POTS AND INCOHERENT CULTURE: RECOVERING BORDERLANDS AT THE VAN BREE SITE (AgHk-32).

Jerhy J. Cunningham Department of Anthropology

Subrnitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

Faculty of Graduate Studies The University of Western Ontario London, Ontario August 1999

O Jerirny J. Cunningham 1999 National Library Bibliothèque nationale du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395, nie Wellington OttawaON KiAON4 Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Canada Canada

The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive Licence ailowing the exclusive permettant à la National Libmy of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sel1 reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfichelfilm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique .

The author retains ownershp of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts from it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. Abstract

This thesis uses non-holistic methodology to study cerarnic variation fiom the Van Bree site, a multicomponent Younge phase Western Basin and Glen Meyer site located near Arkona, Ontario. This methodology tests the assumption that cultures form homogeneous, coherent and discrete social entities by using a practice model to examine how human agents use decorative style in particular social contexts. The use of a practice model also obligates us to reconsider the a priori separation of 'Style' from 'Function', as this distinction originates in a holistic and environmental detenninist model of culture. Instead the methodology used here analyzes the ceramic variation found in particular social contexts. At Van Bree, these contexts are two distinct feature clusters that are identified fiom cerarnic crossmends. The ceramic variation within these clusters indicates that Younge and Glen Meyer represent two distinct ethnic entities which possess substantial differences in their degree of ethnic integration.

Keywords: Western Basin, Glen Meyer, Archaeology and Ethnicity, Style and Function, Ceramic Variation, Practice Theory Dedication

This thesis is dedicated to my grandfather, Arthur MoMis, for teaching me to have big dreams and my father, Gerry Cunningham, for teaching me how to make those dreams a reality . Perhaps one of the more interesthg parts of even a modest work like this thesis cornes fiom reflecting on the personal and intellectual debts that a researcher holds to fnends, family, mentors and peers. In hindsight, many people are responsible for my ability to undertake this thesis and for the fantastic the 1 have had whiie at Western. Because this represents my first foray into the world of professional research, 1 feel the need to acknowledge those people who have inspired and suppotted my pursuit of a career in anthropology. First, 1 would like to thank my cornmittee, particularly my supe~sorDr. Michael Spence and my advisor Dr. Alison Wylie for being mentors to me these past two years. t would also like to thank Dr. Chris Ellis for filling in at the last minute when Dr. Wylie was unable to retum to Canada for my defense. Neal Ferris suggested the Van Bree site to me as a thesis topic, and with Paul Lemox, spent a large arnount of time talking with me about the archaeology of the Western Basin. The theoretical approach used in this thesis oiiginates fiom two courses 1 took while at Western. The first cornes from a course in Symbolic Anthropology taught by Dr. Anne Brydon that stimulated my interest in the question of holism. The second course was taught by Dr. Alison Wylie and deait with the phiiosophy of science in the social sciences. This course introduced me to the debate surroundiig the unity or disunity of scientific research and, while tacit in this thesis, John Dupré's (1 993) concept of scientific disunity inspires most of my current thoughts on culture. I would also Like to thank several close fnends with whom 1 have shareû the trials and tribulations of the graduate program. In particular 1 would üke to thank Naureen Tadros and Eric Wekh who have ban steady cornpanions and Doug Campbell and Marijka Hols for our discussions of the ciiierences between archaeological and anthropologicai theory. I would Wre to thank Lida Howie-Langs and Kevin Langs for making Deanne and 1 feel so welcome in London and for throwing so many awesorne dinner parties. Linda specificaiiy has participateci in many late Nght, slurred and often heated discussions about what ceramic variability 'really means' and these discussions have added greatiy to the quality ofthis thesis. 1 would also like to acknowledge the staff of Archaeologid SeMces Inc. who provided me with the funds and experience 1 needed to conduct research on the Western Basin. Several friends in Alberta have supporteci my research from its inception and 1 would üke to acknowledge hem here. Specifically, 1 would like to thank Wes Gustavson for his longtirne fnendship and opinions on aii things academic and Alison Landals for teaching me what it means to be a good archaeologist . Most Unportant, 1 would like to thank my fdy. My parents Gerry and Tem Cunningham and my grandparents Arthur and Betty Mottus have provided emergency financial support during this degree. They have also been my greatest supporters and their steadfast belief in me, even when they are not exactly sure what 1 am doing, means everything. Finally, 1 would like to thank rny partner Deanne Robblee, for her enthusiasm, advice and companionship on this grand adventure. Table of Contents

... Ab stract ...... lu Dedication ...... iv Acknowledgments ...... v Tableofcontents ...... vii ListofTables ...... ix ListofFigures ...... x ListofAppendies ...... xi

Chapter 1 Introduction ...... 1 The Van Bree Site (A@-32) ...... 2 Overview ...... 5

Chapter 2 Holiam in the Western Basin ...... 7 The Critique of Holism ...... 9 Borderlands and Invisible Places ...... 11 Borderlands at Van Bree ...... 13 Borderlands in Younge Culture...... 14 Discussion: Hybnd Hypothesis ...... 17 Conclusion ...... 19

Chapter 3 Methodology ...... 20 Style and Function ...... 20 The Systemic Mode1 of Culture and the Separation of Style and Function ...... 21 Isochrestic and Iconid Style ...... 24 The Sackett-Wiessner Debate ...... 27 Holism and Style ...... 30 Conclusion ...... 31 Methodology ...... 32 Crossmends ...... 33 FeatureClusters ...... 35 Discussion: Implications of Feature Clusters ...... 40 Conclusion ...... 44

Chapter 4 Rerults and Implications ...... 45 Variation within the Clusters ...... 46 West Ciuster ...... 46 Centrai Cluster ...... 50 Variation between the Clusteni: Attribute Analysis ...... 52 Morphology ...... 54 Size ...... 55 Complexity ...... 55 Decorative Techniques ...... 56 Decorative Motifs ...... 57 Unmended Neck Sherds ...... 58 Discussion ...... 58 Ethnicity and the Objectification of Culture ...... 60 Ethnicity and Ceramic Variation in the West Cluster ...... 61 Ethnicity and Ceramic Variation in the Centrai Cluster ...... 64 Conclusion ...... 65

Chapter 5 Condusions ...... 67 List of Tables

Table 2.1 : Wright's (1998) New and Old Definitions of Culture ...... 8

Table 3.1 : Table 3.1 : Cl4 Dates (Conventional) ...... 41

Table 3.2. Table 3.2. Distribution of Lithic Raw Matenal by Cluster ...... 42 List of Figures

Figure 1.1. Van Bree Site Settlement Pattern ...... 3

Figure 3.1. Sackett's Style and Function Continuum ...... 25

Figure 3.2. Van Bree Site Settlement Pattern with Numbered Features ...... 36

Figure 3.3. West Cluster Crossmends by Vesse1 ...... 37

Figure 3.4. Central Cluster Crossmends by Vessei ...... 38

Figure 3.5. Feature Clusters ...... 39

Figure 4.1 : West Cluster Vesse1 Diagrams ...... 47

Figure 4.2. Central Cluster Vesse1 Diagrarns ...... 48

Figure 4.3: Morphology ...... 90

Figure 4.4. Complexity ...... 93

Figure 4.5 : Exterior Decorative Techniques ...... 95

Figure 4.6. Interior Decorative Techniques ...... 100

Figure 4.7. Extenor Decorative Motifs ...... 103

Figure 4.8. Interior Decorative Motifs ...... IO8 List of Appendices

Appendix 1 : Vessel Diagrarns ...... 76

Appendix 2: Attribute Analysis ...... 86

Appendii 3 : Bargraphs ...... 89

Appendii 4: Frequency Tables ...... 110 Morpho10 gy ...... 111 Size ...... 115 Complexity ...... 117 Decoraiive Techniques ...... 119 Decorative Motifs ...... 136 Unmended Necksherds ...... 151 Chapter 1 Introduction

As archaeologists, we have always been quick to idente the homogeneous, systemic and discrete facets of human social life. We purposefully investigate those aspects of culture shared by the members of a definable group. As a result, we identiQ archaeological cultures, phases and traditions and the characteristics that are typical of their presence. These groupings present for us borders of shared knowledge, adaptive strategies and social structures. Finding these borders provides us with a way of defining the edges of a shared system of behaviours, and of identifying the 'borderlands' that occur where systems meet and cultures interact. That such an approach is hitful is beyond criticism. The cornfortable identification of cultures, phases and traditions has allowed archaeology to assemble what we currently know about the past societies. Nevertheless, recent research fiom the ctitical traditions of postmodem anthropology has taken such holistic models to task, and suggested that many aspects of culture are not homogeneous, coherent, or discrete. Cultures, they state, are hgmentary. Social distinctions such as class, gender, ethnicity, age end occupation create islands of biowledge in cultures, separating subgroups and establishg many crosscutting and overlapping 'borderiands'. These islands of knowledge are not thought to be complementary in the sense that they represent component parts of an operathg system. Xnstead, the borderiands between these islands are arenas where social power and cultural knowledge is disputed and negotiated. As a result, no one person ever holds knowledge and experience 'typical' of the culture as a whole, but only of their partiailar social context. For postmodern anthropology, examining cultural Life is thus a stoty of individuals; ofparticular people situateci in particular social spaces who live idiosyncratic lives. To assert that cultures are always homogeneous or that they are always the fiagmentary spaces of postmodern anthropology is highiy unrealistic. Culture expresses both shared and fiagmentary characteristics and either may be identifieci depending on the questions and methodologies used in a prograrn of research. Ifwe are interested in identifyuig broad groupings, such as traditions or phases, then an approach that forefronts the shared aspects of culture may be warranted. On the other hand, if we seek to identify social interactions between individuals, and attempt to idente places in society where the social fabric is severed a focus on the particular is necessary. It is this later approach that will be the focus of this thesis. My study examines ceramic materials from the Van Bree site, a summer base camp affiliateci with the Younge Phase of the Ontario Western Basin Tradition. In addition to Younge ceramics, the site also possesses a substantial amount of Glen Meyer pottery. While finding such a combination of pottery it is not unheard of, Van Bree is unique because it contains data that dows us to identify the nature of the social interactions responsible for this pattern. To access the data, it is necessary to go beyond generalizations and examine variability in the most minute social contexts available in the archaeological record. Thus, this thesis is an exment in particuiaristic methodology and represents an attempt to apply the critiques of holism to an archaeological case study.

The Van Bree Site (AgHk-32)

The Van Bree Site was found during an Archaeological Impact Assessrnent conducteci by Archaeologix Inc. in March of 1998. The site was oripindy identifieci through a scatter of pre-contact artifacts on a sandy ridge above a tributary of the Ausable River near Arkona, Ontario (See Figure 1.1). The scatter and subsequent testing of the site produceci decorated ceramic rnatenal, lithic debitage, faunal material, and 12 lithic tools that are diagnostic of Early, Middle and early Late Woodland time periods. A number of pit features were also identified. During May and June of the same year the site was fuliy mitigated by Archaeologix Inc. (1998). Mitigation consisted of the initial stripping of topsoil and shovel shining to find subsurface features. Seventy-four features and several isolated post molds were identified and mapped, as well as a smd house structure (See Figure 1.1). AU subsurface features were sectioned and mapped, with fil1 screened through 8 mm mesh. notation samples were taken from features in an attempt to cecover carbonized floral and faunal rernains. Al1 artifacts were cataloged in the lab and bagged according to feature. While there is some material from the Early and Middle Woodland, the majority of the site has now been assigned to the early Late Woodland, specifically Younge Phase Western Basin. The house closely matches those found on other Western Basin sites, partiailady the house hndat Cherry Lane (Fems and Maya 1990). It is smaii, measuring approximately 12 m's long with a well defined eastem edge and a sparse scatter of post rnolds on the West side. The presence of eleven Levanna points and several chamteristic Younge phase vessels tiirther indicated the bulk of the site is associated with eady Late Woodland. Faunai remains were overwhelmingly dominated by mammal species, primarily white tail der, raccoon, beaver, bear and many other smd marnmals (Prevec 1999). Seasonality data 6om the faunal analysis shows a warm season occupation for the site. This conclusion is supported by the presence of carbonized corn, nut and gourd remains which, as at Dymock (Murphy and Ferris 1990), rnay indicate the site was used as a base camp during the summer months. Du~gthe analysis of the pottery conducted by Archaeologix, a large number of diagnostic Glen Meyer vessels were also identifid, suggesting that the site was located on a borderiand between Younge and Glen Meyer peoples. Given the cunent confusion about the nature of Glen Meyer - Younge interaction (Murphy and Ferris 1990: 271-278; Stothers' et al. 1994), the site seemed to deserve further analysis. Neal Ferris of the Ministv of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation suggested that the assemblage would be a perfêct case to combine my interest in style with an analysis of the holism problem 1 had been researching during the preliminary year of graduate work. My interest in the site initidy lay in the possibiiity that it represented a pastiche of Younge and Glen Meyer culture; that it reflected a group of people who lived 'betwixt-and-between' what is typically considered to be two homogeneous cultural groups. As we wili see, this was not to be the case.

Senously considering many of the objections raised against the use of a generalist approach to culture means we need reconsider some of the goals of our research. Our task is not to identify how a 'culture' is the same in each archaeological conte*, but to balance this with the identification of what is different. We need to make a methodological cornmitment to identiQ the subtle nuances of culture that becorne hidden when we focus on what is held in common. This requires an examination of the very smdl segments of the archaeologicai record, and a cornparison of these segments to the broader, more familiar structures of culture. In the first part of the next chapter, I will thus bnefly review the critiques offered to a generalist approach and outline an alternative. Following this, I bnefly review the data for the Younge phase of the Ontario Western Basin Tradition in an attempt to identi& the structures that integrated the 'Younge Culture'. Despite sharing some common stylistic elements, it appears that Younge people foUowed a diverse array of settlement and subsistence practices. The Western Basin probably does not represmt a coherent cultural unit, and as a result, it is a perfed place to test an approach that focuses on how culture is unique in each cultural seîîing. A related issue to our concem with holism rats in the way we explain variation in matend culture. Typically, this entails some use of the distinction between style and fùnction. URfortunately, these concepts are diectly tied to a methodology that treats culture as ifit is an integrated unit. As a result, many aspects of the stylafunction dichotomy actually hide the variation 1 am trying to access at Van Bree. In chapter three, I wi.therefore critically examine the concepts of styie and fiindon to demonstrate the ties of these concepts to holism, and to suggest alternatives to the way they are currently used. Also in chapter three, 1 explain how 1 identifid particular contexts at Van Bree. FoUowing Timmùis (1 997) work at the Calvert site, 1 used ceramic crossmend data to identify two discrete clusters of features at Van Bree. These clusters relate to the nearly coniernporaneous occupation of the site by Younge and Glen Meyer people. Using these clusters as my focus, 1 present the ceramic data in chapter four. Interestingly, despite social interaction, pottery from the feature clusten at Van Bree suggests the presence, but not the maintenance of an ethnic boundary. By combining an analysis of the variability in the Younge feature cluster with a more standard attribute anaiysis, I am able to find specific idornation about Younge social dynamics and infer how ceraMc style is king used on the site. Chapter 2 Holism in the Western Basin

As cach successive approach carries the axe to its preikmors, anthropology cornes to tesemble a project of intellectual deforestation. 1 do not think that this is either necessary or desirable, 1 think that anthropology can be cumulative, that we cm use the work of out predecessors to raise new questions . . . Some of anthropology's older insights . . . can be the basis for new enquiiy.

