They occur as minor components on site. The closest bedrock source of Jasper-Taconite is found on the Cummins Quarry Site near Thunder Bay, Ontario although it may be found near Big Rice Lake as glacial erratics. The relative abundances of each of the exotic lithic materials indicates that the inhabitants of the Big Rice Site liked materials that were from more distant sources and were probably trading for them. Faunal remains include land snail and mussel shells, in addition to fish, bird, and both large and small mammal bones (Penman, 1983). Identification of several species of diagnostic fish and bird bones suggest that the site was occupied between July and October, which correlates with the fact that it is identified as a wild rice processing site (Penman, 1983). A large number of finished copper tools and a small amount of modified copper were found on the _site, but no raw copper was recovered (Rapp, et al.,

28 1990). Pressure flakers were the most common type of copper tool found on the site, indicating that retouching and sharpening of stone tools was a frequent . activity (Rapp, et al., 1990). The absence of raw copper indicates that copper tools were not manufactured at Big Rice Lake. Neutron activation analysis has shown that the copper was obtained from sources on Isle Royal, from Minong, Wisconsin, and from an unlocated source (Rapp, et al., 1990). The extended trade implied by the occurrence on the site of exotic lithic material and copper artifacts may provide a comparison for the hypothesized provenance of the pottery raw materials and indicate the relative importance of the three technologies in the cultures.

29 PREVIOUS WORK PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS Stylistic analysis and characterization of pottery has been an essential aspect of archaeological research, because it has been assumed by archaeologists that it is the most sensitive to temporal, spatial, and social variability (Bronitsky, 1986). In recent decades petrographic analysis has vastly changed this approach to prehistoric pottery research (Tite, 1972; Williams, 1983; Neff, 1992). Microscopic analysis has been used to provide information on composition which can be used for classification of fabrics and wares and for comparison within and among sites and regions and among different time periods (Williams, 1983). This information can also help in dating pottery and determining trade patterns (Williams, 1983). Petrographic analysis has been used most often for distinguishing local and imported pottery at a particular site and to determine the provenance of raw materials that occur in the pottery (Williams, 1983). A 1986 study showed that one-third of all archaeometric studies were conducted to determine provenance, and the majority of those studies were of pottery (Djingova and Kuleff, 1991). In North America, however, petrographic analysis has been underutilized, despite the initial advances in the study of ceramics from the United States (Stoltman, 1989). As early as the 1880's archaeologists recognized the value of microscopic examination of ceramics (Matson, 1969). The first known use of petrography for the purpose of answering an archaeological question was in 1883 when Wilhelm Prinz analyzed pottery from several locations in the New World for Anatole Bamps (Thompson, 1991). Gustaf Nordenskiold analyzed petrographic thin sections of pottery from Mesa Verde in 1893. He identified the mineralogy of the temper and attempted to determine the source of the locally available clay and temper (Matson, 1952). In the 1920's and 30's Linne determined different phases of Peruvian ceramic technological development by thin section analysis. In his studies the sample sizes were kept very small, ranging from 2 to 16 thin sections, not allowing an adequate sampling of the variation within ceramic cultures (Thompson, 1991). Perhaps the most legendary worker in the field of ceramic technological studies and the researcher who ushered in the modem age of

30 ceramic petrographic analysis, was Anna 0. Shepard (Thompson, 1991). Shepard studied pottery primarily from the American Southwest and Central America (Shepard, 1936; 1942; 1965). She combined classification and . description of pottery with provenance studies and experimental archaeology to determine trade patterns and the evolution of pottery production in regions and specific villages (Matson, 1952). She was an advocate of both chemical and mineralogical analysis; stating that petrographic information in addition to elemental analysis will help in determining the extent of preparation by a potter (Shepard, 1966). Most archaeologists today continue to emphasize petrographic analysis as a necessary first phase of any ceramic technological or provenance study (Peacock, 1970). Petrographic analyses are conducted in the following manner. Presence and percentages of the minerals and other added materials are noted and quantified. Texture is an important quality to recognize in ceramics, providing information about the manufacture of the ceramic vessel. Stoltman (1989) has shown that the analysis of a thin section made from a ceramic vessel can be expected to lie within 3.5 percent of the "actual" mean vessel composition as long as the number of counts exceeds 100. Errors associated with petrography include misidentification of minerals and other inclusions, and statistical inaccuracies in the point counting of the thin sections (Solomon, 1963). Many naturally occurring clays do not meet the forming, drying and shrinkage, firing, and use requirements placed on them by potters (Shepard, 1954; Williams, 1982; Rice, 1987). For example, montmorillonite and bentonite are poor pottery clays because of their excessive swelling when water is added and shrinkage when the clay is dried (Bishop, et al., 1982). In these cases aplastic material, called temper, is added by the potter to improve the clay's properties (Shepard, 1954; Rice, 1987). Common tempers include grasses, grog (crushed pottery fragments), mineral and rock fragments, shell, and ash to name a few. Temper makes the clay more workable, therefore making it easier to form vessels in the manufacturing phase (Williams, 1983). During the drying and firing process temper "opens up" the clay, allowing more even drying and firing so that warping and cracking is significantly reduced (Rice, 1987). In addition, many tempering materials are known to have a continuing

3 1 effect during the subsequent years of use (Bronitsky, 1984; Sinopoli, 1991). For example, calcite, plagioclase and other feldspars, and hornblende are more resistant to thermal shock (Sinipoli, 1991). Micaceous temper also resists thermal fracture and has improved heat transfer (Bronitsky, 1984). There are several other factors that affect thermal shock resistance in addition to adding temper, such as the vessel shape, size, and porosity of the clay (Bronitsky, 1986; Sinopoli, 1991). The distinction between temper and original sand- and silt-sized minerals naturally occurring in the raw clay can often be difficult to recognize. A rule of thumb is that original elastic material will tend to be finer grained and rounded. Temper is typically angular in shape resulting from being crushed by the potter; grain size varies but is generally coarser than the clay minerals (Rice, 1987). Not all cases are this straight forward, however, and mistakes may be made. Knowledge of the local clays and their variation is important (Matson, 1969; Darvill and Timby, 1982; Howard, 1982). In the petrographic analysis of North American ceramics knowledge of the technology is a useful starting point. Although ceramic technology is one of the oldest, having a history of close to 10,000 years there were distinct differences between the technology of the Old and New Worlds (Budworth, 1970). The ceramic industry that existed among Native American cultures, especially non-horticultural Algonkian-speaking groups, is fundamentally different from the pottery producing cultures in the Old World (Clark, 1991). Potters in North America lived and moved in a society that had permeable boundaries (Clark, 1991). People moved seasonally for subsistence or for socially motivated reasons, as opposed to Old World cultures in which specialized craft industries existed in specific geographical and cultural units (Clark, et al., 1992). In addition, North American ceraniic technology did not include several major advancements, such as levigation of clay, wheel throwing, kiln construction, or formulation and use of glazes (Shepard, 1965).

INSTRUMENT AL NEUTRON ACTIVATION ANALYSIS Instrumental neutron activation analysis is a physical method of determining elemental concentrations of material with great precision and sensitivity, most elements can be detected below the parts per million level,

32 and some may be detected below the parts per billion range (Perlman and Asaro, 1969; Arnold, et al., 1978). In addition, a large number and wide range of elements can . be measured simultaneosly with no loss in precision, an important consideration in the analysis of complex materials such as ceramics (Rice and Saffer, 1982; Baedecker and McKown, 1987). As early as 1956 archaeologists and chemists began to realize that nuclear research could be applied to archaeological materials such as copper, obsidian, and in particular, archaeological ceramics (Rapp and Gifford, 1984). Sayre and Dodson (1957) conducted the first INAA experiment on ceramic material, terracotta objects, to determine the provenance. They were able to establish that pottery from different regions showed distinct patterns of chemical composition. INAA has been used frequently in recent years as provenance studies have become more popular and more demanding. The reader is directed to Perlman and Asaro, 1969; Arnold, et al., 1978; Wilson, 1978; Perlman, 1984; Baedecker and McKown, 1987; King, 1987; Hancock, et al., 1989; Lahanier, et al., 1991; and Mommsen, et al., 1991 for discussions of INAA applied to archaeological ceramics. With the use of a sensitive analytical technique, such as INAA, it is possible to form ceramic compositional groups because pottery made from one clay source will be more similar to each other than to pottery made from a different source (Rice, 1978; Wilson, 1978; Bishop, et al., 1988). There are, however, some qualifying factors that must be addressed. A potter's tendency to alter the raw clay presents analytical and interpretive problems distinct from those encountered by analysis of a single raw material and lessens the accuracy with which archaeometrists can determine clay sources based on chemical composition (Rice,. 1978; Wilson, 1978; Rice and Saffer, 1982; Neff, et al., 1988a; Elam, et al., 1992). Several studies have shown that fired, tempered pottery may differ from the clay from which it was made in the ratios of trace elements present; the magnitude of dilution or enrichment may differ among elements (Perlman and Asaro, 1969; Arnold, et al., 1978; Arnold, et al., 1980; Neff, et al., 1988b). Temper is more heterogeneous than clay and often the source of noise in the chemical signature of pottery (Elam, et al., 1992). Therefore, the use of trace element analysis of tempered pottery to identify the specific location and compositional characteristics of the clay used may be difficult or impossible (Wilson, 1978). In untempered pottery it is possible to

33 discern a statistical relationship between the pottery and the raw clay (Hall, 1971; Arnold, et al., 1978). Mixing of two different raw clays may destoy this patterning by actually creating subgroups of material derived from the same source (Rice, 1978; Neff, et al., 1988b). If the raw clay is quite distinct, the addition of temper in "real world" amounts (approximately 40+20%) will have a negligible effect on the differentiability of the compositional groups; the compositional groups begin to overlap as temper increases above these levels and as the temper becomes more variable (Brooks, et al., 1974; Elam, et al., 1992; Neff, et al., 1988a; Neff, et al., 1989). The heterogeneity of the two raw clays is an important consideration (Sayre and Dodson, 1957; Wilson, 1978). Compositional analyses that use many elements will effectively alleviate this problem, if temper is added in moderate amounts (Wilson, 1978; Perlman, 1984; Neff, et al., 1988a). It has been found that the relative concentrations of involatile elements do not change during ignition of untempered pottery (Hall, 1971; Wilson, 1978; Buko, 1984 ). In addition, firing temperature has been found not to affect the relative concentrations of trace elements (Rice, 1978). Storey (1988) found that except for yttrium, changes that occur during firing are entirely due to the loss of carbon dioxide and water. A uniform increase of elemental concentrations, approximately ten percent, is because of the decreased weight caused by these losses. Not all archaeometrists involved in INAA of ceramics and raw materials agree upon which elements should be used (Buko, 1984). For each ceramic and clay that are analyzed different elements, whether major, minor, or trace, may be diagnostic; this depends upon the particular geochemical composition of the area (Peacock, 1970; Wilson, 1978; Djingova and Kuleff, 1991). Approximately twenty elements in different combinations have been used in various studies; Co, Fe, and Hf have appeared more often than others (Djingova and Kuleff, 1991). In some cases one element may sufficiently distinguish pottery, but several elements are usually required. Bennyhoff and Heizer (1965) were able to use manganese concentration to distinguish Cuilcuilco pottery from Tzacualli pottery of Teotihuacan. On the other hand, Olin and Sayre (1968) found that using La, Sc, Eu, Th, Ce, Cr, Fe, and Co were required to

34 determine differences between American Colonial pottery and North Devon ware from England. The analysis of ceramics from Minnesota has generally not progressed past the classificatory stage; only one study has employed chemical analysis. Clark et al. (1992) used INAA in the study of Woodland Period ceramics from the Lake Superior basin. Five groups were identified representing areas of clay acquisition in Isle Royale, Thunder Bay/Voyageurs, the Straits of Mackinac, and the Keweenaw Peninsula. Samples from the first three source · areas appear to be from a geochemical regime extending from northern Minnesota to northern Lake Huron crossing the north shore of Lake Superior. Clark et al. have provided several explanations for the broad geographical distribution of Woodland ceramics, especially Blackduck. According to the cultural explanation the ceramics may have been moved great distances. The geological explanation is that the sources are geochemically related. The latter explanation is supported by the fact that the northern Minnesota source zones show a geochemical linkage with clays from the Straits of Mackinac.

GRAPHICAL AND MUL TIV ARIATE ST ATISTICAL ANALYSIS For the analysis of compositional data multivariate ordination and pattern recognition are the two primary evaluation tools used to extract structure from the data (Neff, et al., 1988b). The chemical data are continuous and quantitative in nature, making it useful for multivariate analysis, separately or in conjunction with mineralogical data (Bishop, et al., 1982; Rice and Saffer, 1982). Descriptive statistics, specifically ternary plots, are a means of representing compositional grouping, and were used for preliminary analysis of the petrographic data. These are triangular diagrams on which the percentage of three components are plotted. A t-test is a test of significance used on small sample sets to determine whether two groups may belong to the same population and their observed differences merely reflect chance variation (the null hypothesis) or they belong to two separate populations and the differences between them are real (the alternative hypothesis).

35 For analysis of both the petrographic and elemental data principal components analysis (PCA) was used. PCA is used primarily to compress the data associated with twenty or more elements and hundreds of samples into a few latent variables (Dillon and Goldstein, 1984). PCA creates the new variables based on eigenvector methods to describe the system in terms of linear combinations of the original variables (Glascock, 1981; Davis, 1986). A large amount of data can therefore be represented in a few dimensions. Component scores, the values of the new variables in element concentration space, can then be plotted in bivariate diagrams to display the relationships among the samples from a different perspective (Glascock, 1981; Wisseman and Hopke, 1991). The overall aim is to produce groups that are archaeologically viable (Bieber, et al., 1976). The first principal component is composed of the original variables in a linear combination and is oriented in the maximum variance direction (Glascock, 1981). The second principal component lies in the direction of the maximum remaining variance and must be perpendicular to the first component. This continues with each subsequent principal component until the number of principal components is equal to the number of original dimensions (Glascock, 1981). Successively smaller components are determined by unpattemed variation in the data, or noise (Davis, 1986). This analytical technique has not been used considerably in compositional studies, despite its utility in grouping samples of similar chemical composition. Discriminant-function analysis seeks to derive linear combinations of variables, known as discriminant functions, that are independent of each other and best separate previously established groups of items (Klovan and Billings, 1967; King, 1987). Unknown samples may be included in the known groups using the established discriminant functions with a probability of group membership based on where the unknown sample plots in relation to the known group centroid and how large the dispersion of the group is (Klovan and Billings, 1967). King used this statistical technique to identify ceramics from Cyprus as being made from one population and tried to identify clay samples as being similar to the ceramics and therefore used for making the ceramics.

36 ANALYTICAL METHODS The study began with petrographic analysis of pottery sherds. Fifteen samples were selected from each of the four Big Rice Lake Woodland cultures: Laurel, Blackduck, Selkirk, and Sandy Lake. In addition, eleven samples from the Laurel, Blackduck, ·and Sandy Lake cultures . were chosen from several sites in the Lake Winnibigoshish or Round Lake area, situated approximately 80 miles to the south and west of Big Rice Lake (Figure 3). These ceramics were chosen to provide a comparison for the Big Rice Lake samples. The pottery was selected on the basis of the size of the sherds and surface decoration by the author and the Superior National Forest archaeologist in charge of excavating the site . Each culture's pottery was identified by stylistic analysis of the surface decoration, vessel form, and rim treatment. Without surface decoration the distinction between the four types of pottery is quite difficult. Samples were also compared with each other to insure they were not from the same vessel. The Sandy Lake pottery from the Lake Winnibigoshish area was chosen because it contains shell temper and the pottery from Big Rice Lake does not. Many of the pottery fragments were thin and friable; impregnation was required prior to the thin-sectioning process. The sherds were cut perpendicular to .the wall surface so that existing textures and orientations of inclusions related to fabrication could be observed. Each thin section was point counted using a standard polarizing microscope and stage micrometer to determine percentages of each material present in the sherd. The sample interval was as small as possible because of the overall fine nature of the inclusions in the ceramics. 500 grains were counted on each sherd. 500 grains have been shown to provide a statistically valid base for comparison (Chayes, 1956; Bishop, et al., 1982). Maximum, minimum, and mean grain sizes were also estimated, using an eyepiece micrometer. Sampling of the clay, sediment, and bedrock outcrops in the immediate vicinity of the site was undertaken. Samples of sediment were collected from several sites around the perimeter of Big Rice Lake (Figure 8). The first site was sampled inland from a large bedrock outcrop. There were many ricing jigs in the vicinity, indicating extensive use for wild rice processing. No

37 ('\J ...... ' w _J ...... LJ :::E: y 0

l'.J

w I-...... (/) w I- z -(/)

Figure 8. Location of sediment collection at Big Rice Lake.