Wolf t 994: 220

Despite its importance, archaeologists are generally unaware of the extent that the concept of 'culture' has been critiqued in postmodem anthropology. The 'culture concept' is accused of suggesting homogeneity where this is diversity, of imposing coherence where there is conflict, and ofplacing boundaries where there is only continuity (Abu-Lughod 1991 ; CLifford 1988; and especiaiiy Brightman 1995.) As a resdt, what culture is generally taken to 'be' has changed, prompting some anthropologists to drop the term 'culture' dtogaher in favor of the les loaded term 'the cultural' (e.g., Keesing 1994; Borofsùy 1994). The dierences between these 'old' and 'new' definitions of culture have been sumarized by Wright (1998) in her anaiysis of the culture concept (See Table 2.1). OId definitions maintain thai culture is holistic; it is an integrated, homogeneous and discrete - Table 2.1: Wright's (1998) New and Old Definitions of Culture.

Old Mitionof Culture New Definition of Culture

"bomM, stnall scale tntity. "'culture is an active pmccss of meaaiag ddhed chamcîerisîics (chedrfist). maLing and contestation wer definition, 0 ~hangiag,in baiandeqjüibri~m including of itself' (Stnet 1993: 2). or self-repducing. people, differentially positioned in social rn unàeriying system of shared. relation and processes of domination, nieanings: 'aurhen tic cuiture' . use economic and institutional murces identical, homogeneous individuals." available to them to ûy and make their (1998: 8) definition of a situation 'stick', to prevent others' definitions from being heard, and to garner the material outcorne. sites are aot bouadeû - people draw on local, national, global links. the way clusters of concepts form is historically specific, and ideas never form a closed or coherent wbole, in its hegemonic form, culture appears coherent, systematic, consensual, like an abject, beyond human agency, not ideoiogical - like the old idca of culture" (1998: IO), system that may be objectively describeci and known. Research under old definitions of culture produces generai accounts of human social We, and aims at capturing those shared, cornmon elements of cultural systems. In contrast, 'new culture' is semiotic: it focuses on contesteci meanings, disjunctions and heterogeneities. Research using new definitions of culture does not describe 'the nom', and instead assumes that these shared elements of culture are interpreted and negotiated by active individuals to the extent that they do not exist as overarching structures. New ethnography thus attempts to narrate the life experiences of individuals in partinilar social contexts. For archaeologists, the critique of culture could have many potentid bmfits. While many critiques suggest that the 'aihre concept' is beyond its usefùl life and should be dropped Rom anthropologicai discourse (See Brightman 1995 for a disaission), others argue that the critiques of culture open new and rewarding areas to research. For example, Rosaldo (1989) suggests that anthropology's preoccupation with normative life in social groups has hidden life in the margins. Examining marginal places does not mean that normative culture must be discarded:

The salience of new bpi= for study . . . requins a concept of culture capaciws enough to eocompass both work guided by classic nomand projecîs pfR1ously excluded or reridered marginal. Such prwiwsly exduded topics pmminently induQed sbidies that seek out belerogeneity, rapid change, and in~erdtudbomwing and lending. My exploration of what the ciassic period [of anthropoIogyl regarded as "empty spaces" and zones of cultural inviaiility bas been undertaisen with a view towatd tedenning the concept of culture (Rosaldo 1989: 208)

These invisible areas give us access to facets of culture that we motobserve from a holistic position. Thus, the critiques of culture give us a way of reaching variation in culture that is unidentifid under conventional archaeological approaches.

The Critique of Holism.

Critiques of holism &se fiom the realization that sociaily and geographically people have been more mobile than mainstrearn anthropology tends to suggest (Gupta and Ferguson 1992: 9). People ofien move between supposed cultural and ethnic groups, and identities are prone to change several times during a person's Me. From this perspective, dehbing culture through organic or mmhanistic metaphors drastically overemphasizes the interrelatedness and coherence of human social groups (Abu-Lughod 1991 : 146). As a result, many attacks have been directed toward the assumption of holism. Brightman (1995) provides a thorough review of these critiques, sorting them according to the specific objections they raise. First, there is the cornmon belief that cultures are homogeneous. They reptesent wmmonly held values, perceptions and practices and demonstrate little intenial diversity or intragroup conflict. In con- hoüsm's critics suggest that cultural groups have many intenial boundaries. Knowledge is distniuted irregularly, with no one person ever possessing total knowledge of the culture (Brightman 1995: 5 16). DEerences in gender, occupation, age, status and idiosyncratic life experiences make each individual uniquely situated within a social network. By foaising on only what is shared, cntics claim that anthropologists are in danger of oversimplifjmg the vast complexities of social Be. A congruent assumption maintains that cultures form coherent, 'totalizable' systems. Cultures are held to be integrated wholes, with different elements of 'culture' operating like dwerent parts in a functioning system. Segmentation within a group is thus complementary, with one segment supporting another in a way that allows the culture as a whole to 'work'. This assumption is often reflected in well-worn organic and mechanistic metaphors; differences in culture operate like a dock - while the pieces are dzerent, they work to form a cohesive and essential system. In archaeology, this assumption is easily seen in Binford's systemic mode1 of culture. For Binford (1962, 1965)' the various 'sub- systems' of culture are al1 unified through their iùnctions that combine to fonn an integrated adaptive mechanism. In contrast, the critics of holism suggest that cultures are disorderly. Rather than a dock, culture may be thought of as a scrum; it is contesteci and disputed temtory, in which there is substantial confiict and social positioning (See Table

2.1, 'MW' definitions note 2). Instead of teleological ends, culture is pnmarily an arena in which social power is asserted and negotiated. The final set of assumptions held by holism suggests that cultures are discrete, bounded entities that may be easily characterized and ked in geometric space (Gupta and Ferguson 1992; Brightman 1995: 522). Moreover, because social interaction ocnirs almost exclusively within the group, knowledge is highly locaiiied. If extemal contact happefis, it is between 'groups' rather than between individualq with the innuences of the contact filtering through the culture in a systematic way. ui cornparison, critics argue that cultural We is continuous rather than discrete. Hence, not only do people interact outside of their 'culture', but they perpehially live within a network of social contacts that muiscaids identifiable boundaries. In some extrerne cases, this is taken as an indication that 'cultures' are entirely the arbitrary constructions of anthropologists. Regardless, the diverse array of social networks gives an individual a pastiche of local, regional and global knowledge (Gupta and Fergusson 1992; Rosaldo 1988; Tsing 1993). Taken together, these critiques propose a nonessentialkt perspective of culture. Rather than representing a senes of discrete, homogeneous entities, culture becornes a vast nexus of social relationships and associated identities. Any individual holds a number of identities derived Born theu place within numerous, incongruent social networks and possesses cultural knowledge unique to their expenences within t hese networks. People are not mutually interchangeable participants in an operating system, but are the accumulations of particular life experiences. To generalize these experiences to a smail list of common 'traits' is thus to fùndamentally mis-characteme the human expenence.

Borakrld cuid Imtisible Places

The unique position of each individual is seen by some as an indication that the culture concept neds to be substantially reworked, if not discarded. Indeed, even Rosaldo's (1989) moderaie position hopes that work in 'hidden areas' will promote a perspective of culture that relies less upon the a priori assumptions of holism. From this perspective, I wholeheartedy agree that we need to rethink culture, but for archaeologists this cannot mean that we abandon our analysis of the shared aspects of culture. In archaeology there is no use for an entirely particularistic concept of culture; despite some success identifjing individuals (Hill and GUM 1977), we cannot, nor will we ever be able to write biographicai narratives of people in the past. What we have at our disposal are the partial remains of segments of human behavior. These remains are interpreted through their cornparison to other remains, which helps us identify patterns that indicate common social tendencies. Our data lend themselves directly to the identification of what is typical of the norms of behavior in a group. However, our newssary pieoccupation with what is wmmon has left many invisible plpcts in our perspective of culture. These places are not aiways attniutable to our partid data set. Recart work on gender, for example, now miiliy examines the position ofwomen in archaeologicai contexts (Conkey and Ger0 1997; Conkey and Spector 1984). The rise of engendered approaches is not a result of a new and startling 'find' so much as a growing interest in questions of gender by feminist minded archaeologists. Given this exarnple, any nurnber of invisible places may be accessible but hidden beneath our holistic methodologies. These hidden locations are often found where culture segments, where there are dent subdivisions in social Life. As a result, postmodem anthropology has corne to describe these places through the notion of 'borderlands'. Borderlands not only refer to geographic locations found at the edges of social units, but are located in the many subdivisions of culture such as gender, ethnicity, status, power and age (Rosaldo 1988, 1989; Clifford 1988, chapter 10). As Gupta and Ferguson suggest:

The borderlands are . . . a place of incommensurable contradictions. The tenn does not indicaie a fixed topographicai site between two other fixed locales (nations, societies, cultwes), but an interstitial zone of displacement and detcrritoriaiization that shapes the identity of the bybriM subjecî. Rather îhan dismissing them as insignrficant, as marginal zones, thin slivers of land between stable places, we want to contend that the notion of borderlands is a more adequate conceptualization of the 'normal' locale of the postniobern subMn (1992: 18).

Research in the borderlands requires both the recognition of what is held in comrnon and a wbtle perception of where these commonalities end. As a result, borderland approaches draw from practice theory, which emphasizes the contradictory and strategic elements of human social life (Bourdieu 1977; Giddens 1984; See Om»r 1984: 146; Abu-Lughod 199 1 explicitly suggests practice theory as an alternative to holism). Practice briesforefront the human agent, focusing on the way people interpret and recreate the cornmon elements of culture in particular situations. Thus, practice theones are thought to bridge the gap between structure and agency - between the pattemed behaviours thaî are commonly seen in anthropological research and the improvised and spontaneow nature of social interaction. The bridge cornes in a recursive pattern: behaviour is improviseci (agency) accordhg to the logic of previous experiences (structures), which then recreates a modied form of the stmcture. Human behaviour is both constriad by the logic of the structure (in the form that anything 'does not go'), but can be manipulateci and modified by creative human agents.' The methodology denved ftom the use of pdcetheory is both general and highly specific; it ernphasizes the way that wmonelements of culture become modified and recreated in specific sod conteas. By using practice theory, archaeologists likewise gain access to cultural borderlands. This reorientation is to sorne extent both conceptual and methodologid. Rather than an example of a wherent structure, a site is a location where human agents creatively use culture. Anomalous findings are not imtating exceptions to the rule, but are evidence of the way people interpret the elements of culture that they know. Methodologically, the use of practice theory suggests we need to find the places in our data where we wi see the activities of human agents. In most cases, this requires us to conduct subtle intrasite analysis. It is this emphasis on the particular, and the flmgness to identify the way people meddle with common traits, that gives us access to borderlands.

Borderlands at Van Bree

The Van Bree site seems to represent a prime case for the study of borderlands. Not oniy is the site located on a borderland in the conventional sense, between Glen Meyer and Younge territories, but it also displays several anomalies. Primary arnong these is the combination of Glen Meyer and Younge pottery on a site that is definitively Western Basin. ûther sites have contained a mumire of Western Basin and "Iroquoian" pottery, but usudy they are interpreted as lroquoia. sites with some form of Western Basin

' Tbuc am sMlal pmblems with p&ce thory as it is outlined here, but they have ken well Cniiqued elsewhert (0rt.net 1984; Knauft 19%; See also Jones 1997, chapter 5 for cornparisons between &City and Bourdiar's concept of hditus; Thomas 19% for archaealogy). In geaeral, probIems remin in baldginstmmental (agent) versus deterministic (structural) emphasis in the modtl. Similarly, 1 wouid agrœ with Ortmr's (1984: 157) caution agakt overemphasizing the deof power, domination and hegemony in practice. presence (See Riddell1998). Thus, Van Bree is one of the first cases of "Iroquoian" infiuences on what seans to be a primarily Western Basin site. Van Bree may also contain information about borderlands within 'Younge Culture'. Exactly what sort of cultural phenornenon the Younge phase 7s' remains unknown because Younge contains substantiai variability in several key cultural traits. These difrences are not negligible, but need to be considered for the adequate interpretation of the Van Bree site. As mentioned above, to understand the heterogeneity at Van Bree, we need to identiS> the structures that are being reproduced in the particular context of Van Bree.

Borderlandî in Ymnge Culture.

What is at first noticeable about the Western Basin is the large amount of variation it contains, particularly within the Younge phase. Settlement, subsistence and material culture vary across southwestern Ontario, begging the question of whether Younge represents any form of integrated cultural system. To address this question, we need briefly to review the available data for two types of social structure, narnely senlement- subsistence strategy and rnottuary program. It is not my aim to provide a thorough review of Western Basin archaeology, as several are already present in the literature (Murphy and Fems 1990; Stothers, et 41. 1994). instead, my goal is to examine the extent that these elements are held in common throughout 'Younge Culture' in on tari^.^ Murphy and Fems (1990) have produced the oniy thorough ove~ewof the Western Basin in Ontario. By necessity, my discussion draws heavily on their sumaries, although when relevant, original sources have been consulteci. My interest raides specifidy in the Younge phase, but I will also briefiy consider their interpretations of the

'Thc 'Wa(ua Bssin' bas traditionally been cwsidered to extend amund the western edge ofLake Erie to includt areas of Ohio and Michigan. While I see QO problem with considering the Ontario Western Basin as part ofa bmadtr social entity, 1 am hesitant to asswne tbat Ohio Me ways are Muencing Oatario groups in a meanin@ way, preceding Riviere au Vase phase because of the diiculties in separating the two tirne periods. As the authors are clear to point out (1990: 235), the database for the Ontario Western Basin is sparse, and individual sites carry extreme weight. In a generd sense, the Riviere au Vase-YoungeSpMgwells sealement-subsistence strategy seuns to show a developing reliance on horticulture and a movement toward increased sedentism. Murphy and Ferris suggest that the Riviere au Vase phase is a continuation of preceâiig Middle Woodland adaptations, characterized by the exploitation of saisonally available resources. Drawing on Keenlyside's information from Point Pelee (1978) and fiom a series of small multi-component sites further inland, they suggest a pattern of warm season lake shore agglomerations and cold season iniand dispersds. These lake shore sites appear to have been situated to exploit resources such a fish, turtle, bird and various mammal species (See Keenlyside 1978) while inland sites focused on the procurement of nut and deer resources. Describing these summer occupations as 'aggiomerations' may be a bit rnisleading. For example, sites such as 11H8 on Point Pelee seem to represent several months of semi- cuntinuous occupation over the course of a year. However, the identification of only a single house suggests that it was inhabited by rnaybe one or two small family groups (Keeniyside 1978: 75). Murphy and Fems (1 990) also argue that groups occupying Point Pelee could have moved only a small distance idand to teach winter hunting areas; many cold weather, inland sites could therefore belong to groups following a diierent seasonal round, with surnmer occupations found dong major nvers. If this is the case, than settlement subsistence strategies could be regionaliy specific (Murphy and Fems 1990). The data do not seem to refiect a pattern of large groups agglomerating during the summer, but of smalier groups remaining in local temtories throughout the year. Regional migrations by srnail fdygroups are aiso seen in the Younge phase.'