38 samples were collected at site two because of the poor sediment cover. Sample three was collected on a ridge about six meters from the lake shore. Six ricing jigs were identified and several pottery samples were retrieved. The final sample was taken from just west of the site in a black ash stand. Collection was attempted from the boat landing but the material was very high in organics and the rocky substrate was reached within cemtimeters of the surface. All samples were collected using a glacial bucket auger to a depth at which rocky substrate was reached. Giants Range granite samples were also collected from four locations in the vicinity of Big Rice Lake to determine whether it might be the granite used in the ceramics (Figure 9). The first two samples were erratics located on the archaeological site. The third sample was from an outcrop on County Road 303, south of the lake, and the fourth was located at an outcrop 4.4 km (2. 7 miles) south of County Road 461 on County Road 25. Organic material such as twigs, leaves, and large stones were removed from the sediment, and briquettes were formed from each sample. The purpose of making test briquettes was to select a sample that would be a suitable material for making pottery and a sample that would represent the chemistry of raw materials that might have been used by Native Americans at Big Rice Lake. The sediment sample was not chosen to represent the geochemistry around Big Rice Lake as a whole. Only one of the twelve samples could be sent for INAA, because of constraints in the total number of samples that could be analyzed. The briquettes were ten cm in length, five cm in width, and approximately one cm thick. For each sample, color (munsell notation) and size were recorded while both wet and dry. The briquettes shrank anywhere from one-tenth of a centimeter to a full centimeter in both length and width. The average shrinkage was one-tenth to two-tenths of a centimeter. After making the briquettes it was necessary to fire them to establish their fired properties. First several pottery fragments excavated from the site were fired under oxidizing conditions. Color was noted prior to re-firing and at each stage of the firing process. The sherds were fired from 400 to 1000°C at 50 degree increments. The original firing temperature is determined by the temperature that color change is first noted (Rice, 1987). This distinction was difficult to make with samples that had been originally fired in a reducing

39 Figure 9. Location of granite collection near Big Rice Lake.

40 atmosphere and had abundant carbon, because at lower refiring temperatures the carbon is evolved as C02 (Matson, 1969). The temperature at which the color change takes place is not definite in this case. It was found that generally the color of pottery fragments began to change at 400°C and continued to change until approximately 700°C. The briquettes were then fired in an oxidizing atmosphere from 400 to 700°C at 100° intervals. After firing the samples, one was chosen based on its suitability for pottery making. The parameters evaluated for suitability of the briquette were shrinkage, color, and hardness. Sediment samples that displayed a large percent of shrinkage or fired to a color that is not observed in archaeological samples were eliminated. In addition, only samples that were able to withstand considerable pressure before breaking were chosen. The selected sample was from an area just west of the Big Rice Lake excavation site from a depth of 20 cm below the surface (Site 4, sample 1, Figure 7). This unfired sediment was sent for INAA. In addition, a thin section was made from the sediment. Ninety samples were selected to undergo INAA. The procedures generally follow Perlman and Asaro (1969); modifications of the method are noted below. The ninety samples consisted of ten Blackduck and ten Laurel pottery samples from Big Rice Lake and ten Blackduck and ten Laurel pottery samples from sites around the Lake Winnibigoshish or Round Lake area. These samples were not the same ones upon which the petrographic analysis was conducted. Ten clay sub-samples from the outer lining of a wild rice parching pit excavated on the site (Feature 25C, Provenance 95/93-94, Level 12) (Figure 10), ten sediment subsamples from site four at Big Rice Lake, ten subsamples, from 4-23 cm below surface, of a site control collected during the excavation by scientists studying the macrofossils, phytoliths, and pollen at the site (Figure 2), and ten clay subsamples from south of Deer River, Minnesota that were collected by an archaeologist of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation were analyzed. Also included were ten Giants Range granite samples from near Big Rice Lake, five from location three and five from location four (Figure 9). The site control from Big Rice Lake was collected from a 25 by 25 cm unit off of the site using a trowel. The clay from Deer River and pottery from the Lake

4 1 N 98 6)

97

96 1 meter Initial Woodland• @• 8 95 8 0 24 4 Features with Clay lining 93 94 95 96 97

Figure 10. Big Rice Site map showing Area A features.. (After Valppu, 1989)

42 Winnibigoshish area were included to provide a basis for compositional evaluation with the samples from Big . Rice Lake (Bishop, et al., 1982). Many different methods exist for sample. preparation prior to irradiation. These methods range from heating pottery samples to 1000°C to drying the samples at 50°C after washing them in demineralized water (Sayre, et al., 1971; Abascal-M., et al., 1974; Wilson, 1978; ; King, 1987; Gilmore, 1991; Hughes, et al., 1991; Lahanier, et al., 1991). The pottery can also be soaked in distilled water for 24 hours to leach any sodium chloride that may have formed on the surface during burial; this method, used in the current study, attempts to bring the pottery samples to a similar condition with respect to the water soluble components (Sayre, et al, 1971; Gilmore, 1991). After soaking in distilled water for twenty-four hours the pottery samples were dried in a 135°C oven overnight. The clay and sediment samples were also allowed to thoroughly air dry. Studies have shown that concentrations of some elements may vary as much as 20% across the wall of a vessel (Wilson, 1978; Gilmore, 1991). Therefore several subsamples were removed using pliers, mixed, and ground to a fine powder in an agate mortar and pestle. In addition, sample surfaces were scraped and sample removal was from a fresh surface. After initial dissolution on the surface of a ceramic after burial the alteration products provide a barrier that protects the sample from further chemical attack (Franklin and Vitali, 1985). 200+5 milligrams of each sample were then separated. Between preparing each sample all equipment was washed with distilled water and cleaning quartz was ground in the mortar and pestle. The powdered sample was transferred to a polyethylene vial free of heavy metal impurities. Each vial was labeled with the batch and sample number using an engraving tool so as not to contaminate the vial. At the University of Wisconsin-Madison Research Reactor, the vials were sealed by friction welding. For analysis of the 17 short-lived elements the samples and standard (Canadian Standard Reference Material S04) were individually irradiated for three seconds in the pneumatic transfer tube of the reactor (thermal neutron flux of 4 x 1012 neutrons cm-2 sec-1 ). The samples were irradiated sequentially in six minute intervals with a standard placed after every eighth sample. The samples were allowed to decay for 20 minutes

43 followed by a 300 second count made at 1 cm on the vertical axis of a 117 cm3 Ortec Intrinsic Germanium (E#GEM-23185) detector coupled to a PC-based multichannel gamma-ray spectrometer using a PCA-11 MCA board manufactured by Nucleus. Peak areas were computed by classical methods using software supplied with the PCA-11 board (R. Cashwell, personal communication). Remaining calculations of concentrations were conducted using a spreadsheet (Hughes, et al., 1991). were calculated in parts per million (ppm). Germanium detectors are used for gamma-ray spectroscopy because of their excellent resolution permitting the separation of closely spaced lines (Baedecker and McKown, 1987). Forty-seven long-lived elements were analyzed by exposing the samples in batches of eight including one standard to the same irradiation neutron flux while rotating the sample carrier about its axis during irradiation. The rotation of the samples during radiation is to ensure equal radiation across all samples and is naturally accounted for in the Madison reactor by the Coriolis effect (R. Cashwell, personal communication). The samples were irradiated for 120 minutes in the reflector region of the reactor (thermal neutron flux of 1 x 10 13 neutrons cm-2 sec-1 ), left for seven to nine days and then counted for 3600 seconds at the contact with a 170 cm3 Ortec Intrinsic Germanium (W#GEM-40190) gamma-ray detector coupled, as with the previous samples, to a PC-based multichannel gamma-ray spectrometer. The irradiation, decay, and counting times were determined by the staff at the reactor according to their prior experience and knowledge of analyzing pottery (R. Cashwell, personal communication). The decay period used in this study was determined by the half-life of sodium which is fifteen hours; if the counting occurs before a reasonable amount of sodium activity has died down the determination of peak areas for the other elements is complicated (Perlman and Asaro, 1969; Baedecker and McKown, 1987; R. Cashwell, personal communication). The standard (Canadian Standard Reference Material S04) chosen to analyze with the samples was a soil sample from an orchard in Saskatchewan, Canada. S04 is the A horizon of the Black Chernozemic soil, developed in silty glacial lacustrine deposits. This standard was chosen because it approximates geologic soils and pottery quite well .(Cashwell, personal communication).

44 RESULTS AND Sherds were comprised of combinations of quartz grains, clay, granite fragments, porosity, oxides, grog, various rock fragments, and shell, represented as percentages (Appendix A). Clay minerals were too fine grained to be studied petrographically; their presence was noted. Many mineral inclusions in the ceramics were plagioclase, quartz, microcline, and hornblende, constituents of granite. These inclusions, if monomineralic, were counted and at the end totalled to determine the percentage of granite inclusions. Inclusions that were mutimineralic were counted as granite and the specific minerals making up the granite were noted on a separate chart. The mineral percentages were used to identify the inclusions as a granite. Ternary diagrams using quartz, clay, and granite show that the pottery for all four . cultures is very similar (Figure 11). These particular components were chosen because they are the major constituents of the pottery, whereas shell, and grog, for example, were only very minor components. Only the Laurel pottery appears to deviate in the precentage of granite inclusions, although more than half of the samples group in the same general area as the other three cultures. Descriptive statistical analyses, including t-tests at the 95 percent level of significance, were computed to determine whether the ceramics belonged to one population, as it appears from the ternary plots (Appendix A). Laurel pottery differs from Sandy Lake and Selkirk in the mean percentage of clay, granite, porosity, and oxides and also from Selkirk in the percentage of grog. Laurel and Blackduck pottery have different mean percentages for clay, porosity, and lithic fragments. The t-tests suggest that the Initial Woodland Laurel ceramics are different from the Terminal Woodland Blackduck, Selkirk, and Sandy Lake ceramics in the percentage of inclusions. Results from point counts were submitted for PCA using Macintosh Excel and Systat. Cricket Graph was used for plotting data. Principal axes were rotated using an oblique varimax solution to maximize the variance on any axis for all of the PCA. Four components were identified with eigenvalues greater than 1.0. The four components represent 71.54 percent of the total variance. The variance on component one as shown by its variable loading appears to be controlled by an inverse relatiQnship between clay and granite

45 QUARTZ QUARTZ

CIAY GRANITE CIAY GRANITE SANDYIAKE SELKIRK

QUARTZ QUARTZ

CIAY BIACKDUCK GRANITE CIAY IAUREL GRANITE

Figure 11. Ternary diagrams of petrographic volume percent data of pottery.

46 and porosity (Figure 12). Principal component one accounts for 24.58% of the total variance. Variable loadings on the first component suggest that as the percentage of clay decreases the percentage of granite and porosity increase; as inclusions increase the amount of matrix must ·decrease. The amount of inclusions in a clay has a direct affect upon the drying and firing properties of the clay and may reflect purposeful alteration by a potter. Component two, which comprises 18.52% of the variance, is loaded heavily by a co-variance between quartz and shell temper and an inverse relationship with granite (Figure 12). Only the six Sandy Lake culture. pottery samples from the Lake Winnibigoshish area contained shell temper, therefore the relationship between quartz, granite, and shell is not particularly useful for the majority of the samples. However, since six of the samples contain shell and the othersixty-five do not, those containing shell appear distinctly different in the multivariate analysis. Principal component three suggests that oxides and grog covary and vary inversely with shell temper (Figure 12). The third component accounts for 15.05% of the total variance, but like component two, oxide, grog, and shell pecentages each account for less than one percent of the inclusions in most of the samples; this relationship is difficult to interpret. The fourth component, which accounts for 13.39% of the total variance, displays an inverse relationship between porosity and lithic fragments (Figure 12). For all the pottery, except Blackduck, the lithic fragments constitute less than 0.1 %. Of the four constituents that reflect the variance in the ceramics for component four, three reflect variance in inclusions that generally do not occur in quantities greater than one percent. A plot of component one versus component two suggests that the Terminal Woodland ceramics represent one population and are different from the Initial Woodland ceramics in the percentages of some of the inclusions, but generally all of the pottery is similar (Figure 13). It is not possible to detect from the petrographic part of the study whether different clay sources were being utilized, because clay mineralogy cannot be determined by petrography. The temper and naturally occurring inclusions are the same for both cultural periods, except for a single basalt fragment that was identified in a Blackduck ceramic. The similarity in

47 8t

··urep 101 sgu!puo1 A ..ll

COMPONENT1 COMPONENT3 I I - 0 - - 0 - QUAR1Z QUAR1Z

CLAY CLAY

GRANITE GRANITE

POROSITY POROSITY

OXIDE OXIDE

GROG GROG

ROCKFRAG ROCKfRAG

SHEU. SHEU.

COMPONENT4 COMPONENT2 I I - 0 - - 0 - QUAR1Z QUAR1Z

CLAY CLAY

GRANITE GRANITE

POROSITY POROSITY

OXIDE OXIDE

GROG GROG

ROCKfRAG ROCKfRAG

SHEU. SHEU. a SANDY LAKE POTIERY • 81...ACKDUCK POTTERY • SELKIRK POTTERY o L.AUFEL POTIERY 2 a .:. 0 C\I ,_ I- 1 - 0 z r,I r,I .... w Ill •t z 1• 0 ,. " 'i • - - 0 0 v - 10 .. a.. - - • . AB ... 0- a _.., ..'· 0 0 -1 • 'lCj ... 8 ... t 0

-2 . - 2 . - 1 0 1 2 3 COMPONENT1

Figure 13. Plot of component 1 versus 2 petrographic data.

49 inclusion composition and differences in percentages imply that only the preparation of the raw materials could account for the differences between the two cultural groups. In addition, all of the pottery was quite soft and friable, indicating unsophisticated firing techniques throughout the Woodland Period. Petrographic observation of the sediment collected from site four, just west of the archaeological site, may indicate that sediment that contained a large amount of granite was used, and may have been mixed with one or more other sediments or clays to achieve the final composition observed in the pottery. The evidence to support this is the photomicrograph of the sediment from site four which shows the large quantities of granite that varied considerably in roundness (Plate 1). Also, a photomicrograph of one sherd shows that it is rich in granite sediment similar to that collected from site four (Plate 2). This sherd is representative of many of the sherds. Not all of the granite inclusions in the pottery were angular; angularity would represent purposeful crushing and addition by the potter; the roundness of the grains is quite similar to that exhibited by the sediment. In addition, a photomicrograph of one sherd indicates that two sediments were mixed together to make the pottery (Plate 3 ). All of these lines of evidence seem to indicate that the pottery from Big Rice Lake was not tempered in the traditional sense, that is, potters did not crush pieces of Giants Range granite, but used sediment that was rich in sand- to silt-sized granite. Of the 64 elements determined by INAA twenty were used in the final analysis. These elements are listed in Appendix C. Several elements were determined in both the short- and long-lived analyses. The concentrations from the long-lived analyses were used. Detection limits for the twenty elements may be found in Appendix E. The precision of analysis is confounded by natural variance in the material being analyzed, variance introduced by sampling errors, and analytical variance arising from the quantitative measurements of INAA (Rice, 1987). Comparison of the concentration values for each of the standards with the certified values from the manufacturer showed that eighty percent of the values are the same as the manufacturers. One sample, number 84, was not used in the analysis because of errors during irradiation (Appendix D).

50 Plate 1. Photomicrograph of sediment from Site 5 at Big Rice Lake showing large quantiles of granite fragments with varied roundness.

5 1 Plate 2. Photomicrograph of a sherd excavated at Big Rice Lake (S-252) showing large quantites of granite fragments similar to Plate 1.

52 Plate 3. Photomicrograph of a sherd excavated at Big Rice Lake (B-250) showing mixing of two different sediments.

53 The petrographic and trace element data from the Blackduck and Laurel ceramics excavated at Big Rice Lake and the Laurel samples from the Lake Winnibigoshish area were combined, despite the fact that the data from the petrographic and elemental analysis came from separate sherds of each culture. By combining· the data for the pottery it was hoped that the elements would plot with the correlative petrographically identified inclusions. The combined data were normalized and submitted for PCA and eight components with eigenvalues greater than one were identified. PCA of the combined pottery data provides clear evidence that the petrographic data cannot be used to distinguish between pottery from different time periods or locations (Figures 14 and 15). The first four components, which explain 50.4 percent of the total variance, are all represented by elemental data. Only with the fifth component, which accounts for 7.3 percent of the total variance, does the petrographic data begin to contribute to the variance. The sixth component contributes 6.9 percent, the seventh component 8. 7 percent, and the eighth component contributes 11.8 percent of the total variance. The petrographic data are likely contributing only noise to the PCA, not actually indicating variance caused by differences in components measured by petrography. For this reason the petrographic data are not used in determining the provenance of the pottery, just to explain technological differences between the two Woodland periods. The elemental analysis of all the samples, including pottery, sediment, clay, and granite are evaluated to distinguish source origins of the raw materials. From the 89 samples seven components with eigenvalues greater than one ·were identified with PCA (Appendix F). The pottery samples will be discussed first. Components one, two, four, and seven do not differentiate among groups of pottery (Figures 16 and 17). The concentrations are virtually the same for all of the elements that contribute heavily to the variance on these components. A plot of the variable loadings on component one shows that magnesium, vanadium, cerium, chromium, scandium, iron, and cobalt contribute in the same manner to the variance (Figure 16). Component one accounts for 21.6 percent of the total variance in these data. Vanadium, chromium, scandium, iron, and cobalt are transition metals and are

54 s; s;

·t?rep .(i:}nod p:}u!qwo:J JOJ s8u!pt?o1 :}Jqt?pt?A v:::>d p-r siu:}uodwo:::> ·pr :}Jt\8!d

COMPONENT3 COMPONENT 1 I I 0 0 - - QUARTZ - - QUARTZ CLAY CLAY GRANITE GRANITE POROSTIY POROSTIY OXIDE OXIDE GROG GROG ROCKFRAG ROCKFRAG MAGNESIU MAGNESIU VANADIUM VANADIUM NEODYMIU NEODYMIU SAMARIUM SAMARIUM LUTETIUM LUTETIUM CERIUM CERIUM BARIUM BARIUM URANIUM URANIUM THORIUM TIIORIUM CHROMIUM CHROMIUM YTTERBIU YTTERBIU HAFNIUM HAFNIUM RUTIIENIU RUTHENIU SCANDIUM SCANDIUM IRON IRON COBALT COBALT EUROPIUM EUROPIUM LANTIIANU LANTHANU ANTIMONY .._____ ..J!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...--.....1 ANTIMONY..___ ..J!!!!!!!!!!!!l.-----...J

COMPONENT4 COMPONENT2 I I - 0 - 0 - QUARTZ QUARTZ CLAY CLAY GRANITE GRANITE POROSTIY POROSTIY OXIDE OXIDE GROG GROG ROCKFRAG ROCKFRAG MAGNESIU MAGNESIU VANADIUM VANADIUM NEODYMIU NEODYMIU SAMARIUM SAMARIUM LUTETIUM LUTETIUM CERIUM CERIUM BARIUM BARIUM URANIUM URANIUM THORIUM THORIUM CHROMIUM CHROMIUM YTTERBIU YTIERBIU HAFNIUM HAFNIUM RUTIIENIU RUTIIENIU SCANDIUM SCANDIUM IRON IRON COBALT COBALT EUROPIUM EUROPIUM LANTIIANU LANTIIANU ANTIMONY..._____ ANTIMONY I - I 'lllllP JOJ V:::>d s-s ·s1

COMPONENT7 COMPONENTS I I - 0 - 0 - QUARlZ I t . I CLAY GRANITE GRANITE POROSITY POROSITY OXIDE OXIDE GROG GROG ROCKFRAG ROCKFRAG MAGNESIU MAGNESIU VANADIUM VANADIUM NEODYMIU NEODYMIU SAMARIUM SAMARIUM LUTETIUM LUTETIUM CERIUM CERIUM BARIUM BARIUM URANIUM URANIUM THORiUM TIIORIUM CHROMIUM CHROMIUM YTTERBIU Y1TERBIU HAFNIUM HAFNIUM RUTIIENIU RUTIIENIU SCANDIUM SCANDIUM IRON IRON COBALT COBALT EUROPIUM EUROPIUM LANIBANU LANIBANU ANTIMONY....______. ANTIMONY.._____

COMPONENTS COMPONENTS I I - 0 - 0 QUARlZ QUARlZ CLAY CLAY GRANITE GRANITE POROSITY POROSITY OXIDE OXIDE GROG GROG ROCKFRAG ROCKFRAG MAGNESIU MAGNESIU VANADIUM VANADIUM NEODYMIU NEODYMIU SAMARIUM SAMARIUM LUTETIUM LUTETIUM CERIUM CERIUM BARIUM BARIUM URANIUM URANIUM THORIUM TIIORIUM CHROMIUM CHROMIUM YTTERBIU YTTERBIU HAFNIUM HAFNIUM RUTIIENIU RUTIIENIU SCANDIUM SCANDIUM IRON IRON COBALT COBALT EUROPIUM EUROPIUM LANIBANU LANTIIANU 1 5 I ANTIMONY "------..Ji!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.___ _. ANTIMONY · ...."'I1 a 0 0\ --Po.... = "'O Cl'CIrl> 0- COMPONENT2 .... I I\) 0 I\) 0 m ...., COMPONENT2 COMPONENT 1 ..... ' I I (') 0 0 0 - - - - +• i. s MAGNESIU MAGNESIU 0 D "" VANADIUM VANADIUM 0= ... NEODYMIU NEODYMIU • = SAMARIUM SAMARIUM 0 <- LUTETIUM LUTETIUM 0 H; I I ti! CERIUM CERIUM i > c: > rl> BARIUM BARIUM Vi N URANIUM URANIUM C'> -....1 0 TIIORIUM TIIORIUM z "ti - CHROMIUM CHROMIUM 0 > z m ...... j ...... j...... > YTIERBIU Y1TERBIU HAFNIUM HAFNIUM )- ""...0 ...0 RUTIIENIU RUTIIENIU X+•D -< SCANDIUM SCANDIUM Po IRON IRON :E :E ... COBALT COBALT : I\) I § EUROPIUM EUROPIUM J I Po POTASSIU POTASSIU :II "'tJ pl §-< < LANTIIANU LANTIIANU ::t 2!..: m ANfIMONY ANTIMONY ::1 O'" m 0 :II - (,.) . . -< "T1......

0 -.) I»•-- 0...... ::s ""C (1Qrn O- ...... I I\) (,.) 0 ....., COMPONENT7 COMPONENT4 ..... I I 0 ..... 0 ...... 0 ..... 0 !3 MAGNESIU "O MAGNESIU 0::s VANADIUM VANADIUM 0 .....::s NEODYMIU NEODYMIU SAMARIUM SAMARIUM .i::. 0 < LlITETIUM LlITETIUM 0 CERIUM rn.... CERIUM i:: rn BARIUM BARIUM ·1, t Vi 0 ; l IE 00 -.) URANIUM URANIUM TIIORIUM ! ! TIIORIUM "tl ! ! z 0..... ; ;x - CHROMIUM CHROMIUM z ; ; > m . > YTIERBIU YTIERBIU c "O z c 0 HAFNIUM HAFNIUM -I ..... + 0 RUIBENIU RUTIIENIU "" x +•a SCANDIUM SCANDIUM 0. IRON I»..... IRON I» COBALT a>BALT N 4 I I I I : : ! I § EUROPIUM EUROPIUM 0. POTASSIU POTASSIU XI I ; l i I I < I» LANTIIANU LANTHANU ::l. I» ANTIMONY ANTIMONY CT § m 0 - I l f I I ; ; j I determined by the compos1t1on of mafic minerals; they concentrate in the silt fraction of sediment and are depleted in the clay fraction (Elam, et al., 1992; Neff, et al., 1992). Magnesium, which also occurs in mafic minerals, and cerium tend to concentrate in the clay fraction of sediments (Elam, et al., 1992). The first component appears to represent the regional elemental signature of all of the samples and is difficult to interpret making it of little utility for determination of provenance. Loading on component two is dominated by a covariance of vanadium, samarium, lutetium, uranium, ytterbium, and lanthanum, representing 23.1 percent of the total variance (Figure 16). Vanadium is a transition metal that . concentrates in the silt fraction, whereas the other elements are lanthanides and tend to concentrate in the clay fraction (Elam, et al., 1992). Lanthanum is very dispersed for sandy clays (Laubenheimer, et al., 1981). Loading on component four represents a covariance between cerium and thorium, and accounts for 9.42 percent of the total variance (Figure 17). Both elements are lanthanides and are enriched in the clay fraction of a sediment (Elam, et al., 1992). The seventh component, antimony, accounts for 5. 7 percent of the variance (Figure 17). This component probably represents noise in the original data. Component three differentiates between pottery from Big Rice Lake and pottery from the Lake Winnibigoshish area and component five discriminates between Lake Winnibigoshish Laurel pottery and the rest of the pottery (Figure 18). Principal component three variable loadings demonstrate a covariance between barium and ruthenium, and account for 10.1 percent of the total variance (Figure 18). Barium tends to concentrate in clays, whereas ruthenium, a transition metal, concentrates in the silt fraction (Blackman, 1992; Elam, et al., 1992). Component five variable loadings, demonstrating a covariance between hafnium and europium, represent 8.5 percent of the variance (Figure 18). Hafnium is found in zircon and concentrates in the non-plastic portion of· sediments (Neff, et al., 1992). Europium is a lanthanide element, possibly occurring in plagioclase, and is concentrated in clay (Elam, et al., 1992). Component three indicates that the Lake Winnibigoshish pottery is different from the pottery excavated at Big Rice Lake. Component five

59 ...."I1 d

0 00 Ill • --Q..... ::s ""C (1Q - rll 0 COMPONENT 5 ..... I I 0 I\) 0) 0....., I\) COMPONENTS COMPONENT3 -L I I >C (') .... 0 ...... 0 0 .... !3 MAGNESIU 'Cl MAGNESIU • 0::s VANADIUM VANADIUM I C1I ::s NEODYMIU NEODYMIU • 1 >C .... 0 IK w SAMARIUM SAMARIUM < LlITETIUM LlITETIUM C1I Cil CERIUM CERIUM c: rll BARIUM BARIUM O'I 0 VI URANIUM URANIUM (') -L .... TIIORIUM 0 z TIIORIUM s::: CHROMIUM CHROMIUM "'O > 0z ' > Y'ITERBIU YTIERBIU m 'Cl z + 0 HAFNIUM HAFNIUM -I .... w I\) I C1I RU'IHENIU RUTIIENIU + + x+•c SCANDIUM SCANDIUM Q. IRON Ill.... IRON Ill COBALT COBALT

EUROPIUM EUROPIUM (,) Q. POTASSIU POTASSIU + :D < LANTIIANU Ill::t LANTHANU Ill ANTIMONY ANTIMONY CT C1I :D - -< separates the Laurel pottery from Lake Winnibigoshish from all the Big Rice Lake and the Lake Winnibigoshish Blackduck pottery. A plot of components three versus six shows that component six discriminates between the Lake Winnibigoshish Blackduck pottery and the other groups (Figure 19). Component six, an inverse variance between neodymium and lutetium on the negative side and potassium on the positive, accounts for 8.5 percent of the explained variance (Figure 19). Neodymium and lutetium are lanthanide elements and concentrate in clay; potassium is determined by feldspar content (Elam, et al., 1992). This plot suggests that the pottery from Big Rice Lake differs from that from Lake Winnibigoshish, although the Blackduck and Laurel pottery from Lake Winnibigoshish also appear to differ from one another; which is the same interpretation from the plot of components three versus five. The sixth component is subject to question, however, because the neodymium values for sixteen of the forty samples were below the level of detection of INAA. Principal components analysis of the clay, sediment, and granite samples that underwent INAA shows that components one, three, five, and seven do not discriminate and are not useful for interpretation of provenance (Figures 20 and 21). The first component represents the regional chemistry and the grouping that does occur among the samples is difficult to interpret. Component two indicates several somewhat distinct groups can be recognized: the clay from Deer River, the clay lining of the parching pit (Feature 25C), and the two sediment samples and granite from Big Rice Lake (Figure 22). Five of the sediment samples from west of the site plot far out on the positive axis of component two. This discrepancy in the samples can probably be attributed to an inhomogeneity in the rare earth elements which tend to occur the clay. Some of the samples had large concentrations of these lanthanide elements, while others did not, indicating a hit or miss situation. The Deer River clay samples plot apart from the samples collected at Big Rice Lake on component six (Figure 22). This is expected because the Deer River clay and the samples from Big Rice Lake are from different areas and would be expected to plot differently. Neodymium, lutetium, cerium, and potassium may therefore be the most discriminating elements in this study for determining provenance. However, neodymium values are below the detection limit for 16

6 1 .....'Tl a 0 \0 Ill • --(:l......

(JQ= - I'll COMPONENTS s I I ' (,t) I\) ...... 0 ...... I\) 0 ..... COMPONENTS COMPONENT3 ...... I I C'l 0 0 0 - - !3 MAGNESIU - - "O MAGNESIU 0 VANADIUM VANADIUM 1· 0 i. = NEODYMIU NEODYMIU ....= 0 .tl w SAMARIUM SAMARIUM LUTETIUM LUTETIUM <0 .... CERIUM CERIUM 1 Cl> 11t 1 t:: BARIUM r1 Cl> fr BARIUM i 0\ i i;.: N 0\ URANIUM URANIUM (')__. r,+ii THORIUM THORIUM 0 Cl: i i z !!:::: 1 " :c: : -> CHROMIUM · CHROMIUM > YITERBIU YITERBIU "O I l+i ....0 HAFNIUM HAFNIUM ! i ! ....0 RUTIIENIU RUTHENIU c.>I\) f.; X+•CI :+: SCANDIUM SCANDIUM (:l. IRON 1 1 Ill.... IRON : : Ill COBALT COBALT EUROPIUM EUROPIUM _J .J .l I _I l ;_ I (,t) I (:l. ! j § POTASSIU POTASSIU < !+' : : p:! -'I Ill LANTHANU LAN1HANU ::i. i i i iTl Ill ANI'IMONY ANI'IMONY O" 0 - _J 1..l I .1..l..'.I rl "l1 a -N IllOo • ....Q. ::s "'C (1Q - l:ll 0 I COMPONENT3 I\) .... 0 .... -0 - >-+> COMPONENT3 COMPONENT 1 (,) 0 ,_.I I d' (") 0 ,_. ,_. 0 ,_. 0 0 MAGNESIU "Os MAGNESIU 0::s VANADIUM VANADIUM 0 ::s NEODYMIU NEODYMIU 1 .;-- I I\) - SAMARlUM SAMARlUM <- LUTETIUM LUTETIUM 0 CERIUM l:ll.... CERIUM c::: l:ll BARlUM BARlUM IJC O'\ w URANIUM URANIUM (') ...... 'It...... w .... • Cl 0 TIIORIUM TIIORIUM 3: ••• z "'O • - CHROMIUM CHROMIUM 0 0 IJC • > z •• (/) 'Tl > YTIERBIU YITERBIU m + • l:ll z 0 HAFNIUM HAFNIUM -I Q. .... 0 tt m ::o §' RUTIIENIU RUTIIENIU + 0 SCANDIUM SCANDIUM ::s c IRON IRON c -Q. ox+ Ill COBALT OOBALT Ill G> RI :;i - EUROPIUM EUROPIUM 1 I .... ::o F! m Ill ::s POTASSIU POTASSIU c G') ::D Q. - LANTHANU < LANTIIANU r1a Ill ANTIMONY ::i. ANTIMONY xB g. 0 I\) ....'t1 a o_-iv I» • p..... ""C (JQ= - en O COMPONENT? .... I N ...:.... 0 -'- N (..:> 0 ...., COMPONENT? COMPONENTS N I I 0 ...... 0 ...... 0 ...... 0 MAGNESIU 'Os MAGNESIU 0 VANADIUM VANADIUM le =0 NEODYMIU .... NEODYMIU = SAMARIUM + Vt SAMARIUM -&. "' < LlITETIUM LlITETIUM 0 CERIUM c' : x en""' CERIUM en BARIUM BARIUM II O'I = -..J URANIUM URANIUM 0 (") IOIa :. • ti z TIIORIUM TIIORIUM C3 a! I x - CHROMIUM CHROMIUM z 0 ...... i x gj !8 > ...... 1...... r- r- > YTI'ERBIU YTIERBIU Ul ,, en 0 HAFNIUM HAFNIUM !+ p. UI CD CD RUTIIENIU RUTIIENIU 3, N §' 01 0 SCANDIUM SCANDIUM 0 ....= IRON IRON p. 0 x + ....I» COBALT COBALT --. I - --1-+--j-ijo1 I ! 1! I I» EUROPIUM G> ID C EUROPIUM :II :II !!? I» POTASSIU G> r- s: p. POTASSIU = 5 CD < LANTIIANU LANTHANU -· CD < &> ... I» ANI'IMONY ANI'IMONY ::i 0 ::::!. - iii 2. "< 0- N 'Tl