Notehttbisismntested kMurphydFerrisUldicat+Ohiore~eafcbersai~thaitbestartofth Younge phase is cbaracterized by tbt beginning of MLhge life, but there is Little evidence for such a change in Onîario (1990: 233-5). ûnce again, there seems little reason to ôelieve that Ohio and southwcstcfn Ontario must have the same pattern of change. The Robson Road site was occupied throughout the warm season, and may have acted as a base camp returned to at various tirnes during the year. Murphy and Fems (1990) hypothesize this refl- a very informal schedule of migration, in which a bountifûl local environment dowed for the exploitation of diverse local resources. At Cherry Lane, subsistence focused on the procurement of fali spawning fish and nut resources. Here, a series of pit clusters and a single house have been interpreted as the contemporaneous occupation of the site by several family groups. However, the presence of Springweils material in two features suggests the site was revisited, and it is also possible the site was seasondy occupied by a smalier number of people. Site reuse is also a possibüity for Bniner-Colasanti where a series of distinctive pit clusters may indicate up to eight houses (Murphy and Fems 1990). Unfortunately, without ceramic crossmend data, it is difficult to identifL exactly how much of the site was used at once. A further indication that migration was more Iodzed cornes from the presence of maize at sites in the east, but not in the West. At the warm weather Dymock site, cultigens such as maize and squash were recovered and also floral and faunai matenal that suggests a spring and summer occupation. Two separate occupation areas are evident at Dymock, with either two houses or a partial paiisade. Thus, once again the site appears to reflect a limited agglomeration of 1-2 fdygroups. It seerns likely that Dymock is an inland counterpart to Robson Road, and acted as a summer base camp that was revisited several times. The presence of corn at Dymock is probably explained by the proximity of Gien Meyer groups tùrther east, but the total absence of cultigens at Robson Road could also suggest there was little contact across the Western Basin. It appears that at ieast two distinct subsistence patterns were maintaineci in Ontario dunng the Younge Phase. An exception to this highly regional settlement-subsistence pattern rnay be found in gatherings to perform mortuary rituals. Murphy and Fems (1990) echo Krakker (1983) in suggesiing that Younge and Springwelis people may have gathered to communally re-inter theù dead. Thesa ntuds would provide an occasion for groups to get together to arrange marnages, refonn alliances and conduct trade. Such practices have bem identified in Michigan at the Younge site where apparent specid purpose burial structures were employed. Except for the Lucier site in the extreme Southwest corner of the province there is little evidence for such practices in Ontario. This should not be taken as an indication that such ritual gatherings did not exist. As Murphy and Fems suggest (1990: 265-6) the presence of secondary burials at Krieger and the absence of main skeletal elements at Dyrnock Unplies that the dead are being moved between sites. Thus, whiie some forrn of communal buriai pattern may also occur in Ontario, it is unlikely that it involved the integration of many people. Material culture also seems to show a large amount of variability in the Younge Phase. Ceramic vessels appear to have some standardkation in morphology, possessing elongated necks and collarless out flaring nms, but decorative techniques and motifs Vary widely (Murphy and Fems 1990: 201-207). Oblique tool impressions are offen found on the nm and triangular or diamond motifs, the most 'diagnostic' elements of Younge pottery, are typically found on the elongated neck. Locally available chert dominates the lithic assemblages, with tools including Levanna points, the occasional scraper and an array of ground stone items (Murphy and Fems 1990: 20 1-208). Overall, the settletnent-subsistence and mortuary data in the Riviere au Vase and Younge phases, combined with the diversity in the matenal culture, seem to indicate an incoherent social system, with specific groups possessing a great degree of independence. Rather than a siigie entity unified by a cornmon subsistence program or integrated under a communal momiary program, the available data points to a group of people sharing elernents of culture in an inconsistent and highly variable manner. It may therefore be a gross overestimation to tak of the Younge phase representing a single 'Culture'.

In effkct, the dificulty in identifjing a 'typical' Younge cubemay reflect the presence ofmany interd borderlands. The borderlands could take on two different fom. Fust, several distinct social groups couid exist with their presence obscured by holistic methodologies. The dEerence in subsistence practices, for exarnple, could indicate two different social entities. Altemately, Younge could be a perfect exarnple of the social atomism hypothesked by the aitics of holism. In other words, it may represent a very loose social networlg iri which there is very little wherence at even a local de. Rather than a homogeneous culture with anomalous variation at its margins, Younge could be a patchwork of social netwocks lacking any inteniai structure. Identifying which of these is most likely would require a substantial effort, include re-dysis of the avdable assemblages and an extensive program of survey and excavation. For now it Bay be adquote to state that given the almost total absence of overarching nonns, any research on Younge Phase needs to be an examination of the particular. If the approach 1 am advocating is usefil anywhere, then it should be here. More importantly, the lack of integration in Younge 'culture' suggests that the typical Glen Meyer and Younge ceramics at Van Bree could plausibly belong to the same group of people. The relative independence of Younge social groups could mean that people living on the eastern petiphery were spending a substantial amount of tirnetliving a 'Glen Meyer like' lifestyle. In eEect, these people were 'betwixt-and-between', hybnds that reproduced a mixture of Younge and Glen Meyer culture. This interaction could result in inter-cultural bonowing and the selected integration of Glen Meyer ceramic traits. The presuice of cultigens on sites such as Dymock may also show such interaction, although the lack of Glen Meyer ceramics suggests they were removed from the periphery. Horticulture could have initidy arrived at Dymock £tom other Younge groups rather than through direct contact with Glen Meyer people. The differences between these two archaeological traditions would therefore appear clinal. Altemately, the possibility exists that the Van Bree site was oceupied by two groups at doiffixenttirnes, and that the combination of the ceramics is fomiitous rather than significant. Properiy t6.gthis hypothesis is essential if we are to understand the social dynamics operating on Van Bree. As we will see in the next chapter, this requires us to conduct an analysis of particular contexts withln the site. Conclusion

The fact that Younge does not represent a holistic entity also suggests that we need to take a hard look at the way materiai culture refiects social We. Much of the way we understand formal variation rests in the assumption that cultures are systemic, integrated and bounded entities. In the next chapter, 1 will argue that the separation of style and function ultimately rests on such a position, and as a result, the conventional explanation of ceramic 'style' would produce a spurious interpretation of the ceramic variability at Van Bree. 20 Chapter 3 Methodology

Style and Function

...style is involved in al1 archaeological analysis, whether it is çovertly or overtly discussed, It is style that creates and defines artifacî types, culture types and even types of evoulionary trajectories. Style is at wok and can be studied at the level of the individual, a group, or a society. Style is rooted in both time and space. Style is opinionated: an object or ment can have good style, bad style, old style, uew style, or can even be a combination of styles. Style is not separate hmthe social context that gives the cultural materials in question their social values. It is no wonder thaî style bas been refened to as elusive, controversial and the proverbial 'black box' (Conkey and Hastorf 1990: 1)

Most archaedogists are quite cornfortable refemng to style in material culture. When dctsare sorted or arrangeci on a lab table, style appears as an obvious and fundamental characteristic; it is one of the certainties in our data. Describing style in a way that explains its presence or use has becorne far more of a problem, and as Conkey and Hastorf remind us, the answers often resemble 'black boxes'. As a rmlt, recent publications have either developed compiicated theoretical frameworks to encapsulate a plethora of difrent stylistic approaches (Cmand Neitzel 1995) or have simply cailed for the abandonment of the concept dtogether (Boast 1997; ScWer and Skibo 1997). One of the central problems I see with style is the recurrent use of as if methodologies (Mer Conkey 1993: 10-1 1). Style is investigated as vit actively signifies ethnicity, or us vit is only located in nonfinctional attributes. These statements operate as 'givens' which are rareIy tested in a particular archaeological context or subjected to substantiai review. I intend to do both, but oniy the latter in this chapter. Specifically I wish to cntically examine a pair of near tmisms in current archaeological approaches to ceramic style: (1) pottery decoration is used by a group to transmit messages about ethnic identity; (2) in contrast, morphological attributes are an indication of an object's fûnction. If style is present on vessels, it is actively used by the group in decorative elements, but must remain passive in morphological attributes. This distinction between 'style and fùnction', and between 'active' and 'passive' style, legitirnizes the use of attribute-based approaches that exclusively focus on decorative elements as an indicator of culturd identity and/or ethnicity. My contention is that these truisms are inextricably linked to an ovemding assumption of holism; specifically, Binford's systemic model of culture. As such, the 'stylcfunction' dichotomy @u~ell1978) is oniy applicable to very specific cultural situations, and is entirely inadeguate to address ceramic variability at Van Bree.

ïkSystemic Mode1 of Culture and the Separution of Swe d Function.

Binford (1962) sets the stage for the separation of style and fiinction by advocating a systernic view of culture. He perceives material items to relate to a series of fùnctionai subsystems, namely the technological, social and ideological subsystems of culture. Ariifacts are thought to fùnction in these component systems: technomic artifhcts refiect the interanion of culture with the physical environment, socio-technic artifiias reflect social structure and ideo-technic artifacts mate a 'syrnbolic milieu'. Change in any one of the systems could be documentai archaeologically once its associated artifacts were known. As each of these systems is geared toward adaptive requirements, change in the environment is the source of change in the culture as a whole. 'Function' in thus not a rnatter of an abject's utility, but of its place within the adaptive system. This foms a deterministic system where change flows uni-diectionally fiom the environment to the technological subsystem, and then through the social and ideological subsystems (Wylie 1989; Hodder 1986). Style is thought by Binford (1962) to be formal variation that crosscuts these fundonal subsystems, but motbe explained by any one subsystem. He envisions style as functioning symbolidly within a culture to promote solidarity among its members, representing a latent, and residual component of the formai variation. His later paper (1965: 206) expands upon this and separates al1 formal variation into pnmqfunctional variation, which refers to the specific utilitarian application of the artifact, and secondaiy fundonal variation, which "is a by-product of the social context of the manufacturers of the vessel, or of the social context of the intended use of the item, or both". This secondary functiond variation indicates a "tradition" and is the material correlate of the social fabric of the society (1965: 208). Binford thus creates a separation of variation into that dûected toward fùnctional utilitarian ends and a residual, stylistic component which anses fiorn the social universe at the time of manufacture. Severai other points are of interest in Binford's view offormal variation. While style is thought to show distinctive social groups, utilitarian artifacts may be supra-group entities, reflecting common adaptive strategies of different cultures to an ecological niche. Style is then a unique window ont0 the social world, representing a normative approach within BUiford's systemic program (Conkey 1990). Stylistic variation, for Binford, is easy to fhd as it is restricted to those aspects of formal variation that do not have a primarily utilitarian function within the adaptive fiamework. The restriction of style to a residual component of fodvariation, secondary to the fiinctional-adaptive component of a culture, ailows the new archaeology to maintain normative ties without comproMsing the adaptive view of culture. The Bidordian Mode1 and through it the separation of style and hction ultimately rests in holistic assumptions. For BUiford, cultures are definitively coherent. Much üke the parts of a dock, explainhg one part of culture is done through reference to its position within the system. These 'parts' motbe ambiguous, such that one part may operate in dxerent subsystems; rather, they must be discrete. An amibute of pottery cannot be explained by both its role in meeting adaptative requirements and by its active use to transmit messages about identity, as these are two dEerent parts of the cultural system. The assumption of coherence in the Binfordian Model requues that style and fùnction be reflected in different attributes of material culture. Furthemore each part of culture hnctions. Behaviours integrate to achieve the common goal of adaptation. While funaion is expücitly geared toward daptive ends, style is used in symbolic communication, promoting intragroup solidarity and defining intergroup difference. Style in this sense is not a passive reflection of behaviours or norms, but is an active atternpt to maintain social cohesion and group boundaries that are an essential part of the adaptive process. Besides cultural coherence, the other related components of holism are aiso present. Style is a cornon venture, undertaken by a group to rew its identity and support adaptation. Members of these groups are assumd to work within the same social milieu, enacting similu noms of manufacture and using style to send similar types of messages. The group is thus homogeneous, boundd and discrete. Any 'individual style' (See Wiessner 1983, 'assertive style') resides within the noms of the group's tradition. It is noteworthy that perhaps because of the overt deterministic and mechanistic character of the Binfordian Model, it is rarely used in its original form. Nevertheless, Americanist archaeology maintains that adaptation is the raison d'erre of culture, with noms holding a secondary, residud position in the system. The separation of adaptation fkom noms, and fundion 60m style, therefore continues despite the substantial changes in archaeoIogical theory that have occurred since BUiford introduced the systemic model. Nowk is this more clear thin Sackett's elaboration on the style concept and the exchange between hirn and Wiessner over the meaning of style in Kalahari San projectile points. Isochrestic md lconicul Styie.

Binford's innuence on the work of Sackett (1973, 1977, 1982, 1985, 1986a, 1986b) is both admitted by Sackett (1982: 95) and evident in his view of forrnal variation. It is first obsewable in one of Sackett's early works (1 973 : 3 18-9) where he poses three questions that guide most of his later publications:

(1) whaî do the notions of tradition [style\ and activity (fiinctionl really mean when applied to artiBct typology; (2) how do we detennine if a given typology is making activity-sensitive [firnctional] or indition-sensitive [stylisticl discriminations in variability; and (3) what new concepts and analytic procedures might aid in the design of more refincd and more informative classifications than those now availabte in making such discriminations?

It is noteworthy that the dichotomy between style and function is not only present, but is manifest as a base level asumption. Sackett's (1977) isochrestic mode1 contrasts in several places with Binford's previous view of style. He beghs by collapsing both the social and ideologid sub- components of culture hto a single 'non-utilitarian' category and redefines the technological stib-component as 'utilitarian' . Sackett also moderates the severity of Binford's style-fiinction distinction by arguing that style is not ody located in formal variation removed f?om function, but that style is manifest in al1 variation, including that which is patently functional. He argues that isochrestic variation is present as 'funaional equivalents', or in the choices that artisans make between the many difEerent ways avdable to mmplete a given task. Thus, a projectile point may be attached to an arrow sh& through side, wmer or basal notches. The notches are functionally quivalent, in that they complete the same ta&., while the choice of where the notches are placed is isochrestic variation. This redefinition of utilitarian and non-utilitarian items represent for Sackett a continuum of style and function. Style is present in ail firnctional objects as isochrestic

Figure 3.1: Sackett' s Style and Function Continuum

' Ut- Nonutilitarian

FPnctioaalVariarton Stylidic Variation

variation, but must remain passive because it is primarily stnichired by the ninctionai requirements met by the object. The degree that style influences the final fom of an object depends on where the artifact falls on the style funaion continuum (See Figure 3.1). Those objects that have fewer fiinctional constraints will have greater stylistic content. For example, debitage or faunal remains, as part of an adaptive strategy, would be highly wnstrained by function whereas the lip on a pot, which is not directly reiated to the object's fundionai ends, would possess more fieedom fiom functionai constraints. In this way, style and funaion are thought to "exhaust the potential of [artifact] variability" (1977: 370). We should note that isochrestic variation is considered by Sackett to be a passive fomi of style that cannot be manipulated by human agents to send messages about identity. Because of its fùnctional ties, isochrestic variation is thought to be unconsciously reproduced as artisans pursue funaional ends. For Sackett, this passive cultural 'way of doing' takes the place of Binford's "window" ont0 the social world: "Being thus socially bounded, isochrestic variation is idiomatic or diagnostic of ethnicity" (1 986b: 630). While Sackett is best known for his advocacy of isochrdsm he has also commenteci extensively on other views of style, particularly that which he has corne to cal1 the iconological approach. What Sackett refers to as the iconological approach is disputai, and the researchers to whom he attributes the use of an iconological approach have failed to adopt his terminology and have argued against their placement within his framework (See Wiessner 1990). Nevertheless, Sackett's characterization remains one of the most lucid ove~ewsof the distinctions between isochrestism and iconological approaches. Sackett views the iconologid approach as a specific case of style within formal variation. For him (1986a), iconological style rests on three main points. Fust, iconological style must reside within attributes that are adjunct to the standard utility or function of the object, as in the presence of decoration on pottery. This "allows one to conclude in effect that that which is styIistic is nothing else but stylistic" (1986a: 271). Secondly, the style represents an 'emic' or 'inside' view of style which is indicative of 'stylistic behaviour' arnong the groups reflected in the matenal culture. Thirdly, the iconological approach assumes an active investment of style onto material culture for a specinc and definable purpose. In other words, following Wobst (1977), it represents the purposefùl investing of social Uiforrnation within style to send clear social messages. The iconological approach shares many similarities with Binford's original use of the style concept. Iconic style is entirely separate fiom function, and if it is present on tiinctional objects it must be in the form of "adjunct style" or "dimensions of fonnal variability which primarüy fiinction in the domain [ie. utilitaridnon-utilit-1 opposite to that which the object . . . finds it major function" (1977: 373). For example, a ceramic vessd's main function is to act as a container, but the decoration on the pot has no obvious firnctional end. Decoration is an elernent of formal variation that is therefore 'adjunct' to the purpose the object fiiWs. The decoration is not subject to the fundonal constraints that make isochrestic variation passive, and its presence cannot be explaineci through direct adaptive requuements. As a result (or perhaps by default) it thus indicates stylistic behwiour and the explicit transmission of symbotic messages that promote solidarîty among the membas ofa group and signify differences to outsiders. The similarities between the iconic approach and Binford's original use of the style concept leave it open to the same critiques. Crucially, the sepration of fiinctional- isochrestic style &om iconic style reforms the style-finction dichotomy, and through it Binford's systemic model of culture. Isochrestic variation cannot be actively used to send messages because it is already explaineci by fiindiond ends; in effi human agents cannot meddle with this part of the system because it is directly tied to adaptive necessities. Additionaily, adjunct style is defïned by its active role in symbolic communication. As a result, its presence is explained by such symbolic communication. By implication, one only needs to identw adjunct style to know it is being used symbolicaily. It is worth taking a moment to cl&@ a cornmon misunderstanding with the conccpts of style and function. Here, i am clearly defining function in relation to adaptive constraints rather than to a generai utility. In other words, I am describing fùnction as 'the adaptive necessity a tool meets' rather than 'the way a tool is used' This is for several reasons. Binford's (1962) original discussion of the systemic model uses this definition and Sûckett's (1973) "activity-sensitive" variation also clearly implies that fundon is far more than just the way an object is used. Indeed, the ptirnacy offùnction over style, and the restriction of iconic style to adjunct variation only makes sense iffùnction is something more than just an object's general utility. This use of function becomes most clear in the exchange between Sackett and Wiessner regarding the location and meaning of style in San points.