-N ON Q...... 'i:I (1Q= - rl:I 0 I COMPONENTS ... I\) ..:... 0 ..... I\) 0 ...... COMPONENTS COMPONENT2 ..... I I (') ...... 0 ...... 0 ...... 0 MAGNESIU 0 "Os MAGNESIU ,+ 0 VANADIUM VANADIUM ><•oJ'.> ..... i'"""""f"""'"''!""''"'"'""""'"' en -n > YITERBIU YITERBIU m 8- g: rl:I z c: 0 HAFNIUM HAFNIUM -I (!) QI Q. N 3. I\) RUlHENIU (11 9· RUlHENIU 0 0 SCANDIUM ::I SCANDIUM ... IRON IRON Q. 0 x COBALT COBALT - • I + ... I\) I I i : I EUROPIUM EUROPIUM Ci) ID O :II i!! a: ::I POTASSIU POTASSIU Ci'l en ... Q. LANTHANU iS' < LANlHANU i6' b' !!l ANTIMONY ::> Q ::i. ANTIMONY • a" 0 U) ...... of the thirty-nine samples. It is below the detection limit in all of the samples from the Big Rice Lake site control. Component four differentiates among the sediment and clay (Deer River clay and Big Rice Lake Feature 25C) samples, which have higher scores for component four, whereas granite samples plot with each group (Figure 23). This is reasonable because cerium and thorium, which are represented by component four, tend to concentrate in the clay fraction. These are useful elements for distinguishing between grain size fractions, and they discriminate, as in the previous plot, between samples from Big Rice Lake and Deer River. Most of the samples from Big Rice Lake are indistinguishable chemically from each other, but are different from the Lake Winnibigoshish pottery and the Deer River clay samples. The scatter of some of the data may be due to chemical differences of the raw material sources used by the potters or due to individual pieces of pottery carried to the site from elsewhere that represent raw material from other locations in the state (Hancock, et al., 1989; Mommsen, et al., 1991). Table two shows the minimum, maximum, and mean values for each element for both the Deer River clay, which was collected from one location, and all thirty-nine sediment, clay, and granite samples collected in the vicinity of Big Rice Lake. These values demonstrate that samples collected from one location have less variability than samples collected from . several locations in a specific region, in this case the perimeter of a lake. The variability from one part of Big Rice Lake to another is probably the primary reason that the majority of the samples do not plot in tight groups. A plot of the INAA data for all of the pottery, sediment, and clay samples from Big Rice Lake on component two versus six indicates that the pottery and sediment represent one group (Figure 24). When component three is plotted versus six, the pottery data plots separately (Figure 24). Component two is not a useful component for . differentiation of the pottery and component three has been determined not to distinguish between the sediment samples, therefore plotting all of the samples using these components may not be particularly · helpful, but it provides another method of evaluating-.whether ·the pottery and sediments have similar chemical compositions. Because-· o( the extreme

66 ...."T1

-N 0 l>l Cl) • .....0. ""C (1Q= - Vl 0 COMPONENTS .... I I\) ..:.. 0 ...... I\) 0 ...... , COMPONENTS COMPONENT4 I\) I I n .... 0 ...... 0 .... 0 MAGNESIU 't:Is MAGNESIU •.i 0 VANADIUM VANADIUM , o•O' 0 ....= NEODYMIU NEODYMIU = SAMARIUM SAMARIUM . i :IC 0 ..f+± < LUTETIUM LUTETIUM . 0 0 "1 CERIUM CERIUM + Vlc: o Vl BARIUM BARIUM O" f .,.;i 0\ URANIUM URANIUM 0 • D THORIUM THORIUM 1 z ""CJ Ill Ill - CHROMIUM CHROMIUM 0 ::0 ::0 > rr YITERBIU z > YTIERBIU m I\) C/J Vl z ...... 8- Ill 0 HAFNIUM HAFNIUM -i c 0. CD iil RUTHENIU RUTHENIU ::!, N §' Ill 0 Cl) m POTASSIU POTASSIU -· C/J 0. iii i6' = LANTHANU < LANTHANU 0 !!l Cl) ANllMONY g 0 ANllMONY - iii :::t 0 !! '< I I I 0 CJ) I Table 2. Table of variability of INAA data for Deer River clay and all sediment, clay, and granite samples from Big Rice Lake. D eer R'1ver c l av ELEMENT SAMPLES MEAN S.D. MINIMUM MAXIMUM Ba 10 627.0 43.70 563.0 699.0 Ce 10 66.67 2.680 61.10 70.70 Co 10 12.87 9.310E-01 10.80 14.10 Cr 10 65.63 5.190 56.40 72.90 Eu 10 8.899E-01 2.707E-01 4.400E-01 1.140 Fe 10 3.342E+04 1:369E+03 3.140E+04 3.570E+04 Hf 10 2.266 1.915 0.000 5.400 K 10 2.573 2.215 0.000 4.326 La 10 34.61 1.025 33.30 36.60 Lu 10 3.572E-01 4.302E-02 2.750E-01 4.250E-01 Mg 10 8.428E+03 1.816E+03 6.260E+03 1.090E+04 Nd 10 25.50 9.017 12.90 38.00 Ru 10 1.347 9.615E-02 1.210 1.470 Sb 10 2.574E-01 3.410E-01 0.000 7.820E-01 Sc 10 11.12 3.882E-01 10.60 11.80 Sm 10 5.857 2.766E-01 5.400 6.360 Th 10 11.03 2.979 9.510 19.20 u 10 1.865 2.375E-01 l.570 2.320 Va 10 105.2 10.00 89.50 122.0 Yb 10 2.166 8.566E-02 2.040 2.300 B"1g R"ice L a k e se d"1ment, c av. an d gramte ELEMENT SAMPLES MEAN S.D. MINIMUM MAXIMUM Ba 39 844.0 295.3 458.0 1.470E+03 Ce 39 51.99 24.89 25.00 158.0 Co 39 12.65 8.775 0.951 45.00 Cr 39 72.69 32.65 1.240 125.0 Eu 39 7.876E-01 2.249E-01 4.690E-01 1.630 Fe 39 3.129E+04 1.554E+04 6.240E+03 6.280E+04 Hf 39 4.646 2.198 0.000 10.70 K 39 4.318 1.955E-01 3.929 4.942 La 39 204.6 420.5 13.40 l.380E+03 Lu 39 1.657E-01 9.859E-02 0.000 3.880E-01 Mg 39 9.121E+03 2.779E+03 4.190E+03 l.360E+04 Nd 39 10.85 12.75 0.000 32.90 Ru 39 1.806 4.597E-01 0.959 3.560 Sb 39 1.802E-01 3.259E-01 0.000 1.130 Sc 39 9.124 4.422 1.130 15.80 Sm 39 20.33 39.37 1.990 132.0 Th 39 9.595 6.405 1.480 35.10 u 39 3.648 5.175 0.000 18.90 Va 39 91.16 54.23 0.000 177.0 Yb 39 1.679 " 1.180 5.670E-01 4.550

68 c Feature 25C + Laurel Pottery • Blackduck Pottery • Sediment Site 5 x Site Control 2 ... 1 z ++• ._ UJ •• • - a. _._.'i'" :::iE (.)0 -1 • + -2 - 1 0 1 2 3

COMPONENT2

c Feature 25C + Laurel Pottery • Blackduck Pottery • Sediment Site 5 x Site Control 2

1 + z + ... + + UJ . IQ w •• • + a. -c ...... :::iE •• (.)0 -1 • ...... " "'+"'"""""''' ...... -2+---.---+----.---+---.---+---.---+----..---4 - 1 0 1 2 3 4

COMPONENT3

Figure 24. Plot of component 2 versus 6 and 3 versus 6 for all of the Big Rice Lake INAA data.

69 variability of the sediment around the lake and the fact that some components are better than others at grouping both the pottery and sediment samples, these plots provide a hint that the pottery and sediment from Big Rice Lake have similar compositions. A similar plot for the pottery from Lake Winnibigoshish and the clay from Deer River shows that for component two the samples represent one group (Figure 25). As in the plot of the Big Rice Lake samples, component three distinguishes between the pottery and the clay (Figure 25). In both plots component six separates the Laurel pottery from the Blackduck and from the clay. Tentative conclusions that the pottery excavated at Big Rice Lake was made from raw materials acquired at the lake and that the pottery and raw materials differed from the pottery and clay from Lake Winnibigoshish and Deer River could be drawn from PCA; discriminant-function analysis was used to further clarify whether the Big Rice Lake, and Lake Winnibigoshish and Deer River samples were discrete populations. In the first run of the analysis the Deer River clay and Lake Winnibigoshish pottery, and all the Big Rice Lake samples were defined as two separate groups (Figure 26). Only one sample was regrouped by the- discriminant analysis, a sample from the Lake Winnibigoshish group was regrouped with the Big Rice Lake group. The second discriminant-function analysis run left the Big Rice Lake pottery as undefined samples, but kept the sediment, clay, and granite from the lake defined as one group (Figure 27). Of the twenty pottery samples, nine were grouped with the Big Rice Lake samples and eleven were grouped with the Lake Winnibigoshish samples. Seven of the samples placed with the Lake Winnibigoshish group were Laurel and four were Blackduck. Only three of the Laurel samples were grouped with the Big Rice Lake samples, while six of the Blackduck were grouped with the Big Rice Lake samples. The greater number of Laurel samples that were grouped with Lake Winnibigoshish may represent more pottery being carried to . the lake · than . being made at the lake during the earlier period. During the Blackduck period more pottery may have been made at the lake. Again, because of the variability in the data, it may not be that more pottery was made from local materials during the

70 • Lake Winni Blackduck Potterv x Lake Winni Laurel Pottery + Deer River Clay 2

)(

COMPONENT2

• Lake Winni Blackduck Potterv x Lake Winni Laurel Pottery + Deer River Clay ..

COMPONENT3

Figure 25. Plot of component 2 versus 6 and 3 versus 6 for all of the Lake Winnibigoshish pottery and Deer River clay INAA data.

7 1 5 .1 I

0 - -

z 0 I- 0 z ::J u.. -5 - -

-10 I I 1 2

GROUP

Figure 26. Discriminant-function analysis plot of all INAA data with two groups defined. Group 1= Big Rice Lake, Group 2= Lake Winnibigoshish and Deer River.

72 5 ·1n I I . 34

.41 : II

. 31 II II II .11 31 ii .ZI II 17 0 ..... :JI 11 - z .JJ ,11 37 0 13 :Jz I- 14 ,JS ' II () 15 ;: 1· z : II' ::'.) ; !' 11 : n LL : II : II .1Z : II -5 ..... '" : II -

-10 I I I 0 1 2 GROUP

Figure 27. Discriminant-function analysis plot of all INAA data with Big Rice Lake pottery left as unknowns (Group 0). Group 0 samples 11-20 are Blackduck pottery, samples 31-40 are Laurel pottery. Group 1= Big Rice Lake, Group 2= Lake Winnibigoshish and Deer River.

73 Blackduck period, but that more pottery was made from raw materials collected closer to the area in which sampling for this study occurred. It appears that when the Big Rice Lake pottery is defined as being included in the same group as the other material from Big Rice Lake the discriminant program finds no important differences requiring regrouping of samples. When the pottery is left undefined, the program does not quite know in which group to place the samples because the chemistry for the Big Rice Lake and Lake Winnibigoshish groups is extremely varied and the groups quite diffuse (Table 2). Because of the great chemical variability around Big Rice Lake the discriminant-function analysis neither supports nor disputes the hypothesis that the pottery excavated at Big Rice Lake was made from ·raw materials acquired at the lake.

74 CONCLUSIONS Results of graphical, statistical, and multivariate analyses of both petrography and INAA data suggest the Initial Woodland Laurel ceramics from Big Rice Lake are different from those of the Terminal Woodland Blackduck, Selkirk, and Sandy Lake in the inclusion percentages but similar in chemical composition (Figures 18, 19, and 26). At Lake Winnibigoshish the Laurel and Blackduck pottery have different chemical compositions (Figures 18 and 19). Terminal Woodland ceramics are not entirely similar, however, each of the cultures used different motifs in decorating their pottery (Figure 7). The similarity of the Terminal Woodland ceramics suggests that the three cultures had similar ceramic technologies or were using the same raw materials and not altering them noticably. The slight percentage differences that exist among the Initial and Terminal Woodland ceramics suggests a change in technology. At Lake Winnibigoshish the chemical differences between the Initial and Terminal Woodland ceramics may represent the use of a new source of raw materials. Whether the raw materials were chosen based on tradition or because it was readily available, it appears that Woodland pottery technology remained fairly stable over a 2,000 year period. It was possible in this study to determine if the pottery from Big Rice Lake was or was not made from raw material acquired in the region of the lake, but because of the lack of larger amounts of data that could more specifically characterize the chemical range of the sediments around Big Rice Lake a specific conclusion that the pottery was made from clay found on the south shore of the lake rather than the north shore was not possible. This resource zone concept of the source of raw materials is more practical, but less precise than trying to establish the exact deposits used in antiquity (Clark, et al., 1992). Using both PCA and discriminant-function analysis the pottery, sediment, clay, and granite from Big Rice Lake appear to represent the same population (Figures 22 and 23) and therefore, it can be concluded that the pottery excavated at Big Rice Lake was likely made from raw materials acquired at the lake. Some of the pottery samples that provide scatter in the data may represent pieces of pottery that were carried to the lake from elsewhere.

75 The technical data acquired from the petrographic and trace-element analysis have little inherent archaeological meaning. The data must be placed into an ecological and cultural framework that allows interpretations to be drawn about the choices made by the potters (Rice, 1987). It is the inferences from the data that are of importance and which might not have been acquired through purely archaeological means (Mommsen, et al., 1991). As has been stated previously, lithics and copper were acquired at great distance or through extensive trade networks. Pottery appears to have been considered more utilitarian by the Woodland cultures than the lithic and copper industries because great distances were not travelled to acquire raw clay and it was probably not traded between groups. The interpretation that pottery was made on the site from available resources, and the establishment of this trend from Initial to Terminal Woodland implies a stable, relatively unchanging technology, but not necessarily an unchanging culture. Pottery decoration and shape changed throughout the Woodland Period and there is evidence of changing subsistence patterns. In Minnesota people were trying to survive in a more harsh environment than m other parts of the United States. Pottery was merely a technological innovation that allowed easier processing of food, but was not endowed with any religious, artistic, or ceremonial importance. Therefore, once pottery was established in Minnesota there was no need to drastically change it as long as it served the subsistence needs of the people using it. This study has highlighted several that Minnesota archaeologists have relied upon for many years. Archaeologists have always stated that the pottery was tempered with "grit", usually indicating granite (Stoltman, 1973; Anderson, 1979; Anfinson, 1979; Birk, 1979; Lugenbeal, 1979). As discussed previously, tempered pottery has been found to differ from the raw materials from which it is made (Arnold, et al., 1978). However, in this study the ceramics and raw materials have been identified, with the use of statistics, to be similar. In addition, petrographic observation of sediment collected at Big Rice Lake shows that it contains similar inclusions to the inclusions in the pottery (Plates 1, 2, and 3 ). These two lines of evidence may indicate that the pottery was in ·fact not tempered in the traditional sense. That is, granite was not crushed and added to the clay, rather sediment that

76 contained quant1ues of fine-grained granite inclusions was mixed with clay to give the clay the desired properties for making pottery. The second assumption that most archaeologists have made is that percentages of inclusions, specifically granite, differ for each cultural group in Minnesota (Stoltman, 1973; Anderson, 1979; Anfinson, 1979; Birk, 1979; and Lugenbeal, 1979). This study has shown that except for a few infrequently occurring inclusion types, such as oxides, grog, and lithic fragments, the Terminal Woodland pottery contains the same percentages. The Initial Woodland pottery was found to differ only slightly in the percent of granite.