While wnduding dhnographic work among Kalahari San groups, Weissner (1 983) develo ps a modifieci version of what Sackett describes as the iwnological model. Her original research was directed toward answering three specific questions:

(1) which items and which variables on these items cany social information, (2) what cooditions b~gabout îhe use of certain items of material culture ta transmit messages about social reMons, and (3) how different patterns of stylistic variation over space corcespond to intergroup and intragroup relations (1983: 253) Wiessner Jraws heavüy on the work of Wobst (1977) who asserts that style acts primarily in idonnation exchange about identity. Following Binford ecosystem model, Wobst sees 'style as information exchange' provid'ing an adaptive advantage: "Matenal culture thus participates in and enhances exchanges of energy, matter, and uiformation in the human populations that fashion it" (1977: 320). Wiessner begins her study by assuming items that take longer to manufacture and have a longer Lifetime of use would be most likely to contain style (1983: 259-60). Among the San, projectile points were found to confonn to this hypothesis. She reports that these points convey two types of styiistic information. Emblemic style is :

formal variation in niaterial culture that has a distinct referent and transmits a clem message to a dejined target population (Wobst 19 77) about consciousaflliation or identity, such as an emblem or a flag (1983: 257; her emphasis).

This is contrasted with assertive styie that is:

Formai variation in material culture which is personally based and which carries information supporting individual identity (1983: 258; her emphasis).

Wiessner reports that assertive style, while recognized in points by the San, cannot be statistically differentiated. She attributes assertive style to the memoty that a spdc point was made by a given artisan rather than to the presence of an individual 'style'. As a result, assertive styie is impossible to observe in the archeological record. Emblemic style has more archaeological significance. San groups are able to distinguish emblemic styie on projectile points at the level of the linguistic group. These distinctions are man5est as 'us-

them', or 'not US' comparisons. For example, members the Bere !Xo band cluster were able to distinguish "Lonetree points as corning fiom !Xo 'who are not our people'" (1983 : 267). Therefore, whîle she notes that San points have a fùnctional role (they are used in procuring mat that makes up 45% of the San diet, 1983 : 26 1), they also carry important stylistic information. Wiessner also discloses that this stylistic information is found in attributes that directly relate to the point's primary funetion. Stylistic messages were identifieci in tip form, point size and point thicknesq attributes that would nomialîy be patently fiinctional (1 983 : 270). Interestingly, rather than arguing that this shows the presence of attributes that are both actively stylistic and functional, she questions whether these attributes possess any functionai relationship: "in choosing stylistic attributes, one should omit oniy attributes whose variation cm be proven by experiment to be exclusively caused by fùnction". The conflia between funetion and style is not seen as a problem in the autonomy of the categories, but is a problem in assigning material culture on the ground to those categories. She reiterates this opinion later where she again finds the issue to be a problern of identification: "The choice of attributes in which to invest style appeared to be the result of historical events, rather than foUowing coherent principles" (1 983 : 273). Wiessner clearly maintains two of the assumptions that typify a holistic mode1 of culture. First, for style to be read, it must be sent. h other words, the fact that the Bere !Xoidentified Lonetree points to be hma different group indicates that a stylistic message must have been invested on the points in the first place. Secondly, because attributes that carry such messages cannot also be functional, tip fonn, point size and point thickness must be entirely stylistic. In other words, these attributes must be adjunct to the utility of the object. Sackett's (1985) response to Wiessner is somewhat predictable. He initially argues that for the effective transfer of information "attributes that are styiistic ought, at least ideally, be nothing else but stylistic"(l98 5 : 1 55). The San points, because they serve ftnctional en& and do not carry adjunct style in the form of decoration, could not possibly convey the specific idormetion that Wiessner reports. Instead, Sackett argues that what the San recognize, and what Wiessner identifies as an active fom of style, is actually the isochrestic variation of another group. Symbolic meaning was never invested into the points, but was sirnply read hmthe everyday variation of 'those who do things diierentiy' . Wiessner's response (1985) to these criticisms is to reassert her position with minor modifications. She States that what Sackett refers to as isochrestic behaviour is present arnong the San, but that what she has documented in regard to projectile points represents a s@c form of stylistic behaviour that is both active and distinct. She a&ms that style is the active investment of 'ambiguous' messages into material culture, which she contrasts with the purposeful and clear messaging that Sackett reads into the iconological approach, thereby escaphg the need for adjunct style. She admits (1985: 162) that her assumptions about what attributes have stylistic meaning has changed, and suggests that style may be invested in any attribute, even those that are patently fbnctional.

Holisn and Style

The style in functional attributes reported by the San represents an anomaly under the holistic system outlined above. As we have seen, style and tiinction should remain entirely separate because they are direrent parts of the same system. When this anomaly appears, Wiessner invokes the axiom that messages must have been sent for them to be read. For her, this assumption ovemdes separation of style and function. For Sackett, the opposite occurs. Because these attributes are fundonal, they are automatically restricted fiom conveying any form of symbolic message. The style Wiessner reports must therefore be isochrestic. In effecf each researcher has sacrificed one eiement of the styie-function model to maintain the axiom they find essential to the system. 1 tend to believe the San case highlights some critical problems with the style- iùnction model. On the one hand, Sackett (1 985) seems quite correct to state that it is not necessary for messages to be sent for them to be read. This is perhaps the best explanation for the San case study. The Lonetree points Wiessner showed to the Bere !Xohad not previously appeared in this area of the Kalahari. Without some fonn of interaction, it is unükely the points were invested with emblemic messages for the Bere !Xo. On the other hand, there seems îittle reason for the styüstic messages to always be placed on atm'butes divorced fiom function. The meaning of objects can change fiom the moment of inception, and an item originally made to perform utilitarian tasks could conceivably gain a symbolic load. 1 see no reason why the addition of a symboiic load shwld suddedy make the item any less utilitarian. As Wiessner (1985) argues, the implication is that there is no apriori way to identûy style and fundon. The separation of style and ftnction is perhaps more a 'lef€over' of the determinism in BUiford's ecological mode1 than it is an accurate characterization of the way style ads 'on the gmund'. As we have seen, under the Binfordian Model fùnction and style becorne synonyms for 'adaptive processes' and 'normative behavioun' respectively. Culture's raison d'etre is adaptation with normative behaviour a residual property of the adaptive process. Because adaptation is a direct and unmediated response to the limits and potentials of an environmental setting, 'noms' cannot infîuence adaptation. Predictably, style cannot also interfere with functional requirements. For the mode1 to work, adaptive proceu and normative behaviour - and style and function - must remain separate. U: as in the San case, a functional attribute can be stylistically active, then suddenly 'function' is no longer a direct response to adaptive necessity but can be subject to normative whims. Such a finding severely challenges the determinism in the Binfordian Model. More importantly, unless we believe culture is environmentally determined, there is no neeû for a 'fundamental dichotomy' (Du~ell1978) between function and style. To retum to the truisms that opened this chapter, pottery decoration is considered the explicit signification of identity because it is adjunct to fùnctional requirements. The meaning of style found in decorative and morphological attributes is therefore assignod on the basis of its apriori place in an tcologically deterministic and holistic system, rather than fiom an analysis of data.

Ifwe take the critiques of hotism outhed in the last chapter senously, and ifwe heed the objections raised by both Sackett and Wiessner, then we are liberated fiom the as ifmodeiiing dordby the style-fiinction dichotomy. This does not mean we need to drop the terms style and fiinction altogether. Despite theu diiculties, it is uniikely we would gain relief fkom a new set of terms. Instead, we need to recast the ternis in a way that relies less upon theoretical, a priori modelling and more upon the data we analyse. For example, rather than defined by its relationship to function, isochrestic style could simply refiect a social group's 'way of doing'. It is passive in that it is not deliberateiy invested with a symboiic message; nevertheless, it reflects a group's aesthetic and utilitanan noms of production. Freed of function, iconic style is a special type of isochrestic style that inciudes the purposehl attempt to send symbolic messages through material culture. Following Wiessner (1983; See also Jones 1997) such style would be identifiable through the standardid use of stylistic elements. These types of style are not restricted to particular 'subsystems' in material culture, but may be observed on any attribute. Whether an attribute represents a passive or active form of style must therefore be identified fiom the data.

Methodology

To viterpret the ceramic material at Van Bree, we need to look at the variability present in very particular contexts. As a result, we cm take advantage of the sarne methods needed to test the 'hybrid' hypothesis. Particular social contexts can be identified from crossmend data that indicate contemporaneous features and feahire contents. These contempomeous feahires are subdivisions in the occupation of the site, and likely represent one or two semons of occupation by the sarne group. By using crossmend data, the following goals were set for the analysis.

1. Identify individuai occupations of the site fiom ceramic crossmends. 2. Assess the variabiîity within these clusters for evidence of (a) ceramic hybndization and @) the way style is being employed. 3. Assess the variability between these clusters for evidence of ceramic continuity and the rcocaipation of the site by the same group The identifkation of dinérent phases of occupation has been successfully accomplished by Timrnins (1997) in his analysis of the Calvert Site. At Calvert, Timmins used senlement data and crossmends to identify different stages in the occupation of the site. My approach here is simüar. 1 use extensive crossmend data at Van Bree to idente features that were open at the sarne the. By piecing together overlaps in these crossmends, it is possible to identify clusters of conternporaneous features. Pottery found in these feahire clusters can be dyassumed to belong to the same occupation and thus the same group of people. If Glen Meyer and Western Basin pottery is found in the same clusters, then they were ükely made and used by the same group of people, confirming the hypothesis that the inhabitants of Van Bree were living sorne fom of hybrid lifestyle.

The preliminary analysis conducted by Archaeologix had identifieci 49 cerarnic vessels on the basis of rim sherds. These rim sherds were sorted into trays in the lab and identified acmrding to vesse1 number and the feature(s) from which they were recovered. Several vessels had already been partially reconstructed and four, vessels 13, 14,30 and 37 were hwnto possess crossmends. During the ensuing analysis, several vessels originaily thought to be distinct were mended together, reducing the total number of vessels in the sample to 45. Because of the srnail size of the assemblage and the fhgmentary nature of many vessels, I decideci to use infe~edcrossmends extensively. This procedure is not as definitive as ushg adual physical mendq but it has been tested and fniitfùlly applied in other studies (Howielangs 1998). The mends were based on several different critena and at least three of these were required to declare a mend. Ody decurateci sherds were considered to maxirnize the likeiihood that mends were 'real'. For example, svnilar techniqudmotif combinations on interior and exterior surfaces of sherds, combined with fine-graineci criteria such as the use ofa cornmon tool, similar depwthickness of stamping and incisions and simiiarity in line spacing and thickness were used. Additional criteria employed include the cornparison of sherd colour, thickness, ware, temper, and non- decorative surf' treatments. Frequentiy, multiple vessel mends linked the sarne features, adding support to the claim that these features were open and in use at the same the. The procedure I useâ to idente crossmends took advantage of the ample space provided by the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation for the anaiysis. The vessels identified by Archaeologix were sorted into 'vessel trays', and al1 decorated neck sherds from a particular feature were sorted into 'feature trays' . Identifying crossmends was a matter of systematically comparing feature trays to vessel trays. The first step of the analysis was the cornparison of feature trays that were known to associate with particular vessels. For example, if a Nn sherd fiom a vessel was found in feature 45, then the neck sherds from feature 45 would be cornpared with that vessel tray first. This did two things. First, neck sherds that could be first assigneci to vessels fiom the sarne feature were progressively removed from crossmend analysis. This drastically reduced the number of sherds that had to be cornparad against the entire assemblage and reduced the chance of making spurious mends. Secondly, as mends were identified, the neck sherds were re- tagged and moved into the vessel tray. This progressively increased the known portion of each vesse1 making several of the later cross-feature mends possible. The reduced sample in the feature trays was then wmpared with the entire assemblage. As two or more features were crossmended, other neck sherds and vessels from those features were rechecked. Often this resulted in multiple mends between features. Neck sherds that wuld not be attributed to a vessel were left in the feature trays and occasionally rechecked as each vessel gradually became more cornplete. Mer PU of the neck sherds trays had been wmpared, body sherds from each feaaire were also checked against the vesse1 trays. Body sherds were checked for unique characteristics like dcationor decorative attributes that could indicate the vesse1 with which it was associatecl. Any body sherds that appeared 'anomalws', or had a distinctive attriiute (size, atypical cord maleation) that indicated it did not belong to vessels from its feature cluster, was compared with vessel trays. In dl cases, body sherds were simiiar, possessing cord rnaleated and smoothed-over-cord maleated exteriors and smoothed interion. The analysis of the body sherds did not produce any additional crossmends.

Once the crossrnend analysis was completed in the lab, the crossmends for each vesse1 were plotted on site maps (See Figure 3.2,3.3, and 3.4). These were combined to identify the three distinct clusters of features. The 'West House' cluster is defïned by a senes of crossmends relating to Vessel 30 (Figure 3.3). This series of mends b~gstogether features inside and west of the house. The 'West A' cluster of features relates to three vessels (35, 36, 37) and three features (7 1, 72, 73) in what may be an activity ara at the extreme west end of the site. It is likely that these two clusters are actually part of the same occupation. For exarnple, Feature 75 is firmly associated with the 'West House' and is in a direct line with Features 72, 73 and 74 which are associated with the 'West A' cluster. This Linear arrangement of features is known elsewhere in the Western Basin and likely suggests the consecutive use of these pits by the same group (N. Fems, personal corn.). As a result, these two clusters tentatively reflect a single occupation, referred to here as the 'West Cluster' (See Figure 3 S). Among the vessels within the West Cluster were several vessels that are diagnostic of Younge phase. For exarnple, two vessels (See Figure 4.1 and Appendix 1: Vessels 30 and 37) have the triangular motifs and elongated necks that are typical of Younge pottery (Murphy and Fems 1990). What is also notable is that no 'diagnostic' Glen Meyer vessels were found in these features. The 'Central Clusta' of features is just east of the house and is identified through crossmends in four dierent vessels (12, 13, 14, and 22/43; See Figure 3.4 and 3 S). One feature in this cluster (54) appears to be an outlier, and is west of the house. Several faesin the vicinity that do not crossmend to the central cluster are Wely associated. Vessd 9/10 and Vessel 44 each crossmend two feahires (46 and 47; 40 and 65) located just north of the central cluster. One feature (30) spatiaîly related to the centrai cluster

Figum 3.3: West Clwtrr Crosrmends by V-1. Figun 3.4: Cenupl Cluster Crossmmds by Vassal. also contained the remnsnts of six vessels (3,24, 25,26, 27, 28). Decoratively, vessels found in this cluster seem very typical of Glen Meyer. For example, rows of oblique andor hatched hear stamps are common throughout the cluster (Williamson 1990, Howie-Langs 1998). Younge ceramics are also entirely absent. Reorganizjng the vessel trays according to these clusters provided imrnediate results to the effect that the ceramic material tiom the clusters separatecl into distinct categories. Not only were those vessels typical of Western Basin and Glen Meyer present in difFerent clusters, but distinct tendencies in attribute selection were aiso noticeable (See Chapter 4). The hypothesis that the variability on Van Bree represented a 'hybrid' cultural group was effectively refuted. Because of this finding, the site seems to have been occupied by two distinct groups of people. The variability within and between the clusters will be examined in the next chapter. No crossmends were made in 'East Cluster', which is a loose scatter of feanires at the eastem edge of the site. The recovery of a typical Wayne Ware vessel (49) and other pottery that appears to be early Younge or late Riviere au Vase phase may indicate this ara of the site relates to an earlier Western Basin occupation. If so, this could indicate that the site was used as a seasonai hunting wnp before the Younge-Glen Meyer occupation. The East Cluster will not be considered further in this thesis, although it has been cataloged, illustrated and analyzed (See Appendices 1 and 4).

Dismm'on: Implcutions of Feature CIusters.

There are two possible ways that the feature cluster data can be interpreted. First, the separation of the two feature clusteni may indicate the fortuitous occupation of the site by two smd groups of people at entirely dîerent times. The locations of the clusters are the resuit of pure chance. A second, and 1 think more Iikely interpretation is that the site represents either the CO-occupationor near wsccupation of the site by both groups. The essential ditference between these hypotheses rests in whether the Younge and Glen Meyer people on the site had contact. Severai independent lines of evidence support the latter interpretation. Two radiocarbon samples were taken, one fiom Feature 45 in the Central Cluster and the other fiom Feature 71 in the West Cluster- These two features were selected for several reasons. These features contain an adequate amount of charcoal to run conventional dates. They are also key parts of their respected clusters, and are fîrmiy associated with other features thmugh several cerarnic crossmends. Finally, these fiahires contain large portions of diagnostic vessels. As a result, these dates could be used by someone else in a later senation projest. Table 3.1 sumrnarizes the results. The dates are statistically identical. The calibrateci age of 1029 AD for the West Cluster and, of the the, the 1038 AD calibration for the Central Cluster suggest that the sites are contemporaneous. It is thus within reason that both clusters were occupied at roughly the same time.

Table 3.1 : Ct4Dates (Conventional)

* StUivcr et al., 1998

This seems particulady true when we consider the spatial patternhg of the two clusters. Given the smali size of the land form, 1 would expect far more overlap in the clusten if the two occupations are entirely unrelated. This is even more telling when we consider that the clusters are less than five meters apart and except for feohire 54, the clusters Wyseparate at the eastem edge of the house. This may suggest that the house itselfwas used as a spatial boundary. The separation of the clusters indicates sume fonn of spatial discnmuiotion.. . If the site was CO-occupied,then a pronounced fom of spatial ownership occurs, with both groups stringently avoidmg the other' s temtory, perhaps over severai seasons. Spatial discrimination could also result fiom recognition and avoidance of a preceâiig occupation. Indeed, this may explain the absence of any crossrnends between the clusters and the location of a Central Cluster feahire that tnincates the house wall. This fegture (48) does not contain evidence of a post mold (Jim Wilson, pers. cornm.; See also Archaeologk 1W8), indicating that it was dug after the house was abandoned. While not conclusive (especiaiiy since there may have been no post there in the first place; see Figure 3.2), this feahire and the pattemed use of space could suggest that the Glen Meyer occupation occurred sometime after the Younge house was abandoned but before it wmpletely deteriorateci. If the site was not co-occupied, then both groups must have used the site within a short time span, probably less than a generation. The available information on lithic tools suggests that both groups were exploiting the same local environment. Lithic raw material appears in the sarne proportions for each cluster (See Table 3.2). Kettle Point Chert dominates both assemblages with some Onondaga Chert also present. Given this data, it seems likely that Glen Meyer people had access to the nearby Kettle Point source, either through direct exploitation of the outcrops or through first order trade.

Table 3.2: Distribution of Lithic Raw Materiai by Cluster

Levanna Point 65 Centrai* Kettle Point Levanna Point 46 Central* Kettle Point Stemrned Point 65 Central* Kettle Point ,Stemmed Point 42 Central Kettle Point Side Notched Point 46 Central* Onondana We 67 West Kettle Point Knife 67 West Kettle Point Levanna Point 50 West Kettle Point Levanna Point 71 West* Kettle Point [~evannaPoint 1 76 1 West 1 Kettle Point -. . (~evmmpoint 1 50 1 West 1 Kettle Point Levanna Point 50 West Kettle Point Levanna Point 70 West Kettle Point Preform 66 West Kettle Point Preform 65 West Kettle Point Preform 66 West Kettle Point Prefonn 50 West Kettle Point '1. Prefonn 65 West Kettle Point Preforrn 56 West* Kettle Point Prefonn 76 West Kettle Point Scraper 77 West Kettle Point Scraoer 67 West Kettle Point Scraper 67 West Kettle Point Drill 55 West Onondaga Levanna Point 49 West Onondaaa 1 ~evmpoint 1 49 1 West 1 Onondaga * indicates features within the mssmend duster

niese conclusions are important for many rasons. Because of the apparent spatial ownership, each cluster likely belongs to the same group of people. These occupations are either a single season of habitation or they represent the maintenance of distinct spatial loci over several visits. This is tme even if the Younge occupation preceded the Glen Meyer by several years. Al1 activity in the West Cluster was continually directed West of the house; it is unlikely such a pattern would su~vea substantial change in personnel. As a result, the sarne potters are probably responsible for most of the ceramics recovered fiom each cluster. Even if some of the vessels had been traded in, those vessels would be familiar to these local potters. Attribute and attnbute combinations on the site were thetefore part of the potter's known ceramic universe. As stated above, the way space is sepatatecl suggests both groups used the site within a narrow period. These groups were probably in contact with each other. Ifwe are cautious and assume the site was not w-occupied, then at the very least the reoccupation must have occufted befon the house deteriorated. Given the high percentage of Kettle Point chert in the Centrai Cluster (Glen Meyer) lithic assemblage, this occupation of the site is not likely associated with a rapid expansion into unfamiliar new temtory. Rather, the Glen Meyer groups probably had either a local knowledge of the region or were in contact with the Younge groups who were trading Kettle Point chert. Despite the lack of hybridization, Van Bree probably stül indicates a 'borderland' site.

Conclusion

The use of a particularistic methodology has already generated appreciable results. Without having to consult additional assemblages or conduct lengthy ceramic analysis, the use of crossmend data had made it possible to test and refbte the hybrid hypothesis. Indeed, identifjmg social contexts within a site is an essential part of investigating those areas hidden by holistic assumptions. The results of the crossmend analysis also give us cmcial information about the site that we can use in the next chapter to develop an understanding of the ceramic variability. Without holistic shoncuts like the style - function dichotomy, we also need to define how ceramic style is operating at Van Bree. Knowhg, for instance, that the ceramic vessels in the West Cluster are likely produceci by the same small group of potten and that these pots were constmcted in the face of intergroup contact provides the context in which we can interpret the ceramic variability. Without holistic assumptions, such data becomes an integral part of our analysis. Chapter 4 Results and Implications

Without shortcuts like the style-fiinction dichotomy, the dysis of style at Van Bree must rely on our review of Younge culture and the evidence located in the crossmend clusters. The Glen Meyer and Younge feature clusters provide a frame for the analysis. As stated in the last chapter, each of these clusters indicates the activities ofa smaii group of individuals, perhaps one or two potters. This is significant, as it gives us the fine-@ed precision we airned for at the start of this study. It is also plausible that the Glen Meyer and Younge inhabitants of the site had some interaction. While CO- occupation is a possibüity, the exclusive use of space on the site suggests that at most the occupations were separateci by a very short fnune of time. This is signuicant because the cerarnic material may demonstrate some tendencies we could annbute to cross-border interaction. Three of the onginal objectives outlined for the analysis still need to be addressed. We have already de& with the question of individual occupation and the hybridization hypothesis. What remains unclear is how style is being used at Van Bree, and exactly what the sirnilarities and fierences are in the attributes between the two clusters.

Variation within the Ciusters

West Cluster

Despite the srnail sample of vessels, what is first noticeable in the West Cluster is the extreme diversity. Both technique and motif for lips, rims and necks displays substantial variability (See Figure 4.1; See Appendk 1 for a legend and Appendix 2 for definitions of vesse1 attributes).' For example, only two vesseIs are decorated with the diarnond/triangle motfi that are often considered typical of Western Basin assemblages (Figure 4.1 : Vessel 30 and Vessel37). However, these vessels contain substantial variability in other areas. Vessel 30 has C-starnping on the lip and both sides of the rim, followed by a row of extemal punctates and intemal bosses. In contrast. the exterior rim of Vessel 37 is incised with a cornplex mixture of obliques and horizontals combineci with a single row of intenor punctates and extemal bosses. The lip on Vessel 37 is dso smoothed, with no decorative element applied. Overall, it appears that there is no combination of decorative elements (motifs or techniques) that cm be standardized into discrete pottery 'types'. Instead, a wide combination of decorative elernents is used without any tûm structure. Decorative techniques do reappear on the sarne vessels. For exarnple, the application of incising (Vesse1 37) or fine dentate starnping (Vessel 34,38,36, 39,48) on the rim is foilowed with the use of the tool elsewhere on the vessels often on the opposite site of the rim and further down the neck. Interestingly, the exception is C-Stamping which typically ocairs as a single band on both sides of the rün but is never present further

Plerre nott tbpt Figure 4.1 and 4.2 do not includc isolats but only those vesseis faiod within the fcanire ciusters. Becausc my discussion of intenial vafiability hinges on îhe contemporaneity of the vessels, it would be a greater ermr to inclu& isolaied vessels which could relate to a Werent season of occupatiooa Note that 1have kiuded isolated vessels in the attn'bute analysis.

down the neck (aithough it is used to fill the triangles on Vessel 30). Because of the f'ragmentary nature of much of the sample, defining any fmn morphological patterns outside some very general statements is difncult. Despite substantial Werences in size, most of the vessels possess elongated necks and comparatively short rims. For example, visibly large vessels such as 30 and 37 share this pattern with the comparatively small Vessel 33. Where observable, rVns tend to be coliarless, out fiaring, and except for Vessel 30 do not have casteliations. Three vessels also have scalloped edges (36,37,48). While there is substantial variability in the decorative elements and rim treatment, there appears to be some homogeneity in vessel morphology . AU vessels in the site were also analyzed to see if individual potten muld be identifiesi. Several different methods have been used to identify individuals in the archaeological record (see contributions to Hiil and GUM 1977); however, they generally require large sarnple sizes (e.g., Hardin 1977). Given the small sample sues here, more 'mechanical' traits were used to identiQ individual potters. These mechanical traits are found in two types of data. Vessels were compared to see if specific tools were used on more than one vessel. Ah, the manner a stamp was impressed into the vessel or incisions were made was considered potentially diagnostic of an individual potter. Identifjhg these individuals at Van Bree is not a matter of identifjmg a distinctive style so much as it is about the recognition of individual tendencies in the decorative process. These processes are apt to change, and what I have identified as individual traits may only be useful on vessels made during a single potting session. Hence, the procedure was meant to identify similarities within the assemblage itself. These mechanical traits were compareci across ali vessels in the assemblage, including ceramics from the West, Central and East clusters, as weli as isolateci vessels. Under these criteria, no individual potters were identified in the West Cluster. Each vessel was dacorated with a dEerent tool and the application of decurative elements was highly variable, with little consistency in mechanical processes. Ifthese vessels were created by one or two potters, then they are responsible for a phenomed arnount of variability. Potting tools may also be expedient, which would explain why the same tool was never used on more than one vessel. The use of expedient tools would dso account for the tendency to reuse decorative techniques on the same vessel; as only a few tools may have been created for each potting session. If the sale of production is srnail, perhaps 1-3 vessels per firing, then we would be unlikely to recover more than one vessel decorated with the same tool. Smd deceramic production could aiso partially explain the decorative variabüity observed in the West Cluster. For a srnall group of people like those occupying Van Bree, ponery manufacture could have occurred only when new vessels were needed. Given that the estirnateci use life for ceramic cooking vessels is roughly 2.2 years (Tani and Longam 1999) pottery manufacture could transpire as infiequently as once a year. In such a scenario, there may be very little standardization. The evidence here seems to suggest that except for some general tendencies, pottery is decorated differentiy each time it is made. Indeed, the diversity in the assemblage suggests creativity and experimentation rather than adherence to an overarching structure.

Central Cluster

The Centrai Cluster seems to be more stmctured and possess less fieedom than is observable in the West Cluster (See Figure 4.2). Bands of linear stamping and C stamping occur dom the rh, occasionally supplernented with interior punctates and exterior bosses. Obliques and hatched motifs are typicai, with the occasional band of horizontals. Overall, the same decorative techniques and motifs are reused in dïerent areas of the ved(Vesse1 8, 12/20, 13, 14,22/43,42; but note Vesse1 18,21). Like the West Cluster, vessel morphology was di£licult to assess in the Central Cluster because of the fiagmentary nature of the assemblage. Overall, there seems to be more diversity in the morphology than in the West Cluster. Eüms are out flaring and straight sided throughout, but rim treatment is more diverse. One formaiiy coliared vessel (16) is present as weii as two with incipient collars (2 1, 22/43). These collared vessels may be associated with the use of cord impressions high up on the neck or on the rim while incipient collars are associateci with C stamped motifs. Casteflations (22/43,42) aiso appear with C stamping, but given the small number of vesseIs where the presence of casteiiations could be assessed, this pattern is at best tentative. Scalloping is entirely absent in the Central Clustet. Looking for individual potters was more hitful in the Central Cluster than it was in the West. The linear stamp used on Vesse18 and Vessel 12/20 is the same, as are the mechanical processes used to irnpress the stamp into the clay. The stamp appears to have been impressed at an approximately 30" tilt from the perpendicuiar, giving the stamping an 'overhung' appearance. As the potter spun the vessels to continue stamping dong the rims, many of these overhangs were compressed, leaving a series of finger impressions and nearly closed stamps that are wider at the bottom than at the top. Vessel 13 and Vesse1 14 appear to have bem made by another individual. The linear stamp used here is a long thin object with a squared end and a small protnision on the right side, not unlike a bone spiinter. This tool was impressed into the clay and then pulled dom and away tiom the vessel, leaving a characteristic deep impression at the top of the starnp that gradually became shallower toward the bottom. The way this stamp was applied is also diagnostic because of its regulatity. The upper end of the impression is exactly aliped on a horizontal plane.

The fact that the vessels fiom this feature cluster are roughly contemporaneous gives us some interesthg possibilities. Vessels decorated with the same tool also share similarities in their decorative motifs, suggesting that among the Glen Meyer individual potters repeat motifs. For example, Vessels 8 and 12/20 both have left slanted obliques whereas the obliques on Vessels 13 and 14 are slanted right. Furthemore, if these tools are also expedient then each pair ofvessels may have been made for the same fiMg. The presence of chevrons domthe neck of Vesse1 12/20 but not on Vessel 8 and the intenor hatching - exterior horizontals found on Vessel 14 but not on Vessel 12/20 suggest that despite relative hornogeneity, Glen Meyer potters have soine choice in decorative elements. The variation found on larger sites rnay not be a factor of gradua1 change over tirne, and an inabüity to separate out micro-phases, but could simply show the variety of choices available to potters (See Williamson 1990). Overall, the poaery within the features is more decoratively homogeneous than in the West Cluster. Again, this rnay have something to do with the scale of production. If tools are expedient, then identifying the same tool on more than one vessel could indicate that several pots are being made in each potting session. Specific types of decorative techniques may also be associated with more elaborate nm treatments. Vessels with C- stamping tend to have fomal collars, incipient collars or castellations. Linear starnped vessels remain coliarless and do not generally possess castellations. The contemporaneity of the vessels suggests that these distinct patterns have a sociai significance.