77 REFERENCES CITED

Abascal-M., R., Harbottle, G. , and Sayre, E. V., 1974, Correlation between terra cotta figurines and pottery from the Valley of Mexico and source clays by activation analysis, in Beck, C. W., ed. Archaeological Chemistry: Washington, D.C., American Chemical Society, p. 81-99.

Anderson, D., 1979, Laurel ware, in Anfinson, S. F., ed. A Handbook of Minnesota · Prehistoric Ceramics: St. Paul, Minnesota Archaeological Society, p. 121-135.

Anfinson, S. F., 1979, "Selkirk horizon" ceramics, in Anfinson, S. F., ed. A Handbook of Minnesota Prehistoric Ceramics: St. Paul, Minnesota Archaeological Society, p. 231-232.

Anfinson, S. F. , and Wright, H. E., Jr., 1990, Climatic change and culture in prehistoric Minnesota, in Gibbon, G. E., ed. The Woodland Tradition in the Western Great Lakes: Papers Presented to Elden Johnson: Minneapolis, University of Minnesota, p. 213-232.

Arnold, D. E., 1971, Ethnomineralogy of Ticul, Yucatan: Etics and emics: American Antiquity, v. 36, p. 20-40.

Arnold, D. E., Neff, H. E. , and Bishop, R. L., 1980, Compositional analysis and "sources" of pottery: An ethnoarchaeological approach: American Anthropologist, v. 93, p. 70-90.

Arnold, D. E., Rice, P. M., Jester, W. A., Deutsch, W. N., Lee, B. K. , and Kirsch, R. I., 1978, Neutron activation analysis of contemporary pottery and pottery materials from the Valley of Guatemala, in Wetherington, R. K., ed. The Ceramics of Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala: University Park, Pennsylvania State University, p. 544-576.

Arthurs, D., 1986, Laurel ceramics in Quetico: Wanikan, v. 86, p. 4-13.

Baedecker, P. A. , and McKown, D. M., 1987, Instrumental neutron activation analysis of geochemical samples, in Baedecker, P. A., ed. Methods for Geochemical Analysis, U.S.G.S. Bulletin 1770: U.S. Geological Survey, p. Hl-H14.

Bennyhoff, J. A. , and Heizer, R. F., 1965, Neutron activation analysis of some Cuicuilco and Teotihuacan pottery: Archaeological interpretation of results: American Antiquity, v. 30, p. 348-349.

Bieber, A. M., Jr., Brooks, D. W., Harbottle, G. , and Sayre, E. V., 1976, Application of multivariate techniques to analytical data on Aegean ceramics: Archaeometry, v. 18, p. 59-74.

Birk, D., 1979, Sandy Lake ware, in Anfinson, S. F., ed. A Handbook of Minnesota Prehistoric Ceramics: St. Paul, Minnesota Archaeological Society, p. 175-182.

78 Birks, H. J. B., 1976, Late-Wisconsinan vegetational history at Wolf Creek, central Minnesota: Ecological Monographs, v. 46, p. 395-429.

Bishop, R. L., Canouts, V., DeAtley, S. P., Qoyawayma, A. , and Aikins, C. W., 1988, The formation of ceramic analytical groups: Hopi pottery production and exchange, A.C. 1300-1600: Journal of Field Archaeology, v. 15, p. 317-337.

Bishop, R. L., Rands, R. L. , and Holley, G. R., 1982, Ceramic compositional analysis in archaeological perspective, in Schiffer, M. B., ed. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory: New York, Academic Press, p. 275-330.

Bjorck, S., 1990, Late Wisconsin history north of the Giants Range, northern Minnesota, inferred from complex stratigraphy: Quaternary Research, v. 33, p. 18-36.

Blackman, M. J., 1992, The effect of human size sorting on the mineralogy and chemistry of ceramic clays, in Neff, H., ed. Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology: Madison, WI, Prehistory Press, p. 113-124.

Bronitsky, G., 1984, Ceramics and temper: an experimental assessment of the role of temper in durability of ceramics: Pottery Southwest, v. 11, p. 2-13.

Bronitsky, G., 1986, The use of materials science techniques in the study of pottery construction and use, in Schiffer, M., ed. Advances in archaeological method and theory: New York, Academic Press, p. 209-276.

Brooks, D., Bieber, A. M., Jr., Harbottle, G. , and Sayre, E. V., 1974, Biblical studies through activation analysis of ancient pottery, in Beck, C. W., ed. Archaeological Chemistry: Washington, D.C., American Chemical Society, p. 48-80.

Brown, J. A., 1986, Early ceramics and culture: A review of interpretations, in Farnsworth, K. B. , and Emerson, T. E., ed. Early Woodland Archaeology: Kampsville, IL, Center for American Archaeology, p. 598-608.

Budworth, D. W., 1970, An Introduction to Ceramic Science, Oxford, Pergamon Press, 287 p.

Buko, A., 1984, Problems and research prospects in the determination of the provenance of pottery: World Archaeology, v. 15, p. 348-365.

Chayes, F., 1956, Petrographic Modal Analysis, New York, John Wiley and Sons, 113 p.

Clark, C. P., 1991, Group Composition and the Role of Unique Raw Materials in the Terminal Woodland Substage of the Lake Superior Basin [PhD Dissertation thesis]: Michigan State University.

Clark, C. P., Neff, H. , and Glascock, M. D., 1992, NAA of Late Woodland ceramics from the Lake Superior basin, in Neff, H., ed. Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology: Madison, WI, Prehistory Press, p. 255-267.

79 Cooper, L. R. , and Johnson, E., 1964, Sandy Lake ware and its distribution: American Antiquity, v. 29, p. 474-479.

Craddock, C., 1972, Regional geologic setting, in Sims, P. K. , and Morey, G. B., ed. Geology of Minnesota: A Centennial Volume: St. Paul, Minnesota Geological Survey, p. 281-291.

Cushing, E. J., 1967, Late-Wisconsin pollen stratigraphy and the glacial sequence in Minnesota, in Cushing, E. J. , and Wright, H. E., Jr., ed. Quaternary Paleoecology: New Haven, Yale University Press, p. 59-88.

Darvill, T. , and Timby, J., 1982, Textural analysis: A review of potentials and limitations, in Freestone, I., Johns, C. , and Potter, T., ed. Current Research in Ceramics: Thin-Section Studies: London, British Museum, p. 73-87.

Davis, J. C., 1986, Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology, New York, John Wiley & Sons, 646 p.

Dawson, K. C. A., 1983, Prehistory of Northern Ontario, Thunder Bay, Thunder Bay Historical Museum Society Guide Publishing and Printing, 40 p.

Dillon, W. R. , and Goldstein, M., 1984, Multivariate Analysis, New York, John Wiley & Sons, 587 p.

Djingova, R. , and Kuleff, I., 1991 , Provenance study of pottery and glass by INAA, in Hughes, M. J., Co'":'ell, M. R. , and Hook, D .. R., ed. Neutron Activation and Plasma Emission Spectrometric Analysis in Archaeological Techniques and Applications: London, British Museum, p. 121-141.

Drexler, C. W., Farrand, W. R. , and Hughes, J. D., 1983, Correlation of glacial lakes in the Superior basin with eastward drainage events from Lake Agassiz, in Teller, J. T. , and Clayton, L., ed. Glacial Lake Agassiz: Toronto, University of Toronto Press, p. 309-329.

Elam, J. M., Carr, C., Glascock, M. D. , and Neff, H., 1992, Ultrasonic disaggregation and instrumental neutron activation analysis of textural fractions of Tucson Basin and Ohio Valley pottery, in Neff, H., ed. Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes· in Archaeology: Madison, WI, Prehistory Press, p. 93-111.

Farrand, W. R., 1960, Former Shorelines in Western and Northern Lake Superior Basin [PhD Dissertation thesis]: University of Michigan.

Fiedel, S. J., 1987, Prehistory of the Americas, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 386 p.

Franklin, U. M. , and Vitali, V., 1985, The environmental stability of ancient ceramics: Archaeometry, v. 27, p. 3-15.

80 Fries, M., 1962, Pollen profiles of late Pleistocene and recent sediments from Weber Lake, northeast Minnesota: Ecology, v. 43, p. 295-308.

Gibbon, G., 1986, Does Minnesota have an Early Woodland?, in Farnsworth, K. B., and Emerson, T. E., ed. Early Woodland Archaeology: Kampsville, IL, Center for American Archaeology, p. 84-91.

Gilmore, G. R., 1991, Sources of uncertainty in the neutron activation analysis of pottery, in Hughes, M. J., Cowell, M. R. , and Hook, D. R., ed. Neutron Activation and Plasma Emission Spectrometric Analysis in Archaeological Techniques and Applications: London, British Museum, p. 1-28.

Glascock, M. D., 1981, Characterization of archaeological ceramics at MURR by neutron activation analysis and multivariate statistics, in Hughes, M. J., ed. Scientific Studies in Ancient Ceramics: London, British Museum, p. 11-26.

Green, J. C., 1972, North Shore Volcanic Group, in Sims, P. K. , and Morey, G. B., ed. Geology of Minnesota: A Centennial Volume: St. Paul, Minnesota Geological Survey, p. 294-332.

Hall, E. T., 1971, Two examples of the use of chemical analysis in the solution of archaeological problems, in Brill, R. H., ed. Science and Archaeology: Cambridge, The MIT Press, p. 156-164.

Hancock, R. G. V., Fleming, S. J. , and Glanzman, W. D., 1989, Analysis of Neolithic Iranian ceramics, in Allen, R. 0., ed. Archaeological Ceramics IV: Washington, D.C., American Chemical Society, p. 113-124.

Hanson, G. N., 1972, Saganaga batholith, in Sims, P. K. , and Morey, G. B., ed. Geology of Minnesota: A Centennial Volume: St. Paul, Minnesota Geological Survey, p. 102-107.

Harbottle, G., 1970, Neutron activation analysis of potsherds from Knossos and Mycenae: Archaeometry, v. 12, p. 23-34.

Hauck, S., Heine, J., Zanko, L., Power, B., Geerts, S., Oreskovich, J. , and Reichhoff, J., 1990, LCMR Clay Report: NRRI Summary Report, Duluth, MN, Natural Resources Research Institute, 201 p.

Hobbs, H. C. , and Goebel, J. E., 1982, Geologic Map of Minnesota, Quaternary Geology, Minnesota Geological Survey, 1 :500,000.

Hough, J. L., 1958, Geology of the Great Lakes, Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 313 p.

Howard, H., 1982, Clay and the archaeologist, in Freestone, I. E., Johns, C. , and Potter, T., ed. Current Research in Ceramics: Thin-Section Studies:. London, British Museum, p. 145-158.

Huber, J. K., 1987, A vegetational reconstruction from Big Rice Lake, St. Louis County, Minnesota: Current Research in the Pleistocene, v. 4, p. 91-93.

8 1 Huber, J. K., 1988, Use of green algae abundances for augmenting palynological interpretation: Current Research in the Pleistocene, v. 5, p. 48- 50.

Huber, J. K., 1992, An overview of the vegetational history of the Arrowhead region, northeastern Minnesota, in Lehr, J. D. , and Hobbs, H. C., ed. Field Trip Guidebook for the Glacial Geology of the Laurentian Divide Area, St. Louis and Lake Counties, Minnesota: St. Paul, Minnesota Geological Survey, p. 55-64.

Hughes, M. J., Cowell, M. R. , and Hook, D. R., 1991, NAA preocedure at the British Museum research laboratory, in Hughes, M. J., Cowell, M. R. , and Hook, D. R., ed. Neutron Activation and Plasma Emission Spectrometric Analysis in Archaeological Techniques and Applications: London, British Museum, p. 29- 46.

Jenks, A. E., 1977, The Wild Rice Gatherers of the Upper Lakes: A Study in American Primitive Economics, Lincoln, NE, J & L Reprint Company, 124 p.

Johnson, E., 1969a, Preliminary notes on the prehistoric use of wild rice: Minnesota Archaeologist, v. 30, p. 31-43.

Johnson, E., 1969b, The Prehistoric Peoples of Minnesota, St. Paul, Publications of the Minnesota Historical Society, 35 p.

King, R. H., 1987, Provenance of clay material used in the manufacture of archaeological pottery from Cyprus: Applied Clay Science, v. 2, p. 199-213.

Klovan, J. E. , and Billings, G. K., 1967, Classification of geological samples by discriminant-function analysis: Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, v. 15, p. 313-330.

Lahanier, C., Malfoy, J. , and Zimheld, J., 1991, Analysis of white clay Gallo- Roman figurines by neutron activation, in Hughes, M. J ., Cowell, M. R. , and Hook, D. R., ed. Neutron Activation and Plasma Emission Spectrometric Analysis in Archaeological Techniques and Applications: London, British Museum, p. 47-56.

Laubenheimer, F., Widemann, F., Fontes, P. , and Leblanc, J., 1981, Gallo Roman amphorae workshop in the Lower Rhone area: First neutron activation analyis approach, in Hughes, M. J., ed. Scientific Studies in Ancient Ceramics: London, British Museum, p. 73-83.

Lehr, J. D. , and Hobbs, H. C., 1992, Field Trip Guidebook for the Glacial Geology of the Laurentian Divide Area, St. Louis and Lake Counties, Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota Geological Survey, 54 p.

Lenius, B. J. , and Olinyk, D. M., 1990, The Rainy River Composite: Revision to Late Woodland taxonomy, in Gibbon, G. E., ed. The Woodland Tradition in the Western Great Lakes: Papers Presented to Elden Johnson: Minneapolis, University of Minnesota, p. 77-112.

82 Lofstrom, T., 1987, The rise of wild rice exploitation and its implications for population size and social organization in Minnesota Woodland Period cultures: The Minnesota Archaeologist, v. 46, p. 3-15.

Lugenbeal, E., 1979, Blackduck ware, in Anfinson, S. F., ed. A Handbook of Minnesota Prehistoric . Ceramics: St. Paul, Minnesota Archaeological Society, p. 23-37.

Mason, R. J., 1981, Great Lakes Archaeology, New York, Academic Press, Inc., 420 p.

Matson, F. R., 1952, The contribution of technical ceramic studies to American archaeology, in Griffen, J., ed. Prehistoric Pottery of the Eastern United States: Ann Arbor

Matson, F. R., 1969, Some aspects of ceramic technology, in Brothwell, D. , and Higgs, E., ed. Science in Archaeology: a Survey of Progress and Research: London, Thames and Hudson, p. 590-602.

McAndrews, J. H., 1969, Paleobotany of a wild rice lake m Minnesota: Canadian Journal of Botany, v. 47, p. 1671-1679.

Mommsen, H., Kreuser, A., Lewandowski, E. , and Weber, J., 1991, Provenancing of pottery: A status report on NAA and classification, in Hughes, M. J., Cowell, M. R. , and Hook, D. R., ed. Neutron Activation and Plasma Emission Spectrometric Analysis in Archaeological Techniques and Applications: London, British Museum, p. 56-65.

Morey, G. B., 1972, Mesabi Range, in Sims, P. K. , and Morey, G. B., ed. Geology of Minnesota: A Centennial Volume: St. Paul, Minnesota Geological Survey, p. 204-217.

Neff, H., 1992, Introduction, in Neff, H., ed. Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology: Madison, WI, Prehistory Press, p. 1-10.

Neff, H., Bishop, R. L. , and Arnold, D. E., 1988a, Reconstructing ceramic production from ceramic compositional data: an example from Guatemala: Journal of Field Archaeology, v. 15, p. 339-348.

Neff, H., Bishop, R. L. , and Sayre, E. V., 1988b, A simulation approach to the problem of tempering in compositional studies of archaeological ceramics: Journal of Archaeological Science, v. 15, p. 159-172.

Neff, H., Bishop, R. L. , and Sayre, E. V., 1989, More observations on the problem of tempering in compositional studies of archaeological ceramics: Journal of Archaeological Science, v. 16, p. 57-69.

Neff, H., Bove, F. J., Lou P., B. L. , and Piechowski, M. F., 1992, Ceramic raw materials survey in Pacific Coastal Guatemala, in Neff, H., ed. Chemical

83 Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology: Madison, WI, Prehistory Press, p. 59-84.

Ojakangas, R. W. , and Morey, G. B., 1982, Keweenawan sedimentary rocks of the Lake Superior region; a summary, in Wold, R. J., ed. Geology and Tectonics of the Lake Superior Basin: Boulder, CO, Geological Society of America, p. 157-164.

Olin, J. S. , and Sayre, E. V., 1969, The analysis of English and American pottery of the American Colonial period, in Modem Trends in Activation Analysis: Washington, D.C., National Bureau of Standards, p. 246-250.

Peacock, D. P. S., 1970, The scientific analysis of ancient ceramics: a review: World Archaeology, v. 1, p. 375-389.

Penman, J. T., 1983, Fauna from the Big Rice Site, 1983 excavations, in Peters, G. R., ed. Cultural Resource Management on the Superior National Forest 1983 Annual Report: Duluth, MN, USDA Forest Service, p. 304-312.

Perlman, I., 1984, Modem NAA and ancient history, in Lambert, J. B., ed. Archaeological Chemistry III: Washington, D.C., American Chemical Society, p. 117-132.

Perlman, I. , and Asaro, F., 1969, Pottery analysis by neutron activation: Archaeometry, v. 11, p. 21-52.

Peters, G. R. , and Motivans, K. A., 1983, Evaluation: The Big Rice Site (F.S.#09- 09-09-034), in Peters, G. R., ed. Cultural Resource Management on the Superior National Forest 1983 Annual Report: Duluth, MN, USDA Forest Service, p. 280- 303.

Pool, A. B. , and Finch, L. R., 1972, The utilization of trace chemical compos1uon to correlate British post-Medieval pottery with European kiln site materials: Archaeometry, v. 14, p. 79-91.

Quimby, G. E., 1960, Indian Life in the Upper Great Lakes, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 176 p.

Rajnovich, G., 1984, A study of possible prehistoric wild rice gathering on Lake of the Woods, Ontario: North American Archaeologist, v. 5, p. 197-215.

Rapp, G., Jr., Allen, J. D. , and Peters, G. R., 1990, The origin of copper in three northern Minnesota sites: Pauly, River Point, and Big Rice, in Gibbon, G. E., ed. The Woodland Tradition in the Western Great Lakes: Papers Presented to Elden Johnson: Minneapolis, University of Minnesota, p. 233-238.

Rapp, G., Jr. , and Gifford, J. A., 1984, Neutron activation and cluster analysis, in Betancourt, P., ed. East Cretan White on Dark Ware: Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, p. 91-104.

84 Reid, C. S. , and Rajnovich, G., 1991, Laurel: A re-evaluation of the spatial, social, and temporal paradigms: Canadian Journal of Archaeology, v. 15, p. 193-234.

Rice, P. M., 1978, Clear answers to vague questions: Some assumptions of provenience studies of pottery, in Wetherington, R. K., ed. The Ceramics of Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala: University Park, Pennsylvania State University, p. 511-542.

Rice, P. M., 1984, The archaeological study of specialized pottery production: Some aspects of method and theory, in Rice, P. M., ed. Pots and Potters: Current Approaches in Ceramic Archaeology: Los Angeles, University of California, p. 45-52.

Rice, P. M., 1987, Pottery Analysis, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 487 p.

Rice, P. M. , and Saffer, M. E., 1982, Cluster analysis of mixed-level data: Pottery provenience as an example: Journal of Archaeological Science, v. 9, p. 395- 409.

Sayre, E. V., Chan, L. H. , and Sabloff, J. A., 1971, High-resolution gamma-ray spectroscopic analysis of Mayan Fine Orange pottery, in Brill, R. H., ed. Science and Archaeology: Cambridge, The MIT Press, p. 165-179.

Sayre, E. V. , and Dodson, R. W., 1957, Neutron activation study of Mediterranean potsherds: American Journal of Archaeology, v. 61, p. 35-41.

Shepard, A. 0., 1936, The technology of Pecos pottery, in Kidder, A. V., ed. The Pottery of Pecos: London, Yale University Press, p. 389-588.

Shepard, A. 0., 1942, Rio Grande Glaze Paint ware, a study illustrating the place of ceramic technological analysis in archaeological research: Contributions to American Anthropological History, v. 7, p. 133-262.

Shepard, A. 0., 1954, Ceramics for the Archaeologist, Washington, D.C., Carnegie Institute of Washington, 414 p.

Shepard, A. 0., 1965, Rio Grande Glaze-Paint pottery: A test of petrographic analysis, in Matson, F. R., ed. Ceramics and Man: New York, Aldine Publishing Company, p. 62-87.

Shepard, A. 0., 1966, Problems in pottery analysis: American Antiquity, v. 31, p. 870-871.

Sims, P. K., 1972a, Northern Minnesota, general geological features, in Sims, P. K. , and Morey, G. B., ed. Geology of Minnesota: A Centennial Volume: St. Paul, Minnesota Geological Survey, p. 41-48.

85 Sims, P. K., 1972b, Vermilion district and adjacent areas, in Sims, P. K. , and Morey, G. B., ed. Geology of Minnesota: A Centennial Volume: St. Paul, Minnesota Geological Survey, p. 49-62.

Sims, P. K. , and Viswanathan, S., 1972, Giants Range batholith, in Sims, P. K. , and Morey, G. B., ed. Geology of Minnesota: A Centennial Volume: St .Paul, Minnesota Geological Survey, p. 120-139.

Sinopoli, C. M., 1991, Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics, New York, Plenum Press, 237 p.

Solomon, M., 1963, Counting and sampling errors in modal analysis by point counter: Journal of Petrology, v. 4, p. 367-382.

Spaulding, A. C., 1946, Northeastern archaeology and general trends in the northern forest zone, in Johnson, F., ed. Man in Northeastern North America: Andover, MA, Phillips Academy, p. 143-167.

Stoltman, J. B., 1973, The Laurel Culture in Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota Historical Society, 146 p.

Stoltman, J. B., 1989, A quantitative approach to the petrographic analysis of ceramic thin sections: American Antiquity, v. 54, p. 147-160.

Storey, J. M. V., 1988, A chemical study of clays and Roman pottery from the Lower Nene Valley, eastern England: Journal of Archaeological Science, v. 15, p. 35-50.

Swanton, J. R., 1952, The Indian Tribes of North America, Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution Press, 726 p.

Thompson, R. H., 1991, Shepard, Kidder, and Carnegie, in Bishop, R. L. , and Lange, F. W., ed. The Ceramic Legacy of Anna 0. Shepard: Niwot, CO, University Press of Colorado, p. 11-41.

Tile, M. S., 1972, Methods of Physical Examination in Archaeology, New York, Seminar Press, 3 89 p.

Valppu, S., 1989, Paleoethnobotany of Big Rice Site, St. Louis County, Minnesota: Early Wild Rice (Zizania aquatica L.) in Archaeological Context [M.S. Thesis]: University of Minnesota.

Vennum, T., Jr., 1988, Wild Rice and the Ojibway People, St. Paul, Minnesota Historical Society Press, 358 p.

Williams, D. F., 1982, Aspects of prehistoric pottery-making in Orkney, in Freestone, I., Johns, C. , and Potter, T., ed. Current Research in Ceramics: Thin- Section Studies: London, British Museum, p. 9-13.

86 Williams, D. F., 1983, Petrology of ceramics, in Kempe, D. R. C. , and Harvey, A. P., ed. The Petrology of Archaeological Artefacts: Oxford, Clarendon Press, p. 301-329.

Wilson, A. L., 1978, Elemental analysis of pottery in the study of its provenance: a review: Journal of Archaeological Science, v. 5, p. 219-236.

Wisseman, S. U. , and Hopke, P. K., 1991, Neutron activation and advanced pattern recognition analysis of Roman and Near Eastern pottery, in Hughes, M. J., Cowell, M. R. , and Hook, D. R., ed. Neutron Activation and Plasma Emission Spectrometric Analysis in Archaeological Techniques and Applications: London, British Museum, p. 67-90.

Wright, H. E., Jr., 1972a, Quaternary history of Minnesota, in Sims, P. K. , and Morey, G. B., ed. Geology of Minnesota: A Centennial Volume: St. Paul, Minnesota Geological Survey, p. 515-547.

Wright, H. E., Jr., 1972b, Physiography of Minnesota, in Sims, P. K. , and Morey, G. B., ed. Geology of Minnesota: A Centennial Volume: St. Paul, Minnesota Geological Survey, p. 561-578.

Wright, H. E., Jr., 1976, Ice retreat and revegetation in the western Great Lakes area, in Mahaney, W. C., ed. Quaternary Stratigraphy of North America: Stroudsburg, PA, Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross, Inc., p. 119-132.

Wright, H. E., Jr., Matsch, C. L. , and Cushing, E. J., 1973, Superior and Des Moines Lobes, in Black, R. F., ed. The Wisconsinan Stage: Boulder, CO, Geological Society of America, p. 153-185.

Wright, H. E. , and Rube, R. V., 1965, Glaciation of Minnesota and Iowa, in Wright, H. E., and Frey, D. G., ed. The Quaternary of the United States: Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, p. 29-41.

Wright, H. E., Jr. , and Watts, W. A., 1969, Glacial and Vegetational History of Northeastern Minnesota , Minneapolis, University of Minnesota . Press, 59 p.

Yourd, W. J., 1988, The Antiquity and Distribution of Wild Rice in Lake Marquette, North-Central Minnesota: Implications for Regional Archaeology and the Natural History of Wild Rice [M.S. thesis]: University of Minnesota.

87 Appendix A. Petrographic data from the point-counting of . .' seventy-one thin sections.

88 Sandy Lake pottery from Big Rice Lake SAMPLE# QUARTZ CLAY GRANITE POROS/lY OXIDE G03 SHELL SL 273-2 4 65.4 18.8 11.8 0 0 0 SLU-4 9.7 62.4 0 26.1 1.4 0.6 0 0 SLU-5 3.2 85.8 4 6.8 0.2 0 0 0 SLU-6 1 9 64.4 9.8 5.6 0 1.2 0 0 SLU-7 13.2 72.8 2.8 10.6 0.6 0 0 0 SL 273 5.2 64.6 14.4 15.6 0.2 0 0 0 SL 273-1 3.6 70.8 13.6 1 0 1.2 0.8 0 0 SL 280-1 4.4 65.2 12.4 17.6 0.4 0 0 0 SL 307 2.8 67.6 20.8 8.8 0 0 0 0 SL 252 1.7 77.4 11.1 9.6 0.2 0 0 0 SL 280 4.8 73.8 18.8 2.6 0 0 0 0 SL 245 14.4 56 19.4 8.8 0.2 0.2 1 0 SL 251 4.4 67.2 15.2 12.4 0.8 0 0 0 SLU-1 20.8 66.4 6.4 5.2 0 0.8 0 0 SLU-2 14 70.3 11.2 4 0.3 0 0 0 SLU-3 4.8 71.2 17.6 4 2.4 0 0 0 MEAN 8.1 68.8 12.3 10 0.53 0.22 0.06 0 S.D. 6.2 6.8 6.3 6 0.68 0.4 0.25 0 S.D.+ 6.4 7 6.6 6.2 0.7 0.4 0.26 0 S.E. for Ave 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.5 0.17 0.1 0.06 0

Selkirk pottery from Big Rice Lake SAMPLE# QUARTZ CLAY GRANITE POROSllY OXIDE G03 SHELL s 287 15 56.4 17.4 8.8 2.4 0 0 0 s 273-2 6 74.4 7 11.6 1 0 0 0 s 289 7.8 79.6 2.8 9.2 0.6 0 0 0 s 283-1 1 1 64 11 .8 10.2 2.4 0.2 0.4 0 s 283 18.6 59.8 1 0 11 .2 0.2 0.2 0 0 SU-1 7.6 62.6 22 7.6 0.2 0 0 0 s 270 10.6 57.6 7.4 22.8 1.6 0 0 0 s 298 12.8 63 11.6 12.2 0.2 0 0.2 0 s 335 6.4 64.6 8.2 20.2 0.6 0 0 0 s 263 10.4 57 15.6 1 7 0 0 0 0 s 247 1 81.8 4.6 12.4 0 0.2 0 0 s 254 6.8 65.8 1 9 6.8 0.6 0.2 0.8 0 s 252 11.4 54 16.8 17.4 0.4 0 0 0 s 273 4 72.2 15.4 8.4 0 0 0 0 s 273-1 5 82.4 7.2 5.4 0 0 0 0 MEAN 8.96 66.3 11 .8 12.1 0.68 0.05 0.09 0 S.D. 4.5 9.5 5.7 5.1 0.82 0.09 0.23 0 S.D.+ 4.7 9.8 5.9 5.3 0.85 0.09 0.23 0 S.E. for Ave 1.2 2.5 1.5 1.4 0.22 0.02 0.06 0

89 Blackduck pottery from Big Rice Lake SAMPLE# QUARTZ CLAY GRANITE POROSITY OXIDE

Laurel pottery from Big Rice Lake SAMPLE# QUARTZ CLAY GRANITE POROSITY OXIDE

90 Sandy Lake, Blackduck, and Laurel potterv from Lake Winnibigoshish SAMPLE# QUARTZ CLAY GRANITE POROSllY OXIDE G03 ROCKFRAGS SHELL SL-9 16.4 60.8 0.8 7.6 0 0 0 14.4 SL-8 4.4 86.8 3.2 2.8 0 0 0 2.8 SL-10 12.4 72 2.8 8.4 0 0 0 4.4 SL-11 11.8 70.2 0.4 4.2 0 0 0 13.4 SL-12 11.8 68.8 14.6 4.2 0 0 0.6 0 SL-13 13.2 46.4 6.8 13.6 0 0 0.2 19.8 8-6 4.2 49.8 31.8 14.2 0 0 0 0 8-3 5.2 70.8 8 11.6 0.6 2.8 1 0 8-5 13.6 68.8 4.4 11 .8 0.4 1 0 0 8-4 7.95 64.96 15.91 10.42 0.57 0 0.19 0 L-8 10.8 45.2 15.8 26.4 0.2 0.6 1 0 MEAN 10.2 64.1 9.5 10.5 0.16 0.4 0.27 4.98 S.D. 4.1 12.6 9.4 6.6 0.25 0.86 0.4 7.3 S.D.+ 4.3 13.2 9.9 6.9 0.26 0.9 0.42 7.7 S.E. for Ave 1.3 3.98 2.97 2.07 0.08 0.27 0.13 2.3

9 1 Appendix B. Component scores from the petrographic data of seventy-one thin sections.

92 SANDY LAKE COMPCtlENT COMPCtlENT 4 U

S3..KR( COMPCtlENT 1 COMPONENT l..AIJfEl CCM'ONENT1 CCM'ONENTl CCM'ONENT3 COMl'ONENT' s 287 0 .191 0.169 2.005 -0.341 L 328 0.213 -0.309 -0 .623 0 .061 s 273-2 -0.895 -0.446 0.375 0.319 L 292 0.625 -0.446 -0.731 0.285 s 289 -1 .381 ·0.101 0.131 0.313 L 289 -0.883 -0.611 -0 .699 0.389 s 283-1 -0 .382 -0.104 2.135 -0.139 L 252-2 1 .621 -0.732 -0.855 -0.048 s 283 0 .222 1.22 0.385 -0.051 L 272 2 .367 -1.232 -0.398 -0.222 SU-1 0 .187 -0.593 -0.503 -0.211 LU-5 -0.466 0.115 -0.212 0 .109 s 270 0 .592 0.253 1.131 0.569 LU-4 0 .711 1.338 0 .327 0 .535 s 298 0 .092 0.419 -0.145 0.044 LU-6 1.844 -0.018 0 .683 -0.117 s 335 0 .2 -0.205 -0.026 0.608 LU-1 2.368 -0.741 -0 .894 -0.146 s 263 0 .824 0.132 -0.508 0.232 L 331 1.665 0.591 1.128 -0 .466 s 247 -1.24 -0.804 -0.542 0.583 LU-2 -0.825 -0.094 0 .383 0 .477 s 254 -0 .203 -0.623 0.129 -0.347 LU-3 0 .343 1 .006 -0.136 -0 .117 s 252 1 .005 0.178 -0.094 0.171 L 280 -1.146 -0.864 0.256 0.054 s 273 -0.531 -0.833 -0.777 0.087 L 244 0.719 0 .742 1.697 0.013 s 273-1 -1 .525 -0.555 -0.621 0.163 L 252 1.513 0.03 0 .951 0.254 LU-7 1.095 -0.12 -0.1 85 0 .415 BlACKllUCK COMPONENT1 COMPCtlENT l COM Pal COMPQIENT 4 8 328 0 .171 -0.835 -0.822 0.113 8 251 -0.104 -1 .057 -0.07 -0.052 8 645 0.041 -0.933 -0.879 0.448 8 250 0 .752 -0.437 -0.312 0.205 8U-1 1.357 0.486 -0.414 0.319 8U-2 0 .254 0.04 -0.538 0.573 8 270 0 .159 1.026 1.9 -0.187 8 270-1 1.439 0 .191 -0.548 0.53 8 307 -0.489 -0.798 -0.761 0.018 8 121 0 .331 -0.401 -0.689 0.349 8 376-1 -0.309 -1.122 -0.689 -0.009 8 327 -0.994 0 .168 -0.366 -0.017 8 319 -1.939 -1 .014 1.319 0.097 8 245 -0.17 -0.016 -0.334 -8.027

93 A. ppen d. 1x C T a bl e o f e 1emen t s re f erre d t o m s t u d.y . ELEMENTS ELEMENT REASON FOR EXCLUSION MEASURED USED Sulfur Standard deviations were too large (Wilson, 1978; Hancock, et al., 1989). Titanium Strontium Above detection limit in few samples and with a large standard deviation. Indium Below detection limit. Iodine Below detection limit. Bromine Concentrations vary depending on firing temperature of pottery (Perlman and Asaro, 1969; Poole and Finch, 1972). Gallium Above detection limit m one sample. Magnesium Mg Copper Above detection limit in few samples. Silicon Not measured in analysis. Sodium Alkali metal. Possibility of leaching by groundwater (Sayre, et al., 1971). Vanadium v Potassium Alkali metal. Possibility of leaching by groundwater (Sayre, et al., 1971). Chlorine Below detection limit. Aluminum Half-life is too short to determine concentrations (Perlman and Asaro, 1969). Manganese Possibility of deposition in samples during burial (Wilson, 1978; Bronitsky, 1984). Calcium Possibility of leaching from sample during burial (Perlman and Asaro, 1969; Gilmore, 1991; Poole and Finch, 1972). Dysprosium Holmium Above detection limit in few samples. Thulium Below detection limit. Neodymium Nd Samarium Sm Lutetium Lu Osmium Below detection limit.

94 Rhenium Below detection limit. Cerium Ce Molyb- Below detection limit. den um Barium Ba Uranium u Tin Below detection limit. Selenium Above detection limit in few samples. Mercury Below detection limit. Thorium Th Chromium Cr Tellurium Above detection limit in few samples. Ytterbium Yb Gold Below detection limit. Iridium Above detection limit in few samples. Hafnium Hf Ruthenium Ru Cadmium Below detection limit. Arsenic Concentration may change during burial of sample (Djingova and Kuleff, 1991; Gilmore, 1991). Tungsten Standard deviations were too large. Zirconium Standard deviations were too large. Cesium Alkali metal. Possibility of leaching by groundwater (Sayre, et al., 1971). Nickel Below detection limit. Terbium Standard deviations were too large. Scandium Sc Silver Above detection limit in few samples. Rubidium Alkali metal. Possibility of leaching by groundwater (Sayre, et al., 1971). Iron Fe Zinc Above detection limit in few samples and with a large standard deviation. Cobalt Co Tantalum Standard deviations were too large. Europium Eu

95 Praseo- Above detection limit m few samples. dymium Antimony Sb Lanthanum La

96 Appendix D. INAA elemental concentration values (ppm) for ninety samples of pottery, clay, sediment, and granite.

I •. ·. •;:.. •

97 Sediment from Big Rice Lake, Feature 25C SN...t.1 M3 v ND 9.1 LU CE BA u TH CR YB IT RJ g; FE ro BJ K LA ffi 1 13000 147 23.9 4.76 0.228 72 832 1.61 13.9 107 1.82 4.53 1.94 15.4 47700 19.1 0.933 4.279 34 0 2 11400 151 21.5 4.67 0.241 73.3 765 1.68 13.3 102 1.73 4.3 1.85 14.7 45800 17.4 0.895 4.301 33.3 0.594 3 11200 140 26.9 4.62 0.227 71.4 801 1.47 13.5 102 1.73 4.23 1.78 14.8 45800 16.6 0.869 4.279 32.8 0 4 12900 146 26.4 4.63 0.231 68.9 756 1.53 13.6 103 1.71 4.71 1.88 14.9 46300 16.5 0.854 4.373 33.1 0.367 5 10700 147 31.4 4.59 0.219 76.3 784 1.51 13.2 100 1.67 4.6 1.88 14.5 45200 18.8 0.8 4 .318 32.2 0.546 6 10400 132 28.9 4 .75 0.222 82.2 782 1.52 12.9 98.1 1. 71 4.67 1.75 14.1 43900 21 0.992 4.283 32.8 0 7 . 11500 152 30.8 4.59 0.217 70 746 1.45 13.3 103 1.74 4.69 1.81 14.9 46500 17 .1 0.825 4.265 32.3 0.431 8 10600 138 32.9 5.04 0.238 80.7 829 1.48 14 106 1.87 4.85 1.92 15.4 47600 19.9 1 4.32 35.3 0 9 11300 177 28.1 4.99 0.223 71 .6 747 1.57 14.3 107 1.85 4.34 1.94 15.7 48300 18.8 0.859 4.384 35.4 0 10 11200 153 30 5.04 0.229 78.1 810 1.77 14.7 108 1.9 4.21 1.9 15.8 48500 19.2 0.96 4 .253 35.1 0 MEAN 11420 148 28.1 4.77 0.228 74.5 785 1.56 13.7 103.6 1.77 4.51 1.87 1 5 46560 18.4 0.899 4 .306 33.6 0.194

\0 00

Blackduck potterv from Big Rice Lake ' SN...t.1 M3 v ND 9.1 LU CE BA u TH CR YB IT RJ g; FE ro BJ K LA ffi 11 8360 95 37.6 5.38 0.292 62.6 2630 1.87 9.63 87.4 1.83 5.04 6.41 14 58900 13.2 1.08 4.417 34 0 12 13700 171 53.7 7.74 0.204 100 1730 2.48 19.2 130 2.3 5.27 4.09 18. 1 53600 22 1.54 4.918 53.3 0 13 8340 91 21.5 4.73 0.16 63.5 1330 1.71 10.5 69.2 1.61 3.4 3.12 10.1 29200 15.1 1.02 4.644 33.5 0 14 10500 102 31.4 5.37 0.169 74.4 1690 1.66 13.2 71.2 1.6 3.76 3.88 10.6 32600 16.8 1.03 4.477 39.2 0 15 10600 97 32.1 5.04 0.159 69.7 1880 1.38 11.9 69.4 1.56 3.6 4.4 10.3 32300 16.9 0.965 4.534 37.9 0 16 7220 89 21.2 5.59 0.137 76.1 2280 1.96 18.6 68.7 1.77 3.93 5.42 9.97 28600 13.8 0.952 4.753 39.8 0 17 10100 159 32 5.94 0.171 74.9 2190 3.39 14.4 86.8 1.92 4.29 5.14 13.6 34200 13.9 1 . 1 4.461 40.9 0.487 18 9320 119 23.5 5.24 0.169 73 1890 1.9 13.8 76.1 1.68 3.71 4.34 11.5 32800 15.3 1.12 4.494 39 0 19 11200 137 33.3 5.37 0.148 73.4 1190 1.87 14.5 101 1.65 4.13 2.86 14.4 42000 17.8 0.987 4 .805 39 0.66 20 10100 158 32.8 5.6 0.19 70 2090 3.55 13.4 81.9 1.86 4.09 4 .82 12.9 32800 15.3 1.01 4.35 39.7 0.467 MEAN 9944 122 31.9 5.6 0.18 73.8 1890 2.18 13.9 84.17 1.78 4.12 4.45 12.5 37700 16 1.08 4.585 39.6 0.161 Blackduck pottery from Lake Winnibigoshish SN..M v ND ™ LU CE BA u TH CR YB 1-F RJ &; FE (X) BJ K LA ffi 21 7470 155 22.8 4.96 0.153 68 790 2.36 17 77.2 1.79 5.01 1.8 13 43400 12.8 0.753 4.621 35.3 0.733 22 6120 117 19.5 4.52 0.255 53.2 1520 2.46 10.8 66.6 1.98 5.07 3.62 10.9 31700 11.3 0.889 4.23 29.1 0.672 23 7980 134 36.4 6.02 0.324 73.1 1140 2.01 12.2 75.4 2.41 4 .97 2 .57 12.7 43100 11.4 1.16 0 39.6 0.658 24 6960 127 36.8 7.11 0.382 95.4 1260 2.39 14.3 73.5 2.73 6.47 2.86 12.8 43600 14.9 1.21 0 47.1 0 25 9430 117 22.2 4.93 0.242 59.5 1010 1.45 12.7 52 1.92 4.73 2.39 8.5 34200 10.6 0.914 4.276 34.6 0 26 8950 165 31.1 5.7 0.343 70.2 963 2.63 12.4 76.4 2.43 5.16 2.33 12.9 39100 12.5 1.16 0 38.1 0.598 27 7030 92 34.7 6.65 0.478 68.5 1160 1.73 10.9 64.3 2.85 6.96 2.54 11 37700 9.61 1.24 0 39.6 0 28 6830 106 15.5 3.59 0.195 48.6 1420 1.67 8.93 60.8 1.53 5.44 3.19 9.54 31600 8.63 0.719 0 27 0.338 29 9140 99 25.4 5.11 0.302 62 1300 2.49 11.2 74.5 2.2 6.47 3.11 11. 7 38400 10.6 1.02 4.375 32.7 0 .628 30 9500 141 27.7 5.68 0.29 70.7 1420 2.05 13.5 76.3 2.42 4.88 3.36 12.5 34000 13.8 1.1 0 38.8 0 MEAN 7941 125 27.2 5.43 0.296 66.9 1198 2.12 12.4 69.7 2.23 5.52 2.78 11.6 37680 11.6 1.017 1.75 36.2 0.363

\0 \0

Laurel pottery from Big Rice Lake SN..M v ND ™ LU CE BA u TH CR YB 1-F RJ &; FE (X) BJ K LA ffi 31 8360 118 20.3 4.81 0.179 61.2 2120 3.9 12.7 74.7 2.02 4.44 4.89 12.6 33000 14.1 0.915 4.438 33 0.74 32 8440 150 30.5 5.68 0.117 86.2 2260 3.79 15.6 88 1.89 5.31 5.31 14 38700 19.6 0.958 0 41.1 0 33 8950 107 0 3.44 0.076 45.9 2410 1.42 11 .3 82.9 1.16 3 .3 5.53 1 0 31900 11.9 0.972 4.55 24.9 0.428 34 7790 91 0 3.98 0.195 53.7 3520 1.33 10.9 58.8 1.53 4.12 8.09 8.97 27900 10.8 1.02 4.54 26.9 0 35 7950 86 9.31 4.48 0.077 67.2 2950 1.79 14.9 87 1.21 3.89 6.81 11.4 33400 15.3 0.968 4.579 34.6 0 36 9360 116 0 5.89 0.306 79.5 3700 1.89 12.6 78.9 2 1.21 8.58 12.7 36900 14.1 1.14 4.452 37.5 0 37 12000 105 0 3.21 0.152 48.1 4110 1.06 8.72 116 1.12 1.17 9.25 13.7 41200 13.9 0.69 4.305 22.9 0.403 38 7370 107 0 4.4 0.18 63.5 2580 2.51 11.9 69.3 1.47 0.77 6.04 11. 9 32900 22.4 0.977 4.465 31 0.48 39 8290 81 0 4.84 0.127 78.9 2000 1.84 17.6 68.3 1.49 0.7 4.51 11.1 32900 13.5 0.631 4.45 35.8 0.391 40 9280 121 0 3 .39 0.231 44.9 2990 1.35 8.79 89.5 1.48 0.56 6.55 14 49700 20.5 0.533 3 .863 19.8 0 MEAN 8779 108 6.01 4.41 0.164 62.9 2864 2.09 12.5 81.34 1.54 2.55 6.56 12 35850 15.6 0.88 3.964 30.8 0.244 Laurel pottery from Lake WinnibiQoshish 51\l.M M3 v ND 9.A LU CE BA u TH CR YB 1-F RJ 3:) FE ro BJ K LA ffi 41 11300 123 0 5. 15 0.211 60.3 1880 3.88 12.1 64.4 1.89 12.5 4.53 10.5 32800 12 1.34 4 .505 33.5 1.04 42 10500 130 0 3.62 0.148 60.1 1490 2.34 15.6 65 1.57 26.7 3 .47 11 . 1 41200 12 0.968 4.427 33.6 0 43 9810 75 0 4.62 0.175 65.4 2040 2 .05 10.9 70.2 1.62 23.1 4.84 11. 9 41200 16.2 1.13 4.318 31.8 0 44 9410 135 0 4.23 0.177 67.9 1600 2.91 17.7 64.6 1.86 41.4 3.74 10.2 37100 12 1.47 4.52 31.4 0.594 45 11600 183 0 4.17 0.167 69.7 821 3.21 16.3 92.9 1.85 41.2 2.03 14.7 47500 18.7 1.24 4.396 33.8 0 46 9980 112 0 5.51 0.252 80.3 1130 3.28 13.1 70.3 2.08 19.5 2.52 11.5 42600 15.9 1.57 4 .38 38.2 0 47 . 11600 128 43.5 6.75 0.373 73.4 1390 2.44 12.3 70.1 2.55 56.3 3 .29 10.6 44300 14.6 2.23 4.199 42.9 0 48 9840 165 0 3.66 0.144 61.1 1480 2.63 16.2 77.9 1.68 47.4 3.53 12.7 37200 13 1.25 4.517 32.8 0.608 49 10900 170 0 211 1.17 78.3 3300 35.9 13.3 83.1 12.1 5.69 5.23 11 .4 41700 10.7 1.11 4.332 2120 0.729 50 9700 123 0 155 0.493 100 2260 26.9 23.2 81.4 8.19 4.22 3.66 10.8 45300 11 .9 0.667 4.307 2040 0 MEAN 10464 134 4.35 40.4 0.331 71.7 1739 8.55 15.1 73.99 3 .54 27.8 3 .68 11.5 41090 13.7 1.298 4 .39 444 0.297

-0 0

Sediment from Site 5, just west of the archaeoloi ical site at Big Rice Lake 51\l.M M3 v ND 9.A LU CE BA u TH CR YB 1-F RJ 3:) FE ro BJ K LA ffi 51 11900 144 3 .3 106 0.388 42.3 1350 12.5 5.25 56.5 4.27 3.16 2.23 5.81 17000 5.29 0.664 4.38 1080 0 52 10700 166 3.57 106 0.307 43.3 1450 10.5 6.09 62.5 3.71 4.92 2.28 5.991 21200 5.88 0.836 4.435 111 0 0 53 8050 166 4.39 132 0.349 54 1390 18 8.16 71 4.46 5.79 2 .21 6.91 27500 7.11 0.857 4.354 1380 0 54 6440 123 7.91 106 0.263 43.7 1410 18.9 6.48 67.4 4.13 8.85 2.27 6.6 21700 6.16 1 4.476 1190 0 55 8670 144 6.69 111 0.26 44.2 1470 14.4 5.81 67.5 4.27 6.27 2.19 6.5 22500 5.96 0.861 4.524 1130 0 56 7480 135 6.64 105 0.298 42.4 1440 16.5 6.45 67.5 4.55 10.7 2.21 6.5 22000 6.23 0.951 4.496 1150 0 57 9430 38 23.3 3.04 0.1 35 849 0.85 4 .85 49.7 0.8 2.59 1.94 5.92 21400 6 0.773 4.155 18 0.376 58 8100 34 26.2 2.74 0.079 32.4 926 0.63 3 .57 42.1 0.63 2 .35 2.1 5.03 13300 5.29 0.82 4.29 17.6 0 59 8180 25 22.2 2.84 0.042 35 922 0.75 5.32 51.2 0.64 2.81 2.1 4.66 11400 4.3 0.698 4 .288 18.5 0 60 8180 30 28.7 2.92 0.079 31.4 910 0.82 4.74 47.7 0.73 3.25 1.98 5.23 13500 5.15 0.672 4.32 16.8 0 MEAN 8713 101 13.3 67.8 0.217 40.4 1212 9.38 5.67 58.31 2.82 5.07 2.15 5.91 19150 5.74 0.813 4 .372 711 0.038 Clay from south of Deer River, Minnesota SN..M M3 v ND LU CE BA u TH CR YB 1-F RJ 9:) FE 00 BJ K LA ffi 61 10900 110 23.2 ™5.95 0.355 68.2 613 1.57 9.71 64.3 2.1 0.76 1.21 11 32200 13 0.854 0 33.3 0.595 62 10400 119 12.9 6.02 0.425 66.7 625 1.57 9.66 61.8 2.3 0 1.21 11 . 1 32800 12.7 0.641 0 33.8 0 63 10400 122 19.1 6.02 0.406 67 .1 563 1.95 9.53 56.4 2.13 0 1.23 10.7 31400 10.8 0.44 0 34.6 0.715 64 9910 109 14.9 6.36 0.381 70.7 699 1.63 12 61.9 2.24 0 1.41 11.2 33300 12.2 0.484 0 35.1 0.482 65 8660 101 32.6 5.71 0.363 66.2 570 1.75 9.84 72.9 2.15 3 .29 1.42 11.6 35700 13.5 1.06 4 .29 34.9 0 66 6900 90 30.4 5.53 0.347 64.9 650 1.9 9.52 63.8 2.06 3.13 1.42 10.8 32800 13.5 1. 13 4.312 33.9 0 67 7010 104 30.4 5.71 0.349 66 682 1.98 10.7 71.5 2.17 3.09 1.47 11.4 34800 14.1 1.14 4.326 34.4 0.782 68 6680 96 38 5.9 0.36 65.9 642 2.32 10.6 71.6 2.23 5.4 1.38 11.8 34600 13.4 1.09 4.246 35.8 0 69 7060 102 17.9 5.97 0.275 69.9 625 1.94 19.2 66.4 2.24 3.55 1.38 10.6 32300 12.3 1.01 4.283 36.6 0 70 6360 99 35.6 5.4 0.311 61.1 601 2.04 9.51 65.7 2.04 3.44 1.34 11 34300 13.2 1.05 4.274 33.7 0 MEAN 8428 105 25.5 5.86 0.357 66.7 627 1.87 1 1 65.63 2.17 2.27 1.35 11.1 33420 12.9 0.89 2.573 34.6 0.257

...... 0 ......

Control sample collected at the Bi!I Rice Lake archaeological site SN..M M3 v ND LU CE BA u TH CR YB 1-F RJ 9:) FE 00 BJ K LA ffi 71 4960 70 0 ™2.65 0.156 38.6 517 2.37 6.15 74.4 1.1 2.48 1.3 9.21 43000 45 0.469 3 .999 20.2 0.377 72 6350 77 0 2.72 0.117 40.3 586 2.25 7.09 101 1.11 3 .26 1.39 10.6 55300 25.6 0.487 3.975 20.9 0 73 7200 112 0 3.28 0.138 37.7 588 2.02 6.29 125 1.05 8.62 1.4 11.5 62800 21 .1 0.544 3.929 26.9 0.88 74 7450 90 0 3.45 0.126 35.6 578 2.02 6.21 113 1.12 8.04 1.41 11.1 54000 18 0.664 4.049 25.5 0.806 75 7710 60 0 3.29 0.139 29.5 785 1.55 4.5 82.2 1.03 6.08 1.74 8.37 33600 11.6 0.55 4.223 22.8 0 76 8030 49 0 3.3 0.1 27.4 704 0.96 4.27 58.8 0.85 7.63 1.55 7.12 20100 7 .77 0.645 4 .274 20.7 0 77 6880 44 0 3.29 0.109 26.5 791 1.29 4 .21 61 . 1 0.81 5.89 1.81 6.76 21200 7.83 0.609 4.328 19 0 78 7720 55 0 5.07 0.149 44.7 720 1.19 11.5 92.4 1.34 5.08 1.58 8.33 21400 8.62 0.695 4.267 32.3 1.07 79 6620 34 0 3.22 0.132 25 727 0.82 2.53 53.2 0.92 4.05 1.72 6.14 16700 6.93 0.624 4.365 18.2 1.13 80 6120 40 0 3.74 0.156 30.3 693 0.99 4.59 61 1.03 1.45 1.49 6.81 19300 7.85 0.775 4.322 22.3 0 MEAN 6904 63 0 3.4 0.132 33.6 669 1.55 5.73 82.21 1.04 5.26 1.54 8.59 34740 16 0.606 4.173 22.9 0.426 Samples 81-85 are Giants Range Granite from Site 4 and samples 86-90 are from Site 3 (Figure 9) SN...t.1 M3 v ND 9v1 LU CE BA u TH CR YB H= RJ FE CD BJ K LA ffi 81 5720 11 0 3.49 0 69.4 779 4.67 18.3 2.52 0.95 3.22 1.96 2.6 13500 1.9 0.595 4.696 41.2 0 82 4320 0 0 1.99 0 31.7 1390 2.16 12.2 2.27 0.62 3.25 3.56 1.13 6240 0.95 0.561 4.942 20.6 0.449 83 4190 8.9 0 2.11 0 33 655 3.38 15.1 1.24 0.57 3.67 1.65 1.72 7910 0.97 0.559 4.599 22.4 0 85 5530 0 0 3 .14 0 54 .8 833 3.85 22.2 2.24 0.82 1.93 2.15 1.5 8340 1.15 0.523 4.689 34.4 0 86 12900 77 0 2.44 0.126 35.7 508 0.36 1.48 58.2 0.7 3.18 1 .11 10.2 34700 16.5 0.541 4.158 13.4 0 87 12900 71 0 4.94 0 158 612 0 35.1 56.6 1.46 0 1.23 8.77 29800 13.6 0.866 4.22 92.8 0 88 13600 80 2.26 4.49 0.172 48.4 525 1.21 6.71 86.9 1.24 3.5 1.14 9.02 34700 17 1.12 4.149 24.2 0 89 13400 102 2.02 4.59 0.173 50.1 498 0.7 6.35 93.8 1.35 7.96 1.14 12.4 40700 20.2 1.14 4.246 25 0 90 12800 87 5.26 6.29 0.227 62.7 458 1.04 6.01 90 1.53 6.09 0.96 13.2 40100 19 1.63 4.217 29.1 0 MEAN 9484 49 1.06 3.72 0.078 60.4 695 1.93 13.7 43.75 1.03 3.64 1.66 6.73 23999 10.1 0.837 4.435 33.7 0.05

The data for all 64 elements ma• be acquired on disk from: Archaeometry Laboratorv 1o University Drive -0 University of Minnesota-Duluth N Duluth MN 55812 Appendix E. Table of the detection limits provided by the University of Wisconsin-Madison Research Reactor for the twenty elements used in the statistical analysis and the lowest value among the ninety samples detected for each element . The values in column two are based on pneumatic tube (0th = 4 x 1012 nv) short irradiations and are given in ppm values.

ELEMENT ANALVZED DETECTION LIMIT LOWEST VALUE ANTIMONY 0.09 .338 ppm BARIUM 1.0 458 ppm CERIUM 0.05 2.5 ppm CHROMIUM 0.07 1.24 ppm COBALT 0.05 .951 ppm EUROPIUM 0.0002 .440 ppm IROf\I 10.0 11,400 ppm HAFNIUM 0.5 .557 ppm LANTHANUM 0.006 1.34 ppm LUTETIUM 0.003 .042 ppm MAGNESIUM 0.2 4190 ppm NEODYMIUM 0.07 2.02 ppm POTASSIUM 0.5 11,200 ppm RUTHENIUM 0.002 .959 ppm SAMARIUM 0.0002 1.99 ppm SCANDIUM 0.001 1.13 ppm THORIUM 0.005 1.48 ppm URANIUM 0.005 .364 ppm VANADIUM 0.0005 8.86 ppm YTTERBIUM 0.005 .567 ppm

103 Appendix F. Component scores from the elemental values of ninety samples that underwent INAA.

104 SAMPLE COMPONENT1 COMPONENT3 COMPONENT4 COMPONENTS COMPONENTS COMPONENT7 1 1.561 -0.157 -0.699 0.344 -0.279 0.227 -0.925 2 1.265 -0.143 -0. 726 0.428 -0.227 0.132 0.746 3 1.201 -0.186 -0.685 0.316 -0.37 0.001 -0.83 4 1.359 -0.162 -0.767 0.338 -0.242 0.141 -0.019 5 1.218 -0.224 -0.705 0.48 -0.42 -0.083 0.527 6 1.155 -0.245 -0.697 0.466 -0.272 -0.073 -0.916 7 1.302 -0.192 -0.748 0.326 -0.321 -0.068 0.21 8 1.357 -0.214 -0 .615 0.496 -0.253 -0.187 -0.93 9 1.559 -0.128 -0. 701 0 .38 -0.387 0.051 -0. 772 1 0 1.48 -0.165 -0.659 0 .542 -0.32 -0.073 -0.865 1 1 0.679 -0.354 1.956 -0.617 -0.011 -0.811 -0.927 12 2.082 -0.235 0.468 1.241 0 .538 -0.472 -1.737 13 -0.158 -0.376 0.182 -0.06 -0.088 0.026 -0.924 14 0.122 -0 .392 0.49 0.439 -0 .096 -0.163 -1.191 0 1 5 0.101 -0.438 0.757 0.18 -0.194 -0.146 -1 .233 -VI 16 -0.487 -0.46 1.357 1.14 -0.345 0 .203 -0.66 17 0.45 -0.236 1 .189 0.535 0 .167 -0.355 0.186 18 0.117 -0.353 0 .815 0.433 0.037 -0.069 -0.943 19 1.079 -0.342 -0.161 0.572 -0.121 0 .113 0.539 20 0.413 -0.21 1.027 0.333 0.029 -0.402 0.154 21 0.36 -0.216 -0.637 0.981 -0.314 0.171 1.507 22 -0.367 -0.179 0.51 -0.209 0.002 -0.409 1.286 23 -0.097 -0.04 -0.036 0.2 0 .266 -2.541 1.341 24 -0.107 0.04 0.103 0.794 0.141 -2.626 -0.209 25 -0.409 -0.146 -0.309 0.213 0.084 -0.245 -0.741 26 0.064 0.085 -0.253 0 .17 0.348 -2.374 1.244 27 -0.681 0 .125 0 .062 -0.208 0 .492 -2.891 -0.266 28 -0.792 -0.283 0 .336 -0.541 -0.375 -1.627 0.987 29 0.005 -0.102 0.12 -0.032 0 .314 -0.449 0.793 30 -0.049 -0.05 0.299 . 0 .239 0.037 -2.069 -0.311 31 0.067 -0.248 1.122 0.178 -0 .126 -0.028 1.206 SAMPLE COMPONENT1 COMPONENT3 COMPONENT4 COMPONENTS COMPONENTS COMPONENT7 32 0.364 -0.342 1.297 0.763 -0.547 -1.627 -0.214 33 -0.032 -0.523 1.506 -0.372 -0.107 0.621 0.552 34 -0.668 -0.453 2.977 -0.37 -0.016 0.328 -0.479 35 0.033 -0.633 2.185 0.363 -0.442 0.647 -0.579 36 0.197 -0.227 3.159 0.219 -0.2 0.136 -0.559 37 1.035 -0.546 3.502 -0.973 -0.917 0.625 0.361 38 0.23 -0.43 1.759 0.062 -0.552 0 .593 0.823 39 -0.196 -0.423 0.631 1.312 -1.065 0.881 0.735 40 1 .11 -0.356 2.095 -0.931 -1.328 0.551 -0.143 41 -0.122 -0.147 0.749 0.153 1.333 0.564 2 42 0.026 -0.291 0.062 0.459 1.377 1 .124 0.025 43 0.116 -0.426 0.906 -0.127 1.177 0.876 -0.243 44 -0.402 -0.276 0 .179 0.604 3.2 1.055 1.666 45 1.07 -0.147 -0.695 0.531 2 .579 1 .415 0.237 -0 46 0.167 -0 .1 06 -0.271 0.477 1.766 0.554 -0.399 °' 47 -0.129 -0 .122 -0.042 -0.269 5.433 -0. 772 -0.649 46 0.094 -0.297 -0.013 0.439 3.223 1.296 1.903 49 0.369 5.91 1.315 0.168 0.087 -0.371 1.48 50 0.216 3 .696 0.149 2.264 -1.247 1.264 -0.204 51 -0.604 2.129 -0.413 -0.969 -0.26 0 .505 -0.936 52 -0.486 1.906 -0.291 -0.939 0.073 0.596 -0.872 53 -0.404 2 .59 -0.367 -0.526 -0.116 0.635 -0.576 54 -0.876 2.123 -0.177 -0.928 0 .318 0.542 -0.616 55 -0.592 2.05 -0.245 -0.956 0.048 0.619 -0.776 56 -0.759 2.137 -0.229 -0.973 0.43 0.551 -0.591 57 -1.092 -0.546 -0.413 -1.066 -0.093 -0.153 -0.197 56 -1 .5 -0.619 -0.219 -1 .304 -0.034 -0.328 -1.23 59 -1.519 -0.642 -0.272 -1 .016 -0.274 -0.004 -1.107 60 -1.428 -0.602 -0.306 -1.19 -0.255 -0.251 -1 .17 61 -0.166 0.034 -0.669 0.018 -0.39 -1.992 1.071 62 -0.129 0.202 -0.66 -0.079 -0.862 -1. 766 -0.063 SAMPLE COMPONENT1 COMPONENT3 COMPONENT4 COMPONENTS COMPONENTS COMPONENT7 63 -0.298 0.177 -0.948 0.104 -1.008 -1.915 1.707 64 -0.225 0.114 -0.811 0.413 -1.127 -1.671 1.251 65 0.092 -0.029 -0.736 -0.183 0.088 -0.855 -0.969 66 -0.279 -0.09 -0.604 -0.216 0.17 . -0.897 -0.869 67 -0.081 -0.066 -0.615 0.024 0.269 -0.861 1.153 68 -0.132 -0.051 -0.633 -0.133 0.212 -1.095 -0.854 69 -0.385 -0.096 -0.768 1 .164 -0.112 -0.123 -0.388 70 -0.229 -0.121 -0.646 -0.294 0.067 -0.982 -0.845 71 1.237 -0.544 -0.948 -1.099 -1.756 1.291 1.032 72 1 .181 -0.445 -0.831 -1 .059 -1 .422 1 .143 0.086 73 1.59 -0.357 -0.888 -1 .249 -0.75 1 .121 2.413 74 1.073 -0.385 -0.835 -1 .226 -0.488 1 .021 2.026 75 -0.09 -0.383 -0.533 -1 .458 0.798 -0.262 ...... 76 -0.877 -0.466 -0.604 -1 .357 -0.143 0.69 -0.45 0 77 -0.926 -0.47 -0.431 -1.412 -0.359 0.651 -0.369 -....J 78 -0.5 -0.353 -0.669 -0.128 -0.327 0.776 2.391 79 -1 .215 -0.471 -0.483 -1 .421 -0.202 0.46 2.385 80 -1.03 -0 .405 -0.49 -1 .308 -0.383 0.374 -0.457 81 -2.621 -0.49 -0.562 1.738 -0.562 0 .947 -0.267 82 -2.931 -0.711 0.438 0.128 -0.373 0.809 0.809 83 -2.874 -0.604 -0.566 0.514 -0.427 0.811 -0.149 85 -2.899 -0.569 -0.47 1.885 -0.74 1.062 -0.183 86 0.446 -0.43 -1.054 -1.483 -0.656 0.904 -0.812 87 -0.491 -0.502 -1.398 5.482 -1.019 1.534 -0.595 88 0.595 -0.287 -1.037 -0.849 0.175 0.786 -1.063 89 1.152 -0.303 -1.065 -0.935 0.389 0.878 -0.896 90 0.925 -0.258 -1.003 -0.779 1.06 0.324 -1.194