Variation behveen the Clusters: Attribute Analysis

In contrast to the above discussion, the goal of the attribute analysis was to draw cornparisons between vessels from the two clusters. To do this, a number of morphological and decorative elements were recorded following standard conventions for woodland ceramic anaiysis. Decoration was broken into bands that were then categorized by technique and motif. Because of the reiatively srnd number of vessels and the already complet& crossmend analysis, the vessel was chosen as the unit of analysis rather than the sherd. Appendix 2 defmes the attributes and variables recorded. Several problerns were encwntered during this portion of the study. The small Siof the assemblage makm it impossible to use many standard statistid techniques such as Chi Squared and PRE. As a result, the patterns observed in the bar graphs have not bem subjected to statistid tests. Second, the focus on bands of demration is sometimes not an accurate represaitation of decorative elements on Western Basin cerarnics. For example, the complexity of the neck decoration on Vessels 30 and 37 does not easüy translate into distinct bands (See Figure 4.1). The identification of these bands was therefore arbitrary and should be treated with some skepticism. For the attribute analysis, the original contextual data were simplified into three broad categories: West, Central and East. For example, the West A, West House and West Isolates were combined into the West Cluster, Central and Central Isolates were combined into the Central Cluster; and East Isolates were renamed the East Cluster. This was done to increase the sarnple size for the cornparison of the clusters. The integration of isolated vessels raises a potentid problem, as isolated vessels cannot be directly associated with each crossmend cluster except through spatial affiliation. However, each of the isolated vessels was checked to see ifit fell within a range of acceptable variation and recreated morphological and decorative tendencies obsewed within the cluster. The combination of spatial propinquity and ceramic style was adequate to assign cluster afnliation. In the West Cluster, this process was straightforward, and resulted in the addition of Vessels 7 and 46 to the 13 other vessels that were part of the West 'A' and West House clusters. In the Central Cluster, association is more of an issue as 14 of the 25 vessels are isolated. Six of the isolates are found within Feature 30, which is on the eastem margin of the Central Cluster. These vessels are al1 convincingly Glen Meyer (See Appendix 1, vessels 3,24, 25,26, 27,28) and their association with the cluster is plausible. This combination of spatial propinquity and 'typical' ceramic traits can also be used to SafeIy integrate many remaining isolated vessels (Vessel 1,2,9/10, 11, 23), leaving oniy 3 of the 25 vessels with a questionable association (Vessel 44,45,47). This number is not large emugh to negatively affect the analysis. The East Cluster is not discussed below. None of the pottery in the east section of the site producai rossmends between features. The lack of crossmends, combined with the Riviere au Vase charmer of the pottery, suggest that these features relate to an earlier and less intensive use of the site. As a result, the East Cluster does not relate to the Younge-Glen Meyer occupation that is the focus of this thesis. The material has been illustrated (See Appendix 1) and anaiyzed (Appendix 4).

Morphologicd data indicate that there are some substantial differences between the samples (See Appendir 3: Figure 4.3). While the rirn orientation is out flaring for both clusters (present in 60.70% of the cases), signifiant differences are present in rirn form. As mentioned in the previous section, collars and incipient collars are present in the Central Cluster (hereafter CC) and completely absent in the West Cluster (hereafter WC). Of these, two are formally collared vessels and six possess wdyrolled rims or incipient collars (see Figure 4.3 b) The CC vessels also tend to have a straighter rim profile compared to the outward deflection of rim profiles found in the WC. This has some interesthg corollaries. As we wiil see below, CC vessels possess more decorative bands on the interior rirn while vessels in the WC have more bands on the extenor neck. A longer straight rim in the CC or an extended neck in the WC may provide a 'wivas' for the application of decorative elements (Murphy and Fems IWO). Rat rims are prevdent in both clusters, with one pointed rirn found on a vesse1 in the CC. Despite the small sample sue, castellations only seern to appear in the CC, whereas sdoping is found on three vessels hmthe WC (Figure 4.30. Morphology rnay therefore be summarized in the foUowing way. Vesseis frorn the WC have flat, collariess rims that tend to have outward flaring rim orientations and profiles. Castellations are absent and scalloping appears occasionaily. In contrast, CC vessels possess the occasional formal or incipient collar with outward flaring rim orientations and relatively straight rim profiles. Castellations ocnir more ofien than not, lips klude a pohted Vanant and scalloping is entirely absent. Size

Size was dicult to assess given the srnall sample of the assemblage and the highly fhgmentary nature of most of the vessels. As a result, only thickness measurements could be made with any reliabiity. Xt is notable that the means of thickness measurements are within one millimeter of each other, indicating that there is not a significant difference in this respect between vessels found in West and Central clusters (Appendix 4: Sk). On the other hand, visually there is a substantial difference in the proportion of rim height to neck height that has been difficult to test metrically. These measurements could only be recordeci for vessels that were complete from lip to shoulder. As a result, there is an abundance of missing data that has produced inconclusive results. The mean for rim height for both clusten is near 3.1 cm, despite the fact that rims heights reached 9.0 cm in the CC and 5.5 cm in the WC (See Appendix 4: Size). Measurements are completely absent for neck heights for the CC while one WC vesse1 had a neck height of 16 cm. Developing a ratio that accurately captured the proportions of rim to neck height was therefon impossible. However, visuaily these proportional differences are obvious. Vessels from the WC have short rims with marked points of infiection where the rirn meets the neck. The necks are substantiaily larger, forming a nearly straight line fkom the point of *dedionto the shoulder. The exterior sudace of this area is often heavily decorated. In contrast, vessels fkom the CC have higher nms that gently change into the neck. Decoration is concentrated on both the interior and exterior surfaces of these tail rirns.

There are problems with rneasuring complexity on a fiagmentary sarnple. Here, complexity is measured by the nurnber ofdecorative bands on both extenor and interior surfaces. With a hgrnentary sarnple, this results in data that are skewed toward a tower numbas of bands as those located domthe Nn and neck are missing or excluded because they cannot be associated with a rim. As a result, vessels where the nurnber of decorative bands on the rim or neck could not be completely assessed were dropped tiom the analysis (signifiai by 'UK' in the database). Unfortunately, this procedure substantially reduced the sample sise. Despite these problems, general dserences between the clusters can be highlighted (Appendix 3: Figure 4.4). Predictably, these tendencies foilow the observed tendency of CC vessels to have taller nms and WC vessels to have taller necks. Vessels fiom the WC tend to have one or sometimes two bands of decoration on their exterior and interior rims. In contrast, vessels eom the CC are more cornplex, possessing as many as four bands of decoration on their rims. This pattern reverses for the necks. In the WC, vessels have more decorative bands on the exterior neck. It should also be noted that 'bands' on the necks of WC vessels are often larger than bands in the CC. Routinely, decoration on the WC vessels would cover a larger area, extending right ont0 the vessel's shoulder (Appendk 1: Vessels 30,35,37). Despite only having a slight advantage in the number of decorative bands, WC vessels are markedly more decorated on the extenor neck than vessels fiom the CC. From the analysis of the unmendeci neck sherd elements, exterior decoration does ocuir on the exterior neck of at least some vessels from the CC. The fkagmentary nature of the sample therefore may overemphasize the pattern observable in Figure 4.4b. However, the lack of decoration on the vessels that could be assessed shows that this decoration is relatively rare and the pattern suggested above is probably valid.

DecoraI;ive Techniques

Several digerences can be found in the use of decorative techniques (See Appendix 3: Figure 4.5 and 4.6). On Band 1 of the rim, the main difference between the clusters is the prevalence ofiinear stamps in the CC and fine dentate stamps in the WC. These techniques are used on both interior and exterior surfaces. 'C' stamping is also prevalent within Band 1 for both clusters, but is rately used anywhere else on WC vessels while it is oftm used in multiple bands down onto the neck in the CC. Band 2 of the WC is also characterized by the use of fine dentate starnps, with some incising and punctates on the extenor and hedentate and punctates or bosses on the interior. This contrasts with the continued use of linear starnping in the CC, which remains the dominant technique in ail bands of decuration on the rim. Subtle changes ocair on the neck. In the WC, the extenor of vessels is decorated with incising and with some continueci use of fine dentate stamping. The interior of the neck is generally undecorated, but will occasiondy contain a single band of punctates or bosses near the rim-neck Uiaection. For the CC, decorative techniques on both sides of the neck continue to use linear and fine dentate stamping as weii as punctates or bosses.

Motifs are also relatively distinctive, although several elements overlap (Appendix 3: Figure 4.7 and 4.8). On Band 1 of the extenor rim, simpless and simples right are fdy common in both clusters. The CC is unique in the presence of simples vertical and simples hatched, the latter a very typical Glen Meyer motif. In Band 2 of the exterior nm, simples left are common for both clusters, with horizontals and simples right secondary for the WC and CC respectively. The use of simples left andor simples right continues down the exterior neck in the CC. This is nQt mirrored in the WC which begins to show a great amount of diversity, specificaiiy in Bands 1 and 3 on the neck. These bands contain many more diagnostic Younge elements like mled triangles. Perhaps more than any other, the Relative % - West CIuster graph in Figure 4.7e exemplifies the inability of a 'band approach' to adequately capture the diversity of Yaunge assemblages. In both clusters, the interior of the vessels has less variability in motif selection

' Note thsi 'simpks' is ugd to descrii a motif that does no

Unmemkd Neck Skr&

Neck sherds that could not be mended to particular vessels were also subjected to an attribute analysis (See Appendix 4: Unmended Neck Sherds). Because there was no way to refer the sherds to specific areas of a vessel, the decorative elements were not broken into specific bands of decoration. Instead, primary and secondary techniques and motifs were recordeci for both surfaces and analyzed through SPSS. Sherds with siiar attributes recovered fiom the same feature liieiy belong to the same vessel and were therefore only catalogueci once. With one exception, the analysis of the neck sherds is roughly identical to the patterns outlined above. The lone anomaly is the presence of several sherds with cord wrapped stick on the extenor neck recovered from four features in the West Cluster (Features 67,68,76, 77). Until I completed the neck sherd analysis, no cord wrappd stick was identifid fiom the western portion of the site, either on isolated vessels or on vessels that were part of the crossmend clusters. This may highlight one of the dangers in only using 'the vessel' as the unit of anaiysis.

Discussion.

What has been apparent since 1 finished sorting the crossmends clusters onto the lab tables is that there is a substantial diffierence between the vessels found in the West and Centrai Clusters. The attributteanalysis predictably elaborates on this separation, outhg a numba of spdctendencies that occur in each cluster. However, we shouM not forget the ceramic diversity outlined in the intra-cluster analysis. While the attribute analysis nicely highiights the differences between the West and Central Clusters, it also obscures the variabiility with each of these assemblages. This may expose one weahess of an attribute approach. Identifying general tendencies is easy, but we should not be lulled into beiieving that these tendencies capture the diversity employed by individual potters. For example, stating that fine dentate and C stamping typifies ceramic decoration in the West Cluster does an injustice to the creativity of the Younge potters. in eEect, we are in danger of 'losing the trees in the forest'. The disjunction between a generalizing and particularistic approach to cerarnics echoes the therne woven throughout this thesis. in attempting to describe what is typical, whether in culture or in ceramic variability, we corne dangerously close to missing the diversity hidden by Our holistic approach. When this overemphasis is combined with the us ijapproach of style and fundon, it is easy to see how one Mght argue that Younge potters are standardking the use of fine dentate stamps and filled triangles to sipi@ their identity in a borderland situation. If we keep in mind the diversity seen 'arnong the trees', such a conclusion at Van Bree would constitute a substantial error. Adequately understanding what the differences between the clusters sipi@ requires us to consider the diversity within each cluster careniliy as well as the similarities and differences between the two clusters. Murphy and Fems (1990 271-277) have addressed Stothers' (1978) daim that Younge and Glen Meyer are clinai expressions of the same ethnic group. Instead, they argue that these archaeological cultures are entirely different ethnic groups. At Van Bree, the substantial difference between the ceramic materid in the West and Centrai Clusters seems to indicate that the inhabitants of this site were members of two dierent social groups. The clear association of the West Cluster ceramics with the Younge Phase of the Ontario Western Basin and of the Centrai Cluster with Glen Meyer is perhaps more in line with Murphy and Fems' proposal than with Stothers'. In fact, Van Bree may show that these groups remaineci distinct right up to their respective borders. Howeva, we must keep in mind the diversity found within each cluster ifwe want to understand the nature of these interactions. Ethnicity is a complicated and highly variable set of social distinctions and identities! Indeed, sirnply stating that the difrences in ceramics indicate differeat ethnic groups telis us relatively little about the interna1 charaaer of these 'ethnic groups' or the nature of their interaction.

In a general sense, ethnicity may be thought of as the objectification of culture in the light of contact between groups that perceive themselves to be distinct. Ethnicity is not an attribute of a social group, but instead is a relationship between members of two groups who are in contact with each other and perceive the other group tu be culturally different (Eriksen 1993 : 1 1- 12). As Eriksen (1 993 : 18) reminds us,

The first fact of ethnicity is the application of systematic distinctions between insiciers and ouîsiders; between Us and Them. U no such principie exists there can be no ethnicity, since ethaicity presupposes an institutionalized relationship between delineated catcgories whose members consider each other to be culturaiiy distinctive.

The systernatic separation of the two groups objectifies particular cultural characteristics that then corne to represent or epitomize their ethnic differences. Religion, language, or material culture may embody the distinction between Us and ïkm, rewg vague social dinerences in concrete or material terms (Roosens 1989). Nowhere should this be more apparent than in 'cultural' borderlands, where there is an opportunity for intergroup contact and the recognition of these cultural differences. Here, the recognition bat 'Others do things differently' makes taken for granted practices recognizable as somahing ailturally unique. These taken for granted practices move into analytical discourse where the differences between how 'We' do things and how 'They' do things

Several Sevaalt weMews ofcthnicity are present in the üterature, and it is aot my intent to niterate hmhn. Pltase retèr to EriLscn (1993) for a geoaal discussion ofethnicity aod Jones (1997) for a review of dhnicity in arcbf20logy. 61 becomes an object of discussion and concem (Thomas 1996: 78-9;Jones 1997 refers to this as the move from orthodoxy to heterodoxy and Swiddler 1986 as the state of 'unsettled lives'). Often, this concem results in the objectification of some elements of culture, which then corne to act as expticit referents for the ethnic categories. When this occurs, these elements of culture explicitly take on symbolic meanings that are understood by ail participants in the ethnic relationship. Under this scenario, ethnicity should be easy for archaeologists to identify. In areas where ethnicity is particulariy salient like fiontier zones, we should see increased objectification of materiai culture. This should be manifest in the use of standardized stylistic elements that are meant to symboke ethnic identity. To retum to our der discussion of style and function, we should see the presence of iconic style that is explicitly conveying symbolic messages. Because these 'icons' are cornmonly used, they should appear in the archaeological record as durable and relatively homogeneous stylistic attributes (Jones 1997).

Ethnicity and Ceramic Vmation in the West CIuster

Two things are obvious from the data presented earlier. Fust, despite interaction, pottery found in the West Cluster is substantialiy different from the pottery found in the Central Cluster. Second, ceramics recovered from the West Cluster do not display any form of standardkation. Given the ove~ewof ethnicity presented above, we are lefi with a quandq. If the dEerences between the West Cluster and the Central Cluster refiect ethnicity, than why are people in the West Cluster not explicitly signislng their identity through the decorative attributes on their ceramics? The answer initially seems obvious. Not all aspects of rnaterial cuiture are necessarily objectified in ethnically charged environments. As Roosens (1989: 12; also see Barth 1%9: 14) rerninds us:

The dtunl traits by wbich an elhnic group defines itPdfnmr compris the totaüty of the observable culture but are only a combination of some characteristics that the actors ascni to îhemselves and conder relevant. These traits can be replaced by others in tbe course of tiîne. For the vindication of the ethnic group, it is sufficient that a social border bc drawn . . . by me!ans of a few cultural emblems and values that make it difkrent in its own cyes and in the eyes of others.

Hence, what people on the Van Bree site are usiig to sigr@ ethnicity could be something different from the decoration on their pottery. Other than its visibility in the archaeological record, there seems little reason to assume that cerarnic decoration would be an explicit referent of ethnicity. Ifanything, morphology would seem a better candidate because it is observable at pater distances and is less likely to becorning obscured by sooting (See Stemer 1989). Despite my inability to measure it metrically, West Cluster vessels do tend to have a dserent ratio of rhto neck height than the Central Cluster vessels. The frequencies for castellations, scalloping and rim profiles are also noticeably different in each clusters. [fwe could ignore the signifiant differences in size, morphology would be the most likely candidate for iconic style in the West Cluster. There is perhaps a better explanation of the ceramic variability in the West Cluster. The dience of ethnicity is known to Vary extensively across cultural contexts (Eriksen 1993). Rather than a singular social process, ethnicity may be diffierent in its importance to people and the degree that it is expressed. Well-structureci relationships and ethnic symbolism may only ocair when a cohesive group is able to create and maintain some form of "imagineci community" (Smith 1992: 5 13). Rather than the nom, such whesive entities only refiect a smaii subset of the vast spectnirn of ethnic relationships. With this in mind, Handelman (1977) has outlincd a usehl scheme that defines diierent types of ethnic groups. These groups range fiom the cornpletely unstruchired 'ethnic categories' to the corporatdy besed 'ethnic community', with many of these relationships not involwig the use of expiicit ethnic symbols. As 1have rrgued throughout this thesis, the Younge phase of the Ontario Western Bahdoes not seem to represent a cohesive and integrated system. Given this point, it is unlikely we would find weîî structureci ethnic relationships or a large amount of ahnic symbolism in the material culture. To use Handelman's scheme (1 977: 194-196). the diversity in the West Cluster assemblage may indicate that Younge represents an 'ethnic network'. An ethnic network is a group of people that recognize one another as ethnically sirnilm and interact on a semi-regular basis. The network forms "an elementary nexus of social ordei' in which people forge lasting social relationships (Handelman 1977: 195). These relationships are not stntctured, but instead are:

an arrangement of dyadic ties [thati provides a relaîively unfocused organizational nexus, with littic opportunity for the 'standardization' of ethnicity among compmtively large numbers of persons . . . the dyadic exchange of ethnic symbols and resources may bccome quite idiosyncratic and tailod to the aeeds of particular relationships (Handelman 1977: 1%)

In an ethnic network, ceramic variability would not explicitly symbolize ethnicity, but instead would reflect an ethnic 'character' . Much like Sackett 's isochrestic variation @ut without the functional hangups), this type of style would arise from the fm that potters in the network interact with, and are UiOuenced by each other more often than they are by potters outside the network. This mutual influence would result in a reservoir of stylistic elements (See McIntosh 1989; MacEachern 1994). When potters decorate their vessels, they would draw fiom this reservoir in unique and creative ways, making pottery that reflects theù experience within the ethnic network without necessarily confonning to a rigid or narrowly defined style. Indeed, the ceramics Born the West Cluster closely mimic this description. Attributes on the vessels do not combine to fom relatively distinct 'types'; instead, the potters seem to be creatively mWng their decorative motifs. Decorative techniques are reuseû on a ved, which Uely reflects the wnvenience of reusing the same tool during pottery manuface more than it reflects a stylistic stmchire. Perhaps the strongest evidence that Younge is an ethnic network cornes from the fkct that the vessels were made by a sin* grwp of potters. These potters are responsible for an astoundig arnount of variability, hu more than we should expect if style is meant to symbolize ethnicity. Given this mode1 ofethnicity for Younge, it is perhaps surprising that we do not find a greater degree of borrowing between the two clusters. There are some shared decorative elernents that could be the result of inter-ethnic contact. For exarnple, decorative techniques sudi as C starnping and punctates, and basic motifs like simples nght or left could be a produa of interaction. However, the fact that these motifs are made with different decorative techniques (fine dentate stamping in WC and linear starnping in the CC), and are on morphologically different vessels means that the contact has ody producd a small amount of overlap. This sharp border between the two groups could be explained a few ways. First, it may suggest that contact between potten was minor and generally infiequent. Ifpotters in Younge and Glen Meyer are women, and men conducted most of the intergroup contact, female potters may have been unable to interact with their counterparts. On the other hand, it is also possible that interaction occurred between the potters, but that Younge wornen sirnply chose to follow their own ceramic style. Certainly, the differences between the ceramics fiom each cluster were as obvious to Younge and Glen Meyer people one thousand years ago as they are to me in the lab. Yet this recognition of the ceramic dierences did not originate in an explicit attempt to signify ethnicity through a standard set of stylistic emblems. The differences in pottery styles may have been identifid and even enterd anaiytic discourse about ethnicity; but without an integrated social structure the pottery could not be objectified hto a structured set of ethnic emblems. In the face of contact, potters may have simply continued to rnake pottery in the same traditional way.

Ethniciry md Cermic Vanation in the Cenîral Cluster

While the Glen Meyer occupation has not been the focus of this thesis, it is wonh making o few comments on the cefamic variability found in the Central Cluster. Williamson (1990) has arguecl that Glen Meyer settlement-subsistence on the Caradoc Sand Plain is characterized by settled villages with an associated array of smd camps. Horticulture would be practiced at these viliages which would also act as bases from which the small camps would be visited to exploit seasonaiiy available resources. In this way, Glen Meyer continued to use natural resources while aiso adopting the more sedentaq practice of horticulture. Under this model, the Central Cluster occupation at Van Bree is likely an example of one of these small exploitation camps. In contrast to the West Cluster, the homogeneous assemblage in the Central Cluster rnay reflect the corporate life ways of Glen Meyer people and more structureci intra-ethnic relationships. Settled villages would have provided a context where ahnic identities muld be forged and ethnic symbolism shared. Using Handelman (1977: 196- 198), it is Sikely that we can refer to these Glen Meyer villages as 'ethnic cornmunities' that shed common temtories and identified themselves as culturally similar. The relative homogeneity in the Central Cluster pottery could represent a shared understanding of how pottery is properly made and decorated. Whether such a structured relationship also existed among different Glen Meyer villages is another question altogether, for the form of ethnic integration at the village level would not necessarily be the sarne as for villages in a region or even longhouses within a viuage. For example, at the Praying Mantis site (Howie-Langs 1998; personal communication) some decorative attributes are absent from particular longhouses despite hornogeneity across in the entire ceramic assemblage. In addition to villages, this suggests that the longhouses played a role in the creation of corporate identities. Outside the village, ethnic integration may also be highly variable. The ceramic diversity Wtlliamson (1990: 3 18) sees between Caradoc and other regions could be the result of more tenuous ethnic affiliations, perhaps an 'ettuiic association' or even a highiy disperse-'ethnic network'.

Conclusion

It is important to reiterate that these conclusions have been generated nom the use of both a standard attribute dysisand the attempt to idente smd subdivisions Ui the archaeologicai record. It is unlikeiy that this amount of information wuld have bem recovered without the use of a combined approach. The identification of the féature clusters provided a way oflocating subsccupations of the site. Each of these clusters represents the activities of a single group, with the ceramic assemblage from each cluster dernonstrating the variability wielded by a few potters. While the differences in the cerarnics fiom the two clusters likely reflect separate ethnic entities, what these ethnic entities 'mean' on the ground, the degree that they are salient to their members, and how they are manifest in material culture is entirely different. For the Central Cluster, ethnicity is a common venture that may involve the explicit use of symbolism on ceramic vessels. In the West Cluster ethnicity is an important part of personal identity, but it seems to consist of a loose network with little intemal coherence or explicit symbolism. Although it reflects an ethnic character, pottery from the West Cluster is fieely decorated in i~ovative ways. There is an elemrnt of ceramics and 'borderlands' that I have not explicitly discussed in this thesis, but that needs to be made very clear. The conclusions 1 have drawn from the ceramic material may only be applicable to the lives of women in Younge and Glen Meyer culture. If pottery refiects the labors of women, and women are situated in a unique social position within these societies, such that gender ir a salient 'borderland', then what 1 have descnbed in this thesis is not the 'typical' experience within Younge and Glen Meyer culture but only the typical experiences of Younge and Glen Meyer women. This displays a rather dEerent problem with holism. The problem is not a matter of locating cultural borderlands, but ofgiving people in the borderlands their due authorship. nie extent that such a misread factors into this study is unknown, but it would duectly relate to the degree that women alone manufactured ceramic vessels and the degree that their experiences within these ethnic groups were unique. Chapter 5 Conclusions

This thesis has explored non-holistic methodology in archaeology. This methodology is neither radical nor novel, and is used here as an attempt to idente minute contexts in the archaeological record. These contexts give us information on how elements of culture were interpreted and recreated by human agents in the past. As we have seen, such a methodology opens new areas to inquiry and provides important infonnation on the people we wish to study. In this research project, examining the non- hoiistic parts of culture provides information about what the shared elements of culture actually mean. Younge people seem to have lived in a loose ethnic network that, from the evidence at Van Bree, was even manifest in the borderlands. Ah, Younge potters do not make a single 'type' of pottery, but are using an entire reservoir of attributes to expnssively decorative their ceramic vessels. As a tool in our research, holism has given us a substantial amount of information about cultural Me in the past. It gives us access to those aspects of culture shared by the members of a group. In tum, these sharcd characteristics provide a way of identifying distinct social entities and tracking how these entities change over tirne. Xndeed, there is little doubt that holism is a staple in our discipline. Hence, the critiques outlined in the second chapter are of little use if they must eventually lead to hoüsm's outright rejection. Nevertheles, as 1 have attempted to demonstrate, a holistic approach alone does not capture the addivefsity of culture. It is important to remember that holistic models are a tool; they are a means, not an end. Culture is not 'holistic'. ïnstead, it displays holistic tendencies that are accessible through a holistic approach. What we miss when we use holism alone are those parts of culture that are not homogeneous, coherent or discrete. In this light, the critique of holism gives us a new set of tools with which we can begin to explore culture's hidden spaces. From the program of research outlined in this thesis, such an approach seems well withui our potential. The identification of distinct feature clusters at Van Bree by using ceramic crossmends suggests we already have access to very particular sections of the archaeological record. In effect, the tools we need are at Our disposai, we only need to ask the ri& questions. Perhaps the most important conclusion of this thesis is we need to retest many cornfortable assumptions. Holism and style and fundon represent well worn as if approaches that take the 'nature of culture' and the 'nature of material culture' to be settled issues. Clearly, they are not. And while the critiques outlined in Chapter 2 affirm a need to reconsider holism, testing the assurnptions is an entirely empirical matter that must be &ed out through a prograrn of research. Above, understanding how ceramic decoration is used at Van Bree is not done apriori but is decided from the variability within each cluster. Gaining insight into social dynamics in the Western Basin is likewise accomplished by sihiating the variability in the West Cluster within what is known for Younge culture. These questions are not answered from general theory, but from a very specific body of data. The use of specific data is important for another reason. If we consider the critiques of holism, it is possible that sites within a 'culture' could Vary widely. In effect, a site is typicd of the entire culture only when that culture shows a substantial degree of holisrn. In cases üke Van Bree, the site may only be typical of the experiences a very small section of the Younge social network or even a single Glen Meyer village. Border interaction may be entirely different elsewhere dong the Western Basin - 'Iroquoian' fiontier. Riddeii (1998), for example, has suggested that Middle Ontario Lroquoian and Sp~gwelisphase blur ot the Haagsma Site. However, Riddeli's analysis denfrom the extensive use of an as ifapproach that takes the symbolic content of ceramic and settlernent data to be 'a given' at Haagsma. While the site may display cultural borrowing, the degree that this is tme must await an elaboration on the crossmend data and mer testing of the intragroup ceramic variability. Either way, the extent that hybridization or distinctive borders is typical of Younge - Glen Meyer interactions must await further research. My exploration of the non-hoiistic elements of Younge culture is not a rejection of holism in al1 its forms. Cl*, the information gained here has corne fiom the interplay of holistic and non-holistic methodology. We need to use both approaches in our research, one infocming the other Ui a way that allows for healthy critique and concurrent confirmation of hypotheses. To do this, we must recognize that many of our 'givens' are actually as ifassumptions, and retum to Our data to Somus about cultural process. References Cited

bL~ghod,Lila 199 1 Wnting Against Culture. In: Recqturing Anthropfogy: Working in the Present, pp. 137-162, edited by Richard G. Fox, School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series, School of American Research Press: Santa Fe.

Archaeologix. 1998 Archaeofogicd Assement (Stage J), AgHk-32 Greenway Environmental Magement Pit, Wmick Township, iuinbton Cmn& Onlc~io.Report on file with the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, Toronto.

Barth, Fredrik 1969 Introduction. In: Ethnic Groups and Boundaries, pp. 9-38, edited by Fredrik Barth, George Alen & Unwin: London.

Boast, Robin. 1997 A Small Company of Actors: a critique of style. JmmaI of Materiai culture 2(2):173- 198.

Borofsky, Robert. 1994 Rethinkllig the Cultural. In: Aswssing Culiurd AnthropoIogy, pp. 243- 249, edited by Roben Borofsky, McGraw-Hill, New York.

BUiford, Lewis R. 1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28(2):2 17-225. 1965 Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Process. Americun Antiqtrity 3 1(2):203-210.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977 Outfineof a Theory of Pructice. Richard Nice, trans. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge MA.

Brightman, Robert. 1995 Forget Culture: Replacement, Transcendence, Relexification. Culturai Anthropology lû(4): 509-546.

Cm,Chnstopher and JiU E. Neitzel (editors). 1995 Style, Society and Person: Archaeological and Ethologid Perspectives Plenum: New York. CWord, James 1988 The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.

Conkey, Margaret W. 1990 Experimenting with style in archaeology: some bistoncal and theoretical issues. In: The Uses of Style in Archaeology. edited by Margaret W. Conkey and Christine A. Hastorf , pp. 5-1 7, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Conkey, Margaret W. and Joan M. Gero 1997 Program to Pracfice: Gender and Feminism in Archaeology. Anmal Review of Anthropology 26:4 1 1-37.

Conkey, Margaret W.and Christine A. Hastorf 1990 Introduction. In: The Uses of Sryle in Archneolagy, pp. 1-4, edited by Margaret W. Conkey and Christine A. Hastorf ,Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Conkey, Margaret W. and Janet D. Spector 1984 Archaeology and the Study of Gender. In: Aàvmces in Archueological Meihod and Theory, vol. 7, pp. 1-37. edited by M. B. Schiffer, Academic Press: New York.

DuM~,Robert C. 1978 Style and Function: A Fundamental Dichotomy. American Antiquiv 43(2) :1 92-202

Dupré, John. 1993 The Diso~cterof Things: MetaphysicaI F0urmd;atiionr of the Disunity of Science. Cambridge, Mas. Harvard University Press.

Eriksen, Thomas HyUand, 1 993 Elhnicity & NatiomIim: Anthropological Perspectives. Anthropology, Culture & Society Senes. London: Pluto Press.

Fe* N. and R Mayer 1990 Resore ficclv0tfCClVOtfons ut the Yarnge Phase Cherry Lune Site (AaHpdI), Lecrinington, Essex County, Ontario. Report on Fine with the Ministry of Chnship, Culture and Recreation, London.

Giddens, Anthony. 1984 The Coll~llWionof Society: Outline of the Zheory of Sbuchrrution. Polity Press: Cambridge. Gupta, Akhil and James Ferguson. 1992 Beyond "Culture": Space. Identity, and the Politics of DEerence. Current Anthroplogy 7(1):6-23.

Handelman, Don. 1977 The Organization of Ethnicity, Ethnic Groups 1: 187-200.

Hardin, Margaret A. 1977 Individual Style in San José Pottery Painting: The Role of Deliberate Choice, In: The Indivirhral in Prehistory: Studies of Vmability in Style in Prehisioric Technologies, pp. 109-136, edited by I. N. Hill and J. GUM, Academic Press: New York.

Hill, James N. and Joel GUM (editors). 1977 Ine Individuai in Prehistory: Shrdies of Vmiability in Styfe in Prehistoric Technologies. Academic Press: New York.

Hodder, Ian 1986 Redng the Paît: Cwrent Approaches to Intepretation in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Howie-Langq Linda i 998 lk Prayifig Mmtis Site: A Sfudy of Ccrmic Ymiability d Cîîfhcrc~I Behaviour at an EdyIroguoicm Village, Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department of Anthropology, The University of Western Ontario.

Jones, Siân 1997 The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Cott~nuctzngIdkntities in the Pasf m>d Presenî, Routledge: London.

Keenlyside, David L. 1978 Lale Prehistory of Point Pelee, Ontario and Evirom, National Museum of Man, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Mercury Series No. 80, Ottawa.

Keesing, Roger H. 1994 Theories of Culture Revisited. In: Assessing Cultural Anthopology, pp 301-3 12, edited by Robert Borofsky, McGraw-W. New York.

Knauft, Bruce M. 1996 Gemdogiesfor the Present in Cultural Anthropology. Routledge: New York.

Krakker, James 1983 Cbging 2hcimlficrul Systems During the Lore Prehiston'c Petiod of Smtheast Michigan Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept . of Anthropology, University of Michigan.

MacEachern, Scott. 1994 'Syrnbotic reservoirs' and inter-group relations: West Afilcan examples. The Afiim Archueologicc~iReview 12: 205-224.

McIntosh, Roderick. 1989 Middle Niger terracottas before the Symplegades gateway. Afrrcan Arts 22: 7483.

Murphy, C.,and N. Fems. 1990 The Late Woodland Western Basin Tradition of Southwestern Ontario. In: The Archoeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, pp. 189-290, edited by Chris J. Eus and Neal Ferris, Occasional Publications of the London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society No. 5.

Ortner, Sherry B. 1984 Theory in Anthropology since the Sixties. Cornpurdive Studies in Society and History 26: 126-166,

Prevec, Rosemary. i 999 file Vcu, Brer Sile AgHk-32 FdReport. Report in the possession of the author.

Riddell, David. 1998 Habitation md Boun&ry Spbolism in the Northeastern WOOdId: An Archoeolo@cal Case Stuc& of the Hiaagsma Siie (AeHl-33), Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Carleton University.

Rosaldo, Renato. 1988 Ideology, Place, and People wit hout Culture. Culturd Anthropology 3( 1) : 77-87. 1989 Culture md Tnith: The Remaking of Socid Analysis. Bacon Press: Boston.

Roosens, Eugeen E. 1989 Creatàng Ethniciw nie Process of Ethogenesis. Frontiers of Anthropology, Volume 5. London: Sage Publications.

Sackett, James R 1973 Style, function and artifkct vuiabüity in palaeolithic assemblages. In: ïk Es,Ianation of Culture Chge:Models in Prehistory, pp. 3 17-325, edited by Colin Renfiew. Duckworth: London. 1977 The meaning of style in archaeology: a general model. American Antipi9 42(3):369-380. 1982 Approaches to Style in Lithic Archaeology. JmmI of Anthropiogi~~~I Archaeology 1 59-1 12. 1985 Style and ethnicity in the Kalahari: A reply to Wiessner. Amerkm Antipity 50(1): 154-159. l986a Isochrestism and Style: A Clarification. Journal of AnihropoIogicaI Archaeology 5 :266-277. 1986b Style, Function and Assemblage Variability: A reply to Binford. Americm Antipi@ 5 1 (3):628-634.

ScMer, B. M. and James M. Skibo 1997 The Explmation of Artifact Variability. American Antipify 62(2):27-50.

Smith, Michael P. 1992 Podmodemism, urban ethnography, and the new social space of ethnic identity. TheorymdSociety21: 493-531.

Stemer, Judy 1989 Who is signaling whom? Ceramic style, ethnicity and taphonomy among the Sir& Bulahay. Antiquity 63 :451-49.

Stothers, David M. 1978 The Western Basin Tradition: Algonquin or Iroquois? Michigcm Archaeologist 24(1): 1 1-36.

Stothers, David M., James R. Graves, Susan K. Bechtel and Timothy J. Abel. 1994 Current Perspectives on the Late Prehistory of the Westem Lake Erie Region: An Alternative to Murphy and Femis. Archeology of Eaîtern North Americu 22: 135- 196.

Stuiver, M., Reimer, P. J., Bard, E., Beck, J. W., Burr, G. S. Hughen, K. A, Kromer, B., McConnac, F. G., v.d. Plicht, J., and Spurk, M. 1998 Radiocarbon 40: 1041-1083.

Swiddler, Ann 1986 Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies. Amencan Sociologr'cai Review 5 1 :273-286,

Tani, Masakani and WiUam A Longacre. 1999 On methods of measu~gceramic uselie: a revision of the useue estimates of cooking vessels among the Kalinga, Phiiippines. American Antipity 64(2): 299-308. Thomas, Julian 1996 The, Cullwe and Identity: an Interpetive Archaeoiogy. Routledge: London.

Timmins, Peter. 1997 The Caiveri Site :an interpretive framework for the eearS, Iroquoian Village. CdmMuseum of Civilization: Hull, Quebec.

Tshg, Anna Lowenhaupt 1993 In the Realm of the Diamond Queen. Princeton University Press: Princeton.

Wiessner, Poiiy. 1983 Style and social information in Kalahari San Projectile Points. American Antipity 48(2):25 1-276. 1985 Style or isochrestic variation? A reply to Sackett. Americm Antipity 50( 1): 160-166. 1990 1s there a unity to style? In: The Uses of Style in Archoeology, pp. 105- 1 12, edited by Margaret W. Conkey and Christine A. Hastorf , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Williamson, Ronald F. 1990 The Early Iroquoian Penod of Southem Ontario, In: The Archaeology of Southern Ontario tio A. D. I6SO, pp. 29 1- 320, edited by Chris J. EUis and Neal Femq Occasional Publications of the London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society No. 5.

Wobst, Martin. S 1977 Stylistic behavior and information exchange. In: Pqersfor the director: resemh espays in honor of Jmns B. Grzfln, pp. 3 17-342, edited by Charles E. Cleland, Acadernic Press: New York.

WoK Eric. 1994 Facing Power: Old Insights, New Questions. In: Assewhg Cultural Anthropolugy, pp 218-228, edited by Robert Borofsky, McGraw-Hill: New York.

Wright, Susan. 1998 The politicization of 'ailture' . AnthropIogy To

Wyiie, Ahson. 1989 Matters of fact and matters of interest. In: Archueological App~wchesto ~u~~~ Ikntity, pp 94-109, editeâ by S. J Sheman, One Wodd Archaeology Series. Unwin Hyrnan: London. Appendix 1 Vesse1 Diagrams C - Stamping

Linear Stamping

Dentate or Fine Dentate Stamping

Cord Wrapped Stick Impressions

lncising

Cord Impressions

Punctates

Pundate Cluster

Bosses

a...

Appendix 2 Attribute Analysis Attribute Defmitions (&er Howie-Langs 1998).

Variables Attributes Definitions

Rim Forsi: Presence or absence oJcollw or incipient collars Couand Not Coiiated tncipient Collar

Rim Orientation: Rim orientation jbm the point cf inflection Out Flariag In Flaring Straigfit

Rim Ptdile (interior & exterior): Profile of the rim sur/accficom lip io the start ofthe neck Concave Convex Stsaight

Lip Form: Morphology of the lip

Presence or absence oJpmirusions along the rim Present Not hsent Scalloging (Multiples Present)

Size Attributes (cm): Rim Height Lip to point of infection Ne& Height Point of infiction to maximum dimeter of the body Rim Thickness Maximum thicknes of the rim wall Ne& Thickness Maximum thickness of the neck wall Body Thickness Maximum thickness ofthe body wdl Variables Attributes De finitions

Number of decorative ban& in each zone of the vesse1

Number of Exterior Rim Bands Number of Exterior Neck Bands Number of Interior Rim Bands Number of Iaterior Ne& Bands

korotiveTechnique (pet band):

Linear Stamp Smaoth tool stamping Dentate Stamp Toothed tool stcunping Fine Deniate Stamp Very sdltm thed tool stmnping (i. e. jîsh mandible) 'C' Smp Clusters of 'C'shaped tool stampr Cord Wrapped Stick Stick wrapped with cord stamping incising Drawing across the surface Punctate Blunt and usudy circultw or ovoid tml stmp Punctate Cluster Group of4 punetates Boss Raised surface caused by and opposite a punctate

Decorative Motifs (pet bruid):

Simples Regvlar tool impressionsfonning ajlled bmd (no direction) Simples Left Oblique tool impressions or incising siartted down to the lep Simples Right Oblique toof impressions or incising slanted down to the right Oblique tool intpre~~~~o~~~or incising in a hatched pattern Simples Vertical Vertical tool impressions or incising Simples Aitemting Oblique tml impressions or incisjng with alternating simples lefl and right Horizontals Horizontal tool impress~~onsor incising Cbtvrons 'V*shaped tool impsions or incising Triangles Triangular motifs

Motif Madifrers:

for Simples Motif extends beyond o single band Band is occmastonaliyinterrupted

for Triangles Frlled Trimgles rve fled Iaverted Triangles are point dom Appendix 3 Bargraphs

Figure 4.5: Exterior Dccorativc Techniques (Continued)

Coullta Rdativt Oh - Weiit Cluster Relative ./. - Central CIulrLer e) Neck Band 1

mm-- Rrm MW- mis CLnp --- SimpicnidContad

Neck Band 2

7- ~ki-- ckm - - Na- Figure 4.5: Exterior Decorative Techniques (Continucd)

Couab Rdativt % - West Cluster Relative Y* - Centrai Cluster g) Neck Band 3

Figure 4.6: Interior Decorative Twbniquer (Continued)

Count8

CJ Rim Band 3

Figure 4.8: Interior Decorativc Motifs (Cootinucd)

Couet8

C) RhBand 3

4 Neck Band I Appendix 4 Frequency Tables Morphology

Rim Form

Count 13 16 % within Rim Form 39.4% 48.5% % wiuiin Simplified Context 1ûû.OY0 66.7% % ofTotal 31.0% 38.1%

% within RhForm 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% % within Simplified Context 8.3% 20.00! 7.1 % of Totai 4.8% 2.4% 7.1% Count 6 C %witbinRimForm 100.W0 100.0% 25.0% i4.3Yi

Complexity

ExteAr Rim

Exterior Neck

Deco rative Techniques

Exterior Tecbniquea

Caae Practsrinn Summarv

Techniaue Exterior Rim 1

Tccbniaue Exterior Rim 4

Cwnt 1 % within Technique Exterior Run 4 100.00/0 % within Simplified Context 5.9% % ofTotal 3.2% Count 10 15 4 %withinTechniqqwExteriorRun4 34.5% 51.7% 13.8% % within Simpliaed Conttxt 100.0% 88.2% lûû.OO/r %&Total 32.3% 48.4% 12.9% Count 1 % within Technique Exterior Rim 4 100.0?4 % within Simplifieci Coatext 5.9%) % of Total 3.2% Count 10 17 4 % within Technique EMerior Rim 4 32.3% 54.8% 12.9% % within Simplified Context 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Techniam Eirterior Neck 1 Technime Exterior Neck 2

Tefhnioue Exterior Neck 5 laterior Technique

% within Technique Interior Rh3

Techniaut Interior Neck 2 % within Technique In&rior Neck % within Simplifieû Context Decorative Motifs

Exterior Decornthe Motifs

Motif Estcrior Rim 1

Motif Estcrior Rim 3

withinUotifExterior Rim 3 withüi SUnpIified Context

Motif Exterior Neck 3 DfTotal

% within Motif Exterior Neck 3 27.3% 54.5% 18.2% % within Simplifieci Context 42.9% 75.0% 66.7% % ofTotal 16.7?! 33.3% 11.1% Cwnt 1 % within Mdif Exterior Neck 3 100.00? % within Simplified Coatext 14.3% % ofTotal 5.6% Count 1 % within Motif Exterior Neck 3 100.0% % within Simpüiïed Context 14.3% % ofTotal 5.6% Cwnt 7 8 3 % within Motif Exteriot Neck 3 38.9% 44.4% 16.7% % within Simplified Cootext 100.00/o 100.00/o 100.00A of Total Motif Exterior Neck 6 % within Motif Exterior Neck 6 % witbia Sünplined Context

Interior Motifs Motif Interior Rim 2

% within Motif interior Neck 1 100.0% % witbin SimpLified Context 6.3%

% within Motif Interior Ne& 1 100.0Y0 % within Simpüfied Contcxt 6.3%

% withh Motif Interior Neck 1 33.3% 66.7% % within Simplifieci Context 12.5% 12.5%

% wiihin Motif Interior Nedt 1 100.0% % within Simptified Context 25.W

5 12 d % within Motif Interior Ne& 1 23.8% 57.1% 19.001 % wifhin Simplined Context 62.5% 75.0% 100.00, 17.9% 42.9% 14.33

within Motif Interior Ne& 1 28.6% 57.1% 14-37 within Simplifiai Coniext 100.0% 100.00! I00.E

Motif Interior Neck 2

Necksherds

Exterior % within Extedot Technique 1 % within Contcrd Case Proceoain~Summnrv

Erterior Motif 1 Exterior Motif 2 Case PdnSummarv

% within Interior Motif 1 % within Context

Interior Motif 2

Cwnt 13 8 3 % within Interior Motif 2 54.2% 33.3% 12.5% % within Context 100.0% 100.00/o 100.0% % ofTotal 54.2% 33.3% 12.5% Count % within Interior Motif 2 % within Context Vita

Jerimy Jason Cunningham

Place of Birth: Eckville, Alberta, 1972.

University of Calgary Calgary, Alberta, Canada 1990- 1 994 B.A ( 1a Class Honors)

University of Western Ontario London, Ontario, Canada 1997-1999 M.A.

Honors & Awards Special University Scholarship (1 997- 1998, 1 998- 1999)

Louis MacKinney Scholwship for Acadernic Excellence (1993)

Related Work Teaching Assistant Experience: The University of Westem Ontario, London. (1 997- 1999)

Research Assistant Archaeological Services hc.,Toronto. (Summers 1998, 1999)

Research Assistant Fdichuk McCullough & Assoc. Ltd., Calgary. (1 995- 1997)

Assistant Collections Manager Archaeologicaî Services, Parks Canada, Calgay. (1 994)

Teaching Assistant, Crew SupeMsor. Red Deer College Field School, Price, UT. (1993)

Publications:

1998 Style in Contart. Western Jmdof Grhate Resewch 7(1): 9-1 6. 1994 Use-wear Andysis of Pre-Mazama Lithics from BanffNational Park. Paper presented at the CdianArchaeological Association Meetings, Edmonton, Alberta. 1993 Alpine Archaic Lithic Assemblages from the Wasatch Mountains of Central Utah. (with Shawn Haley and Lynn Malinowski) Paper presented at the Society for American Archaeology Meetings, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvmia -