I

ETHNICITY AND CULTURE

CHACMOOL
THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

ETHNICITY AND CULTURE

Proceedings of the Eighteenth
Annual Conference
of the
The Archaeological Association
of the
University of Calgary

Edited by:
Reginald Auger,
Margaret F. Glass,
Scott MacEachern,
and Peter H. McCartney

The University of Calgary

Archaeological Association, 1987
ISBN 0-88953-098-X

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by
any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage
and retrieval system, without written permission by the publisher.
d

First printing: November, 1987

For additional copies apply to:
Archaeological Association
Department of Archaeology
University of Calgw,
Calgary, Alberta
Canada
T2N I N 4

If

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
PERSPECTIVES ON ETHNICITY

.....................................................vi
..................... 1

Folk Generalisations and Expert Generalizations about Human Differences

Doyle G. Hatt
History, Ethnography and Class Struggle
Daurd G . Whrtejield

......................................................
5

Ethnic Phenomena and Contemporary Social Theory: Their Implications for

Archaeology .................................................................................
15
Norman Buchignani

SECTION I
FENCES AND BRIDGIlCS, ENEMIES AND FRIENDS
. .
27
The Body as Social Slgnal ...................................................................
Sura Stinson

Symbols and Skins: Telling Friends from Enemies in Luzon, The Phillipines
William K . Macdonald

...................33

You Are What You Don't Eat: Yet Another Look a t Food Taboos in Amazonia
Warren R. DeBoer
Style as a Social Boundary Marker: A Plains Indian Example
Castle McLaughlzn
Men of Iron and Social Boundaries in Northern Kenya
Roy Larick
Notes on and for Friends and Enemies
Susnn Kus

...............45

................................

55

........................................ 67

........................................................
77

SECTION I1
ETHNICITY IN COMPLEX SOCIETIES
Enclaves, Ethnicity, and the Archaeological Record at Matacapan
Robert S. Santley, Clare Yurborough and Barbara A . Hall
Language and Style in the Peruvian Moritafia
Patricia J . Lyons

............................ 85

............................................... 101

Ethnic Boundaries within the Inca Empire: Evidence from Huanuco, Peru
Sue Grosboll

...................

115

SECTION 111
IDENTIFICATION OF ETHNICITY I N THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD
Some Comments on the Ethnic Identity of the Taino-Carib Frontier
Louis Allaire

......................... 127

Information Load of "African' Ceramics in West Africa and the

American Southeast ........................................................................ 135
Matthew H. Hill

....................................

141

.............................................

155

Archaeological Ethnicity and the Prel~istoryof Labrador

Wzllzam W. Fztzhugh
Current Research
Flora Church

OIL

Ohio's Prehistoric Textiles

Rootnsize Patterns: A Quantitative Method for Approaching Ethnic

. .
Identificat~onIn Architecture ................................................................ 163
Stuart J . Baldwin
The Initial Ide~~tification
of a People as Polyilesian in Race,
Language and Culture ...................................................................... 175
Roger C. Green
Archaeoethnic Research and the Ontario Iroquoians
Martha A . Latta

.........................................

181

An Expression of Confidence Archaeological Evidence for Ethnicity in

Dawson City, Yukon Territory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .191
Braan D Ross

SECTION IV
TRACING ETHNIC G R O U P S O N THE NORTHWEST COAST
Coast Salish Origins: Ethnicity and Time Depth in Northwest Coast Prehistory
Davzd V . Burley and Owen B. Beattze
The Tsimshiart Are Carrier
John W . Ives

.............

199

...................

Projectile Point and Lithic Assemblage: Ethnicity in Interior

British Columbia ...........................................................................
227
Martin Magne and R.G. Matson
Cultural Diversity Within the Coast Salish C o ~ ~ t i n u u m
......................................243
Wayne Suttles
The Potential of Basketry for Reconstructing Cultural Diversity on the
Nort,l~west,Coast ............................................................................ 251
Kathryn Bernick
Locarno Beach at Hoko River, Olympic Peninsula, Washington:
Makah/Nootkan, Salishan, Chimaklran or Who? ............................................ 259
Dale Croes

SECTION V
CASE STUDIES FROM THE ETHNOGRAPHIC RECORD
Clothing and Textiles as Symbol on Nineteenth Century Arctic
..
.................................................................................287
Expedltlons
Barbara F. Schweqer
Textile Crafts at Early Agricultural Fairs in Alberta and Saskatchewan, 1880-1915
Marcke Kerkhoven

........... 293

Ethnicity and Cultural Survival: The O~nallaTribe ......................................... 297

Robin Ridinqton
Etllnic Persistence and Identity: The Material Culture of Ukrainian Albertans ............... 303
Heinz Pyszczyk

PREFACE
A primary concern ia current archaeology is
t o describe the past in terms of actual groups
of people rat,her than artefact complexes alose.
Ethnicity is but orle type of group definition that
is meaningful in anthropological theory and poLentially recoverable in the archaeological record.
The theme of the Eighteenth Allnual Cllacmoo1 Corlfererice was Ethnicity and Culture. The
broad scope of the topic e~rcoi~raged
participation
from a wide range of research interests within
the social sciences. We invited contributors from
a n"mber of fields in which ethlricity is an important theoretical and descriptive coacept. Archaeologists, cultural/social antl~ropologists,linguists, and historians jointly i~rvestigatedthe definition, meaning, and utility of the concept of
ethnicity in relation to the broader construct of
culture.
A number of people contributed to the success of the conference. We wish to express our
gratitude to the symposia chairpersons and participants. Our thanks are extended to students a t
the Department of Archaeology who contributed
their time as volunteers to help in the various
aspects of the conference organisation. Secretarial staff and faculty members were also of much
help. Anima Islam and Sandi Peacock did the
word processing, while Elizabeth LeMoine provided the cover design for the volume.
Financial support for the conference was offered by the Department of Arclraeology, and the
Archaeological Association a t the University of
Calgary. We also received fundiug from the Arctic Institute of North America, Canadian Superior Oil Ltd, Mr. O.A. Erdman, Esso Resources
Ltd., Faculty of Social Sciences of the Urliversity
of Calgary, Fedirchuck, McCullougl~and Associates Ltd., Mr. Raymond R. Mahaffey, Research

Grants Committee, University of Calgary, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Cour~cilof
Canada, and Trans-Canada Resources, Ltd. Finally, the Uuiversity of Calgary Special Projects
Fund and the Graduate Student Association contributed fundings towards publication of the proceedings.
We hope that this publication will reach the
audience that was unable to attend the conference and will add to a growing body of literature
on the concept of ethnicity. Not all the papers
presented during the conference lrave been submitted for publication. Tlrirty are included in
this volume, and they are grouped according to
major themes addressed during the conference.
The introductory papers were part of the plenary
session; the followi~lgsections include: ethnicity as it is expressed at boundaries, a section on
ethnicity in co~nplexsocieties, the identification
of ethnicity in the archaeological record, tracing
ethnic groups on the Northwest Coast, and case
studies from the ethnographic record.
Although the quality and format of the manuscripts submitted covered a wide range, we have
kept editorial modifications to a minimum. The
volume was formatted using the LATEX Docunrent Preparation Systern and was printed on the
QMS LaserGraiix printer. We accept responsibility for any errors that may have escaped editorial
scrutiny.

Rkginald Auger
Margaret F. Glass
Scott MacEachern
Peter H . McCartney

ETHNICITY A N D CULTURE

PERSPECTIVES ON ETHNICITY

FOLK GENERALIZATIONS AND EXPERT

GENERALIZATIONS ABOUT HUMAN
DIFFERENCES
D.G. Hatt
Department of Antllropology
University of Calgary
Calgary, Alberta

I would like t o stake out the subject matter

t o which this short paper is addressed by relating a personal incident. In the first introductory
anthropology class I ever taught, 1 was in a department where tlle textbook was selected by the
head of the department, and lowly sessional instructors were obliged t o follow it closely. The
text in questio~lwas Conrad Kottak's Introduction to Anthropology (although for purposes of
this account it might have been a111lost any introdnctory t.ext), and I dntifully planned ~ n lectures
y
t o dovet,ail wit11 its chapter organization. When
t h e class had arrived a.t the chapt,er on 1ruma11
physical variation, I took my cue from the t,ext
a n d began Iny lect,ure with some general com1ne11ts on the short.comings of man-in-the-street.
views of race. I spoke of t h e way in which culturally specific conceptions of race 1,end to focus on single features (skin pigmentation, hair
t.ype: etc.), of the way in which such physical
feat,ures tend objectively to vary independently
in geographical populations, and I spoke of tlre
social a n d perceptual processes t h a t go into the
construction of racial concepts and stereot,ypes.
Like the text, I co~rcludedby saying that, from
a strictly scientific point of view, there were no
such tllirlgs as races, and t h a t the concept of races
a s discreLe entities betokened a kind of idealism
whicll was a hirrdrance in trying t o understand
h u n ~ a nvariability. 1 then went on to discuss how
anthropologists, as opposed t o rnen-in-the-street,
approach human variation and - always dutiful
- alluded t o t l ~ etext's summatiotr of the gross
distribution of biological populations (geographical races) around the world. Most of the students copied down the chart I had drawn on the
blackboard, but one student raised her hand and
asked, '1 don't understand: if anthropologists

don't believe there are such things a s races, why

d o they write chapters of books about them."
Good question. Of course, a t the time I Instened t o explain t h a t there was a diference between the lay usage of berms and t h e technical
usage of terrns a~rrongstprofessionals who are
trained in empirical methodology and who are
aware of the c o ~ ~ c e p t u limitations
al
of the terms
they use. I explained how the sheer numbers of
bits of empirical d a t a wit11 which physical anthropologists work, and the complex statistical
associatio~lsamong them, made i t necessary to
colrstruct categories t o sunl~narieethe broader
associations of the variables. I said t h a t , ultimately, tlle difference was t,llat antlrropologists
were aware t h a t their categories were artificial they were heuristic devices ( I r e ~ n e m b e rurriting
this term on the blackboard), tools t o manage
manifold facts, t o be revised o r even discarded if
they got in the way.
I arn not certain wlretlrer my answer really satisfied t.l~e inquisitive student, but she did not,
appear to be troubled when l had finished and
she did not pursue t h e point. Thus in tlle context of the classroom situation, I had 'managed'
t h e quest,ion; I had provided a n authoritative allswer, perhaps added a new word (heuristic) t o
some students' vocabularies, and my recollection
is t h a t I felt I had handled t h e question reasonably well.
One is, of course, always grateful t o escape
from traps with one's skin intact, but, from my
present. va~rtagepoint, I a m iaclined t o think
more highly of t,lle question tlrarl of my answer.
Indeed, it seems t o m e a question which anthropologists ought t o ask themselves more often.
T h e question phrased in terms of 'race' is really
paradig~nat,icof a whole range of questions t h a t

E T H N I C l T Y AhrD CULTURE

could be inflected out of it, one each for nearly tional' as t.l~oseof literature. In their way, ethnoall of our major professional concepts: culture, graphic accounts of peoples probably tell us n ~ o r e
society, class, ethnic group, etc. - all those con- about the culture of the etlrnographer than they
cepts used by the man-or-woman-in-the-street, do about the people about wlrom they purport
and which are also used, eve11 if only 'heuristi- t o be all objective account. For example, if the
cally', by anthropologists in tlieir daily work.
title page were missing from a published et,lnrogIn each case, a s with t h e concept 'race', an- raphy and it was not possible t o determine the
thropological endeavour i~rvolvesa similar para- identity of the author, a hypothetical bibliogradox. Anthropology c o u ~ ~ anrong
ts
its greatest pher of the future could probably deduce from
accomplishmerits the deconstruction of man-in- internal evidence t h e nationality and sex of the
the-street concepts like 'race', 'ethnic group' and ethnographer, place l l i ~ no r her within a decade
'class'. By d e c o ~ ~ s t r u c t i oI nmean showing the so- and probably make a good guess as t o the ethnocial ends which are furthered by dividing u p real- grapher's university affiliation. All this could be
ity in sonie particular way and sustaining belief gleaned from the principles of selectivity implicit.
i a t,he categories thus created. D e c o n s t r u c t ~ i o ~or
~ explicit i a the construction of the work.
t.herefore ir~volvesa demonstration of the princiT h a t ethnography is selective and t h a t it reples on which categories are constructed and tlie flects a good deal of w h a t the ethnographer
brings to the field is, of course, not news. No
social i n o t i v a t i o ~of~ the construction.
y been quite sophis- eth~rograplrert,hinks he is rnerely writing down
But while a ~ ~ t h r o p o l o ghas
ticat,ed in its deconstruction of folk concepts, i t observations of facts: it is a converition of the
has been simultaneously engaged in its own pro- ethnographic genre t o make one's t,lleoretical
gram of coast,ruction. By this I mean the man- frariiework explicit - t o make it clear what counts
ufact,ure of its own shared realities in t h e form as a 'fact,' for purposes of t h e study and what
of ar~thropologicalversions of cultural, l i ~ ~ g u i s -does~l't, And i t is a convention t o display solne
tic and ethnic groups. Just as the Old West ex- awareness of the ambiguity of categorical terms
ists as a separate reality in tlre genre of Western - not. just. t o talk about cultures, ethnic groups
movies (in which t l ~ e r ehave probably been more and tribes as if they were natural species, but to
shoot out,^, stage-coach l ~ o l d r ~ pand
s posses thnn- say "when I say 'tribe' I mean t f ~ elargest level
d e r i ~ i gacross the prairie than there ever were in of grouping witlri~lwlricl~there are some mecha..
the short historical and cult,ural period t,o which nisrns for t.lre resolution of dispntes" o r something
t h e genre refers), so the ethnic groups of anthro- of t h a t sort. Thus anthropologists use terms like
pologists are a realit,y separate from the human 'people', 'culture', 'society' a n d so forth, but they
beings t o which they refer. I d o not doubt t h a t d o it with some self-awareness of t h e cor~structed
there are, in t h e Southern Sudan, real people nature of the categories and berms, of their artiwho think of themselves ( a t least occasionally) as ficialness. At any rate, they feel obliged to show
Nuer, but what I want to point out is tbc epis- this awareness in Chapter One. What. I ani asktemological difference between t11e1n and wllat. I ing here is whether t h e n~ethodologicalniceties of
shall call 'the Anthropological Nuer' - the Nuer Chapter One are kept in mind by the time author
we recognize and talk about in Evans-Pritcl~ard's and reader get t o Clrapter Four or Five. Because
and Howell's monographs. T h e 'Arrtlrropological d e c l a r a t i o ~of~ self-awareness of the construct. staNuer' (or Anthropological Aztecs, or Anthropo- t u s of one's concepts is a literary corlvention of
logical Trobriand Islanders, n o t t o mention those ethnographic writing - like starting out a lett,er
Anthropological Samoans who remain suspended with 'Dear Sir or Madam' - its iniplicat,ions are
somewhere between Masgaret. Mead and Derek too easily submerged by t,lie necessity t o generalFreeman) are constructs: they are creations of ize.
How may ethnographies s t a r t out by scrupuanthropologists, just as War and Peace is t h e creation of Leo Tolstoy. In lumping together famous lously pointing out hou; t h e hou~ldariesof the
ethnographies with a famous work of fiction - people or bribe under study are fuzzy and indeand thereby violating a classificatory convention termhabe, how the people on t h e edges in fact
of my own culture - I do n o t mean t o imply disre- have more traits i a common wit.h their immedispect. toward the famous ethnograpl~erswho cre- ate neighbours (who are excluded from t h e st.udy)
ated t11en1. Rather I d o so in order to make the than they d o with lneliibcrs of t h e 'same' groap
point t h a t 'non-fiction' is subject to conventions far away (who are includzd in t.he study) - tacof construction which are every bit as 'conven- it,ly ackl~owledgingthe arbit.rariness of the delim-

Hat t/FOLK GENERALJZATIOA'S

i t , a t i o ~of~ the group whose social system or cul- in tlre way it classifies liumans, it is itself emture is going to be expertly analysed, but tlien, bedded in social process, contains its predictable
a couple of dozen pages later lapse into treat- own cognit,ive syndromes (among which I have
ing the society or cult,ure as if it were a dis- highlighted the 'lapse into reification' in ethnogtinct species, separated from other n~embersof raphy) and is not perhaps so very different, f r o ~ n
its genus as robins are separate from bluebirds? folk knowledge as we urould like to believe.
Most ethnographies, I think, have this s y n d r o i ~ ~ e My point in alludilig to these tl~irigsis not
of lapse-into-reification in them; it is an occupa- that, in being aware of them, we shall avoid
tional hasard of etlrnograpliers. Thong11 start- them. If we were to be continually mindful of
ing off with a sophisticated awareness of the con- the episten~ologicalunderpinnings of our work,
struct or art,ificial status of their entities of analy- we would never get any work done. It is the pesis (societies, culture-bearing-units or whatever), culiar nature of anthropology that our subject,
it is all too easy t o slip into thinking that one lras matter keeps leading us back to self-awa.reness
'found' what in fact one lias creat,ed. The asser- of the very cogi~itiveprocesses whereby we aption t h a t the tribes and ethnic groups of Africa prehend our subject matter in the first place. It
are largely the creation of Eliropear~antliropolo- is an iiiescapable part of anthropological inquiry
that we are trapped in a dialectic of awarenessgists has more than a grain of truth to it.
Imagine, for example, a P1r.D. student return- of-reification and lapse-into-reification.
ing from two years in the field in Africa, wit11
trunks full of field notes, and co~~fessing
to his
supervisor tliat 11enever managed t.o locate a people to study. He traced continuous variatiorr in
dozens of variables, wandering over half the continent, and, tliouglr he found some occasional discontinuities, he was never able to get more than
a very few of tlie~nto mat,ch up. He asked hundreds of people who they were and got endless
confusion for his trouble. There was tlre m m in
the Sudan who, when an Arab was present, said
he was an Arab but who, when an Arab was not
present, called hiiriself a Beja. There was the
woman in Morocco wlrom the urban folk called
a Berber but who said she had never heard of
the Berbers, being a Riffi herself, wliicll was the
same thing as an Arab. And there was the Inan
in Nigeria who, when asked whetlier he was a
Hausa, a Fulani or .imply a Nigerian, said 'yes'
- t,o all three.
Anyone who has ever dolie an etl~nograpliic
survey on a contiirerital land inass knows the
problem. That world out there is not so neatly
patterned as the world of pablished ethnographies. Our i~naginaryethriographer who went
out to locate etl~nicgroups and couldn't find any
nliglrt. be in line for an award for 11onest.y, but
11e'll never get his tliesis (all 3,000 pages of it)
finished before his deadline rur~eout.
Having been kindly invited by the organizers of
this conference 1.0 preface it. wirlr a few remarks
on its tlreine from tlie perspective of social antlrropology, I have chosen to dwell or1 tlie paradox of antlrropological 'expertise' in the classificatioii of human beings. While antlrropological
knowledge is indeed different from folk knowledge

ETHNICITY AND CULTURE

HISTORY, ETHNOGRAPHY AND CLASS

STRUGGLE
David G . Whitefield
History Department
University of Calgary
Calgary, Alberta

History is a subject whose study in the Englislr language covers a multitude of sins, and has
rnore t h a n a few virtues. It is overwhelmingly
c o ~ ~ c e r r ~with
e d tlie niore-or-less eclect,ic iavestigation of problerrls of a relatively local or regional
kind, such a s tlre history of part,icular countries o r
regions during historically brief periods, usually
concerned with t l ~ eaffairs or instit,ntions of elites
(Carr 1981). Its most widely used source material is the written word, with 'scientific' lristory
in this context. overwhelmingly concerned wit11
textual analysis, chronology and t,he like. Tlris
kind of history has been disnrissed by Althusser
o r his followers, wlro insist t h a t science "as a
tlieoretical and political practice, gains nothing
from its associat,ion witlr llistorical writing and
historical researcli. T h e study of history is n o t
only scient,ifically but also politically valueless"
(Hindless and Quirst 1975; Tliompson 1978); a
n o kinder assessment than t h a t made by some
functionalist arrtlrropologists wlio claim t h a t "the
historian can only provide us wit11 tlie succession
of accidental events u~lricblrave caused a society
t o be what i t is" (Evans Pritclrard 1964; Godelier 1972). Perliaps most important in a Nortlr
American context, llistory has been decisively repudiated by Henry Ford, who pronounced i t t o
be junk, a subject on wllich Ire was cert,ainly an
authority.

SCIENTIFIC HISTORY AND THE

WORLD HISTORICAL TRIAD
Scientific history, on tlie other hand, based on
a consist,ent,lymaterialist outlook, approaches its
subject matter from a somewhat different direction, seeking t,o find the intercon~lectionsbetweetr
different social phenomena, and to establisfr general laws concerning them, in t.he same way a s
in the natural sciences. One sucll scientific generalization, which is of great importance for tire

subject whiclr we are discussi~lga t this conference, is the t,lreory of the World Historical Triad
(Herrmann 1986) which sun~nrarizesand establishes a morplrology of what is known of human
experience, or history. It divides that. experience
into three grand formations, of a progressive and
overlapping nature.
T h e first of these is called gentile society, charl
a relatively low
acterized by c o ~ m n u n aproperty;
lcvel of division of labour; by a tendency towards
gender collaboration, and towards I-elationships
among people beirrg organized according t o kinship, as opposed t o class, conrrect~ions.Gentile society contains the two modes of production which
are known, in old fashioned vocabulary, as savagery and barbarism, and existed from t,he earliest stage of distirrct liurnan experience until quite
modern times.
T h e second grand formation is called class society, containhrg the rnodes of production know^^
a s Asiatic despotism, classical slave society, feudalism and capitalism, characterized by t h e existence of private property, social class, exploitabion, tile state, and so on. Class society has
existed s i ~ ~ cthe
e first forms of the Asiatic system emerged, in parts of tlre Orient and the Nile
Valley, perlraps in t h e late Neolithic period. Of
course, it survives until today.
T h e third grand formation is socialismcornmunisni, wlliclr lras existed since 1917, and
seems to lrave established its viability. It is associated with the witlrering away of private property, social class, exploitation and the state, a n d
with the establislrment of social property.

MATERIALIST ETHNOGRAPHY AND

THE GRAND FORMATIONS
Within tlris general scheme the various disciplines of the historical sciences have marked o u t
their areas of specialization. Archaeologists have

been largely (though trot exclusively) concerned

wit11 study of the first two modes of production
within the class grand formation, and of t h e gentile forms chronologically o r geographically peripheral t o them. History 11as been overwlielming concerned with the latter t,wo modes of class
society (Herrmann 1985). Materialist etlrriography is t,lre science, first of all, of the study of the
gentile grand formation in its entirety. It differs
from anthropology in a number of ways, for example in its consistent effort t o find connections
and t o identify general laws, t h a t is t o be scientific; in its acceptance of t,he theory of progress,
with all of i t s qualifications; a n d in its epistemology, wlrich insists (,hat t h e proof of scient,ific
propositions rests in their pract,ical application.
Among the rnost important concepts within
nraterialist ethnography is t,lrat of t,lie rthnos
(Brornley 1980). A variety of etllnos types have
been identified. Within celltile
societv.
"
,, t h e eenera1 ethnos form is tlre t,ribe, wliich conrprises
the various assortment of gent.ile arra~rgenrents
associated with the gens, the clan, the phratry,
certain kinds of family, and tlre like. T h e tribe
ie not, however, the highest o r final stage in ethnos development. Class society and socinlismcomniunism b o t h have their ethnos forms. Classical antiquity arid feudalism are associat,ed witli
t,l~eethnos krrowrl a s nationality; capitalism a n d
socialisnr are identified wit,lr nations. Tlre subject
matter of materialist ethnography is not limited,
then, t o tlre study of gentile grand formation, but
continues into class a n d post-class relationships,
suggesting some lines of inqniry for historians and
archaeologists (Petrova-Averkieva 1980).
For example, ethnography can not ignore a
question which is of more than passing importance t,o historians, namely t.he nature of t h e processes whereby gentile society transformed itself
into class society. T h e first form of class society, the Asiaric o r Orie~it,aldespotic mode of productioa, had its origins exclusively in t h e gentile
s y a t e ~ n . While the Asiatic mode played a part
ia t,lre subsequent development of classical slave
society, tlre influences which gave rise t o t h e latter seem t o have much more t o do with gentile
than with class conditions. For example, classical slave society is inconceivable witlrout the arrangenrents associated with the Iron Age level of
production forces, a level which was first achieved
among such peoples of a tribal nature as t h e Hittibes. Similarly, tlre classical slave mode of production is associated wit11 t,he private ownership
of the most important pre-moderr, means of pro-

ETHNIClTY AhrD CULTURE

duction, land and labour. Private property in

land seenrs t o have emerged from the practice of
privat,e possession of land for general productio~r
purposes, associated wit,h t h e patriarchal household unit, which may well have been unique to
regions which were developed by gentile peoples
from tlre late Bronze Age, a n d which are associated wit11 Europe, and well away from t h e influence of t h e Asiatic mode (Herrmann 1966). In
t h e same way, feudalism is seen as a synthesis of
classical slave and gentile social relationships, in
whicli it was t h e tribal peoples who overwhelmed
a n d settled in the lands of the Roman Empire
t h a t played the dyrramic role. Gentile society
stands as the beginning point for t h e discussion
of class society in three of tlre four forms of the
latter's development.
M I L I T A R Y D E M O C R A C Y A N D THE
EMERGENCE O F CLASS SOCIETIES
An obvious qnest,iorr is wlretlrer any general
statement can b e made coricerni~rgt h e process
of transformation which links these three distinct
transit,ionary i n c i d e ~ ~together.
ts
An atterirpt l ~ a s
been made recently t o d o just t h a t , and t o identify the general form o r process of t.ransformation
of gentile society t o class society in terms which
have been named "nlilitary democracyn. According t o this t h e o r y l ( H e r r ~ n a n n1982), which
is based on t.he study of monographic and other
sources c o n c e r n i ~ ~most.
g
of t h e appropriate reg
hisgions of t h e world, i n c l u d i ~ ~a.rchaeologica1,
torical, ethnograpliic, linguistic a n d other forms
of evidence, tlre same general pattern is t o be
seen in all three of t h e transitionary incidents.
Military democracy has i t s economic basis in
a level of ecorronric development quantitatively
and qualitatively capable of producing a surplus
a n d of allowing for the division of labour and social stratification which will be discussed next.
P a r t of t h e process of developing this surplus involved the settling of tribes into fairly defined
areas, and t,he establishment among the tribes of
territoriality. This often involved the seizure or
p r o t e c t i o ~of~ land by military force, the victory
of one bribe or part of a tribe over another, and
t h e emergence of tribute and other forms of exploitation and subordinat,ion among t,hem. These
conditions seem first to have existed in parts of
t,he Orient and Nile Valley on the basis of Neolitlric production tech~riques. In Asia Minor,
t h e Aegean, parts of t h e urestern Mediterranean,
in China, South East Asia and Central America,

Whiteiield/WISTORY,ETHA'OGRAPHIrAArD CLASS STRUGGLE

condit,ions for the first emergence of surplus production were not achieved until the Bronze Age.
Appropriate conditions were not reached iri t h e
temperate zones until the development of Iron
Age technology and production forces.
Socially, military den~ocracyinvolves the existence of a number of s t r a t a or castes includiag:
(a) A gentile nobility or priestly s t r a t u m , differentiated according t o t h e criteria of gentile society, includirrg blood hies, supposed descent from
the tribal god o r heroes, or shamanistic ability.
This s t r a t u m served as the leading force in politics, a n d was the foremost predator in war and
exploitation. Its r~rernberscreated for themselves
a separate economic or territorial base, withi11
which they established their I~ouseholdsmanaged
by a special group of dependents, their military
or administrative retinue o r retainers, who acted
a s the executive a r m of the upper class.
(b) free peasants (or herdsmen) living in distinct, separabe communities, generally organized
into exbended family or pat,riarclral household
units, and sub-divisible into rich, middle o r poor
free peasants.
(c) Senri-free peasants, engaged in subsistence
agricultore, and more-or-less exploited by the
higher s t r a t a of the gentile order. They were
mainly drawn from the peasantry of conquered
peoples, arrd tended t o be in possession of inferior land o r production techniques.
(d) Those unfree who had no means of production, for example young men and women who are
often indisti~rguisl~able
from patriarchal slaves;
en~ployeesin the Irouseholds of t,he nobility or
the rich free peasants or craftsmen; nlineworkers
and t h e like.
(e) E~rlbryo groups of craft-or-commercially
eiriployed producers, who might be engaged as
unfree employees in the houselrolds of the gentile
nobility, or alt,erna.tively might live a s distinct social groups in separate sett,lemeat.s or developing
towns.
In t,erms of political institutions, military
democracy is characterized by the existence of
a war leader, a king, a council of elders and a
peoples assembly. T h e cou~rcilwas dominated by
the ~roblesand their retinue, and selected the war
leader. T h e peoples assembly selected or confirmed t h e a p p o i n t ~ n e r ~oft the king, and had a
strong voice in questions of war, t h e int,erpretation o r charrging of tribal practices, a n d t h e like.
T h e king tended t o be a law speaker o r judge.
T h e transformation of this kind of organization into modes of productio~r associated with

class, private property and the s t a t e took place

as the power of these different groups was redistribut,ed, a n d the processes of social diffel-entiation and e x p l o i t a t i o ~becanre
~
more severe.
War and the resulting capacity t o obtain tribute, ransom and other forms of loot., n o t least
ty
slaves, furthered the interests of the ~ ~ o b i l i and
especially the retinue, a s well as some of t h e
free peasants. It also encouraged t h e expansion
of haudicraft work and commerce, the broadening of market arrangements and the r n o ~ ~ e t i s a t i o n
of society. It probably also had its effects even
in cultic practices, with a tendency towards the
stratification and rililitarizatio~~
of t h e cosn~ology,
with tlre gods of the dorni~iarrttribes emerging
into pre-eminence, often with t,he emphasis on
tlreir military strength o r ferocious~~ess.There
was ~ ~ o t h i ninevitable
g
about t.he process. Tlie
establisli~nentof military democratic conditions
in gentile society did not in all cases give rise
t o class society. Among the Lit.uzian west-Slavic
people, for example, a broadly based struggle by
the lower orders threw off tlre nobility, who were
at,ternptir~gt,o collaborate with German feudal influences, arid established a long lasting Lit.ozian
union whiclr did not move in a class, or a t any
rate all aristocratic direction.
T h e t,lieory of military democracy is, of course,
subject t,o a variety of objections. At the methodological level, it can be argued t h a t it involves a
radical revisio~rof t,he materialist theory of social
classification, whiclr identifies social systems in
terms of more-or-less stable modes of production,
arrd which places heavy empl~asison t h e productive system itself as the social dynamic, according
to the law of cor.respondence (Glezerman 1960).
Military democracy, on the other hand, seems t o
be a new, general form of classification, which
existed a t several levels of productive forces, involvi~igStone, Bronze and Iron Age production
forces, and systems of both communal and private property. Moreover, as its name suggests,
it places heavy emphasis on political rat,l~ert h a n
production crireria both in identifying the system
and analyzitrg its dynamic.
These are not dificult,ies which can lightly be
dismissed. Certainly the proliferation of categories leads away from scientific generalization,
towards positivist empiricism. Forms of classification cannot, however, be determined a priori
or be decided by traditional authority, no mat,t.er
h o n ~powerful. They must be appropriate t o tlie
d a t a available, and be capable of orga~rizingit in
sucli a way a s t o show interconnections and to

ETHNICITY AhiD CULTURE

suggest general laws. Materialist history has, in extent been developed in a later work u.Iiic11 will
any case, since its infancy postulated general laws s l ~ o r t l ybe published in English (13errmann 1986).
T h e question of war, obviously, is the central
of lturnan development whic11 apply t o different
issue
of contemporary history, and has always
~ ~ t o d eofs production arid levels of development
been
a t the lieart of a great deal of historical
there
is
the
of production forces. For example,
scl~olarsliip.
T h e theory of ~ n i l i t a r ydentocracy,
very well known generalization t h a t "the history
of all l t i t h e r t , ~existing society is t,he history of accordingly, is of no sntall importance t o historians. Similarly, i t serves a s a sciei~tificworking
class struggles" (Marx a n d E ~ t g e l s1976:483).
By the same t,oken, it is difficult t o accept the hypothesis for arcl~aeologists,who can cooperate
crit,icism, wl~icliis only posited by mechanical in testing and refining t l ~ etheory in a variety of
mat,erialists, t h a t all social phenomena are to be ways, includiilg t,he identification of t h e preconultderstood in terms of their place and relation- ditions for the emergence of the military demoship t o t,he means of production, and whicli dis- cratic arrangements, the ident.ification of various
counts t h e political o r subjective factors. Such settlenients, towns, fortificatioxts and so forth in
a view would mean t h a t t h e processes of human light of tlte hypothesis, a n d no doubt in many
history are inevitable, and t h a t mankind is in- other ways (Herrmann 1982). T h e criticislns of
deed subject t o the donlination of the 'mearks t h e t.11eory which we liave discussed say nothing
of production', in n o \\.ay transforming himself. about its cont.ent, which seems t o conform with
Such a view might well have been defensible a w h a t is known about t h e emergence of class socicentury or so ago, when historical thought was ety in every inst,ai~cesave t h a t in East Asia, assodominated by tlte simple idealist. school, w h i c l ~ ciated with t h e Japanese s t a t e (Herrmann 1982;
emphasized the role of the great m a n , o r t.he Kito 1980). Whether or not nlilitary delnocracy
hero, in the processes of change. For all of its can be said to be scientifically est,ablished, it is
faults, even bourgeois 11istol.y has rnoved a long certainly an heuristic device of some importance,
way since then, not least in its discussion of the for historians and archaeologists.
kinds of pllenomeita iilvolved in the theory of n ~ i l - If I may make one additional criticism of the
itary democracy. Indeed, t h e theory of military theory, i t is of a semantic rather than a substandemocracy stands in sharp cor~brastt.o sorile mod- tive nature. T h e word "democracy" cannot comern theories presended by artthropologists arid fortably be used in association wit11 the processes
involved in t h e int,ensification of social stratifiotllers on this qoestion.
It is, I think, fair t o say t h a t a strong body cation, a n d with the t.e~idencytowards the reof opirrion exists in the world today t h a t a n in- duction, rather than the expansion, of popular
evitable result of the creation of particular in- rights. In historical materialism, moreover, i t
struments or weaports is t h a t tliey will be used. is more common t o use t h e word "democratic"
If this is so, then we are all surely doomed to de- in relation t o s t a t e systerns (Lenin 1970:360)
s application t o gent,ile cons t r u c t i o ~by r~uclearholocaust or clieniical catas- which c o i ~ ~ p l i c a t eits
broplle, and in the meanti~iret o ever greatel- dont- ditions. Kot least, a s has been already suggest,ed,
ination by the comput,er. Sucll theories have been this word draws our attention t o t.lie politicalside of the theory, t o the detriment
re-enforced by academic arguments colrcerrting ir~stit,~ltional
the gelietic nat,ure of the tendency towards ag- of t h e political-economic side, which empliasizes
l ~militarism
ce
in the processes of
gression, towards the lioldirig of property, and tile i ~ ~ ~ p o r t aof
y
a better name would be
the like (Ardrey 1967; Tiger and Fox 1072). For- exploitatior~.In ~ n view,
tunately, it is open t o question whether such tlie- "militarized gentile society", which is 110 doubt
ories are valid. T h e t l ~ e o r yof milit,ary delnocracy subject t.o other objections.
Witltout the development of ethnography,
suggests, t o the contrary, t h a t war - the systematic and socially sal~ctioried use of violence on which enables 11s t o have insight into the relaa large scale for policy purposes, usnally a ~ n o n g tioilships among pre-class peoples, tlie emergence
people of different ethnoses - is inextricably wo- of such a theory of general l~istoricaltransformaven i1it.o the processes of class forrnation and de- tion would have been impossible. However, it is
velopment, of social and gender subot-dination not only in t l ~ ediscussion of mch grand qnesaird exploitation, and of t h e elrtergence of t,he tions t h a t ethnograplty serves as a st,imnlant. It
state, bot.11 as cause and effect. This point was also suggests a means whereby a number of other
not, in my view, sufficiently emphasized in the questions of a less macroscopic nature may be
origii~alexposition of t h e theory, but has t o soine raised and resolved. Among them is the problem,

Whitefield/I~ISTORY,ETNNOGRAPHY
AMD CLASS STRUGGLE

which 1 discussed in a paper given t o a previ- well as a reflection of the relatiolrship wlrich tlre
ous meeting of rhis conference (Whitefield 1985), feudal military aristocracy had with tlre masses,
corrcerrrirrg t,he origins and nature of feudalism.
nanrely t h a t of relatively alien invaders or conquerors (Marx and Ellgels 1976:103-105).
THE ETHNOGR.APHIC NATURE OF
T h e emergence of t,llis social systeni has norFEUDAL SOCIETIES
rnally been studied by lristoria~isemplrasizing t h e
One of tlre questions involved in tlre debate is socio-economic and political aspect,s of the matt~heissue of t h e dating of the arrival of feudalism ter. However, tlrere is aaotlrer side t o it. As
in Britain. O n tlre orre side stand those l~istorians has been suggested already, feudalism, allile it is
who approaclr t h e question from a narrow politi- certainly definable in t,he terms outlined, has ancal point of view, and insist t h a t it was exported ot,lrer central feature, nanlely as a system which
t o England with the Conquest of 1006 (Brown is characterized by the ethnos form known as tlre
1973), and from there t o Scot,land somewhat later nationality. T h e establishment of feudalisni in(Barrow 1981). O n tlre otlier side stand t h e fol- volves more tlrali what has been outlined, b u t
lowers of Marc Bloch, wllo see feudalisnl in terms also the transformation of the peoples involved
of product,ion, class and similar kinds of relation- from the tribal arrangements which characterize
Gentile co~idit,ions,culturally dominated by kinships (Bloch 1961; Postarr 1975).
ship
arrangen~c~rts.
T h e theory of niilitary democracy o r militarized gentile society, clearly, reconciles tlie two
[An] ethnic communiiy proper or ethnos in
theories, showing the process of t h e creation of
the general serise of the word Inay be defeudalism t o be two-sided, involving the transforfined as a n hist.orically formed aggregrate
~natiotro r qualitative changing of both elelnerrts
of people who share relatively stable feaof the pre-feudal formation, the socio-economic
tures of culture (including language) and
and t h e political. The one goes with tlre other,
psyclrology, an awareness of their unity and
inseparably bound. Fer~dalisnra s a social system
their difference irom other similar groups,
car1 be ideritified in t,llis way:
and ao ethnonyrn which they have given
(a) As a developed Iron Age p r o d u c t i o ~sys~
themselves (Brornley 1980:154-155).
tem, c11aract.erized by such disti~lctivetechnological features as tlie wide use of heavy ploughs, At the level of large aggregat,es of people, the ethof water wheels, and of iroir in military a s well nos form wlrich most fulfills the criteria outlined
as civilian aspects of life; predonliriantly agricul- is the nation, whicli is characteristic of t,he captural, but with conrmerce arrd handicraft playing italist and socialist modes of production. Howa necessary part, not least in the provision of ever, a stable ethnos fonn of another kind is t o
metal, either as an irrgredient of local handicraft be identified in such examples a s the Ukrairria~r
product,ioa or in the form of irnported products. elhnos, whiclr has exist,ed in feudal, capitalist a n d
(b) As a system of private property, involving socialist socio-econornic conditions. Wliile the ulabove all the ownership of the bulk of t h e land t,imate distinction between one ethnos form and
another is socioecorion~ic,the clrief ethnographic
by the aristocrat,^.
(c) As a class system, lnost notably tlre classes criteria for differentiation are the relative imporof landlord and serf in the countryside, and guild- tance of cultural features. In t,lle nation, for
example, t,he main distinguishing and ethnically
mast,er a n d jour~reymanin tlre towas.
(d) As a kind of state, in which the ir~st.runle~rtsunifying factor is tlre common language (Stalin
of law, order a n d tlre like were in the lra~rdsof tlre 1936; Malinelr et al., 1974). T h e questio~iwhich
aristocrats, a n d to some extent tlre guildmasters, arises is to identify tlie most significant cult,ural
who used them t o protect and advarrce their own feature of the ethnos form associated with the
interests, inevitably a t the expense of the subor- classical slave and feudal modes of production,
dinate classes.
the nationality
In the case of feudal England, it. is difficult t o
T h e intense and obvious m i l i t a r i z a t i o ~of
~ the
feudal syst,em, which is seen by some t o be of identify tlre basis of tlre ethnos unity tlrrouglr
so important in defining it,, in practice is not most of the crit.eria mentio~redabove, a t least
much different from t h a t of class society in gen- until a fairly advanced stage of the development,
eral. T h e narrowness of the social groups which of feudal fornration. Wlrile rhere are n o d o u b t
made rip t h e feudal armies is a function of the strong similarities between tlre Anglian, Mer, perhaps ot,her
level of developmelrt of ~ n i l i t a r ytechnique, as cian, Jutish, S ~ a n d i n a ~ i a nand

10

lar~guagesspoken in feudal England, there is good

reason t o believe t h a t t,liey were n o t mutually
cornprel~ensiblet o the people involved, a n d it is
not incor~ceivablet h a t local dialects of even t h e
same language served as serious barriers t o linguist,ic unity. After 1066, of course, tlie confusion was increased by the addition of Norman
French iuto t h e liriguistic pool. It is sometimes
argued t,hat it was not until tlre Reformatioil a n d
t.he publication of t h e authorised version of t h e
Bible, with the subsequent addition of the "Book
of Common Prayer", t h a t a lingua franca widely
understood and used was int,roduced (Gordon
1972; Katzner 1975). Prior t o 1066 t h e AngloSazon Chronicle st.ands a s an example of a common language; however there is n o indication
t h a t this work represellt,s the general Ia~rguage
of the masses of t h e people in\,olved, or reflects a
cnlt,ural unity. It is indeed questiorrable how far
t h e people of feudal England had an amareiress of
their unity, and of their distinctiveness, qua Englisliers, from other social groups. As late as t h e
eighteenth century, the people of England tended
t o identify themselves as West Countrymen, Lancastrians arrd the like; n o t ulrcoi~rnrol~lythey
thought of their village and its environs a s their
"countryn (Laslett 1971). As for the ethnonym,
the name England a n d English applies distinctively t o only one of the peoples which came togeiher t o form t.he Euglish feudal forinat,ion, and
seems not t o be one which they gave tl~ernselves
and which therefore represents their own subjective recognition of their distinctiveness. It was
applied by t h e Mercian arld Saxon kings, who
described theniselves as Rez Anglorum in their
attempts t o obtain hegemony and rule over the
Anglian people. Historically not even the main
stream of Anglian people 'knew themselves' in
ternls of t h a t etlmonym. T h e most powerful of
the Anglia11 areas in Britain was called Northumbria; t h e Anglian-settled areas in t h e sout~heastof
~iroderliScotlaild had a variety of narnes, noue of
which ii~volvesa single et,Bnonyn~,a a d certainly
not t.l~ename 'England'.
It, is obviously very difficult to identify distinctive psycl~ologicalfeatures of a people for whom
we have very little appropriate d a t a . 011e possibility, however, is t h a t there was a wide level
of political passivity among them. Oue of t h e
more striking features of the feudal formation in
England is t h e absence of posihive resistance by
t l ~ epeople to the processes of social subordination, stratification and alien domination, which
are at t h e heart of t h e emergence of feudalisnl

E T H N I C I T Y AND CULTURE
in t h a t country (Martin 1983). For example,
t h e Scandinavia11 ilivasions associated with t h e
Norse and Danish iilcursiol~sand migrations into
t h e Eastern and other areas of sout.11ern Britain
seem t o have been minii~rallyresisted, with only
elements of t ~ l ~Saxon
e
people orgallisil~gany serious fight back. Similarly, t h e Norillan Conquest,
of 1066 was achieved wit11 only one major battle,
presumably t o the surprise of the invaders,who
inade great haste to establish castles a s means
of defendiug what they had won. T h e AngloSaxon ruling elements seem t o have abaudoned
the country, and popular resistance seems to have
bee11 limited to areas of stroiig Darrislr influence,
such a s Lincolnshire, where Bereward t h e Wake
organised an iinportaut anti-Norman force, and
t h e Vale of York, which was subjected t,o a reign
of terror in tlre 1080s, presumably t o pre-empt
any possible support for a Danish invasion of
the east of England (Brown 1968; St,erlt.or~1961)
T h e apparent passivity of t h e English stailds in
contrast t o t h e Higlllanders of Scotland, who defended their independent culture wit,h great success until the eighteenth century; t o the Irish; and
indeed t o the French, whose irrdependence f r o l ~ l
incorporatioir into t,lie English kingdom is associabed wit11 t h e popular inovenlent lead by Joan of
Arc. T h e dlaracterization of distinct ethnos psychology in s u c l ~a may may seem either bizarre
o r chauvilristic. Yet Leiiin (1975) described tlre
British people, including the working class, in n o
less co~npliinentaryternis in his well known chapter on "Parasitism and Decay of Capitalism" in
his famous work, Imperialism, The Highest Stage
of Capitalism.

CHRISTIANITY A N D THE
EMERGENCE OF FEUDAL
NATIONALITIES
If a decisively distirict feature of cult.ure can
however b e found which allows for the idelrtificabion of t h e English feudal nationality, i t may
be the cu1t.i~practices of the people. Feudalism
is commonly associated with t h e religious practices known as Christianity; indeed i t is somet,in~essuggested, with some reason, tliat European feudalism a r ~ dC l ~ r i s t ~ e ~ r d owere
i n but. opposite sides of the same coin, t l ~ eone emerging
with t h e other. A teiidency exists t.o see medieval
Christianity as a unified religion, particularly in
western Europe, where t h e power of Rome is supposed t o have had a highly homogenizing influence. Wit,hout discouirting t h e Papal ir~fluence
across the feudal formation, o r t h e significance

WII~~~~~~~I~/HISTORY,ETH
AND
N O GCLASS
R A P HSTRUGGLE
Y
of a dominant Weltanschauung ia tlle establishment of a stable mode of production, the experience of Britain shows that intense regional variation existed within Christendom. For example,
the process of 'converting' tlre tribal peoples of
Britain to Christianity lrad a number of distinct
features. One of these was tlre role played by t,he
Celtic Cllurch, associated with suctr personalities
as St. Patrick and St. Columba (Hardinge 1972).
It is quite clear tlrat the nlissionaries from Ireland
and the north, ~nakirrguse of nona as tic forms of
organisation, played a very sdrong part in the
conversion, particularly anlong t l ~ emasses. The
Rolnan Church, following the t,raditions of tlre
and St. Augustine of Canterearly Re~ledicti~les
bury, seemed to have been of greater influence in
the conversion of the soutlrerr~nobility. The fornral declirte in the influence of the Celtic Clrurch,
\'hich followed the Synod of Wllitby in 697, gave
rise to a general decay in Clrristian enthusiasm in
England, to the extent that Alfred, in the ninth
century, lrad to engage in a major campaign of
evangelism (St.enton 1943). It is in association
with the evangelizing processes of tlre subsequent
period that both the feudal mode of production
and the feudal ethnos form were forged out.
More concretely, the period is characterized
by the broad invasion of many areas of western
Europe by the pagan Scandinavians, who succeeded in est.ablis1ring tlreir power, and in nraking sett,lements in nlany parts of tlre west, including Britain. Indeed, tlrey carved out for
themselves a region of domi~~at,ion
in soutl~erll
Brit.ain, known as the Danelaw, which was used
as a base of operations for an ongoing attempt. to
incorporate the British Isles into the Darrislr Empire, wllicl~lasted until the defeat a t Stanlford
Bridge in 1066 in tlre case of soutl~ernBritain,
and a t Largs in 1263 in tlre north. The estabh
kingdon1 involved
lishment of the E ~ ~ g l i sfeudal
the elimination of Scandillavia~~
power and influence, acliieved in part by the successful establishment of Saxon royal power over and above not
only the Scandinavians, but also over the residual Anglian, Mercian and otlrer noble families.
By 1060, virtually all of tlre major aristocractic
positions in southern Britain were held by kinsmen of the Saxon royal house (Stenton 1943).
Associated wit11 the emergence of Saxon political power was the grou.tlr of Saxon hegemony
througlr their leading role in the area of religion.
No! only did the Saxon kings and their killsmen act as the general sponsors of the process
of conversion of the pagan Scandinavians; they

11

also el~couragedthe establishment of IIOII-Celtic

institutions wherever possible. Tlrey were closely
associated wit11 the e~nergenceof Canterbury as
the centre of C1111rch anthority within sout,hern
Brit,ain, a t the expense not only of the province
of York, but also of t,he Celtic monastic honses,
wlrich took on Benedictine pract,ices. They were
influential in the e s t a b l i s h ~ n eof
~ ~parish
t
ctrurclles
and of a cadre of parislr priests, who influenced
the masses in a distinctive Cl~ristiandirection.
While the Saxon church, certainly, was part of
the western Christian conglomerate which comprised Roman Catholicism, it was already sufficiently distinctive for it to be identified as tlle
Church in England (Barlow 1963; Stenton 1943).
The independence of t,l~eEnglish Church is revealed in the disput,e between William the Conqueror aud the Archbishop of Canterbury, with
the latter resisting t,he invaders' efforts to impose
Cluniac Benedictine control over the Augustinian
Benedictine monasteries established by the Saxons. Similarly, the Saxon Cburch had its own
distinctive set of saints, sllrines and holy relics
which distinguish it within the general context
of a medieval Roman Catholicism. This distinctiveness of tlre Cllurch in England was not lost
in the later feudal period, after t,he Conquest.
It retained its distinctiveness, iirclrrding a st.rong
tendency to be independent of Papal control or
influence. On the eve of the Reformation, it was
one of the few Catholic churches to have no official vernacular translation of the Bible.
Whet,lrer or not it is possible to generaliae tile
distinguishing feature of the feudal ethnos form,
the nationality, as religio~lor cultic peculiarity
renlains to be seen. Certainly it is possible that
the Scottisf~nationality coalesced in similar conditions and a t the same time around tlre cult of
St. Columba, possessiolr of whose relics was the
trump card in the processes of estahlislting Scots
dominatioa over tire Pictish people (Bannerman
1975). Throughout the feudal period the Scottish and E11glis11 peoples can be differentiated
in terms of their religious practices. In France,
the homogenizing factor seems to have had sometiling to do wit11 the cult of S t . Denis; Germall
feudalism is distinguished by the importance of
the cult of Boniface, and so on. There seerns t,o
be no reason to disagree with Max Weber's view
that in precapitalist societies religious tlrought,
played a decisive role in the determination of the
subjective qualities of the peoples involved. As he
put it, "I11 such a time the religious forces which
express hhemselves ... are the decisive i~tfluences

12

ETHNICITY Ah'D CULTURE

in the for~nat,ionof r~atiorlalclraracter" (Weber generalizat.ions which have beerr made by them.
1958:155). It is yet another question whether cul- I hope t h a t they suggest a rlulirber of new aptic practices are a t the heart of the nationalities proaches t o llistorical scholarship in general, and
which co~nprisedt h e classical slave mode of pro- also new forms of c o o p e r a t i o ~between
~
historiduction. It certairlly seems t o be true t h a t tlre ans atid archaeologists, For example, it would
f o r n ~ a t i o nemerged in association with the intro- be more than interesting to see the results of arduction of a broad range of new cultic practices chaeological investigation irlto the nature of cultic
(Bockisch 1984) Inany of wllicl~were p a r t i c ~ ~ l a r l ypractices i ~ ~ v o l v eind the establishment of Chrisassociated with distinct peoples. Ethnographic tian churcl~esand burial sites in Europe, with
study of the emergence of peoples in recent times an eye t o t h e identification of spatial o r terrifrom tribal conditions would be of great irlflue~~cetorial peculiarities which conform with ttre territories of t h e appropriate nationalities. Simiin corrfirmirig the generalization.
O n the basis of investigations suggested by larly, I hope t , l ~ a ti t is clear t h a t the questions
etl~nographicstudies, however, i t is already rea- raised by e t h n o g r a p l ~ ydo n o t apply only t o pesolrable t o suggest the following as a working riods of t h e relatively distant past. T h e nation,
scie~~tific
hypothesis. T h e establishment of the the rthnos form in which we live roday in Canada,
feudal mode of productio~rillvolved t h e general could probably be better urlderstood in the light
alier~atiorlof t h e co~lditiorlsof tribal society. In of ethnographic theory, as could, perhaps, the
part,icular., it involved the sr~bstitutiollof new problems associaLed with such emerging peoples
fornis of product,ion, and new socioeconoll~icre- as the Dene.
lations of production, for those of gentile society.
CLASS STRUGGLE A N D
Economically, feudalisln is associat.ed with t h e
ETHNOGRAPHIC
RELATIONSHIPS
producCive advances associated with t h e heavy
plough, clay-land production, and with the weakNot least, t,lle approac11es suggested by etllnogenirlg of the self.suficient peasallt producer.
illvolved tile dessruction of t.ribal arrange,uents raplly provide a hasis for t h e correcting of what
of property holding, alld of rule, arid
re- is sonletimes seen a s tlre cent,ral \veakness of the
by private
ill the llaIlds of a ~cierltificapproach to l~istoricalsciences, which
ruiillg elite which was not of a tribal, but of a 111 the past has more o r less exclusively emphac.ass nature, L ~ it irlvolved
~ ~ ,
of a s h e d the production forces and the ~.elationst o
~onlogenizillgforce wllich allowed for tile ullifi- production in t.he classification of social systems,
of tile
peoples illvolved to the ex- and in the identificat,ion of the forces a t work
tent that tlley emerged ill the distirlctive form within them. VIThile the claim t h a t the history
society is t h e history of
associated with the nationality, I,, ~ ~ ~the l of ~all hitherto
~ d existing
,
breach wit,h triba.1 ecol~omicpractices had been 'lass
has
One of the most fruitac]lieved before 1066, arid the essential features of ful of all llistorical hypotlleses, it is also abuntile ethnos fornl established also before the con- dallt'ly clear t h a t even class society has wit.hin
it~ an important
which t , r a r ~ s c e ~ ~class.
ds
qllest, with t,he creatiorl of the ~
l in ~
~
~ elerl~erlt
h
land. wllat,
b e decisively
to
Sucll feadures a s nationalism, for example, have
been tllought Of as expressions of
Conqoest was t h e corlrpletion of the alie~lat,ior~
sciousuess,
o r as a 111eans of diverting people from
~ , , ~ l people
i ~ l ~ fiorn tribal corlnections in
terms of tile
forces. w h i l e tile saxoll
kings t h e class struggle. Tile subjective factors are
of nleSsex
were ethnically alien to the ~
~ comn101lly
~
regarded,
~
not
i least ~by ethl~ography,
~
,
scandinavian and ~
~people ~of
~ king- l as "relatively
i
~ conservat.iven,
~
~(Bromley 1980:155)
last, of &hem, ~ ~ ~still~ had
l ad slight
,
especially in colllparison t.0 the forces of the prodam,
and of 'lass
claim t o be the gentile ruler of tlre Saxon people duction 'Ptem
Today
such
views
call be called into question.
(
B 1968).
~ william
~ the~ c~~~~~~~~
~
~was a forIf
the
tlreory
of
world
history associat,ed with the
eigrler to tflem all, aIld his accessiolr completed
historical
triad
is
valid,
then tlrere already exprocess of the establishment of feudalism in
ists
a
grand
fornratiol~
which
is not dominated
~ ~ ~t)le ~final l breach
~ ~witlld tile, tribal rloble
by
class
struggle,
and
in
which
t.he subjective
form of ruler.
lt is, I think, fair to say tllat, the ideas asso- aspirations of the peoples, for better or worse,
this discussion have their origins in play a decisive role. BY the same token, forces
ciated
tile work of materialist etlrnographers, a n d in t h e of a ~ u ~ r a - c l a kind
s s are not only of significance,

WhitefieJd/HIS?'ORY,ETHArOGRAPHYAh'D CLASS S T R U G G L E
b u t are highly progressive. For example, t h e national liberation movements which s o strongly influence such regions as Latin America and Africa
comprise elements of a variety of social classes,
a n d cannot be analyzed without reference t o the
kinds of questions wlrich are raised by ethnography. T h e same might be said for the Womens'
Movement, and indeed tlre growing Peace Movement, b o t h of which transcend any simple class
analysis.
One way o r another, modern ethnographers are
coming t o grips with such questions, supplementing and enriching t,lie general corpus of historical
nraterialist scholarslrip. Similarly, one way o r another, historical scholarship will d o well t o come
t o grips with ~naterialistethnography.
NOTES

1. Unfortunately, this work is not available in Eaglish. A respectable translation has, however, been
made by the author of this paper, and it is hoped
that Dr. Herrmann will give his permission for it to
be distributed.
REFERENCES CITED

Ardrey, R.
1967 The Territorial Imperative. Collins Books, London.
Bannermann, John
1975 The Scots of Dalriada. In An Historienl Atlas of Scotland c.400 - c.1600 , edited by Pet,er
McNeill and Ronald Nicholson, Atlas Committee of the Conference of Scottish Medievalista,
pp. 13-18, St. Andrews.
Barlow, F.
1963 The English Church 1000 - 1066. Longman,
London.
Barrow, G.W.S.
1981 Kingship and Unity: Scotland 100 - 1306. University of Toronto Press, Toronto and Buffalo.
Bloch, Marc
1961 Feudal Society, translated by L. A. Manyon.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
Bockisch, Gabriele
1984 Die Griechen zur Heroenzeit. Ethnographische
und Archaeologische Zeitung 25. Berlin.
Bromley, Y.
1980 The Object and Subject Matter of Ethaogranhv.
. . In Souret and Western Anthroaology, edited by Ernest Gellner, pp. 151-160.
Columbia University Press, New York,
1968 The Normans and the Norman Conquest.
Thomas Y. Crowell Compmy, New York.

Brown, Allen R.
1973 Origins of English Feudalism.
and Unwin, London.
Carr, E.H.
1981 What is History?
mondsworth.

George Allen

Penguin Books, Har-

Evana-Pritchard, E.E.
1964 Social Anthropology and Other Essays. Free
Press, New York.
Glezerman, Grigory
1960 The Lows of Deuelopment. Foreign Languages
Publishing House, Moscow.
Godelier, Maurice
1972 Rationality and irrationality in Economics,
translated by Brim Pearce. New Left Books,
London.
Cordon, James de
1972 The English Language: A n Ifiatorical introduction. Thomas Y . Crowell, New York.
Hardinge, Leslie
1972 The Celtic Church in Britain. Society for the
Propagation of Christian Knowledge, Church
Historical Society, London.
Herrmann, Joachim
1966 Fruehe klassengesell~chajtliche Diferenzitrungen i n Deutsehland.
Zeitung fuer
Geschichtswissenschaft 14(3). Berlin.
1982 Militaerisehe Demokratie und die Uetrrgangsperiode zur Klassengesellschaft. Ethnographische
und Archaeologisclre Zeitung 23. Berlin.
1985 Die Einheit "on schriftlichen und archaeologischen Quellen lind Erforschtmg der fruehen
Geschichtsepochen. Beitrage von Historikern
der DDR zuni 16. Internationalen Kongress
der Geschichtswissenschaften, Berlin.
n.d. Fundamental Problems of Pre-Capitalist Social Development. Proceedings of 1984 International Conference on Origin of the Family,
Private Property and the State, Dresden.
Hindless. B. and P.Q. Hirst
1975 Prr-Capitalist Modes ojProduction. Routledge
and Kegrtn Paul, London.
Katzner, Kenneth
1975 Languages of the World. Funk and Wagnalls,
New York.
Kito, Kiyoaki
1980 The Formation oJ the States in Ancient Asia
andMutun1 Contacts. Comite International des
Sciences Historiques, XV Congres des Sciences
Historiques, Rapports 11, pp. 8-17, Bucharest.
Laslett, Peter
1971 The World We Have Lost, 2nd.
Charles Scribener's Sons. New York.

edition.

ETHhrlC1TY AND CULTURE

14

Lenin, V.I.
1970 The State and Reuolution. Selected Works in
Three Volumes, Vol. 2. Progress Publishers,
Moscow.
1975 imperialism, The Highest Stage gi Capitalism. Selected Work in Three Volumes, Vol. 1.
Moacow.
Malinin, V.A. e t al.
1974 The Fundamentals of Marzist-Leninist Philosophy, translated by Robert Daglish. Progress
Publishers, Moscow.
Martin, John E.
1983 Feudalism t o Capitalism: Peasant andLrandlord
i n English Agrarian Development. Macmillan
Press, London.
Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels
1976 Manifesto of the Communist Party. Marx and
Engels Collected Works, Vol. G. International
Publishers, New York.
1976 Army. Marx and Engels Collected Works,
Vol. 18. International Publishers, New York.
Petrova-Averkieva, Y.
1980 Historicism in Soviet. Ethnographic Science.
In Soviet and Western Anthropology, edited by
Earnest Gellner, pp. 19-27. Columbia University Press, New York.
Postan, M.M.
1975 The Medieval Economy and Society: A n Economic History of Britain i n the Middle Ages.
Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.
Stalin, Joseph
1936 Marzisrn and the National Question. Lawrence
and Wishart, London.
Stenton, F.M.
1943 Anglo-Sazon England. Claredon Press, Oxford
1961 The First Century of English Feudalism. Claredon Press, Oxiord.
Thomspon, E.P.
1978 The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays.
Monthly Review Press, London.
Tiger, L. and R. Fox
1972 The Imperial Animal.
London.

Secker and Warburg,

Weber, Max
1958 The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, t,ranslated by Talcotl Parsons. Charles
Scribenei's Sons. New York.

Whitefield, D.G.
1985 European Feudalism and Iron.

In Status,
Structure and Stratification: Current Archaeological Reconstructions, edited by Marc Thompson, Maria T. Garcia, and F. Kense, pp. 133138. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual
Chacnlool Conference. University of Calgary
Archaeological Association, Calgnry.

ETHNIC PHENOMENA AND

CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL THEORY: THEIR
IMPLICATIONS FOR ARCHAEOLOGY
Norman Buchignani
Department of Anthropology
University of Lethbridge
Lethbridge, Alberta

INTRODUCTION
To proceed from the supposition that probability propositions linking social, cultural,
linguistic, and racial entities can be made
[in archseology] to actually making them
is another matter. This nroblern is mainlv
set for the field of social alrthropology and
is not one for the archaeologist.
(Clarke 1968:360)
Over the years since t l ~ i sstatement was made
arcllaeologists have become increasillgly determilled to discover and account for aspects of social organization. During the same period anthropology 'discovered' ethnicity, suc11 that it is
now a major research concern'. Despite some
parallel develop1nents in archaeology, there is no
doubt that archaeological interest in inter-group
relations today is far less substantial, less coherent, and less well legitimated than its anthropological counterpart. Indeed, echoillg Clarke, researcllers can still be found thut claim that no
aspect of prehistoric human social organization
other than gross demographic characteristics and
basic mode of production can be discovered ~ I I
principle2. Altl~oughthe concept "etllnicity" has
become fashionable in archaeological parlance,
there is as yet no defillitive archaeology of ethnic relatioris-at least not that anthropologists or
sociologists would recognize.
This Chacmool Conference nevertheless
demonstrates t,hat there is considerable will to
make ethnicity more salient in arcl~aeologicalresearch. Clearly, it would be grossly chauvinistic
to further develop such an archaeology of intergroup relations in a cross-disciplinary vacuum.
~
l this has
~ led to
~ much~
dimethodolog~
ical determinism' in the literat,ure on trade and

soacial analvsis:
. , it has markedlv lessened the theoretical yield of much ethnoarchaeology airned a t
i l l u ~ ~ ~ i n a t social
i n g orgaaieation. Moreover, antl~ropologicalethnic research often already is effectively ethnoarchaeology, yet it is rarcly even
cited in archaeology. It is therefore appropriate
that archaeologists borrow as much of the theory
and method of sociocultural anthropology as is
realistically applicable to the archaeological situation.
There are of course dangers in the wllolesale
borrowing of any mode] from anotller field, A
theory is a tool, alld there are no universal tools.
H~~~~~~ well a tool works for its intended
pose, it may not work
all for anot,her, or
work very poorly, I,, this case, an efficient
borrowing process is consequently dependent on
understaI~dingthe benefits, detrirnents, pitfalls
and
of the antllropological approach
to ethnicit,y,
ln this light, I address two basic issues: ~ i ~ ~ t ,
to wllat exbent is current aIlt.hropological thea L
L tOoli)
~
in ~ anthropology?
~
~
ory n{
are
w h a t call it achieve alld ,,,hat not?
primarily difficulties in its use? ~t is patently
of
impossible to fully analyee
modern socio-cultural ant~hropologicalethnic research here. Spacial coIlstraints dictate selectivity. I therefore focus
two primary questions
research ill anthropology3:
concerning

,,

1. As illustrated by the p r e v a i l i ~'modal'

~~
approach, ho\r does sociocultural antllropology
analyse ethnicity? This 1 will address at a
rather high level of generality.
2. What do the findings of this research help
US to ullderstand? Most particularly, what
are the implicatiol~sof the met'hod for the

ETHhrICITY Ah'D CULTURE

16

development of social theory?

Secondly, in t h e light of these issues, what potenrial does this model have for arcl~aeological
use?

THE EMPIRICAL AND

THEORETICAL ORIENTATION OF
SOCIO-CULTURAL
ANTHROPOLOGICAL ETHNIC
RESEARCH AND ITS PRESENT
LIMITATIONS4
Let m e first sketch out a basic outline of curreut 'rnainline' anthropological ethnic research
and t1ieory5:
1 . Research corlcerltrates on the analysis of
individual-level social interaction, identifying it a s being t h e core of et,hnicity.
2. In t h e 1950s, ethnicity was idenfified wit11
culture-bearing groups, and research concentrated primarily on intra-group phenomena
such as community organisation and cult,ural maintenance. Now, t , l ~ efocus is predominantly OII inter-ethnic social relations.
3. Research now exhibits a strong prirnacy of
social and psychological over cultural ( t h a t
is t o say cultural-ideological and material
cultural) factors.
4. This approacll elr~bracesa predominantly

a social/symbolic interactionist, methodological individualist perspect,ive, as opposed, say, t o a social approach emphasizing groups. T h e key things t o b e explained
are patterns and expressions of ethnic identity a n d identification (far more often the
former) aud how the self relates to these
processes. T h e approach is in direct descertt. from tlle social interactionalist work of
Erving Goffman (1050, 1961, 1963a, 1963b,
1967)G.
5. Consequently, objective cultural difference
has become r a t h e r epiphenoniinal, subordinate t o , and largely t o be explai~tedwith reference to, social i~lteraction.
G . Modern et,lrnic theory accordingly bllilds on

concepts of t h e self and social role belravior

typified by a dyadic tra~lsactionalor social
excllar~gemodel7. This model has become
pervasive, especially because it has been
scaled t o address phenomena ranging from

i l ~ d i v i d ~ l patterns
al
of int,eractio~lto culture
brokers and lniddlelnell to the existence of
wlrole etlrnic groups and t o the explanation
of interaction between such groups.

A ~ ~ u ~ n bofe healthy
r
and productive results
stern from this researclr orientation. For example, its methodological individualism has reduced
errors of social and cultural reification in anthropology; this has in turn led to a greater appreciation thaL groups are a t their core the social
organization of individuals and t h a t individuals
carry and negotiate culture. It has also led to
a greater appreciation of the role of higll level
social psychological tlleory in social explan at lon.
'
Criticallv,
the
anuroach
efficienLlv
zenerat~es
..
.
highly satisfact,ory explanations of many kinds
of inter-group ethnic behavior. Because it is a
variant of the general social psychological theory of self and social interaction, the approach
- also leads to a high degree of predictability and
extensibility t o new contexts arid situations. In
fact, I would argue t h a t this has been a primary
determinant of the popularity of this approach.
Even so, the near ~nonopolyof this approaclr
has produced several systematic weaknesses in
antlrropological ethnic studies, especially in relation to theory. It should be stressed that there
are in everyday research studies t w o basic modes
of explanation and lrerice of theoretical development. One predominates: t o explain immediately observable phenomena through reference in
additional d a t a , prior theory and analogous situations elsewhere. This is what occurs wlren yet
anotller doctoral candidate goes out to find out.
'why the X's interact wit11 t h e Y's t h a t way' o r
'how X et1111ic identity relates to X group cohesion.'
There is obviously another primal explanatory
route available. This is t o build higher order
(more general and hence, more widely applicable) theory. It is telling t h a t few etlrl~icstudies
are aimed a t this objective, aud fewer still contribute t o higher order theory b u i l d i ~ ~ gIn. fact,
there has been rather little theoretical accumulation in arlthropological ethnic research over t h e
past fifteen years despite an enornlous increase in
research and meta-theoretical discourse.
Why is t,his so? W h a t in~plicationsdoes it have
for archaeology? On basic principles, a fascination with the explanatior~of ilumediately observable pl~enomenaneed not slorv the development
of higher order theory. But. in this instance i t
has, in part because of art endemic lack of concern for general theory building. Most research
-

Buchignani/ETHNIC PHEA'OMEICA AA'D SOCAL THEORY

programs sinrply make no attempt to move beyond low level explanation.

Were these difficulties to derive only from the
routilli~ationof inappropriate practice, tlre implications would not be very profound. But there
are other, more deep reasons for the present tlreoretical stagnation, and anyone proposing the use
of aathropological models of e t h ~ ~ i c i tiny arcltaeology should be ilrtirnately aware of tlrem. First
of all, most research today proceeds on the basis of ad-lroc, implicit social psychological tlreory
which lacks both the rigor or the accumulated
findings of the discipli~reof social psychology. As
a 'founding father' of alrthropological ethnic researclr, Fredrik Bartlr lrimself was an 'ebhnic broker' between anthropology and psychology, isolat,ing the two disciplines, and introducing only
those elenlents of social psycl~ologyinto anthropology that suited his own argument. This brokering was so extreme that there are few social
psychological references to be found in his seminal introductio~rto Ethnic Groups and Boundaries (1969), despite massive borrowings from
Goffn~an.No one else in anthropology ltas subsequently been able to i~rtroduceInore social psychological rigor into tlre way in which antlrropological ethnic researcl1 proceeds. Tlris is rather
sad, when one considers that there is a vast social
psycltological literature on self and social identities, social int.eraction, stereotyping, syn~bolicexclrarrge and the like-a lit,erat.nre which is highly
integrated, verifiable, replicable, and very general in it application. Tlris contrasts with a basic
antlrropological model whic11 does not even fully
incorporate the insights of Goffman's lifework.
Mix a fascir~atio~r
wit11 im~rrediateexplanation
and a gnt,t,ed, incollerent and implicit theory, and
tlre consequent. product. appears extrer~lely fine
when considered on a case by case basis, but suffers from an elrorrnons overall redundancy. One
also sees much duplication of social psyclrological
researclr findings witlrout tlre rigour of tlre latter.
Another result about which arclraeologists
must be aware has been a systematic lack of rigor
in the definition and clarification of basic eihnic concepts and processes critical to the current,
model. For example, consider the central corrcept.
of etlrnic identity. There have been literally hundreds of studies done over t,lre past fifteen years
which ilrvolve tlre concept of ethnic identity. Still,
only a lrandful of tlrese studies have actually investigat,ed ethnic identity itself; most studies d o
not even bother to define it A recent book titled Ethnic Identity (Royce 1982) never analyses

17

ethnic identity at all8. htstead, tlte activation of

(an undefined) ethnic identit,y is invoked to 'explain' a range of contextual ethnic phenomena.
Such explanatory attenrpts are almost perfectly
circular. Silrce as etlrlric identity is not directly
observable, its activation must be inferred from
actor 'ethnic' behavior. Researchers often then
turn around and explain the belravior which indicates etlrlric identity activation by saying that
it is motivated by et,hnic identity.
I slrould note also that there are quite a nun]her of methodological proble~nsin e~nployilrgthis
approach in actual elnpirical studies - problems
which will loom considerably larger in archaeological contexts. I can only tonclt on three here.
l. The principle plrenonrena in question are not
direct observables. Ethnicity is primarily
seen as ideational, and may ]rot always have
behavioral attributes. Ethnic identity and
iderrtificatiorr processes and the logic wlticlr
associates these with particular situat,ions
are critical. Tlte problem is that one can
only see evidence of tlrese things through observables: behavior to which one attributes
etlrrric salie~rceor via informant st,at,ements.
Because identity is sitnational, this kind of
attribution is difficult and error prone.

2. By the sanre reasoning, a given aspect of bellavior is or is not 'ethnic' based on whether
or not the actor or others deem it symbolic
of group affiliation. Tltere can be a o cut and
dried a prtorz definition of what does or does
not constitute ethnic behavior.
3 . There is also the issue of how to methodologically separate the activation of tlre many individual and social identities held by a given
person. l11 a modern context, how can one
co~tfidentlyallocate specific behaviors Lo ethnic affiliation rather than, say, gender or kinship? What. if particular behaviors are so
conventional as to have no symbolic connotation?

The above difficultiesof theoretical production

are what 1 would term 'second order' problenrsproblems whiclr are prin~arily ~nethodological
or conventional, whicl~ d o not in tl~emselves
tlrreate~rthe viability of the t,heoretical approach
itself-even if they may make t,he initial inrplementation of tlre approach in arcl~aeologydifficult. But there are other, more profound tlreoretical difficulties with tlte approach. Respecting const,raints of space, let me consider only two

18

ETHNICITY Ah'D CULTURE

of these here. T h e first concerns the potential and llence blind people to other needs and ot.11er
which this approach has for stepwise tlreoretical uses. This is n o exception. Social iateractiondevelopment. Effect,ive theoretical develop~nent ism can by no means claim t o be the exclusive
can only proceed if there is a clear way of either gerieral theory of ethnicity, for ethnicity as it is
decreasing t h e generality of large scale models conln~orrlythought of is more than social interthrong11 increasing contextual constraints or else action.
by increasing t h e generality of low order explaIn fact, despite its strong emphasis on ethnatiorls tllrougl~comparison and abstraction.
nic boundary processes, t.11e approach does not,
It is n o t a t all clear how this can be accom- in fact, well address boundary processes iuvolvplished. This is because the theoretical model in- ing nomsymbolic aspects of t,he ilrteraction of sovoked reflects tlre very highest order of ge~ierality: cially a n d culturally distinct peoples and groups.
it is nothing less t h a n the general model of social To illustrate this wit11 an archaeologically relinteraction and self identity. Those attempting evant example, the approach has little to say
the developnre~ltof empirical, case-study based about t h e interaction of groups which differ with
findings into lriglrer order ones presenhly face a n respect objective culture - t o subsisterlce patenormous void separating their low order theoret- t.erns, language, political structure or kinship if
ical findings from the general theory. How, for ex- tltese tllings are not symbolically relevant t o idenmodel b e tity.
ample, should the dyadic irlteractio~~al
extended t o s~rlalland then t o large scale groups?
This is a quite serious limitation eve11 within
T h e same can b e said for the e x t e n s i o ~of
~ t h e socio-cultural anthropology; i t is far more so for
model t o a wide range of pllenomena about which archaeology. Wit11 respect t o the former, it must
we would like t o k ~ r o amore; on this point, more be appreciated that, the organization and coaselater.
quences of objective cultural difference were only
An even more profound difficrllt,y is t h a t this given minor cor~siderationprior t o 1970, chiefly
~ lso general t h a t there in the rnode of culture contact theory or acculmodel of social i ~ r t e r a c t i o is
is virtually nothing tlreoretically unique about turation. In the antl~ropologicalethnic literature
ethnic phenomerla explained through reference t o (excepting t h a t on cultural pluralism) issues conit. Lit.tle t.lrat is 'ethnic' is necessary t o the no del cerning objective cultural difference have been
or contextually constrained versions of it--a nrodel alrllost erltirely submerged by the growing diswhich even in its most co~rditionalf o r n ~car, with- course on ethnic social interaction.
out ~nodificatioirexplain (albeit, a t a very high
T h e irony is twofold. First, it is a case where
level of general it,^) all forms of the interaction sociocultural anthropologists (save tllose in apof individuals who perceive thenlselves t o be dif- plied work) ignore an area particularly well suited
ferent along some salient social dimeiisiolr o r an- t o their investigative competence. Secondly, I
otller (like gender o r race.) P u t simply, virtually would argue t h a t the area of cultural difference
any tl~eoreticalstatement generated throng11 ref- nlay be exactly the area in which anthropology
erence t,o t.his nlodel on t,he basis of ethnic find- has t h e greatest potential t o build substalltial auings would apply equally well to, say, gender re- tonomous (uniquely necessary) middle level thelations. Thus, as I have argued in Inore detail ory. Ethnic interaction i s often different t.han,
elsewhere (Bucbignani 1985) i t is t,llerefore vir- say, gender i~lt,eractionin represelltirlg significarrt
tually impossible t o use this ~rrodelt o develop objective cultural difference, some of which may
lriglier order autonomous ethnic theory. Any the- be synrbolically important, b u t xnost of which is
ory generated will of ~lecessitybe general theory not.
of the organization of social difference.
This empirical uniqueness naturally demands
I a m not sayiag t,lrat sy~nboliciriteract~ionist unique theoretical strategies for its explanation.
approaches are tlieoretically sterile. Far from For example, in the area of inter-group relait. Rather, I claim only t h a t virtually any new tions, we still lack coherent cross cultural theotheoretical contribrrtion will be meta-ethnic be- ries (except a t bile lowest level) which predict accause the overall theory is metaethnic. Moreover, culturation/diffusion patterns. Neither is there
I should stress that the approach dots go very much of an anthropological literature on t h e
deeply into the heart of what constitutes ethnic nomsyn~bolic(one could say 'mechanical') conrealty: in this respect i t is a good tool with which sequences of ethnic interaction in the context of
to make sense out of many ethnic phenonrena.
cultural difference-OIL such things as the social
To continue t h e tool analogy, tools seek uses organizational consequences of having t o (or be-

Rochignani/ETHR'IC PHENOMENA AhlD SOCAL THEORY

ing partially lzrlable to) bridge culture difference

or on the causal machinery of maintaining cultural distinctiveness in the face of other ways of
life" Moreover, few intra-group phenomena can
be well addressed by sylnbolic ilrteractionisln as
ethnic phenomena, for they do not activate ethnic identity in interaction. The approach therefore gives one very few significant ways to address
critical issues involving cultural ~naintenanceand
change, ethnic group organization, encultnration,
acculturation and integration. Neither is it easily
applicable to large-scale issues concerning power,
privilege and prest,ige.
In outlining these li~nitations it should be
stressed that I do not argue for tlre abandonment
of the identity/social i~~teractional
approach that
has arisen over the past fifteen years. It reflects
what is uridoubtably the n ~ o s tfundamental and
most general niodel of social life that we have
today. Within tlre context of ethnic studies it
does have great explanatory power, allowi~rgthe
straightforward analysis of a host of pheno~nena
which were unamenable to analysis twenty years
ago; even if its potential t o build autonorr~ous
ethnic tlreory or to account for all forms of ethlric bellavior are severely limited in principle, its
pot,ent,ial to explain a wide range of ethnic relations situations is not.
Rather, 1 suggest that most researchers in the
field are inappropriately proceeding as if the approacl~in question has the potential for being
the u ~ ~ i v e r s aapproach
l
to ethnic explanation;
this cannot be, u111ess what constitutes 'ethnic'
bel~avioris so restricted in its defir~ition as to
severely gut our common sense notion of it; if we
maintain a n~ultidi~nensional
definition of ethnicity, then no unidirnensional theoretical approach,
however general, r ~ i l do.
l

SOME IMPLICATIONS FOR

ARCHAEOLOGY

I should stress that there is absolutely no logical or theoretical necessity for arcliaeology to accept anything from aat,l~ropology'sapproach to
ethlricity. As a research strategy, the investigation of arcl~aeologicalethnicity may be based on
any arbitrary set of axiomatic definitions and objectives concerning its subject matter; if archaeologists by and large continue t o equate 'ethnic
group' with 'cultural group' anthropologists cannot argue against the practice on either empirical
('factual') or theoretical grounds unless other elements of the arcliaeological approach presuppose
objectives or theories which are identical to or

19

analogous witlr those used in the antlrropological

approach. To franre tlris rather co~nplexthought,
in the image of the discussion here, it is only to
the extent that archaeologists specifically wish to
investigate the same kind of ethnic issues as their
anthropologicalcou~rterpartsthat they znust take
heed of the latters' theories and approaches.
In this light, I think that one issue is closed:
inasmuch as anthropological research is unlikely
to contribute much to higher order ethnic theory,
then obviously neither is arcl~aeolo~ical
research.
If the approach is to be used in arclraeology it
will not be to this purpose.
This narrows the issues of its potential application to a single question: can the present day social interactionist approach cont.ribute in a meaningful way to help arcl~aeologistsderive useful social organizational inforrnat,ion from their data?
In socio-cultural anthropology this approach has
proved to be very effective in the low order explanatiorr of certain kinds of empirical events. To
what ext,ent does this approach offer the same
kind of potential to archaeology?
1 am well aware of the general archaeological debate concerning the degree to whicl one
can derive social organizat,ionaldata from tlre archaeological record. It is quite beyond my competence t o vigourously defend any one of the
wide range of points of view on this issue wlrich
presently exist in arclraeology. Nevertheless, I do
a t the very leapt support the position t h a t large
scale, long term, socially salient prehistorical social units on the order of 'societies' or minori it,^
groups' should ltsually be discernible through a
nrix of archaeological techniques and aritt~ropological insiglrt,sl".
One attraction of employing ant.hropological
ethnic theory in arcl~aeologicalsituations is that
a t a certain level it avoids problenls of ethnographic analogy faced by Inany other attempis to
m a p the present onto the past (Clarke 1972:40).
Because social interactionist ethnic tlleory is
based on the most basic, absolutely universal
model of hunran social interaction, there can be
no argulrtent about its direct theoretical applicability to archaeological intergroup relations.
However, t,his does not. mean that it will be
easy to apply. It is always harder for archaeologists to apply a social theory successfully tllalr it
is for sociocultural anthropologists; t,his is a necessary co~~sequence
of the l i m i t a t i o ~ ~ofs arclraeological data. But this particularly social theory
is more problematic to use in archaeology than
most.

20

ETHhrICITY AND CULTURE

Recall that it was noted that an ever present able to discover such boundaries. By and large,
rr~ethodological difficulty in applyirrg this ap- statistical tests for group boundaries today conproaclr in sociocultural antl~ropologyis that it tinue to depend on an unweighted inclusion of a
reqrrires co~rtinualsecond order inferences of tlre wide range of artifacts and traits, typically based
activation of et,lrnic identity ttlrough the obser- only on tlre criteria of being found in sufficient
vation of behavior. AI-chaeologists are faced witlr numbers to luake such tests statistically 'meanthe challenging prospects of lravir~gto build ex- ingful'; alternatively, one sees the selection of arplanations based on third order inferences: of ide- tifacts or materials useful for trade". Hodder's
ological factors like ethnic identiiy activation and excellent ethnoarchaeological studies of ethnicgroup affiliation from tlre incomplete material re- ity and sy~nbolismin Baringo, Western Kenya
rnains of past ethnic behavior. Moreover, the (1982; 1977a; 1977b; 1978), of Lozi tribal refact that ethnic identity activation and salience lations (1982; 1981) and the Nuba (1982) have
are situationally specific poses great ~netlrodolog- demonstrated the utter folly in trying to discer~r
ical difficulties for w.chaeologists - even those group boundaries and group relat~ionsthrough
wit11 particulal-ly detailed data concerning large s u c l ~methodsl3.
regions. Distinguishing contextual salience is a
His ~ ~ u m e r o uexamples
s
demonstrate that the
very difficult thing to do without some rnea~rsof co~nmonassumption behind such statistical analinteractive associatiorr with the people in ques- yscs that increasing intensity of social interaction; I believe that it can a l n ~ o s tnever he corn- tion leads to cultural similarity (as made by Plog
pletely proved on the basis of material culture (1978), Ericson (1977), Sidry (1977) and Clarke
evidence alone". Still, I believe there is consider- (1968:414)) is just plain wrong'4. From an anable potential for tlre implenientation of this ap- tlrropological point of view, it is not surprising
proach i s archaeology - potential which a review that Hodder produced such findings. In fact,
of t.he archaeological literature denronstrates has they are to be expected as a natural consequence
not bccn realized to date. Much of this potential of the basic theory. As early as Barth's (1969)
involves the relationships between group bound- initial statement it was explicitly acknowledged
aries and ethnic markers.
that social and c~llturalboundaries need not necSince the time when diffusion dominated ar- essarily correspoird because the symbolic value
clraeological consciousness arclraeologists have of all cultural traits is not equal. In the case
been well aware that there are rarely clear ma- of ethnograplric groups which have been in conterial culture boundaries between socially au- tact for a long time one almost always sees a
tonomous groups. By the late 1960s careful sta- wide range of cultural traits diffuse across group
tistical analyses had repeatedly coafirmed this boundaries because they are seen to be useful,
observation; early et.11noarclraeological studies via intermarriage, as a result of acculturation,
like Clarke's (1968:368-384) ar~alysisof Califor- etc. Barth and others noted that tllis was not,
nia Indian cultural variation based on Kroebe- however, true of all cultural traits. It would seem
rian trait element lists supported this also. This t,o be true that few if any subjectively salient ethseerns to have led to a general pessirnisnr con- nic groups will fail t o identify a range of cirltural
cerning the ability of archaeology to discern snch traits as syrnbolic markers of their group and of
boundaries a t all, let alone to cliaract,erize what group membership; For some (like Sikhs) it might
goes on at them.
be quite a conrprehensive set of traits (religious,
I believe that a t least some of tlris pessimism is linguistic, dress, food habits, etc.), while witlr
unwarranted and might be dispelled if archaeolo- other groups like Hodder's Barillgo groups the
gists were n ~ o r eaware of some of the key findings list might be very restricted. It is usually the case
of anthropological ethnic research. In order to be that there is a quite sharp behavioral inter-group
more precise, let me illustrate my point,s through difference wit11 respect to a t least some of them;
reference to some of tlre work of an archaeologist as arule, the bigher the polarization between ethat t,lre forefront of such awareness - Tail Hodder. nic groups the more strongly such markers are
I believe that it is easily supportable bhat from observed and expressed.
an anthropological point of view one of the inost
It is therefore quite wrong to uncritically merge
serious and common n~etlrodologicalerrors bhat archaeological trait dat,a into overall measures in
archaeologists make when they search for group tlre search for group boundaries: to do so insures
boundaries is to fail to make clear a priori as- failure. Instead, archaeologists should develop
sunrptions about the traits which would be suit- some sort of a priori guidelines for what kinds

Buchiynani/ETHNIC P H E N O M E A r A AND S O C A L THEORY

of traits are likely t o b e synlbolically relevant t o

group boundaries. This would avoid the alternative dilemma which some (e.g. Hall 1982:435)
have seen arising from Hodder's general claim
t h a t virtually all social organizat,ional and material cultnral p l ~ e ~ ~ o m eare
n a ideologically (in his
terms, symbolically) mediated.
T h e problem is t h a t alrthropology cannot now
provide such a ready made set of guidelines. T h e
reason is ironic, considering t h e plight of archaeologists: ethnic group boundaries and the associated ethuic group cultural markers are typically
s o clear in ethuographic contexts t h a t analysis
has concentrated more 0x1 the use of such markers
t h a r ~on generating an overall theory of the markers themselves. Such a theory of ~ n a r k e r swould
have utility useful in anthropology also, but t h e
issue has received little systematic attention.
It would seem, therefore, t h a t ethnoarchaeology has great poter~t,ialt o contribute t o a sociology of ethnic markers, both for arcllaeology and
anthropology. In this regard, I-lodder's work is
a valuable starting point. Still, neither i t nor
work like it is likely t o forward more discussion
very quickly without Illore attention t,o anthropological etlrnic theory-attention presently allnost
non-existent in the 1it.erature (including Ilodder's
work). For example, I car1 think of quire a number of critical hypotheses whicl~could be tested
in ethnoarchaeological researclr with great implications for the arcl~aeologicalanalysis of intergroup boundaries. To list just a few:
1. Ethnic markers are unlikely to manifest
themselves in things which are highly functional or universally prized which do not
have equally functional or prestigious groupspecific replacements. It is not surprising
t.hat, for example, Ericson's (1977) d a t a on
obsidian trade in California is not. very illuiniuatit~gon the questiol~of group boundaries: obsidian, beyor~d being prized, was
a l be reject,ed by a group
just t o o f u ~ ~ c t i o nto
just because out.group lnembers used it.
2. Marked aesthetic variations are far more
likely to indicate group boundaries t h a n
are functional differences. Thus, measures
of cultural si~nilaritylike Clarke's analysis
of Califorllia Indian groups may well not
show sharp intergroup variations when traits
are considered together, b u t m y somewhat
rusty familiarity with the Kroeberian t r a i t
lists makes m e sure t h a t such intergroup
b o u ~ ~ d a r i ewould
s
arise using such things

21

a s whether a group ate some e c o ~ ~ o ~ l r i c a l l y

irrelevant animals, etc.
Thus, Hodder's
(1982:22) finding t h a t in Baringo women's
ear d e c o r a t i o ~ varied
~s
quite clearly a s a function of group makes good sense; one could
not assume this a priori but could certai~ily
identify sue11 a t r a i t prior t o the analysis as
s o ~ n e t h i n ghaving the p o t e ~ l t i a for
l being an
ethnic marker.
3. T h e greater the long-term polarization be-

tween ethnic groups, the more sharp will be

the distinction between one group's markers and another's. Over time, marker distitlctiveness will contrast increasingly with
a more general cross-boundary diffusion of
other cultural elements. As Hodder notes
(1981:9O), in the case of groups which a t one
time were very c~slturallydistinct b u t which
tl~ereaft,erentered into a nori-competitive relationship, ". . . cultural traits may n o t have
significance a s ident,it.y markers and will blur
across social boundaries." T h e same would
certainly be t r u e of the more geueral illstauce when (for whatever reason) ethnic
salier~cewas low. Conversely, (as is also
noted by Hotlder [1981:89]) a high degree of
ethnic salierlce will often produce slrarp culture trait difference between two once culturally identical groups a s the groups attempt t o different,iate theniselves from each
other.
4. Sharp spacial dropoffs of one trait with the

concomitant sharp rise of a functionally similar trait m a y indicate a group boundary, but
only i f the case can be made for t h e m being
a significant level of long t e r m interaction
across that trait dichotomy.
5. Like distinctive phonemes i n a language, the

symbolic markers of one groups are likely

to shift systematically with changes in the
markers of other groups with which they are
i n interaction i n order that those m a r k t r s rem a i n distinctive. Simple processes of diffusion or intra-group cultural change are unlikely t o exhibit this pattern.
There are a range of o t l ~ e r ,s o n ~ e w h a tmore
specific implications for u l ~ d e r s t a n d i ~ iarchaeg
ological group boulidaries sprinkled throughout
the anthropological literature'?
Perhaps the
other body of inforsnation with the greatest relevance t o understanding prehistoric inter-group

relations is t h e very extensive literature on social exchange. It should be noted that. social exclrange theory in anthropology today differs in n o
fundamental way frorn interactior~istethnic theory; both are based on dyadic social exchange
and an individual-level, maximizing, r a t i o r ~ a l
choice model of interaction. More than t:his, both
theory and et~l~nographic
d a t a support the coatention t h a t patterns of material exchange across
socially salient boundaries often reflect ethnic
marking and group identity support: framed anotlrer way, one of t h e social objectives t o be maximized in material inter-group exchange is frequent,ly group dist.inctiverress-difference, superiority, etc. Again, tlrough, the dilficulty for archaeologists is t h a t t h a t t,lre ethnographic assign~ n e n tof sncli symbolic objectives to certain objects or excha.irge pairs seems s o ~ ~ r e w l larbitrary
at
and nriglrt in tlre case of the exchange of scarce
valuables nright prove very dilficult 1.0 separate
archaeologically f r o m utilitaria~rexchange. T h e
social exclra~lgeliterature nevertheless seems like
a useful adjurrct t o anthropological etlrnic t,heory
in the development of an archaeology of ethnicity.
There is one other area wllcre archaeology nray
be able to c o ~ l t r i b u l esignificantly t o o u r understanding of ethnicity. This concerns t h e developnrerlt of theories of acc~llturationor the groupbased maint,enance of objective cultural difference. A~rtlrropological ethnic st,udies today is
not, niuch concerned with suclr things, save for
with respect t o t h e issue of int,er-cnltoral brokerage. Although sociological theory is well develt
developed here, but. has been a l ~ n o sexclusively
oped wit11 respect t o modern rninorit,y group relations; p e r h a p ~their theories of acculturation Inay
be applicable t o prehistoric rninority group relations in s t a t e or near s t a t e societies, b u t they are
u~rlikelyt o have rnuclr relevance t o non-minority
group ethnic relations in the past. I think t h a t
it will remain an open questiolr whether archaeologists can well deal with the social a n d ideoof objective, non-et,hnically
logical co~rseque~rces
syxrrholic cultural difference in interaction - t h e
c o n s e q ~ ~ e l ~ of
c e ssuch things as differe~rcesin kinship, language, and 111odes of production in interaction. I f they d o , I believe t h a t i t will certainly
be 'on their own steam'; if they are successful,
then i t would be tinre for another paper-on how
such findings could b e applicable to the anthropological analysis of ethnic behavior.

NOTES
1. Since 1965 ethnic research in anthropology has
doubled approximately every five years (Buclligi~ani
1982:G).
2. For example, Dslton (1981:39) claims that the
only possibility is t,o establish the "gross economicpolitical-social structure of the group.=
3. In doing this I lnust neglect all of the 'minority' approaches like cultural pluralism (e.g., Despres 1968, 1975) and variations on the nrain research
theme.
4. For a more extensive discussion of these and
other points concerning ethnic research in anthropology sec Buchignani (1982), A . Cohen (1974), R. Cohen (1978), Rernick (1983), and Hoiberg and Hraba
(1983).
5 . For a history of the development of this approach see Buchignani (1982).
8. For other easily statements see McCall ;~ndSin,mons (1988) and Kuhn (19G4).
7. On social exchange models see Barth (1966),
IIo~nans(1958), Ekch (1974) and I-feath (1976).
8. For a inore extensive discussion of issues concerning ethnic identity see McCready (1983), Gans
(1979), and De vos (1983).
9. The latter is partially addressed in the cultural pluralis~nliterature (Despres 1968, 1975); Nagata (1979).
10. Naturally, this assulrles an archaeological context where there is a ratlrer substantial, synchronic
area1 data base.
11. But then, neither can this be done always on
the basis of mat,erial and social evidence in etln~ographic contexts; typically, social psychological assu~nptionsare made at every point. This is therefore
no reason to disregard the theory in archaeology.
12. One sees these selection factors in the work of
Clarke(l9G8), Plog (1977; 1978), Renfrew (1977), Ericson (1977), (Irwin-Williams l977), :And many others.
13. Average link cluster analysis of Lori muterial culture d a t a from 107 villages across three tribal
groupings showed three vague clusters (1981:XG-7),A,
B, and C, but "there is absolutely no tribal or other
social, political, econon~icor activity differences between groups A and B (1981:89)."
14. In Hodder's study, certain key traits like
women's ear decorations, basket drinking cups,
wooden eating bowls and shield types could rather
accurately differentiate Tugen from N j e ~ n ppeople,
despite massive social interaction across this group
boundary (Hodder 1982:22-25).
15. Many can also be found in a more systelnatic
fashion in key hypothesis-oriented ~ociologicaldiscussions, like Schermerhorn (197G), Francis (197G), Gordon (1978), Blalock (198Z), and Yinger (1985).

Buchignani/ETHn'lC: P H E N O M E N A A N D SOCAL T H E O R Y

REFERENCES CITED
Barth, Frederik
1966 Models of Social Organization. Royal Anthropological Institute Occasional Paper 23. London.
1969 Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Little, Brown,
Boston.

23

Ericson, Jonathan
1977 Egalitarian Exchange Systenle in California.
In Ezchange Systems in Prehistory, edited by T .
Earle and 3. Ericson, pp. 109-126. Academic
Press, New York.
Francis, E. K.
1976 Interethnic Relations: An Essay i n Sociological
Theory. Elseview Greenwood, New York.

Blalock, Hubert M.
1982 Race and Ethnic Relations. Prentice-Hall, New
York.

Gans, H.
1979 Sy~nboiicEthnicity. Racial and Ethnic Studies
2:l-20.

Buchignani, Norman
1982 Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Ethnicity. Occasionvl Papers on Ethnic and Immigration Studies 82-13, Multicultural History
Society of Ontario, Toronto.
1985 Ethnicity as an Autor~omous Theoretical Domain. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting
of the Canadian Ethnic Studies Association,
Montreal, Quebec.

Goffman, E.
1959 The Presentation ojSelfin Everyday Life. Doubleday Anchor, New York.
1961 Encounters: Two Studies on the Sociology of
Interaction. Robbs-Merrill, Indianapolis:
1963 Stigma: Notes on the Monagement of Spoiled
Identity. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
1963 Behavior i n Public Places: Note* on the Social
Organization of Gatherings. Free Press, Xcw
York.
1967 Interaction Ritual. Anchor, Garden City.

Clarke, David L.
1968 Analytical Archaeology. Met,huen, London
Clarke, David L.
1972 Models and Paradigms in Contemporary Archaeology. In Models tn Archaeology, edited by
D. Clarke. Methuen, London.
Cohen, Abner
1974 Two Dimensional Man. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Cohen, Ronald
1978 Ethnicity: Proble~uand Focus in Anthropology. Anr~ualReview of Anthropology 7:379-403.
Dalton, George
1981 Anthropological Models in Arcl~aeologicalPerspective. In Patterns of the Past, edited by I.
Hodder, G. Isaac and N. Rammond, pp. 17-48.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Gordon, Milt,on M.
1978 Human Nature, Class and Ethnicity. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Hail, J.
1982 Review of Symbols in Action: Elhnoareharological Studies in Material Culture edited by I .
Hodder (1082). Mankind 13(3):434-435.
Heat.h, A.
1976 Rational Choice and Social Exchange: A Critique of Ezchange Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hodder, Ian R.
1977a The Distribution of Material Culture Itelns
in the Baringo District, Western Kenya. Man
12:239-269.
1977b
A Study of Ethno;rrchaeology in Western
De Vos, George and Rommanucci-Ross, L.
Kenya..
In Archaeology and Anthropology,
1983 Ethnic Identity: Cultural Continuities and
edited
by
M
. Spriggs, pp. 117-141. British
Change. llniversit)~of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Archaeological Reports Supplelnentary Series,
Despres, L.
19. Oxford.
1968 Antl~ro~olngical
Theory, Cultllral Pluralism,
1978 The Maintenance of Group Identities in the
and the Study of Complex Societies. Current
Baringo District, Western Kenya. In Social OrAnthropology 9:3-26.
ganization and Settlement, edited by D. Green,
C. Haselgrove, and M. Spriggs, pp. 47-73.
Despres, L. (editor)
British Arcllaeological report^ Supplelnentary
1975 Ethnicity and Resource Competition i n Plural
Series, 47. Oxford.
Societies. Mouton, The Hague.
1981 Society, Economy and Culture: An EthiiuEarle, T. and J . Ericeon (editors)
graphic Case Study A~nnngstthe Lozi. In Pat1977 Ezchange Systems in Prehistory. Academic
terns of ihr Past, edited by 1. Hodder, et al,
Press, New York.
pp. 67-95, Can~bridgeUniversity Press, CamEkeh, P.
bridge.
1974 Soczal Ezehange Theory: The Two Trad~t~ons 1982 Symbols in Action: Ethnoarehaeological StudHarvard University Press, Cambridge.
ies in Material Culture. Cambridge University
Press.

ETHh'ICITY AhrD CULTURE

Hoiberg, E. and J . Hraba

1983 Ideational Origins of Modern Theories of Ethnicity. Sociological Quarterly 24(3):381-392.
Homans, G . C .
1958 Social Beliavior as Exchange. American Journal of Sociology 63:.
Kuhn, Marrfred H.
19G4 Major Trends in Symbolic Interaction Theory in the Past Twenty-five Years. Sociological
Quarterly 5531-84.
McCaI1, G. J. and J. L. Siinrnons
1906 Identities and Interactions: A n Ezomination
of Human Associations in Everyday Life. Free
Press, New York.
McCready, Willia~nC. (editor)
1983 Culture, Ethnicity, and Identity: Current Issues
i n Research. Academic Press, New York.
Nagnta, J .
1979 Malaysian Mosaic.
University of British
Colurnbia Press, Vancouver.
Plog, Stephen
1978 Social Interaction and Stylistic Similarity:
A Reanalysis. In Advances in Archaeological
Method and Theory, edited by M . SchitTer, pp.
144-182. Vol. 1. Acadeinic Press, New York.
Reminick, Ronald A.
3933 Theory of Ethnicity: A n Anthropologist's Perspective. University Press of America.
Royce, Anya P.
1982 Ethnic Identity: Strategies of Diversity. Indiana University Prers.
Schermerhorn, R. A.
1976 Comparative Ethnic Relations. In Race and
Ethnic Relations, edited by Percy Cohen and
John Carrier. Holmes and Meier, New York.
Sidrys, R.
1977 Mass-distance Measures for the Maya Ohsidian Trade. In Ezehangi Systerns i n Prehistory,
edited hp T . Earle and J . Ericson, pp. 91-108.
Acadelnic Press, New York.
Yinger, J . Milton
1985 Ethnicity. Annual Review o j Sociology 11:151180.

SECTION I

FENCES AND BRIDGES, ENEMIES

AND FRIENDS

ETHNICITY AND CULTURE

THE BODY AS SOCIAL SIGNAL

Sara Stinson
Departmertt of Anthropology
Queens College, City University of New York
Flushing, New York

Physical ar~thropologistshave long been interested in human variat.io11 in body size and shape.
Anthropometric studies of Iturnan popillations
have document,ed differences between gerletically
distinct groups as well a s variation within pop~llatiorls(Eveleth a n d Tanner 1976). 01te of t h e
most cousistent. findings in studies of growth arid
d e v e l o p ~ n e r is
~ t the associatiort between socioecor~ornicstatus and growth. Whether dealir~gwith
large o r small scale wealth differences, ntost studies have founid sirriilar results: the rich are taller,
heavier and fatter than t h e poor.
While physical anthropologists fr-equentlg have
used measurements of body size and shape in describing inter and i ~ l t r a g r o n pvariat.ion, rrtucli less
at,te~itio~r
l ~ a sbeen given t o t h e ways in which
body dimensions might serve as subjective social
signals. Giver1 the body size differences between
human populations i t seems reasol~ablet o suggest t h a t body size and shape rnight be used as
signals of group merubership. Similarly, body
size and shape rniglit be used as social signals
within groups. This suggestiou is based on a
particularly striking discrepancy in the general
finding t h a t t,he rich tend t o be fat,ter thau t h e
poor. Today in Korth America and Western Europe, tlre opposite is t.he case: t h e rich tend t o
be thinner than the poor. While the tendency
for t h e riclr t o be tlrir~nerthan the poor is most
evident in adult women ( G a r ~ tand Clark 1975;
G a r n e t al. 1977), i t has also been noted in adult
rnen (Goldblatt e t al. 1965; Moore e t al. 1962),
and in children (Stnnkard et al. 1972; Whitelaw
1971). T h e fact t h a t our current ideal body build
coincides witli t h a t observed in the rich, coupled
with t h e finding t h a t body size and shape can influence social mobility (Cliquet 1968; Goldblatt
et al. 1965; Schurnacher and K n u s s n ~ a r1978)
~
suggests t h a t , in addition to being influenced by
factors associated with social class, body size and
shape also rnay be used by individuals t o communicate information about their socioeconomic

status.
T h e purpose of this paper is to explore tlre use
of body form as a social signal by examining cultural ideals of body size a r ~ dshape and tlle factors
t,llat may influence variatior~in these ideals. T h e
d a t a for this study come from tlle Human Relat i o r ~ sArea Files. There are several est,ablislied
cross-cultural sarnples t h a t have been selected t o
represent the range of cultural variation and t o
avoid cases ia which similarities between societ.ies
are d u e t o diffusiorl o r recent. cornnlolt origin (Lagace 1979; Murdock and White 1969). Unforturlately, because of t h e scarcity of infoniiatioa on
ideal body dimensions, use of these samples did
r ~ o tyield adequate d a t a . For the present study
the entire collection of 316 files preserit a t t,he
City University of New York was analyzed in order t o obtain data on an adequate number of societies. Information was collected for both males
and females on ideal general body build, as well
as on desired attributes of specific parts of t h e
body. This paper deals mainly with the results
for t h e most frequently discussed characterist.ic,
preferred amount of body fat, and is limited to
females since there is a scarcity of inforrnatiorl on
ideal male body form. l l o m the available d a t a i t
is not possible t o determine whetlrer the greater
amount of informatioll on fernale body forrn indicates t h a t most societies place more erupl~asis
on the female body o r whether this result ruerely
reflects the biases of uresteni observers. Infomiation on t h e preferred levels of fatness in females
was obtained for a total of 44 societies. There was
ortly one case study where the same result was
obtaiued for two societies which Murdock (1967)
has classified as being similar due to diffusior~or
recent common origin. In this case, only one of
the societies in the group was included in further
analysis, leaving a sample of 4 3 societies.
Table 1 lists these 4 3 societies, There are
eight groups in the insular Pacific, six in Asia,
five in Sub-Saharan Africa. four in the Circum-

ETHA'ICITY AND CULTURE

~-

--~~~~,..,,-,--,----p-

p-~

North America
Kaska (plump/fat)
Sarrpoli (medium)
Crow (slim)
Cl~iricaliua(plunip/fat)
Western Apache (plurnp/fat)
Maricopa (plump/fat)
Havasupai (plump/fat)
Taralrurnara (plirmp/fat)
Tarascans (medium)
Puerto Rico (plump/fat)
Jamaica (plurnp/fat)
Circum-Mediterranean
Ilnperial Ronians (slim)
Modern Egyptians (plump/fat,)
Tuareg (pIump/fat)
~

~~~

Soinali ( p- l u ~ n p / f a t )
Asia
Iran (plump/fat)
Lepcha (slim)
Goiid (slim)
Santal ( p h ~ m ~ / f a t )
Malays (slirn)
Cl~nckchce(plump/fat)
p~~--

--

~~

Central and South America

Yucatec Maya (medium)
Cuna (plun~plfat)
Goajiro ( p l n ~ n p / f a t )
Cagaba (pInmp/fat)
Cubeo (plump/fat)
Jivaro (plump/fat)
Siriono ( p I u n ~ p / f a t )
O n a (mediunr)
Yahgan (medium)
Sub-Saharan Africa
Masai (slim)
Rlrndi (slim)
Mbuti ( p l ~ i r n ~ / f a t )
G a n d a (plump/fat)
Znlu (plump/fat)~ ~ -.~~
,
..,~., -~
~ - ~ ~ Insular Pacific
Isneg (plump/fat)
Ralinese (rnedinm)
Trobriands (slim)
Tikopia (niediunr)
Trlihese (plump/fat)
Maori (plump/fat)
Pnkapukans (plump/fat.)
Marm~esans( v l u m v i f a t \
p

Table 1: Societies for which lnforrnatioll on Ideal Levels of Fernale Fatness was Collected.
Mediterranean, nine in Central a r ~ dSouth America, and 11 in Xorth America; two of these, Jarrlaica and Puerto Rico, are the result of recent
rnigrai,iolis from t h e Old t o t h e New World. In
t.er~nsof t h e relative representation of the major areas of the world, this group of 43 societies is generally similar t o established crosscultural samples, althouglr groups in the CircumMediterranean are someu.11at underrepresented
and North American groups sonlewhat overrepresented. Moreover, i t should be noted that iro data
were obtained on any Australian groups; Nortliern Asia is represent,rd by only one society, and irr
Sub-Saharan Africa and Nortlr America t,here is a
geographical bias in the sample, in Sub-Saharan
Africa toward t h e east a n d in North America toward the west.
Ideal body build was divided into tlrree categories, plump or fat, medium, and slim. Table
1 shows 28 societies in which t h e ideal female
body build is f a t or plump, seven in which the
ideal is medium, and eight in which t h e ideal
is slim. There were several problems in coding the d a t a which introduce some cautior~into
t h e i ~ ~ t e r p r e t a t i oof
n this result. Judgments of
body build are subjective in nature. Many of

t h e eth~iographicaccounts on which this analysis is based were writ.ten early i t,he century,
and our owrn ideas of u.hst corlstitute a heavy
o r slim build have changed considerably since
t h a t titne. It seems reasonable t o assulne t h a t
where plumpness is recorded as the ideal female
body type, these worn er^ would still be considered plump by today's starrdards, but this nray
n o t be the case for the medium and tlrin categories. In s o ~ n ecases, coding was based on plrotographs in addit,ion t o tlie writterl account, but
for the most part this war not possible and the assignments were based or~lyon the etlrnograpller's
statenkents. A second problem has t o do more
specifically with tlle ~rrediumcategory. Four of
the seven cases included in the medium cat,egory
arc ones in which the etllnograpller st,ated only
t,llat a female shorild be neither too tlrin nor t o o
fat.. This staLelnent requires a snbjective decision
which niay vary fro111 culture t o culture, so these
groups might actually fall into one of the other
categories.
Twenby-eight of t,he 4 3 societies included in t.he
sample (65wit.h the results of the vast. majority
of a r ~ t l ~ r o p o n ~ e tstudies
ric
which find tlrat higher
socioeconomic status is associated with greater

Stinson/THE BODY A S SOCIAL SIGArAL

29

A second factor t h a t ~ n i g l l t influence body

fatness. This does n o t necessarily imply tlrat
build
preferences is t h e relative abundance of
plumpness is the preferred female body build in
most societies simply because it is a signal of high food. To test this hypothesis, a comparison of
economic status. A more probable interpret,ation ideal body builds was made between societies
of the causal mecharrism in this relationship is which differ in t h e available quantity of food.
tliat plumpness is desirable because it signals a Food abnndance categories were based on the
certain level of nutritiorial and health status; a coded d a t a in Textor (1966), available for 15 of
level most often found in those of lliglt socioe- the societies in t h e sample. Food was considered
conomic status. In most societies t h e ability t,o ple~ltifulif the food supply was coded a s abunbear children and provide physical labor are two d a n t ; food was considered to b e not plentifiil if
important att.ribut,es for a female, a n d the pre- the food supply was coded as minimal t o adeferred female body build is the one most likely to quat,e. Because of the problems referred t o above
indicate these characteristics. T h e fact tlrat fe- with coding of groups in the m e d i u ~ nbody build
male attractiveness is tied to childbearing is also category, only those groups favoring plump/fat
for preference in female o r slir11 women were included in this analysis.
illustrated by the fi~rdir~gs
hip size. D a t a on ttiis attribute are available for While t h e association between food availability
only eleven societies, a mucli rrnaller sample than and ideal body build does n o t reach statistical
for general hody build, but in ben of t.he eleven significance, due a t last in part t o the small samsocieties broad hips are desirable. T h e fact that ple size, it is suggestive. In the six societies
most societies favor broad-llipped women wit11 a in wlliclr food is not plent.ifu1, plun~pnessis tlle
relatively high anrount. of hody fat suggests t h a t preferred fernale body build. T h e nine societies
body size and shape are important signals of the where food it. abundant, on t,he other hand, are
general health and p h y ~ i c a lbuild necessary t o divided between those preferring plump (six) and
slim (three) women. Where food is 1101 plentiful,
perform cult,~trallyexpected roles.
While t h e majority of societies prefer fat or sli~rllressmay be undesirable because it is likely
plump women, there are still a sigl~ifical~t
num- t o be caused by under~lutrition.In societies such
ber of societ.ies in which this is not the case. as ours where food is abundant and almost any
W h a t factors might b e responsible for variabion person could become plump, slimness need n o t
in cultural ideals? One at~tributeotlrer than gen- ~lecessarilysignal an u~rlrealthystat,e, and dhere
eral health {,hat. body size and shape can sig- may be greater latitude in body build ideals.
This grratel- liberty allows body size and shape
nal is group membership, particularly where the
t
o
b e used to symbolize altribut~esother t h a n just
group in question has a n extreme or unusual
general
health and r~utritionalstatus. An addibody build. In Inany groups the preferred body
c11aract.eristic
t h a t body form might signal
tional
size and shape is close t o the usual body build
of tlle group. An example of this is the case of is social class. Obviously the use of body size a n d
the Masai. As w o ~ t l dbe expected given their shape to signal social status is more likely u.lrere
ge~leticallydetermined ectonrorpl~y, sli~nnessis class distinctions are culturally important. Thus
tlle preferred body build anlong the Masai. A we might expect ideals t o be more variable n o t
body well padded with fat would be anomalous, only in societies in which food is abundant a n d
while a linear body form is a distinctive marker body form is free t o signal more t h a n nutritional
of group identity. T h e use of preferred body size st.atus, but also in stratified societies where t h e
y
anlouut of
and shape to siglral group membership is seen individual has a p o t e ~ ~ d i a l lgreater
for other clraracLeristics a s well. T h e Crow In- i~lformation t o communicat,e. Comparing ideal
dians of the Plaills have very de1init.e standards body builds in egalitarian and non-egalitarian
of beauty, both for males and females. In par- societies, there is some indicat.ion tllat this is
ticular, ideal l ~ c i g h tis defined within very nar- indeed the case. Social stratification categories
row limits. T h e Crow are one of the tallest. of were based on Murdock's (1967, 1981) codes for
the Plains tribes, and accordil~gt o Lowie (1922), degree of social differentiation which were availideal height for nrales is between 5' 10 112" and able for 33 societies in tlle sample. Societies were
6' 1/2" (179 t o 184 cm). Anyone short,er or taller considered non-egalitarian if t,hey had recognized
than this is not considered t o b e good looking. social classes or socially inlportant. wealhh disOn the other h a ~ ~ tdo, the Mbuti Pygmies and ti~lctions; the egalitarian caiegory is made u p
the Kung, extremely short individuals, t,all~less of societies in which differentiation, other t h a n
t h a t based on individual achievement, is absent.
is a n undesirable, even comical, condition.

ETHNICITY AND CULTURE

30

Again, societies in w l ~ i c la~ medium body build

is preferred have rrot been included in the analysis. In both the non-egalitarian and egalitarian
groups, plumpness is the ideal for a majority of
societies. However, six of the 1 9 non-egalitarian
societies prefer slim women while i a only two of
the 14 egalitarian societies, tlre Masai and the
Crow, is tlris the case. In egalitarian groups,
health and group ~nernbershipare the irnport.ant
attributes t o signal, and t,he cultural ideals reflect t,hese characteristics. In nrore stratified societies i t may also be desirable to signal class and
wealth, and a body build which differentiat,es t,he
elite may b e one method t o transmit this informat,ion. Exactly w h a t forrn the ideal will take
in these societies may be influenced by the material conditions to wl~iclrthe group is subject as
well as unique cultural values and circurnstances
which are not predictable in any general manner.
However, for a significant ~ r u ~ r r b of
e r stratified societies the ideal is a slim body bnild.
Our own culture is orre in U-lrich sli~nnessis the
ideal body build and is apsociated with high socioeconomic stat,us. In tlre wcstern industrialized
coulrtries, a slirrr body build may signal, arnong
other things, t h e wealth and leisure necessary to
spend tinre and nroney on the latest diet books
and healt,Ii spa facilibies. An eve11 more striking exalnple of tlre use of body size and shape
t.o signal social status, one also tied to tlreir use
as sig~ralsof group membership, is t h a t of the
Rundi of Ruanda. T h e Rundi are comprised of
three groups representing very different genetic
st.ocks: the Pygmoid T w a , the Bant,u H u t u , and
the Nilotic Tutsi (see Hierrraux 119641 for an antl~ropometriccomparison of the Fiutu and Tutsi).
In t h e 1950s these groups also differed in occupation and social st,at.us. The Tutsi were hel~lers
a n d t h e aristocracy, tlre 1Iut.u agricultural commoners, and tlre Twa t,he hunters, potters a n d
iroirworkers wlro occupied tlre lowest rulrg of the
social ladder. One factor which the Tutsi took
advantage of t o nrailrtair~bheir social a n d political domination was their distinctive body build.
Compared t,o the Hutn and Twa, tile Tutsi are
slender, tall and light skinned, and tlris body type
was t h e ideal ill Rnanda. Maquet (1961:146-147),
discussing inequality in Ruanda stales:
Tlre Tutsi . . . have convinced all of Ruanda
that to be slender and light skinned is
much better tllan t o be stout and dark
skinned . . . They used the stereotvue
.- (of
~
body build) also as proof of their different

nature which entitled them to rule and as

a guarantee against social mobility.
While the history of Ruanda created an atypical situation in which the body could be used as
a blatant and extremely effective signal of social
status, i t does not seem unreasonable to propose
t h a t t h e same events Inay be occurring in otlrer
societies on a more subtle level.
Cultural ideals for body form and the factors
t h a t influence variation in these ideals suggest
tlrat body size and shape are used to commu~t
nicate a nuniber of socially i n r p o r t a ~ messages.
Most iniportantly, and probably in all societies,
body size and shape signal health and nutritional
status, and the preferred body build is one indicat,ive of tlre good health necessary t o perform
culturally expected roles. Body form can also
signal lne~nberslripin a particular group, most
effectively when the group is characterized by a
distir~ctivebody build. Finally, there are cases ia
which body size and shape may be used a s a signal of social st,atus. Thus, body di~l~erleions
are
riot only affected by factors associated wit,h socioeco~romicstatus, but also may be one element
ir~fluerrcirrgour perceptions of socioeconomic status. Much as other cultural syn~bols,body shape
can be created and manipulated.
REFERENCES CITED

Cliquet, R.L.
1968 Social Mobility and the Anthropological Structure of Populations. Hun~nnBiology 40:17-43.
Eveleth, P.B. and J.M. Tanner
1976 Worldwide Variation in IIuman Growth. Cam-

bridge University Press, Cambridge.

Garn, S.M., S.M. Bailey, P.E. Cle and I.T.T. Higgins
l 9 7 7 Level of Education, Level of Income and Level
of Fatness in Adults. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 30::721-725.

Gnrn, S.M, and D.C. Clark

1975 Nutrition, Growth, Development and Maturation: Findings from the Ten-State Nutrition
Survev of 1968-1970. Prdiatrics 5G:30G-319.
Goldblatt, P.B., M.E. Moore and A.J. Stunkard
in Obesity.
of
Amer.
iean Medical Association 192:1039-1044.

19F5 Social

Hiernaux, J .
1964 \Veight/fieiglit Relationship During Growth
in Africans and Europeans. Human Biology

---

~U:Z'l3-zYS.

Sfinsor~/THEBODY A S S O C l A L S I G K A L

Lagace, R.O.
1979 The H R A F Probability Sample: Retrospect
and Prosnect. Behaworal Science Research
14:211-229.
Lowie, R.H.
1922 The Material Culture of the Crow Indians. Anthropologicnl Papers o f f h e Amcrican Museum of
Natural History, Volume 21, P a r t 3. New York.
Maquet, J.J.
1961 The Premise of Inequality in Runnda. Oxford
University Press, London.
Moore, M.E., A . Stunkard and L. Srole
1962 Obesity, Social Class and Mental Illness.
Jourr~al of the American Medical Association
181:962-966.
Murdock, G.P.
1967 Ethnographic Atlas. University of Pittsburgh
Press, Pittsburgh.
1981 Atlas of World Cultures. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.
Murdock, G.P. and D.R. White
1969 Standard Cross-cultural Sample.
8:329-369.

Ethnology

Schumacher, V.A. and R . Knuasniann

1978
Soziale
Koerperhnlicnunt,erschiede
Geechwistern. Homo 29:173-176.

bei

Stunkard, A.J., E. d'Aquiii, S. Fox and R.D.1,. Filion

1972 Influence of Social Class on Obesity and Thinness in Children. Journal of the American Medical Association 221 579.584.
Textor, R .
1966 A Cross-Cultural Sutnmary. B R A F Press, New
Haven.
Whitelaw, A.G.L.
1371 The Association of Social Class and Sibling
Nuixtber with Skinfold Thickness in London
Schoolboys. Human Biology 43:414-420.

ETHhrlCITY AND CULTURE

SYMBOLS AND SKIN: TELLING ENEMIES

FROM FRIENDS IN NORTHERN LUZON
William K . Macdonald
Department of Anthropology
Columbia University
New York, New York

Tliis paper is about st,yle, or Inore specifically,

i t is a n investigation into the distributions of
stylistic variability. I would like to make it clear
a t the outset. t h a t this is not a paper on the t l ~ e o r y
of style; if it. were 1 would begin wit11 tlie specification of primitive axioms, define their relationships, delineate their implications, etc. This paper is also n o t an enrpirical study; I am in part advocating tlie simulat.ion of tlre pseudo-empirical
as a viable a n d valuable research strategy. Finally, this paper is also not about what has come
to be called "middle range tlieory", t h a t is, i t
is not about tlie construction of "yardstickt." by
which we a t t e m p t t o measure tlle archaeological
record.
Wlrat I a m a t t e ~ n p t i n gto do in this paper
is more modest and more presun~ptuous: I a m
trying to specify a model of hnman stylistic
behaviour and analyze its potendial properties.
This model is t,lieoret~icallyderived, since no one
works in an intellectual vacuum; i t begins t h e
appl-oximation of a useful yardstick, since tlris is
necessary for analysis; and i t is grounded in an
empirical case, since l a m after all an arcl~aeologist. But the paper is a t the same time equally
renioved from all t,liree.
Folloxving Willnsen (1974), by style I rriean
variation wliiclr expresses social distinctions. In
this broad sense, style call be seen as a n arcliaeological cover term for ethnicity and, like ethnicity,
st.yle call b e seen t o operat,e a t multiple levels of
social life.
Style - since I a m an archaeologist I will continue t . use
~ t h e code word -- nrinimally operates
a t the level of the individual, a t a group level,
and on a regional inter-group level. Tllat is, we
call talk about tlie self-definition of an individual who stands out from liis fellows in t.erms of
style, a phenomenon I call panache. More commonly in archaeology, we refer to sbyle as a group

process wllereby one batch of individuals distinguishes itself from another bat,cl~,a phenomenon
I term protocol. Sirch protocols can be present in
either a vertical o r a horizontal dimension, t h a t
is, as status protocols o r as the eliquetles of social
affiliation. Finally, style can also refer to a set of
broadly regional distinctions of the kind tliat archaeologists used t o call "Cultures". These initial
categories call be summarized in Figure 1.
Witlxin each of tliese cat,egorier of style we
woilld expect variabilit,~:ethnographies, not people, corrdition us to accept n o r n ~ a t i v edescription. Further, dhis variability iuay be expressed
in several di~nensions- a s etli~iologistswe would
expect there t o be syncl~ronicallyregional variations since p e o p l ~are not automatons; as arcliaeologists we would expect there to he teinporally
significant variation, since the contexts in which
distinctions are made manifest change througli
time.
For each of t,hese types of style we would also
expect t,here t o b e a n empirical dist,ribut.ion a n d
a n underlying theoretical distribution whicli ca.n
be effectively used t o describe this variability.
Prior t o any arialysis of style - in any of these
mnltiple dimensions - it. would seem necessary t o
begin by connecding the empirical expression of
style to its underlying tlieoretical distribution in
an explicit. way.
Making this connection is what I mean by the
specificiatiol~of a model of human behaviour.
Most theoretical models of h u ~ n a nhel~aviourare
anchored a t the level of tlie individual; groups d o
not act, irldividuals d o , eitlrer as individuals o r
a s participants in social groups. W h a t we wish
t o do is t o explain individual behaviours in terms
of principles of individual action and t h e effects
of group membership on tlie direction of tliese
behaviours.
However, models of behaviour which consider

ETNh71C1TY AhrD CULTURE

Figure 1:
only variables a t the individual level are obviously inadequate. It is necessary t,o consider explicitly the effects of social context as they are
mediated tlrrouglr group variables. It is also necessary t o colrsider the possibility of between-level
i~rteractionand tlre effects of rrorr-linear variation
ie these relat,ionships.
Perllaps the most irrieresting compolrent of this
whole p r o b l e ~ nis in fact its c o ~ ~ r p l c x i t It
y . nray be
t h a t different tfreories a]-e appropriate to different
levels and t,o different types of groups. For example, information diffusion ~ n o d e l s(e.g., Moore
1981) may be nlost relevant where large geographical areas are being considered. Tlre theories of comnrunicatio~rnetworks and pressures
toward unifonuity drawn from social psycl~ology
(Ravelas 1950; Jolr~~sorr
1978) Inay be most relevant t o problerns concerning small groups and
thus inappropriate oirtside t h a t cont.ext.
Nor are size arrd space the orrly di~~relrsions
to
be co~rsidered here: as anthropologists we are
aware of the enormous diversity of groups in
whiclr people participate. H ~ r ~ r r agroups
n
may
b e stable through time or not, they may be etlrnically homogeneous or not, tlrey inay be symbolically cognised o r not. A I I each
~
category of
group may require the specification of different.
tlreoretical prenrises prior t o effective arralysis l .
Because I have beer1 unable t o find any cases
where underlying distributions of stylistic phenomena have been discussed and because there
exists insufficient ethnographic description from
which t,o construct an empirical distribution, i t
is necessary to begin with t l ~ esinrlllation of a
set of d a t a in order to follow through the logic
of t h e argument. For this exercise I will use,

as a paendo-empirical example, t,he relationsllip

between tattooing and ~varfare/lreadl~untirrg
in
northern Luzon, Philippines. Included in 111y reasons for selecting tlris area as a test case is the
presence of a solid etlrnographic record and the
existence of a set of etlr~rolristoricphot.ographs
housed in the U~riversityof Michigan Museurn of
Anthropology2.

ETHNOGR.APHIC DATA

In this sect,ion I use tlre past tense t o refer to

tlre time period e~lconrpassingronghly the first
quarter of this century. My d e n t , here is simply to provide a context for the analysis t h a t
follows rutlrel- than presenting a potted etllnographic surnmary.
Most of nortlrern Luao~ris ruggedly rnountairrous, a fact of topograpl~ywlliclr lrindered Spanis11 penetratio11 into tlre area for several llundred
years. Tlre Amel-icans were more successful: they
built roads and, in tlre early part of this century,
rapidly established "Pax Anrericana" in a region
formerly charact.erized by endernic, low-level warfare.
T h e prinrary occupatio~rof most people in the
region was irrigated rice farmiug altl~ough- give11
t.opographic diversity - there are some areas in
wllicll kaingin, or swiddelr agriculrure, was practiced. Similarly, most people lived in relatively
srnall villages, ~ r ~ o or
r e less exrensive as local conditions allowed, which were oftelr segmented into
named sub-divisions called ato (in the B o ~ r t o c
area). Each ato, o r 'ward' (Jenks 1905), represented a basic unit of cooperation, particularly in
regard t o warfare - the ato was the basic unit of
defense.

Each ato, in tlre Rontoc area, was defined

by (a) stone walls enclosirrg i t , (b) a ceiitral
ritual structure for men's, primarily warfarerelated, activit.ies (some groups also had analogous wonren's houses for the encult~uratiorr of
young women), and, (c) a number of households
u,hich may or inay not have been inter-related
through kins1rip. Membership in a n ato was an
open option, but orrce a young married couple
set u p shop in an ato they r~suallystayed there
as long as tlrey stayed married. T h e at0 should
lint be confused with a kinship unit, since groups
in tlre mountains of Luzon were generally organized arouird cognatic, ego-centered kindreds.
Warfare and headhunting were iinporhant components of life in i~orthernLuzorr and the taking
of a lread was the main road t o higher status and
prestige. Individr~alswere evaluated relative t o
t.11eir prowess in warfare and tlris apparently provided an aveiruc to increased wealth as well. In
spite of all of the ethnographic atteirtion paid t o
l~eadhunting,however, it is difficult t o estiri~ate
how frequently heads were in fact taken; t h a t is,
there is no d a t a on t,lre empirical distribut,ion of
tieadhunting over time or across space.
Trophy skulls were awarded t o individuals but
were kept in the men's house of an ato. Tliis
follows from the observat.ions t h a t the ato was
the basic uirit of warfare aird tlrat most. individual
male's activities with regard 1.0 warfare were atocentered. Each time t h a t a man took a head
he received a t a t t o o t o mark the event. Thus
tat.toos became an outward, permanent record
of a man's war achievements, t o be commented
upon, evaluated and discussed. The more tattoos
an individual had on Iris upper torso arid face,
then, the inore heads he had taken.
Altlrough we d o not know the frequency of t a t too events - since we know little of the frequency
of warfare - it is apparent from an exarniiration
of t,he ethnolrist,oric photograplrs of individuals
and groups t h a t niost men had t,aken at. least
one head, and sonre liad take11 many. Apparent,ly, initial tattoos were placed over the entire
upper torso and later tattoos were recorded as fill
and elaboration on t h a t basic design. It seeins t o
be the case t h a t different atos could be discriminated on the basis of the initial t a t t o o design.
T h a t is, the ato as t,lre basic unit of warfare was
also the basic unit of stylistic variability; men
frorrr tlre same at0 could apparently be identified
by their tattoos. Thus i t would seem t h a t t a l toos provided a means by u~hiclrone could identify wlio was arid who was not a n appropriate

candidat,e for decapitation; tattoos defined one's

friends and one's enemies.
Woinen were tattooed as well, by virtue of their
affiliatioir with a mail: a wonran was tattooed
when her husband Look a head. It is also of interest that women were in some cases the ritual specialists who performed the tatt,ooing, altltough
how often this was true is not clear. The d a t a
on wonrea and tattooing is particularly deficient;
while of great t,lreoretical and enrpirical interest,
tlris deficiency artificially limits the present discussion t o men.

PSEUDO-DATA AND REAL-ANALYSIS

The a,bove ethnographic observations from Luzoir can be briefly summarized as a set of qualitative relationships between tattooing and warfare:
1. The nrirrimal cooperative, defensive and ritual unit above the level of the houseltold in these
societies was a bounded village srrbdivision called
an ato.
2. Individuals competed within atos and cammunities for increased prestige and status; this
conrpet,ition for status revolved around headIiunting. Individual style, i.e., panache, was an
integral and importalrt characteristic of individual social behaviour.
3. A t a t t o o event took place every tilrie a man
took a lread and was carried out by a ritual specialist, a quasi-hereditary position. These tat.toos
were initially broad, highly visible designs placed
on the upper torso; later tattoos were elaborations on this basic design element.
4. Tattoos provided the basis for discrimination of friends from enemies in warfare; tattoos
were the mediuin by which protocols were facilitated.
These basic observations allow a nuinber of expectat,ions co~tcerningstylistic variability in
toos within and anrorrg tlre groups of nort.lrern
Luzon.
1. Shrce a tattoo event took place within an
ato, the ritual specialist performing the t,at,tooing shorild he an individual connected with the
ato in its role as a ritual centre 3. Therefore,
t,ltere should be a great deal of stylistic similarity
within an ato unit. Similarly, the greater t,he frequency of warfare, the greater the dissimilarity
of tatt.oo designs between atos. Tattoos, in otlrer
words, provided the means by wlrich one could
distinguish enenries from friends as part of the
etiquette of warfare.
2. Since the ato was the basic unit of warfare,
t.he greater the frequency of warfare the greater

36

ETHhrICITY AhrD CULTURE

tlie siirlilarity of t h e basic design element within have briefly sumrnariaed above, multiple regresan ato. Again, tattoos provide an indicatiori of sion does provide a tool by which we can disentangle individual and group stylistic behaviour in
t l ~ eetiquettes of social affiliation.
3. Competition for status revolvilrg around an explicit manner.
111 t h a t formulation, however, I side-stepped
lreadhunting should lead t o an increased elnphathe
issue of underlying distributions in order t o
sis on panache a s a ~ r ~ o dofe sty1ist.i~expression:
concentrate
on i.he analysis. Here 1 wish ho make
the greater tlre frequency of warfare, then, t h e
s
u
c
l
~
sirnulatiotl
more realistic by devising a
any
greater t h e expressed stylistic differences between
justification
for
the
form
of distribut,ion underlyinale tattoos within a single ato. T h a t is, panache
I wish t o specify a
ing
human
stylistic
behaviour.
played a major role in tlre generat.ion of stylistic
model
of
individual
level
behasiour
which is condiversity.
gruent
with
group
and
inter-group
bel~avioura s
Note t h a t some of these expectations are in
well.
apparent opposition t o one another: that. is, increased frequency of headhunt,ing leads one to
THE MODEL
expect a n increase in similarity and a n increase
in dissimilarity within a single ato. This is the
I begin with the assunlption tliat human belogical consequence of tlie silnultaneous opera- haviours are an obserxrable saniple derived froni
tion of b o t h panache and ~rrultipleprotocols in an n-dimensional decision space. T h a t is, w l ~ e ~ i
complex social situations. An emphasis on pro- people do something, their actioi~sare the betocol a t this point in an analysis would lead t o havioural outcorlie of an interplay of nlultiple
the inference t h a t communicative cooperation in factors and decisions. These decisions are most
style is d o ~ n i n a n t . T h a t is, b o u ~ l d a r ymarking likely inter-related in very complex, socially deand maintenance - senru Wobst (1977) - are the termirred and situatior~allydefined ways. People
processes which account for the greatest portion select an appropriate action from a number of
of sdylistic variability. I have elsewlrere argued allernative, l~ierarchicallyarranged bellavioural
t h a t begiiirrir~ga t t h e level of the group and in- opt,ioas, on the basis of multiple criteria, coinferring t h e beliaviour of individual participants plexly related4. Even in Ltrzon, it is not. always
in t h a t group is logically incorrect (Macdonald appropriate 1.0 cut off soir~eoneelse's head, even
1985; cf. Robinsoii 1950). Group level variables if he defines himself as your enerny.
do not necessarily reflect directly the interaction
Decision criteria are unlikely t,o be summative
of individuals; protocol is not necessarily a simple and unlikely t o be independent, hence it is unsummary of panache.
likely t h a t lruman behaviours will be dist,ributed
At t h e same time, a n emphasis 0x1 panache in bell-shaped, Gaussian fashion. T h a t is, the
~niglrtlead one t o t h e inference t h a t group af- iror~naldistributioll is u~llikelyto be normal t o
filiatiot~was of little consequence to social be- the ontcornes of human decisions. A major ashaviour when in fact the protocolr of ato relation- sumption ur~derlyinga i ~ o r n ~distribution
al
is, of
ships were a primary organizing force of social course, tliat i t is the sum of a large number of
behaviours.
ir~deperrder~t
factors. Human behaviour violates
It is this problel~laticrelatio~ishipt h a t leads to these asslrmptions, and if ignored this can wreak
a co~isiderationof the underlying distribution of havoc u&h mnltivariate statistical analyses.
t a t t o design a n d t o an a t t e m p t to disentangle,
If we assume t h a t decisions can be represented
in the first instance, panache and protocol in the a s a coi~tinuousvariable, then it is possible t o
~nount,ains
of Luzon. If successful, such a strategy express tlie available sample of decision outcomes
should then allow the separation of other levels as a proportion of n-dimensional decision space; I
of analysis a s well.
refer t o this a s a behavioural sample. This means
In a forthcoming paper, 1 describe a ~ n u l t i p l e t h a t , as an initial theoretical approximation, i t is
regression approaclr t o investigatiol~sof stylistic appropriate t o suggest tlie use of a log-normal
phenomena (Macdonald n.d.). In summary, how- distribution t o describe the outcomes of human
ever, I argue t h a t levels of stylistic operation - in- behavioural decisions. l'lre log-normal disiribudividual, group o r inter-group - call be disentan- tion is assumed t o be the product, not the sum,
gled by means of a comparison of plots of inter- of nrultiple factors'.
cept and slope values against group mean values
My initial approximations of the northern Lufor any set of d a t a . Using simulated d a t a which son d a t a were simulated using a uniform distribucoriform t o t h e ethnographic observations t h a t I t.ion (Macdonald 1985); I have since revised tlris

Macdonald/SYMBOLS A N D SKIAr

37

approach t o use a nornial distribution. Following t h e argument above, I have re-run the simu l a t i o ~ ~using
s
log-normally distributed pseudova.riables.
I will leave the tedious details of calculation
aside for t l ~ epresent since these will be published
in the near future (Macdonald n.d.). I will concenhrate instead on t l ~ ei~nplicat,iorisoft,his briefly
specified nrodel.
Recall t h a t the d a t a used in these experiments
were generated in such a fashion as t o be in accord with all of the - apparently opposing - statements outlined in the e t l ~ ~ i o g r a p hsection
ic
above.
In these experiments, I worked with "Tattoo siniilarity" a s the dependent variable and three independent variables. These t,liree explanatory variables were in fact transfornrat.ions of a single variable.
First, the Y variable was labeled "Tattoo siarilarity", simply a s a convenient rnnernonic. It
is intended t o represent some measure of design
sin~ilaritytaken frorn a 1iypotliet.ical population
a n d varies, in log-normal fashion, from 0.0 t,o
100. A popnlat,ion of 100 individoals, subdivided
into 5 groups (called atos) of 20 individuals each,
was s i ~ i ~ u l a t etod provide the d a t a for tllc present
analysisG. T h e primary regression lnodel can be
defined in the standard form as:

= a

+ b l X 1 + h2X2 + b3X3 i

~h~ ~1 variable, terrlled ~ ~ r e q u e r l cofy warfare*, was

log-normally distributed alld was
taken t o represent individual participation in acts
of violence tllat were
a tattoo. ~t~
mean values of X1 were used a s t,he XZ, or group,
variable and the product X1X2 was used as tlie
X3 variable t o indicate a measure of intrraction
between levels.
These values were all log10 transformed t o app r o x i ~ n a i etlie shape of a norrrral distribution for
purposes of analysis (Rummel 1970; H a n i s 1975).
In addition, there is some degree of ~nnlticolinearity t o be expect.ed in those three variables which
are transformations of each other. Thus a centering procedure was used t o remove any such
effects (Macdonald 11.d.). Difference in saniple
size was not a consideration since the simulated
atos were each composed of 20 individuals. A
graphical summary of the d a t a points for Y and
X1 variables, before and after the log transformation was applied, is given in Figures 2 and 37.
Note t h a t overall the relationship between the
two variables is, f o l l o w i ~ ~transformation,
g
generally positive but t h a t within an ato there is a

strong negative relationship indicat,ed by t h e regression lines for each of the atos (see the individual ato graphs in Figures 4 - 8). These d a t a
are in accord with t,he ethnographic stat.elnerits
made above concerning these two variables.
More important for the present. purposes, however, are the results of my a t t e m p t s t o disentangle various component.s of the stylistic situation
t h a t has been si~nulated.Wlrat I wish t o address
a t this point is the partitio~ringof both explained
and unexplained variance in the d a t a . This is
accomplished by a n examination of t,he surn of
squares for each X variable (Table 1 ) .
T h e implications of this table are of soine interest. First, the total variation in t.he table the last c o l u m l ~- is evenly dispersed amollg the
three levels considered. Second, most of the varia t i o ~ rwhich exists a t the level of t h e individual
and in terms of interaction between levels is unexplained variation, 95(enlpliasized in t,l~etable).
Roughly two-thirds of tlie variation in t h e d a t a
is unaccounted for; t h a t is, warfare does not account for mucli of t h e t,otal explained variation
a t all. Thie immediately suggests tlrat some additional factor otlrer than n.arfa1.e slrould be included in t h e analysis. From the etlrnograpliic
sources, a n index of socio-economic status might
be appropriate 1.0 this unexplained, apparently
panache-reldted con~ponentof t h e d a t a
Third, the group
- . variable accounts for most
of the explained variation in st,ylistic similarity
(95table). T h a t is, warfare accounts for virtually
all of t h e protocol c o l n ~ o n e n tof style in these
d a t a . This is in fact in accord with my init.ial
i~npressionsuzIien I first began st,udying the eth"0lli"toric photograplls.

CONCLUSIONS
T h e firs1 c o n c l u s i o ~t~h a t 1 would like t o emphasize concerns the value of simulat.ion as a tool
of investigation. Simulations such as bhe one
above are wonderfully seductive: first, because
they seem to be s o coacret,e - they provide the
t,lirill of vague matllematics and, second, because
the d a t a are rnade t,o do exactly what one want,s
them t o do. As 1 suggest above, however, they
do provide a valuable and instructive strategy, if
only because they force one t o a consideration
of variability otherwise left, undapped or nnrecognized (e.g., M'right and Zeder 1977).
But for archaeologists, sirnulations slrould always remain unsatisfactory until they have been
b r o u g l ~ tt o bear against our own peculiar "real
world", t h e archaeological record. It niight seem,

ETHArICITY AA'D CULTURE

Frequency of wortore
At0 l

At0 2

At0 3

At0 4

Figure 2: All Atos: X vs Y (urrtransformed)

~~
..-.
-~~.~.
..,,,

Individual Level

.--

I--

Sum
Row %
Col %
Row %
Col
%
Sum
Row %

~.

.- -.~...~.
~.

Explained Variatiolr
0.53
0.05
0.05
10.62
0.95

p
p
-

~p

Unexplained
Variation
---10.61
0.95
0.48
0.53
0.05

-~

Row %
Col
---%Table 1: Sum of Squares Table, Centered D a t a

Tot,al
11.65
1.00
0.33
11.15
1.00

At0 5

Frequency of Warfare

Figure 4 Ato 1 Sty

ICITY AND CULTURE

40

L.-,

Li

l .4

'X.

-~

'__\_

l
,
U ,

'-I

l .i!i-

.-

'\
\

1:

[QR

."3 .

1 ..i

.--0,
X

;;

1.25

1.%

1.1.5

bh.,\,L,
CL

*\
r3

,
,

13

~~

1.1

0.4

~-

OH

0.6

1.2

1.6

1.4

1 .R

i i e q u r n c y of Wrlrfare

,4',

l *1 '.4

..,

.,l
1

~-

t\ U111

1.3% 1.56

'\

lS4

,..X

1.32

.0.

1.3

1.78-~

1.24

[ \

12lj

;;

~-

.L~.
*.

--

i1

i>

'\
>.\

1
1

il

[B

"
,
___j

0.5

0.7

0.9

1.1
Frequency of Warfarc

3: Stylistic Simila

1.5

1.5

OLS A A 9 SKlN

41

Figure 7. Ato 4 Stylistic Slnlllar~tyVS W a r f a ~ e

i i e q u e r i c y of Warforc

42

however, t o be a n impossible task for archaeologists t o consider problems a t the level of the indjvidual. on the other lrand, it seelns feasible,
a t least in a prelilninary manner, t o suggest t h a t
l,lortuary relrlains d o in fact provide us with a

ETHNICITY AArD CULTURE

4. I do not wish to suggest that -appropriaten 80cial actions are only culturally specific and not explicable in contexts external to that cultural situation;
I am not inclined to nominalist thought. I wish in"cad to elnphasize once again the complexity of the
phenomena we investigate.
5. For archaeologists, of courne, the situation is
further complicated by the observation that we deal
with a sample of behavioural samples; I call
an
observable sample. That is, the distributions of archaeological salnples are the result of
and
systematic distortions of a behavioural sample. It
seems unlikely that the underlying distribution of the
observable sample is equivalent to that. of the behavioural sample of interest to us as archaeologists.
As archaeologists, then, we need to define a complex weighted joint probability distribution against
whicli to compare our observed, spatially defined distrihutions. It t,akes little effort to recognize that a
sinlple Poiason process is inappropriate to the char-

point of entry for analysis a t this level. I have

been working in this direction wit11 mortuary remains from the Middle Olrio River valley in t h e
United States, wit11 some promising results.
W h a t sinrulation does in fact do, is point t,o directions t h a t we might otherwise leave nnexamined; but it is only a tool, not a panacea. It. can
provide - as Moore (1981) has elegantly shown a cure for the
woes of archaeology
(see also Wobst 1978).
A second conclusion
I draw from the
above concerns tlre specification of appropriate
models of behaviour. If a model of belraviour is
'pecified for Orre level of
it is i n a ~ ~ r o act,erization
of tllr spatial distribrition of the archae.
priate for analysis a t another level. This problem ological data,
is well-known in other social sciences (e.g., polit6. ~h~ simulation data for these experi,,,ents
ical science) where i t is known as t,lre problenr of initially generated with the MCS Monte Carlo simcross-level inference. A ~ ~ t h r o p o l o g i sirave
t ~ s seem- ulation program (Lionheart Press) on the 1BM PC.
ingly paid little attention t o the logic of their ar- The Y variable was transfonned by simple rnultipliguments,In particular, I argue t h a t any under. cation and thc addition of a uniformly distributed
standing of group belraviour requires a correctly pwudo-random number for each case. he raw data
were then log10 transformed and stored in a LOspecified model of individual behaviour.
TUS 1-2-3 file which was used to produce the graphs
My third and final corlclusion is simple and
for these figures. Initial data screening and analysis
yet paradoxical: once we consider t h e implicawas done using ANTANA (Cypress Software); final
Lions of conrplexity, I believe t h a t archaeologiwere done
S~~~~~ (systat, I ~ ~ , ) ,
cal d a t a will beconle lllore pleasantly tractable. H Z T copy
~
of the result.s and/or the raw data call be
More i n l p o r t a ~ ~ t lit
y , is only when we think seri- obtained from the arrtlror; copies of this material will
ously about t.he realit,ier of our data, simulated o r be provided on diskette if a n IRM formatted blank
excavated, t h a t we can begin a s arcllaeologists to diskette is supplied to the author.
7. The results summarized liere are slightly difescape the artificial confines of the ethnographic
ferent
than those presented at the Chacmool Conferrecord (mJobst 1978) alld get on
the
ence.
The
arguments and conclusions are the same;
i~lterestingbusiness of being arclraeologists.
I have simply decided to use s different set of simuNOTES
lationb.
By altering the manner in which I constructed the
1. I hasten to add that this statement is not m e a t original variables, albeit with the same underlying
to imply rampant theoretical eclecticism; rather, I assumptions, it. is possible to alter the partitioning
wish to call attention to the complexity of t,he ana- of the explained versus unexplained variance and to
lytical situations that anthropologists routinely sim- change arbitrarily the level at whiclr the greatest explify. If. may be more difficult to specify a general plained variance occurs. Thifi mu). be some interest
model of heman stylistic behaviour than anyone has to people engaged in simulation modeling but is of
no practical interest here.
yet realized.
2. I am again compelled to thank Karl L. Hutterer
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
(University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology)
for access to the Worcester Collection of historic phoThis is a revjded version of a paper presented at
tographs.
3. "Should" is an important word here, I can. t,he annual meetings of the Society of American Arnot support this statement with direct, ethnographic chaeology (Denver 1985) that was kindly read in my
dociimentntion biit several lines of evidence strongly absence by Nan Rothschild of Barnard College. A
rnuch expanded version with full detail* on the resuggest that. it is probably so.
gression analyses will appear in a volume on style

M a c d o n a l d / S Y M B O L S A h r D SKIN

edited by C . Hastorf (University of Minnesota) and

M . Conkey (SUNY - Binghamton). These individuals, in addition t o Barbara Price and James P. Fenton
(Columbia University), Warren DeBoer and J a ~ n e s
Moore (CUNY - Queens College), students in the
Archaeology Seminar a t the City University of New
York, and others whom I have undoubtedly forgotten, are as much to blalue for this paper as I am.
Particular thanks go t o Susan Kus (Rhodes College) who raised the questions aud t o Alison Wylie
(University of Western Ontario) who unwittingly
forced me t o try finally t o answer them.
I wish to thank Leslie Nicholls and Roger Green for
their gracious hospitality in Calgary. And, finally, I
would like t o extend my thanks t o the many people
who offered their insightful comments on the content
of this paper during the 1985 Chacmool Conference.

REFERENCES CITED
Bavelas, A.
1950 Communication Patterns in Task-oriented
Groups. Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America 22:725-730.
Harris, R.
1975 A Prinzer olMultivariate Stntistics. Academic
Press, New York
Jenks, A.
1905 The Bontac Igorol. Bureau of Printing, Manila.
Johnson, G.
1978 Information Sources and the Develop~rient
of Decision-making Organizations. In Social
Archaeology: Beyond Subsistence and Dating,
edited by C . Redman et al., pp. 89-112. Academic Press, New York.
Macdonald, W.
1985 Sonre Implications of Tattooing in Northern
Luzon, Philippines, When t h e Probability of
Archaeological Recovery is Effectively Zero.
Paper presented at the 50th annual meeting of
the Society for Arnerican Archa~ology,Denver.
n.d. Investigating Style. Manuscript in possession
of the author.
Moore, 3.
1981 Decision-making and Infurmation Among
Hunter-galherer Societies. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Robinson, W.
1950 Ecological Correlations and the Behavior
of Individuals. American Sociological Reuiew
15:351-357.
Rummel, R.
1970 Applied Factor Analysis. Northwestern University Press, Evanston, Illinois.

43

Wilmsen, E.
1974 Lindenrneier: A Pleistocene Hunting Society.
Harper and Row, New York.
Wobst, H.
1977 Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange.
In For the Director: Research Essays i n Honor
of James B . Griiqin, edited by C. Cleland,
pp. 317-342.
University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Paper
No. 61.
1978 The Archaeo-ethnology of Hunter-gatherers or
The Tyranny of the Ethnographic Record in
Archaeology. American Antiquity 43:303-309.

Wrjght, H.T. and M. Zeder

1977 The Simulation of a Linear Exchange System
Under Equilibrium Conditions. In Ezchnnge
Svstems in Prehistory,
.. edited by T . Earle and
3. Ericson, pp 233-253. Acade~iiicPress, New
York.

ETHNICITY AA'D CULTURE

YOU ARE WHAT YOU DON'T EAT: YET

ANOTHER LOOK AT FOOD TABOOS IN
AMAZONIA
Warren R. DeBoer
Departnrent of Anthropology
Queens College, CUNY
Flashing, New York

In this paper, I wis11 t o examine the hypothesis t h a t food taboos are an effective and therefore
freqirently ernplayed mealls for making in-group,
out-group distinctions. Aft,er all, eating is not
only the biological ~lecessityemphasized by cultural ecologists, nor simply an abstract relation,
as structuralists might have it, b u t also a basic
social activity in which both individual and group
identity can be asserted in terms of what is and
is not eat,en. In order to address this hypothesis,
I examine tlte spatial distribution of food taboos
on the supra-regional, almost continental, scale
provided by the Amazonia11 lowlands of South
America. T h e spatial test of the hypotl~esisis
seeiningly straightforward. If taboos are used t o
demarcate group boundaries, then t h e distribution of these taboos should be such a s t o maximize differences arnoilg neiglrbouring groups.
My selectiol~of Arnaeonia is appropriate, for
i t is in the Amazonian arena t h a t food taboos
have become an issue of focused debate between
cultural, ecological and struct.nralist schools of
thought. It is here t h a t Ross (1978) argues
b11;tt food taboos are prinrarily ideological epiphenomena t o rational food-getting strategies, and
it, is here that Levi-Stranss's bold program of
Mythologiques presents animals and their edibility as mere fuel for sonre inexorable and panhuman mental calculus. Both programs, of
course, are ult,iinately reductionist, the first reducing culture t o nature, the second reducing
culture to mind. Betweell llature and mind, the
whole world of human social activit,y, the world
in which we all live, is left fiddling. It is this intermediate world, somewhere between the gastric
and t h e cerebral, tlrat I n i s l ~t,o explore.
Figure 1 plots those groups for which information on tabooed and non-tabooed animalswas ac-

quired t,hrougl~a wide-ranging, if not exhaustive,

survey of the literature l. This m a p is informative in itself. Groups for wllich inforn~at,ion
exists
generally follow a perimeter arourld a largely vacant heartland along the Amazon proper. This
dist,ribut,ion, of course, is a product of 11ist.ory.
T h e large and c o n ~ p l e xpolities t h a t early European explorers el~counteredalong the Amazon
and its major tributaries rapidly disinlegrated in
t h e face of introduced epidemic diseases and t h e
insatiable labour needs of colonialism. In more
than one sense, t,he "ethnograplric present" in
Amazonia pertains t o marginalia.
Figure 2 colldenses 1nuc11 of the irlformation
recorded for the 9 6 groups plotted in Figure
1. This condellsation is selective in three ways.
First, it is restricted Lo t,hose potential game animals t h a t are most frequently tabooed in t h e
recorded sample. Second, only general or acrossthe-board taboos are tabulated. T h e numerous
specific taboos, customarily activat,ed during biologically and socially defined life-crises such a s
birt,h, puberty, marriage, sickness, and death, are
not considered. These specific t,aboos have received detailed treatment elsewlrere from b o t h
ecological and cognitive perspectives (e.g., McDonald 1977; Hugh-Jones 1979; Kensinger a n d
Kracke 1981). Third, t h e generality of the ethnographic literat,ure forces me t o be a Laxonomic
lumper of the most extreme sort. In this literature, sloths are sloths, and the key distinction
between the two-toed and three-toed variety is
rarely made (but for t h e Yagua, compare Tessmann 1930 with Fejos 1943). Despite their wildly
differing social ecologies, white-lipped a r ~ dcollared peccaries are n o t regularly discriminated in
the taboo literature. Even more egregious, the
incredibly rich diversity of non-human primates

ETHNICITY AND CULTURE

Figure l: Map of groups providing information on food taboos (stippled areas). Base map is John
Rowe's Indian Tribes oJ South America as presented in Lyon (1074)

DeBoer/FOOD T A B 0

47

% GROUPS TABOOING

N73;

% DIFFERING JOINS

N&3s

d
V)

W
W

5 : ;N

>

N&35

P
4

P
(J
P
(J

'D
(J
C
4
P

J'p
W

z
Y

N;7T

3;N;

'0 0

N;;2

0
0
W
P

Flgure 2: Tlle frequelrcy of major game taboos in

joins engendered by th

6
2%

48

ill the Neotropics must be reduced t o a single category "monkeysn. For deer, tapir, a n d capybara,
things are better. Deer is usually the brocket
deer, genus Mazama; tapir is tapir, subgelrus
Tapirws; and capybara is invariably Hydrochaeris
hydrochaeris. One must conclude, lrowever, t h a t
l~ruchof the ethnography lacks zoological sensitivity. For admirable exceptions, see P a t t o n e t
al. (1982), Berlin a n d Berlin (1983), and Crocker
(1985).
Despite these rather severe linritat~ioas, Fig.
ure 2 harbours a n ilrt,erestir~gdescriptive summary of the general taboo situat,ion in Amazonia.
With the exception of sloths, animals are generally eaten. S ~ r m m i n gthe results of Figure 2, only
22% of all major game are tabooed. Excluding
sloths, only 17% are avoided ns food. In short, in
roughly 4 out of 5 cases, the Arnazonian hurrter
is eager to shoot, kill, eat and redistribute t h e
animal world around lrim for sexual or polit,ical
gain. U7het.her of ecological or structuralist persoasion, anthropologists s h o i ~ l dr r l l ~ e m h e rt h a t ,
in the case of general taboos in Amazonia, t.lley
are dealing with a minority phenomenon.
In addition to t h e overall i~rcidenceof general
taboos for major animals, Figure 2 presents the
frequency in which such taboos distinguish neighbourillg groups. This frequency is recorded as '%
differing joins" where a join is an interface, or
common border, between two groups. As t.he pie
c l ~ a r t sof the figure suggest, tlre percentage of differing joins is based significantly on the frequency
of the taboo in question. Giver1 t11e scattered distribution of groups mapped in Figure 1, however,
it is difficult t o assess the collective percent,age of
differing joins as a measure t.hat is sensitive t o
the spatial d i s t r i b u t i o ~of~ tlre taboo. Too many
groups, or sets of contignous groups, stand out
as islands in a sea of u~ravailableevidence. To
circumvent, or a t least n~inimize,this enrpirical
limitation, I t,urkl t o tlre largest block of contiguous groups, 32 in nurnber. This block is situated
in the Upper Amazon a t tlle eastern base of the
Andes. Followir~gPeruvian usage, I will refer to
this block as t h e montaila.
Figure 3 maps the taboo evidence for t.he
n ~ o n t a i l a .No cases of n ~ o ~ r k eor
y peccary taboo
are recorded for the area, so the following discussion pertains t o t h e foursome of sloth, deer,
t,apir, and c a p y t a r a .
It is time t o return t o original q~rest.ions.Are
taboos distribukd in ways t h a t flaunt, differerlces
or similarities among neighbouring groups? O r
are they not flaunting a t all but, a t least when

E T H h r l C I T Y AND CULTURE

viewed on a large spatial scale, just randonrly distributed cultural trappings? If taboos play a significant role in establishir~gdifferences, then we
might expect them t o display a non-contiguous
o r dispersed distribution. Such a distribution
maximizes inter-group differences, the percentage of differing joins alluded t,o earlier. h1 contrast, a contiguous o r clustered distribution min.
imises t h e uumber of differing joins. Between the
poles of perfect dispersion and perfect clustering,
of course, lies t,lre wide realm of varying degrees
of randomness.
These questions are n o t addressed readily by
simple inspection of Figure 3 . Join coulrt statistics, as described by Ebdon (1977), provide tests
t h a t are designed specifically t o deal with this
sort of problem. These statistics are a form of
spatial autocorrelation suited t o binary variables.
In tlre present case, a n animal is either tabooed
o r not. Join count statistics inform us whether
t,he taboo tends toward a dispersed, random, o r
clust.ered distribution wit11 significance assessed
through a standard z score '.
tinder conditions of non-free sampling and
two-tailed testing (neither dispersed nor clnstered can be precluded as a n outcome), the null
hypothesis cannot be rejected for any of the
taboo distributions s l ~ o a nin Figure 3! This unhappy result does not favour the l~ypothesist h a t
taboos are dispersed so as t,o distinguish neighbours, nor does it indicate t h a t they are clustered
t o a significant extent, although all 4 taboos lean
toward beiug clustered with one (sloth) almost
rea,ching a . l 0 level of significance.
e
realnr
So here I a m , foundering in t l ~ fearsome
of randon~ness.At this point, i t may seem appropriate t o report a failed hypothesis and turn t o
other projects or, a t least., t o go back and reexamine the premises of this one. O u t of stubborneess, t h a t reluctar~ce t o give u p cherished
ideas that make fools o u t of scientists and others,
however, I will pursue the lnatt,er a bit further.
It can be argued, for instance, t h a t single binary contrasts a r e inadequate for addressing the
issue a t hand. Perhaps i t is more appropriate
t,o colrsider all such contrasts simultaneously. In
this case, the question becomes not whether a
group is distinguished from neighbours by a single taboo, for example tapir, b u t rather whether
it is distinguished by a t least one taboo drawn
from a suite of potential game animals % This
manner of viewing the problem calls for different
analytical approaches. I find it useful t o hegin by
converting the distributions given in Figure 3 into

50

ETHArICITY AND CULTURE

the diagram of Figure 4. In this diagram, groups nrakes their borders so charged by food taboos?
become circles, joins become the lines con~recting Similarly, what factors lead to the shared abcircles, and the ratio beside each line desigrlates sence or presence of taboos among neighhourthe number of taboo differences over the total ing groups in the southern cluster? These questions, in turn, breed new questions. Does linnumber of comparisons.
The rendition of d a t a in Figure 4 facilit,ates guistic affiliation have an irtflue~tceon the disa co~nparisonof groups in terms of the extent tribution of taboos4? Are taboos tracking loto which their taboos differ from those of neigh- cal game availability as Ross (1978) and others
bours. As given in the caption for this figure, suggest" Is the nature of inter-group relations
measures of difference vary widely. For instance, - whether cooperative or competitive, amicable
the Setebo differ from neighbours in only one of or hostile - of key significance? Or, more radi23 cases. In contrast, the Pioje differ in 10 of cally, is taboo an inappropriate or arbitrary focus
15 cases. In other words, Setebo borders are not for assessing inter-groups relations in the sense
marked by taboo differences, Pioje borders are. that many other beltavioural or material chaaIn order to scale all 32 montaila groups along a nels could carry the message just as wellG? As
dimension of inter-group taboo differences, a way Hodder (e.g. 1985) has suggested, does pursuit
is needed to estimat,e the probability that the of answers force us away from the large-scale and
comparaobserved differences could arise througll chance coarse-grained, even decontext~~alized,
e~~deavours
attempted
in
this
paper,
and ditive
tllie
purpose,
I
find
no
compelling
reaalone. For
son why the good old coin-flippi~~g
binornial dis- rect us once again to specific lneanings as they
tribution cannot be used as a foil. Consider the are enacted in the historically concrete and in the
situai.iori as follows. The overall empirical prob- culturally particular'? This possibility, whether
a.bility of an a~tilnalbeing tabooed is .3. The cursed, welcomed, or already accepted as obviprobability that any two r~eiglthourswill differ in ous, cannot be dismissed.
that taboo is Zpq, or 2(.3)(.7) = .42. This latEPITAPH
ier valiie, in turn, can be treat,ed as a new value
of p, such t h a t the likelihood of each outcome
the hopeful, if underspecified,
1 began
tabnlated in Table 1 can be read from a table of hypothesis that the
distribution of
binomial probabilities.
food taboos in Amazo~iiawould show that these
Figure 5 plots tlie results of tllis operation. taboos play an active role in inter-societal boundThis plot is interesting. Most groups tend toward ary maintenance. The results do not support this
similarity, some (Xb, Mn, S t , Sp) sigllificantl~ hypotl~esis. If anything, taboos tend to clnst.er,
so. In part, this result is expected given the fact just as diffusionists might
good popthat the previously discussed join count statistics perians, of course, there is nothing remiss in relean ~ o w a r dclustering. A feur groups (Pj, Wi, porting a failed hypothesis. The charge of a failed
Jv), however, display an equally sigllificant pen- e x p e r i m e ~ ~however,
t,
is more serious.
chant toward difference. Overall the distributiou
1, asking "Wllat welit wrong?", there are the
of Figure 5 might be said to have an unexpect- usual problems concerning d a t a quality. Two
edly lean middle, or alternatively, hypertrophied probleIns are especially evident:
tails.
(i) as recorded in blie bulk of the ethnographic
At this junctiil-e, 111e fading reader >night ac- literature, the data are normative; intra-:ocieta~
cose: "Leaping lizards! You mean t o tell me that, variability often is not, report,ed or evell acknow]after all these iedious arit.hntetica1 machinations, edged;
all you can say is that, many neigllbouring groups
(ii) as Rowe (Lyon 1974) warns, his carefully
are similar with respect t o their game taboos,
map of tribal distributions (Figure
sorile are different, and some are in-between". l) represellts a llistorical colnposite based on the
Yup, the accusation is a fair one, even a reason- earliest reliable Europeali testimony; in other
able nutsltell-summary. Perhaps, liowever, the words, the inter-group borders, or joins, that 1
outconre is not so jejuue. Certaittly new questions have
not always perta,in to any real,
are raised. For instance, why are all tlre groups on-the-ground interaction.
tending toward difference situated in the north~ h first
,
problem is severe. ~h~ second prob.
ern cluster of Figure 4 (where north and south are lem is more severe. ~t raises the possibility of
de~narcatedby Ag) and, more specifically, what a ~ n ~ t h i c landscape
al
of ter~uoushist,oricity. Afis it about the Pioje, Jivaro, and the Witoto that ter
for tile last several centuries, the

SIMILARITY

DIFFERENCE

Figure 5 : Ranking of ~norltaiiagroups according t,o the probability that their observed similarity or
difference to neighbours would arise tlrrougl~chance alone. Group abbreviatio~rsare given in Table
1. See text for discussion.

DeBoer/FOOD TABOOS lhl AMAZONIA

Ag
Am
An
Aw
Ch

C1
CO
Cp
CS
Ct
Jv
La
Mg

Aguaruna
Amahuaca
Aguano
Awishira
Cahuapana
Canelos
Conibo
Campa
Cashibo
Cot0
Jivaro
Lamista

Mn
Mr

317

Muniche
Murato

Table 1: Abbreviations and Surnmed Ratio of Differences over Total Comparisons for each group.

larly significant border phenomenon for most nutive Amazo~riansocieties has been the encroachn r e ~ ~of
t . European colonialists and capitalist,^.
~ i \ this
, ~ollslaueht,
~
"
, now almost
con,pleted, it would be surprising indeed if food
taboos remained a static fixture, rat,her than a
variable resp0nsix.e t o a rapidly changing, and
generally deteriorating, physical, economic, and
social environment. If t h e taboos flick on and off,
and if ethnographic d a t a are generally masked
in t,erlns of the anti-history of t h e "ethnographic
oresent". then small wonder t h a t results. however carefully codified and st,atistically msnipulated, emerge as lloise in t h e clialnbers of ranhave
domness.
tllis case, it would be better
one historically colrtrolled test than a myriad of

rn

comparisons strewn across large space and large

time. T h e adva~rtagesof large space and large
time, advantages regularly claimed by archaeologists, do ]lot transce~ldo r escape tile historically
specific.

NOTES
1. In this literature search, I was assisted by Amy
Felmay, Bnrbara McNider, and Valerie Williams, students in a seniinar given in the Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, during the fall
of 1981. Sources checked for taboos are listed in the
bibliography.
2. I will spare the reader the cu~ubersomeequations involved in join count statistics. A full treatment can be found in Ebdon (1977:128-141).
3. Looking at collective, rather than singular, contrasts is also reasonable for the simple geometric fact
that a. group with two or Inore neighbours, themselves

contiguous to each other, forme nn area in which total difference among groups cannot be e~tablishedin
termmg of one binary contrast. At least two such contacts are needed to achieve such total difference in
any two-dimensional case siich as Amazonia, where
the groups shown in Figure 1 have an average oi .59
neighbours (mode = 5, median = G, range 1-18).
as
This is not an irrelevant
guage has played such a signal role in one major s).nthesis
~~~~~~i~~ cult,1re history (
~
~1970).
t
l
The taboo data, however, furnish equivocal results.
Within rlie nrontaiia block, neighbours assignable to
the same laneuare fan~ilvdiffer in 23% of their ioins.
For heighbours belonging to unrelated language families, the difference is 33%. Of course, it should be
realised that the menibership in a common lawuage
family, wlrelher or not it. might harbor a historical
legacy pertinent to taboos, does not necessarily confer nlutual intelligibility. Furthermore, the matter is
complicated by the multilingualism endemic to parts
the upperA~~~~~ (sorensel, 1967). par
,,,ia
at large, or at least those groups canvassed
in Figure 1, general linguistic affiliation does appear
to have some relationship to the incidence of game
taboos. Arawak and Carib are high, around 30%;
Tupi and Panosn are low, around 10%. This seeming
correlation, however, becomes less convincing if the
taboo-prone groups of the Upper Xingti are excluded.
Clearly this matter is complicated and deserves more
than a footnote.
5. Pursuit of this question requires good data on
animal abundance. Such data are not available for
most oi Amazonia; however, preliminary studies suggest great local and temporsl variability (e.g., Emmons 1984). Nonetheless, it is perhaps worthy of
note that the ranked incidence of game taboos (Figure 2) is positively correlated with biomass rank as
given in a particularly well-controlled study in the

*,

ETHhrICITY AA'D CUI,TURE

54

of Surinam (Eisenberg and Thorington 1973). From

the standpoint of an opt,imal hunter, this is an unexpected result t h a t suggests t h a t more abundant animals are more likely t o be tabooed. This comparison,
however, is inappropriate, us the 'huntability" of a
species is not. strictly dependent or1 bion~ass,but also
on a host of other behavioural (nocturnal/diurnal,
arboreal/terrestrial, furt,ive\salient, etc.) and technological (bow, blowgun, shotgun) factors. In this
respect, it is not surprising t h a t the rank order of
taboo frequency displays a strong negative correlation (Kendall's tau = -.95, p < .05) with relative meat contribution t o the diets of two especially
well-studied groups, the Siona-Secoya (Vickers 1980)
and the Waorani (Yost and Kelley 1983) of Ecuador.
Again, however, comparisons anlong biomass totals
in Surinam, game catches in Ecuador's oriente, and
t,a.boo frequencies in Amazonia at large obviously
could stand better control.
G. Elsewhere (DeBoer 1985), 1have tried t o exarnine this matt,er in terms of the distribution of headflattening, tattooing, fancy pottery, and other material expressions ar represented in the Ucayali basin
of eastern Peru.
RGFERENCES CITED
Berlin, Bront and Elois Berlin
1983 Adaptation and Etlinozoological Classificat,ion: Tlieoretical I~nplicationsof Animal Resources and Diet of t,he Aguaruna and Huambisa. In Adaptive Responses of Native Amazonian~,edited by Raymond B. Hames and
William T. Vickers, pp. 301-325. Academic
Press, New York.

Fejos, Paul
1943 Ethnography of the Yagua. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 1.
Hodder, Ian
In Aduances
1985 Postprocersual Archaeology.
in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 8 ,
edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 1-26, Academic Press, New York.
Hugh-Jones, Stephen
1979 The Palm and the Pleides. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kensinger, Kenneth M . and U'aud H. Kracke (editors)
1981 Food Taboos in Lowland South America. Working Papers on South American Indians 3. Bennington College, Vermont.
Lsthrap, Donald W.
1970 The Upper Amazon. Praeger, New York
Lyon, Patricia J . (editor)
1974 Natrve South Amerrcans.
Boston.

Little, Brown,

McDonald, D.R.
1977 Food Taboos: A Primitive Environinental Protection Agency. Anthropos 72:734-748.
Patton, James L., Brent Berlin a.nd Elois Berlin
1982 Aboriginal Perspectives of a Mammal Cornn ~ u n i t yin Amazonian Peru: Knowledge and
Titilization Patterns Among the Aguarana Jivaro. In Mammalian Biology in South Amirica, edited by Michael Mares and Hug11
H. Genoways, pp. 111-128, Special Publication Series, Vol. G. Pymatuning Laboratory of
Ecology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.

Crocker, Jon Christopher

1985 Vital Souls. University of Arizona Press, ' h c son.

Ross, Eric B.
1978 Food Taboos. Diet and Huntine Strateev: The
Adaptation to Animals in Amazon Cultural
Ecology. Current Anthropology 19:l-16.

DeBoer, Warren R .
1985 Interaction, Imitation, and Comn~unication
as Expressed in Style: The Ucayali Experience. Paper presented t o the Advanced Seminar, "Social and Beliavioral Sources of Ceramic
Variability", organized by Willivm A. Longacre, School of American Research, Santa Fe.

Sorcnsen, Arthur P,, J r .

1967 Multilingualism in the Korthwest Amazon.
American Anthropologist GS:670-684.

Ebdon, David
1977 Statistics in Geography. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Eisenberg, John F . and Richard W. Thorington,
Jr.
1973 A Preliminary Analysis of a Neotropical Mammal Fauna. Biotropico 5:150-161.
E n ~ m o n s ,Louise H.
1984 Geographic Variation in Densities and Diversities of Non-flying Mammals in Amazonia.
Biotropica lG:210-222.

-.

Tessmann, Gunter
1930 Die Indianer Nordost-Perus. Friederichsen, de
Gruyter, IZamburg.
Vickers, William T.
1080 An Analysis of Amazonian Hunting Yields as
a Function of Sett.lement Age. In Studies in
Hunting and Fishing in the Neotropics, edited
by Ra>,mond B. Hames, pp. 31-66, Working
Papers on South Ainerican Indians 2. Bennington College, Vennont.
Yost, Jnrnes A. and Patricia M. Kelley
1983 Shotguns, Blowguns, and Spears: The Analysis of Technological Efficiency. In Adaptive
Re,qponses of Native Arnazoninns, edited by
Raymond B. Hames and William T . Vickers,
pp. 119-224. Academic Press, New York.

STYLE AS A SOCIAL BOUNDARY MARKER:

A PLAINS INDIAN EXAMPLE
Castle McLaughlin
Departnrent of Anthropology
Colunrbia University
Kew York. N.Y. 10027

Plains scholars have relied on formal and historical approaches in tlreir ar~alyses of 19thcentory Plains Indian beadwork, which has been
described in the 1it.erature in terrrrs of construct.ion tecl~niqrsesand group-sprcific art.ist,ic traditions (e.g., Feder 1971; Koc11 1979; Kroeber,
1902, 1908; Lowie 1922; Lyford 1940; Mails
1972; Orchard 1975; ~ ' i l d s c l r u t and E~vers1959;
Wissler 1904, 1907). The prevailing model for
t l ~ rclassification of beadwork styles is a t,hreepart chronological schen~ebased upon char~gesirr
tlre type of bead used by tlre Indians: T h e Pony
Bead Period, 1800-1840; Tlre First Seed Bead
Period, 1840.1865; and t h e Second Seed Bead
Period, 1870 t o t l ~ epresent (LyTord 1940). The
modcl is based on t h e aszunrption t h a t slylistic
changes in embroidered beadwork resulted from
tlre European irrbrodnction of st.ee1 needles, cotton thread, increasingly srnaller beads, and even
design forms. A rrurrrber of inter- group stylistic
genres lrave been proposed wit,lrin this clrronological framework, but these have been based on
either subjective assess~nentsof aesthetic simiiarity (conrpare, for example, Koclr 1979 with Lyford 1940) or on arbitrary regional divisions (see
Feder 1965; Lowie 1922; Schneider 1980). As a
result, tlre relationslrip between style and socioc ~ ~ l t u r identity
al
remains problematic.
In this paper, I argue t,hat rnodels which invoke diffusion o r ~ ~ o r m a t i vtraditiorrs
e
as an explanation for nrat,erial patterning (eg. Sackett
1982, 1985; Wissler 1915, 1916)' are inadequate
for ir~terpret,ir~g
stylistic bel~aviourin this ethnographic context, because they fail t o account for
the purposeful manipulation of decorative choices
by artisans who wish t o c o m ~ n e n tuporr the 11%ture of social int,eractions (Wiess~rer1983, 1985).
Instead, temporal clranges in beadwork styles
during t h e First and Second Seed Bead Periods
are viewed here a s the result of indigenous social

transforrrrations which were impelled by culture

conbact. In addition, I suggest t h a t t,he spatial
distribution of design styles in beiidwork indicates t,lrat tlre band was a more iinporta~rtunit of
a f f i l i a t i o ~tlian
~ the tribe among the late 19tl1century Plains Indians. While in a general sense t,his
observation is l ~ a r d l yoriginal (e.g., Fried 1967) it
has been largely ignored by Plains scholars and
n ~ u s e u ~researchers,
n
despite t.he acknowledged
diEculty of establishing the provenance of objects based on "tribal" distinctions.
By focusing on tlre eco~iornicand ecological
underpinnings of social clrange on the Central
Plains: I h a w at,teirrpt,ed t o accou~rtfor stylistic variatiou in beadwork as a system of boundary ~ n a k r i n gwhich indexes a series of social realignnrents. In t,lris analysis, I corlsider tlre "emblemic" funct,ion of style - t h a t is, fornral variation in material c ~ i l t u r ewhich direct,ly refers t o
group-level social identification (U'iessner 1983).
This mode of expression has a behavioural basis
in the human cognitive process of social conrparison (Wiessner 1985:161). By comparing one's
own objects and behaviour wtitlr t h a t of others,
artisans make judgements about social similarities or different,iation which are invested in their
work through symbolic manipulation. The assumptions which inform this interpl-etation of
style are drawn from tlreories of ethnicity, such
a s the notion t h a t art,efacts symbolize and support social boundaries between groups, especially
when tlrese bo~lrrdariesare threatened by strain
or arnbiguity (Hennett 1975; Cohen 1974; Hodder
1979).
Rapid economic a n d cultural change in the
19th cent.ury invoked distinctive and conflicting
responses among Plains Indian groups. In analyzing the struct.ura1 differentiation of design
forms in beadwork, i t is significant tlrat stylistic innovations arise a t t,inres when social rela-

56

ETHJ\.ICIT'P AA'D CULTURE

Lions are in the process of reclefirrition. O u t of an ethnographic example. R'lren lrerd niovenients
early pan- regional style whicli prevailed t l ~ r o u g h - forced t h e Oglala and Rrule Sioux to abanout thc early Pony Read Period, Plairrs groops don their hanting grounds between 1834-1850,
selected out different forlnal element.^, arrang- they expanded their range by mounting contining them in distinctive combinations and colours ual large-scale offe~rsivesagainst. the Pawnee and
across tlie design field, a n d preferring different Shoshone. T h e l1.S. government at,ternpt,ed to
techniques t.o d o so. In rrry view, the emergence stop suclr conflicts by lroldirrg an int,ert.ribal counof group- specific, embleniic styles during the cil on IIorse Creek in 1851, wit11 the object of
First Seed Bead Period was not merely a result of defiliing territorial boundaries between tlle Sioux,
teclinological infusions, b u t was directly linked to Pawnee, Slroslrone, Crow, Cheyenne, and AraLlie Euronnierican penetration of t.he Upper Mis- paho. Five years lat,er, wlren bison became scarce
souri region after 1830, which exacerbated pat- bet,ween t h e Platte River arid the Black Hills, tlie
terns of inter-t,ribal conflict. T h e most signifi- Oglala and Brule joined t h e Xortlrern Clreyenne
cant cotnporrent of t,his intrusion was t h e emer- and ot,ller bands of Lakota. in driving the Crow
gence of the bisorr robe and hide industry, which west of t h e Powder River in order t o usurp this
brought equestrian lrunt,ers into direct produc- bison range (Ilyde 1937:47-89).
tive relat,ions wit.h the trade econorny for t,lie first
Cornpetition between trading conipanies exactime (Hickerson 1973; Klein 1980; Lewis 1942; erbated inter- tribal hosbilit,ies in a number of
Wishart 1977).
ways. 'Ikaders encouraged their patrons t,o raid
Dne to the foraging requirements and social rival factions for their horses, robes, and supbehaviour of bison, their procurement a s a sub- plies, and played the Indians against one another
sistence resources was probahly an unpredictable with gifts of alcohol (Hyde 1937:52-55; Lewis
business prior t.o t,he advent of t h e hide trade 1942). Because the Crow allowed trading com(cf. Hanson 1984; McHugh 1958; Moodie and panies t o operate in their berritory, their alliance
Ray 1976). Plains Indians responded t o this risk wit11 agents raised the erunity of more hostile
by developing flexible patt.erns of social organiza- groups. Their accumulation of liorses made t.l~em
tion which affect.ed tlre dispersal of allied bands the favoilrite target of Blackfoot and Sioux raidthrongliout e~lorrrroiisblocs of territory. For ex- ing parties. Int,er-group differentiation was reinample, the seven divisions of t h e Teton Sioux to- forced by the use of enemy scouts by t h e U.S.
gether controlled an area solrle 900 rniles long and Army in their 1nilit.ary campaigns against Plains
400 riiiles wide (Hassrick 1964:4-5). 1,arge-scale Indians in the lat,ter half of t,he 19tli century.
warfare over access t o hunting zones a n d for terriInt.er-tribal conflict on the Plains reached its
torial defense pre-dates t h e hide-trade era (Lewis zenith between 1840-1860,
t h e int,erests and
1942; h'ewcolnb 1950; Schiiltz 1962; Secoy 1 9 5 3 ) ~ ideologies of groups became lryperstated in their
but was intensified by surplus prodnction, which reactions t o externally- generated change. One
illcreased the Indians' procure~nentof bison robes result of increased economic and political cornby as much as 100,000 a year between 1833 and pet.it,ion betwee~rgroups was t h e colisolidation of
1 8 6 0 . ~Market production and the influx of w1rit.e tribally-controlled territories, which appears t o
immigrants into the Upper Missouri region in the have been accolnplished by 1850-1860 (Hassrick
1840s and 1850s sigliificantly afTect,ed t h e clistri- 1964). At t,hat time tribal-wide polities continbution of bison herds throughout t h e short-grass ued t o function; and the consciousness of an earprairies west of t h e Missouri River. Accounts lier social unity prior t o their dispersal across the
of the localized disappearance of bison appeared Plains permeated the social liist,ory and ideolintroduction of techearly in t.lle 19th century, and rarrge constric- ogy of Plains groups."he
tion increased tlrrouglrout tlie century in response nological improve~nentssuch a s srnaller beads
1.0 accelerated levels of immigration and hunting is insufficient t o account for the appearance of
(Catlin 1965:1:256-57; Gregg 1970:140-41; Byde emble~nictribal styles in beadwork during tlie
1937361-62; McDermott 1940:196; Sniet 1972:52- First Seed Bead Period. Rather, economic condi54). As the spatial distance between huntirig tions on tlie Plains encouraged the developlrient
zones increased, so did tlre Indians' need for ac- of social differentiation and territorial boundarymarking between Plains groups, which prevailed
cess t o bison ranges and horses.
T h e effect of range constriction on patterns of until around 1850. At the level of tribal affillarge and small-scale warfare (i.e. horse raid- iation, social rnen~bershipis signaled in Plains
ing) on the Plains may be illustrated by an beadwork a t mid- century by tlle distinctive use

hlcLaogBlin/STYLC AS A SOCIAL BOI AIIAJ1I' M A R K E R

57

of coloors, design elements, sewing techniques, murces and to ideals of Sioux social unity.
and approaches t o the spatial division of t l ~ edeIn a cross-cnlt,ural coinparison of bhis inatesign field, based part.ially on indigerinus sty1ist.i~ rial, five items were fonnd t o carry the slrongest,
traditio~~s.'
degree of tribal 111ai.kings: men's s11irt.s and
dresses and baby carriers, and
Mary Douglas (Donglas a i d Isllerwood 1979) pipebags,
has argued t h a t the selection of goods wit,l~inthe nroccasins. V\Tlien t,ested against predictions for
context of a social stl-ategy not orily reflects the e m b l e ~ ~signaling
~ic
derived from irifor~nat.io~~
theuse pote11tia.1 of objects but also a selectioa of ory (Wobst. 1977), t.he efficiency of conrnrnnicat ~ l ~values
e
w11ich lie behind them. A brief corn- t,ion a s r~reasnredby visibility appeared t o be a
parison of Crow and Lakota beadwork will illus- negligiblefactor in the selection of items to transtrate this point. Early tl-avellers tlirough the mit sy~nbolicrneaning of group identity. Rather,
couiitry of the Crow remarked on their peace- objects which Were select,ed for group level identiful attitude towards wl~it,es,their ready accep- fication were tliose which er~joyedhigh social vistance of trade goods, and their penchant for ibility both within the group and in mnlti-group
fancy dressing (Denig 1961:154). T h e Crow ob- interactions (McLaugl~linn.d.).
tairred polychro~nebeads early and incorporated
Because of tlie critical relationship between
t11en1 within tlreir medicine bundles and charms cosn~ological ~ ~ o t i o n and
s
t h e use of mate(Wildschut and Ewers 1959). O n the otlrer hand, rial cnlture on t h e Plains, stylistic marking
the Lakota developed strong sanct,ions against s e c ~ n sto have functioned primarily to support
For exanrple, 1,akota
the nse of European goods in ritual cont,exts, group-internal values.
and beads were ribually treated prior to tlreir wornell explained tlrat t,he characteristic rlesign
use t o purge them of wlrit,e associations (1Valker of their dresses had irrytl~olo~ical
significance,
1982:107). T h e Crow never forcefully resisbed h u t Wissler (1904:240) noted tlrat beadworkers
American encroacl~nrent,and served in the U.S. also ma~ripulatedindi\pidnal elements according
Army a s scouts against t.hose who did. They t o their own "rtesthetic" prefel.ences.
Therewere irotorious stylists and dandies, clranging fore, in utilizing a decorat,ive approach which
lrairstyles, fan styles and c l o t l ~ i nstyles
~
through- was cl~argedwith rit,ual meaning, Lakota wornen
out the 19tb century, oft,en in emulation of Euro- affirmed their social identity while preserving a
pea11 fashions (Galante 1980). They were quick range of options for differential expression. The
t o abandon the i ~ ~ d i g e ~ r orlnillworking
us
tradi- refutation of erie~nydesigns may even have been
tion for the great,er ease and ornamental quality accomplished by the reversal of stylistic con~poof beads. No representational or iconic mean- nents. For example, Blackfoot w o ~ n e ~beaded
r
ings are known t o have been associated with their dress yokes in horizontal bands of dark and
any of t,he st,ylistic coruponents of Crow bead- light beads, dipping t h e band t o a "U" in the midwork (Galante 1980; Wildschut and Ewers 1959). dle and restricting t ~ h eplacement of geometric
They used the most extensive colour palette of synrbols to the skirt of the dress. Lakota women
any Plains group, and preferred "hot" secondary south of Blackfoot territory placed the central figlrues such a s pink and laverrder which had been ures on t,he yoke of tlreir dresses against a solid
unavailable from native dyes.
blue backgrouad, reversed t.he dip upwards, and
In contrast, the Lakot,a vigorously resisted banded the skirt (see Figure 1).
t
Such patterirs of stylistic variability may be
forced culture change and mounted the ~ n o s successful military offensive in the history of U.S.- seen t o serve as boundary-mal-king phenomena,
Indian relations. They expressed t.heir tradi- visually reinforcing the social ditferentiation betioiral orientation in their items of dress and tween competing groups. As independent variadornment,, preferring quillwork and invest.ing all ables, the frequency of inter-group i ~ ~ t e r a c t i o n
t l ~ estylistic conrponents of their beadwork with and geograplric proximity are inadequate for exs y ~ r ~ b o l meaning.
ic
Prior t o 1870 they used pri- plaining n ~ a t e r i a lpatterning on the Plains. Inmary colours which had ritual significance, and st,ead, the nat,ure of inter-group relations seems
colour placement was a n i n ~ p o r t a n tsemiotic de- t o have been the most i ~ n p o r t a n tdetern~inantof
vice (Wissler 1904). Both design elements and the distribution of beadwork styles on bhe Plains
spatial arrangements lrad named iconic refer- during an era of resource competition and politents which had context,-specific meanings (Lyford ical differentiation. (For anot,her example of t,he
1940). Prior t o 1865, Lakota Sioux design sym- relationship between resource competition and
bolisrn primarily referred to supernatural power material pattenring, see Hodder 1979). T h e cre-

ETHNICITY A N D CULTURE

i\fcLaughhn/STYLE A S A SOCIAL BOI'NDARY M A R K E R

ation of sliift.ing polit,ical alliances in respolrse t,o

widespread conflict encouraged tlre transnrission
and sharing of stylistic components, and t,he display of e~nblemicstyles might be seen a s representing a statement of confederated power. At
the same tirne, tlre mutability of beadwork as a
medium pemiitted bhe I-eady expression of ideological a n d social realigrrments.
Changes in Plains social orga~rizat,ionin tlre
latter half of the century were accompa~riedby
~ ~ stylistic
e w
divisions in beadwork. After 1860,
t,ribal political and social irrstit,~~t.ions
were weakerred by a trend toward internal differentiation.
T h e dispersal of bison herds made annual tribal
alnalgamations problematic and shifted interachion patt.erns toward regional, band-level confederations (cf. Hassrick 1964). T h e increased polit,ical a u t o n o ~ n yof lnaxinlal bands was partially
impelled by t,lre errrergence of incipient rtratification and ranking, which c o ~ ~ f l i c t ewith
d
indigenous patterns of achieved leadership and encouraged factiorialism (IIyde 1937; Kleirr 1980). This
circunistance was c o ~ n p o ~ l n d eby
d t h e designat,ion of tribal leaders by t h e U.S. government and
by vigorous internal disagreement about how tu
respond to American deniarrds for settlement and
the relinquislrment of tribal lands (cf. Berthrong
1963:133-34, 211, 224; Hyde 1937:67, 175).
Followirrg the close of t h e Civil War, the u,estW-ardexpansion of t,he Unit.ed States brought governnient interests iuto direct conflict with the
Cenbral Plains tribes over territorial rights, and
initiated a 20-year period of ii~terrnittentwarfare. Military punishments of tlie Indians by
t h e 1J.S. Arnry polarized serrtime~ltsinto two social fact.ionp which might be loosely termed "hostiles" and "pacifists". After the Sand Creek
Massacre of 1864, a division of tlie south err^
Clreyenne forrrially asked two bands of the Brule
Sionx and one band of Northern Arapahos t,o
join thern in a military offensive against the
Unit.ed States. Tlrroughout the followi~rgwinter
this confederation of about 1,000 warriors swept
across the densely sett,led region of t,he Southern
Plat,te River, plundering ranclres and stage stations, destroying the telegraph line, and running
off livestock. In the early spring the Clreyenne
leader Black Kettle led part of this group south
t o pursue a peace policy with other factions of
Cheymne, Arapaho, Sioux and Comanche. T h e
remainder turned north t o join t h e Kortlrern
Cheyenne and the Oglala Sioux in t,he Powder
River Country, the last bison stronghold east of
the Yellou.stone River (Berthrong 1963:225-60;

59

G1-inaell 1065:lXl-235).
T h e construction of t h e Boozenran road
throngh tlre Powder River Country into Montana
and the set,tlenrent of Wyoming in the 1860s generat,ed the creation of an inter-band military alliance in t,lris area which fought t,he U.S. Arniy
u ~ ~ t1877,
il
the year aft.er tlre Batt,le of t l ~ eLittle
Bighorn. Led by Oglala, Rrule, and IIur~kpapa
Sioux, this confederat,ion included bands of niilit a n t Nort,lrern and Sont~lrernCheyenne and Arapaho (Berthrong 1963; Grinnell 1956; Hyde 1937;
Utley 1973).
T h e eiriergence of this resistance movement
was accompanied by a dramatically new beadwork style based on military symbolism which the
Sioux called "Full of Points" and w l ~ i c lmarked
~
the begirlr~ingof the Second Seed Bead Period
(Lyford 1940). Tlris st,yle represents a traasfornrabion of the design stroctore of Central Plains
headwork, in u.11ich the balarrced placement of repeated geometric forms is replaced by an overall
pattern of linear frocking. New design elerrielrts
appear, and old sliapes are r e c o ~ n b i ~ l eto
d forrn
more complex arrangement,s. T h e forrnal characteristics of tllis style are the use of forks, lines,
a n d tridents t o form conrplex, pointed designs,
over a white or light blue background.
Previous researchers have attributed this innovation t o the sndden i~rflue~rce
of Caucasiaa rug
designs on Plains beadworkers (e.g., Lyford 1940;
Ewers, peraonal cornmunicat,ion). Like most
diffusion-based accounts of n,~aterialpatierning,
this explanation is inadequate for a number of
reasons. First, because earlier Lakota beadwork
contains niany of the same deeign elements, albeit in different arrangements, i t is conceivable
t h a t the Indians worked out rrovel design st,ructures without out,side influence. Secondly, tlris
explanation fails t o account for t.he distribution
of "Full of Points" among the Lakota, Cheyen~re
and Arapaho. Most import.antly; scholars have
neglected to investigate how this formal development was mediated by existing social and cultural ideals. By e x a ~ n i n i n gthe context within
which tlris genre was n~anufacturedand nsed, we
have additional evidence for the import,ance of indigerrons social processes on the spatial and temporal distribrltion of beadwork styles.
It is clear t h a t among the Sioux, "Full of
Points" represents a transfor~nationin the semantic system underlying desiga sy~irbolisinin
beadwork. Whereas earlier f o r ~ n sexpressed a
tinreless concern wit11 the supernatural and with
ideals of large-scale social unity, "Full of Points"

60

i ~ i d e r e sa new orientat,ion t,oward secular, locallevel events. Mytl~ologicalsymbolism is largely

replaced by tlre representat~ion of battle scenes
and topographic locations. This was accomplished by t h e incorporation of lrew design elerneiits and by investing tradit.ionally-nsed forms
with irew ineaning. For example, the shape of
a cross, wlrich had been used t o represent the
morning st.ar, was appropriated to indicate the
figure of a dead body: blue for men, green for
lrorses (Wissler 1904:265-67). T h e figure of a
trident beconres predominant, aud the prongs of
this shape are glossed as the trajectory of arrows
being shot outward. A diamond with a trident attaclred bo the t o p and tlre bottom comes to stand
for the movement of a war-horse. An X-shaped
design is used as a rescue symbol, the crossing
lines said to represent t h e trajectory of two men
rushing t o the body of a fallen warrior (Wissler
1004:267).
Tlre transformation in tlre design structure and
meaning of Lakota beadwork may be seen by
c o ~ n p a r i n gtbe wonken's pouches shown in Figure 2. T h e first four pouches (a-d), t h e earlier
pieces, are beaded with traditional and mythological design f o r ~ n s given
,
by Wissler (1904:2365) a s
follows: a ) represents tripe (entrails); b ) is a patt,ern glossed as "pointed", referring t o tlre forking
of leaf and arrow shapes; c) represents feathers;
and in d ) the three upright shapes stand for the
euergy of the whirlwind, said to emanate from
the power of a m o t h , t h e chrysalis of whiclr is
represer~t.edill the design; while e) illusfrates the
emergence of the trident shape, clraracteristic of
the new "F1111 of Pointsn style. An irrlportant feature of Lakota beadwork symbolism is tlre fact
t h a t shape categories are multi-referential in natnre, witli t,lre particular meaning of adesigrl arising from t h e context (object association) of appearance. A nrajor contextual constraint on symbolic meaning was wl~etlrert l ~ edesign appeared
on items used by lrrelr o r by women; this principle was maint,ained tlrroughout tlre major stylistic clranges in 19t.h century beadwork. Although
Wissler does n o t provide the gloss for this particular pouch (e), the trident shape, which was
used on men's items t o refer t o t.he movement
of a war horse, was generally glossed a s a turtle
when appearing on women's object.^.^
"Full of Points" design elements are often arranged t o recount t h e events of a particular battle, and men's pipe bags seem t o have been t h e
preferred locus for this narrative display (Wissler
19043263-66). Figure 3 illustrates two sides of a

ETNIVICITY AA-D C:IILT LIRE

man's pipe and tobacco hag beaded in the nrilitarist,ic "Full of Points" style. \Vissler (1004:264265) states t h a t both sides represeat a specific
bat,tle sceuc and comn~cmorateevents in t,lle battle. O n side ( a ) , the two long trident shapes
indicate the flight. of arrows. T h e large central
figure is the body of a man; the colour of the
trwrk portion (indicated by tlre diamond shape)
is blue, implying t h a t he is dead. T h e snrall spots
in tlre centre are his wonnds. 011 the upper portion of the bag the border figure shows the man's
horse, and the colour of t h e beads
indicate t h a t i t was wounded. T h e feat.her designs
herald t.he killing of tlre enemy; tlie pipe indicates
the bag owner's right t o carry t,he formal peacepipe. Tlre o t l ~ e rside of the bag (b), portrays
an importaut battle incident, as indicated by the
central figure. "One of the party fell wounded;
and a struggle took place for his possession. T h e
corner p r o j e c t i o ~ ~represelrt.
s
the 'rescne' symbol,
or the rushing in of cont.estants; the crossed figure in the center, the body of the wounded inan
over whom tire co~irhat~ants
struggled." (U'issler
1904:265). The crosses repreeent the dead, and
the war horse symbol is repeat.ed.
Because of the Plains-wide belief in the 'captnrabilityn of symbols, the American flag motif
became a prar~lirrentfeature in tlre military symbolism of t,his era. T h e use of this design was
viewed by the Lakota as a means of appropriating a visible aspect of military power which was
composed in colours having strong ritual associations among the Sioux (Dobbins 1977; Wissler
1004). In this piece, Wissler states t h a t t,lre flags
indicate t h a t the owner of the bag fought U.S.
soldiers.
"Full of Pointsn was ernblemic of a a inter-tribal
social division on tlre Plains which erne]-ged in response t o conditions of economic and cult,ural crisis. T h e cor~federationbetween bands of Sioux,
Clreyenne and Arapalro was a conscious effort to
redress a critical situation, arrd descriptions of
"Full of Points" ir~dicatedt h a t stylist,ic changes
hr beadwork used by this group were equally purposeful (cf. Wissler 1904). Atterluat,ed design
features of "Full of Pointsn also appear in t.he
beadwork of ot.lrer militaristic Plains groups (e.g.,
Kiowa and Comanche). Because dating is problematic, it is irrtpossible t o say whet,her this distribution indicates a n ideological ide~itificationwith
the resistauce faction or whether t.11is style was
ernulated by others after i t ceased to funct.ion in
an emblemic mode, i.e., after t,he militants were
forced into subjugation and seltled on separate

Figure 2: Lakota women's pouches. (Adapted from Wissler 1904, plate XL.)

ETHNICITY AND GULTUJZE

Figure 3: Lakota "Full of

Tobacco Bag. (Adapted from Wissler, 1904, Figures 99

Mc1,aughlin/STYLE A S A SOCIAL BOUNDARY MARKER

63

reservations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In addition t o tis emblemic quality, "Full of
I would like to thank the following people for readp o i n t s ~&lso
~ fllnct~oIledin the
mode
(wiessner 1983:258), beillg used to herald the ing and com~nentingon vrtrious earlier drafts of this
paper: Dr. Wm. K. Macdonald, Dr. Paula Rubel,
accomplishments of individual warriors in battle
John C. Ewers, Thomas Yellow Hair and Emily P.
(Wissler 1904). T h e interplay of these two forms
Wright. Special thanks are due to Dan McPike of
of stylistic expression is a further conllnent upon the ~
i rnstitutel for ~
~ documen.
~
visual
t h e relationship between socio-economic change tatioll S, ~~~~h~~~and southern plains beadwork.
a n d material patterning.8
I would also like to extend my appreciation t o the
E ~ n b l e m i cstyles in beadwork largely disap- many 1985 Chacmool participants who deepened my
peared in the reservation era, when competi- insight into the issue of style and ethnicity, includtion between groups was ameliorated by corn- ing Warren DeBoer, Susan Kus, Roy Larick, Tlromas
m o n experience and changing modes of interac- Meyers, and James Sackett.
tion (Pohrt 1977). T h e removal of some tribes
NOTES
t o Oklahoma generated a geocultural distinction
between the Northern and Southern Plains which
Sackett,s role in the debate concerning icono.
has shaped t h e evolution of "Pan-Indian" styles logical models of style, particularly his exchange with
in music, dance, and nlaterial culture througlrout wiessner (see Sackett 1985; Wiessner 1983, 1985) has
t h e 20th century (Powers 1980).
resulted in the characterization of his position as one
which denies the "active voice* of style as a purposeSUMMARY
ful social marker. I now believe his primary. obiec.
tion
to
Wiessner's
approach
concerns
the
application
An analysis of 19th-century Plains beadwork
appears t o support t h e hypothesis of archaeolo- of her t,heoretical model to her data, and was not
intended ss a critique of "emblemic" function per se.
gists such a s Wiessrler (1983, 1985) and Hodder
2. I dexignste the region west of the Missouri River
(1979, 1982) t h a t style may b e used t o signify and north of the Platte River the "Central Plains" of
social identity during periods of socio-economic North America; as this ecozone extends into Canada
stress a n d change. While t h e consciousness of it becomes the "Northern Plains". Within American
stylistic behaviour is difficult t o determine, the- anthropology, the area. east of the Rockies is often
oretical approaches which focus on the manip- termed the "Northern Plains" in order to deniark
ulation of artefacts offer provocative alterna- a geocultural distinction between this area and the
tives for t h e interpretation of material pattern- "Southern Plains" which commence below the Platte
ing, a n d force us t o a t t e n d t o behavioral vari- and extend into Texas. Arcllaeologists hwe customability rather than relying on assulnptions of nor- arily referred to the Central Plains area as the hliddle
Missouri region.
mative group bel~aviour.O n t h e Plains, techno3. The importance of territorial disputes to patlogical changes and normative modes of interac- terns of Plains Indian warfare is a controversial issue
tion between groups are insufficient t o explain within American anthropology. My position is obvit h e distribution of styles in beadwork. Major ous from the context of this article; for a review of
transformations in beadwork style occur at crit- the literature on this debate, see Biolsi (1984).
ical junctures in the regional political economy,
4. This is a median figure. The production of
when changing social relations would have im- bison robes and hides varied regionally within the
pelled displays of group identity. 111 consider- area of the Central Plains according to a lnultitude
the of factors, including bison availability, marked condiing" t h e "emblemic" function of stvlr
- ~within
,-~
context of competing adaptive strategies, it has tions, the technological and social capacity of groups
been suggested t h a t beadwork traditions index to meet surplus demands, etc. Lewis (194229) estimates robe production at 70,000 annually between
changes in Plains social organization throughout
1833-1843, with a. drop to 20,000 thereafter. Ray
an era of rapid socio-economic change. T h e ob- (1974:210) gives a muclr higher estimate of 200,000
ject of this research has not been t o expand pre- robes per annum; and Wishart (19773183) reverse8
dictive models for the interpretation of material t,he scenario
T,ewis hv, estimatinem the an. .ontlin~d
. ~ ~hv
~~a -~
patterning, b u t t o evatuate such a model against nual uroduction of robes and hides at 25.000 in the
materials from a particular ethnographic context. period 1828-1834 with an increase to 45,000 between
This approach arises from a growing interest in 1845.1860. To my mlnd, the variability substanticonrparing ethnological a n d archaeological d a t a ates the view that productive capacities on the Plains
sets in order t o elucidate t h e material correlates were limited by a number of factors, Including the
availability of bison, and that the uneven distribution
of culture change (cf. Kramer 1979).
~~~

~~

~~

~~

~~

~~

ETHNICITY AND CULTURE

64

of both biaoll and means of production (i.e., horses

and guns) led to inter-group conflict. It should be
noted that the figures quoted above represent the
aggregate of all Indian- produced robes znd hides received in the 19th century. There are good reasons
to suspect that "tribal" rates of production varied
according to regional carrying capacities and social
factors, such as dieerential access to guns.
5. For example, the Lakota expressed the unity
of the entire Sioux Nation by reference t o a great
camp circle. The winter counts of the Sioux reveal
that they remained concerned with tribal-wide events
and social affiliation throughout the early years of the
19th century. Among these people, the circle was a
ritual symbol par excellence, unifying the different
realms of Lakota life through metnphorical analogy.
It is interesting to note that although this symbol is
s frequent motif in the early quillwork of the Sioux,
it was difficult to execute in beadwork. Thus both
the social unity to which it referred and the design
itself were replaced by the new order which resulted
from culture contact with Europeans.
6. This analysis necessarily ignores material and
behavioural variability in the period 1830-1850. I t
is likely that headwork designs from this era were
shared to some extent with allies who were replaced
or forgotten in the ensuing years. They hypothesis
that shifting political alliances were responsible for
the spatial variation in beadwork styles lnust he more
fully analyzed before the parameters of this relationship can be clearly defined.
7. The developlnent of gender symbolism among
the Lakota Sioux is one aspect of a larger issue which
has not been addressed ia this presentation (or elsewhere, to my knowledge) but which is of great theoretical interest: the relationship between gender, kinship, and the transmission and display of symbols.
This is a particularly important issue to consider in
the analysis of stylistic variation in beadwork, because it was manufactured solely by women albeit
used by individuals of both sexes.
8. The relationship between individual and group
behaviour is always conxplex; it is particularly difficult in an archaeological context. For a discussion
on how to control for behavioural variables at these
levels, see Macdonald, this volume.

REFERENCES CITED
Bennett, John W.
1975 The New Ethnicitu: Persuectiues from Ethnology. West, New York.
Berthrong, Donald J .
1963 The Southern Cheyennes. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Biolsi, Thomas
1984 Ecological and Cultural Factors in Plains Indian Warfare. In Warfare, Culture and Enuironment, edited by Brian Ferguson, pp. 14168. Academic Press, New York.

Catlin, George
1965 Letters and Notes on the Manners, Customs,
and Conditions of the North American Indians.
2 volumes. Ross and Haines, New York. (Original: 1841)
Cohen, Abner
1974 Two-dimensional Man: An Essay on the Anthropology of Power and Symbolism in Complez
Society. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Denig, Edward T l ~ o ~ n p s o n
Five Tribes o j the Upper Mi~souri.University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Douglas, Mary and Baron Isherwood
1979 The World of Goods. Basic Books, New York.
Feder, Norman
1971 American Indian Art. Harry N . Abrams, New
York.
Fried, Morton
1967 The Evolution of Political Society.
House, New York.

Random

Galante, Gary
1980 Crow Lance Cases or Sword Scabbards. American Indian Art 6(1):64-73.
Gregg, Josiah H.
l970 Commerce on the Prairies. Bobbs-Merrill, New
York. (Original: 1844).
Grinnell, George B.
1956 The Fighting Cheyennes. CJniversity of Oklahoma Press, Norman. (Original: 1915).
Hanson, Jeffery R..
1984 Bison Ecology in the North Plains and
a Reconstruction of Bison Patterns for the
North Dakota Region. Plains Anthropologist
29(104):99-112.
Hassrick, Royal B.
1964 The Siouz: Life and Customs of a Warrior Society. University of Nebraska Press, 1,incoln.
Hickerson, Harold
1973 Fur Trade Colonialisnl and the North American Indians. Journal of Ethnic Studies 1(2):1544.
Hodder, Ian
1979 Econolnic and Social Strees and Material Culture Pstterning. American Antiquity 44:446454.
Cambridge University
1982 Symbols in Action.
Press, Cambridge.
Hyde, George E.
1937 Red Cloud's Folk.
Press, Norman.

University of Oklahoma

M c L a u g h l i n / S T Y L E AS A SOCIAL BOUNDARY MARKER

Klein, Alan M.
1980 Plains Economic Analysis: the Marxist Complement. In: Anthropology on the Great Plains,
edited by W. Rayinond Wood and Margot Liberty, pp. 129-41. University of Nebraska Press,
Lincoln.
Koch, Ronald P.
1979 Dress Clothing of the Plains Indians. University of Oklahoina Press, Norman.
Kramer, Carol (editor)
1979 Ethnoarchaeology: Implications of Ethnography
for Archaeology. Columbia University Press,
New York.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1902 The Arapaho Indians. Bulletin ofthe American
Museum of Natural History 18(1):1-229.
1908 Ethnology of the Gros Ventre. American Mu-

seum ofNatura1 History, Anthropological Papers

1(4):145- 281.
Lewis, Oscar
1942 The Effects of White Contact upon Blackfoot

Culture, with Special Reference to the Role ofthe

Fur Trade. Monograph G , American Ethnological Society. University of Washington Press,
Seattle.
Lowie, Robert
1922 Crow Indian Art. American Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers 21(3).
Lyford, Carrie A.
1940 Quill and Bradwork of the Western Siouz.
Johnson Publishing Co., Boulder.
Mails, Thomas E.
1972 The Mystic Warriors of the Plains. Doubleday,
Garden City.
McDermott, John Francis (editor)
1940 Tizier's Zkavels on the Osage Prairies. Albert J . Salvan, trans. University of Oklahoma
Press, Norman. (Original: 1844)
McHugh, Tom
1958 Social Behavior of the American Buffalo (Bison bison). Zoologica 43:l-40.
McLaughlin, Castle
n.d. Style as a Social Boundary Marker: A Plains
Indian Example. Unpublished manuscript.
Department of Anthropology, Columbia University, New York.
Moodie, D.W. and Arthur J . Ray
1976 Buffalo Migrations in the Canadian Plains.
Plains Anthropologist 21(71):45-52.
Newcomb, W.W., Jr.
1950 A Re-examination of the Causes of Plnins Warfare. American Anthropologisf 52517-30.

66

Orchard, William C.
1975 Beads and Beadwork of the American Indians.
Contributions from the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, Vol. XI. New
York: La Salle Litho Corp.
Pohrt, Richard A.
1977 Plains Indian Moccasins with Decorated Soles.
American Indian Art 2(3):32-40.
Powers, Willia~riK.
1980 Plains Indian Music and Dance. In: Anthropology on the Great Plains, edited by W. Raymond Wood and Margo Liberty, pp. 212-30.
University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Ray, Arthur J.
1974 Indians i n the Fur Trade:

Their Role as
Trappers, Hunters and Middlemen in the lands
southwest of the Hudson Bay. 1660-1870.Uni-

versity of Toronto Press, Toronto and Buffalo.

Sackett, Janles R .
1982 Approaches to Style in Lithic Archaeology.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 159112.
1985 Style and Ethnicity in the Kalahari: A reply
to Wiessner. American Antiquity 50:154-GO.
Schultz, James W.
1982 Blackfeet and Buffalo: Memories of Life among
the Indians. University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman.
Schneider, Mary J .
1980 Plains Indian Art. In: Anthropology on the
Great Plains, edited by W. Raymond Wood
and Margot Liberty, pp. 197-212. University
of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Secoy, Frank
1953 Changing Military Patterns on the Great Plains.
Monograph 21, American Ethnological Society.
University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Smet, Pierre Jean de
1972 Wedtern Missions and Missionaries. Irish University, Shannon. (Original: 1859)
Utley, Robert M.
1973 Frontier Regulars: the United States Army and
the Indian, 1866-1891. Macmillian Pablishing,
New York.
Walker, James R .
1982 Lakota Society. Edited by Raymond J. DeMaille. University of Nebrasks Press, Lincoln.
Wiessner, Polly
1983 Style and Social Information iri Kalahari San
Projectile Points. American Antiquity 48:2537G.
1985 Style or Isochrestic Variation? A Reply to
Sackett. American Antiquity 50:160-166.

ETHNICITY AND C>ULTUR.E

Wildschut, William and John C. Ewers

Crow Indian Beadwork. Contributions from the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Fouadstion, Vol. XVI.
Wishart, David .I.
1977 The Fur Trade of the West, 1807-1840: A Geographic Synthesis. In: The Frontier: Gomparatiue Studtes, edited by David H. Miller and
Jerome 0 . Steffen, pp. 161-201. University of
Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Wissler, Clark
1904 Decorative Art of the Sioux Indians. American
Museum of Natural History, Bulletin 18(3):23177.
1907 Designs of the Dakota. American M u s e u m of
Natural History, Anthropological Papers 11:2153.
1915 Costulnes of the Plains Indians. American M u s e u m of Natural History, Anthropological Papers
17:39-93.
1916 Structural Basis to the Decoration of Costomes among the Plains Indians. American
Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers 17:93-115.
Wobst, H. Martin
1977 Stylistic Behaviour and Information Exchange.
In: Papers for the Director: Redeareh i n Honor
of James B. G r i f i n , edited by Charles E. Cleland. Anthropological Papers 61:317-42. University of Michigan (Museum of Anthropology), Ann Arbor.

M E N OF IRON A N D SOCIAL BOUNDARIES

I N NORTHERN KENYA
Roy Larick
Department of Arrthropology and Sociology
Rhodes College
Memphis, Tennessee

INTRODUCTION
For several et,hnic groups of cattle pastoralists in East Africa, hand-forged iron weapons are
among tlre ]nore common and durable i t e n ~ scarried by adult and older subr~duttmales. In particrrlar, spears remain the primary utilitariati implement of herding, serving defensively to protect
against animal and human predators and offensively t o help secure tlre livestock and laud of
neighbouring groups. Moreover, the form (surface morphology) of a spear symbolizes one's
etlniic affiliation, general social age and fighting prowess. Consequently, spears are unusually variable in size, shape and decoration, the
major traits of fonn that determine ethnic (between group), generational (within group) and
individual style. It is in the role of symbolizing social age and ethnicity that spear style is
particularly important for understanding social
boundaries within this region. Stylistic variation
in iron weapons preserves a history of intergroup
relationships while providing a key to current intragroup dynamics.
The more readily visible aspect of pattern in
spear form lies in its ability to express ethnicity. Indigenous males are usually able to recognine the ethnic identity of a spear owner by
viewing only tlre individual's weapon itself. Nevertheless, men (and women) are equally able to
identify the social age of that same spear owner,
often using the same formal traits that rnark ethnic distance. The correlatio~ibetween social age
and spear style is of analytical iniportance in that
the process of age grading structures many social relationslrips withi11 several groups of east
African pastoralists (see Baxter and Almagor
1978; Spencer 1976). It is also of significance
that the material expressions of ethnicity seem
intimately bound with those that reflect social
distinctions within ethnic groups. Similarity in

the ways that weapon form expresses and abets

both between-group and within-group relationships suggests that social boundaries are similarly constructed a&both levels using a range of
activities and items that involve style.
This paper examiues these two facets of style in
the forni and use of tlre spears owned by one ethnic group of herders in northern Kenya. From an
outward-looking perspective, it explains how the
grading of successive generations of male herders
both draws upon and helps to create an ethnic
style in hand-forged iron spears. Viewing inward from a regior~wideperspective, tlre analysis
sliows h o ~ vthe ambivalence of intense interethnic relationships fuels t,he internal differentiation
of this group. In other words, tlre stylistic expression of social boondaries has two correlates.
First, formal traits inrported from foreign groups
help to solidify age-based relationships within an
ethnic group when recombined into a generational style. Second, in the process of grading
niales among several generations, foreign traits
are transformed into a cont.in~rallychanging ethnic style.

SOCIAL BOUNDARIES A N D THE

LOlKOP OF SAMBURU DISTRICT
The analysis focuses on cattle pastoralists
known as "Loikop*, a group that currently nunrbers about 58,000, spread over approximat,ely
20,000 sqnare kilometers of Samburu District
(Figure 1)'. The Loikop speak Maa, the language of several herding and farming groups in
East Africa, the more well-known of which comprise the "Maasai" of southern Kenya atrd northern Tanzania. The language, social and economic
organization and specific c ~ ~ l t u rpractices
al
of the
Loikop include them ill this larger Maa-speaking
society. The Loikop are presently the olrly Maaspeakers among several ethnically distinct herder

ETHhrICITY AND CULTURE

EORAN

LAKE

",

\."
......,".,'

ElHlOPlli

%\

'.

--.

5
%

-,'
A

',-_
\

TURKANA

.2

,'
,

I ,

,.'i

I-\,

?:

~-

,G

KENYA

RENOILLE

Q'

TANIANIC

LOIKOP

*
S
<

L'

LAIKIPIAK

POKOT

.~,.\

,C>,

.,

PURKO

.,
1

.~
~.
,-p

l > - ~ , .

,I__,'

I'
->

-~~2axm

Figure l: Geography and lat,e ninetee~~th/earlytwentieth century ethnicity of S a ~ n b u r uDistrict,

northcentral Kenya: l, Mt. Ngiro; 2, Ndoto Range; 3, Matthews Range; 4, Karisia Hills; 5, Lorroki
Plateau.

Larick/SOCIAL ROUDARIES IhTK O R T H E R N KENYA

K9

societies t h a t occupy lrortl~ce~rt,ral

Kenya. Wlrile age) by undergoing circumcision and, after one
colonialism lras attached relatively fixed spatial t o two nronths of healing, by ritually slaughterdomains t o these groups, their territories over- ing an animal and taking the vows of warriorl a p a t any one time and shift continually t,hrough hood (Spencer 1965:86-87). Within t,he several
months required to initiate tlris first group of
time (see Larick 1986a).
age mates (a second group is initiated 3 to 7
Age-Based Social Differentiation among Loikop years later), tlrese first and tlierefore oldest warMales
riors consciously strive to set the belravioural a n d
Within the Loikop, age grading structures material tolre of their colrort (Larick 1985:210most social interaction among males arid between 211). In sum, although males follow a general set
males and females. For this analysis, tlre pri- of riiles for tlre basic proportions of spear form
mary age grades cornprise boys, warriors and el- within the grades, each cohort interprets those
ders, wit,lr each grade divided into younger and rules somewlrat differently t o produce its own
style of weapon. Tlrese two cross-cutting axes of
older (or juiiior and senior) c o m p o ~ r e ~ ~(Table
ts
variation
elrsllre t h a t a great range of spear forin
1 ) . Feniales are not usually classified in terms
of this male-orienled system; nevertheless, their is used by all contemporary cohorts to construct
funcbional role is obvious t o evervone. Mem- their individual styles.
bership in each age grade confers a different set
Loikop Age Grading and Spear Styles
of economic, social and rit,ual privileges and responsibilities. Men in adjacent grades compete
Figure 2 illustrates the ideal spear styles cura s well as cooperate. For example, with respect rently carried by Loikop lrrales witlrilr each of t h e
to women, older and younger elders compete for three age grades. An apical progression of sine
wives, while younger elders and senior warriors a n d massiveness climaxes with t,he spear? of secompete for the sexnal favours of younger fe~rlales nior warriors. These weapons are tlre largest and
in general. Males express their social age in rnat,e- heaviest and are often carried in pairs. Senior
rial accouter~nentsa s nruch as in behaviour, and warriors have tlre respolrsibility for the military
the ownership a n d use of weapons is n o excep- endeavours of t h e group; they embody the power
tion. At tlre level of individual expression, the of the tribe and they are entitled to carry its
form of spear t , l ~ asylnbolizes
t
sexual prowess for most. powerful spears. T h e weapons of older and
t h e senior warrior is not appropriate for either you~rgerlrren fo~.nicomplemeirtary iiers of size bet h e young elder (who must d e ~ i r o ~ r s t r a familial
te
low the extremes used by senior warriors. Junior
responsibility) o r tlie older elder (who exhibits an elders and junior warriors carry single exarlrples
ascetic wisdom).
of smaller weapons, while the single spears used
Males move through each age grade a s mem- by intermediate elders and the oldest uncircumbers of named cohorts, each one encompassing cized males are even less massive. Finally, senior
men born over a 15-year period (Table 2). T h e elders and young boys carry much the same light.
sequence begills with warriorhood, which marks weapons, but tlre range of variation on this tier
the proudest aud most gregarious period in a is quite large.
man's life. Cornpetit,ion bet,weeu age grades exFigure 3 shows examples of tlre spear styles
presses itself Inore visibly as co~npet,itionbetween preferred by tlre five ~rlost recent Loikop cocohorts and each new colrort strives t o differ- horts during their aarriorlroods. These are:
entiate itself from its i ~ n i n e d i a t epredecessor in a , nyatum (Kileko 1921-1936); b, mpere s u warriorhood. Consequently, each colrort trav- r u a (Mekuri 1936-1948); c, rnpere soro (Kiels through tlre age grades creating different be- rrra~riki 1948-1960); d , ngerani (Kirnaniki); e,
havioural and material styles; no two successive mporos (Kishili 1960-1976);f, nqumeni (Turkana)
cohorts of warriors dress, speak, dance or own (Kishili 1960-1976 arrd Kiroro 1976-1990). Three
material things in t h e same ways. For example, trends of change set tlre stage for viewing t h e
rrrembers of a new coliort clroose a slightly differ- i m p o r t a l ~ c eof interethnic exchange in the forent form of spear t o distinguislr their collective mal traits of weapons: 1) blades have become
sexual power froni t h a t of the precedirrg cohort. shorter, less massive arid leaf-shaped; 2) lengths
Gelrerational styles are, in large p a r t , con- of the wood midshaft arrd iron outershafts have
structed as soon a s a new cohort is assembled varied inversely; S) weapon mass has decreased,
around a incoming set of warriors. Members are especially during tlre last two cohorts. Compare
inidiated into the group ( a t 1 3 t o 17 years of the Loikop spears used in 1921 and 1936 with

ETHNlCITY AND CULTLTRE

- . ~.

~-

senior

-.~~~-

60+

2e
3e
3e
2b
2b-3d

4e
p
.
.
-

~-

Table 1: Loikop age grades and contemporary spear styles.

lAge%t'?-~arriorhood
boys
Kiroro
1976-1990
Kishili
1960-1976
Kirnanki 1948-1960
1936-1948
Mekuri
1921-1936
Kileko
. .
i

----

Preferred Style -~---p-..--boy's spear, flag, Boran (worn)

light Turkana
light and l~eavierTurkaaa,
various foreign spears
ncpere soro, ngerani
myere
soio~!~..
ngerani, mporos

~~

Table 2: Spear styles for five Loikop warriorhoods and current boys.

Figure 2: Spears currently used by t h e t,hree major Loikop age grades: a, boys; b; junior warriors
(light Turknna); c, ser~iorwarriors (mporos); d , junior elders (worn mpere soro); e, senior elders
(worn light Turkana).

72

those used by more southerly Maa-speakers at

the turn of this century and a t present (Figure
4a;4b). Compare also the style used by the last
two Loikop colrorts with examples used by some
neighbouring pastoralist groups dlrring tlre same
period (Figure 4ci4d).

ETHNICITY Ah'D CULTURE

to drop their spears for an instant of areal reconnaissance, the followi~rgtrends would be ohserved. Spatial patterm of metric similarity in
size, mass and general shape of spears should
distinguish the overlapping territories of several
ethnic groups.
It would become obvious, however, tlrat each
ETHNIC AMBIVALENCE AND SPEAR gronp's spears include a significa~rtnumber of
STYLE
traits from some (but not all) surroundi~rg
groups. Statistical tests on the metric values of
It becomes clear that some of tlie formal traits
spear form would tend to show as much variation
by wl~ichsuccessive cohorts of Loikop warriors
within ethnic groups as among them. Tlre anadifferent,iate tlremselves within their own comlyst might reliably conclude that the data arise
rnunity come from rleighbonring ethnic groups.
from a regional econo~nyof etlnrically differentiThese foreigners are precisely tllose with rvhom ated herders, most of whom interact on a regular
the Loikop have interacted rnost intensely over basis. Yet the intense and ambivalent nature of
the past 150 years. It is the int,ense and espe- the interaction, as well as the role of age grading
cially alnbivalent nature of i~rteractiontlrat exin corrstrnctilrg the ethnic style, would not follow
plains interetlnric exchange of formal traits in
from tlre d a t a themselves.
weaponrv.
. . Stated anot,lrer wav.
., for~rraltraits in
spears do comprise ~naterialevidence for interLOIKOP-TURKANA SOCIAL
action behween etfrnic groups. However, specific
INTERCHANGE
interetlnric exchanges of spear form must be underst:ood frorn t.he inside out - through the proA conlparative example can more clearly
cesses of internal social differentiation expressed denrollstrate how ambivalence structures inwithin a context of ternporally u~rstablebut very terethnic material exchanges, how age grading
strong ethnic interaction.
tends to blend t l ~ ematerial products of exchange
Among nortlr Kenyan pastoralists, interethnic and lrow these cross-cutting processes are exrelationships a l ~ n o s talways include extremes of pressed in spatial boundaries. The Turkana are
cooperation and cornpetition that produce strong a neighbouring pastoral group that presently rebut ambivalent interaction. On one hand, as sides to the lrorthwest of Samburu District (Figcooperative arrangements intensify, more oppor- ure 1). Turkar~aand Loikop exhibit markedly difturrities arise for basic differences in ethnic be- ferent characteristics in many categories of ethlraviour to change the nature of interaction. CO- nicity, includilrg style in spears. Relationships
operation may easily change t.o colnpetition and between tile Loikop and the Turkana are freeven violent conflict. O n the other hand, as cam- quently characterized by both intense cooperspetitive sitnations intensify (for example over the tion and competition, both througlr time and at
use rights to land arid water), the chances become any one point in time.
The first recollected contact between tlre
greater tlrat a solution ~nrlstbe cooperative. It is
the ambivalence of interactior~that facilitates ex- Loikop and tlre Turkana seems to have occurred
change of weapons or ideas about weapons that. aborrt 1830, when one generation of Loikop warbeconle tlre innovations selected by warrior co- riors seems t o have adopted Lhe blue headdress of
lrorts.
their Turkana counterparts (Spencer 1973:152).
It is unclear what other relationslrips precipitated
Spatial Patterns of Ethnic Anlbivalence
this stylistic cbange, but Loikop warriors could
have been emulating the Turkana, who were agThe difficult,^ in identifying the nraterial patgressively pushing them northward a t this time
terns of within-group and between-group differ(Sobania 1980:82-83). For much of the next forty
entiation may be appreciat,ed from a standard
years, the Loikop saw the Turkana as a menace,
archaeological perspective for interpreting varipeople encroaching on their own territory. Ilowat,ion in tlle form of artefacts across a cultural
ever, during natural disasters in the late 1880s,
region. An analyst might ask how the t,raits of
the Loikop began to regard the Turkana in anspear form produced through each stylistic proother light. Many Loikop, having lost their herds
cess should appear u ~ h e nmapped across northto rinderpest and their own health to smallpox,
ern Kenya. If the herders of this region were

Larick/SOCIAL BOUDARlES I N NORTHERN KENYA

sought refuge with Turkana f:tmilies who survived

this period better (Sperling 1986).
By the second decade of the twentieth century,
the tide had turned in favour of t,he Loikop. Colonial administrators began t o check the southward
expal~siollof the Turkana. They conduct,ed punitive raids in which Loikop warriors were encouraged t o seize numbers of animals conlparable t o
those they had lost t o the Turkana over many
years. By 1920, co~ubinednat,ural and political
crises had overcome t,he Turkana, forcing many
families to seek a new livelihood. Some moved
into Samburu District to become either dependents in Loikop families o r paupers in newly
developil~g administrative and trading centers.
Within this set of circu~nstances,t , l ~ a continues
t
to the present, many Turkana have shifted their
et.11rlicity t o become Loikop.
At any poirlt in time, t h e relatiollsl~ips between individual Loikop and Turkana r e ~ n a i nambivalent, combining cooperatiol~with competition. Ideologically, the two groups see themselves as incompatible. T h e Loikop circumcise
their men a n d wornen, an event t h a t remains ccntral t o achieving adult status. T h a t the Turkana
circurncise ~ieit,hersex affirlns, in Loikop code,
the former's puerility, wildness, and almost subhuman status. T h e Turkana's liberal food habits
(e.g. "they even eat fishn) and position as menial labourers in contemporary "district trading
cent.ersn serve t o nlaintair~t h e ethnic differences
of the two groups. Ethnic shifting also remains
intermittent and inconrplete in the closest of relationshins. For examnle.
. . Turkana wornen who
wed Loikop men must usually become Loikop.
a
d o not always shift
However, T ~ ~ r k a npatrilines
so easily. In one area of Samburu District,
Loikop and ~ n r k a n ahave shared grazing tracts
for over f i f t . ~years while maintaining separate
ethnic identities (Sperling 1985:100).

73

neighbours in Uganda, E t l ~ i o p i a ,Sudan and Somalia. Economic aud political conflicts t h a t involved pastoralists quickly became deadly as a
large quantity of rifles found its way into northern Kenya. Firearms, however, did not reach all
groups equally. T h e Loikop, caught between two
advancing fronts of international conflict, found
t.hemselves surrounded by small, inobile groups
of firearmed "banditsn. T h e Loikop themselves
remained isolated from the supply and culture of
guns and were forced t o change t h e forin and use
of their spears in response. They chose smaller
a n d lighter spears t h a t could b e thrown accurately from a distance t o replace t h e heavier
spears t h a t had previously been thrusted during
hand-to-hand combat.
Lighter spear forms were potentially available
from t h e Turkana a n d from another neigllbourirlg group of herders, the Boran (Figure 4e). The
Turkana form, l~owever,was chosen exclusively.
T h e Loikop and t h e Boran have a long history
of intennittent, a n d predominantly hostile, relations, b u t the ambivalent interaction of the
T ~ ~ r k a oand
a the Loikop more readily encourages
exchange. While Loikop encounters with Boran
are generally violent, Loikop consider Boran warriors t o be the weaker fighters. Conversely, violent encounters between Turkana and Loikop frequeutly spell defeat for Loikop wavriors. Loikop
consider Turkana t,o be the fiercest and n~ilitarily
most effective of all their neighbours. Thus t h e
Loikop Kishili generation adopted the spears of
t h e men they despise a n d fear, but especially emulate, t o b e Dart of their own aenerational style.

DISCUSSION

cat:tle paritoralism in northern K~~~~~is a

of life marked by extrernes. Possibly t,his fact
dictates t h a t relationships between ethnic groups
are frequently ambivalent. To some extent, interg
group rapport responds t o f l u c t u a t i ~ ~resources.
I n ~ p o r t i n gF'ormal Traits from Turkana t o
When
rain
is
abundant,
t
h
e
region's
e
xte~~sive
Loikop
lowlands provide more than enough resources for
It is against this background of ethnic ambiva- several groups aud their herds. When rains fail
lence t h a t one stylistic change in the spears of (frequently), t h e small, scattered highlands proLoikop warriors may be examined. Tlle Loikop vide the only refuge. Thus interethnic encounters
cohort initiated in 1960-1962 (Kishili) adopted occur most frequently on or a t the bases of highwhat is hest, described as a Turkana style of lands in extreme circumstances. In rlrese cases, it
spear (Table 2 and Figure 4d). In this partic- becomes difficult t o tell who are friends and enular case, a technological need guided the choice emies and who wins o r loses. T h e luslr highland
of size and shape, as tile nat,ure of armed conflict acquired a t a critical period may subsequently
in northern Kenya was changing rapidly a t this deteriorate to become worthless. Herder fortunes
time. Independence in 1963 helped t o destabilize either rise o r fall, b u t hardly ever remain stapolitical relationships among Kenyans and their ble. Wlreti your own luck mounts you call expect

ETHKICITY AND CD'LTILRE

74

someone t o move in with you, and not neccssarily a s friends. When your fortunes fall, you will
move in with your neighbours.
Within this cont,ext of instability, social boundaries must remain fluid. IIowever, t h e tightly
honed organizat,ion of north Kenya11
Dastoyalism
.
.
can
fluiditv in onlv a feu, illstit,utions
t h a t create a n d mnirrtain {oulldaries. A ma,,
willfully vary his o,vn social age to work
to his
~ i k ~patrililleal
~ i ~ kin
~ , ties,
a
most, basic resource network, are fixed
at, birt,h, ~
~
~olle ~
~ life
of ~herding
of the
remains someu.hat malleable - the
age-graded cohort itself, ~
~one,s age
mates as more o r less distinct, from other similarly
constit,uted corporate units
a palett,e for
creating social rietworks and for rrlarlipulatingresources across the entire ethnic unit.
Tire age grade and especially the cohort thus
provide t,l,e most ext,ensive lletwork for interwitllin the group, I,,
examples of internal differentiat,ion, nrernbers of different, col,orts
begirl t,o take on tile material
bella,.ioural
tllat mark distinctiolls termed aetllnicn a t a lligller, more ab.
stract, level of social relations. Significantly in
this regard, Loikop males use material (and belIavioura~jtrait,s imported froin foreign groups to
collstruct tile symbolic il,strlIments used
rules
their own group, \vhen included
for ~
~ speari form,
k foreigll
~ traits
~ intensify or
arrleIiorate the age-based social relationships t h a t
facilitate socioeconomic exchange.
ln the case of weapons, tile innovatioIls that
fuel the sylnbolic system for age grading must.
arrive from a powerful source - Chose u.110 comnland ~ n i l i t a r yrespect. However, as military success varies throng11 time, so does the adoption
of forrnal traits. T h e analyst then must expect
to find braits fro111 the weaporlries of several foreigri groups used si~nultaneouslyby different generations within one ethnic "erouD. Finm an archaeological perspective, spatial patt,erns comprising specific combinatione of formal traits provide direct evidence for the strength of interaction - and t h e permea,bility of social boundaries
- within and between ethnic groups. As is evident for t,he Loikop, strong internal social differentiation provides the vehicle for importing material traits which have primarily syrnbolic significance. Wlren observed amolrg groups, these
traits signify ethnic dist,inctions and, w11m ohserved witllin groups, the same attributes have
additional and solnetimes overriding connota~~

tions for age grading.

CONCLUSION
I step back from the Loikop, l~oldingan anth'o~oiogical hat
each hand and
to wear them a s one. I offer some brief com~ n e n t sfor a better fit. For the archaeologist,
styles in material culture (like spears) are n o t
static reflections of either utilitarian function o r
ethnic affiliation. Neither are co-occurring styles
in
l the ~archaeological
~
l record
~ to be~seen as~ the soup
,
of post-depositions1 disturbance. Form t h a t has
~utilitarian sig~lificalice
~
~for one group
~ a t one time,
i
may have strictly s ~ l n b o l i csignificance for another group a t arlotlier time. Use of i m ~ l e i n e n t s
is con'plex when viewed across space and time
and always i ~ ~ v o l v eboth
s
these aspects of function.
For the ethnologist, 1nat.erial culture is niore
than an epiphenonienor~t o social relationships.
While herders sllc)l as the Samburu carry few
items, each h e m is imbued wit11 social significance. T h e use and exchange of nreapons helps t o
structure relationships between individuals and
groups. For exanrple, the formal s i r n i l a r i t ~in
"ears used by ~ o u ~ boys
l g arid old ~ n e nsuggests
structural similarities between these males who
wollld otherwise appear to llave little in common.
Mat.eria1 culture studies should again become an
important tool in ethnographic method. T h e spstematic st,udy of material culture as an integral
part of finman culture should help t,o link arcliaeology with elhnology to produce better anthi-0pology.
NOTES
1. I prefer ' ~ ~ ~ to
j k= ~~ ~~ n ~ bthe~ ~ ~ , , ,
mon name by which Europeans know this group (e.g.
Spencer 1965, 1973). The Maa-speaking pastoralirts of Salnburu District tliemselves use this term (LOkiop) to express their own ethnicity in relstion to
neighbouring non-Man-speakers, such as the Boran,
Rendille, Pokot, Somali and Turkana. The Loikop
recognize their relatio~lrhipwith the seventeen 'sections" (il-oloshon) of Maasai. Considering the overall degree of economic, social, linguistic and other
cultural variation among all self-identified groups of
Maa-speaking herders, the Loikop can be coneidered another (albeit distantlv related) section of the
contemporary'Maasai (Mol 197899-i01). Nevertheless, Loikop (and Maasai senau strieto) informants
do not consistently explain the hintorical relationship
between tliese presently distinct but closely related
components of a more inclusive ethnicity.

Larick/SOCIAL ROUDARIES IN NORTHERN K E N Y A

Several origins have been suggested for the name
"Loikop" and the group it signifies. Fu~nagalli
(1977:82) believes the word t o be "Lokop", deriving
from n-kop (the Maa word for "land"), and meaning 'people of the land". Some Loikop infonnants
*murder",
suggest
a root. in l-oikop, which signifies
-.
the "victim", "murderern or the pollution incurred
by a n~urdererwho has not been riti~ally cleansed
(Galsty n.d.). The name woold refer t o a time when
the group plundered without paying compensation.
A third possibility lies in the word a-itopok (to "survive"). The epithet dates to a time when the Loikop
survived a. major ecological disaster by foraging and
migrating t o a new territory.
Galaty (1982) argues that Il-Oikop is an old term
tlrat might have denoted all Maa-speakers until the
late eighteenth or early nineteenth century, and that
the name Il-Mnasai (or Il-Maa) is of recent origin.
T h e latter term came t o identify the groups that became ascendant ~nilitarilyduring the early nineteenth
c n ~ t u r ywithin the eastern Rift Valley of southern
Kenya and northern Tanzania. Likewise, 11-Oikop
would only then have come t o identify several groups
at the frontier of expansion - Msa-speakers themselves being puslred farther afield by a powerful int,ernal force (the Loikop (Samburu), Uasin Cishu
and, possibly, the Laikipiak, in the north; and the
Kisongo and Parakuyu, in the south). The Iioikop
(11-Oikop) foniled an interface between a Maasai core
and weaker groups on t,he outside. The Loikop (LOikop) of Samburu District would seem t o be the
last group t o retain this very old ethnic identifier in
a slightly modified form.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A rnore detailed version of this paper appears in
K'orld Arehorology (Larick 198Gb). I thank the Institute of African Studies, University of Nairobi, both
for sponsoring my research in Samburu District and
for providing a forum for ideas and early results. I
am grateful to the Office of the President, Governrilent of Kenya, for accepting nly research proposal.
Several field assistants provided valuable insights t o
t,his research: Janies Ledekanya, Ceorge Lekerpees,
Stephen Lekutai, Edward Lempirias and Johnston
Lereesh. Finally, Louise Sperling aided incalculably
in the preparation of this work.
REFERENCES CITED
Baxter, P. and U. Alrnagor (editors)
1978 Age, Generation, and Time: Some Features of
East Africon Age Orga,zization. C. Hurst, London.
Fumagnlli, C.T.
1977 A Diachronic Study of Change and Socioeuliural
Processes among the Pastoral Nomadic Samburu of Kenya, 1900-1975. Ph.D. dissertation,
State University of New York at Buffalo. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

75

Galaty, J .
1982 Being "Maasai"; Being "People of the Cattle":
Ethnic Shifters in East Africa. American Ethnologist 9 (l):]-20.
".d. Since We Came Up. Ms., McGill University,
Montreal.
Larick, R.
1985 Spears, Style, and Tinre aniong Maa-speaking
Pastoralists. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4(1):201-215.
1986% lron Smelting and Interethnic Conflict
among Precolonial Maa-speaking Pastoralists
of Northcentral Kenya. African Archaeological
Review 4:165-176.
1986b Age Grading and Ethnicity in the Style of
Loikop (Samhuru) Spears. World Archaeology
Ia(2).
Mol, F.
1978 Maa: A Dictionary of the .Maansai Language and
Folklore. Marketing and Publishing, Kairohi.
Sobania, N.W.
l980 The Htstorical Tradition of the Peoples of
the Eostern L a k ~Turknna Basin c. IXA0-1925.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
London School of Oriental and African Studies.
Spencer, P.
1965 The Samburu: A Study of Gerontocroey in a
Nomadic Tribe. Routledge and Kegan Paul,
London.
1973 Nomadi in Alliance: Symbiosis and Growth
Among the Rendille and Samburu of Kenya.
Oxford University Press, London.
1976 Opposing Streams and the Gerontocratic Ladder: Two Models of Age Organization in East
Africa. M a n (N.S.) 11(2):153-174.
Sperling, L.
1085 The Introduction of Camels in a Lowland
Sainburu Area. I n Significance and Prospects
of Camel Pasloralism in Kcrrya, edited by
S. F,. Migot-Adhnlla, pp. 93-115. Institute for
Development Studies (University of Nairobi),
Occasional Paper 45, Nairobi.
1986 Labor Organization of Samburu Pastoraliam.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, McGill University, Montreal.

ETHhrICITY AND CULTURE

NOTES ON AND FOR FRIENDS AND

ENEMIES
Susan Kus
Department of A~rtlrropologyand Sociology
Rhodes College
Memphis, Tennessee

INTRODUCTION

sarily going to dictate the loosening of bonds t o

While I gladly accepted Warren DeBoer's in- a purist attitude toward our data base - matevitation t,o be the discussant for the Chacniool rial "reality" as preserved in the archaeological
Conference session, "Fences a r ~ dBridges, Ene- record. The naivete of our earlier belief that all
mies and Friends", he was orgaltizing, I cringed is there in the arcl~aeologicalrecord, that it is
when I first read the title l ~ ehad assigned to just. a matter of time a r ~ dtire right keys and we
t,he section by the discussant: YAlrd will all this will have it, needs to be put aside. Life is not
help t l ~ earclraeologist?" I tlrought t.hat when I that simple.
Reflectirrg upon the coniplexity of "life as
lrad grown u p and got my Ph.D. this old nemesis
lived",
it seems about time tlrat we archaeologists
would cease to lrauut my ilrtellectual wanderings.
start
to
grant respect to our object of study, the
I was one of those "new archaeology" students
products
of other minds and other cultural logics.
who really t,ook to heart the claim that "archaeIn
fact,
it
is about time that. we start treating
ology is anthropology". I was duly e~~couraged
it
as
a
complex
subject, where volition, dialecto take as many social anthropology courses as
tics,
contradictions,
existential renegotiations of
possible and consequently I did not draw strong
meaning,
individuality
versus conformity, and all
lilies of intra-group division. Yet, my elders did
the
various
other
bugaboos
of a logical-positivist
draw such lines, and the refrain of "How do you
attitude
force
us
to
call
into
question a vision of
translate this into t h a t archaeological record?"
the
world
that
venerates
cleal~
logic, cold cogbecame a signal of group affiliation that needed
nition
and
frigid,
autolnatic
lives.
Perlraps it. is
to be answered repeatedly to reaffirnr subdiscimembers
of
a
(repressive)
state
societ,y who
only
plinary group affiliation.
Despite the passage of time, Lhe question still would think that, the lives of others should be
reniains t o be answered. However, I will seek to translatable into simple strategies and a handful
answer it to my satisfaction, encouraged by an of goals. Only members of a =complex societyn
argument made in a number of this session's pa- would not appreciat.e tlre coniplicaledrless of tlie
pers. This is the argument that we must learn lives of others.
Wlrile this wonderment. at and engagement in
to take into account the "purposeful manipulathe
complexity of life might seem to be leading
tions" and creations of meaning by individuals,
archaeologists
away from the daily fare of the disdespite tlre restraints of a limited and co~nmon
cipline,
t,he
contemplat,ion
of bones, stones and
fund of signs, syrribols and rules of operation.
otlrer
material
reniains,
I
see
this as no cause for
As evidenced in the papers presented in this
panic.
At
some
point
we
will
get back to tlre arsession, we archaeologists are finally coming t.o
chaeological
record.
I
might
not
be clever enough
grips wit.h the complexity of the theoretical probt
o
do
this
myself,
but
archaeologists
as a class of
lems t,hat we are dealing with.
A sign of
irrtellectuals
are
exceedingly
creative.
When I tell
our theoretical maturity is the readiness with
an
introductory
archaeology
class
that
archaeolowhich we are willing to pursue our theoretigists
are
some
of
the
most
clever
individuals
that
cal/probleni quests across subdisciplinary and hrI
know,
I
am
being
perfectly
honest.
For
this
terdisciplinary boundaries (from doing etlrnograreason
I
think
it
would
be
wrong
t,o
ignore
thepliy to reading literary critics like Bahktin). This
focus on a theoretica.l/problem quest is neces- oretical directions and problem interests because

ETHhrlCITY AIfD CULTURE

78

t,l~eyd o not seen1 t o be manageable in the archaeological record a t first glance. Perhaps we
often jump t h e gun on certair~problen~swhen we
ask t,he question too poir~ledlyor too insistently:
"What does this all meall in terms of t h e archaeological record"? Perhaps we st,ill need t o continue
to spend time on what we are doing in papers like
t,l~osepresented i e this Cl~acmoolsession, These
papers have demonstrated the complexity of the
problem of understanding and recognizing group
affiliation within different cultural contexts. This
problen~i11c111des the dimensions not only of the
definition of social identity wit,hin a group a n d
the degrees and types of intergroup interactions,
but. it also includes dimensions of individual nlotives and actions, ideological orders of meaning,
ecological contexts and historical movement and
change.
W h a t follows is a brief discussion of the
individual contributions to the Chacmool session entitled "Fences and Bridges, Enemies and
Friends." T h e papers are discussed in order of
their original presentation.

HOW DO WE MARK SOCIAL

IDENTITY? COME LET U S COUNT
THE WAYS
O n Women's Bodies
As many of the papers have pointed o u t , we
callnot afford t o ignore the fact t h a t t h e "nature
of individual agency and/or volition" contributes
t o and complicat,es the problems we are examining, problems of group anrl class membership and
identity. There are two facets of this issue t.hat
concern the topic of Stinson's paper.
1) As Stillson points o u t , t l ~ eavailability of
infornlation on c~rlturallyvalued body size and
shape are limited and she consequently clrose to
focus on 'preferred levels of fat.ness in fen~a.les."
This raises the classic, but nevertheless interesting, p r o b l e ~ rof~ how we are to untlerstand women.
Are we to understand them as "objects" t h a t are
used t o signal between "subjectsn o r must we include some notion of women as agents, as subjects? This further suggests t.he i ~ r t e r e s t i ~issue
~g
of p o t e n t h l differelltial expressions a n d conceptions of group affiliation of men versus women,
a proBlem n o t directly handled in this session.
This session included discussions on food taboos
t h a t are relat,ed t o male hunting activities, on
tattoos t h a t are placed on male warriors, and on
spears t h a t are carried by men of iron. Only in
McLaughlin's paper is there mention of female

objects. Bead work is said t o have occurred not,

only on "men's shirts and pipebags," but also on
"women's dresses a n d baby carriers, a n d moccasins." It would be interesting to ask what happens to the female objects during t h e period of
int,ert.ribal confederacies when tlie male warriors
are wearing t h e military symbolism called "Full
of points"? T h e geueral neglect of this potentially rich problematic focus should n o t pass unnoticed.
2) Stinson makes a distinction between egalitarian a n d non-egalitarian societies t h a t is useful
in helping separate o u t t h e factors t h a t might
c o ~ ~ t r i b uttoe understanding how the body serves
as a social signal wit,hin these different social contexts. Obviously, in non-egalitarian societies the
issue of group membership and s t a t u s are going
to complicate the picture beyond factors of nutrition and health. We might ask whether we
need t o furt.lrer complicate the picture by recognizing a distinction involving non-egalitarian societies whose irrentbers come from a hon~ogeneous
genetic stock and whose small scale and lack of
strongly centralized cont,rol and authority set u p
a particular patt,era of conlpetition and cooperation with surrounding groups having similar
socio-political structure? Might this be different
from the patterns of competitior~and cooperation
t h a t are set u p in a situat:ion like Ruanda, an example used in Stinson's paper? T h e R u a n d a c a s e
is one in whit11 populations from three different
genetic stocks are in a sustained socio-politicalrelationship because of a n overarching s t a t e structure, an artefact, most likely, of colonial history.
O n Male Bodies
After one has read the section, "Of Torture
in Primitive Societiesn in Pierre Clastres' (1977)
book on Society Against the State, one would no
longer automatically assume t h a t social groups
would use tattoos primarily t o mark a welthey
dist.inct,ion. Actions like circun~cision,tat,tooing,
scarring and other interesting fonns of "beautification/ muLilation" would seem t o be more suited
t o mark internal group loyalty and membership,
or d i s t i ~ ~ c t , iimportant
o~~s
t,o the int,enlal social ordering based on age, gender and/or accomplishments. I would suggest t,hat t h e characteristics
of indelibility and of "the experiehce of suffering"
a s another important aspect t o such embodiment
of meaning or message would have t o figure into
a serious explar~ationof such phenomena. This
point on the relation of "medium and message"
will be discussed further in the conclusion.

K u s / h r 0 T E S O N AA'D F O R FRIEA'DS AND ENEMIES

79

Macdonald's paper is an example of what was drop, goes ahead t o insist t h a t there might b e
earlier referred to as "gaining a healthy" respect even more pieces of the bruth, pieces t h a t do not
for the "subjects" of our study. While we might ignore the "whole world of huinan social act,ivbe able t o m a p out the constraints on t h e signal ity." DeBoer forces us t o come to grips with the
in answers that ignore l~ist,orsyst.ems available in various societies, we need not limitations irrllere~~t
cruslr t.he individual in t h e process by assigning ical and social cont.exts, contexts rhat are bot,h
their utterances t o anonymous (because redun- meaningfully constrircted and successfnlly operdant) litanies of a few simple messages. Macdon- ated wit,l~inby individuals.
ald has called o u r attention t o t h e fact t h a t we are
By W h a t We Wear
studying "part.icipants in real social situations".
Consequently, he offers the important suggestion
McLaughlin's work is a nice demonstration
t h a t we rniglrt need multi-din~ensionalanalytiof
the test,ii~gof a model used in t,l~eintercal tools t o allow us t o appreciate t h e quality of
pretation
of mat.eria1 p a t t e n ~ i n g s . It effectively
social life arrd reason beyond a two-dimensional
shoots
down
simple diffusio~rist.theories, Browncomic strip/stripped sequence of activity and mo- .
lan n~overnenttlreories of material cultural styles.
L:..-,:-..
It asks us irrstead t o s t a r t paying att,ention t o
Ry W h a t We E a t
"purposeful" agents who have some inl,erest in
inanipulating and seirdhrg messages about. Lheir
Quiche, escargot and tripes would give one mo- identity and political affiliat,ion. Perhaps we car1
meilt t o speculate on tlre nature of food and so- leai-11 something very important from t,lris work
cial affiliations. T h e likes of Deneuvc and Delon by asking the question: "Why is this demonstrawould bring forth ~ r ~ u s i n gons the French sensual tion of a relatioi~of variability between material
mystique. And eventually, Freud would reinforce culture and factors of social orgai~izationsuccesstlre suspicion one coirsequently had of the incred- ful, Inore successful than some others that have
ible social weight t h a t food and sex are made t o been presented in this session?" Of course, choosbear in individual a n d socially shared systenrs of ing the factors of social organization t o be obmeaniirg. This should be fair warning t o anyone served is import,ant,, h u t perhaps we might also
of the complexity of the task of attempting to look a t t h e objects chosen to be observed. Might
understand food taboos.
one coi~cludet h a t t h e body and food are too soIf such warnings are n o t sufficient one might cially and p s y c l ~ o l o g i c a l charged
l~
to be easy obturn t o religion. Some ex-Catholics would have j e c t , ~t o handle, while something like beadwork is
known at. one time t h a t you could perform the more free and cheap, and can carry fewer, but.
same act of eating bread and wine a n d , depend- clearler messages?
ing on whether you accepted the doctrine of transubstantiation o r not, you could be participate in
By W h a t We Carry
a miracle o r in a less sacred c o n ~ m e n ~ o r a t i vact.
e
Might we say similar t,hings about spears? LarWars lrave been waged over such issues. Now add
t o t,his the fact t,hat two groups, despit,e coin- ick's work gives one food for thouglrt, sirice these
mon prohibitions on t,he c o n s u n ~ p t i o nof pork, material items are carrying inforinatio~rfrom a t
conrinue t o fight. Mary Douglas reminds us of least two spheres of intergroup and intragroup
the con~plexityof dietary laws, laws t h a t are or- idenlJification. T h a t is, these i t e n ~ sare carganized into systems and n o t t o be understood rying informabiol~on internal group differences
as individual taboos. T11el1 if one looks specif- based on age-cohort affiliat,ion,social roles associically a t South A~nericaone would realize t h a t ated with these groups and competit,ion bet,ween
the battle lines had been drawn and the cor- groups, as well a s ii~formationon relations wit21
ners "scented" by both material culturalists and neigllbours. Life is complicated, but Larick is a t
structuralists. Such big guns d o not errgage in least successfi~lin explaining a lot of the pat,t.ernbartle unless they possess a n element of truth in ing iirvolved. It is t r u e he had informants, but,
let us not lose hope just yet.
hand.
Larick suggests t h a t there are other markers of
There are inore t l ~ a nenough u.arnings, especially for t h e symbolic t,ypes who, as one might etlrl~icdifferences between the Turkana and the
expect, see danger signs of the profanation of Samburu. It is not o111y spear styles which might
meaning quite early. Yet DeBoer, rather than in some way mark ethnicity but also, in this
letting the topic of South American food taboos case, t l ~ epractice of circumcision and food habits

ETHA71C1TY A N D CULTURE

80

tattoos, scars, surgical adjustments and rernovals, as well as ir~delibleniarks on the soul.
We might. listen to Clastres's (1977) suggestion
that these are means to impress upon a memher of society, through experience$ that mark
t,he heart and body, a atrong emotional senae
of identification with the order and meaning to
be found in that society.
(c) Finally there is a class of activities and items associated with activities (e.g., not eating tapir,
not eating meat on Friday, making the sign of a
cross before attempting a free throw) that are
repeatable, and whose repetition might serve
as continuous reminders of not only group affiliation but also shared values, shared world
views.

(like eating fish). He goes on t o remark that:

"LVhile it is not standard behaviour, herders do
understand the ~ o i n at t which ethnicitv must be
changed for survival." Here is a situatiori wlrere
we might answer sonre questions posed by the papers discussed above. Specifically, we might ask
how hard it is to change spear styles, compared
t o the cl~aagingof eat,irig habits or physical and
irreversible markings of the body.
And W h a t Might This All Mean?
By playing off the concepts of "cult,ure" and
"ethnicity", which have been used by a n d continue to be used by anthropologists and archaeologists, Moore does a good job of critiquing essentialist theoretical approaches to the problem t h a t
this Chacmool Conference sought t o address'.
His i~~eisterrce
t h a t i h e question of groilp and individiial affiliations nrust be context,ualized mrd
thus must necessarily be scerl as situational, nlultiple and int,eractionist is nicely illust.rated by the
papers in this session. He has done a laudable
job of making explicit tlre theoretical sensiti\*it.ies
t h a t ilnderpin tlre contributions t.o this session.

(2) Might it be useful t o employ a distinction

between "con~plex"and "complicated" societies?
Maybe we keep searching for, desperately hopt o detecting and undering for, simple solut~ior~s
standing correlations between material culture
and social behaviour because of the nature of
the societ,y i r ~which we live? This is a society
t h a t hopes t o effect efficient co~rtrolof its inembers by encosraging and enforcing conformity in
behaviour and sin~plifyingmeans of grouping inWHAT TO SAY BY WAY OF
dividuals.
CONCLUSIONS
(3) A final point - while we may have t o give
up a concept of culture, perhaps our hope in carW h a t d o bodies and beads, tattoos and taboos rying all this back t o tlre arclraeological record is
have in common beyond assonance when spoken t o keep fait11 in our discipline's insistence t h a t ,
aloud? Anthropologists are no st.rangers t o this despite w h a t we call that which we are studying,
' >>
genre of question. Perhaps one might respond t o
~t
must b e uppreciat,ed fi-on1 a ltolistic perspecthis question by reinforcing three points whose tive. There are a lot of t l ~ i n g st h a t are, in fact,
g ~ . o u r ~work
d
was laid earlier.
interrelated. A concept suc11 as "overdetermi(1) There may be things tlrat bodies and beads, nation" might. lead us to ask about redundancy
tattoos and taboos have i a common, but perhaps in message sendings, in marking of individual's
tlrere are some critical differences t h a t might af- psyclrological states and social st.atus as well as
fect the messages and affiliat.ions tlrat. t l ~ e ywill group affiliations. Must you mark suclr things
be used t o carry. This c o n i ~ n e n tis n o t int,ended nrore t h a n orrce and in more t h a n one fashion?
t o contradict. earlier praises of tlre rerognit.ior~ Perhaps t h e con~plexityof the issues that. face us
of con~plexityby tile authors of the papers dis- in ternis of il,erns and actions t h a t carry a multicussed. I suggest that we 1101 dismiss the question tude of lnesssges can be handled by looking for
of fit between "medium and message". I would repetit.ions of the same message among different
propose a s i n ~ p l ethree category typology t o ini- modes o r media. Hopefnlly, this discussion has
tiate discussion of t l ~ i sissue.
not been overly redundant o r unclear in the few
messages
i t has sought to present,.
( a ) Items such as beads, spears and removable
makeup would seem to be easily changeable,
NOTES
exchangeable and blendable. Might such items
be uscd 1.0 mark states of being and affiliatiolls
1. Moore's paper "Is 'Ethnicity' Just 'Culture' in
that have to be continuously renegotizted or
New
Wrappings?", was presented at the conference,
have the possibility of mutability?
but not submitted for publication.
(h) There is a second category of items whose members are less mutable, a category that includes
G'

K u s / N O T E S O K AR'D FOR FRIEKDS AKD ER'EMIES

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Rill Macdonald for suggesting the terms "complex" and "complicated' to me to
distinguish between certain social forms.
REFERENCES CITED
Clastres, Pierre
1977 Society Against the State. Urizen, New York.

ETHNICITY AND CULTURE:

SECTION I1

ETHNICITY IN COMPLEX
SOCIETIES

ETHNICITY AND CULTURE

ENCLAVES, ETHNICITY, AND THE

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD AT
MATACAPAN
Robert Santleyl, Clare Yarborough2 and Barbara Hall2
1. D e p a r t ~ n e n tof Airthropology
University of New Mexico
Albnquerque, New Mexico
and
2 . Department of Anthropology
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona

1NTR.ODUCTION
Most nation-st.a.t,es in t h e ~ u o d e r nworld are
(or have been in the recent p s t ) sociocult~urally
arld et,hnically plural entities. Pluralisxn often exists in large urban centers which are frequently
divided into ethnic enclaves o r neighbourhoods
(Coon 1958; Glazer and Moy~rilran1965). Plural
societ:ies g e ~ r e r a l exhibit
l~
two characteristics:
, . . ( 1 ) segmentation into corporate
groups that frequently, though not necessarily, have different cultures or subcultures; and (2) a social structure compartmentalized into analogous, parallel, noncomplementary but distinguishable sets of institutions (van den Berghe

1969:O'i).

Much of t,he research on etlrnicity, enclaves and

p111ralis111 in ethnology has focused on how various groups are beiug incorporated into modern
nation-states (Rorth 1969; d u Toit 1978; Esman
1977; Glazer altd Moynihan 1975; Kuper and
Smith 1969; Maybury-Lewis a n d Plattner 1984).
However, a riumher of studies have dealt with
how different groups in plural societies are socioeconon~icallyand sociopolitically organised, how
etlll~icityo r ethnic identity is maint,ained and/or
projected relative t,o otller local ethnic groups
and t h e conditions under which ethnic affiliations
will be preserved, nrodified o r lost in different settings (e.g., C o l ~ e n1969; Goody 1970; Knrlstadter
1984).
Researcl1 on ethnicity is of special interest t o
arcl~aeologistsbecause of its potential for descrihing a n d explaining cult,ure change in prehistory.

A quick perusal of tlie arclraeological record from

almost any area of t,he world indicates t h a t many
descriptions of the stylistic variability from region to region are couched in ethnic ierms. 111
Mesoamerica, for exa.mple, terms such as Maya,
Aztec, Zapotec, Mixt,ec, Huastec and Totonac refer t o the names of ethnic groups t h a t inhabited different regions a t t,he time of the Spanish
conquest. Since tlre material technology found
a t sites in different regious often varies as well,
Mesoamericanists commonly make the assumption t h a t variat,ions in st.yle were due t o etl~nic
differences. In other instances abrupt breaks in
stylietic continuity through time are typically explained in terms of population movement or invasion: in other words, the replacement of one
ethnic group by anot,l~er. Finally, styles may
s
settlement t o
vary within c o ~ n m ~ ~ ~ r iort i efrom
settlement within a region, frequently leading
the archaeologist to infer that, the site or region
was etl~nicallyplural. However, since fiinction,
raw material type, method of manufacture of the
artefact, as well as the social, ecollo~nicand political s t a t ~ t sof t h e artefact user, can also affect what the material record looks like, ethnic
group affiliation in plural societies is o11ly one of
a variety of factors which can condition assemblage variability. T h e archaeologist must iden. ~ questior~might be
tify whether tlre ~ a r i a b i l i tin
d u e t o differences in the ethnic composition of
the groups which produced the material record.
This task requires some knowledge of the range
of variability in specific types of contact situat,ions which car1 be linked t o corollary accultur-

8G

ETHKICITY Ah'D CIJLTlIHD

ation pat,terns as well as t o information about class are exainples of this kind of phenomenon.
11ow this variability in etllnic group interaction is The third sit.uation involves t h e fornrat,ion of ethexpressed in nlaterial technology.
nic enclaves, which occur as spatially bounded
Tlrree types of contact situations frequently oc- isolates within a larger culturally distinct popcur in the et,hnogra.pl~icpresent. In the first, a de- u l a t i o ~(Collen
~
1969; Coo11 1958; Curtin 1984;
nlographic subset of a population, generally adult English 1966; Levy 1975). Enclaves almost almales, moves into a new cult~nrallydistinct area. ways have spat,ial integrity, are occupied by memT h e rural-to-nrban migrat,ion of males in search bers of b o t h sexes of the same ethnic group,
of work in Labin America and the conquest of a exhibit a preference for endogamous marriage,
neighbouring tribe o r town by a group of warriors have common economic or politico-economic inare two common e x a ~ n p l e sof this type of situa- terests and share the same system of values, betion. T h e ethnic identity of t,he newcomers, how- liefs and, often, ideology. Et,lrnic enclaves may
ever, is rarely maintained if they become perma- occur in different parts of t h e same community
nent residents, because t,lley get~erallymarry into (e.g., ethnic barrios in Kew York City [Glazer
the resident. group and their offspring are taught and M o y n i l ~ a l 1985]),
~
or they may physically
the mother's language and raised according t,o constitute separate set,tlemcnts (e.g., the Armethe customs of the lrost group (Colren and Mid- nian suburb of New J d f a near Isfallan in Perdlet.on 1970b). Contact, then, clraracte~~isticallysia [Curt,in 19841). Enclaves typically form in
results in the assimilation of t,he newcomer group, sit,uat.ions in which the incoming group is ponsually within a generation o r two. Assi~nilation lit,ically dominant over the resident llost group
can also occnr even w11en t.he size of tlre group of (e.g., early Colonial Period Mexico City !Hasincoming ~rralesis quire large. Thus, it is irot only sig 19851) o r the imnrigrant,~control segments of
tile size of tlre newco~nergroup but also its de- the local economy (e.g., Hairsa n~onopolizatioi~
of
n ~ o g r a p l ~ coniposition
ic
that determine whether the long-distance exchange in West Africa /COcustoms will be maintained (Goody 1970).
hen 19691). In reality, political domination and
c
are t,wo edges of the
A second type of cont,act situation occurs wlren e c o n o ~ ~ i imonopolization
a more demographically represent,ative sample of same sword. For example, t h e Hausa in Ibadan
a populatior~moves into an area. This process dominat,e t h e exchange of vast anrounts of goods
commonly occurs w l ~ e nnew regions are opened and an elaborate, far-flung organization of landup t o ethnic groups wl1ic11 were previously ge- lords, clients and ilreir dependents who manage
o r politically circnm- the buying, movernel~tand sale of goods (Cohen
ographically, eco~ron~ically
scribed (e.g., the colonization of t h e American 1969). For this reason, they require a supraWest). In these cases lrousel~oldsof members housellold corporate grouping whicll can coordiof different etlrrtic groups live side-by-side within nate melribers within tlre commnnity, cooperate
the same c o m n ~ u ~ r i t(Kelley
y
1976; Kunstadter wit11 other Hausa settlerrients and prevent the
1984; Vance 1970). Holneland custonrs will be encroachment of other ethnic groups into their
maintained within the honscl~oldbecause the co- trade. T h e preservation of ethnicity appears t o
residential group consists of inembers of both be linked t o co~nmonalityof economic interests,
sexes from the same et,llrric group. Ethnic affili- wlricl~is often used as a polit.ica1 weapon t o imation also provides a more il~clusivesocial group prove or niaint.ain group control over clexnents
or1 which individual l~ouseholdscan rely for eco- of the economy. Thns, because tire trade is big
nomic assistance in t i ~ u e sof need. Urclaves d o business and requires a supsal~ouseholdecorlornic
nor form, however, because the economic ir~ter- and political organization, the Hausa live in a
ests of different l ~ o u s e l ~ o l dvary
s
from context separate enclave. T h e developlnerlt of ethnic ento context. Consequently, patterns of settle- claves for similar politico-economic reasons is a
rne~rtwithin corninunities are culturally hetero- very widespread pherlonlenon (Coon 1958; Crissgeneous. Ethnic assimilation may occur in the ~ n a n1967; Fallers 1962; Goody 1954; Kuper et al.
event of a population crash o r if econonlic con- 1958; Morris 1968; Skinner 1964; Winder 1962).
ditions become such t h a t there is col~siderable Moreover, i t would appear t h a t boundaries bemobility a t tlre individual, rather t h a n group, tween the enclave and host population are intenlevel (Glazer and Moynihan 1965; Harris 1964; sified in situations of strong polit,ical and ecoYarborougl~ n . d . ) . T h e catastrophic effects of nomic con~petition. There also appears t,o be a
populations relationship between the scale and complexity of
European patlrogens on A~neriridia~r
in Mexico and the rise of t h e American middle enclave politico-economic interests and tlte de-

Szntlej; Ynrboronglz a n d H~I~/EIVC'LA\'S

gree t o wlrich ethnic distinct,ions are used as a

basis for expressing group aliiliations.

'ORRELATES
OF ENCLAVES
Ethrricity is generally mairrt,ai~redo r expressed
i a enclaves throllglr two tiers or levels of mutually
reinforcing behaviours and institutions. First, a
c o l l e c t i o ~of
~ er~clave-widemyths, beliefs, norms
on
frameand values provide a c o ~ ~ ~ mideological
work which binds the lreigl~boul-lloodtogether
through part,icipation in common ritual. Enclaves thus oft,en have some sort of religious
fice (eg., a temple, chnrch, ~llosqueor shrine) as
a focus of neighbourlrood life. These buildings
tend t o be built in a style o r incorporate
bolic elenrents which reflect. place of origin. Sucfr
structures also tend t,o b e very visible and located
in gerreral-access places, a l t l ~ o o g hthey llray not
be in the ce~rt,erof the enclave. This occ11rs because religious ideology and dogma are employed
as a means for expressing ]rot oIlly boulldaries or
differences between groups but also ~ ~ i t , l
ascript.ive borrds of a t t x l u n e n t , both real and fitLive (Kagata 1984). These religious ideologies exal
wlricl~men face in
ploit the e ~ ~ l o t i o n anxieties
dealing with t,he peremlid problenrs of existence,
death, health and illness, happiness
of life
and misery (Colren 1969). Many ethnic political
groupings in t,owns therefore organize tl~emselves
in a separatist. churclr, an exclusive mystical order o r some other type of cult wllicll provides an
ideal "blueprint" for tlre development of an inforlnal political organizalion and legitilnizes arid
st,abilizes the political order.
Enclave-wide comIlIunality is furtller reillforced by a commolr lnl,guage, by dressing in a
particlllar way, especially on major ceremonial
events or during particular tirnes of the day, or
by wearing particular badges or emblems. Moreover, because eIlclave rnembers1rip is frequelltly
expressed in religious ideology, iderrtificat.ion extends illto afterlife, with burial of the deceased in
ritually prescribed fashion. Spatial variability in
manner of intermellt is likely t o b e a good indicator of t,he presence of enclaves, and the kinds
of grave goods, or syrrrbols placed on t
~ lrlay~
be a good ilrdjcator of honleland ethnic affiliae,
and religious ideology
tion. L a ~ ~ g u a g costu~rre
tend t o be tile most common indices of ethnic affiliat,ioIl because they are highly visible and allow
u ~ ~ n m b i g u o identification
us
of a member's etllnic
and outside tile group,
status by otilers
They also imply a sense of common origiIl for

R7

members within the enclave wllich reinforces ideological concepts of group disti~rctivenessa t t h e
cognitive level.
O n a more particular level, ethnic identity is
also expressed in domestic residential contexts.
Culinary practices - o r how food is prepared,
wl'ich kinds of foods are eat.en a ~ t dt h e material
technology associated with food preparation and
c o n s u ~ n p t i o n- constitute allother constellation
of ethnically-definec behaviol~rst h a t is also commonly nrailltained in enclave domestic contexts
( E a r t h 1969; Benrrett 1975; Colren and Middleton 1970a; d u Toit 1978; Esman 1977; Glazer and
Moynihan 1975; Kuper 1965; Kuper slid Srnith
1969). Meals, for example, frequently function
a s t l r e only occasion during t,he day when t h e
family is together as a co-residential group t o
exchange information about domestic busi~ress
or a b o u t problen~sincurred in dealing wit11 t h e
outside world. Meals also serve a s occasions
when visit'ing relatives, kinsmen and dignitaries
are errtertained and wlre~rpolitics, eco~rornicsand
ot'her
~ i business
~ ~ - ~affecting
~ ~ ~either
~ t h e fanlily or t h e
snprafnmilial group are discussed. Various rituals are a l s performed
~
either immediately before,
d u r i ~ l ga n d l o r after the meal; these affirm family and group identity and reinforce sorial ascription and exclusiveness (Rarth 1969). Suclr rituals
typically rerluire visual cues or mental ~ r o n r p t s .
These may thke t h e form of the cuisine itself o r
v n b o l s placed on the table which are endowed
with special qlralities and meanings about t h e
"ay the world works and the order of the metaphysical llniver~e(Goody 1982).
Domestic groups may also maintain family
shrinesin the resident,ial compound and perform
a11 asso"at.ed collection of rituals, particillarly if
t,llere is a heavy focus on ancestor worship (Earth
1969; Cohen and Middleton 1970a; MayburyLewis and Plattner 1984; Sarltley 1977). If bier"rchica1ly structured kin units exist as residential groupings above the level of the family,
t l l e l ~domestic ritual may become the fur~ctionof
t,be lineage head wlro maintains a shrine near his
dwelling. Shrines, b o t h familial and suprafamilial, may be special st,ructures located within t h e
residential
~
~ compound,
~
~ remodeled
,
rooms within
t h e house or the corner or wall of one roonr which
i m r d i l ~ a r i l yused for other purposes. Both dining ritual and familial ritual require special paraplrer~raliawhich is housed either in t,he shrine
o r in a specific p a r t of the house. This paraplrernalia is also oft,en imbued with information
about myths of origirr and group affiIiation. Fur-

88

t l r e r ~ ~ i o r esnclr
,
paraphernalia tends t o b e manufactured out of raw materials from tlre original
horneland, or rendered in a style which symbolically reflects place of group origin.
In contrast, the arraugeinent of space \r~itliin
domestic st.ructures generally reflects the size a n d
orgairization of tlre group i ~ r l ~ a b i t i nthe
g struct.ure and its occupatioiral st,ructure, not ethnic
group afiinity. It is possible t h a t decoration of
interiors, rather than t h e arrangement of space,
may be more responsive t o place of origin. Unfort.unat,ely, the ethnographic literature is not particularly inforniative in t,liis regard. Style of domestic arcl~itectureis also not a very good indicator of place of origin, except in contexts where
there was a direct political takeover or conquest
by a foreign power, followed by a program of
colonization. Tlrese coriquests often were s t a t e
expansions into relatively unoccupied territory.
Many of t,lrese polit.ica1 units also had transportation networks in which sailing ships provided the
liirks connecting tlre provinces arid the core of
the ernpire (Curtin 1984). T h e Roman settlemerit of X'orth Africa or any of the score o r so
cities named Alexandria foonded by Alexander
the Great in Turania are t.wo exarnples which
quickly come t o mind (Bourne 1966; Brown 1967;
Tarn 1961). S o d o t h e Europearr empires of the
recent Colonial era. For example, Vict,oria~iarcliitecture was as conrrrion in Englislr quart,ers of
settlements in ni~reteent,hcentury India as it was
in suburban Lolldon (Raycliaudhuri a n d Habib
1982).
Anot,lier pl~enomerros which deserves some
cornlnent is t h e process of "homogenization".
Here, differences in t h e culture of different groups
s
different subregions are blended
of ~ n i g r a n t from
toget,lrer to form a new milieu, the out,come of
which is a irew enclave cult,ure which is peculiar
t o the settlers (Cohen 1969). ~Iomogenization
is related t o t h e need t o mobilize groups of individl~alsfrom somewhat different backgrounds
in respouse t o c o r r i ~ n o ~
politico-eco~iomic
r
exigencies. Members of enclaves undergoing homogenization tend t o also place great e~riphasison
traditio~ralvalnes a n d beliefs shared by all subgroups. Honrogenization often operat,es under
t,he guise of religion, biirding different groups together througlr common rituals. Thus, i t should
come as no surprise t o the student of Roman
history t.lrat m a n y colonies establislied in major
towns in the provinces of tlre empire, particularly
Gaul, Dacia, Nortlr Africa and Great Britain,
were lrrore cult,urally "Ro~narr" than Rome it-

ETHNICITY A A%, CULTURE

self, with its unplanned menagerie of neiglrbourhoods, some occupied by discrete ethnic groups
and others populated by ~nigralrtsfrom all over
the Meditkrranean basin (Bourne 1966). Many of
the best examples of Roman architecture are also
known from t,lre provinces, n o t from the imperial
capital (Brown 1967).
To recapitulate, the etlinograplric record
points out tliat ethnic identity in e~rclavesis very
often expressed throng11 ritrial, dress, language
and various culi~rarypractices. Ethnic identity in
enclaves functiorrs on two tiers, one enclave-wide
and the other domestic, which reinforce notions
about group affiliatiori and place of origin. This
behaviour has correlates in t,lie material record
which can be used by t h e archaeologist t o identify the presence of enclaves and their place of
biogeographic origin. Tlris archaeological residue
should b e seeir t o varying degrees on both the
household and s~ipralrou~ehold
levels.
First, there ought t o be evidence of a suprahouselrold religiol~s i ~ r s t i t u t i o ~and
r
ideological
framework which bound the enclave t,ogether as
a cohesive unit through colnmon ritual. This
institution should be reflected archaeologically
by the presence of religious arcliitecture of nonlocal style associated with a disiinctive rit,ualceremonial assemblage. This arcl~itecturesliould
be located in a geaeral-access or prlblic context,
implying t h a t it furrctioned t o integrate the population a t large. Second, t,here ought to be evidence t,lrat groups of lrouseholds located in a
geographically contiguous area of the community maintained a collection of distinctive culinary and ritual practices, as reflecred by types
of associat,ed ii~aterialtechnology, the design of
family s)rrines a ~ l dperlraps t,l~ekinds of foodst,uffs consunred. Also, the way individuals were
interred ought to be distilrctive and reflect etlrnic group affiliation, as slrol~ldthe kind of objects with wlriclr the deceased is buried. Third,
because many etl~nographically-k~to~vri
enclaves
stress marital endogamy, there slrould b e genetic
differences between the enclave and the host populatiolr which may be detect,ed skeletally (Spence
1971; Wilkinson aud Norelli 1981). In addition, there are some ethnically-defined cilltural
practices associated with child-rearing which also
leave traces in tlre skelet.al population, such as
head deformalion (Haury 1958; Reed 1950; Whittlesey 1978). Ib nrust be emphasised, however,
tltat n o one material correlate, no matter how
abulidantly represented, will unambiguously reflect either enclave presence or ethnic group affil-

Santley, Yarhorouglz and i f a l l / ~ h r G L A I ~ E S

89

iation (Kanlp and Yoffee 1981). This is why any

definition of the archaeological properties of enclaves must stress the presence of all three kinds
of evidence.

neighbourhoods. T w o of these occupat,ion zones

are unusually rich in Teotihuacan-style rnat,erials.
These materials represent a cornplex of ritualceremonial, culinary and special-funct,ion axiefacts which occur togebher in refuse Iniddens adTHE TEOTIHUACAN PR'ESENCE AT jacent to domestic s t r u c t . ~ ~ r eand
s near public
MATACAPAN
buildings and high s t a t u s arcl~itecture. Most of
Teotilluacan is one of t,he largest, and most sig- t,llese mat,erials consist of locally made copies or
nificant sites in precolumbian Mesoamerica. Dur- inlitations of ceramics and other objects used a t
illg t h e ~ i d d classic
l ~
period (A.). 400.700) tile Teotihnacan during the Middle Classic. There is
urban center covered about 20 square kjlolneters a virLua1 a.bsence of imports from Teotihuacan;
and had a population of a t least 125,000 (Mil- however, 'his is t o b e expected, give11 the great
10x1 1973, 1976, 1981). At the same t,ime, Teoti- cost of transporting bulky commodities such a s
huacan -.as also able t o exert widespread "influ- pottery from Central Mexico by foot. Although
encen tllroughout, ~~~~~~~~~i~~(passtory 1978). c e r a n l i c s o f Teot,illuacan derivat,ion are amply
By influence, we mean the Occllrrence of archi- r e p r e ~ n l e da t Matacapan, never d o t'11ey account
tecture, monument,al art and/or porLable tech- for t h e majority of t h e assemblage. Most of t h e
nology of supposed Teotihnacan origin, deriva- vessels from t l ~ eMiddle Classic asse~nblagebetion o r i~lspirationa t siter beyond t,lle bound- long to a local tradition i n common use t,hroughof tile core ~
~ polity in central
~
o u tt the cent.rali Tuxtlas. This
~ suggests~ t h a t olily ~
Mexico. Although materials of prernmed ~ ~ ~ certain
t i - classes of behaviour required objects prohuacan derivation occur throughout Mesoamer- duced in Teotihuacan shyle.
ica, sites with talud-tablero arclrit,ect.~~re,
~ c u l ~ - O u r most cornman Teotihuacan diagnostic
ture rendered in Central Mexicall style
a artefact is the cylindrical tripod bowl, which was
broad array of Teotihnacaa artefacts are ]nuch rendered in four locally produced wares: Fine Orrarer and more rest,rict,ed in distributiol~(Sant- a w e , Fine Gray, Red-on-Fine Orange and Fine
ley 1983). These sites, it. has been suggested, sup- Buff (or imitation copaware) (see Figure 3). Of
these four wares, Fine Buff is often t,he most comport,ed enclaves of resident Teotilrrlacanos (I(&
der et al. 1946; Parsons aud Price 1971; Sanders mon. Overdl, Fine Buff accounts for 6.2 pera r ~ dMichels 1977). Sites wit,h evidence of ~ ~ ~ cent
t i of- a.11 Middle Classic pottery, although in
kloacan occupation are also typically located in certain contexts i t may amount to 20-30 perspecial resource zones and/or along est,ablished cent of all pottery retrieved. Virtually all of
routes of exchange. This spatial patt~erninghas t.he cylindrical tripod vessels from Matacapan
been used t o support the claim that, enclaves had are undecorated, but nlaily originally nlay have
a commercial function and t h a t Teotihnacan es- bee11 fresco-painted. T h e nrost common decoratablished enclaves a s bases t o cont.ro] the long- tive motif repesented on supports consists of two
distance distribution of exotic goods (Santley e t intertwined incised e l e n ~ e n t sset in a panel, off.en
situated above a carved sloping talud (see Figure
al. 1984a).
Matacapan, located in tire Tuxtlas Mountains 4). This same rnotif has been reported from t.lre
~ complex a t Kaminaljuyu (Kidder et.
of southern Veracruz, is one site kn0u.n to have M O I I I IA-R
~
1978; Semaintained a "special relationship" wit11 Teoti- "1. 1946) and a t T e o t i l ~ u a c a r(Muller
huacan (Coe 1965; Parsons 1978; Valenzuela journe 1966). Also represented are highly styl1945) (see Figure 1 ) . Since 1982, we have beell ized Tlalocs, carved H-, V-, and I-shaped eleconducting a series of investigations aimed at ~ n e n t s a n ddepictions of talud-tablero facades, as
understanding t.he character of the Teotihnacan well a s hollow tubular supports, hollow g1obula.r
presence a t Matacapall (Santley et al. 1984a, s ~ ~ p p o r and
t s slab feet. Fine Buff also occurs as
1984b, 1985). T h e c e l ~ t r a lpart, of t h e site =on- hen~isphericalbowls, frequently with annular or
sists of a complex of public buildings and orher ring bases, "cream" pitchers and lids t o cylindrit,ripod vessels. A number of Fine Bufi vesplatfor~narchitecture (see Figure 2 ) . This
plex is s ~ ~ r r o ~ by
~ ~ ad large
e d area of urban and sels fro111 very early Middle Classic contexts a t
suburban occupation covering a t leart 20 square Mat.acapan have a differentially polished ext,erior
kilometers. This occupation occllrs in pock- surface, which resenibles the finish on copaware
a t Teotihuacan; hence, our use of t h e term imets, suggesting t h a t the site may have
bee11 divided into a series of barrios, wards or itation copaurare. Fine Buff vessels from later

A T e o l & h v a c s nEnclave

lnleractive Node

Archeological Regoon

S<>

50

$50

230

w7T5k

Figure 1: M a p of Mesoanlerica showing the location of sites discussed in t h e text.

Middle Classic cont.exts, however, lack tlris decoration, suggesting stylistic change along independent lines.
T h e Middle Classic assemblage also contains a
relatively large noniber of candeleros, Teot,ilruacairoid figurines and other materials produced in
Teotil~uacanstyle. Virtually all of t h e candeleros
from Matacapall are either single- o r doublechambered and fiubrect,angular in form, often
with finger-punctat.e exterior decoration. Ot~her
exalirpler liave snlootlled exheriors witlr incised
linear decoration (see Figure 5). Teotiliuacan
figurirles include n~arionett,es,princess fignri~les,
IIuehuet,eotl lleadr and otlrer T r o t i l ~ ~ r a c atypes.
n
Also present are braseros, several with ant,liropomorphic supports, iacensarios, adornos, effigy
vessels, rectangular seal stamps, ~ n e t a t e swit,li
talud-tableros tripod supports, sculpture with
representation of the deity Tlaloc and floreros, a
few sherds of Tlrin Orange, as well a s bolstered,
evert,ed-lip u t i l i ~ yjars wlrich reselnble types popular in the Basin of Mexico during the latt,er part
of the Middle Classic and Early Toltec periods
(Sanders et al. 1979: Figures C.14 arid C.18).
Matacapair is also oue of the few sites in
Mesoanlerica wit11 civic-ceremonial architecture
t h a t is similar 1.0 Teot,ihuacan designs. T h e one

structure t h a t Valenzuela (1945) exposed completely, Mound 2, was built in typical Teotilluaca~i st,yle, wit11 two tiers of talud-t,ablero
construction, a frontal st.airway flanked by
balustrades, arid a clay-surfaced exterior covered
with red paint (see Figure F). Mound 2 is paired
wit11 Mound 1, a structure of comparable size,
suggesting t h a t bot,h were constructed using tlre
same talud-tablero format. These buildings, together with Mounds 3 and 22, collectively define a group of structures previously called t~he
"Teotibuacan barrio". These four buildings are
arranged around tlre second largest plaza a t t,he
site, which opens directly t,o the main plaza, an
enormous facility a t least 300 m on a side. T h e
colnplex covers about 6.25 hectares and appears
t o have been built as a single planned unit. T h e
complex also contains two types of buildings (see
Figure 2). Mounds 1 and 2 apparently served
as temple platforms. Excavations conducted in
Moulids 1 and 2 failed t,o uncover tombs, indicating Lhat tlrey did uot function as fur~erarytemples (Valenzuela 1945). In contrast, Mounds 3
and 22 were resideribial structures. Tlte kinds of
refuse discarded in middens associated with all
four structures supports this identification (Sant,ley et al. 1984a, 1984b). Except for a few tri-

SCALL

PAVED

.,,,,,,,,-,,,ROADS

...,...,....,........, .~
..,...'..... ,,,.,

,,,

.,,,,,,,....

Figure 2: Topographic m a p of central Matacapan showing tlre locat,ion of the Teotil~nacanharrio

and the area of Teotihuacan residential occupation.

92

ICITY AND CULTURE

eotitruacan, and Kamiualjuyu (Kamlnaljuyu

Shook 1946 Sejourne 1966)

TYPE A

TYPE E

MATACAPAN

TEOTIHUACAN

F ~ g u r e4. Teotibaacan t r ~ p a dsupports from Matacapan and Teotihuacan (types refer to Matacapan
sellatlon) (Teotihuacarr specimens a f t e ~M ~ ~ l l 1978
e r dnd Sejoulne 1966).

ETHNICITY AhrD CULTI'RE

94

,,

TYPE A

..,. ->.
.,:....+. .I*. .
~~~.~
.

TYPE B

TYPE C

TYPE D

.,

.,. ~
.. ~
.,. .

'.~.

TYPE E

TEOTIHUACAN

MATACAPAN

,.".
Figure 5: Candeleras from Matacapan and Teotihuacan (t,ypes refer to Matacapan Seriation) (Teotilluacan specirlrrns after Sejourne 1966)

F ~ g u r e6 Talud-tablero platform architecture from Mat

(Teotihuacan and Kanllnal~uyuarchlt

96

pod sapports, the assemblage placed in middens

a t the bases of Mounds 1 and 2 is not particularly rich in Teotihuacan-style mat,erials. This
material alrnost always occurs in trash dumps
associated wit,h resident,ial strucfures, not ternple architecture. Mounds 3 arid 22 a r e also large
etruct,ures (ca. 100 X 30 X 3 m). T h e scale of
this archit.ectnre, along witlr the presence of large
amounts of elaborately decorated pottery, suggest t h a t the colnplex was occupied by persons
of relatively high status. Directly t o t h e northeast of this group of buildings is t h e main zone
of public architecture a t Matacapan. Tlre camplex's central location, its layout and the types of
buildings represented ilnply a n integrative function above the household level.
A much larger area of residential occupat,ion
rich in Teotihuacan materials is located inlurediately across tlre Rio Mat,acapan t o t,l~ewest of
t.he main group of p i b l i c buildings ( s e e Figure 2).
The occupatiorl o c c l ~ r sas a band of settlement
approximately 1300 m long and 400 m wide. T h e
settlerr~e~rt
pattern irlvolves groups of residential
structures, arranged in some cases around small
plazas surfaced with cut la3a blocks. T h e excavation of one of these buildings, Mound 61, indicates t h a t each supported a colrlplex of domestic structures. Wall foundation aligmnents imply the presence of room groups (apartments?)
situated aroulrd a patio and separated froln one
another by what may have been irrtervel~ingcorridors, as a t Teotihuacar, (Linne 1934, 1942; Millon 1976; Sejourne 1966). T h e orie11t.ations of
these alignments cluster around 16" 18' east of
north; rvhich is ren~arkably close t o t h e main
north-sonth orientation a t Teotihuacan, 15" 28'
east of north. According t,o Aveni (1980), most
centers in central Mexico have an axial alignment
which varies between 15" and 20" east of north,
which he considers as originally established by
Teotilmacan architects. Tmsh d u ~ r r p sassociated
with this buildilig also produced a large sample of
other Teotihuacan-style materials, includi~rgfigurines, candeleros and Fine Buff ceramics, as well
as a large irulnber of cylindrical tripod vase fraginents.
T h e burial pattern illvolved the flexed &erment of the deceased below house floors within
the st,ructure, a custom also practiced a t Teotihuacan (Sanders e t al. 1982; Serrano and Lagunas 1974; Spence 1971). Represented in the sample are individuals of both sexes and all ages,
including perinatals interred in vessels, another
Teotil~uacan mortuary custom. Grave goods

ETHArICITY AA-D CULTIrRE

found with adults included cylindrical t,ripod veesels with support,s decorated in typical Teotilruacan style and Fine Buff bou,ls, pitchers, and
plates/lids. Interestingly, vessels made out of
Fine Orange a n d Fine Gray, t h e two most popular service wares a t Matacapan, are much less
comnlon in grave lots than they are in household
refuse nriddens. Fine Buff, in contrast, is much
nrore c o n ~ m o nin burials than other coat,exts, implying a bias on t h e part of the inhahitants of
Mount 6 1 corrcerl~ingwhat was suitable burial
furniture.
T h e complex of Teotihuacan-style materials
just descrihed is confined mainly to t h e group
of civic-ceremonial structures west of the main
plaza and the area of resident,ial sprawl across
the Rio Matacapan. Fine Buff bowls and tripod supports d o occasiorlally occur in other occupat,ion zones; however, never is the corrrplete
assemblage of Teotihnacan-style mat,erials represented, a n d the sample cont,ains very few specimens. Moreover, the samples from otlrer occupation zones lack ca~tdelerosand Teotihuacan-style
figurines. Although only two buildings, El Gallo
and Mound 4, have been excavated outside of
tlle area littered with Teotihuacan-style artefacts,
both had platforms with siluple insloping facades,
not talud-tablero facing (Valenzuela 1845). Alt,lroilgh ceralrlics associated witlr platfornl residences are often rnore elaborat,ely decorated, tlre
array of service wares and utility vessels from all
contexts throughout the site is very similar. T h e
major source of variability, then, appears to be
in the distribution of Teotihuacan-style artefacts
and architecture.
All of tlre information a t our disposal is coltsist.ent with t h e propositio~lt h a t Matacapan supported a Teotihuacan enclave. T h e area covered
by the complex of Teotihuacan-style materials
has spatial integrity, arid it is isolated fro111 other
parts of the site ushere different kinds of ritualceremonial equiprnerlt were used. Two levels
of Teotihuacan-inspired ritual-ceremonial activity appear to be present within the enclave. On
the one hand, a t least one temple platform was
c o ~ ~ s t r u c t e in
d t,ypical Teotihuacan style. This
st,ructure was located near t h e main zone of civicceremonial architecture and associated with a
set of platform residences whose occupants used
Teotihuacan-style goods. T h e scale, cer~trallocation, absence of tombs. and place~nentof this
building on it.s own plaza imply the presence of a
religious institution which served a large number
of people. On t h e otlrer hand, there is a complex

S a n t l e ~Yarhorough a n d Hall/ENCLAVES

of Teotihuacan-style ritual-ceremonial artefacts

(i.e., figurines, carrdeleros, etc.) which typically
occurs in domestic contexts. T l ~ estyle and context of these mat,erials suggest the presence of individuals who engaged in Teotihuacan household
ritual. Moreover, t,l~epersons who were f a n ~ i l i a r
with this ritual used Teotilrnacan-style stove and
culiirary t,echnology, buried their dead in Teotihuacan fashion and may have lived in dwellings
of the Teotihuacan type. This patterning is precisely what we would expect if Matacapan contained a siibstantial foreign element. It is also
endirely in keeping with our knowledge of the
material correlates of enclaves described in the
etllnographic record.
T h e assemblages of materials from Matacapan and Teot,ihuacair are not stylistically identical, however. For example, although platforms
talud-t,ablero faa t Matacapan were built
cade, tlle talnd-t.~-tableroheight ratio a t Matacapail differs from t h a t a t Teotihuacan. Ratios
a t Matacapaa are about 1:1, whereas a t Teotil ~ u a c a ntableros are usually much taller t.han the
taluds situaied below (Cheek 1977) (see Figure
G ) . T h e Teotihuacan-style figurines from Matacapark are also much larger than specimens from
Teotihuacan, and the treatment of the eye is different (Barbour, pers. comm.). I,ikewise, t h e
supports on cylindrical vessels a t Mat,acapaa are
more rour~ded and tapered t h a n t,ripods from
Teotihuacan, and there are sonietimes differences
in the class of motif represented (Rattray, pers.
comm.) (see Figure 4). Tapered tripod supports
are also common a t Kamit~aljuyuwhere another
enclave of Teotihuacanos has been reported (Kidder e t al. 1946; Sanders and Michels 1977). T h e
talud-tablero archit,ecture a t Kaminaljuyu also
has a ratio of 1:1.13 which compares favorably
wit11 Matacapan. No Teot.ihuacan-style figurines
and candeleros are known from Kaminaljuyu, but
t , l ~ ebuildings excavated were t.en~pleplatforms, a
context in which we believe such nraterials should
not be present. Homogenization, then, nray account for t h e differences in style between the enclave samples from Matacapan and Karninaljuyu
on t h e one hand and Teotihuacan on the other.

CONCLUSION
Many of the 111ost controversial issues in archaeology today are methodological. Many archaeologists today st.ill subscribe t o a normative
paradigm wlrich stipulates t h a t culture consists
of shared ideas which are uniformly reflected in
material technology. T h e behavioural patterning

97

discussed above, however, indicates t h a t there is

considerable variability in the way eCh~ricgroups
in complex socieries inberact, with differential
consequences for the archaeological record. We
believe t,hat ethnicity is a subject t h a t can be
dealt wit11 in t l ~ earchaeological record. O u r perusal of the e t l ~ o o g r a p l ~ iand
c historical records
c o n c e r n i ~ ~enclaves
g
in urban centers suggests
t h a t ethnic group affiliation will only be reflected
in certain classes of behaviour and t,hat ritual
and culinary practices are two such classes of
behaviour. These behaviours produce ~ n a t e r i a l
residues which not only allow for enclave identification but also provide information on enclave
organizat,ion and etlrnic group affiliation.
Mat.acapan is one site which may have supported a foreign enclave. The area occupied by
artefacts produced in Teotihuacan style has spatial integrity, ~ n a n yof these objects reflect activities which had either a ritual or a culinary
function and a n enclave-wide religious institution, reflect,ed by t.alud-tablero temple architect,ore, appears t o have been present. However,
the fact t h a t the archaeological record is consistent wit11 certain test implications about the material correlates of ethnic behaviour in enclaves
should not be taken t o imply that we have conclusively demonstrated t h a t a Teotihuacan enclave was present a t Mathcapan. We have not. yet
engaged in any theory-building concerning how
e t l ~ n i cidentity is t,ransferred t o material technology, nor have we dealt with t.he question of
s would need to use to unamthe ~ n e t . l ~ o done
biguously monitor stylistic differences and similarities in the archaeological record. Such theory
and n ~ e t h o dare absolutely necessary before one
can have any confidence in the meanings we have
assigned t o t,he archaeological record at. Matacapan. Tlrese tasks we leave for future research.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We wish to thank the people of the modern conirnunities of Matacapan, Sihuapan, Cnleria, Comoapan and San Andres Tuxlla, especially Lic. Migucl
Turrent, Lic. Carlos Silva, Lic. Miguel Castillanos
and Carlos Turrent, for t,heir assistanse tllroughout
various stages of our research in the Tuxtlas. Special
thanks are reserved for Robert. H. Cohean, Richard
A. Dielil and Ponciano Ortiz C. for keeping the Matacapan Project afloat in its formative years. re sear cl^
at Matacnpan and adjacent sit,es in the Tuxtlas region
was conducted with the permission of the Institute
Nacional de Antropologia e Hiatoria in Mexico City.
This research would not hme been possible without grants from the University of New Mexico, the

ETHXICITY AA7D CULTURE

98

Tinker Foundation and particularly the National Science Foundation (BNS-8120430, BNS-8302984, BBS8403810, and BBS-8412175). The illustrations were
prepared by M . Berman, P. Hong and Ponciano Ortiz
C.

REFERENCES CITED
Aveni, Anthony F.
1980 Skywatchers of Ancient Mezico. University of
Texas Press, Austin.
Rarth, Frederik
I969 Introduction. In Ethnic Groups and Bound-

aries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference, edited by Frederik Barth, pp. 9-38.
Little, Brown, Boston.
Rennett, John W. (editor)
1975 The New Ethnicity: Perspectiues from Etknology. West Publishing, New York.

Curtin, Philip D.
1984 Cross-Cultural Trade in World Prehistory.
Cambridge University Press, New York.
du Toit, Brian M. (editor)
1978 Ethnicity in Modern Africa. Westview Press,
Boulder.
English, Paul W.
1966 City and Village in Iran: Settlement and Economy i n the Kirmon Basin. The University of
WJisconsin Press, Madison.
Earnan, Milton J . (editor)
1977 Ethnic Conflict in the Western World. Cornell
University Press, Ithaca.
Fallers, L.A.
1962 Comment on 'Lebanese in West Africa'. Comparative Studies in Society and History 4:334336.

Boilrne, Frank C.
196G A Ifistory of the Romans. D.C. Heath, Boston.

Glazer, Nathan, and Daniel P. Moynihan

1965 Beyond the Mrlting Pot. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge.

Brown, Frank E.
1967 Roman Architecture.
York.

Glazer, Nathan, and Daniel P. Monihan (editors)

1975 Ethnicity: Theory and Practice. Ilarvnrd University Press, Cambridge.

George Braziller, New

Cheek, Cl~arlesD.
1977 Teotihnacan Influence at Kaminaljuyu.

In

Teotihuacan and Kaminaljuyu: A Study in Prehistoric Culture Contact, edited by William

T. Sanders and Joseph W. Michels, pp. 441452. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park.

Coe, Michael D.
1965 Archaeological Synthesis of Southern Veracrue
and Tabasco. In Handbook of Middle American
Indians, Volume S , edited by Robert Wauchope
and Cordon R. Willey, pp. 679-715. Uniirersity
of Texas Press, Austin.
Cohen, Abner
1969 Custom and Politics i n Lrrban Africa: A Study
of Hausa Migrants in Yoruba Towns. University
of California Press, Berkeley.
Cohen, Roeald, and John Middleton (editors)
1970a From Tribe to Nation in Africa: Studies in
Incorporation Processes. Chandler Publishing,
Scranton.
1970b Introduction.
In From Tribe to Nation

in Africa: Studies in Incorporation Processes,

edited by Ronald Cohen and John Middleton,
pp. 1-34. Chandler Publishing, Scranton.
Coon, Carleton S.
1958 Caravan: The Story of the Middle East. Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Hew York.
Crissman, L. W.
1967 The Segmentary Structure of Urban Overseas
Chinese. Man 2185-204.

Goody, Jack
1954 The Ethnography of North Territories of the
Gold Coast. Colonial Office, Gold Coast.
1970 Marriage Policy and Incorporation in Northern Ghana. In From Tribe to Nation i n Africa:
Studies in Incorporation Proeeeses, edited by
Ronald Cohen and John Middleton, pp. 114149. Chandler Puhlishing, Scranton.
1982 Cooking, Cuisine, and Class: A Study in
Comparative Sociology. Cambridge University
Press, New York.
Harric, Marvin
1964 Pnfterne o j R a e r i fhe Americas. Walker P u b lishing, New York.
Hassig, Ross
1985 The Sizt~enth-CenturyPolitical Economy of
the Valley of Mezico. University of O k l a h o ~ n a
Press, Norman.
Haury, Enril W.
1958 Evidence at. Point of Pines for a Prehistoric
Migration from Northern Arizona. In Migrationr in New World Culture History, edited by
Raymond H. Thompson, pp. 1-7. University of
Arieona Social Science Bulletin 27, University
of Arizona Presl-, Tucaon.
Kamp, Kathryn, and N o r u a n Yoffee
1981 Ethnicity in Ancient Western Asia: Archaeological Assessment and Ethnoarchaeological
Perspective. Bulletirt of the American School
of Oriental Research 237:85-103.

Sanbley, Yarhorougli a n d Hall/ENCLAI'ES

Kelley, Klara B.
1976 Dendritic Cent,ral-Place Systems and the Regional Organization of Navaho Trading Posts.
In Regional Analysis, Volume I: Economic Systems, edited by Carol A. Smith, pp. 219-254.
Academic Press, New York.
Kidder, Alfred V., Jesse D. Jennings and Edwin
M . Shook
1946 Excavations a t Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala.
Carnegie Institution Publication 561, Carnegie
Institution, Washington, D.C.
Kunstadter, Peter
1984 Cultural Ideals, Socioeconomic Change, and
Household Composition: K x e n , Lua', Hmong,
and Thai in Nortliwestern Thailand. In Households: Cotnparatiuc and Historical Studies of the
Domestic Group, edited by Robert McC. Netting, Richard R. \?'ilk and Eric J . Arnoi~ld,
pp. 299-329. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
Kuper, Hilda (editor)
19G5 L'rbanization nr~d Migration in West Africa.
University of California Press, Rerkcley.
Kuper, L., artd M.G. Smith (editors)
1969 Pluralisnt in Africa. Uliiver~ityof California
Press, Berkeley.
Kuper, L., H. Watts and R. Davies
1958 Durban: A Study in Racial Ecology. Colu~ubia
University Press, New York.
Levy, Sydelle Brooks
l 9 7 5 Shifting Patterns of Ethnic Identification
ariiong the Iiassidim. In Thc New Ethnicity:
Pcrspectiues from Ethnology, edited by John
W. Bennett, pp. 25-50. West Publishing, New
York.
Linne, S.
1934 Archaeological Researches a t Teotihuacan,
Mexico. Ethnoyraphic Museum ojSweden, New
Series Publication 1. Stockliolm.
1942 Mexican Highland Cultures.
Ethnographic
.&4useum o f Sweden, h'ew Series Publicatinn 7 .
Stockholm.
Maybury-l,ewis, David, and Stuart Plattner (editors)
1984 The Prospects for Plural Societies: 1982 Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society.
American Ethnological Society, Cl'ashington,
D.C.
Millnn, Rene
1973 Urbanization at Teotihuacan. Volume 1, The
Teotihuacan Map. University of Texaa Press,
Austin.

99

1976 Social Relations in Ancient Teotil~uacan. In

The Valley of Mezico: Studies in Pre-Hispanic
Ecology and Society, edited by Eric R. Wolf,
pp. 205-248. University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque.
1981 Teotihuacan: City, State, and Civilization. In
Supplement to the IIandbook o f Middle American hdians, Volume 1, Archaeology., edited by
Jeremy A. Sabloff, pp. 198-243. University of
Texaa Press, Aust,in.

Morris, S.
1968 Indians in Uganda: Caste and Sect i n a Plural Society. Weidenfeld Publishers Group, London.
Muller, Florencia
1978 La Ceromica del Centro Ceremonial de Teotihuacan. Inetituto Nacional de Antropologia e
IIistoria, Mexico City. Nagata, Judith
1984 Particularism and Universalism in Religious
and Ethnic Identities: Malay Islmn and Other
Cases. In The Prospects /or Plural Societies:
1982 Proceedings of the American Ethnologicnl
Society, edited by David Mapbury-Lewis and
Stuart Plat,tner, pp. 121-135. The American
Ethnological Societ.~,Vl'aalrington, D.C.
Parsons, Lee A.
1978 T h e Periplreral Coastal Lowlands and the
Middle Classic Period.
In Middle Classic
Mesoamerica: A.D. 400-700, edited by Ester Pasrtory, pp. 25-34. Columbia University
Press, New York.
Parsons, Lee A., and Barhara J . Price
1971 Mesoaluerican Trade and its Role in the EmerContributions of the
gence of Civilization.
University of Californin Archaeological Research
Facility l1:1G9-195.
Pasztory, Ester (editor)
1978 Middle Classic Mesoamerica: A.D. 400-700.
Columbia Uni\sersity Press, New York.
Raychaudhuri, Tapsn, and I r f m Habib
1982 The Cambridge Economic History of India.
Cambridge University press, Cambridge.
Reed, Erik K .
1950 Eastern-Central Arizona Archaeology in Relation t o the Western Pueblos. Southwestern
Journal of Anthropology 6:120-138.
Sanders, William T., and Joseph W. Michels (editors)
1977 Teotihuacan and Kaminaljuyu: A Study in Prehistoric Culture Contact. T h e Pennsylvania
State University Prees, University Park.

ETHh'lCITY AND CULTURE

100

Sanders, Williani T . , Deborah Nichols, Rebecca

Storey and Randolpl~Widmer
1982 A Reconstruction of a Classic Period Landscape
in the Teotihuacan Valley. Final Report t o the
National Science Foundation, Department of
Anthropology, T h e Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
Sanders, William T , , Jeffrey R . Parsons and Robert
S. Santley
1979 The Basin of Mezico: Ecological Processes
in the Euolution of a Civilization. Academic
Press, New York.
Santley, Robert S.
1977 intra-Site Settlement Patterns at Loma Torremote and their Relationship to Formative Prehistory in the Cvavhtitlan Region, State of Mezico. Unpublisl~edPh.D. dissertation, Penneylvania State University, University Park.
1983 Obsidian Trade and Teotihuacan Influence in
Mesoamerica. In Highland-Lowlnnd Interaction
in Mesoalr~crica: Interdisciplinary Approaches,
edited by Arthur G. Miller, pp. 69-124. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection,
Washington, D.C.
Saniley, Robert S., Ponciano Ortiz, Thoxnas W. Kilion, Philip J. Arnold and Janet M . Kerley
1934 Final Field Report of the Matacopan Archaeological Project: The 198Z Season. Research
Papers Series 15. Latin American Institute,
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
Santley, Robert S., Ponciano Ort,iz, Philip
J . Arnold, Ronald R. Kneebone, Michael
P. Smpth and Janet M . Kerley
1984b Final Field Report, Maincapan Project: 1983
Seoson. Final Report. t o t,he lnstituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia and the National Science Foundation. Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
Santley, Robert S . , Ponciano Ortiz C., Philip
J. Amold, Miehael J . Berman, Barbara Hall,
Veronica Knnn, Janet M . Kerley, Thomas
W. Killion, Ronnld R. Kneebone, David
Mora M,, Raal Olivares M,, Carinela Parrau, Christopher A. Pool, Zenaido Salazsr B.,
Michnel P. Snlyth and Clare \'arborough
1985 Final Field Report, Mntacapan Project: 1984
Season. Final Report t o the Instituto Nacional dc Antropologia e Historia and the Nstional Science Foundation. Departil~ent.of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
Sejourne, L.
1006 Arqueologia de Teotihuacon, La Ceramics.
Fondo d e Cultura Economics, Mexico, D.F.,
Mexico.

Serrano, C., and Z. Lagunas

1974 Sisteiila de Entierramiento y h'otas sobre el
Material Osteologico de La Ventilla, Teotihuacan, Mexico. Anales de Instituto Nacional de
Antropologia e Historin 7x105-144. Mexico,
D.F., Mexico
Skinner, Elliott, P.
1964 The Mossi of Upper Volla: The Political Deuelopmenf of a Sudanese People. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Spence, Michsel W.
1971 Skeletal Morphology and Social Oryanizalion in
Teotihunean, Mezico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Southern Illinois University, Csrbondale, Illinois.
Tarn, W.W.
1961 Helltnistie Civilization.
New York.

World Publishing,

Valenzueln, Juan
1945 Las Expiorncioncs Efectuadas en 10s Tuxtias,

T'eracruz. Annlea del Museo Nacional de Arqueologia, Historia, y Etnologia 3:83-107. Mexico,
D.F., Mexico.
T'ancc, James E.
1970 The Merchant's World. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
van den Berghe, Pierre L.
19G9 Plurniisrn and the Polity: A Theoretical Exploration. In Pluralism i n Africa, edited by Leo
Kuper and M.G. Smith, pp. 67-81, University
of California Press, Berkeley.
Whittlesey, Stephanie
1978 Status and Drath at Grasshopper Pueblo: Ez-

perinents Toward a Theory of Arci~aeological

Correlates. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Depariment of Antliropology, University of
Arizona, Tucson.
Wilkinson, Richard G., and Richard J. Norelli
1981 A Biocultural Analysis of Social Organizafion
at M o n k Alban. American Antiquity 46:743758.

Winder, R.. Bzyly

1962 The Lebanese in Weat. Africa. Comparative
Studies in Sociology and History 4:296-333.
Ysrborougli, Clare
n.d. Assimilation and Ethnicity: Ecological and Demographic Factors in Colonial Chiapas, Mexico. Manuscript, Department of Anthropology,
University of Arizona, Tucson.

LANGUAGE A N D STYLE IN THE PERUVIAN

Patricia J . Lyons
Institute of Andean Studies
Berkeley, California

Et,lrnicity cannot be discussed without a definition of the criteria used t o establish the ethnic
units. T h e only really valid crit,erion for inclusion
in an et.huic group is self-ident,ificat.ioa, hut such
information is seldom available, especially to archaeologist,~.Native Soutlr Alnericatir have been
classified variously on tlle basis of c ~ r l t u r rtrait.s,
geography, subsistence techniques, and language.
Kone of these classifications coincide, and each,
llowever useful i t maf be for one purpose, is probabls, of n o use for another. Perhaps because it. is
relatively neutral, lingriistic classification seems
to be used more ofien tl~airt h e others, and lnany
people seem t o t,hink t h a t language is equivalent
t,o ethnicity, which, of course, i t is not.
Much of tlie forest,ed portion of Peru kirown
as rnont,aiia is occupied by mer~lbersof a single
liilgnistic family, Panoan. Included in tlris area
is the central Ucayali River and its t r i b u t a i e s
where Donald Lathra.p arrd his students have carried out. most of the arcl~aeologicalwork that has
been done in t,he entire montaiia. Most of tlie
Pano-speaking groups also share a st.riki~rga r t
style expressed in face paiirt,ing and various artef a c t , ~including ceramics. Not only is the decorative st,yle shared; s o is a c o ~ n p l e xof ceralnic
shapes. This relationship of ceramic style to language gronp may explaiir why, since 1970, Donald
Latlrrap has interpreted the archaeology of Soutlr
America, and especially of t h e western Amazon,
on the assumption t h a t lir~guisticaffi1iat.io11is reflected in artefact.ua1 remains t,hat can be recovered by archaeology.
In 1971 1began a project designed t o deter~rrine
tlre ext,ent t o which ariefact classes other t,lran
pottery might relate t o lirrguistic boundaries in
tlie nlont,aiia. T h e resultar~tstudy enconrpassed
only arrows, because of tlieir unexpected con,plexity a n d t h e large nu~rrherin musentn collections available for st,udy. In t h e sanrple of 317
arrows, collected from 14 ethnic groups belang-

ing t o 4 language families, I was able t o identify

4 stylistic groups, two of which did and two of
which did not coincide with li~rguisticaffiliations
(Figure 1).
Before I discuss tlie arrow analysis, a brief
comment on linguistics is irr order. Altlrorlgh
t,here are some areas of general agreement in t h e
classification of the more closely related South
American languages, disagreement and col~fusion
multiply as son11 as more distant relationslrips
are considered. There is even marked disagreement regarding such large and flourishing languages as Quechua and Aylrrara (IIardmae 1985;
Mannheim 1985b:507). There are so rilany differing opirriorrs in this field t h a t one can prove
almost any lrypothesis simply by cl~oosiiigt h e
right expert t o quote. Nonlinguists are not in
a position t o evaluate tlie various p o i ~ l t sof view,
and many d o riot: rea.lize t h a t not all linguists are
equally reliable, t h a t the most recerlt theory is
not always the best and t h a t i t is necessary t o
deal with an expert in the particular area nrider
consideration, as is also true in many other fields.
Fortunately, the linguistic affiliatior~swith which
I deal are perfectly clearcut mid on a low level,
since more dist.ant relatiorlslrips are irrelevant t o
m y argument.

THE ANALYSIS
Study of the m o w s involved detailed analysis
of material, decoratioli, and nrarrufactrrritrg t,echnique. Some elements proved more useful t.han
ot,hers a s stylistic criteria (see Appendix 1). Sirice
arrows have generally been described in terms
only of slraft, point, and nock, 1 had t,o devise a
descriptive vocabulary to dist,inguish otllcr part,s
of the arrow (Figure 2), points (Appendix 2),
kinds of nock, lashings, arid feather trim. After
m y initial report was coinpleted (Lyon 1972), t,lre
study of Rrazilialr archery by Heath and Chiara
was published (1977), and I endeavoured to mod-

Figure 1: Map of t h e Peruvian montaila localizing arrow styles and the coi~~porrent
linguistic groups.

point lashing

f e a t h e r lashing

shaft lashing

butt lashing

butt

104

ETHR'ICITY AA'D CULTURE

ify my terr~riirologyt o match theirs. I found, from Guiana arrows.

however, t h a t they h a d not made the same disSome of the tern~inologyused in the style detinctions a s I had (since t,hey were involved in scriptions (Appendix 3) needs clarification. T h e
a different sort of study), a n d finally decided t o self nock (Urubarnba-Apririmac Style) is made
retain m y origirlal ter~ninologywith only minor by removing a diagonal slice froin each side of
changes.
the shaft butt. A notch forms through wear of
Cert,ain elements are coininon t o all the arrows. the bowstring on the soft interior of the reed.
T h e shafts are all reed, though the kind of reed Somet,imes four slices are removed, resulting in a
varies fro111 group t o group. Either a foreshaft double nock. Thread nocks may be plain (solid
or tlle point itself is inserted illto t h e shaft. Ex- colour) o r decorated ( a single thread of two or
cept for some Cashibo and Isconal~uacane fore- more colours, usually black and white, producshafts, all the rest are of wood, usually palm. ing a pattern) (Figure 4:20). All thread nocks
Most points a r e of either palm wood o r a large are wound in exactly the sailre way (Figure 4:21),
bamboolike plant (probably G u a d u a sp.), called tlle oilly difference being the tightness and any
pace in Spanish. T h e blunt points used for birds colouring.
are of wood, b u t not of palm. There are no st.one
"Arched" a n d "cemented" feathering are depoirrts and norle entirely of metal, thougll barbs fined by Metraux (1049:240). Since cer~lented
or tips ]nay be of metal o r bone. Except for feathers have a n distal lashing, "feather lashtwo Anraliuaca specilnelrs with cernerited feath- ing" is omitted from descriptions of arrows wit11
ering, feather vanes are attached so t h a t the ar- this kind of feathering. Although there is genrow will rotate in flight,. Altl~ouglrt h e attach- erally n o featlrering in the Ucayali Style, I use
ment teclrnique may vary, each vanespirals about. the term "shaftnrent" to refer t o the part of tlre
90 degrees around the shaft, and both extremi- shaft. where feathers would have been attached
ties are fast,rned diametrically opposite those of had they been used.
Tlre primary division in t h e point classificatioll
the o t l ~ e rvane (Figure 2). Standard laslling material is )landspun cotton thread. Three speci- is mat.eria1. Poiirts made of paca are divided froin
mens are laslled wit11 noncot,ton plant fibre, and tlrose of any other material. \?'hen split or cut,
a few Guarayo arrows are lashed with commner- paca lras a razor-sharp edge which is easily recial black thread easily identified by t h e regular sharpened on a stone. All paca points have a
diameter, lustre a n d direction of spin, wt~iclris convex side, bearing the cortex, ancl a concave
~il
thread. T h e side fornled by tllr hollow irriler surface of tlre
opposite t h a t of h a ~ l d s p ~Guarayo
Wac1ripael.i now spill cott,on only for arrow man- plant. Decoratin11 on suclr points, wlle~rpresent,
ufacture. On arrows with cemented feat,l~ering, is usually on tlle concave surface. Wooden points,
one- or two-ply ilorrcotton plant fibre (among the except for some compound barbed points, are inVt'achipaeri, palm-leaf fibre) is tied througli the sert.ed directly into the shaft. Compound barbed
feathers. T h e adhesive used is beeswax (mixed points irray be considered to have a foreshaft,
with sonietlril~gto make i t black).
rvlien the barb(s) are the only modification on
Of st,ylist,icsignificance are t h e various patterns the eleirrent inserted in Lire shaft. There are two
result,ing from winding a silrgle thread to form classes of barbed wooden points. Tlre most coma nock or t.o lash on featllers, point,s, and fore- mon is based on a rod that is essentially circular
shafts or simply for decoratioil or reirrforcement. in cross section and simply tapers t o the point of
The thread may be r o u n d in more o r less intri- irlsertiorl iilt,o the shaft. T h e second class (called
cate patlerirs a s uzell as being coloured in vari- Broad Barbed) is now used alnrosl excl~~sively
by
ous ways. O t h e r materials (grass sterns, featlter the Caslriho. It is also based on a rod, but one
quills, fur) may also be inserted in the laslrings. usually triangular or semicircular in cross sect,ion
T h e i ~ u t n b e rof possible variants seems almost in- a t the barbed portion, changing t o oval or subfinite, but within a given region o r etllnic group rect,angular toward the sIra.ft, and grad~lallytaonly a very linriked selection is used. T h e stylistic pering to a circular cross section where i t enders
inrport,ance of lashing patt.erns meant that illus- the shaft. Tlre secoi~dkind of point is mncli wider
trated specimens could n o t he used t o increase than the first., but the two classes may blend and
the museum sample, since published photographs become Bard to segregate. If an arrow is referred
d o not provide sufticient detail. T h e only useful tosimply as barbed, it should be understood that,
drawings of lashings I found were those made by all tlle barbs face in the same direction, which
Walter Rot11 (1924:125, 158, 159, Plates 19, 20) is the usual case. In some specimens, however,

SIMPLE PACA POINTS

CROSS SECTIONS OF SIMPLE PACA POINTS

Cashinahua
tlP

flat

BLUNT POINTS
simple

pointed

PRONGED POINTS
tiered

3-element

4-element

flat with barbed elements

r a d i a l with straight elements

BARBED POINTS
complex
simple

symmetrical

com~lex
asymmetrical

compound

Some \ a ~ ~ a t i oiln~Peluvlaa
s
arlou polnts

stopped

D e c o r a t e d thread nock

T h r e a d n o c k winding p a t t e r n

FEATHERING
arched with straight rib

arched with doubled rib

FEATHER TRIM
simple curve

double curve

BUTT LASHING
Guarayo cross
A I ~ Opur6s S t y l e with grass insert

Conibo

26

27

28

Lyon/LAAIGUAGE AND STYLE

IOi

barbs face in two opposing direct,ions; I call tlrese may, of course, have been functional as well a s
decorat,ive.
bidirectional.
Some characteristics are found in more than
T h e analysis revealed four styles which are
nanred for their gerreral location (Figure l ) . The one style, but it is t l ~ ecomplex of at,tributes, not
Ucayali Style includes three groups (Cashibo, Is- any sirrgle one, t h a t defines a style. While not
conalrua, Conibo-Shipibo), all of whom speak all speci~rlenswithin a stylistic group will necespan oar^ languages.
Tlre Urnbamba-Apurimac sarily present all t,he clraracteristics of t h a t style,
Style includes three groups (Machiguenga, Piro, any specimen should have enougll attributes t o
Campa), all of wlrorn are Arawak speakers. The permit its placement within some style.
In my limited sample, some specimens can even
Alto P u r ~ r s St,yle includes four groups, three
of whonr (Cashinahua, Slraranahua, Amahuaca) b e assigned t o a substyle on the basis of a single
speak Panoan, wlrile the Culina speak an Arawak at,t.ribute. For example, Shararrahua laslrings are
language. T h e Madre de Dios Style includes cl~aracteristicallyof bicoloured two-ply t,hread in
three Harakmbut-speaking groups (Waclripaeri, contrasting colours, producing parallel cliago~ral
Amarakaeri, Mashco) and the Tacana-speaking bands of colour running down any section of lashGuarayo. Althonglr the tribal locations are ap- ing. T h e Amarakaeri make up composite feathers
proxi~nat,eand the areas coded for tlre styles are using albernating segments of Blue-and-Yellow
arbitrarily out.lined, Figure 1 clearly i~rdicat,es Macaw and Red (or possibly Military) Macaw
t h a t the styles rend t o relate rnore closely t o river feathers so t h a t t h e result appears t o be a single feather vane t h a t is solid blue on one side
drainages than to any ot,her factor.
and st,riprd red and yellow on tlre ot,lrer, Firrally,
S o n ~ estyles appear more l r o m o g ~ n r o ~t,han
~s
others. T h e most uniform is the Madre de Dios while overall length is not generally diagnostic,
Style, the least is the Ucayali Style. These differ- the extremes can serve t o exclude a specimen
ences may result, from tlre sample, lrowever. For from a given style, as witll C a s l ~ i b oarrows (ca.
example, all Wacltipaeri arrows examined were 1.7-3.2 m long), w h i c l ~fall entirely outside the
nrade by a single iadividual, and the sarne nlay range of Calnpa arrows (1.2-1.5 m ) .
There is some evidence of change. Sometime
be true of the Arnarakaeri sample.
Wit.11in each style, each irrdividual group has bebween 1942, when they were recorded by John
an identifiable snbstyle. Moreover, in eaclr style Rowc (personal commnunication, 1971), and 1964,
orre substyle proved t o diverge son~ewhat.from when I made my collection, t.hread nocks were
the others: in the Madre d e Dios Style tlre diver- abandoned by tlre \Vacl~ipaeri, who also ceased
gent ~ n e t n b e ris Guarayo; in the Alto Purus, the making harpoon arrows within the relatively reAmahuaca; in tlre Ucayali Style, Conibo-Slripibo; cent, past. Several kinds of points may have gone
o u t of use in tlre area under study, iricludirrg for
and in Urubamba-Apurimac, t,he Campa.
Although the Ucayali and the Urubamba- example, special ones used in warfare. Guus have
Apurirnac styles are clearly dishi~rctfrom orre an- probably had a considerable impact. An examotlier, the), do share certain similarities t h a t set ple may be seen with the Amarakaeri: u:lro had
them botlr off f r o ~ rthe
~ Alto Purus and Madre obvionsly lavished a lot of t.ime and energy in the
de Dios styles. Most noticeably, tlre Ucayali and elaboratio~rof their arrows. Nevertheless, when
I ' r u b a b m a - A p u r i ~ r ~ astyles
,~
make extensive u8e asked about arrows in 1974, they did not even
of resin, not only on points, as do the Alt,o Pu- want t o talk about tlrem, most men by tlre~rhavn r e groups arrd t.he Gnarayo, but also as a dec- ing shotgu~rspurchased from gold-washing profits
orative element on t,he slraft and foreslraft,. The (Tbornas Moore, personal communicabio~r,1975).
resin seems t o have been a frequerrt vellicle for Overall, however, t,l~elack of obvious nrakerial evachiote, once red but now faded to a brownish idence of European influence is striking. Most of
hue. On Isco~ralruaarrows very complex designs t h e groups in the sample have relatively ready
, only the Guarayo
were drawn in achiote and covered wit,lr resin, access t o European ~ o o d s yet
but the designs are now barely visible because of used co~nmercialtlrread, a single C a m p a arrow
fading and flaking. Campa, Machiguenga, and Iras a nylon line, a n d only Conibo-Slripibo arConibo-Shipibo arrows frequently have one or rows have rnet,al ilrcorporated in their manufacmore spirals, or some other design, executed in ture. While some collectors may have rejected
resin around the slraft. Machiguenga foreshafts arrows ir~corporat.ingEuropean materials, I know
are often of a dark-red wood coated wit11 resin, t h a t the Wachipaeri did ]rot use such materials in
resulting in a most elegant appearance. Resin tlreir arrows, and they have beer, in cor~tactwith

108

Europeans since the sixteeiith century.

E'THArICJTY AND CULTURE

along witlr language borrowing. Now, we find

t h a t the Ara~vak-speakingPiro share tlre modern
CONCLUSIONS
Shipibo-Conibo a r t style, s o how does L a t l ~ r a u
explain
this situation within his assunrptions?
Tlle arrow st,udy does not support. t,lle idea tlla,t,
"Tile
Piro's
position on t h e m a i n s t r e a n ~of the
artefact styles follow linguistic affiliations.
Urubamba
placed
the111 within t h e mainstream of
two of the style groups do comprise a single ]inShipibo-Conibo
artistic
comn~unication" (Lathguistic farnily, Arawak in one case alld palloan
r
a
p
et
al.
1985:33;
e
~
n
p h a s i si a tile original),
in the other, both Arawaks and Panosns fall
which
is
n
o
explanation
a
t
all, but simply a stateinto two different style groups, and two of the
ment
'.
Lathrap
does
not.
even
rnent.ion the probfour style groups corrtain members of two difl
e
~
u
created
by
t
h
e
fact
t
h
a
t
some
members of the
fereiit linguistic families (Figure 1). Moreover,
P
a
i
~
o
a
n
family
d
o
not
share
in
the
fancy ceranric
even witliin a style, the closest silnilarities d o
style.
T
h
e
Isconal~ua
of
the
Remo
lack not only
not necessarily follow linguistic lines. For exthe
elaborate
pottery
decoratioa,
but
even the
ample, Calnpa and M a c l ~ i g u e n ~are
a very close
drillking
vessel
shape
(kenpo)
t
h
a
t
Lathrap
conlingnist,ically, b u t Machiguenga arrows are more
siders
so
characteristic
of
tile
Panoans
(Lathrap
similar t . ~piro olles tllan to Camps
the Alt,o PIIIIISstyle, urlrose nlenlbers are largely 1970:Plates 72-73; Lat,hrap e t al. 1985; 83, 87).
It appears, tlren, t h a t t h e modern Panoan cePanoan, i t is nob t h e Cr~linaarrows t,llat are diramic
style, rather than representing t,lle unified
vergent, but rather those of t.he Pano-speakillg
bloc
implied
by Lat'lirap's interpretations, actuAnrahuaca. T l ~ estylistic sinrilarity of t.he arrows
ally
reflects
the
salne sort of situation found in
lrit,hin each style is just as great, a s the similarity
the
arrow
styles,
with rne~nbereof other linguisof tlre various lirodern Parroan ceranric ~ ~ b s t y l ~ s ;
t,ic
families
s
l
~
a
r
i
n g*hat style and some members
but were these arro\vs somel~on-t o be preserved
of
tire
Parroan
family
having different styles.
arclraeologically, any attempt t o relate t,l,e~nto
I
do
not
wish
t,o
imply
t h a t style never coinlanguage would allnost surely result in grave errors.
cides with linguistic o r social groupilrgs. NewAttributing l a ~ ~ g u a to
~ eceramic
s
styles, Lath- ton's (1974) fine s t l ~ d yof Tirnbira hammocks
r a p has reconst,ructed much of t,he cult,ure history alld Weissner's (1983) work on San arrow poi11t.s
of the A~irazonBasin. There are two
d e n ~ o n s t r a t ethe contrary. U ~ r f o r t u ~ ~ a t efrom
ly
basic t,o his int,erpreta,tions: l a ~ ~ g u a ngd~ style. the archaeologist's point of view, there is n o way
If either Iris lillguistic att.ribut.ions o r
to determine what sort of unit is represented by a
tic attributions are incorrect, then tile
given case of st.ylistic difference. T h a t is, while it.
strnctio~l1nllst iUe\.itably be incorrect.
isquite possible that. the ancient styles that Laththat language distributions reflect movernel~tsof r a p and his students have identified as Panoari
groups of people (Lathrap 1970368; Lathrap et xvere actually made and used by Pano-speaking
al. 1985:43), wllich is not always t r u e (e.g., people, there is n o way in any given case to be
Mannlreirn 1985a:657), alrd the11 int,erpretr ape "re of t h a t fact. R'or is there any reason to asbile apparently intrusive styles were
parent.ly irrt,rosive styles as also representing tile Swne
movements of groups of people. IIe st~atest,liat llot also made by Panoans.
there are three cornponenbs t h a t fonned modNOTES
ern Shipibo-Conibo art. and t h a t , "The immel . In his ~ilostrecent. article, 1,athrap irliplies that,
diate geograplrical source of these three ceramic
t,raditions call be positively identified;
]ill. he has more to say on the subject of language and arcliaeoiogy, citing an article CO-authoredwith Rudolph
gllistic affiliatiolls of tire people who brought
C. Troike, and listed in his bibliography as "in press",
traditions to the C e ~ ~ t r Ucayali
al
can bc identiwith a date of 1084 (Lathrap et al. 1985:44, 112). A
fied beyond a reasonable doubc" (LatBrap e t al.
.-X
query to the Steward Ant.hropological Society, the
lua>:%uj.
listed publishers of the work in question, revealed
If langtrage is so inextricably linked t o style that its of March 1986 tire piece was not pet in press,
that you can brace languages over Iiurrdreds of and was unavailable to me for examination, since
years tI1roug11 style distributions, tlian all nreln- noike was still working on it.
bers of the language group slrould share the
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
same style, resulting in a different style for
each language family. Sllcll a situation does
The research upon which this paper is based was
not allow for stylistic borrowing, except perhaps funded by a h4useuni Research Fellowship from the
.m--

LYoo/LAhrGTJAGE An%) STYLE

Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropologicsl Research, and was carried out in 1970-71. T h e sample
included collections housed in the Robert H. Lowie
Museum of Anthropology, University of California,
Berkeley; the American Museum of Natural History,
New York; t h e Peabody Museum of Ainerican Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University; and
the Laboratory of Anthropology, Ilniversity of Illinois, Urbana. T h e personnel of all these institutions were unfailingly helpful. Donald Lathrap and
his students a t Illinois made my stay there a dclight both socially and intellectually. My stay in New
York was enhanced by the hospitality of Sandrn and
Michael Harner. Janet Siskind and Micharl Harner
let me work on their p r i v ~ t ecollections. All phases
of the work profited from discussions with Kenneth
Kensinger and Gertrude Dole, as well as Warner and
Siskind. Assistance and advice were also provided
by Junius Bird, Joanne Brandford, Rohert Caraeiro,
Riclrard Gould, Sandra Harner, Ann Rowe and John
Rowe. Stephen Heckerman provided detailed comparative d a t a 011 Bari arrow use and nianufacture.
T h e snail shells on Calnpa arrows were kindly identified for irie by Harold Feinberg, Technician, Dcpartmerit of Living liivertebraies, American Muse~rmof
Natural History. I ident,ified all other l~iaterialson
thc basis of my own field observ:rtions among the
Wachipneri and consliltation with colleagues.
I drew all the figurer except Figure 4:26, originally
drawn by Alex Nicoloff, Principal Artist, Lowie Museum of Anthropology, who also helped and advired
"re. Fignres 2, 3, and 4:20-4:28 were inked by J a n e
Recker. None of the illustrations are t o scale; Figurer
2-3:s and 4:24-4:25 represent idealized forms rather
than specific sperimt-ns.
R E F E R E N C E S CITED
Hardman, Martha J.
1985 Ayrnara and Qiiechua: Languages in Contact. In South American Indian Languages,
Rctrosprd and Prospect, edited by Harriet
E. Manelis Klei~rand Lo~iisaR . St.nrk, pp. 617646. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Heath, E.G., and Vilrria Chiara
1977 Brazilian Indian Archery; a Prelimirznry Ethnntozological Study oJ the Archery of the Brazilian Indiana. The Simon Archery Foundation,
Matrchest,er Museum, U ~ ~ i v e r s i t yof Mnnchester.
Lathrap, Donald W.
1970 The Lipper Amazon. Ancieirl Peoples and
Places, Vol. 70. Pmeger, New York.
Lathrap, Donald W., Aiigelika Gebhart-Snyer, and
Ann M . Mester
1985 The Roots of Shiuibo A r t Stvle: Three Waves
on In~iriacoclraor There Were "Incas" Before
the Incas. Journal of Latin Amertcar~ Lore
11(1):31-119.

109

Lyon, Patricia J .
1972 A Comoarative Studv of the Arrows of the Peruvian Montaiia; a Final Report on Research
by the Wenner-Gren Foundation Museum Research Fellowship 2701-1829. Manuscript in
possession of author,Berkeley, California.
Mannheim, Bruce
1985a Contact and Quechua-external Genetic Relationships. In South American Indian Languages, Retrospect and Prospect, edited by Harriet E. Manelis Klein and Louisa R. Stark,
pp. 644.688. University of Texas Press, Austin.
1985b Southern Peruvian Quechua. In South Amer-

ican Indian Languages, Retrospect and Prospect,

edited by Harriet E . Manelis Klein and Louisa
R . Stark, pp. 481-515. Univeraity of Texas
Press, Austin.
Metraux, Alfred
1949 Weapons. Handbook of South American Indtans, Vol. 5, pp. 229-263. Bulletin 143, Bureau
of American Ethnology, Washington.
Newton, Dolores
1974 T h e Timbirzi Hammock as a Cultural Indicator of Social Boundaries. In The Human Mirror: Material and Spatial Images oJMon, edited
by Miles Richnrdson, pp. 231-251. Louisiana
State University Press, Baton Rouge.
Roth, Walter E d n ~ u n d
1924 An Introductory Study of the Arts, Crzdts,
and Customs of the Guiana Indians. Thirtyeighth Annual Report of the Bureau ofAmerican
Ethnology, 1016-1917, pp. 25-745. Washington.
Tessman, Gunter
1930 Die Indianer Nordost-Perus: Grundlegrnde
Forschungen fuer eine systematische Kulturkunde.
Veroffentlichung der HarueyBassler-Stiftung. Riedrichsen, d r Gruyter and
Co., IIamburg.
Weissner, Polly
1983 Style a i d Social information in Kalahari Sail
Projectile Points. American Antiquity 48:253276.

APPENDIX 1
A t t r i b u t e s used t o establish stylistic variation
i n Arrows.

Butt
Uritreated ( F i g u r e 2)
T r e a d iiock
D e c o r a t e d (Figure 4 : 2 0 ) / P l a i n
Selfnock ( F i g a r e 4:22)

ETHKICITY AIL'D C U L T U R E

Tread colors

Wound pattern

Simple spiral (Figure 2)

Painted design

Wound patterns (Figure 4:26,4:28)

Insertions

Painted pattern
Insertions (Figure 4:27)

Point (See Apperldix 2)

Material
Cut

Feather
Mode of attachment
Cemented
Arch (Figure 2)
Doubled rib (Figure 4:23)
Straight r i b (Figure 4:22)

Decorat,ion

Materials Used i n Construction

N o u c o t t o ~plaut
~
fibers
Cotton thread
Colour
Number of plies
Spinning direction
Thread diameter

Trim
Outer barbs (Figures 4:24,4:25)
Inner barbs (Figures 4.22,4:23)
Kind of feathers (predomirrant)

Resin
Wax

Shaftment
Drcorated/Plain (Figure 2)

Feather Lashzng
T t ~ r e a dcolours
Painted design

Shaft
Decorat.ed/Plain
Tapered (Figure 2)
C u t straight

Shaft Lashzng
Area covered
Thread colours
S i ~ n p l espiral (Figure 2)
Wound pattern
Painted design
Insertions

Foreshaft
Decorated
Painted
Carved
Plain

Poznt Lashtnq
Area covered
Thread colours
Simple spiral (Figure 2)

APPENDIX 2. ARROW POINT

CLASSIFICATION
T h e f o l l o w i ~ ~classificatio~l
g
iuch~deemost, b u t
not all, of the range of forms encountered. Those
outside t h e classification are described individually in Appendix 3. T h e classification is purely
descriptive, with n o relational, developme~ltal,or
functional implications whatsoever.

Paea Points
Simple. Leaf-shaped (Figures 3:3-3:5).
Flat. Both cut edges of concave snrface lie in t h e same plane (Figure
3:6).
Bevel. Cut edger of concave surface
are beveled a t a c o l ~ s t a n tangle
(Figure 3:7 ).
Double Bevel. Both cut edges of concave
surface clrange angle a b n ~ p t l ya t the
same dist,arlce from tip (Figure 3:8).
Barbed. Edge? cut t o produce hooklike
projections.
Shape of the foreshaft is
Composite.
modified in some way (e.g., grooved,
barbed).
Wooden Points
Blunt. Never of palm wood.
Simple. h'o elongated projection a t
t i p (Figure 3:9).

Pointed. Elongat.ed projecLion a t tip

(Figure 3:10).
Tiered. T w o or more tiers of different
sizes (Figure 3: 11).
Pronged. More t h a n one elernrnt a t the
tip.
Flat. All elenients lie in the same
plane (Figure 3:12).
Strazght. Point elements lack
barbs
Barbed.
Point elements are
barbed (Figure 3:12).
Radial. Elelnents radiate from centre
t o form triangle, rectangle (Figure 3: 13) o r circle, somet,imes wit11
central points.
Straight. Point elements lack
barbs (Figure 3:13).
Barbed. Elements are barbed (as
in barbed poirrts).
Straight. Single element, smooth, pointed
palm wood.
Barbed (circular cross section).
Simple. Single row of barbs cut from
rod (Figure 3:14).
Complez. More t,lra.n one row of
barbs.
Symmetrical. Barbs set in op.
posing symmetrical sets (Figure 3:15).
Asymmetrical. Barbs offset from
one another (with triple or
qnadruple barbs, only one set
may be asymmetrical)(Fignre
3:lG).

Compound.
Separate barb(s)
(may be wood, bone, metal)
fastened t o ~ n a i npoint (Figures 3:17-3:18) or toforeslraft.
Stopped Barb. Uarbed hip, wit11
st,op r u t from same rod a t
p~.oximalend of barbed section (Figure 3:lS).
Broad Barbed (triangular or semicircular
cross sectiord. Kot classified, for examples see Tesslnali (1930:Table 15).

APPENDIX 3. STYLE DESCR.IPTIONS

Madre de Dzos Style
Sample 48: G U'achipaeri, 5 Amnrakaeri. 5
Maslrco, 32 Guarayo.

Butt. Untreated o r plain thread nock.

B u t t Lashing. Solid colour, simple spiral
or Guarayo cross (Figure 4:20), occasiolral grass insertion (Figure 4:27).
Feather. Virtually all feathered
Mode of attachment. Cen~er~t,ed
(two
Maslrco specimens have arch with
double rib).
Trim. Simple curve (Figure 4:24).
Kind of Feather. frequently macaw,
with currasou- and hawk common.

Feather Lashing. Solid colour, simple spiral (only those wit11 arch).
Shaft. Plain, tapered.
Shaft Lashing. Covers tapered area and
beginning of slrafi, proper, leaving ca.
0.5 m m of distal end of taper visible.
Solid colour, simple, spiral, feathers
inserted a t proxinral end of one Amarakaeri specinren.
Foreshaft.
Plain.
Foreshaft of compound
barbed points is crooked, slender branch,
carefully trimmed clean.
Point Lashing. Covers basal portion of point ext,ending barely onto foreshaft. Solid colour,
simple spiral (one Guarayo specimen has
cl-ossed lashing, one Arnal-akaeri specirnerr
lras grass inserbed)
Point
Pnca. Simple. Flat, double bevel, or bevel
(most common). One Guarayo specon convex
inien has resin decor a t,1011
'
face.
Blu71t. Simple and point~ed.
Pronged. 4-element radial, st,raigIrt ele~nents.
Straight.
Barbed. Sinrple, cornplex double-barbrd
s y m m e t ~ i c a l compourril,
,
or stopped.
Broad Barbed. Only one Guarayo specimen.
Materials
Noncotton plant fibres. Used t o fasten
feathrrs and as a ball, to separate elements of pronged points.

Cotton.
Guarayo lrave some natural
blown. Most is white, some Amarakaeri thread apparently smeared
with achiote. All is 2-ply. All is
2-twist except Guarayo, u.hic11 is S.
Thread diameter ranges from 0.2-0.9
m m , averaging ca 0.5 m m .
Resin. Used orily on the single Guarayo paca
point a s decoration.
Wax. Used a s adhesive on botlr extremes of eacll lashing, and covers
entire slraftme~rton arrows with cemented feathering.

Alto Purus Style

Sample 106: 25 Cashinahua, 12 Slraranahua, 46 Culina, 23 Amahuaca.

Butt.
Decorated thread nock (Figure
4:20). Amahuaca arid one Sharanahua
specimen untreated.
Butt Lashing. Multicolonr, simple spiral, relatively wide grass insertions;
wound pat,t.err~s(except Cashirrahna);
Sharanahua have pailrtecl patt.erns.
Feather.
All
feathered except one Anrahl~acaand
one Cashinalrua pronged arrow.
Mode of Attachment.
A1.clr with
doubled rib (Figure 4:23). Two
Amalmaca specimcas cenrent,ed.
Trim.
Outer Barbs. Double cmve (Figure 4:25).
Inner Barbs. Rib intact:, barbs
trimmed in various patt.erIrs.
Kind of Feather. Generally darkcoloured, currasow and hawk; occasionally niacaus.
Shaftment.
Plain, except Aniah~raca
where decorated with bands of wax.
Feather Lashing.
trsually black-andwhite; .4malruaca and Sharanahua
multicolour; all simple spiral. SBaranaliua have painted patterns.
Shaft. Plain; cut straight (if tapered, e ~ r d
of t,aper never visible).
Shaft Lashing. Extellds well 0nt.o foreshaft
or point and up ont.0 shaft. Multicolour, simple spiral, C a s l ~ i n a h u aand

Sharanalrua have painted patterns.

Oxre Caslrir~ahuaspecimen has Corribo
butt- lashing pattern at. distal end of
s l ~ a flashing.
t
hifrequent grass inserts.

Foreshaft. Plain, often almost entirely

covered by thread from shaft and
point lashing.
Point Lashing. Covers basal portion of
point, extending well onto foresllaft.
Multicolour thread, often painted design. Sharanaliua have wound pattern.
Points.
Paca.
Simple.
F l a t , double bevel,
or bevel (unconrnion). Often decorated on concave face.
Sec Figure 3:4 for C a s h i ~ ~ a l ~ u a
tip.
Barbed. Oftell decorated on concave face, t\sZospecimens hidirectiorral.
Blunt. Pointed o r ticred.
Pronged.
3-element flat,, simplebarbed elements.
Barbed. Simple, c o ~ n p l e xdoublebarbed (symmetrical and asymmetrical), and cornpoarid.
Maierials.
Cotton. W11it.e o r dyed (yellow, red,
green, lavender). One- and twoply thread, all S-twist. Tlrread
diar~reberranges 0.4-1.4 m m , averaging ca. 0.9 Inni.
Resin. Used only on points.
Cl'az. l!sed t o securr all lashings
and for markings 011 slraftment.
May he used ill point decoration,
t.o coat cottoll tliread for black
colour in lashings. Covers elltire shaftment of arrows wiLh cemented feathering.

Saniplp 40: 18 Cashibo, 9 Iscorralrua, 13

Conibo-Shipibo.

Butt. Untreated 01. very loosely wound

tlrread ]rock (Iscorialrua).

Lyon/LANGTMGE A N D S T Y L E

Butt Lashing.
Solid colour or blackand-white, Conibo b u t t lasl~ing(Figure 4:28). Isco~rnlrua use s i n ~ p l espiral, Casllibo somet.imes have intricate
wound pattern. One Cashibo specimen has inserted featlrers.
Feather.
Only two Conibo specilnens
feathered.
Mode of Attachment. Arc11 wit11 doubled rib.
Trim. Simple curve, inner vane
trimmed t o rib.
Kind of feathel-. Grey.
Shaftment.
rated.

Plain; Cashibo sometimes deco-

Feather Lashing. Solid colour, simple spiral.

Shaft. Plain; Coriibo speci~lrelrsare tapered and occasionally bear a resin
spiral. Caslribo shafts may have overall lashing, a painted design, or design
in slrallow incision.
Shaft Lashing.
Extends well up o r ~ t o
shaft and point or foreshaft, except
Coniba specimens where it never extends onto point o r foreshaft. Solid
colour, sirriple spiral or palternecl
wincling. Cashibo nray have painted
design, ~nulticolonrt,lrread, insertiolls
of feathers or ant.eater hair. Shaft
lashing on Caslribo and Iscorralrua arrows may be covered by leaves held 011
witlr careless criss-cross lasl~ing.
Foreshaft. Plain, painied, or covercd wit11
lashing. Cashibo and lsconal~uahave
cane f o r e s l ~ a f t , ~ .
Point Lashing. Covers basal portion of
point and may either be continuous or
extend only a slrort way onbo a decorated foreshaft. Solid colour, simple
spiral. May be covered with leaves or
completely coated with a layer of wax.
Points.
Paca.
Simple. Fl;rt, decorat,ed on concave face (Conibo).
Barbed. Decorated on hot11 faces
(Isconahua).
Blunt. Point.ed o r tiered (all Conibo).

113

Pronged. 3-element flat, straight elen r e ~ l t s(Isconahua); 4-elernent radial, straight elements (Conibo);
2-element,
simple barb (Conibo); 2-element,
compound barb (Conibo).
Barbed.
Simple (Conibo), complex double-barbed asymmetrical
(Conibo), o r conryound (Cashibo
and Isconahua).
Broad Barbed. Cashibo only, point
may be covered wit11 resin into
wlliclr patterns are incised, o r
resin may be applied in pa.tterns.
Materials.
Cotton.
White, dyed (most often red), o r occasiorrally natural brown.
One- a n d two-ply
thread.
Conibo is Z-twist, Splied; Cashibo is S-twist, Z-plied;
Isconahua is S-twist, Z-plied for
2-ply thread and Z-twist for l-ply
thread. Thread dialxieter ranges
0.4-1.5 mm, averaging ca. 0.7
311111.
Resin. Used on drafts, foresbafts,
and points.
Waz. Used t o secure all lashings;
in decoration on sl~aft,nreot.,foreshaft, and point,s; and t,o cost cotton bllread for black colour lashings. Applied liberally and carelessly over coesiderable l e n g t l ~of
distal portion of C o ~ ~ i bshafts.
o
Used t o secure prongs on Iscorrahua prorrged point,s and t o
cover point lashings on all cornpound barbed points.
U~uhumba-ApurimacStyle
Sample 123: 23 Maclliguenga, 9 Piro, 91
Ca~npa.

Butt. Self nock (Figure 4:22), lrntreated

or plain thread nock.
Butt Lashing. Solid colour, open spiral (Figure 4:22). Piro and some
Machignenga have simple spiral and
some grass inserts. Oxre Piro specin ~ e nlras Guarayo cross (Figure 4:26),
and one Macl~iguengaspecimen 11as
Conibo lashing.

Feather. Virtually all feathered.

Mode of Attachment.
Arc11 with
straight rib (Figure 4:22) on
Campa a n d most Machiguenga.
Cemented on some Piro and
Machiguenga.
Piro have arch
with doubled rib (Figure 4:23).
Trim. Mostly simple curve (Figure
4:24); some Macl~iguenga leave
t a b of i m ~ e rbarbs as in Figure
4:22.
Kind of Feather. Mostly grey or
brown, occasiolrally macaw or
green parrot.
Shaftment. Plain (some Campa whistling
arrows are decal-ated).
Feather Lashing. Solid colour, sinrple spiral.
Shaft. Plain, usually t.apered. A few
C a m p s and Macl~iguenga specimens
bear resin decoration.
Shaft Lashing. On C a n ~ p aspecimerrs, usually covers very srirall area of shaft., entirely above the taper. On Piro and
Machiguenga specinlens nrually covers taper entirely and extends barely
onto shaft. Solid colour, simple spiral. Machiguenga sometimes blackand-whire.
Foreshaft.
Carved
(Piro
and Machiguenga), covered with resin
(Machiguenga), plain ( C a m p a ) .
Point Lnshing. O n paca ]>ointr covers onet,hird or more of ~ o i n t ,but ext.ends
only slightly onto foreshaft,. Solid
colour o r black-and-white; simple
spiral o r ~ v o u n d pa.ttcrn (frequently
found on C a ~ n p aarrd Maclriguenga).
I'oints.
Paca.
Simple. Bevel ( C a m p a ) , see Figure 3:5 for C a ~ n p ashape.
Co?nposite. Simple bevel wit,lr
grooved foreshaft (Piro); with
complex
double, triple or quadruple
bidirectional barbed foreshaft:
(Machiguenga); with bulging
foreshaft
(Macliigoenga).
Sirnple
doublebevel point with grooved foreshaft (Machiguenga). Some

Maclrig~re~lga
points are enlirely covered with resin.
Compound. Simple bevel wit11
two bone barbs inserted a t
proximal end of point lashing
(Piro).
Blunt. Sinrple ( C a m p a ) or pointed.
Pronged. 3-element radial, simplebarbed elements; 5-element radial
with central point., wit11 barbed
elelneiits ( C a m p a )
Barbed.
Simple,
complex double-barbed asymmetrical,
complex quadruple-barbed synrmetrical (Machiguenga), o r conrpound. C a ~ r i p ahave wliistli~rgarrows wit11 a perforated silail slrell
(Fam. Bulinrnlidae, Thaumastus
sp.) attaclied with wax a t or near
t,lre basc of sinrple barbed and
complex double-barbed asyrnmetrical points.
Ifarpoon.
Detachable compouncl barbed head
(Campa and Machiguenga).

Materials.
h'oncotton Plant Fibres. Iised t o fasten feathers on arrows wit11 ce~nrnbedfeat.hering.
Cotton.
Urhit,e; dyed (pink)
somet,imes used by C a ~ n p aand
Maclriguenga; corisiderable use of
n a t i ~ r a lbrown. Most t.11read is 1ply, h u t some 2-ply is used; all
2-twist,. Thread dialneter ranges
0.2-0.6 m m , averages ca. 0.3 mm.
Resin. Used on point, shaft, and
foreshaft.
Some Machiguenga
thread is coated wit11 resin.
Waz. Used t o secure all lashings,
t o attaclr snail rliells, and t o coal
cottoll thread for black colour in
lashings.

ETHNIC BOUNDARIES WITHIN THE INCA

EMPIRE: EVIDENCE FROM HUANUCO,
PERU
Sue Grosboll
Department of A~rtlrropology
University of Wisconsin
Madison. Wisconsi~r

varions etlinic groups. Rut 11ow did t,lrey define

their ethnicity? A basic ~ r o b l e min research into
Jn taking co~rtrolof the forrner Inca Enlpire af- ethnicity involves t h e "diclrotomy between the inter 1532, tlle Spanish crow11 ordered that. various ternal ideutity of t,he group by its rnernbers and
governme~italinspections be carried out in tlie t h e external ide~itificat,iorrof t h a t group by nonAndes to gather information. These documents nrenrbers" (Kelly and Kelly 1980). Cohen (1978)
are of immense interest. t o Andeanists for their lias discussed flow etllriic group names or unificawealtli of inforn~ationon tlre social, polit,ical, and tion can easily be a product of out,siders. Various
demographic clraracter of tlre local and regional aut,lrors also stress tire need to be aware of tlre inpeoples in t h e lat,e prehistoric and colonial peri- tangible nature of ethnic identification. Not. only
ods. They are especially valuable t o ilre archaeol- can ethnicity be specified from inside and ontside
ogist because of the possibilities for research com- the group, b u t t,he characteristics of t h a t et,lrnicbining tliis documentary evidence u,ith archaeo- ity can also change tlrrough l,ilne, space, and cirlogical evidence, covering topics fronl the level of cumstance t o produce a redefinit,ion of the group
the Inca Empire to t h a t of t h e local village.
a s well as tlre sub-groupings (McGuire 1982).
~ t h e 1549 and 1562
T w o such d o c u n i e ~ l tare
T h e lack of agreement among sociologists and
censuses of the Huanuco region of central Peru arrt,l~ropologistson the means of identifying etli(Ortie 1967, 1972). The particular value of these nicit,y is ext,renrely frustrat,ing 1.0 the arcliaeolvisitns lies in t h e fact tliat t h e villages mentioned ogist w l ~ omust work with less data and canwere occupied prehispanically and t h a t their eth- not directly observe behaviour. De Vos (1975)
nic affiliations are described (Nurra 1962). My states t h a t one defirrition of ethnicity is difficult
own researcli irr t h e Huanco region is concer~red since there are no essential cbaracteristice comwit11 comparing t l ~ earchaeological reluaius of vit- mon t o all groups. However 11e lists several ellages from tlrese et,I~nicgroups t o their descrip- ements t h a t might be used by archaeologists t o
t i o ~ r swit,hin t h e censuses.
characterize an ethnic group: 'racial' uniqueness,
This paper will review tlre archaeological and t,errit,oriality, economic bases, religion, aesthetic
docnmentary evidence for tlre ethnic pluralism cultural patt,erns, and language. Tl~ouglrsome
of t h e Inca E ~ n p i r eas seen from the Huanuco of these elements are accessible in the arclraeoregion during t h e late prellispanic era. With the logical record, the primary nrealis of identifying
Hualruco material as a backdrop, I wislr to specif- different ethnic groups has been spatial variabilg difficulty of ity in ceramics and arclritect,ure, the most comically raise questions c o ~ l c e r n i ~ rthe
studying o r defining ethnicity, particularly w11e11 monly available cultural remains. Tlris is true
it occurs .ir.ithin con~plexsocieties.
eve11 in historical archaeology, where rrraterial evidence can be combined wit11 d o c ~ ~ m e r i i a revy
THEORETICAL ISSUES ON
idence (Schuyler 1080; South 1977). But can

INTRODUCTION

ETHNICITY
T h e vzsztas of 1549 aud 1562 for Huanuco state
t h a t the peoples of t h e region were divided iuto

ceramics and architecture always be depended

upon t o mark etlrnic diversity? How can a n
archaeologist differentiate between markers im-

ETHh'JCITY AND CULTURE

116

posed on the ethnic unit from external a n d internal sources? How does one recognise subgroups
wit,hin tile ethnic unit from other ethnic groups?
Is this nrerely an indicator of the strength of ethnic boundaries? How does one differentiate between ethnic and cultural markers? W h a t if the
material evidence does n o t coincide with the documentary evidence?

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ON THE

HUANUCO REGION IN THE INCA
EMPIRE

T h e colonial docnmentation for Huanuco

stat,es t h a t several ethnic groups existed in tlre region prior t o its takeover by t h e Incn governnrent
(Ortiz 1967:31,63, 68, 73, 79), namely the Yarns,
the Yacha, the Quero, the Wamali, and the ChuINCA POLICY AND ETHNIC
paychu. Based upon testimony colltained within
PLURALISM
the visitas from the various colnn~unityleaders,
Bird
(Ortia 1967, maps; 1970) was able to apT h e 111ca Empire was impressive not only for
proxirrlate
t h e boundary for each ethnic group
its physical size, exdendir~gfrom Chile t o Colom(Figure
1).
Because tlre d o c t ~ m e n t scontain spebia, b u t also for the terrain i t e~rcompassed,the
cific
information
only on t h e Yacha, Quero and
rueeed backbone of tlre Andes. To unifv and conC1"lpaycllul
these
three ethnic groups are 'lre fotrol this vast t~erritorv.
of
oroinizational
~
~
- a -vnrietv
~~
~ - ~ - ~ ~ ~ .
,,
~ ~ ~
- -~ ...-of
this
meclranisms were ernployed b; the Inca governT h e local leaders stated in 1562 t h a t during
nlent (Rowe 1946, 1982; Morris 1082). Two of
the
time of t,lre 11rca Ifuayna Capac, the Quero
the most obvious physical signs of t,hat organizahad
been
are the network of roadways (
~ 1984) ~
~ a part
l of the
~ Yacha
~ ethnic group. Rllt
his
successor
Guascar orsonretime
after
1527,
a r ~ dt h e reaional eovernment~alfacilities.
~

"

"

are not a s physically obvious as hig1lways and t h u p a y c h u for purposes of bureaucratic recordstate buildings. To faci1itat.e t,he ~rnifirationof keeping and t h e administrative division of tribthe empire over a vast area, a n overlay of Incaic ute payers according t,o decimal units of 10, 100
standards and regulations was applied through- and 1000. For t h a t reason, three Quero pachnca
out the empire while minimising t h e disruption (units of 100 tribut,e payers) were added t o a secof extant local and regional institrrtior~s(Murra tor of t h e Cl~upaychuterritory to constitute a
1968, 1'572; Pease 1982). When a region was waranqa ( a unit of 1000 tribute payers) (Ortie
incorporat,ed into t h e empire, its political, reli- 1967:41). T h e Quero/Chupaychu political unit.
gious, and social syst,enla were left in place (n.here was one of four such waranga t h a t toget,her compossible) wllile tlre Inca policies were added to prised t h e Chupaychu ethnic group. Tlrese four
or blended with existent systems. This policy sect,ors can roughly be demarcated as the northnreant that local cultural characteristics were left ern (fronr t.he city of Huanuco), the rvest,ern Hualin place and ethnic pluralisnr within the empire laga (including the Quero), the eastern Huallaga,
was maintained rather t h a n obliterat,ed. This is and the Pachitea (the Rio P m ~ a oarea f u r t l ~ e rt o
in sharp contrast to the imperial policy of inr- bhe east). Area3 of mitmagset.tlcrnent. by the Inca
mediate ethnic assirnilat.ion o r obliterat,ion fre- existed primarily within the ~ i o r t h e r nsect.or, but
a few could also be fo1111dalong the Huallaga east
quently applied by ot,her conquerors.
of
Huanuco and in the Pachitea area.
Another facet of t h e organieatiorlal scheme
The
impact of these clral~gesis difficult t.o asof the hrca concerned t l ~ e~ n o v e n ~ e noft people
sess.
At
the t,i~neof the Spa~lislltakeover of tire
througlrout the empire. For goverinuental conregion,
Incaic
policies of dentographic and ethnic
trol and out of fear of rebellion, all roads and
manipulation
had bee11 in force for less than 70
bridges were wat,ched. T h e res111t of this stricyears,
a
n
d
possibly
less than 15 years. Though
ture wae t h e reinforcement of ethnic b o u ~ ~ d a r i e s
the
period
of
enforcement
was short and the split
through t.he reduction of poplzlation movement
of
an
ethnic
group
was
primarily
a sbatistical
(Rostworowski 1985). Rut accompanying this
move,
local
political
a
u
t
l
~
o
r
i
t
y
would
have been
stabiliaation of the local populatior~swas the irrundermined
by
these
shifts.
But
in
general,
the
sertion of foreign peoples into the local c o n ~ ~ n n changes
over
such
a
short
span,
considering
tlre
nities. These mitmag groups were moved in by
the Inca for reasons of secnrity, bureaucracy, and Inca support of separate etlrnicities, should have
economic development. T h e effect of these for- been minimal. One would expect t o find, based
eigners on tlre local popt~laceis difficult t o deter- on colonial documentation, t h a t ethnic boundmine, and probably varied from region t o region. aries could be recognized eit,her spatially o r in

E t h n i c boundary

--

Intra-ethnic o r 'waranqa'

- -

Figure 1: Lat,e prehispanic ethnic groups, Huanuco, Peru. (Fron

A r c h i t e c t u r a l boundary

Ceramic b o u n d a r y

.... ..

120

cially used for herding activities and sit,es slightly

lower were more heavily used for farming, the
ecorromic bases of the several groups inay not
have been all that different. Rird's (1970, 1984)
cult,ural and agricultural study of modern peoples divides the111 into two ethnic groups by their
econoinic bases. However t,lris modern division
probably does not acclirately reflect t h e prehistoric situation, where the econorriic differences
nray have been one of degree rather t h a n type.
There d o exist architectrrral differences between the Yaclra and the Chupaychu t h a t would
seem t o fall along t h e spatial boundary suggested
in the visita. But even this is not absolute, since
several sdructures in t,he Yacha style were foulrd
in a Chupaychu site close to their ethnic boundary, suggesting t h a t there was some type of inbeyaction bet,weerr t,he two groups.
Architectural variability is forrud within the
Chnpaycl~u t.erritory, but this variability does
not resemble the c e r a r ~ ~ ipattern.
c
Unlike the
ceramics, the architecture between the eastern
and western sectors of the Clrupaycltu is relatively coneist,ent. T h e variance between them
is confined t o minor differences in tlre quality of corrst.ruction arrd size of structures. T h e
greater architect.~traldifferences lie bet,ween t h e
PacIritea/mitn~ag Chrrpaycliu and t h e easber~r
and western Chnp;tychu. Tlrompson's (1968a;
Morris and Thompson 1985) descript.ion of t h e
PacIrit,ea structures brings t o rriirrd a standard
Ii~caicarclritectural form rather t h a n t h e other
local Chupaychu arcIrit,ectural form. Tlris style
of Incaic architecture is also predominant in the
mitmag area t o the north. A Peruvian arclraeologist (D. Morales, pers. comm.) feels t,hat t,he
Pachit.ea area may represent a forced settlement
of Chupaychu peoples under Inca orders, possibly for economic reasons. This idea would explain the mixing of wester~rarrd east.ern Chapaychu ceramic traits in t,lris zone, a s well as t h e
variant architecture.
One ]nore aspect of the arcl~aeologicalevidence
is important t o tlris discussion. T h e material remains t h a t reflect t,he Iirca takeover of tlte region
are ]rot obvious a t the local level, outside t h e Pachitea aud milmag areas. In my own survey and
t h a t of previous researchers (Thompson 1968a;
1SG8b; RudecofT 19821, arcltitectural and ceramic
charact,eristics attributable t o t,he Inca are rare.
True Cuzco ware is almost never found, and Incalike ceramic traits are orrly see11 in a small percentage of t,he t,otal ceramic sample. T h e latter
are probably a result of the local production of

ETHA'JCITY AND CULTURE

tribute wares made to precise Inca governmental
specificat,ions.

HTJANUCO ETHNICITY IN THE LATE

PR.EHISTORIC PERIOD
The colonial documentat,ioir suggests i h a t several distinct ethnic groups existed in prehispanic
Huanuco and t h a t the major form of Inca manipulation in this multi-ethnic structure was the
'statistical' movement of a polit,ical boundary
and the insertion of foreign peoples into primarily one area of the region. T h e archaeological evidence gives a different picture. T h e mat,erial remains d o not reflect strong ethnic spatial boundaries as presented in 1562, aud wlrat variability
occurs does not resemble those boundaries.
If one were to define the ethr~ic bou~rdaries
tl~rouglroutthe Huanuco region based solely on
archaeological evidence, the picture might be
somewhat different than what the visitas gives us.
There is n o physical evider~ceto link the Quero
ethnic group with the Yacha, a s suggested in the
colonial testimony. Based on ceramic and architectural cha.racterist,ics, the Quero area might be
i~rcludedin the L\'amali zone o r with the wester11
Chupaychu sector. This si~nilarityt o the Chupaychu might have resulted from economic i~rteraction (Quero utilization of land within the Chupaycllu territory). As Mayer (1985) has said, how
does one draw borders when there are economic
islands of ecological comple~uentarity,roads to
t.hese islands through the lands of other ethnic
groups and land held cornmonly between these
groups? It inight also be suggest,ed t h a t tlre
Quero were not traditionally part of the Yacha
et,hnic group, b u t instead liad been 'bureaucratically' grouped by tlre Iuca with the Yacha before
1527, just as they had been grouped with tlte
Chupayclru after 1527.
The archaeological variability witlti~rthe Chupaychu et.lriiic group may point t o tlte weakness of
its 'et,hnic' identity. It is possible to see each sect,or of t h e Chupaycl~uas a distinct group, and not,
as parts of a sirrgle e~lcompassingetlriric group.
The presence of ceramic o r arclritectural similarities could instead be defined as a remnant of a
contmoll heritage or as a reflectiorr of economic
associations. Morris and Tlrompson (1985) have
suggested t h a t the Cl~upaychuethnic group inay
have been a n Incaic administrative imposition,
unit,ing several smaller groups within tlre area.
T h e material rerrlains would certailrly support
this idea of a n 'ethnic' identification being imposed on a group by iton-members.

Dialect boundary
(line width r e p r e s e n t s s t r e n g t h

ETHNICITY AND CULTURE

122

Because rnodern lilrguistic patterns reflect

some of the social and political boundaries of
the prehist,oric past, tlrese patterns can be compared to those of t.he archaeological and documentary evidence. Recent studies in the Hua~ruco
region show some areas t o be more li~iguistically
related t o one another t h a n t o other areas in t.he
region (Weber 1983, pers. comm. Figure 3).
T h e most profou~rddialectal boundary cuts diagonally across the Chupaychu territ,ory, between
the mitmaqlPachitea area in the ~ ~ o r t l r e a sand
t
the remainder of the regioa. Like the ceramics
and archit,ecture, this lirrguistic difference would
imply (1) t h a t some form of cultural border existed through the center of the Chupaychu territory ( t h a t did not exist between the southu~estern
Chupaychu and its ethnic neighbours) or (2) t,hat
the impact of the 111ca within tire northeast was
more profound than has been t.11ought o r ( 3 ) t h a t
both situatiorls existed. Other dialectal boundaries in the study area are less well defined. One
dialect is ce~rteredin the Quero area, with its
closest dialectal relatives to the northu.est. T h e
southern sect,or of t h e Chupaychu on both sides
of t h e Huallaga fornrs another dialect related to
areas furt,her t o the south. Both dialects appears to be different from that of the Yacha territory, though t,lre Qnero and Yacha show more divergence. liafortunat,ely, the boundary between
these dialects is onclear. Tllough the lack of
sharp linguistic boundaries niay be due to post.conqnest. distortions, t,he slight spatial demarcation niirrors t h a t of rlre archaeological material.
All of this seems t.o confirm t,he weak~ressof
the Quero-Yacho etluiic tie (if it ever existed) and
t.he weakness of t h e internal identification of <,he
Cliupaychu as an ethnic unit. It also suggests
that Inca policy in tlre Hnarruco area, whether
by design or not, may have disrupt,ed o r created
etlrnic boundaries. Hut this also points u p the
difficulty in defining etlrnicity and tlre interpretation of archaeological and documentary evidence
regarding etlrnicity.

CONCLUSIONS
T h e Inca policy of ethnic pluralisnl has left t o
t.he archaeologist a unique opportunity to study
not o r ~ l ya vast empire, but one t.lrat may have
left intact rnucl~of t.he cultural variety t h a t preceded it. But problems arise wlren we attempt
t o study this etlrnic plurality within a con~plex
society. How did these ethnic groups define their
ethnicity and are ceramics and architecture part
of t h a t definition? Did spatial boundaries really

exist or were ethnic boundaries only politically

and socially recognized? When differerices are
found in the archaeological a n d documentary evide~rcefor defining the Huanuco ethnic groups,
are tlrese reflectior~sof the dichotomy of 'insider'
and 'outsider'? Or are we seeing tlre effects of
Inca policy disruption of the ethnic polities and
their economic structures? O r are these merely
an example of t h e flexibility of et,hnicity tlrrough
time, one form of evidence representing tire postconquest adaptations of t h e et,hnic groups and
the otlrer form of evidence representing the preconquest pictures of Inca and pre-Inca domination? If i t is arcl~aeologicallydifficult t o detect
the type of influence exerted a t the local or regional level by a force as powerful a s t h e Inca,
how do we trace the impact of less powerful 'outic
siders' on such c t l r ~ ~ groups?
Such questio~rscan be expanded beyond tlre
IIuamrco sitnation. The impact of t,he Incaic and
Sparrish conquests on the various Andean ethnic
groups was extremely variable. Pease (1982) has
slrown how I~rcapolicy was variously imposed depending on t.he existent provincial level of organization and tlre level of consent t o Inca dominance.
This sarrie type of problem applies in tlre temporal dirnerlsion a s well as tlre spatial one. If we
are unsure of our ability t o define etlrnicity and
its role in a colriplex ~ o c i e t yfor which we have
the greatest quantity of archaeological and document,ary evidence, what of earlier periods? If an
imperial force such as t.he Inca left l i ~ t l enraterial
evidence a t the local level, how d o we trace the
i n ~ p a c of
t other 'takeovers' for which we have n o
documentary evidence?
The fil~alq u e s t i o ~ ~concern
s
t,he broader topic
of the arclraeological definition of et.1111icit.y.If i t
is so difficult t o define ethnicity in nrodern socits
t,o do i t
eties, how can we a s a r c l ~ a e o l o ~ i shope
for prel~istoricpeoples? If t.t~ereis no set, of essential clraract.eristics t h a t define ethnicity, is the
heavy reliance on only two f o r n ~ sof ~naherialeviderrce skeu,irrg our perceptio~rsof ethnicity? Hour
many forms of evidence are needed and available
in the archaeological record in order t o identify
ethnicity and t o determine tlre strength of t h a t
identity?
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The fieldwork on which this paper is based was

supported by grants froni the National Science Foundation, the Richard Lounrbery Fund for Research
in Anthropology (the American Museuln of Natural History), the Tinker Foundation and the University of Wisconsin. I am grateful to Frank Salomon,

Crosboll/ETHA'lC BOUArDARIES WITHlN THE INCA EMPIRE

Gary Feinman, and Don Thompson for their lielpful

comments and criticisms on this paper. My thanks
also go t o Mary Van Buren, P a t t i Coffey, and David
Peeler, the hardworking field crew t h a t helped t o collect and record this data.
R E F E R E N C E S CITED
Bird, Robert McK.
1970 Maize and Its Cultural and Natural Environment i n the Sierra of Huanuco, Peru. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
1984 The Chnpachu/Serrano Cultural Nouiidary Multifaced and Stable. Paper presented a t tlie
44th Interitational Congress of Americanists,
Manchester.
Bode, Mzria E .
1967 A Progress Report on the Ai~alysisof Yacha
Pottery from the Central Highlrtnda of I'eru.
Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, University of \?'isconsin, Madison.
Cohen, R.onald
1978 ~ l h ~ i ~problem
i t ~ : and pucusin .knthropol.
or". Annual Review o f Anthrouoloov
-.7579-403.

-.

Collier, G. A., R . I. Rosrtldo and J. D. \?'irth

1982 T h e Inca and Aztec States, 1400-1800. Acad e ~ n i cPress, New York.
De Vos. G , and 1,. Romanucci-Ross
1975 Ethnic Identity. University of Cliicago Press,
Chicago.
Hyslop, John
1984 The Inka Road System. Academic Press, New
York.
Kelly, Marsha C.S. and Roger E. Kelly
1980 Approaches t o Etlxnic Identification in Historical Archaeology. In Archaeologisal Perspectives
on Ethnicity in America, edited by R. Schuyler,
pp. 133-143. Baywood Publishing, Farmingdale, New York.
Masuda, S., I. Sliin~adaand C . Morris (editors)
1985 Andean Ecology and Civilization. Papers from
Wenner-Gren Fouridation for Anthropological
Research Symposium No. 91, University of
Tokyo Press, Tokyo.
Mat05 Meiidieta, Ramiro
1972 Walkan y M7an~alli:Estudio Arqueologico de
dos Aldens Rurales. In VIsita de la Prouincia
dr Lton de Huanuco en 1562, Touio I, edited
by Ortiz de Zuniga, pp. 381-406. Universidad
Nacional Herriiiliu Valdizan, Huanuco, Peru.

123

Mayer, Enrique
1985 Production Zones. In Andean Ecology and Civilization, edited by S. Maruda, I. Slrimada and
C. Morris, pp. 45-84. Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Syillpoaium
No. 91, University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo.
McGuire, Randall H.
1982 T h e Studv of Ethnicitv in Historical Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
l:159-178.
Morris, Craig
1982 The Inirastructure of Inka Control in the Peruvian Central Highlands. In The Inca and Aztec
Stoles, 1400-1800, edited by George A. Collier,
pp. 153-172. Academic Press, New York.
Morris, Craig and Donald E. T h a ~ n p s o n
1985 Huanuco Pompa: A n Inca City and Its Ifinterland. Thames and Hudsorr, London.
Murra, John V.
1962 An Archaeological Restudy of an Andean
Ethnohistorical Account. American Antiquity
28:l-4.

1968 La Visita de 10s Chupacbu Corno R ~ e n t eEt-

In Visita de la Prouincia d e Lean

dt Huanuco en 1562, Tomo I, edited by Ortiz

nologica.

de Zuniga, pp. 381-406. Universidad Nz~cional

Hermilio Valdizan, Huanuco, Peru.
1972 E l Control Vertical de un Maxinro de Pisos
Ecoioeicos en la Economia d e las Sociedades
Andinas. In Visita de la Provincia de Leon
de Huanuco en 1562, Tomo 11, edited by Ortiz
de Zuniga, pp. 427-476. Universidad Nacional
Hermilio Valdizan, Huanuco, Peru.
1985 T h e Limits and Limitations of the 'Vcrt,ical
Archipelago' in the Andes. In Andean Ecology
and Ciuilizatian, edited by S . Mazuda, I. Shimada, and C. Morris, pp. 15-20. WennerGrcn Foundation for Anthropological Research
Symposium No. 91, University of Tokyo Press,
Tokvo.
Ortiz de Zuniga, 11iigo
1967 Visita de la Prouincia de Lean dt Huanuco
en 1562, Tomo I, Documentos Para la Historia y Etiiologia de Husnuco y la Selva Central, Univcrsidad h'acional Hermilio Valdizan.
Huanuco, Peril.
1972 V i ~ i t ade la Provincio d e Leon dt Auanuco e n
1562. Tomo 11, Dociirnentos P a r a la Historia y Etnalogia de Huanuco y la Selva Central, Universidad Nacional Hermilio V a l d i z a ~ ~ .
Huanuco, Peru.
pease, fianklin
1982 T h e Formation of Tau*antinsuyu: Mechanisms
of Colonization and Relationship with Ethnic
Groups. In The Inca and Aztec States, 14001800, edited by George A . Collier, pp. 173-198.
Academic Press, New York.

ETHMCITY A N D CULTURE

Rostworowrki de Diez Canseco, Maria

1985 P a t r o n y ~ n s with the Consonant F in the
Guara~igasof Cajamarca. In Andean Ecology
and Civilization, edited by S. Masuda, I. Shimada, and C . Morris, pp. 401-422. WennerGren Foundation for Anthropological Research
Syinposium No. 91, University of Tokyo Press,
Tokyo.
Rowe, John IIowland
1948 lnca Culture a t the Time of the Spanish Conquest. In Handbook of South American Indians,
edited by J . Steward, pp. 183-330. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C.
1982 Inca Policies and Institutioiia Relating t o the
Culturni Unification of the Empire. In The
Inco and Aztec Slntes, 1400-1800, edited by
Ceorge A. Collier, pp. 93-118. Academic Press,
New York.

Rudecoff, Christine A.
1982 T h e IIiqueras-Huallaga Arcliaeological Survey.
Paper submitted t o Sigmv Xi Scientific Research Society of North America.
Schuyler, Robert L. {editor)
1980 Archaeological Pcisprctivtr on Ethnicity in
America. Baywood Publishing, Fzrmingdale,
NEWYork.
South, Stanley
1977 Researeh Strategies in Historical Archaeology.
Academic Press, New York.
Thompson, Donald E.
1968% P e a s m t Inca Villages in t.he Huanuco Region. Paper presented a t the 37tli International Congress of Americaaist~,Munich.
19G8b An Archaeological Evaluation of Ethnohistorir Evidence on Incii Culture. ln Anthropological Archaeology in the Americas, edited by
Betty Meggers, pp. 108-120. Antliropological
Society of Washington, M'aslrington D.C.
Weber, David John
1983 A Grammar o j Hunllnga (Huanuco) Qt~echun.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
California, Los Angeles.

SECTION I11

IDENTIFICATION OF ETHNICITY IN
THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD

ETHNICITY A N D CULTURE

SOME COMMENTS ON THE ETHNIC

IDENTITY OF THE TAINO-CARIB
FRONTIER
Louis Allaire
Department of Ar~thropology
U~liversityof Manitoba
Winnipeg, Manitoba

INTRODUCTION

ple is essent,ially t h e expression of native resistance t o Spanish colonization. In Sued Badillo's

An interesling question relating t o the nature
own words, these "barloventenos" (e.g. people of
of the ethnic phenomenon in co~nplexsocieties,
the Lesser Ast,illes) are the "ultima bastion d e
concerns t h e likelihoocl that sucll developed peola resistencia arauaca Antillana" (Sued Radillo
ples might have shared et111lic affiliations wit11
1978:169).
neighbouring groups of lesser socio-cultural developments. This would be especially relevant t,o
THE FR.ONTIER AREA
t,he emergent complexity of c11ieMorn societ,ies in
relation t o their tribal neighbours. Would ethnic
My intentions are not t o discuss the ideological
identities survive sucli evolutionary differences?
and political implications of these assertions, o r
T h e case is well illustrated by recent discus- the scientific soundness of the argument. Rather,
sions about the ethnic relatio~ishipst h a t may niy purpose is to examine more critically the poshave exited between the elaborate Tail10 chief- sibilit,y t h a t Tainos and Caribs a t the time of
dolns of the Great,er Antilles, and their more Colurnbus' voyage shared a conunon ethnic idenegalitarian nrigltbours of the Lesser Antilles, the tity, and t,o comment on t,he nature of the differnotorious Caribs', a t the t i n ~ eof the European e n c e ~reported by the rarliest, chroniclers2.
Much of the debate centers on the identificadiscovery of t,he New World. Recent works by
Antillean authors have enipl~asizedt,he existence tion of the native inhabitants of the fronbier area
of strong ethnic, rnltural, and li~iguisticties be- between the Taino chiefdoms and the Carib istweer~the two populations, going so far as t o dis- lands. This area cor~sistsessentially of the islands
miss altogetlrer the more generally accepted view closest t o the east coast of Puerto Rico, especially
t h a t t h e two area? were tlrose of highly distinctive t h e Virgin Islal~dsa n d the Leeward Islands3. T h e
e t l ~ n i cgroups. This is especially true of the u,orkr Virgin Islands, in part,icular, have received the
of Jalil Sued Radillo (1978), a Puerro Rican an- most aLt,ention in trying t o determine whether
thropologist who believes t l ~ a tlh e Caribs were es- they had belonged t o the Caribs at t h e time
sentially a nlythic group whose existence is based of the discovery. There has heen some general
nrainly on the biased accounts of the early Span- agreerneat, however, especially since the archaeish chroniclers. T h e apparent. d i r s i ~ ~ ~ i l a r i tbei e s ological work of Gudmund Hatt (1924), t h a t the
tween Taioo and Carib are explained as being Virgin Islands were riot Carib islands. This con~ n e r e l ythe results of unevei~socio-economic de- clusion was based n o t s o much on the evidence
velopments. It is even claimed t h a t both groups of documentary documents, but on the lack of
are united by close linguistic, kinship, and reli- ider~tifiahleCarib relnair~sin the islands' archaegious ties t h a t allowed for a high degree of 1110- ology. Unfortunat.ely, no identifiable Carib rebility bet,ween the two areas. Basic t o this int,er- ~rlainshave so far bee11 f o u ~ r din ally of t h e Lesser
pretation, is the belief t h a t the notorious Carih Antilles, even in the major Carib islands (Allaire
cannibalism is only a fabrication of t h e Spaniards 1981). Yet, the question of ethnic identity of t h e
t o ji~stifytheir raiding for slaves, and t h a t the early lrist.orica1 inhabitants of the Virgin Islands
bellicose tendencies of the Lesser Antilles peo- has again been raised recently, resulting in new

C T H K I C I T Y AND CULTURE

128

co~rflict,ingtheories. A paper by Escardo (1978)

favors Hatt's conclusions but has only weak arguments to offer a n d remains inconclusive, On
the contrary, Figueredo's (1978) recent, and seriously researched, paper concludes t h a t the Virgin Islands were a major Carib center with an
estimated p o p u l a t i o ~of~ nearly 4000, a n d nothing less tlran the battlefield of Carib resistance
t,o the Spanish colonization of Puerto Rico.
Considering the amount of attention the issue has received and t h e incomplete and often ambiguous nature of the p r i ~ n a r ydocumentary evidence, which has been extensively quoted
and reprinted in works by Alegria (1981), Sued
Badillo (1978), R a ~ n o sPerez (1975), a n d Zavala
(1948), are there st,ill any hopes of adding something new to t11e debate? I t,lrink there are, and
t.l~ata rliore subst,antial discussion can b e offered
against identifying the original inhabitants of t.lre
Virgin Islar~dsas Caribs. To begin w i t , l ~i t is perhaps the very question itself that. is at, fault and
needs t o be reformulated nrore accui-;it,ely. Therefore, what I slrall first ask in this paper is n o t so
much whetlrer the native population of t h e Virgin
Islands was Carib, b u t more precisely whelher
the early 1lisl.orical population of St.. Croix belonged t o t h e Island Caribs, as t h r historical inhabitants of t,l~eWindward Islands are known t o
wrt1rropologists4.

S t . CROIX O R SANTA CR.UZ

T h e Virgin Islands are a small arclripelago
stretching eastward from Puer1.o Rico towards
the Leeward Islands of ihe Lesser Antilles. It.
consists essent,ially of a group of rather closely
grouped small and dry islands. Sorne 40 miles t o
the south lies the larger island of S t . Croix (Santa
Cruz), whiclr is usually grouped within t h e Virgin islands, but may also be geographically considered a separate one. It is 1.0 this rernotr island of St. Croix t h a t most reports of a Carib
po]>ulabion refer in t h e early Spanish documents,
whereas t.here is hardly a hint of any permanent
human occupation of the Virgin Islands proper
in the chronicles '.
St. Croix's reput.ation as a Carib island dates
to Columbus' second voyage of 1493 when h e discovered the Lesser Antilles. Aft,er leaving Guadeloupe, ~riosthist,orical accounts place a hostile incident between the Spaniards and a "Carib" canoe, t h a t is gene~.allybelieved to l ~ a v etaken place
on the island of "Santa Cruz", the n a m e Columbus is assumed t o have given to S t . Croix, where
Ire had landed briefly (Morison 1974). However,

a closer look a t the primary sources reveals major cont,radict,ions concerning not only this incident, but also the location of t h a t island of S a n t a
Cruz. O u r n ~ o s treliable account must be t h a t
of Dr. Clranca, an eyewitness of t,he expedition,
who places the canoe incident not on Sanba Cruz,
but on a n island named San Martin believed t o
be the modern Nevis i a the Leeward Islands. Actually, C l ~ a n c adoes not even refer t o a S a n t a
Cruz when describing the discovery of the Virgin Islands. This is also more or less t h e version
recorded by F. Col011 (Keen 19S9:116) from his
father's lost journal of the expedition. Likewise,
the only other eyewitness account, t h a t of Columbus' friend Michel d e Cuneo, does not. place t h e
canoe incident on Santa Cruz (Morison 1963).
T h e accounts of t h a t first discovery of the Virgin
Islands are thus far from u~~quest.ionable
evidence
for assigning S t . Croix t o the Carib islandsG.
It is only a t the time of the Taino nprisirig of 153 1 t l ~ a tSant,a Crnz, now the modern
St. Croix, reappears in t,he d o c u ~ n e n t sin association with a Carib population (Murga 1971; Alegria 1981:41fF.). At t h a t time, this c o ~ ~ v e n i e r ~ t , l y
located island on the route t o P u e r t o Rico from
t,he Lesser Antilles, had become the center where
Indian attacks were launched on Puerto Rico,
with the help of ot,lrer Caribs from the Lesser Antilles islands of Cuadeloupe and Dominica joining
forces in the hoslilities alongside their former enemies. T h e actual ethnic identification of the St.
Croix population was not an easy matter even to
the contemporaneous Spaniards, as witnesses a
f a ~ n o n sincident in wlliclr Sr. Croix Indians who
had been capt.ured a s Caribes t o be sold a s slaves
in Puerto Rico (the native Great,er Antilles Indians were prot:ected by law from slavery), were ordered t o b e returned t,o their island, where they
were p u t t o work on agricultural projects like the
rest of the "peaceful" 111dia11s(Zavala 1948).
A major difficulty s1.ems from the very ambiguous use of t'lre n a ~ n eCaribes by t.he Spaniards
w l ~ oapplied it indiscrin~inatelyto any warlike or
allegedly cannibalistic group in order t o justify
their hnntins them for slaves, without concerlr
for proper ethnic affiliations, as far away as Central America. As Figueredo (1978) seems to ignore, t h e fact t h a t the native people of St. Croix
was referred t,o as Caribes in the documents does
not nrean t,lrat they actually b e l o ~ ~ g etdo tlre Island Caribs, in cultnre, language or "ethnicity".
It is interesting to nole regarding the linguistic identity of the early Cruzans, tlrat in order
t o find interpreters in his interventions against

AJlaire/TAlhrO-CARIB FRONTIER

129

the Caribes of S t . Croix, Ponce de Leon picked lrouses visited by the Spaniards, based on infor~i
from an eyewitness, we rnay asthem up among Indians from Cuba, Hispaniola or ~ n a t i o collected
Puerto Rico (Murga 1971:152) allowing us to as- sume t h a t t~liepeople encount,ered by Coliimbus
sume a community of language between St. Croix already made a kind of pottery similar to the potand tlre Greater Antilles. It must also be added tery produced by the sevent,eenth-century lsland
t h a t the notorious Carib practice of cannibalisnr Caribs (Allaire 1985a). Moreover, Dr. Clranca,
is not report,ed in the cont.ext of the hostilities always an astute observer, had already noted t h e
between Santa Cruz a,nd Puerbo Rico a t t h e time women's cushom of wearing a t,ight,ly woven band
on t.lieir lower calf, a garnient distinctive of Island
of the Tailin uprising (Ramos Peres 1975).
Carib women well into t,he seventeenth ceutury
THE CARIB ISLANDS
(Jane 1930:30).
Despite t h e ambiguous role of the St. Croix
Caribes, it is clear that the island rvas not. considered a Carib populat.ion centre. T h e 1515
a r m a d a led by Ponce de Leon for t,he purpose
of dest,roying the Caribs (Murga 1971:143) was
first aimed at. Guadeloupe and the Windward Islands (Dominica to Grenada), and not primarily
a t St. Croix. This seems to have been also true
of Colunrbus' second voyage.
There is n o d o u b t t h a t in his desire t o reach
the Carib Islauds he thought were those of the
Great Khan, the ruler of 1.l1e Indies, C o l u m b u ~
did not reaclr Guadeloiipe in the Windward Islands purely by accident but was guided by infor]nation provided by Taino Indians lie had brought
back to Spain. It is even believed tlrat a rough
m a p \<>asused in planning his voyage (Morison
1942:63). T h e center of Carib population was
therefore n o t in St. Croix or t h e Virgin Islands,
but precisely where i t was still to be later in tlie
sevent.eenth cent,trry, in Guadeloupe and t.lie rest
of the Windward Islauds.
T h e scant documentary evidelice for tlris early
period of Caribbean history suggests t h a t t,hose
Caribs erlcouritered in Guadeloupe by Columbus
in 1493 were already Island Caribs. AlLhoug11
Caribs of the Lesser Antilles are frequently mentinned in the docunrents of the period, little evideuce is available about t,hem until the beginning
of the Frenclr coloni~ationof their islands in the
1620s. O u r earliest inforlnatiou about them is
found in t h e ilocnments relating to Columbus'
second voyage when t,he Spaniards visited a deserted Carib village on Guadeloupe. It is cerLain t h a t ethnic differences were perceived by the
Spaniards - in plrysical appearance and hairstyle,
in Iiouses, and in the evidence of caliriibalism from the Tainos. It is also obvious t h a t the
Spalrivrds realized t h a t these Caribs' society was
much inferior t o t h a t of the Tairio chiefdoms. If
we believe some details provided by Peter Martyr d'Anghiera (1587) in his description of the

LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE
Despite Sued Badillo's assertion t h a t all the
Antilleau peoples spoke "una nrisma lengua"
( 1 9 7 8 : l l l ) which nrust be based on a mirunderstanding of the classification of Taino and Island Carib within the Ara*,akan family, both languages were entirely different. It appears t h a t
Island Carib was already spoke11 on Guadeloupe
in 1493. For instance, Ore native name of Guadeloupe recorded by Clianca as Turuqueira was still
used in the seventeenth century by t,lie Island
Caribs (Rret.on 1978). At t h e time of Columbus'
landing on Guadelonpe, there s e e ~ n sto have been
no verbal communication with the local Caribs,
except with their Tailro captives. However, landing again on Guadeloupe in 1496 on bl~eirreturn
trip t o Spain, tlre Spaniards seem to have been
able t o communicate througli their inaerpreters
with a group of Carib wornen they lrad encountered (Keen 1959). There is no other descriptiorl of Caribs in their owl1 islands until later in
t h e sixt.eerit,lr century. Before F. Breton'e pioneering linguistic works on the Island Carib language publislied in t h e 1660s, a rare Carib word
t h a t has surfaced in the historical writings, is
the name of Clrief "Huey" (Southey 1827:122)
who was captured in Guadeloupe duriug a Spanish raid in 1515, a t the time of the Taino uprising. This name may be compared with tlre Island
Carib word "hueyou" (sun) (Breton 1605:263)
and also, interestingly, with "ouyuhao", the native name of Prince R n p e r t . ' ~Bay on the northwest. coast of Dominica where European slrips
used t o anchor for water and lumber tl~rougliout the sixt.eentlr century (Honeycurch 1984:22).
This word is translated by Breton (1665:263) as
having the meaning of "super-solar" and it was
used by the Caribs in reference t o their gods.
Otherwise, besides a few otlier chief riames, probably t h e only other Carib word in the doculnents
is "nacoun (eye) (Breton 1665), the naaive nanre

130

ETHh'lCITY AND CLJL'I'URE

of a bay in Guadeloupe, where Samuel d e Cham- vary trenrendonsly among experts, and t h a t the
plain had landed briefly in 1594 ( C l ~ a m ~ l a ioriginal
~i
populatio~iof P u e r t o Rico rniglit have
1973). This scanty evidence is nevertheless sug- bee11 merely a fraction of what Sued Badillo esgestive t h a t the sixteenth century Caribs of tlie tinrat.es, one wo~lldexpect such an event t o have
Windward Islands already spoke the Arawakan been still remembered, hardly niore than a cendialect know today as lsland Carib, and defi- tury lat,er anrong the sevent.eent11-century Island
nitely not Taino as was the case throughout tlre Caribs, when, after all, French missionaries might
Greater Antilles, the Bahamas, and probably also still have known individuals whose grandparents
St. Croix.
bad been Taino refugees born in the Greater AnAs Taylor (1961) has demonstrated, sirni- tilles. O n t h e contrary, not only has n o such case
lnrities between Taino arid Island Carib, b o t h been docnmented, but the Taino people seein to
Arawakan-relat~ed languages, are minimal and have been already totally forgott,en not only by
few lexical examples are identical. W h a t the lan- the Caribs but also by later European colonists.
guages have in conrrnon niay be attributed t o Island Carib traditions c o n c e r ~ r i ~their
~ g recent
former exchanges, o r t,o their cornmon linguis- introduction in the Lesser Ar~tillesare explicit
tic snbstratum. However, as Taylor emphasizes, about an origin on t h e Guiana coastline, among
both languages are pl~oneticallyquite separate. the Cariban-speaking Galibis wit11 whorn, in the
It niay, therefore, be assumed t h a t Taino and Is- seventeenth century, they claimed comrnon ethland Carib were not, mutually intelligible.
nic affiliations (Breton 1978:52). Few mrmories of earlier Spanish incursions reern also t o
THE TAINO EXODUS
have survived. Again, Father Hreton (1978:54)
Despit,e their forrner notorious enmity, Tainos was told t h a t t,he Spaniards had depoprilat,ed
and Caribs are reported to have joined forces St. Kitts twice and once G ~ ~ a d e l o u pine the past.
against the Spanish oppressor during tile 1511 These attacks nriglrt have bee11 recent; they Inay
uprising. It is believed t,hat. tllcse events had led also be associated with earlier raids, E U C ~a s that
t o a mazsive exodus of entire families of Taino of Juan de Yucar who destroyed over 15 vilIndians from the Greater Antilles towards the lages on Dominica in 1534 (Alegria 1981:62; Sued
Carib islands, a refuge now made possible be- Badillo 1978:161). This rather short meniory of
cause of the close et.l~nicand parental t,ies as- the Island Caaib is also illust,rated by t h e fact
sumed to lrave existed between t,he two popula- t h a t only tlie St. Vincent C:aribs had preserved
Lions (Sued Radillo 1978:161; Figueredo 1978). any legends about t,heir first. ericour~t,erwit11 EuI t is eve11 argued t h a t over one third of the orig- ropeans (Laborde 1674). Altliouglr it is not specinal population of Puerto Rico (set a t nearly ified whether these were Spanish or o t l ~ e rEuro200,000 by some) had sought ref~rgeamong the pean nations, neit,her t h e number nor frequency
Caribs, t,hat is nearly 70,000 people (Sued Badillo of these desertions was recorded. T h e docurnentr
1978:156). As these aothors believe, the result of rather seem to suggest tliat those who fled were
such a population displace~nentu.onld have bee11 usually successfully recaptured.
t o create an easent,ially hybrid new population
CONCLUSIONS
in t,lre W'indward Islands, both genetically and
culturally, directly ancestral to the culture and
T h e role of the island of S t . Croix in t,he history
people known a s t h e Island Caribsn.
of the c o l o n i z a t i o ~of~ Puert,o Rico and the SpanThis idea of a massive Taino exodus lras its is11 wars against the Caribs, beginning with tlie
roots in earlier historical u~ritingsin Puerto Rico. Taino uprising of 1511, was t o be but short-lived,
It seems t o be based essentially on actual docu- lasting only a mere five years. On his return from
ments referring t.o t,he escape of Puerto Rico In- his armada's ~rasuccei-sfulattack on Guadeloupe
dians toward the Carib islands where they seem in 1515, Ponce de Leon had already found tlie
t,o lrave been welcome as refugees and no longer island uninhabit,ed and arid (Murga 1971). Elseas cannibalistic victinis. Spanish ships, even un- where in the Great,er Antilles, the Taino popuder Ponce d e Leon hinrself, urere regularly sent 1at.ioli was already in its final decline and a new
for their recapture because of the labor shortage supply of African slaves would soon put an end
already developing on Puerto Rico, a t least as to Spanisli slave raids in the Lesser Antilles. This
late as 1516 (Murga 1971:153).
would not prevent the Caribs from pursuing their
Beside the fact. t , l ~ a tlre
t population figures for raids on Spanish settlements in the Greater Ant h e original inhabitants of the Greater Al~tilles tilles, o r the Spaniards from sending punitive ex-

AIIaire/TA IKO-CARIB F R O N T I E R

peditions t o the \Vindward Islands througlrout

the rest of the sixteenth, a n d well into the beginning of the seventeenth centrrry. By then, however, t.he Caribs' trarlitional enemies had become
the Arawak tribes of t,he Guianas alongside frequent skirmishes against t,he new European intruders, the Frenclr and the English.
Whatever may be the usefulr~essof arcl~aeological d a t a to discuss questio~rsof ethnic identities and affiliations which are essent~iallycognitive plrenomena (Barth 1969), o u r present knowledge of t,he late prehistory of the Lesser Ant,illes, despite the lack of identifiable Carib rerr~ainsnoted previously, stro~rglysuggests a long
in sit" development of late prehistoric popnlations of the Lesser Antilles, including the Virgin
Islands, more or less parallel t o the more elaborat,e development or~goirrgin t h e Greater Antilles.
As I have suggested recerrtly (Allair 1985b), this
area nray archaeologically qualify as Sub-Taino
ill t,he sarne manner as tlre Hal~arnas.This classification urould imply similarities in language,
culture, and etlinic affiliation. Archaeology furt.11er sueeests that tlie role of t h e Greater Antilles
nrivllt
h
e- been
in t,he
....o...
. a.v ~
~
~~-~ somewhat, underrated
Lesser Antilles. After all, the island of St. Croix
( H 1924)
~ held
~ ~a full-fledged ~~i~~ centre, and
a variety of distinctive T a i r ~ oinfluences are especially visible in the latest archaeological manifest,ations of M a r t i r ~ i ~ uine t h e Lesser Antilles
(Allaire 1977).
T h e late pre11ist:oric chronology of the Lesser
A~rtilles(Rouse and Allaire 1978; Allaire 1981)
certainly i~rdicatest h a t the Carib populat.ion of
the Windward I s l a ~ ~ must
d s have had a recent origin, albeit already est:ablished ~ I I1493. T h e earid
does not
lier entirely prehist,oric S ~ ~ a z o series
seem t o have survived beyond A.D. 1450. Alt,liough a discussion of this s i t u a t i o ~is~ beyond
the scope of this paper, it. suffices t o indicate
the unlikeliness t h a t the recently arrived Island
Caribs f r o ~ ntheir cont,inental h o n ~ e l a r ~might
d
have been ethnically closely related t o the Tail10
whose preserlce in tlreir islands is attested for several c e n t ~ ~ r i eass Bourisl~ingchiefdonrs. Yet since
the historically known distributio~rof the Island
Caribs did n o t exceed Guadeloupe and perhaps
St. Kitts, tlre remaining populario~rof the enigmatic Leeward Islands\ t h e Virgin Islands, and
the original S t . Croix inhabitants, altl~oughclassified as Caribes by the Spaniards, might have re~ n a i ~ r ea ddistinctive group from the Island Carib
proper as well a s from bhe various Taino groups.
By their position on a frontier area between
L,u

~~~~~

131

distinctive and ethnically self-conscious groups,

tlre Virgin Islands and St. Croix d o not. lend
themselves well t o a discussion of precise ethnic
identities. Suclr areas will have tended to include
some degree of genetic, c a l t ~ l r a l ,and linguistic
ndmixbure. T h a t Island Caribs in their hostilities
against Puerto Rico had used St. Croix or the
Virgin I s l a ~ ~ dass a gat,l~eringpoint is certainly
suggested by the docun~entaryevidence, but tlris
is a different m a t t e r from asserting t h a t they were
the traditional native inhabitants of t,lrese s n ~ a l l
arid islands which they otherwise seem to have
neglected, even a t a later time when they had
become available b u t were never claimed.
On the contrary, the Tainochiefdoms, despite a
background of former significant ethnic diversity,
had already successfully exterrded their language,
cu1tm.e and society t o almost all parts of the
Greater Antilles, from the Bahamas to Puerto
Rico.
NOTES
1. For a description of the Taino cliiefdoms, see
Rouse (1948), and Dreyfus-Gan~elon(1981). The IEland Caribs are also described by Rouse (1948) and
Bret,on (1878).
2. A proper discuesion of the subject would call
for a detailed and lengthy examination of several
lines of evidence, hence the "Comments" aspect of

h;tve refrained from referring direct,ly

in the Coleccion di
;LTchival documents

thi8 paper,
~

document08 ineditus; the same few papers have been

quoted repeatedly by the authors cited in the text.
3.
I have orniited a discussiol~ of t.he island
of Vieques which is located closer to Puerto Rico.
Clainls of a Carib population there in the early 1500s
have been discussed by Rouse (1952).
4. No one has successfully derived the Spanish
words Canihnlcs and Carihcs from any native ethnic
terminology. In the seventeenth century, the Island
Cnribs called themselves sCalinago" ihat is, Kalina,
as Cariban-speaking related groups of the Guianas
are still known t.od;ry. They should more properly be
called Island Kalina than Ialand Caribs. The natives
of t,he Greater Antilles have left no original ethnic denomination. The name Taino has only more recently
been applied t o them by historians and anthropologists. It is to be preferred to Arawak, also used in
connection wit11 them today.
5. We may only speculate that the inhabitants
of the Virgin Islands proper, as islar inutiles (useless
islands) surrounding the Greater Antilles, had the
same fate as the Lucayos Indians of the Bahamas who
had been entirely removed from their small islands by
1515 (Zavala 1948).
6. According to Chanca, the UCaribs" seen in a canoe off San Martin (that is, in the Leeward Islands)

had a different appearance from the Caribs of Guade.

loupe.
7. I have not been able to trace the precise docunientarv reference t o this chief's name.
8 . "en las venas de estos "caribesD corria la sangre de sus abuelos tainos; 10s herederos de la ira y
la frustacion de 10s Agueybana, etc.'' (Sued Badillo
1978:169).
9. A proper discussion of the enigmatic Leeward
Islands would have been beyond the scope of this paper, but would not have been unrelated t o the subject. W e ~ n u s realize
t
t h a t this long stretch of islands
would not qualify either as a Carib center, as is suggeated by the lack of precise references t o a native
population there in t.he documents. In total surface
area, the Leeward Islands do not exceed t h a t of a
single Windward Island like Martinique.

REFERENCES CITED
Alegrin, Ricardo E.
1981 Las Primeras Noticins Sobre 10s Indios Caribes.
Editorial Univcrsidad de Puerto Rico. San
Juan.
Allaire, Louis
1'377 Later I'rehictory i n Martitzique and the Island Carib: Problems in Ethnic Identification.
Ph.D. dissertation, D e p a r t ~ n e n tof Ant,hropology, Yale University. University Microfilms,
Ann Arbor.
1981 On the I-Iistoricity of Carib Migrations in the
Lesser Antilles. American Antiquity 45:238245.
1985a A Reconstruction of Early Historical Island Carib Pottery. Southeastern Archaeology
3(2):121-133.
1985b L'Archeologic des Antilles. In Le Grand Atlas
de I'Archeologie, pp. 370-371. Encyclopaedia
tiniversalis, Paris.

E s c u d o , , Mauricio E. 1918 Who Were the ,Inh a b ~ t a n t sof the Virgln Islands at the T ~ r n e
of Columbus' Arrival.
Proceedings of the
7th Intrrnationol Congress for the Study of
Precolumbian Cultures i n the Lesser Antilles,
pp. 245-258. Centre de Recherches Caraibes.
Montreal.
Figueredo, Alfredo E .
1978 T h e Virgin Islands as an Historical Frontier
between the Tainos a n d the Caribs. Reuista
Interamerieana 8(3):393-399.
Hatt, Gudmund
1924 Archaeology of the Virgin Islands. Proceedings
of the 21st International Congrcss of Americanists, P a r t I , pp. 29-42. T h e Hague.
Honeychurch, Lennox
1984 The Dominica Story. T h e Dominica Institute,
Rosesu.
Jane, Cecil
1930 Select Documents Illustrating the Four Voyager
of Columbtas, Vol. I, Second Series, No. LXV.
T h e Hakluyt Society, London.
Keen, Renjainin
1959 The Life of the Admiral Christopher Columbus b y His Son Perdinand. Rutgers University
Press. New B~.unswick.
Laborde, Sieur de
1674 Relation de I'Origine, Moeurs, Coustumes,
Religion, Guerres, et Voyages des Caraibes,
Sauvages des Isles Antilles de I'Amerique. Billaine, Paris.

Anghiera, Pietro Martyr d '

1587 De Orbe h'ovo Peter Alurtyrii Anglerii. Parisiir
apud G. Avvray.

Morison, Samuel Eliot.

1942 Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A LiJc oJ Christopher
Columbus, Vol. 3. I,it,tle, Brown, Boston.
1963 Journal and Other Documents on the Life and
Voyages of Christopher Colurnbus. T h e Heritage Press, New York.
1974 The European Discovery o f America: The
Southern Voyages AD 1493-1616. Oxford Uiliversity Press, New York.

Barth, Redrik
1969 Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Little, Brown,
Boston.

Murga Sanz, Vicei~te

1971 Juan Ponce de Lson. Plus Ultra Educntional
Publishers, New York.

Ramos I'erez, De~netrio

desde
su, Con~i i ~b~ ~i ~l.B i p ~~ ~~~~~ 1975
~ ~
i Actitudes
~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ante
, ~ 10s Caribes
~
~
cocilniento Indirecto hasta la Capitulncion de
.AIIYPTPC
.-..-..-,
Valladolid de 1520. Terceras Jornadar Amtri1978 Relations de l'lsle de /a Guadeloupe (1647). Socanistas de /a Univirsidad de Valladolid, pp. 1ciete d'Histoire de la Guadeloupe. Rasse-Terre.
30. Vallodolid.
Champlain, Samuel de
Rouse, Irving
1973 Ocuvrrs (Presentees par G.E. Gigueres). Edi1948 T h e West Indies. In Handbook of South Amertions du Jour. Montreal.
ican indians, edited by J.H. Sleward, pp. 495Dreyfus-Gamelon, Simone
565. Bulletin of the American Bureau of Eth1981 Notes sur la Chefferie Taino d'Haiti. Journology No. 143. Wa~hington.
no1 dr la Societe des Arntricanistes de Paris 67.
Bi.et,on, Pere Raymond
,,je5 ~
,
~ ~ ~~ ~

1952 Porto Rican Prehistory.

T h e New York
Academy of Sciences, Scient,ificSurvey of Porto
Rico and the V i ~ g i nIslands, Vol. 18, pts. 3-4.
N e w York.
Rouse, Irving znd Louis Allaire
1978 Caribbean. In Chronologies i n N e w World
Archaeology, edited by R . E . Taylor and
C.W. Meighan, pp. 431-481. Acadeinic Press,
New York.
Southey, T l ~ o n ~ a s
1827 Chrhronoloyical History o f f h e W e s t Indies, vol. 1.
London.
Sued Badillo, Jalil
1978 Los Carites: Renlidod o Fabulo: Ensayo de Rectifieacion Histories. Editorial Antillana, Rio
Piedras.
Taylor, Douglas M.
1961 El Taino en Relacion con el Caribe Iilsular y el
Lokono. Revista del Institute dr Culfural Puertorripuena 11, pp. 22-25. San J u a n .
Zavala, Silvio A.
1948 Trvbajadores Antillanos en el Siglo XVI. In Es2udios Indianos. Edicioa del Colegio h'acional,
Mexico.

ETHNICITY AND CULTURE

ETHNICITY LOST? ETHNICITY GAINED?

INFORMATION FUNCTIONS OF 'AFRICAN
CERAMICS' IN WEST AFRICA AND NORTH

AMERICA.^
Matthew W. Hill
Department of Anthropology
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario

UColono-Indian ware" was suggested in tlie

1960s by Ivor Noel Hume (1962) as a designation
for a class of hand- niodeled, low-temperature
fired pottery found with some regularity in southern Virginia colonial sites. The vessel forms were
often recognizably European in derivation, and
the inference upon which the label rest,ed was
that these pots were produced by local Indian
groups and used by European colonishs or, more
likely, their African slaves.
As a label for such pottery, UColono-Indiann
had currency in the historic archaeological literature of the southeastern United States for
more than a decade before the possibility was
recognized that other cultural origins might be
involved. This suggestion came initially from
Richard Polhemus, who, in the course of a. visit
to Ghana, noted similarities between the contemporary pottery which he observed in use there
and Colono-Indian ware (Polhemus 1977, cited
in Ferguson 1980). Polhemus's suggestion that
some Colono-Indian ware may have been made
by African slaves was developed by Leland Ferguson in 1978 (Ferguson 1980). The contraction
'Colono ware", si~ggest,edby Ferguson, has become standard usage.
There is still reasoli to believe that, ill southern Tidewater Virginia, the local Pahmunkey Indians were makers of Colono ware and, in South
Carolina, the Catawba Indians are documented
as producing pottery for trade (Ferguson and
Green 1983). It is now widely acknowledged
that, in the southern United States and parts
of the Caribbean, African slaves were probably
the main, though not necessarily always tlie only,
producers of Colono ware. This conclusion is, of

course, safest for those parts of the Caribbean

in which local Indian populations were destroyed
early.
It is more difficult to assess the problem in
areas where African slaves fled from early European expeditions and took shelter among local Indian populations, or where a long existence
of colnmunities of mixed Indian-African aacestry is documented (Nash 1982: 285-291). The
traditional cultural inventories of such communities may have bee11 considerably influenced by
African immigrants. I am not convinced that the
very early escapees would have influellced pot,tery traditio~lsin any obvious way. Two reasons
for this are:
(1) The early escapees seem lnainly to have
been men, (the Avila settlement in Georgia is
a possible but den~ographicallyuncertain exception) and African potters are almost universally
female (in an exceptional case which may be pertinent, Jobs011 (1932) noted male clay workers
who were housebuilders and pipe makers, as well
as potters, aniong Ganibian Mandinka). The
purely statistical probability of African influence
having affected soutl~easternlndian pottery traditions before the onset of large-scale slave importation, then, seems small.
(2) It is questionable as to whether or not one
could discriminate a t all between cultural influences of Africa aud aboriginal America on pottery which is both t e c l ~ n i c a l land
~ stylistically
very simple, recovered from sites dominated by
European pottery .
Nonetheless, it is clear, sometimes froni the recovery context of Colono wares (as in the admirable work of Leland Ferguson in South Car-

136

olina), occasionally perhaps from stylistics, and

sornetirnes from tlre absence of potential aboriginal potters, t h a t African slave potters were the
primary makers of Colono ware.
For expedierrcy, I restrict my discussion here
to the Carolinas, relying heavily on Ferguson's
work, unpublished aspects of which he has generonsly shared. For our i~xrtnediatetopic, what is
of interest is the contention that the use of Colono
ware came to be an indication of Carolills black
identity (Fergnson 1985), either as an assertion
of cultural identity, as a marker, or incidental to
it, as a map '.
It is esse~ltiallya t this point that I enter the
scene as an Africanist archaeologist, bearing with
me negative irrformation of an interesting sort.
The burden of this is that, excluding a. set of
simple technological elements so widespread as
to constitute a plausible (Elementurgedunken),
there is darnr~edlittle in Colono ware assemblages
wl~iclr looks familiar to this student of recent
African pottery.
Let me be quite clear here that I am not disagreeing with Polhemus's discovery, nor am I
belittling its importance. I am simply arguing
that what he saw in Africa as resemblir~gColonoIndian seems, to me, less an African than a basic,
non-wheel, unglazed, clamp-fired pottery-making
tradition. Had priority of knowledge been reversed, that is, had an archaeologist familiarwith
a Colono-African ware had a first exposure to a
thriving American Indian ceramic tradition, the
equivalent discovery, of an American source for
tlre "African" elements, might well have been
made. Noel Hume's original insight seems t o
have been of this sort. My experience, in n~oving
from the Mississippi Valley to t,he Sewa Valley
of Sierra Leone and in showing sherd collections
from much of West Africa to Woodlands specialists, suggests to me that, controlling for material, mixed sherd collections from the two regions
wlriclr lack locally cllaracteristic decoration would
be difficult to distinguish.
Controlling fc~rmaterial is, of course, precisely
what the transport of African potters to the Carolinas would do. They had, perforce, to work
with locally available resources; and it is selectiorr among those resources which, in some cases,
may make it possible to differentiate African from
Indian potters 911 the basis of material input. I
mention tlris possibility because in at least one
case, in Virginia, I have been convinced thab such
resource selection differences do exist 3 .
What I suggest, then, is that the label Colono

ETHNICITY AND CULTURE

ware has become something of a lowest cornmon

attribute cluster, grouping those sherds which:
(1) are found in sites of clearly Euro-colonial
assemblage type, but
(2) are rreitlrer wheel made, nor glazed, nor
fired at temperatures which inrplicate use of the
kiln4.
The result is a lrodge-podge which is simply unamenable t o analysis on any obvious set of simple
parameters. I would guess t h a t solid appraisals of
t,he dynamics of the technological development of
Colono ware will be made at a sub-regional level,
and will require good samples of both known
proveniance and fine tenrporal control. If any
concepts nowr current are to be useful, my hunch
is that they will relate to Redmond's "analytic
individual" or to the art historians "atelier" or
'attribution to the school OF.
A11 this, however, is incidental to the major
question I wish to address here. Why, in a pottery grouping which clearly must have significant
West African sources, is there so little which is
recognizably West African?
The first and most obvious answer is that tlrere
is little about any pottery made in West Africa
which can be meaningfully described as West
African. Beyond that Ulowest common ceramic
attribute cluster" of wl~ichI have spoken, and
which I suspect can be found in every non-wheel
pottery area of the world, tlrere are as many differences among West African pottery traditions
as in any like-sized area. Over equivalent distances, traditions as unlike as t.he Jroquoian and
the Pueblo are to be seen in West Africa, in recent
centuries at least (and it is only recent centuries
whiclr are of interest here).
If we consider tlre range from which most of
the slaves brought to tlre New World canre (from
Angola t o Senegal), the ceramic diversity is immense. Drawing on my experience in the northern half of that range, in Ivory Coast, Sierra
Leone, and Senegarnbia, I find few conrmon characters which might not be matclred from Illinois
to Japan. There is afizndamcntal homogeneity in
technology throughout the region, which is coupled with a rlrarvelous diversity in visual effect.
As a student of West African pottery, it is that
lack of diversity which I find the most striking
feature of Color~oware. Beyond a few examples
of applied red (found mainly in Virginia), and
scattered efforts at burnislring (possibly in inritation of the reRect,ivity of glaze or the concentricities of wheel marks), elements which may loosely
be called decoration are minimal in those Colono

Hill/lNFORMATION FUNCTIONS O F 'AFRICAN CERAMICS'

ware assemblages I have seen.

The remainder of this paper is devoted to exploring why this decorative exuberance which,
however diverse its local expressions, is so characteristic of West African pottery traditions, is
so strikingly absent in the pottery of the African
diaspora.
My contention here is that, whatever else
may be represented (and there is certainly nrucl~
more), pottery decoration in West Africa has important social significances which are unlikely to
be present in Colono ware. I will illustrate by reference to sites of the historic period (Hill 1980) of
tlre middle Gambia River, sites from which some
Carolina slaves undoubtedly came. My best arcllaeological samples are from the site of Gassang,
historic Cassan. An important port, trade centre
for the kingdom of Upper Niani in the early period of European contacts, Cassan's importance
declined as patterns of both trade and hydromorphology altered over time, until it disappeared
early in this century.
At Cassan, as described by both Portugese and
English observers, there flourislred a local court
of some pretension under a silatigui (usually,
though roughly, translated as duke). This officer
held power under a ruler whose capital city was
some miles inland. In Cassan and its environs
were several African ethnic groups, whose identities reflected political and ecorlomic assertior~sas
well as social traditions. African manufactures
and European imports, some transshipped from
Asia, were manipulated in support of such assertions (Donellia 1977; Jobson 1932).
Artefactually, all this is largely represented by
an impressive collection of locally made pipes of
some technological and artistic merit and a similarly fine and diverse pottery assemblage. Unfortunately, the available assemblage comes from
surface collections and small test pits, and includes few reconstructable vessels. My interpretations are therefore based mainly on sherds and
largely 011 rims. What is striking is the rather
large proportion of elaborately decorated, even
ostentatious, pots as compared to simpler and
probably more utilitarian vessels. Three sorts of
pots stand out:
(1) small apertured, rather bulbous vessels
with diverse and generally elaborately decorated
upper portions. Based on the general form (voluminous but of small aperture), these may be
interpreted as water or perhaps palm wine pots
for the public and probably socially significant
sharing of drink among local grandees.

137

(2) a series of rather large, open bowls, again

with elaborate decoration of the rim and upper
portion. These seem likely to have been for serving starchy staples (rice, millet, sorghum or such
derivative preparations as couscous) in social settings similar to those described above.
(3) a set of smaller but similarly decorated vessels, probably for holding sauces into which 1ra11dfuls of the starch were dipped.
The elaboratior~level of ceramics from my nrajor test area at Cassan seems to be rather higher
than in collections from a second test at the opposite end of the site. I suspect that this is due
t o differences in the socioeconomic levels of the
relative midden catchments.
Comparative collections are yet more limited,
but my impression is that the pottery samples
froin other historic period sites in NianiKingdom
do not have as high a level of elaborated vessel
forms as do the Cassan collections. Small sample
sizes, very gross chronological control, and lack
of site function d a t a for most collectio~~s
limit
the assurance with which I make that statement.
However, the impression gained from the archaeological and historical material as well as from
experience of African village life is that a body
of prestige goods, including ceramics, was being
ma~ripulatedas one means of asserting social and
economic ascendalrcy and ethnic identity.
It seems obvious to me that the context of ceramic production and use under American slavery differed vitally from that just described. The
eco~lomicsof both production and distribution
musk have differed markedly from those of the
G a n ~ b i a n(or any other African) situation. The
high level of external organization and direction
of activities must have structured the options
of potters in ways very different from tlrose in
African settings. Likewise, the economic and social settings of consumptio~lwere altered. Who
anrong the slaves on a plantation had tlre need
or tlre wlrere~vitlralto exhibit status in such ways
as I have described? Who, among the masters,
would chose slave handicrafts as the means t o do
so?
On one level, the forms of distinctive and technically demanding pottery may have been lost in
the new context because tlre functions of those
forms were altered, as a result of structural differences in the social contexts of production and
consunlption between Africa and America. A second iniportaat factor cannot be overlooked. The
social models of African born slaves ~riusthave
been as heterogeneous as their societies of ori-

138

ETHNICITY A N D CULTURE

gin. Although there were certainly common p- oratively impoverished character of most Colono
rameters (hierarchies, etc.) in these many mod- wares.
At t h e same time, the practical advantages of
els, their symbolic expressions must have been
markedly divergent. However, American slavery local supplies for essential utilitarian vessels and
their relative accessibility ( a s compared to iron
cot~stituteda n efficient ethnic melting p o t
Despite documented local preferences for pots, a European monopoly) were sufficient t o
slaves from particular places, the mechanics of sustain production of Colono wares for centuries
the slave trade b o t h in Africa and in America (compare Lees and Kimery-Lees 1979). Eventuworked t o obliterate ethnic groups. It tore, not ally, a s a distinctively slave portion of the techAfricans, but Mandinka, Wolof, Fula, Bainuk, nical frame of colonial life, locally made earthetc., from their home societies and tlrrust these enware Inay have taken on new s~gnificancein
ir~dividualsinto a series of new and alien social the assertion of black identity. Whether o r not
milieus: n~ilieuswhich were forcibly structured Colono ware was ever a n important marker of
from outside and often largely made u p of per- black identity, a s Ferguson (1985) seems t o mainsons of diverse ethnic backgrounds, These human tain, i t seems t o provide a good partial mapaggregates were, in t u r n , re-sorted a t t h e whim ping of black propinquity (compare Lange a n d
of non-participants, until individuals were again Handler 1985:22-24). Colono ware is remarkable,
integrated into a more o r less long- lasting so- however, not for being distinctively African, b u t
cial group a s working slaves. While individual for being distinctly non- European. Any ethnic
African traits wPre clearly retained a n d in some messages carried by Colono ware are the products
cases became integrated into new cultural pat- of Carolinan oppositions rather than of African
terns, social life could not b e structured t o fit origins.
the models learned in African societies5.
NOTES
To restrict mvself t o t h e Colono ware c roblem, the American setting must have been one in
1. This paper incorporates and expands parts of
which potters who so'lght to
more than
papers read at the 1985 Chacmool Conference on
personal needs encountered diverse a n d unfamil- ~ ~ hand~~ i ~~andi the~l ~ ~~ t~lgBF,
j l confer~,
~
iar expectations. Bansactions in which first- ence in Berkeley, California, which honoured Profesgeneration slave consumers and producers of pot- sor J , Desmond Clark. H e l ~ f n lcomments on eartery had symbol systems ~ I common
I
were prob- lier versrons have been provided by Leland Ferguson,
ably few indeed. Gone a s well were familiar op- Jerry Handler, and rnembers of the Calgary audiportunities o r needs t o display ethnic, economic, ence. I gratefully acknowledge their contributions,
social or political identity through property. Just and absolve them of all responsibility for the faults
a s t h e comlnon speech of slave populations be- in the product. Evilou Hill provided invaluable moral
came, as a rule, a dialect of t h e language of the support and editorial guidance. Research on which
this paper draws was supported by: the Royal Ondominant European population, so t h e material
tario Museum, the Social Sciences and Humanities
symbols of status seem, again by a n d large a n d Research Council of Canada, and the Small Grants
from an arcllaeological perspective, derived from Committee, University of Waterloo. Generous access
the dominant, European techno- synlbolic inven- to collections and information was provided by Colotory.
nial Williamsburg, Inc., the Virginia Research CenTo disarm some criticism, I a m aware t h a t sta- ter for Archaeology in Yorktown, the South Carolina
tus hierarchies were present among slaves and Institute of Archaeology, and the Florida State Mut h a t these did not simply mimic the I~ierarchical seum. Leland Ferguson, Stanley South and Kathleen
models of slave owners. My point is t h a t nei- Deagan were especially generous with their expertise.
2. While the distinction made here is not an unther the social models used bv Carolinian slaves
common
one, it %nayhe worth illustrating my use of
llor the material forms througil whicll those
the terms marker and map. Near my home, there live
els were manipulated o r expressed could replicate
a nuruber of conservative anabaptist groups: Alnish
African originals. I suggest t h a t in newly estab- and Mennonite, Some among these groups choose to
lished 'lave colltexts, a lack of
symbols set themselves m a r t from their neiehbours in obvious
across popnlat,ions of disparate origins, coupled ways, e.g. the rkstriction of dreas t o a limited range
with t h e irrelevance of most of t h e messages bra- of peculiar forms. In this way, they mark themselves
ditionally carried by pottery decoration, spelled as a distinctive people. However, there are other and
the quick demise of sociotechnic aspects of pot- less outwardly directed signs by which they may be
tery making. It is this which resulted in t h e dec- recognized. Some choose, for example, not to use

H i l l / l N F O R M A T I O N F U N C T I O N S O F ' A F R I C A N CEFHAMICS'

electricity. Unlike their selection of clothing, the absence of power lines running into the farm seems to
be an incidental rather than a deliberate, outward
mark of their peculiarity. Despite this, the absence
of power lines effectively maps their group identity.
3. Inadequate notes prevent identifying the individual who demonstrated this to me. My general
acknowlpdgements go to the staff of the Virginia Research Center for Archaeology, Yorktown.
4. Dr. Kathleen Deagan of the Florida State Mnseum made these points clear to me.
5 . It may be objected that very many of the slaves
arriving in the Carolinas did not come directly from
Africa, but had been introduced to plantation life in
the Caribbean before being shipped to the continent
(Dunn 1971). This objection cannot affect the argument. I t merely relocates the geographical setting
for the emergence of a de-socialized Colono ware one
giant step south but keeps it on the western end of
the middle passage. If my contention here is correct,
there were probably multiple emergence8 of very similar Colono ware traditions (cf. Wheaton and Garrow 1985: 261; for other traditions see Gartley 1979;
Matthewsan 1972).
REFERENCES CITED
Donelha, A.
1977 A n Account of Sierra Leone and the Rivers of
Cape Verde (1625), edited by Avelino Teixiera
Da Mota. Translated by P. E . H. Hair. Junta
de Investig,zcoes Cientificss do Ultramar, Lisbon.
Dunn,R. S.
1971 The English Sugar Islands and the Founding
of South Carolina. South Carolina Historical
Magazine 72:81-93.
Ferguson,L.
1980 Looking for the "Afro" in Colono-Indian Pottery. in Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicity in America, edited by Robert L. Schuyler,
pp. 14-28. Baywood, Farmingdale, New York.
1985 Struggling with Pots in Colonial South Car-

olina. Paper presented at the 18th meeting of

the Society for Historical Archaeology, Boston.
Ferguson, L. and S. Green
1983 Recognizing the American Indian, African
and European in the Archaeological Record
of South Carolina. In Forgotten Places and
Things: Archaeological Perspectives on American History, edited by Albert E. Ward, pp. 275282. Contributions to Anthropological Studies
3. Center for Anthropological Studies, Albuquerque.
Gartley, R . T .
1979 Afro-Cruzan Pottery - A New Style of Earthenware from St. Croix. Journal of the Virgin
Islands Archaeological Society 8:47-61.

139

Kill, M. H.
1980 Archaeology in Gan~bianNiaui: History and
Prehistory. Proceedings of the 8th Panafricnn
Congress of Prehistory and Quaternary Studies, edited by Richard E. Leakey and Bethwell
A. Ogot, pp. 367-368. TILLMIAP, Nairobi.
Jobson, R.
1932 The Golden Trade. Reprinted. Penquin Press,
London. Originally published 1623, London.
Lange, F. W. and .I.
S. Handler
1985 The Ethnohistorical Approach to Slavery.
InThe Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation
Life, edited by Theresa A. Singleton. Academic Press, New York.
Lees, W. B. and K. M Kimery-Lees
1979 The Function of Colono-Indian Ceramics: Insights fro111 Limerick Plantation, South Carolina. Historical Archaeology 13:I-13.
Matthewson, D. R.
1972 Jamaican Ceramics: An Introduction to 18th
Century Folk Pottery in West Indian Tmdition.Jamaica Journal 7(1-2):25-29.
Nnsh, G. B.
1982 R e 4 White and Black. 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs.
Noel Hume, I.
19G2 An Indian Ware of the Colonial Period. Ar~haeologicaiSociety of Virginia Quarterly Builetin 17:l.
Polhemus,R.R.
1977 Archaeological Investigations of the Tellico
Blockhouse Site(40MR50): n Federal Military
and Trade Complez. Submitted to the Tennessee Valley Authority.
Wheaton, T. R. and P. H. Garrow
1985 Acculturation and the Archaeological Record
in the Carolina. Low Country. In Thc Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life, edited by
Theresa A. Singleton. Academic Press, New
York.

ETHNICITY AhrD CULTURE

ARCHAEOLOGICAL ETHNICITY A N D THE

PREHISTORY OF LABRADOR
William W. Fitzhugh
normalsize Srnithsonian Institut,ion
Washington, D.C.
1NTR.ODUCTION

search in partic111a.r and grou,ing interest in social

interpretation generally call for further discussion
of et,flrricidentifica.tion and frames of reference in
northern archaeology.

During the past half century, archaeology has

sequentially explored a series of new theoretical
approaches including typology, chronology, evolution, and ecology. Recently econo~nicand soARCHAEOLOGICAL ETHNICITY:
cial theory have bcerr popular snbjects of inquiry.
THEORY AND METHOD
Social bou1ldill.y formation and maint,enance and
Et.11nicity is a concept easier to define in the abethllic i ~ ~ t e r ~ ~are
t i oaspects
~s
of social theory
receiving att,ention (Bender 1985; Ellell 1978; stract than to perceive a s a social reality. BoundGreen and Perlrnan 1985; Hodder 1982; Wiess. aries of social groups are often obscure in livner 1983; M'ilrnsen 1973; Wobst 1974). Tllese in- ing societies and probably were equally unclear
quiries lrave been stimulated by advances ill gen- in prehistoric ones, not t o speak of their tlecerremains. Soera] autllropological theory (e.g. ~
b 1982;~ tain ~expression
~ in ~arctraeological
i
Barth 1989; Bennett 1975; Heider 1976; Lee and cial groups and their insignia are as cliarrgeable
as other aspects of culture. lJnfortunately, clasDeVore 1976) and by ethnohistorical research.
sic ethnographic st,lrdies describe t,lle relationship
Ethnic issues have llad an import,allt
in arctic and subarctic arcllaeology for r,iany between mat,erial culture types and et,lrl~icityin
drcades. Cont,inuities between llistoric cultures rat,her static terms. Ebr a Inore dynamic view
and remains Iron1 abandoned
establislled new models of belravior and culiure charlge must
etl~nographic"up-st,reamingn as a founding prin- be applied.
Ethnicity signifies a self-perception of common
ciple in arctic archaeology @kin 1978). In
some countries, notably Dellmvrk and tile Soviet social identity expressed in a people's sha.red tralinion, in some cases, arctic arclraeology is still ditions, ideology, and c o m ~ n o nllistory as a people. As Barth (1969) has pointed out, ethaicconducted in etlrnograplric departments.
ertheless, reacting against history alrd practice, ity is part of a corrrmunicat~ionsyst.em signaled
Schindler (1985) has attacked "normativen the. and reinforced by overt and covert ir~anifestaory, e t l ~ n o g ~ ~ prrrodels,
l~ic
arid racial typology tions. Some of these sigtlals are cornn~urricat,eda s
in northern research, silrgling out st,udies lltiliz- settlement patterns, house styles, artefacts and
ing the lndian/Eskimo diclrotomy as especially co"umes, as well as by styles, symbols, and even
flawed.
raw material preferences.
A large number of et,hnic issues are of conThis paper addresses t h e Indian/Eskimo di.
chot,omy a s one aspect of the geners~ sub- cern to archaeologists, but the central concern
ject of ethllicity in uort.henl archaeological re- isrecognition of social boundaries by virtue of
search. Special attention is given to its role continuities and discontinuities expressed in spain Labrador archaeology where tile ethllograp~lic tial terms. The task for the archaeologist inberIndian:subarctic/Eskinlo:arctic correlation llas ested in social inference is to recognize correlates
bee11 a focal point for investigating challges of social behavior, t o identify spatial patterns
in prehistoric cult,ure areas and e n v i r o ~ l m e n t ~ lresulting from social boundaries, and to interboundaries (Fit,shugh 1972; Fitzhugh and J,amb pret the meaning of these patt'erns. Since social
~
critique of my re- boundaries are established at different scales of
1985). S c l ~ i n d l e r '(1985:481-2)

142

social group size, arcliaeological studies of ethnicity rnust utilize geograplric and clrronological databases of varying scales with tight syncl~ronouscontrol. An extensive, well-defined arcllaeological record is a prerequisite.
Etlrnicity is likely t o be expressed as consistent stylistic patterns in a wide range of cultnral, linguistic, and perhaps biological forms.
Thus, "whole culturesn (culture areas) sltould be
studied as well as chronological and spatial dimensions of discrete traits and trait complexes.
In most Eastern Arctic and Subarctic regions i t
is generally assumed, perhaps erroneously, t h a t
"tribal" ethnic nrrits a n d archaeological culture
areas are spatially congruent. Although t,lris is a
con~nrona s s ~ m ~ p t i oinn siniple hunbing and gathering societies, it does not l ~ o l dfor the more complex societies of the Western Arctic and Northwest Coast wllere economic specializa.ttion and social stratiticatior~occrlrred and multi-ethnic a n d
sometin~es multi-racial group composition existed. T h e diagnostic value of criteria will vary
according to t h e specifics of a particular case.
ethnic it,^ stndies are most defensible in protohistoric cont.exts o r in cases of exceptional organic preservation. Anchoring by the direct historical approach t,o a known ethnographic context may be t h e only reasonably sure way t o
extend historic ethnic identifications into a prellistoric sequence. Tlreoretically, however, ethnic
boundaries sliould be observable s t r i c t . 1 ~
fro111 arclraeological d a t a . T h e problem is in isolating
and recognizing tlrese patterns a s social plrenomena and not. a s expressions of other domains.
As noted above, ethnic concepts have been
used frequently in arctic archaeology. Early examples include t h e arguments of Boas, Rink,
Steensby, and Birket-Smitll relating to inland origins of Eskimo culture. As concensus emerged
for Thule origins in the Western Arctic, t h e
search for disent,angling Eskimo, Aleut, and Indian rclarionslrips blossonred tlrere, and continues. In the Eastern Arctic, debates over ethnicity engaged Collins, Matlliassen, and Jenness
(reviewed in Taylor 1968:2) over the nature of
DorsetiThule distinctions. They were also involved in Meldgaard's (1962) ideas a b o u t Dorset
origins in the northeastern forests; in Strong's
(1930) notions t h a t Labrador's Old Stone Culture might lrave been the progenitor of Thule and
hist,oric Innit. culture; and in the Lee-Plumet debate about Xorse or Dorset origins of northern
Quebec Dorset lo~igliouses(Plumet 1976). Archaeological excursions into etlrnic issues have

ETIJhrlCITY AA'D CULTlJRE

also included use of classification terminology
such a s "paleoeskimo" and "~reoeskimo" (e.g.
Maxwell 1976; 1985); use of Inuit mythology for
interpreting TIlule and Dorset. archaeological remains (McGhee 1978; Thomson 1982); use of
ethnograpltic d a t a for lrypotheses testing, as in
McGhee's (1977) "Ivory for the Sea R'on~an";
and use of etlraograpliically-derived adaptation
models (Fitzhugh 1972, 1975; McGhee 1972).
Tlre literature indicates l h a t most arctic archaeologists have found ethnographic d a t a and models more useful than restrictive.
As the same time nort.hern studies aimed
a t elncidating relationships between prehistoric
groups have been closely tied t o traditional metllods of phase or site unit co~nparisonsusing, for
the n ~ o s tpart, gross typology and radiocarbon
dating. As sequences begin t o be filled o u t , we
are begimring t o discover t h a t tlrese methods a s
practiced in t h e past are n o t precise enough t o
answer crucial qnestions a b o u t tlre degree of similarities of assemblages, direction of influence and
change, ~nechanisrnsof change, or regional economic analyses. Understandings of this sort require new techniques: more detailed style and
at,tribute analyses, raw materials sourcing, subsistence analysis, isotopic studies, and further refinement of theory. Rowley's (1985a, b) study
of material culture associated with historic migrat,ions holds pronrise for arcliaeological studies
of migration, a fundamental (and often abused)
nrechanism of arctic culture change. McGhee
(1980, 1981) studied questions of individual style
and male/female tool use and domestic space
assignnrent. Recent research in Labrador has
made a start in these directions by investigations
of Dorset litllic procurement. and exchange systems (Xagle 1984); of Labrador Eskinro socioeconoruic cliaege (Kaplaa 1983, 1985); and of
later Indian c111ture development, ideology, and
boundary maintenance (Loring 1986). T h e wellpreserved nature of arctic archaeological settlements, structures, art,efacts, and middens offer
potent.ial for arctic archaeology to play a key role
in studies of social inference.

SCANDINAVIA A N D ALASKA:
CAVEATS
It is tlre pretr~iseof this paper t h a t investigation of prehistoric ethnicity is an import,ant aspect in a.rchaeological research and t.l~atrnethods
t o identify and interpret ethnic and other social
boundaries should be developed t o advance tlrese
capabilities. As an approach t o t h e problem, I

FiteBogh/PREI~ISTOHY OF LABRADOR

have lolrg believed t h a t the oft-quoted antlrropological credo of independence betaeen biological,
cultural, and linguistic variables has t,o he moderated in interpretive analysis. While a t various
times and places these variables may act independently, social bel~aviorinsures t h a t a t most
times they reinforce each other through the development. and maintena.nce of social boundaries.
While I will not enter into a full exposition of this
belief here, niy argunrent t h a t a no re flexible approach is often appropriate will be illustrated by
d i s c ~ ~ s s i oof
n d a t a from Scandinavia and North
America. Environment,al and geographic varil
are stressed i a this
ables a n d c u l t ~ ~ r acontext
approach.
Marked north-south environniental boundaries
d o not exist between souther11 and northern
Scandinavia, and both areas shared many of the
same land and sea species. Much stronger contrasts existed on an east-u,est axis bet,ween coast,
and interior. A major geographic feabure dist.ing u i s l ~ i ~Scandinavia
~g
from ot,l~crl~igh-latituderegions is presence of c u l t i v a t i o ~and
~ stock breeding
ho~lndariest h a t resulted in the physical juxtaposition and overlap between hunbing and mixed
e c o ~ ~ o nfood
~ y production (Moberg 1960). Further, cultures adapting to northern Scandinavia
were not coofronted with the degree of eavirorrment,al diversity found in Alaska. or in northeastern North America. Finally, peoples who occupied Scandinavia a t the beginning of the hist,orical period were multi-ethnic, quasi-national societies with overlapping social and ecolromic aetworks. Criteria used by prehistoric Scandinavians t.o define ethnic entities have not been archaeologically dist,irrg~rishedfrom the many other
criteria specifying non-ethnic (such as econolllic)
afiliat,ions. Ide~idificationof ethnic groups (Norwegian or Saame, etc.) within t,hir lrist,orical
and environmental setting is difficult (Fitzhugh
1977a; Kleppe 1977)
III Nortll A m e r i c a ~ Eastern
~
Arctic and subarctic research, questions of ethrric identification have usually bee11 framed in broader ethnoracial (e.g. Indian/Eskimo) ternls rather than
in t h e ethno-cult,ural (Saame/Norwegian) terms
favored in European studies because in North
America there has been little merging of Indian,
Eskimo, or European ethno-racial lines. Here native races have maintained separate identities,
and in l~istoricperiods have assimilat,ed European genes and artefact,^ into their own cultures
in ways t h a t maintained rather tllan blurred their
ethnic distinctiveness. Only in a few cases has the

problem of identity emerged as a serious archaeological problem in t h e Eastern Arctic, suclr as

distinguishing seventeent,h to ~ ~ i n e t e e n century
th
Labrador Inuit. from E u r o p e a l ~sites in southern
Labrador (Auger 1987). Less attentio~ihas been
given t o ethno-cultoral (intra-racial) aspects of
ethnicity, and very little work has been done on
social as opposed t o cultural definitions of arclraeological units. In tlre arctic areas particuce
race, language,
larly close c o ~ ~ g r ~ i e nbetween
and culture results from the A.D. 1000 expansion
of Thule cultore, and Thule/Neoeskimo adaptations and geographic isolation from other cultures. Subarctic d a t a are less well understood
in this regard.
Alaska, like Scandinavia, presents complex
problems for cultural, ebhnic, and racial interpretation. Is t'unuk racially and etlrrrically Eskimo?
- almost certainly. Is Old Rering Sea? - probably. B u t , what of Ipiutak, whose skeletal d a t a remains unanalyzed? W h a t of Norton, Kachemak,
Denbigh, Akmak, a n d the more poorly k n o w ~ i
interior cultures for which little or n o skeletal
d a t a exist? Not only don't we know, but it
seems likely t h a t the res~rltswill be ambiguous
a t best,. For this reason ethno-racial classifications are not much used in current Alaskan preBistory, a n d where this has been done they tend
~ s "culture types"
t o he shortlrand d e s i g n a t , i o ~for
rather than being intended as biologically based
racial descriptions.
In Alaska even, use of culture or adapt,at,io~i
types creates problems. Here the archaeological record is more complicated than in Canada
because of greater t i m e depth and great,er cultural and e~rvironmentaldiversity. While there
are many continuities in the Eskimo prehistory
of h'ortliwest Alaska and Bering Strait, there are
few arcliaeological seque~lcesto which this material can be compared. Long-st,anding differences
exist between Eskimo-like coast,al and (Archaic)
Indian-like irrterior con~plexes,but d a t a are too
few t o differe~~diate
these p o p u l a t i o ~ ~orr
s racial,
et,hnic, o r adaptation grounds.
Complexit.y increases t o the s o u t l ~of Bering
Strait. In southern Alaska ethnographic cultures
exhibit such complexity, strat.ifica.t.ion, and crossc ~ ~ l t u rcoat,acts
al
throng11 trade, warfare, slavery
arrd otlrer institutions, wit11 evidence of deep liistorical roots, t h a t litt,le progress has been made
in ethnic or racial history despite valiant efforts
a t int.erpretation by various researchers (Uumond
1965, 1974, 1979, 1987; McGhee 1976; Turner
1985; Greenberg, Turner and Zegura 1986). Even

144

in tlie geographically isolated Aleutian Islands

theories ( a la Lauglrlin 1980) of racial, linguistic, and cultural unity will probably require revision w l ~ e nmore d a t a are available. Consequently,
tlrrougl~outnlost of Alaska concensus on the basis for establishing et.Irnic boundaries archaeologically has not been reached.
Perhaps t h e most important reason for this
situation, other t h a n insufficient arcltaeological
research, is t h a t , except on the North Slope,
clearly-defined environment.al buffer zones d o not
exist. T h e combined presence of forest cover,
whicli reaches the coast in a rinmber of places in
western Alaska, a n d tlie presence of large rivers
penetrat,ing deep into tlie forest interior, create
special enviroiimenbal conditions influencing cult,ure change. These rivers concentrate fish resources, cut across environmental zones, and provide a &able resource base for semi-pernianent
sett,lement. They serve a s r~at,uralcorridors for
coastal peoples to move inland into the forest and
for inland peoples t o adapt. bo coast,al regions.
Evidence of the importance of rivers in channeling adapt,ation is abundant. Bering Sea Eskimo living along t h e forested lower Kuskokaim
and Yukon Rivers significantly influenced Ingalik Indian ntaterial culture, art, festival life in
the nineteenth century (Fitzhugh a n d Kaplan
1982; VanStone 1078), such t h a t careful inspection is required for separation of their ntaterial
culture. Archaeological evidence of peoples documented as Eskimos b n t ntilizing India11 types
of material culture and houses is also known
(Dixon pers. comm.). Less specialized requirements of interior life and poterit,ial for higher
populat,ion densities and socio-economic organization along the more predictable and productive
roast,s may have inade it easier for coastal peoples
t o expand inland t l ~ a nfor interior people t o expand to the coast. For some groups these moverrieittr: were facilitated by econontic interdependence through excl~angeof goods and nraterials.
Thus, in Alaska, contplex geography a n d highly
productive riverine environments contributed to
a c o n ~ p l e xethnographic, racial, linguistic and
cultural panorama in the historic period, illustrating the coinplexity and potential pitfalls of
making etlinic projectio~rsinto prehistory.
North of Bering Strait a different environmenLa1 regime prevails. Tlie North Alaskan rivers
are small, a n d even the Mackenzie Delt,a does
not have resources comparable to most Alaskan
coastal regions. Further east, the forest boundary retreats south, opening a wide expanse of

ETHhrlTJCITY AA'D CLILTtiRE

continet~talt u n d r a whose fisli and caribou resources are too nrodest or t o o unpredictable to
sustain y e a - r o u n d l n ~ m a npopulations of ally size
over the long run. Botli ethnographic and archaeological d a t a suggest t h a t t h e Barren Grounds
were exploited sporadically on a seasonal basis
by groups centered in tlie forest or on the arctic coast. Only t h e Caribou Eskimos are k n o u ~ n
to have maintained perinartetit interior tundra
adaptations in Keewatin (Burch 1978).
T h e ecology of nortltern Labrador-Quebec resembles t h a t of Keewatilr but is even poorer
in upper trophic level productivity. Despite a
north-sout,li forest-tundra boundary hundreds of
miles long in Labrador, interior ecology was impoverished, and most cultures, until t.he advent
of t.he historic fur trade, niaintained coastal or
coastal-interior economies (Figure 1). Without
large s a l ~ l i o nruns, interior life was restricted to
chancy returns from caribou hunting. As a result,
the relatively inore productive and stable coastal
zone, bolstered seasonally by near-ini,erior caribou and fish resources, supported the largest
prel~ist,oricpopulatioris (Fit,zhugh 1972; Jordan
1978).

ETHNICITY IN LABRADOR
PREHISTORY
T h e remainder of this paper explores ethnic issues in Labrador archaeology. Three problems
will be investigated: the question of ideatifying etlinicit,y of archaeological phases in major
cultural traditions; ethnic coittinuities between
phases of cultural traditions; and inter-ethnic
conbacts in tlie historic period.
T h e "subarctic" cultural sequence in Labrador
includes 8,000 years of prelristory l ~ l i i c hhas been
identified etltnically as "Indian" and is classified iirt,o three niajor traditions: Maritime Archaic frorn 8,000 t o 3,500 B.P., "Intermediate"
(Saunders Complex) from 3,500 t o 1,500 B.P.,
and Later Indian (Point Revenge) froin 1,500 to 0
B.P. (Figure 2). Tlie many phases and complexes
wit.hin these traditions hatre been defined by tool
types, raw material use patterns, house forms,
settlenreiit patterns, and other features. Early
Maritime Archaic groups moved int,o Labrador
a t a t i m e when the central Canadian Arctic,
Hudson Bay, and interior Labi-ador-Quebec were
still covered by contiirent,al glaciation. \?'hatever else they may have been, these early peoples must have been racially lridia~iand probably spoke a proto-Algonkian language. Tltese
and later groups never became independent of

gh/PREHISTORY OF LARRADOR

Figure 1 Modern vegetatroll zones arrd cultural clistributions in Labrador-Quebec.

145

ETHh1ICITY A,VD CULTURE

Indian
Neoe~klmo

Paieoeskimo

C]

650 BP

Unoccupied

200 BP

Figure 2: Culture history classificatiorl a n d spatial patterns in Labrador prehistory

Filzhogh/PRI;HISTORY

O F LABRADOR

147

the forest and shrub zones and tllereforc never a t 2,500 B.P. and its replacement of Groswat,er
took up permanent residence in arctic nortl~ern culture on t.he central coast. This boundary is
Labrador. While direct typological and settle- manifested by maintenance of a Groswater isolate
nrent pattern links d o not exist between central t h a t for several centuries resisted assimilation by
Labrador Maritime Archaic groups ancl t h e sub- south-advancing Early Dorset Culture. Whereas
other phase transitions in the Paleoeskimo ses
sequent I~rtermediatePeriod c u l t ~ ~ r e(Fitzl~ugh
1978b:91), conbinuities are evident in southern quence are separated by gaps of several hurldred
Labrador (McGhee and Tuck 1975), a s they are years wit,h few or no sites present, suggesting dealso during later period in the regions north population and new immigration from the Cenof the Gulf of St. Lau,rence until the historic tral Arcdic (Cox 1978; Fitzhngh 1976, 1980a),
n
to
era. Throughout the sequence the relationships the Groswater-Early Dorset t r a ~ ~ s i t i oseems
of Labrador arclraeological asse~nblagesand tra- require an ethnic boundary between Early and
dit,ious lie with cultures of the eastern subarc- Late Paleoeskimo culture. It is significant. t h a t
tic and temperate zones to the south, establish- Groswat,er has been classified with Pre-Dorset
among the early Paleoeski~nogroups while Early
l
ing firm affinity with northeastern c u l t ~ l r a tradiDorset represents a new wave of tecllnological detions.
About 4000 years ago, Pre-Dorset cnlture ap- velopment, and adaptation in the East,ern Arcpeared in northern Labrador aud expa~ldeds o u t l ~ tic. This si~ggestedethnic difference should be
into the Nain-Okak region. Labrador Pre-Dorset irlvestigated in other regions of the East,ern Arcrepresents a terminal shage of the expansion of tic where Groswater, Independence 11, and Early
s
Arctic Small Tool tradition people across from Dorset t r a l r s i t i o ~ ~occur.
A similar time-transgressive slrift occurs wit,h
the previously unoccupied and ice-blocked Canadian Arctic from Alaska. While not a s spe- the appearatice of Neoeskinro culture in Norttzern
cialized in marine hunt,ing t,echniques a s later Labrador about 1,200 t o 1,300 A.D., a time when
Dorset and Thule groups, Pre-Dorset people nev- three different ethnic groups seem to have been
ertheless lrad the basic features of a n Eskimo present (Fitzhugh 1980b:601; Kaplan 1985:45way of life. No Pre-Dorset skeletal remains are 48). Caught bctweelr ~rortlrward-advancingPoint.
known, but Dorset remains from Newfoundlarrd Revenge (Indian) groups and southward-moving
have been identified a s racially Eskirno (Ander- T l ~ u l e(Eskimo) groups, Late Dorset people exson and Tuck 1974). Thus there is some bi- isted in n o r t l ~ e r nLabrador until about 1,400 A.D.
ological justification for using the tern1 "Pale- before beiug replaced by Thule, a third apparof a Labrador culture demonstratoeskimo" t o describe the peoples and cultures of ent it~st,a~rce
the period 4000 t o 800 B.P. in the Eastern Arctic ing resist,auce t o invasion or assimilat,ion. Stories
(Maxwell 1976). Throughout this period strong of Labrador Tunit living among the Inuit may
contrasts are noted between arcliaeological re- refer t o this period, if not to t h e seventeent,h
mains of Labrador Paleoeskirno groups and those century hiat,us in the Tlrule-Labrador Eskitno seof corltenrporary complexes identified as Indian quence, a period of few known sites and 10%-popon the basis of typology, settlement patterns, and ulation levels before t h e beginning of the cornthe geographic t,rail of these traits south iuto the ll1u11s1house period. Possibly the Labrador "Tunits" are not Dorset people but classical Thule
temperate zone.
In Labrador, Paleoeskimo cultures have been folk living among t h e ethuically different, more
divided into two groups, Early Paleoeskimo (Pre- worldly, European-influenced Inuit who followed.
Dorset and Groswater cultures) and Late Pale- If so, there nlay have been great.er ethnic diveroeski~lro(Dorset). Within both Paleoeski~notra- sity within Neoeski~noculture in Labrador aud
ditions, seven distinct phases have been identified t h e Eastern Arctic t h a n has bee11 suspected.
(Cox 1978; Fitzhugh 1980a; Tuck and Fitzhugh
Thus, during the past 4000 years, a consistent
1986). Distinct north-to-south t , i ~ n eslopes are geographic relationship persisted between e t l ~ n i recogrlieed in t h e appearance of several of these cally divergent groups identified as Eskimo aud
phases in Labrador. Of most interest is the Indian. T h e former took control of northern
strong diclrotomy in material culture, raw ma- Labrador aud coastal tundra zones and a t tinres
terials, houses, and settlen~entpatterns between occupied the central and sonbl~crn Labrador
Groswater and Early Dorset phases. Also tlrere coast, Newfoundland, and the Quebec North
is a 300-year time slope between the first appear- Shore. During these tinres Indian cultures had
l i ~ n i t e d ,if any, access t o coastal resources, a n d
r
ance of Early Dorset sites in n o r t l ~ e r ~Labrador

ETHKICITY AA'D CULTURE

POINT REVENGE

M A R I T I M E ARCHAIC

Figure 3: Prehistoric culture classificat,ions illustrating int~erfacebetween Indian and Eskimo boundaries through time.

Fi&zhugh/PREHISTORI' O F LABRADOR

their adaptations were therefore precarious a t

best (Fitzliugh 1972:157-197). At other times Indian groups took conhrol of coastal territories, either by force o r by virtue of Eskimo withdrawal
t o core areas further north. At, least six major
etlr~iicshifts occurred involving five aerritorial reversions: Maritime Archaic (I), Pre-Dorset (E),
Saunders (I), Groswater ( E ) , Dorset (E), Point
Revenge (I), and Tlrule (E) (Figure 3; Fit,zhugh
1972, 1977b, 1980a,b). Since Indian groups never
abandoned the interior a n d needed coastal resources seasonally, their presence i a the forest
and forest-tundra zones west of Eskimo coastal
territories south of Okak accou~itsfor a major
part of the dyr~arnicsof t h e past 4000 years of
Indian-Eskimo cult.ure hist,ory, prompting conflict and tlireatening Eskimo groups wit11 loss of
coastal territories. While Indian groups maint,ained steady pressure on Eskimo-held coastal regions soutli of t h e forest boundary, aud a t times
as far rrortlr as R a m a h Bay, Eskimo gronps never
tlireaterled Indian control of t h e interior. Tlius
the relative posit.ion of these culture areas remained intact even though t h e locat,ion of their
geograplric ir~terfaceschanged.
These broad outlines of Indian-Eskimo c u l t ~ l r e
dynamics are quite clear in t h e archaeological
record. W h a t is less clear is t h e more detailed
picture - t h e spatial and cliror~ologicalgaps and
tlle periods for which we have little data. T h e
characterist,ics and significance of "stablen and
"unstable" cult~uralpatt,erns (cf. Plog 1986) is
a n important subject of future research. Refinement of Labrador culture history is already begilrning t o produce results, as demonstrated by
the suggest,ion t h a t Maritime Archaic and PreDorset cult,l~resmaintained outliers inside each
others' territories c. 4000-3500 R.P. (Fitzhugli
1984). More work is needed on t h e late PreDorset-Saunders, the Dorset-Point. Revenge, and
the seve~rteerrtlrcentury Tlrule-Inuit transitions.
It is il~cor~ceivable
t h a t n o irrteraction occurred
during these many thousands of years of reactive
cult.ure area change. Archaeological d a t a represent specific events which archaeologists are too
frequently ternpied t o interpret as long-standing
patterns. While tire rnodel presented here best
fits the d a t a available, the real 11ist.ory of IndiaaEskimo cultural relations cannot have been s o
idealized and rigidly patterned. Yet despite their
physical proximity and awareness of each others'
artefact forrns, subsistence, settlement syst,ems,
a n d ideologies, very little evidence of cultural
exchange is recorded in Indian and Eskimo ar-

149

chaeological finds. Pre-Dorset toggling lrarpoon

teclrr~ologymay have been inspired by Marit.ime
Archaic prototypes. Other evidence for continued influence or interaction is seen in Saunders
and Point Revenge access to Ranrah cliert, either through e x c l ~ a ~ i gwith
e
Eskimo groups or
by direct procurement through Eskimo-held territory between Okak and Saglek. Alt~Boug11a
few examples of "copied" technology demoastrate knowledge of the otlrer groups' material
culture (Fitshugh 1978a, b ) , tire archaeological
traces of these Indiarr and Eskimo cultures remained higllly dist,inctive and different. Tlie
record therefore documents persistent separateres ss of individual cultures and whole cultural traditions which can only have resulted fronr maintenance of highly effective social boilndaries.
Evidence for Indian-Eskimo i~rteract,ionin the
historic period is a more reliable ir~dicat,orof
the probable nature of preliist,oric conlacts than
are prehistoric rernains. Fhllorvilig the cxpassion of Thule culture into central Labrador about
A.D. 1500, Indian people lost. access to inany
coastal resources and territories. Thereaft,er,
corrt,acts between t h e two groups were generally
hostile, and trade or peaceful exchanges seem t o
have been maintained a t a minimal level (Kleivan
1966; Rogers 1964; Taylor 1979), even thougli
Indians mairrlained control of tlie Davis Inlet
coast,al region.
Tlrroughout. the past 4000 years Indian and Eskimo groups occupied physically adjoining territories apparerrtly wit,lr little territ,orial buffer
eones between them. Few instances exist. when
portions of t h e Labrador coast seems t o have
been unoccupied. No large buffer t.erritories comparable t o the Barren Grounds of Keewatin and
northern Qsebec existed in Labrador. In fact,
data point t.oward close pl~ysicalproximity at. several p o i r ~ t sduring tlieir annual rounds. These
peoples niust have known each otliers' cultures
arid uSaysof life rather well. I11 fact, in many respects Maritime Archaic and Pre-Dorset cullures
were more similar in technology and seasonal subsistence syst,elns than were any subsequelrt Indian and Eskimo co-resident cultures. Althouglr
t,Iris trend 11asnot, been a n a l ~ z e din detail the culture l~ist,oryof Labrador is one of increasing economic specialization (interior caribou hunting for
Indian groups, marine mammal adaptation for.
Eskimos) and t,erritorial bounding. W h a t are the
fact.ors cnusing divergence in t,his record? R'hy
d o we not see convergence in t,he archaeological
or lristorical records?

ETHNICITY AND CULTURE

150

Clues t o tlre answer t o these questions may lie

in ethnographic and historical accourrts of hostility generated by tlre sixteenth century expansion of Thule culture into the central Labrador
coast. This movement placed into direct competition two groups who already were isolated
linguistically, who were physically different, and
who must have been acutely aware of past strnggles and of their deep cultural differences.
These and other factors must be weighed
in consideriug the divergent ethnic patterns in
Labrador culture lristory. Labrador is more similar t o nortlrern Canada in this regard t h a n it is t o
Alaska, despite the closer relationship in Alaska
of forest and t u n d r a ecosystems. In Labrador,
without large fish rivers or a n extended river
fishing season, a n d without economic alternatives t o caribou, coastal resources assumed an
overwhelming importance in native subsistence
st,rategies. Indian and Eskirno groups seem t o
have tlrerefore been drawn into direct competition for t.hese resources south of the forest boundary lvithout the benefit of a geographic buffer
zone. With n o xriable opbion of economic interaction and inter-dependeuce, as seems t o have
pevailed a t least in parts of Alaska in b o t h lristoric and late prehistoric times, Labrador Indian
a n d Eskimo groups had little recourse except direct c o m ~ e t i t i o n . T h e record suraests
the al-"
ternatives were few. Under suclr a con~petitive
system, economic and ethnic interest,^ can be expected t o have been sharply drawn. Resistance
t o colrvergence and emplrasis on development and
maiutenance of cultural disti~rctive~ress
are values
t h a t wollld have been strongly held and actively
promoted. Economic interdependence was not
a n option available t o t m d i t i o ~ r a lcultures of the
Labrador coast any more than it was for its relatively impoverislred int.erior.
Processes such as these may have characterized Labrador inter-cultural relations since t h e
first arctic peoples appeared. It seems likely t h a t
economic competition for coastal resources has
been a major factor in ~nai~rtairiing
clllturally distinct populationsand t,hat socialresponses t o this
reality have fostered cultural divergence rather
t,han convergence, except in discrete elements of
coastal technology such a s the toggling harpoon
complex. Social and economic stress, involving
ideological a s well a s subsist,errce factors, probably eucouraged the niaintenance of s h a r p contrasts in style, technology, dress, ideology, and
other domains. Since trends are evident in the
northward and soutlrward distribution of Eskimo

and India11 traits respectively, localized processes

a t this high-profile etlrno-cultural boundary obviously have t o be considered as only one aspect of the larger culture histories and dist,ributions of these traditions. Nevertheless, distinctiveness was maintained in Labrador, and in
northern Quebec and Keewatin in ways t h a t are
not so evident in western and southern Alaska.
Are ethnic marking features rrlore sharply defined
in societies a t the edges of culture areas, or are
they more responsive to identification with ethnic "signalsn coming from "core areas"? IndianEskimo contrasts, especially a s seen through the
rich resources of museum collections, ethnographies aud wchaeology offer anrple opportunities
for snclr studies. Exploration of etlrnic pat,terns
is likely t o continue to provide anthropologists
with fertile fields for the future.

I would like to thank Stephen Loring for a number

ofstiniulating discussions on the subject of etl~inicity
in late prehistoric and liistoric cultures which is to be
the subject of his forthcon~ingPh.D., and to Aaron
Cromwell for comnients on an early draft. I would
also like to thank Julie Permutter for preparing the
illustrations.
REFERENCES CITED

Abruzzi, William S.
1082 Ecological Theory and Ethnic

Among Human Populations. Current Anthropology 23(1):13-25.

Anderson, Jsmes E., and Janiee A . Tuck
in the
1974 Osteology of the Dorset People,
Northeast 8:89-97.
Auger, Reginald
1987 Probabilities for a Late Eighteenth Century
Inuit Occupation of t h e Strait of Belle Isle.
Etudes/hrait/Studies, in press.
Rarth, Frederik
1989 Social Groups and Boundaries. IAtle, Brown,
Boston.
Bender,

1985 Prehistoric Developments in t h e American Midcontinent and in Brittany, Northwest

France. In Prehistoric Hunter-gatherers, edited
by T. Douglas Price and James Brown. Academic Press, Orlando.
Bcnnett, John W. (editor)
1075 The New Etlrnicity. Perspectives froni Ethnology. Proceedings of the American Ethnological
Society, 1973.

Fitzhugh/PREIIISTORY OF L A B R A D O R

Burch, Ernest S., J r .

1978 Caribou Eskimo Origins: An Old Problem Reconsidered. Arctic Anthropology 15(1):1-35.
Cox, Stephen
1978 Paleo-Eskimo Occupations of the North
Labrador Coast. Arctic Anthropology15(Z):9GDekin, Albert A., J r .
1978 Arctic Archaeology: Bibliography and History.
Garland Press, New York.
Dunlmond, Don E.
1965 On Eskaleutian Linguistics, Archaeology
American Anthropologist
and Prehistory.
67(5):1231-1257.
1974 Prehistoric Ethnic Boundaries on the Alaskan
Peninsula. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 16(1):1-7. Fairbanks.
1979 Eskimo-Indian Relationships: A View from
Prehistory. Arctic Anthropology 16(2):3-22.
1981 Archaeology on the Alaskan Peninsula: The
Naknek Region, 1960-1975. Anthropological
Papers of the University of Oregon 21. Eugene.
1987 An Examination of Eskimo-Aleut Prehistory.
American Anthropologist 89(1):32-56.
Ellen, Roy F.
1978 Ecological Perspectives on Social Behavior.
In Social Organization and Settlement, edited
by D. Green, C. Hnselgrove, and M. Spriggs,
pp. 121-127. British Archaeological Reports
International Series 47(I).
Fitzhugh, William M'.
1972 Environmental Archaeology and Cultural Systems in Hamilton Inlet, Labrador. Smithsonian
Contributions t o Anthropology 16.
1975 A Comparative Approach t o Northern Maritime Adaptations. In Prehistoric Maritime
Adaptations of the Circumpolar Zone, edited by
W. W. Fitzirilgh, pp. 339-386. Mouton, The
Wague.
1976 Outlines of P~leoeskimo Occupation of the
Labrador Coast. In Eastern Arctic Prehistory: Paltoeskimo Problems, edited by Moreau
S. Maxwell, pp. 103.118, Meliroirs of the Society for American Archaeology, No. 31.
1977a Comment on Kleppe'a Archaeological Material
and Ethnic Identification. Norwegian Archoeologicol Review 10(1-2):49-51.
1977b Population Movement and Culture Change
on the Central Labrador Coast. Annala of the
New York Academy of Sciences 286:481-497.
1978a Winter Cove 4 and the Point Revenge Occupation of the Central Lnbrador Coast. Arctic
Anthropology 15(2):146-174.
1978b Maritime Archaic Cultures of the Central
and Northern Labrador. Arctie Anthropology
15(2):61-95.

151

1980s A Review of Paleo-Eskimo Culture History in Southern Labrador and Newfoundland.

Etudes/Inrrit/Studies 4(1-2):21-31.
1980b Preliminary Report on the Torngat Archaeological Project. Arctic 33(3):585-606.
1984 Residence Pattern Development in the
Labrador Maritime Archaic: Longhouse Models and 1983 Surveys. In Archaeology in Newfoundland and Labrador 1983, edited by Jane
Sproull Thomson and Callum Thomson, pp. 147. Annual Report No. 4, Historic Resourcer
Division, Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Fitshugh, William W., and Susan A. Kaplan
1982 Spirit World of the Bering Sea Eskimo. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
Fitshugh, William W., and Henry F. Lamb
1985 Vegetation History and Culture Change in
Labrador Prelristory. Arctrc and Alptne Research 17(4):357-370.
Grcen, Stantoir W., and Steplrcn Perlman (editors)
1985 The Archaeology oJ Frontiers and Boundaries.
Academic Press, New York.
Grecnberg, Joseph H., Christy G. Turner 11,
Stephen L. Zegura
1987 T h e Settlement of the Americas: A Comparison of the Linguistic, Dental, and Genetic Evidence. Current Anthropology 27(5):477-497.
Heider, Karl G.
1976 Archaeological Assumptions and Ethnographical Facts: A Cautionary Tale from New
Guinea. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology
"?.C"
',,.e'-Ld-x.

C"

Hodder, Ian
1982 Symbols in Action.
Press, Cambridge.

Cambridge University

Jordan, Richard H. (editor)

1978 Selected Papers from a Symposium on Central Labrador Archaeology Presented a t the
American Anthropological Association Meeting, November, 1976, Washington, D.C.,
and the Canadian Archaeological Association
Meeting, May, 1977, Ottawa, Ontario. Arctic
Anthropology 15(2).
Kaplan, Susan A.
1983 Economic and Social Change in Labrador NeoEskimo Culture. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Bryn Mawr College.
1985 European Goods and Socio-Economic Change
in Early Labrador Inuit Society. In Cultures
in Contact: The European Impact on Native
Cultural Institutions in Eastern North America
A.D. 1004.1800, edited by William Fitzhugh,
pp. 45-70. Washington Ant,hropological Society. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

E T H N I C I T Y AA'D C U L T U R E

Kleivan, Helge
1966 The Eskimos of Northeast Labrador: A History
of Eskimo- White Relations, 1771-19.55. Norsk
Polarinstitutt Skrifter 139. Oslo.
Laughlin, William S.
1980 Aleutr: Survivors of the Bering Land Bridge.
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.
Lee, Richard B., and Irven DeVore (editors)
1976 Man the Hunter. Aldine, Chicago.
Luring, Stephen
198G Social Responses t o Scarce Resources and
Ethnic Boundary Maintenance in Small-Scale
Hunting Societies: A Labrador Perspective.
on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Maxwoll, Moreau S. (editor)
1976 Eastern Arctic Prehistory: Paleoeskimo Problems. Memoirs of the Society for American
Archaeology 31.
1985 Prehistory of the Arctic. Academic Press, New
York.
McChee, Robert
1972 Clinlate Change and the Developinent of
Canadian Arctic Cultural Traditions. In Climatic Changes in Areas During the Last 10,000
Years, edited by Y. V a ~ a r i H.
, IIyvarinen, and
S. Hicks. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis Series
A (3), pp. 39-57. O i ~ l u .
1976 Parsimony Isn't Everyt.hing: An Alt,ernative
View of Eskaleutian Linguistics and Prehistory. Canadian Archneological Bulletin 8:62-81.
1977 Ivory for the Sea Woman. Canadian Journal
of Archaeology 1:141-150.
1978 Canadian Arctic Prehistory. National Museunr
of Man, Ottawa..
1980 Individualjstic Stylistic Variabiliby in Independence I Stone Tool Assemblages from Port
Refuge, N.W.T. Arctic 33:443-453.
1981 The Dorset Occupations i n the Vicinity of Port
Refuge, High Arctic Canada. National Museum
of Man Mercury Series, A~chaeologicalSurvey
of Canada Paper 105. National Museum of
Man, Ottawa.

Nngle, Christopher
1984 Lithic Raw Materials Procurement and Ez-

change in Dorset Culture along the Labrador

Coast. Ph.D. dissertation, D e p a r t m e ~ ~oft Anthropology, Brandeis University.
Plog, Frederick
1986 Explaining Patterns of Demographic Growth
and Collapse.
In Spatial Organization and

Ezehangc: Archaeological Suruey on Northern

Black Mesa, edited by S . Plog, pp. 224-255.
Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.
Plumet, Patrick
1976 Les Vikings en Amerique: La Fin d'un Myth?
In Les Vikings et leur Ciuilization, edited by
Regis Boyer, pp. 61-88. Mouton, Paris.
Rogers, Edward S.
1964
The
Eskimo
and
Indian in the Quebec-Labrador Peninsula. In
Le Nouveau-Quebec: Contribution a LEtude de
L'Oceupntion Humaine, edited by Jean Malaurie and Jacques Rousseau, pp 210-250. Ecole
Pratique des Haute Etudes, Sorboruie. Bibliotheque Arctique et Antarctique 2. Paris.
Rowley, Susan
19853 The Significance of Migration for the Under-

standing of Intrit Cultural Development in the

Canadian Arctic. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis,
University of Cambridge.
1985b Population Movements in the Canadian Arctic. Eludes/lnt~it/Studies9(1):3-21.
Schindler, Debra L.
1985 Anthropology in the Arctic: A Critique of
Racial Typology and Normative Theory. Current Anthropology 26(4):475-500.
Strong, William D.
1930 A Stone Culture from Labrador and its Relation t o the Eskimo-like Cultures of the Northeast. American Anthropologist 32:126-144.
Tayior, J. Garth
1979 Indian-Inuit Relations in Eastern Labrador,
1600-197F.Arctic Anthropology 16(2):49-58.
Taylor, M'illiam E., J r .
1968 The Arnapik and Tyaro Sites. Memoirs of The
Society for American Archaeology 22.

McGhen, Robert, and James A . Tuck, J r .

1975 An Archaic Sequence from the Strait of Belle
Isle, Labrador, Canada. National Museum of
Man Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of
Canada Paper 34. Nat,ionnl Museum of Man,
Ottawa.

Thomson, Callurn
1982 Archaeological Findings fro111 Saglek Bay,
1981. In A~chaeology in Newfoundland and
Labrador 1981, edited by Jane Sproull Tliomson and Callum Thomson, pp 5-31. Annual
Report No. 2, Historic Resources Division,
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Meldgawd, Jorgen
1962 O n the Formative Period of the Dorset Culture. In Prehistoric Clalturol Relations Between

Tuck, James A., and Willibm Fitzhugh

1986 Palaeo-Eskimo Traditions of Kewfoundland
and Labrador: A Reappraisal. In Palaeo-

the Arctic and Temperate Zones oJNorth Americe, edited by 3 . M. Campbell, pp. 92-95. Arc-

Eskimo Cultures of Newlotandland, Labrador,

and Lingnun, pp. 161-167. Memorial Univer-

tic Institute of North Ainerica Technical Paper

11.

sity of Newfoundland Reports in Archaeology

1.

Fitzhoyh/PREHISTORY OF L A B R A D O R

Turner, Christy G., II,et al.

1985 The Dental Search for Native American Origins. In Out of Asia: Peopling the Americas and
the Pacific, edited by R. L. Kirk and E . Szatlimary, pp. 31-78. Australian National University, Canberra.
Vanstone, Jaines W.
1978 E. W. Nelson's Notes on the Indians of the
Yukon and Innoko Rivers, Alaska. Fieldiana
Anthropology 70. Field M l ~ s e u mof Natural
History, Chicago.
Wiessner, Polly
1983 Style and Social Inforination in Kalahari San
Projectile Points.Americran Antiquity 48:254276.
Willey, G.R., and Philip Phillips
1955 Method and Theory in American Archaiology.
University of Chicago Press.
Wilinsen, Edwin S.
1973 Interaction, Spacing Behavior, and the Organization of Hunting Bands. Journal of Anthropological Research 29(1):1-31.
Wobobst, Martin H .
1974 B o u n d s i ~ r Conditions for P;rleolithic Social
Syst,ems: A Si~~iulation
Approach. American
Antiquity 39(2):147-178.
1973
The
Archaeo-Ethnography of Hunter-Gat,herers or
the Tyranny of the Ethnographic Record in Archaeology. American Antiquity 43(2):303-307.

APPENDIX I
Critkria Used in Establishing Et,hnicity of Labrador
Prehistoric Groups.
1. Persistent cultural patterning, including distinctive material culture assemblages, adnptation type? and settlement forms, and s relatively complete cultural and environrnental
record;

2. Absence of all acculturative elemeiits in their

assemblages;
3. Predominance of single-component sites;
4. Possibility of affiliating cuitural groupa with
close relatives in southern or northern regions;
5. Generally consistent geographic positioning of
one group \rith respect t o t,he other group;
G. Existence of internally consistent. developmental traditions;
7 . Time-transgressive appearances of new groups
originating from their closest cultural relatives,
north and south;
8. Absence of complex sucio-c~ilturalforms and

relative equivalence of phases with ethnic population~;

9. Continuities into inodern ethnographic horizons.

ETHhllCITY AA'D CtiLTt:RE

CURRENT RESEARCH O N OHIO'S

PREHISTORIC TEXTILES
Flora Church
Department of Ant.hropology
Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio

Current research on Ohio's prehistoric textiles

grew out of a general flurry of activity in Ohio
prehistory in the late 1970s. Various researchers
s t this time were concenied with ideas and issues generated by t.he Rew Archaeology. In Ohio,
~nocliof t.his work focused on the Hopewell culture - what did it, all mean? Tlie Hopewell culture in Ohio is dat.ed from approximately 200
B.C. l o A.D. 400. It. is known largely from
mound and geomet.ric eart.l~workcomplexes and
a wealtli of elaborate burial goods, includirig copper, obsidian, mica, arid sliell objects. T h e grave
goods illustrate a c o n ~ p l e xtrade network, alt,hough the exact social or political basis for this
trade has yet t o be worked out. How could new
approaches (Brann 1979; Brown 1979), new techniques (Greber 1979), and new perspectives (Seeman 1979) shed new light on t h e phenomenon
known as Hopewell? Paleoetl~nobotany,routine
soil sampling, systematic surface survey, and remote sensing t,echniques (including infra-red pliot ography and soil resistivity snrveys) were all atilized t o provide new sources of d a t a frorn the arclraeological record.
Similarly, previously ignored classes of artefacts were accorded fresh considerabion. One
of t.hese classes, that. of textiles, experieliced a
small renaissance of its own. Within Ohio, this
class of artefacts had been t,he subject of descriptive (Miner 1936) a n d classificatory (Willoughby
1938) studies prior t o the 1970s. Now, Iro~vever,
researchers looked to textiles a s a n example of a
perislrable resource (King 1975, 1978; King and
G a r d i ~ e r1981), which even in Ohio could be preserved under the riglit combinat,ion of formation
processes, and which could reveal information on
sociocnltural aspects of prebistorjc populations.
T h e basis for such a n assumption rest,ed wit11
theories of mortuary analysis (i.e., Binford 1972;
Bratin 1981; Saxe 1970; and Tainter 1980, 1981)

and with those of style a s a means of information

exchange (Wobst 1977).
These theories were conrbi~ied in a preliminary study of textiles from three Ohio IIopewell
mound groups - Ilarness, IIopewell, and Seip in 1982 (Church 1983, 1984). Rougllly speaking, mortuary analysis proposes t h a t a yersoa's
status and position in life will be reflected in
tlie kinds alid amounts of burial treat,nient accorded the individual a t death. At this point
in t.ime, mortiiary analyses were being applied
to various elenrents of t h e Hopewell burial complex, i.e., position and location of tonlbs within
mounds. Amounts a n d kiuds of burial accoutrements, including shell, mica, obsidian, copper
plat,es a n d earspools, were also examined. Seem a n (1979), however, was one of the first t o att e m p t an analysis using a perislrable item, in
this case food (fauna1 remains), t,o make inferences a b o u t redistribution. By a fortunate combillation of circumstances (for example, proximity t o copper artefacts and charring), a collection
of otlrerwise perisllable textiles also existed frorn
various Iiopewell monnds.
I11 addition t o mortuary analyses, several noted
researchers were a t this time considel.ilig tlre definition of style and i t s value and place in archaeological interpretation (Conkey 1978, 1980;
Dunnell 1978; Friedricl~1970; Hodder 1978; Kay
1975; Plog 1978, 1980; Sackett 1977; Wobst
1977). Wobst's (1977) theory of style a s a
means of infor~nationexchange seemed particularly appropriate t o t h e study of textiles. His
ideas, coupled with t h e work of Stratlrern a ~ i d
Stratlleri~ (1971), suggested t h a t stylistic behaviour a s manifested in self-decoration and costuming (clothing) could symbolize stat,us and affiliation in terms of prestige and kinship, as well
as membership in social, political, a n d t o r religious groups. In essence, artefacts could broad-

156

cast such messages. Wobst (1977) developed a

model which suggested a t w l ~ i c level(s)
l~
of social
interaction such messages would be most effective. Their efficiency and effectiveness is a function of t,he visibility of the artefact and the social distance between t,lrose individuals who are
interacting. Thus, he suggested tlrat "stylistic
~nessagi~rg
defines mutually expectable bel~avior
patterns and nrakes subsequent interaction more
predictable and less stressful" (Wobst 39773327).
Clothing, then, can be predicted to be used to
emit such messa.ges, because i t has the potential
for high visibility (uralk about a.ny college campus
and note the statements of personal identity being made through dress) and is not restricted to
a single context, (for example, t,lrat of the household).
Given this t.heoret,ical basis, I examined 120
textile specime~ls from t h e Harness, Hopewell,
2nd Seip nrou~rdgroups which are part of tlre
archaeological collections of t,lre Ohio Hist,orical
Society. Sixty-two specimens, chose~rfor size (i
1 c m 2 ) >provenience, a n d technological or stylistic variation, were selected for intensive analysis. T h e textiles had been preserved by several means; for example, one group of fragrnellts
consisted of t.hose which had been preserved by
charring and were either ~ u o u n t e dbetweerr glass
plates or stored in boxes with ashes and other
charred n ~ a t e r i a l .A second group had been preserved by contact with copper artefacts; these
were either ~ n o u n t e dbetween glass plates o r in
sit" upon copper artefacts. A final group, what 1
called t,exbile impressions, had been preserved on
copper artefacts and are what Voll~ner(1975) describes as textile pseudornorpl~sor fossilized fabrics.
T h e biggest problem faci~rgany researcher urit,lr
these textiles is Less their fragmentary and fragile condition a n d sonret,imes awkward met,hods of
curation, than t h e lack of precise provenience. In
~rlostcases it was possible only to assign a fragment to a particular ~nourrdgroup or, rarely, t o
a mound within a group. This, however, was
deemed sufficient for the purposes of the study
since all tlre textiles were from burial contexts.
Tlre actual analysis was based on Emery's
(1906) The Primary Structures of Fabrics. Patterns of lrrannfacture a n d d i a ~ ~ r e t eofr individual
elements proved to be t.he most promising attributes in t.er~nsof potential for rextiles t o reveal inforniat,ion on sociocultural aspects of Ohio
Hopewell. Thirteen pat.terns of manufacture
were identified with 64.5variations and in par-

ETNRICITY AND CLILTURE

ticular weft-taining. Tlre most common pattern
noted was spaced alternate-pair weft-twining. At
this point, diameter of individual elements became important (e.g., the smaller tlre diameder
of elelnents, the finer the t,extile weave and tlre
larger t h e diameter, the coarser tlre weave). It
was determined t,liat Seip Mound 1 exanrples of
spaced alternate-pair weft-twining used elenreats
that were less t,han half the scale of elements used
in the same pattern elsewhere, inclnding Seip
Mound 2. Of the remaining patterns of manufacture, only t,wo - oblique interlacing and open
pairs crossed by pairs - were represented by more
than two examples. Again, t,lre smaller-scale pattern was found a t Seip. T h e pat,terning in the
variability of these (extile attributes seemed encouraging, even though the s a ~ n p l esize is small.
Furt,hennore, various factors supported the
sv~ggestion t h a t a t least. some of the t.extiles
were clothing fragments; five exa~nplesfrom Seip
Mound l appeared t o have a selvage or bound
edge banded by copper stains. At least three of
t.hese appear t o be a deliberat,e slit bound on either side and having copper stains localized on either side of the slit. It was suggested t h a t these
represent buttonholes, with t h e stains suggesting the use of copper or copper-covered buttons.
This inference was strengtherred by the presence
of textile fragments from Seip Mound 2 which
have copper stains witliio small (il m m ) circnlar depressions, indicating t h e presence of small,
round copper objects. Such objects, in fact,, were
recovered during the course of ~nourrdexcavations
a t these sites and were referred t o as possible
butt,ons in the accession list,s. Also, several textile fragrrlents had mica, shell, and copper bits
adhering t o them.
Descriptive reports of the mound excavations
(Mills 1907, 1009; Shetrone 1926; Slretro~re
and Greenman 1931) also suggest t,lrat some of
the textiles were clobtring or cosbumes. One
burial was described as having 'appare~rtly been
dressed in cloth garlne~rtsextending from t h e
neck t o the knees, upon which had been sew11
several thousand beads, some of pearls and others of shell" (Shetrone 1926:36). This burial
also is supposed t,o have contained the remnants
of a headdress of wood, copper, and t.exti1es.
Burial R from Mound 26 of tlre Hopewell Mound
Group also had an elaborate bird-like headdress
of wood, cut mica, ovalcopper wings, and textiles
to which had been sewn large pearl beads, bear
claws, feathers, and t h e head of a small raptorial
(Shetrone 1920:68-71).

C h u r c h / O l ~ I O ' S J'REHISTORIC TEXTILES

l57

Ten textile fragments from Seip lend additional

Thus, ranked by costs, it appears reasosrable t o
support. t o this idea, as they have a maroon and assume llrat the manufacture of such textiles was
yellow design on them and what appear t o be by part-time specialists and, furthermore, t,liat
shell fragments adhering wit.hin small circular de- not every Inember of a group would have had acpressions (Church 1983). O t h e r textiles with or cess t o them. It was suggested t h a t twining variwithout shell and/or pearl i ~ ~ c l u s i o nwere
s
also ations a t such a fine scale would not be fouud
found which I r e f e r to as painted. They may very in common household usage. One clue t o this
was a fabric-impressed sherd fro111 the McGraw
well have been dyed.
Sonre of t h e textiles, then, appear t o have been habitat,ioa site which showed spaced alternatepart of elaborate sets of clotlrilrg o r cost,umes. pair weft-t.wining a t a much coarser scale (i.e.,
Dyed o r painted in bold designs ( W i l l o u g l ~ b ~larger individual elements) tlrar~the nround tex1938) on a n almost white background, decorated tiles. As noted a t t h e outset, a larger sample
with pearls, mica, and copper objects, a n d as- of text.iles in terms of context (i.e., non-nrouad
sociated with large copper plates, these would as well a s mound), spatial and temporal distrihave been highly visible art,efacts. Depending bution is ueeded in order t o test the conclusions
upon t11e natnre of the group o r groups which p u t forth in this preliminary work.
Wobst,'~theory on sbyle as a means of inforparticipated in t ~ l ~burial
e
ceremonies and assaming, t.oo, t h a t s u c t ~costumes would have bee11 uti- mation exchange has also been applied t o Ohio
lized in the lifetime of the individual wit,h whom Hopewell tcxliles by Carr and Hiukle (1984) a n d
they were associat,ed, they were clearly suit,able by Hinkle (1984). Their work, however, ot.ilizes a,
for broadcasting infor1nat:ion about social and/or modified version of t h e information exchange theritual roles beyond the level of tlre household. ory, called a synthetic theory of artefact design
Obviously, l~owever,based on bhe limited num- (Carr and Hitikle 1984). This theory of artefact
ber of sites st,udied and the small overall sample, design was developed by taking the information
it was in~possiblet o estimate the extent of s n c l ~ exchange model of Wobst (1977) and the social
social iuteractions or whether sucli messages also interaction theory of style (Longacre 1964; Whalfunctioned in boundary lnaintelrance between dif- lon 1968) a n d putting them together "by providing appropriate boundary conditions on their
ferent IIopewell groups.
From B r a u ~ r (1979) several other criteria of principles" (Carr a n d Hinkle 1984:Z). Thus, arteznortuary analysis - availabilit,~and ease of pro- fact style is defiued a s a hierarchy of att,ributes
curement, extent of labour input iu m a ~ ~ u f a c t u r e"with attributes a t different level? carrying difand construction, and size or scale - were consid- ferent kiuds of illformation and being det,erlrrined
ered in relation t o the textile fragments. Whit- by different processes" (Carr and Hinkle 1984:Z).
ford (1941) a n d Jones (1948) had already noted T h e ability of a n attribute to participate in int h a t those raw materials thought t o have been formatiou exchalige a n d its visibility were defined
used in Ohio Hopewell t,ext,ile ma~rufacturewere as a function of eight specific variables (ranging
readily available in the region (i.e., milkweed, from size t o its use-life). Having developed a n d
swamp milkweed, slerrder nettle, wood nettle, In- defined their theory, it was then applied to Ohio
dian h e ~ ~ r pelm,
,
and basswood). Thus, avail- Hopewell textiles from ten sit,es.
T h e stated purpose of Hinkle's (1984) research
ability and procurement of raw r~rat,erialswould
have bee11 relatively cheap endeavours in terms was t o investigate t h e process of textile manufacof labour costs. On t h e other h a n d , labour iuput ture both on techr~ologicaland decision-making
in ura~iufactureand c o n s t r u c t i o ~ estirnat.ed
~,
from levels, using the synthet.ic theory of artefact demodern efforts t o re-create prel~istoriccordage sign t o assign belravioural meaning t,o the patand textiles, would have been highly labour- terning o r lack thereof present in the sample. For
intensive. T h e c o l ~ s t r u c t i oof
~ ~a bag 46 cm2, example, could such p a t k r n i n g indicate the inusiug spaced alternate-pair weft-twining, where tensit.y of social int,eraction between tlre poputhe scale of individual elements was on the order l a t i o n ~of neighbouring Ohio Hopewell mortuary
of five times greater t l i a ~ ifor the same elements centers?
Based on Braun and Plog (1982), Strathern
used in t h e Seip textiles, took about. 300 hours t o
complet,e, In the opinion of modern weavers, the and Strathern (1971), and Wobst (1977), Hinkle
amount of l a b o i ~ rwould increase exponentially (1984) suggests t h a t t h e variation in Ohio texas the diameter of tlre elenie~rtsdecreases (John tile weave designs a n d their degree of visibility
rnay provide information for the r e c o ~ ~ s t r u c t i o n
White, personal co~nmnunicatio~~).

158

of Olrio Hopewell social networks.

In the actual application of her data to theory, Hinkle (1984) makes the observation that
since all of the Ohio Hopewell textiles have been
found in a burial context, they can t,l~ereforebe
relat,ed to cere~nonialtreatment of the dead as clothing or a s burial accompaniments, stating that these were specifically woven for such a
use. This seems a bit premature, when, as noted
previously, counterparts from habitation or other
non-mound contexts are lacking for comparison.
Data were collected on the variables (from
Emery 1966) of fabric structure and fabric components. Fabric structure consists of the following attributes: elemenbs, interworking of elements, fabric classification ( a finer distinction
of the preceding attribute), and variations (the
most detailed description of fabric structures).
Fabric c o ~ n p o ~ l e n consist
ts
of the measurement
and classification of the structure of individual elements. Of these, it was stated that the
most lriglily visible attributes were variation, fibre type, color, mean diameter of elements and
element count per unit of measure. From all of
this, it is c o ~ ~ c l u d ethat
d
blre discrete variables
(fabric struct,ure) are tied to ethnicity because of
their lrornogeneons distribution.
Continuous variables (fabric components),
liowever, reflect interaction intensity based on
graded distributions. In terms of burials, her results iirdicate that all burials are relatively Iromogeneous in regards to presence of weaving attributes, thus, "the st,yle of textiles (or certain
stylistic attributes of them) do not reflect social distinctions. In other words, there is no
evidence supporting the idea that textile variat,ion is status dependent? (Hinkle 1984:246).
A question presents itself here.
If everyone
does not get buried in a mound, and if we do
not. liave any well-provenienced and dated nonmound text,iles, then how can one be so cat,egorical in one's concl~~sionsl
To summarize, Hinkle
(1984) concllldes that four discrete weaving attribnt,es (st,ructure, element category, fabric classification, and variation) and two continuous attributes (weft count and weft diameter) possibly
part,icipated in the processes of social information exchange and boundary niaintenance (the
last two attributes, for example, best differentiated Seip from all ot,her sites, while Seip and
Hopewell shared more mid-range variables thari
the other sites).
Recent researcli on prel~istoric textiles from
Olrio lrolds the promise for enlarging our data

ETHNICITY A.VD CULTURE

base. More information is being gatliered o s
t,ecI~nologicalaspects of textiles arrd on their distribution in space, time and context. One may
first look to the research of Lucy R. Sibley (now
a t Ohio State University, Department of Clothing and Textiles) and K. A. Jakes (polychemist
and associate director of the University of Georgia's Cerlter for Archaeological Scierrces). They
are studying the farmatio~land characteristics
of textile psel~domorphs(Vollmer 1975). A recent update in science (1984) stated that their
~.esear'li addresser several questions: I) how are
textile pseudomorphs produced, 2) how accurately do they reproduce the original fabric, and,
3) what can be learned about the technology
and culture of the people wlro made specific fabrics. Their work, on everything from Clrinese silk
pseudonrorphs to those of twined fabrics from the
Hopewell sites of Tunacunnhee and Etowah in
Georgia, lras t,lle potential to address those concerns of archaeological text~ileswhich have been
so difficult t o study, for exanrple, the identification of dyes and mordants and the composition of
actual fibers (King 1975, 1978). This can be done
because a pseudomorph is produced when mineral compounds (most cornmonly copper, bronze,
and brass) replace tlre organic fibers of a fabric, preserving t.llrir physical shape. These mineral c o ~ n p o u r ~ doriginate
s
in the corrosion products of metal objects, for example, the famous
Hopewellian copper plates, adzes, etc. Sibley and
Jakes suggest that trace element8 found in pseudomorphs, it different fronr the metals in t,he roil
matrix surrounding an object, may tell us something about the particular dyes and mordai~ts
used on a textile. Also, they point out that minerals formed in the pseudomorph may be another
clue to the original dyes.
Furthermore, in her examination of pseudo~ n o r p l ~on
s copper ornaments from the Tunacunrihee burial site ( A.D. lSO), Sibley found tlrree
types of twined fabrics possibly constructed of a
cellulosic bast fiber (the stem or leafy portion of a
plant) wit11 very little processing. Feather pseudomorphs were also identified. An examination
of textile pseudomorphs from Etowah (A.D. 1200)
also revealed bast fibers with feathers worked into
them, although these fibew had been more highly
processed and different kinds of twining processes
utilized. Sibley notes that the "degree of elaboration of tlre fabric may reflect community support
for Llre art.isarr, wl~ichallou,ed the fabric's makers
to specialize" (Science, 1984). It is in this way
that the work of Sibley and Jakes offers excit-

Cl~nrch/OHlO'SP R E H l S T O R I C TEXTILES

I59

ing p o t e l ~ t i a lfor further al~alysesof prehistoric both sexes, mostly adults, although one multiple
crenration (burial 24) witlr an infant contained
fabrics and their fossilized counterparts.
,
states t h a t 340
In a different approach, Jillie Kime of the Olrio textiles. Of 438 f r a g ~ n e n t s Kime
Historical Society is also making a substantial specimens (from all of the burials wlriclr included
contribution t o t h e study of Ohio's prehistoric textiles) were spaced alternate-pair weft-twining,
textiles, largely by concentrating upon textiles in while 22 were oblique interlacing. All elenrents
non-mound contexts - e.g., textiles preserved in were 2-ply, Z-spun, S-twist. Warp diameters
caves and rockslrelters in s o u t l ~ e r nOlrio (Canter's closely match t h e range of those from Harness,
Caves, Kettle Hill Rocksl~elter,and Ash Cave). Hopewell, and Seip (Church 1984), althouglr the
Here, too, however, present collections are diffi- actual nrean is less t h a n Harness and Hopewell
cult t o work with because they are the result of a n d is closest t o t h a t of textiles from Seip. Weft
early twentieth century excavatiolrs and of am- diameters match this pattern. Tlle mean row inateur efforts. Provenience information, beyond terval is smaller t h a n tlre means from Elopewell,
site locations, is generally poor or missing and Harness, and Seip, with the range close to those
most of the sit,es are ~rriilticomponent. Thus, i t from these three sit,es in its upper values, but
is impossible t o assign a c ~ r l t u r a laffiliation t o much srnaller in lower end values.
In conclusion, t.lris work illustrates that the
t,he textiles a n d compare t l ~ e n reffectively with
pot,e~rtialexists for the future recovery of more
Nopewellian t.extiles.
These t,extiles are int.eresting because of their textiles from prehistoric contexts in Ohio. Work
t
in this paper i~ldicabes
non-mound, non-burial contexts and the lrope such a s t , l ~ a sirlnmarized
they hold for the fubure discovery of similar tex- t h a t these textiles have a great deal t o offer for
tiles which may be recovered with more mod- sociocultural studies of prehistoric Ohio populaern archaeological methods. These shelters and t i o r ~ sand, with a wider d a t a base, perhaps somecaves, due t o the nature of t,he formation pro- thing about populatiorls elsewhere as well.
cesses a t work in them, have preserved entire woREFERENCES CITED
verr slippers and bags, as well as textile fragments
and cordage. Kinre (n.d.) has recently begun
Binford, L.R.
a compara.tive study of slippers from Ohio sites
1972 Mortuary Practices: Tlreir Study and Potenwit11 t,lrose from sit,es in Kentucky and Arkansas.
tial. In A n Archaeological Perspective, edited
Her preliminary research irrdicates general simby L. R. Binford, pp. 208-243. Seminar Press,
New York.
ilarity between tlre sites in terms of form, but,
notes t h a t tlre Canter's Caves specimens differ in
Braun, D.P.
textile struct,ure.
1979 Illinois Ho~ewellBurial Practices and Social
Organizstion: A Review of the Klunk-Gihson
In other re sear cl^, K i ~ n e (n.d.) has taken
Mound Group. In Hopewell Archaeology, edited
a st,ep towards the expansio~r of our t,ernporal
by D. Brose and N. Greber, pp. 66-79, Kent
framework for textiles. She analysed the texState
University Press, Kent, Ohio.
t.iles recovered frorn the Toepfner Mound (331981
A
Critique
of Some Recent North American
FR-43), arr Early Woodland site in Franklin
Mortuary Studies. American Antiquity 46:398County, Ollio.
This mound was excavated
416.
in 1953-54 by Rayrnond S. Baby of the O l ~ i o
Braun, D.P. and S. Plog
State Museum and is the rrrost caref~lllyprove1982 Evoliition of "Tribnl" Social Networks: The~rienced of all t h e mounds discussed in this paory and Prehistoric North Anlerican Evidence.
per. Carbonized (N=141), partially carbolrised
American Antiquity 47504-525.
(N=203), and non-carbonized (N-5) textile fragBrown, J.A.
ments were preserved in three log tombs within
1979 Charnel Houses and Mortuarv, G r..
v ~ t s : Disthe mound. (Total features included the priposal of the Dead in tile Middle Woodland
rrrary mound, three subfloor burial pits, eight log
Period. In Hopewell Archaeology, edited by
t,ombs, a subsoil embankment, and a cluster of
D. Brose and N. Greber, pp. 211-219. Kent
lir~rcstonefragments.) Features containing texStnte University Press, Kent, Ohio.
t,iles were radiocarbon dated (range = 250 B.C.
Carr, C. and K. Hinkle
i ~ 200
/ - t o 460 B.C. +/-) and witlr associvted
l984 A Synthetic Theory of Artifact Design Applied
artefacts support, a n Early t o Late Adena affiliato Ohio Hopewell Weavings. Paper presented
tion for the mound.
at !he 49th Annual Society for American ArTextiles were associat,ed witlr individuals of
chaeology Meetings, Portland, Oregon.

160

Church, F .
1983 An Analysis of Textile Fragments from Three
Ohio Hopewell Mound Groups. Ohio Arehoeologist 33(1):10-10.
1984 Textiles as Markers of Ohio Hopewell Social
Identities.Midcentir~entalJournal of Archaeology 9(1):1-27.
Conkey, M.W.
1978 Style and Information in Cultural Evolution:
Toward a Predictive Model for the Paleolithic.
In Social Archaeology, Beyond Subsistence and
Dating, edited by C . L. Redman, et al., pp. 6187. Academic Press, New York.
1980 Context, Structore, and Efficacy in Paleolithic
Art and Design. In Symbol as Sense: New Approaches to the Analysis oJMeaning, edited by
M. L. Foster and S. H. Brandes, pp. 225-249.
Academic Press, New York.
Dunnell, R.C.
1978 Style and Function: A Fundamental Dichotomy. American Antiquity 43:192-202.
Emery, I.
1966 The Primary Structures of Fabrics. T h e Textile
Miiseum, Washington, D.C.
F'riedrich, M.H.
1970 Design Structure and Social Interaclion: Archaeological Implications of a n Ethnographic
Analysis. American Antiquity 35:332-343.
Greber, N.
1979 A Coinparative Study of Site Morphology and
Burial Practices a t Edwin Rarness and Seip
Mounds l and 2. In Hoptwell Archaeology,
edited by D. Brosc and N. Greber, pp. 27-38.
Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.
Hinkle, K.A.
1984 Ohio Hopewell Teztiles: A Medium for the Ezchange of Social and Stylistic Infurrr~iatiarz.Unpublished MA Thesis. University of Arkansas.
Hodder, I.R.
1978 T h e M n i n t e n a ~ ~ cofe Group Identiries in the
Baringo District, Western Kenya.
In Social Organization and Settlement: Contrihutions from Anthropology, Archaeology, and Geography. Part I. B.A.R. International Series,
Supplement 47i, edited by D. Green, C . Haselgrove, and M. Spriygs, pp. 47-75. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.
Jones, V.H.
1948 Notes on the Manufacture of Cedar-bark Mats
by the Chippewa Indians. Reprinted from Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts
and Letters 32.
Kay, M .
1975 Social Distance Among Central Missouri
Hopewell Settlements: A First Approximation.
American Antiquity 40:64-71.

ETHNICITY A K D CLJLTCJRE

Kime, J.
1982 Textiles and Cordage from Canter's Caves (33JA-3), Jackron County, Ohio. Paper presented
a t the 1982 Midwestern Archaeological Conference Meetings, Cleveland, Ohio.
n.d. Ater Mound Bead Blanket. Ms., Ohio Historical Society, Culumbus, Ohio.
n.d. Textiles from Toepfner Mound (33-FA-43), an
Early Woodland Site in k a n k l i n County, Ohio.
Ms., Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio.
King, M.E.
1975 General Introduction t o Archaeological Textiles. In Irene Emery Roundtable on Museum
Teztiles, 1974 Proceedings, Archaeological Teztiles, edited by Patricia L. Fiske, pp. 9-16. T h e
Textile Museum, Washington, D.C.
Mary, E. and J.S. Gardner
1981 T h e Analysis of Textiles from Spiro Mound,
Oklahoma. 111 The Research Potential of Anthropological Museum Collections, edited by
A. E. Cantwell, J . R. Griffin, and N. A . Rothschild, pp. 123-139. Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences, Vol. 370.
Longacre, W.A.
1964 Sociological Implications of the Ceramic Analysis. In Chapters i n the Prehistory of Ensltrn
Arizona 11, edited by Paul S. Martin, et al.,
pp. 155-161. Fieldiana Anthropology S S .
Mills, W.C.
1907 Explorations of the Edwin Harness Mound.
Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
10:113-193.
1909 Explorations of the Sfip Mound. Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 18:2G9-321.
Miner, H.
1936 The Importance of Text,ile~in the Archaeology of the Eastern United States. American
Antiquity 1:181-192.
Plog, S.
1978 Social Interaction and Stylistic Similarity:
A Reanalysis. In Advances in Archaeological
A4elhod and Theory, Vol. 1, edited by Michael
S. Schiffer, pp. 143-182. Acndetuic Press, New
York.
1980 Stylistic Variation in Prehistoric Ceramics, Design Arhnlysiz in the American Southwest. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Prufer, O.H.
l901 The Hopewell Complez of Ohio. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.
Sackett, J.R.
1977 T h e Meaning of Style in Arclineology: A General Model. American Antiquity 42:369-380.
Saxe, A.A.
1970 Social Dtmensions o f Mortlaarv Practices. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Michigan.

Clrul-ch/OHIO'S PREHISTORIC TEXTILES

Science
1984 Formntion of Fossilized Fabrics Focus of Textiles Researcl; Project. Science (1984):28-30.
Seeman, M.F.
1979 Feasting with the Dead: Ohio Hopewell Charnel House Ritual as a Cont,ext. for Redistribution. In Wopewell Archaeology, edited by
D. Brose and N. Greber, pp. 39-46.Kent State
University Press, Kent, Ohio.
Shetrone, H.C.
1926 Explorations of the Hopewell Group of Prehistoric Earthworks. Ohio Archaeological and
Historical Quarterly 35:5-227.
Shetrone, H.C. and E.F. Greenman
1931 Explorations of the Seip Group of Prehistoric
E;~rthworks.Ohio Archaeological and Historical
Quarterly 40:349-510.
Strathern, A. and M. Strathern
1971 Self-decoration in Mount Hagen. University of
Toronto Press, Toronto.
Tainter, J.A.
1980 Behavior and Status in a Middle Woodland
Mortuary Population from the Iliiaoit; Valley.
American Antiquity 45:308-313.
l9al A Critique of Some Recent North American
Mortuary Studies: A Reply. American Antiquity 4G:416-420.
Vollmer, J.
1975 Textile Pseudomorphs on Chinese Bronzes.
In Irene Emery Roundtoble on Museum Teztiles, 1974 Proceedings, Archaeological Tezliles,
edited by Patricia L. Fiske, pp. 170-174. Tlre
Textile Museum, Washington, D.C.
Whallon, R.
1968 Investigation of Late Prehist,oric Social Organization in New York State. Ie New Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by S. R. Binford and L. R. Rinford, pp. 223-244. Aldine,
Chicago.
Whitford, A.C.
1941 Textile Fibors Used in the Easiern Aboriginal
North America. Anthropological Papers cf the
American Museum of Natural Ifistory 38(1):522.
Willoughby, C.C.
1938 Textile Fabrics from the Burial Mounds of
the Great Earthwork Builders of Ohio. Ohio
Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 47:273287.
W'obst, H. M.
1977 Stylistic Behavior and lnfurrnation Exchange.
In For the Director: Essays in Honor cf James
B . Grifin, edited by C . B. Cleiaitd, pp. 317342. A~~thropological
Papers No. 61. Museum
of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor.

ETHNICITY AhrD CULTURE

ROOMSIZE PATTERNS: A QUANTITATIVE

METHOD FOR APPROACHING ETHNIC
IDENTIFICATION IN ARCHITECTURE
Stuart J . Baldwin
Department of Archaeology
University of Calgary
Calgary, Alberta
and
Central New Mexico Research Association
Mountainair. New Mexico

number of contextual variables. Unfortunately,

systems of proxeinic values held by individuals
.4rchitecture has had an irnportant role in tlie are virtirally impossible t o elicit tlrrough direct
development of Soutllwesterrr archaeology from questioriirrg since major colirponents of such sysits origins ulrtil the present,. In particular, ilre im- tems seem to b e subcorrsciously held cultural
pressive ruins of Mesa Verde and Cliaco Cariyon tenets, i.e., an irrdividual knows what is "right",
at,tracted t.he earliest. n~nat,eurand professional "proper", or L'con~fortable"interpersonal spacarclraeologists. Unfortunat,ely, for the early in- ing witlrout being able t o analyze why tlrat is
vest,igators architecture served more as a land- so. Thus, proxemic studies of iuterpersonal spacmark showing where one could obtain collections ing are necessarily both observational and experof pottery and other artifacts t h a n as a subject of inrerrtal in nature. Such studies have discovered
serious study. While the sit,ua.tior~subsequently tlrat reaction t o identical contexts varies systemimproved, up through t.he 1960s most archaeol- abicaliy between ethnic groups, indicating t h a t
ogists adopted a double standard when dealing t h e individual's proxemic valuer are culturally
with architectural remains. T h e specialized cer- moulded. It seems t h a t dire irrdividual's proxemonial struct.ures were given individual atten- emic system is shaped t o a great ext.ent during
tion - t,hey were iridividually mapped, their fea- enculturation a s a child, thus accounting for tlie
tures carefully described in full detail and much subcorlscious nature of many of the t,enets makink spilled over their interpretat.ion. Conversely, ing up t h e sysbeln (see detailed discussiorr in Hall
dorr~iciliaryrooms were given short shrift; a t best 1966, 1968; Watson 1970).
they and their features were classified into norProxemics is not limited to just interpersonal
mative types (e.g., Lanibert 1954:lO-16, 22-32).
spacing, but includes the study of spatial reI have felt for a long time t h a t much of Llre in- lationships between humarrs a n d t h e surroundterpretive poterlt.ial of architecture has been over- ing environment, whether nadural or man-made.
looked by past investigators. This paper is a n ex- This obviously includes architecture, but as yet
position of one of tlre lnany possibilities opened there has beetr little researctr directed dowards
u p through the application of proxemic concepts this aspect. Of t h e very few archaeologically orit o architecture.
ented studies (Jackson 1972; %'right 1975), none
have any direct bearing on the approach preCONCEPTS BASIC TO THIS STUDY
sented in this paper.
I define architecture as the direct. structuring
T h e field of proxeinice in anthropology beof space by 111an for his own use, realized by a
gan with tlie study of "personal space", e.g.,
set of boundaries (walls, roofs, floors, etc.) built.
the amount of spacing required between individfrom organic a n d t o r ilrorganic subst.ances (wood,
uals for psychological comfort. This space regrass, earth, stone, metal, glass, etc.), the spequirement is found to be dependent upon a large

INTRODUCTION

ETHNICITY AND CULTURE

I
U
U)

Builder's
Goals

Function ( u s e ) -aio,

Maintenance

0
vr
3

.-U
0

Conformity to External
Social Constraints

U)

Conformity to Internal
Proxemic S y s t e m

+
P r o p e r t i e s o f Room
(or s e t of rooms)

Figure l: Model of co~ltrolsdetermirli~lgroom properties

In line with dhis assessment, in Figure l I indicate the influence of environment a n d technology
on the properties of rooms as being "minorn.
Given the "generous limits" est.ablished by environlnent and t,echnology, "the social process
is likely t o narrow the options considerably"
(McGuire and Scl~iffer 1983:278). In Figure 1
this social process is subsumed within the group
of controls labeled "Builder's Goals". In t h e
cases used in this paper I assume a n identity
between t h e builders and t h e occupants of the
rooms. There is ample evidence t h a t this is the
case among l~istoricPueblo Indians (e.g., MindelefI 1891:lOO-102) who are recognized a s being
the d e s c e ~ l d a ~ of
~ t sthe prehistoric Anasazi.
On tlie broadest level, of course, availabilAt Chaco Canyon, evidence t h a t sections of
ity of materials and teclinology constrain
some sites were built as preplanned units has
architectural designs . . . However, these
s irnbeen i n ~ e r p r e t e d by some i ~ ~ v e s t i g a t o rto
types of constraints, which put generous
ply the presence of architectural specialists (Grelimits on designs, furnish relatively few inbinger 1973:12), but I a m skeptical of such assersights into the causes of variability between
tions for several reasone:
societies, and contribute little to explaining
1) T h e evidence for pre-planning of construcdifferences or changes in the vernacular artion is most clearly stated by Hayee (1981:56):
chitecture within societies.
"The ground plans have a syn~rnetry t h a t indicates adherence t o preco~~ceived
designs, and
This assessme111 is completely in accord wit11 when additions were made, they either conmy own view of the roles of enviroament and formed t o the earlier plan or followed a newr
technology in the cases dealt with in this paper. scheme and a new symmetryn. However, such

cific properties of the boundaries (shape, size,

arrangement, etc.) being determined by a set,
of i r ~ t e r a c t i ~controls
~g
(see Figure 1).
r
in Figure 1 is
T h e model of c o ~ ~ t r o lgiven
partly based on t h e theory of architectural design offered by McGuire and Schiffer (1983), but,
some components are derived from or heavily influenced by other sources, as will b e specified. I
should also st.ress t h a t I a m n o t at.tempting here
to c o ~ ~ s t r u ca t universal model of controls, b u t
instead one t h a t is t,ailored t o the needs of the
problem addressed in this paper.
Environment and technology are evaluated by
McGuire and Schiffer (1983: 278) as follows:

and "conformity t o a n earlier plann

are found also in later historic pueblos such
a s Pecos (Kidder 1958.122-124) a n d Hau.iku11
(Smith e t al. 1966:53) for which there is no ethnographic o r historical evidence of architectural
specialists.
2) Lekson has reviewed the labour investment
necessary for building Chacoan sites and has concluded t h a t "Chacoan building obviously does
not require specialization of appreciable segments
of the population" (1982:22).
3) Hudson (1982:40) has studied evidence for
measurement systems a t Chaco Canyon and has
concluded:

. . . the data indicates [sic] that probably

no sillgie standard ever survived one building period to enter another, or was carried from one town to another. Thus, the
standards were only temporarily defined
and used to build the immediate project at
hand, upon colupletion of which, the standard was discarded.
This conclusion does not seem compatible with
a n assumption of a group of building specialists.
1 conclude, then, t h a t Iny assumption of ideatity between boilders and occupants is reasonable, given a lack of evidence t o tlre contrary.
Regarding t h e Builder's Goals (Figure l ) , the
goals of fiinction (use), construction (prodaction)
and niaintenance have been discussed in some
detail by McGuire and Sclliffer (1983:278-284).
They see a conflict between these three goals,
particularly between the construction and maintenance goals, which must be resolved through
compronrise.
In Figure 1 "Function" means the intended use
of a room, which guides tlre selecCion of properaier (size, features, etc.) t o be included in the
structure. For t,he field archaeologist, however,
the m a t t e r of function is not tlrat clear-cut, since
roonrs which were constructed with one function
in mind are often later remodeled t o serve another funct,ion - frequently without change in certain of tlre original properties, such as size. This
means t h a t equation of single properties (such
a s size) wit11 specific functions is t o o simplistic
for valid results. For this reason (as well as the
general lack of detailed, room-by-room functional
st,i~dies)I d o not a t this time attcrnpt t o study
room size in relation t o function. For the present,
function is simply recog~rized as a contributing
factor in t h e determination of the properties of
any particular room.

McGuire and Scl~iffer(1983:278-284) are especially concerned with the coniprornise between
the goals of construction and ~ n a i ~ i t e n a ~be~ce
cause of their interest in the shift frorrr pithouses
t o surface dwellings in the Southwest. This study
is not concerned with a clrange in dwelling type,
therefore I can treat a s long sett,led the compromise bet,ween function, construction, and maintenance. Under these circnrnstances, function is
probably t h e senior partner of the triad, hence
in Figure 1 I assess its influence t o be 'nrajor" whereas the other two controls have "variable" influence dependent in strength upon the
intended function. T h e combined influence of
these three goals on roorn properties is "majorn,
and they are consciously applied controls for the
most part.
Confor~nity to external social constraints
brings in the role of t,he dwellirrg as symbol.
McGuire and Sclriffer (1983:280) subsume this
under "function", but I have chosen to use "function" t o refer st,rictly t o tlre utilitarian intent of a
room. As I a m here concerned solely with domiciliary rooms, t o the exclusion of ceren~onialo r
socio-political structures, the goal "conforming
t o external social constraints" refers to the influence upon the builder of standards of social
conduct held by the society a t large. It is liere
t h a t the discussion by Richard Wilk (1983) becomes inrporiant. Wilk points out t h a t social
constrai~itsmay forbid tlre expression of social
differences through architecture, u.ith his case in
point being the Kekchi of Guat.emala and Belize:
"Tliougl~Kekchi l~ousesvary a great deal in size,
they are very uniform in construction, external
appearance, and function. This standardization
is imposed by very strong social sanctions" (Wilk
1983:112). He contrast,^ the Kekcl~iwith another
Maya group, the Mopan, where personal display
tlvough architecture is socially accepbable.
In my cases, the McElmo Phase architecture
a t Mesa Verde resembles the Kekchi situation:
the features, function and appearance of one
household's set of rooms are virtually identical
to those of another, the major difference between households being size - wlrich is probably directly tied to family size. It seems, then,
r h a t economic and/or socio-political status is n o t
being expressed t l ~ r o u g harchitectare a t Mesa
~ic
Verde. This matches the e t h ~ ~ o g r a p lsituation
among the Pueblo Indians, where personal o r familial display is strongly discouraged (Parsons
1939:107-111). For C l ~ a c oCanyon the sit,uation
is not so clear due t o the lack of functional stud-

ETHNICITY AND CULTURE

166

ies, but my general impression is t h a t the sit.uaLion is tlre same as t h a t a t Mesa Verde. Tlierefore, in Figure 1 I assess tlre influence of this control as "variable" since i t is not possible t o be sure
w11et.her (a) tliere were n o social d i s t , i ~ ~ c t i o tnos
be expressed o r (h) t h a t social distinct,ions m a y
liave existed but overt expressio~r of them was
suppressed. This control probably operated a t
both the conscious a n d subconscious levels.
T h e last control is "confornrity t o internal
proxemic system". T h e background for understanding tliis control has already been given a t
t,he beginning of tliis section. As is the case with
otlrer archaeological theoreticians, McGuire and
Sclriffer (1983) fail t o even touch upon t,his topic.
While it is highly unlikely t h a t t,he specific values
making up the proxemic s y s t e ~ nof a n arcliaeological culture can ever be identified with certainty,
this doer not justify ignoring t.he probable major
influence of the proxe~nicsystem on tlie everyday life, and especially on t~heconstructs, of pwlrist,oric people. I contend t h a t the largely subconscious, culture-specific proxemic system of t h e
builder is major d e t , e r m i n a ~ ~
oft some properties of rooms, particularly tlie size and shape of
dwelling spaces.
Hourever, once constructed, dwelling spaces
will influence the proxemic system of cl~ildrexl
raised within them, thus reinforcing t h e proxemic
values of the society whicl~originally produced
the spaces: "Man-made space can refine human
feeling arid perception" (Tuan 1977:102). O n t h e
other hand, changes within the other controls
may result in necessary clranges t o tlre size and
shape propert.ies of rooms, with ult.imate repercussions on the whole proxemic system. One such
change is the adoption of European-style furnit,ure by the historic Pueblo Indians, with concomitant major changes in usage of ilrterior space.

range of variation in roornsize and otlrer quantifiable properties has meant t h a t patterns inherent
in the dat,a have gone unobserved.
This paper concerns one such pattern: what I
call the roomsize pattern. In an archaeological
site t,he floor area of rooms is perliaps the most
frequently preserved architectural d a t u m (along
\r.itli horizontal room shape). In contrast, t h e
height of rooms (and their cubic volume) is frequently unknown due t o the collapse or erosion
of walls. Hence, in this paper I use the term
'roomsize" t o denote t h e floor area of a room.
Roomsize is a property produced by t h e interaction of the controls previously discussed (Figure 1). It is a property wherein major differences
between the proxemic systems of different cult,ures should be expressed. Comparisons between
individual roomsizes o r between average roomsizes are inadequate t o clearly show systematic
differences. U'hat is needed is a sr~mniationof
all available roomsizes in a site, thus allowing t h e
site as a unit t o be directly compared t o other
sites. A cu~nulativefrequency curve (an ogive)
is a simple visual summation of the sort needed,
and is employed in the following demonstration,
If the co~lt,rolswlrich I liave discussed above
produce a systerrratic pattern of roomsizes within
an a r c l ~ a e o l o ~ i c asite,
l
&hen ogives surnrnarising
this pattern for sites of t h e same archaeological
cult,ure should clust.er together. This expectation
is confirmed in Figure 2, which slro\r.s two different clusters of ogives, each cluster representing
a distinct archaeological culture from the Southwest.

THE McELMO A N D BONITO PHASES

As a demonstration of two different roomsize

patterns which characterize two different archaeological cult,ures, Figure 2 shows two clusters
THE ROOMSIZE PATTERN CONCEPT of ogives, each ogive representing t h e roomsize
pat,tern of a.n irrdividlial site. T h e left clusIn t,he 1960s the self-st,yled "new" archaeolter consists of sites of t h e McElmo Phase from
ogists began t o emphasize "quantificatio~r" and
the Mesa Verde in southwestern Colorado, while
tlie search for "patterns" in arcl~aeologicald a t a .
the right cluster represents sites of the Bonito
Whatever the merits of the philosophical trapPhase a t Chaco Canyon in northwestern New
pings of the "new" archaeology, t,hese aims
Mexico. Tliese phases are rouglily contemporaare certainly superior t o the previot~spractices
neous, A.D. 1050-1175 for t,he McElmo Phase and
of normative description of "typesn and t,he
A.D. 1030-1130for t h e Bonito Phase. (See Hayes
compounding of abstracted elenrents into "trait.
(1964), Rohn (1977), and Breternitz et al. (1974)
lists". Unfortunately, quantification of archit,ecfor recent discussions of t h e archaeological retural d a t a is still, many years later, done in
mains assigned to t h e McElmo Phase. A recent,
normative terms, e.g., Hayes (l981:BO-61) where
summary of t h e Bonito Phase can be found in
C h a c o a ~ iroomsizes are discussed solely in terms
Hayes (1981:51-68).
of averages. T h e lack of consideration of the

Baldwin/ROOMSIZE PATTERNS

UcElmo Ph.

Roomslze Classes (m21

Figure 2: Ogive clusters for McElmo aird Ronito Phases.

Site Name/
Nunrber

-~.
- -~

..

.. .~~~
~~~

M.V. 34"
M.V. 499'
M.V. 820f
M.V. 875"
M.V. 1088"
M.V. 1104"
One Clan House3
-~

24
15
10
12
11

2
~

Table 1: McElmo Phase sites on tile Mesa Verde."Swannack (1969), "Mesa Verde Research Cenber,
'Nordby (n.d.), "OO'Bryan (1950), 'Lister (1964), 'J.E. Smith (Pers. Comnr.), "ister (1965), "Lister
and Sinith (1968), 'Lister and Breterlritz (1968), jRohir (1977).

The basic d a t a upon which Figure 2 is based

are presented in Tables 1 and 2. T h e sites ut,ilized
are limited by statistical considerations t o only
those sites for which d a t a from 1 0 or more rooms
are available. T h e two clusters s l ~ o w nin Figure
2 have been statistically verified using the MannWliitney U test, but the resulhs cannot be preseated here due to editorially imposed space restrictions (full presentation of the results is available in my much longer original paper: Baldwin
1984). A descriptiori of t h e U test can be found
in Silk (1979:185-192). One thing I wish to emphasize is t h a t the chi-square test is not a valid
test for roo~nsized a t a since chi-square assumes a
normal distribution b u t most roomsize patterns
have a decided righthand skew.
Figure 3 shows the roornsize patterns for the
McElmo and Borlito plkases a s arcliaeological entities; each lras an ogive representing the mean of
tlie cluster of sit,es sllow~rin Figure 2, plus two
framing lines (called "empirical limits") which
enclose the area on the diagram within which
t h e individual site ogives occurred. These "empirical limits* are not hard and fast boundaries,
b u t merely visual indicators of the known zone of
ogive trajectories for sites belonging to the phase.
Also graphed in Figure 3 are three sites (Far
View House, Pipe Shrine House, and Sun Point
Pueblo) dating t o t h e McElmo Phase and located
on t h e Mesa Verde, b u t which can b e seen to diverge from the McElmo Phase roomsize pattern.
Of these, Sun Point Pueblo is t h e most divergent
and, in fact, greatly resembles the Bonito Phase
roornsize pattern. This is confir~nedby it,s acceptance within t h e Bonito Phase st.atistica1 population by the Mann-Whitney U test (Baldwin
1984:ZG).
Sun Point Pueblo has always been an archacological problem: (1)t h e site was mined for building stone by the later cliff-dwellirig peoples, thus
leaving little more than a floorplan for tile structure, and (2) there is virt~uallyno Lrasli associated wit11 the site. Tlre roomsize d a t a suggest
t h a t it is a Chacoan structure built by people
of Bonit,o Phase origins; the lack of Lrash suggests that. i t was never occupied, perhaps never
even completed. Was it under construct,ion a t the
time of the collapse of the "Cllaco Phenomenon",
ca. A.D. 1129-1130?
Besides being visually divergent from the
McElmo Phase roomsize pattern, both Far View
House and Pipe Shrine House are rejected from
t h a t patter11 by the U test (Baldwin 1984:20). It
is significant t h a t b o t h sites contain kivas (cere-

monial rooms) which have Cl~acoanstj,listic features (Holm 1977:58, 62-63). T h e intermediate
position of their ogives between t.he McElmo and
Bonito Phase roomsiee patterns suggests a mixture of tlie two.
There are orher sites in immediately adjacent,
areas wllicl~s l ~ o wthese same cliaracteristics. Figure 4 shows seven sites from the La P l a t a and
San Juan valleys, areas geographically int.ermediate between Mesa Verde and Chaco Canyon.
Three sites (Aztec Annex, Morris' Site 36, and
Morris' Site 41 - Building VII) all fit comfortably
rvitliin the empirical limits of the McElrno Pliase
roomsize pattern, a.re accepted in t h a t pattern by
the U test and typologically belong to t h a t phase.
Three other sites, Aztec West Ruin, Salmon Ruin
and Twin Angels Pueblo, fit within or closely
approximate the empirical lilnits of tlie Bonito
Phase roomsize patl.ern, are accepted witliin it, by
t h e U test and have long beer1 accepted as Chacoan colo~rieson typological grounds. In contrast
t o these two cluet,ers, Morris' Site 39 Building
I is a lnixl,ure of these two phases, both typologically and in terms of it,s roomsiee pattern.
Figure 5 shows anot,her seven sites, all from the
Great Sage Plairt area west of t,he Mesa Verde.
Four sites (Beartooth Pueblo, Units I and 111
a t the Herren Farm and Cahone Ruin - House
I) again all fit nicely within the McEhno Phase
roomsize pattern, are accept,ed within it by the
U test and are typologically McEImo Phase. In
contrast, three sites (Lowry Ruin, Escalantr Ruin
arid Ida Jean Ruin) display roomsiee paCterns
intermediate between the M c E l n ~ oand Bonito
Phase patterns, and Lowry and Escalante are typologically mixed (tlrere is, as yet, no site report
for t~heIda Jean Ruin). Tables 3 and 4 provide
t h e basic dads upon wliich Figures 4 and 5 w e
based.
How can we explain the mixed sit,es? Clearly,
stylistic elements call be borrowed through the
process of imitation or they can be brought irito
a new area as part of a population influx. While
Chacoan influence h a s frequently been recognized
a t sites like Far View House, Lowry Ruin or Escalante Ruin, there has always been the interpretive problem of whether the ilifluence resulted
from stylistic diffusion or migration.
However, since a roomsize pattern is partly
determined by subconscious elements, including
a culture's proxemic system, i t cannot be "horrowed", but instead must be imported t.hrough
importation of tlie builders, i.e., by immigration.
Clearly, then, tlie mixed sites can best be inter-

ETHNICITY A N D CIJLTLrRE

Roomsire Classes (m21

Figure 3: Roomsize patterns for McElmo and Bonito Phases, plus ~nixedsites from the Mesa Verde.

Figure 4: Ogives for sites from the La Plata/San Juan area.

Baldu,in/ROO.MSIZE PATTERNS

Roomsize Classes ( m 2 )

Figure 5: Ogives for sites from the Great Sage Plain.

~-

Site Namei
Number
-.-~
La Plata/San Juan Area
p--.
/ Aztec Annex"
/ Morris' Site SO"
/
Morris'
Site
41-VII"
.
-.
Great Sage Plain
~~~

p
-

Herre11 Farm Unit. Id

Herren Farm Unit 111"
Reartooth Pueblo'
~~

5
1
._.

l
1

1
10
--

-.-.

0 1
31-

20

~J 13 o p I l L : i _ - l 1 ~
l0

~~

Table 3: McElnlo Phase Sites from La Plata/San Juan and Great Sage Plain. nMorris (1924),
"Morris (1939), 'Tobin (1950), "Martin (1929), 'Martin (1930).

1.01-

3.01-

Number of rooms pt
5.01- ( 7.01- ( 9.01 ( 11.01- j 13.01-

size class (m2)

15.01 - 1 17.01-

19.01-

21.01

i23.01 1 >

Site Name
Far View House"
Pipe Shrine Househ
Sun Point PuebloC
Morris' Site 39 I"
Lowry Ruin"
Escalante Ruinf
Ida Jean Ruin"
Aztec West Ruinh
Twin West Ruin'
Salmon Ruin'

Table 4: Other Sites from the Mes I'erde, La PlataiSan Juan and Great, Sage Plain. aFewkes
(1917), "Rohn (1977), 'Lancaster and Van Cleave (19541, "[orris (1939), 'Martin (1936), JZernetz
(1978), 9J.M. Brisbin (Pers. Comm.) hMorris (1924,1928): 'Carlson (1966), 'C. L-win-Lllilliams
(Pers. Comm.), Adams (1980).

173

Naldwi11/R00iWIZE P A T T E R N S

1981 A Survey of Chsco Canyon Archeology. In

preted a s lraving mixed populatioas: t l ~ enative
Archeological Surveys of Chaeo Canyon, New
McEllno Phase people and t h e irn~rligrantB o l ~ i t o
Mezico. Publications in Archeology No.18-A.,
Pha.se Chacoans.
U.S. National Park Service, U7ashington, D.C.
T h i s conclusion and its implications clearly deHudson, Dee T .
serve l n u c l ~more extensive discussion, b u t edito1972 Anafiazi Measurement Systems at Chaco
rially iniposed length restrictions forbid this a t
Canyon, New Mexico. The Kiva38:27-42.
present. For such lengthier discussion see my
original p a p e r (Baldwin 1984), of which this is
Jackson, J.B. (editor)
1972 Spatial Organization in the Prehistoric Indian
essentially a n abstract.
Plaeblos of the Soufhwest. Department of ArACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
chitecture, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
I am greatly indebted to those ~choiarswho shared
Kidder, Alfred V.
with me unpublished data which contributed signifi1958 Pecos, Mew Mexico: Archaeological Notes. Pacantly to this study, namely Joel M. Brisbin, Cynthia
pers Vol. 5, Robert S. Peabody Foundation for
Irwin-Williams, Stephen Lekson, Jack E. Smith and
Archaeology, Phillips Academy, Andover.
Marcia Truell. David A. Breternitz also assisted me
in locating data used in this study.
Lambert, h4arjorie F .
I wish to thank several ~cholarsat the Univer1954 Pan-ko: Archaeological Chronicle of ran Indian
sity of Calgary who read and commented on various
Villagr in North Central New Mezico. Monovcrsions of the longer paper upon which this study
graph I g , School of American Research, Santa
is based, namely Nicholas David, Richard G. ForFe.
his, Jane H. Kelley, Scott Rayrnond and Micl~ael
Leksun, Stephen H.
Williama. Other individuals who were supportive in
1982 Labor Invest~rlent in Chacoan Building.
one way or another of my work on roornsize pntt,erne
Newsletter of the New Mexico Archeological
are Ruth Lambert. and K.P. Medlin.
Council 4:21-22.
l wish to thank tlie organizers and session chairmen of the conference o n Ethnicity and Culture for
McCuire, Kandall H. and Michael B. Schiffer
their efforts, which resulted in a very successful con1983 A Theory of Architecture Design. Journal of
ference. In addition, 1 t l ~ a n kthose persons who stAt~thropologicalArchaeo/ogy2:277-303.
tended my presentation for their kind and stimulatMindeleff, Victor
ing comments, especially Gayle Horsfall and Robert.
1891 A Study of Pueblo Architect.ure, Tusayan
Horsfall.
and Cibola. 8th Annual Report of the Bu-

REFERENCES CITED
Baldwin, Stuart J.
1984 An Initial study of Roomsize Patterns in Mesa
\'erdean and Chacoan Sites. Ms. on file, Department. of Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary.
Breternitz, D . A., A. H. Rohn, Jr., and E. A. Morris

reau of Arnerieon Ethnology for 1886-18875228. Washington.

.
. D.C.

Parsons, Elsie C.
1039 Pueblo Indiar~Religion. 2 volumes. University
of Chicago P r e s ~ Chicago.
,
Rohn, Arthur H.
1977 Culture Change nnd Continuity on Chapin
Mesn. The Regents Press oiKansas, Lawrence.

1974 Prehistoric Ceramics of the M e s a Verde Region.

Ceramic Series No. 5, Museum of Northern
Arizona, Flagst,nff.

Silk, John
1979 Stattsttcal Concepts tn Geography.
Allen and Unwin, London.

Grebinger, Paul
1973 Prehistoric Social Oreanization in Cliaco
Canyon, NCU,Mexico: An Alternative Reconstruction. The Kiua 39:3-23.

Smith, W'., R. B. Woodburp and N. F. S. Woodbury

Hall, Edward T.
1966 The Htddrn Dtmenaton. Doubleday, New York
IS68 Proxemics. Current AnthropologyS:83-103

Hayes, Alden C.
1964 The Archeolo~ieal Suruev. o,f Wetherill Mesa.
Mesa Verdr Nattonnl Park, Colorado. Archeological Research Series No.7-A., U.S. National
Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Gcorge

1966 The Ezcavation of IIawikuh by Frederick Wtbb

Hudge. Contributions Vol. 20, Museurn of the
American Indian, Hrrye Foundation, New York.

Tuan, Yi-Fu
1977 Space and Place. University of Minnesota
Press, h4inneapolis.
Wstson, 0 . Michael
1970 Prozrmic Behouior: A Cross-Cultural Study.
Approaches to Semiotics Vol. 8 , Mouton, The
Hague.

ETHh'JCITY A N D CULTURE

Wilk, Richard R.
1983 Little House in the Jungle: The Causes
of Variation in House Size Among Modern Kekchi Maya. J o u r n a l of Anthropological
Archaeology2:SQ-116.
Wright, Bruce W.
1975 A Prozernic Analysis of the Iropuoion Settlemen2 Pattern. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of calgary, Calgary.

THE INITIAL IDENTIFICATION OF A

PEOPLE AS POLYNESIAN IN RACE,
LANGUAGE AND CULTURE
R. C. Green
Department, of Al~tlrropology
University of Auckland
Auckland, New Zealand

As most people are aware, identification with islands and atolls (except for cont,inental New
particular o r more general ethnic groups can Zealand) t h a t were inhabited a t t,he time of Euprove t o be a very complex nlat,ter. One can be ropean cont,act by a people who were remarkably
African, Asian, o r European or instead, Bantn, homogelieous in language, geographic race, and
Chinese, o r Italian, o r even something no re in- cnlture. This situation contrasts markedly with
dividual and specific like Zulu, Han, o r Sicilian t,l~at,in Melanesia arrd Micronesia, t h e other two
according t o various criteria and tlre relationsliip European-designated geographic areas that usuto be emphasized in a given conLext. T l ~ ePa- ally make u p what is co~irmonlyreferred t o as
cific is n o except,ion. There are Melanesians, h4i- Oceania. Polyr~esianh a s a s one of its cent,ral et,l~cronesians, and Polyneiians; Solomon Islanders, nic rneanirlgs tlierefore, a geographic sense of inPalsuarrs, and Maori; or Areare, Chamorro, and h a b i t a n t : ~of a cert,ailr well-defined area, altliough
Nga Puhi. T h e labels are a mixture of racial, lin- t h e area does not include all those who speak
guistic, geogmplric, cult,ural and tribal attributes languages recognized a s Polynesian, or all who
a t various levels of epecificity.
might be assigned t o a race or culture t h a t idenI wish t,o exarnine sorne user of the term Poly- tified tlreni ae diatinctively Polynesian. The refnesian, particularly a s it might be applied by the erence here is to t h e Outliers of Melanesia and
cnlture historian in reference t o a people o r eth- Micro~resiattlrat on a variety of grounds are also
nic unit, a problem addressed some tirne ago by termed Polynesian.
Rouse (1965). As Ire (1965:3) observes, it. is only
This last should n o t be a particularly eurprisin "exceptionally favourable circumstances" t h a t ing situatiorr, for we know from count:less hist,oran assignment of hist.orically k n o u ~ebhnic
~
aRil- ical examples t1la.t over iime and with continiat,ions to archaeological materials has been pos- ued populatio~imovements l h a t individual comsible. He lists t h e lat,e protohistoric peoples of munities may change their cultural, linguistic
the S o u t l ~ u ~ e s t e rUnit.ed
n
S1.at.e~and Gerlnany as or racial affiliations, each independently of the
examples of S I I C ~ places. To this I would add obher, o r iri varying combinations a t different
t.he peoples of Polynesia. It is his suggestion times and in different places according to who
t,hat the procedure of distinguishing peoples be their neighbours are and their relat.ioirs11ipr with
t.ermed "etlrnic classification" (Rouse 1965:5-6). them. For example, among the Outliers, Ontong
Java is in language and much of its cult.ure PolyPOLYNESIANS AS INHABITANTS OF nesian, but physically t h e people are currently
A PARTICULAR PLACE
best grouped u,it,l~local popnlations of Eastern
Micronesians (Shapiro 1933; Howells 1970:205The term Polynesian is most often used in
206). In contrast, t h e people of the Duff Isreference t o t h e geographic area of "triangular"
lands (Taumako), who also speak a Polynesia~r
Polynesia, with its basal side in the West PolyOutlier language, now possess a culture which
nesian Tongan-Samoan area, and its apexes in
is a local variation of that of their near neighHawaii, Easter Island, and New Zealand. Here
bours in the Reef a n d S a n t a Cruz Islands, peowe are forlunate, for this vast territory, largely
ple who speak either a non-Austro~iesianor very
of ocean, has proved t,o be one dotted with high

176

dist,antly related Oceanic Austronesian language

(Davenport 1968:137-138). Physically too, Duff
Islanders differ somewhat from their neighbours,
who are usually classed a s Melanesians (Darenport 1968:137; Black 1982), yet they have obviously exchanged sufficient. genetic materials with
them so t h a t they no longer constitute a population that is readily identified a s Polyncsian in
the same way as Tikopians and Anutans from
this same region would be.
Finally, t h e Polynesian speaking Nnkuoro of
Micronesia are physically t o be included with
other local popi~lations of Polynesia (Howells
1970:207). A sirnilar position might b e maintained for some religious aspects of cont,act
Nukuoro culture, or the late settlenlent pattern and its associat.ed social organization (Green
1970:26-271, but when one turlrs t o earlier elements of the cultural assemblage recovered arcl~aeologically, t,lre affinities lie with Micronesia (Davidson 1970:70-72; 1071). Thus an ethnic identification of tlle former inhabitants of
Kukuoro as Polynesian, were it t o be based on
archaeology alone, might never be raised given its
geographic position in Micronesia, if we did n o t
also have t h e evidence of physical anbhropology,
ethnography and language t o alert us t o t h e problem. Similar concerns arise i a the 3000-year culture Ilistorical sequeuces for A ~ i u t aand Tikopia
where only in the filial phase and based on a reladively few artefacts, are archaeologists able to
talk about. the cultural asseniblages as refiecti~rg
Polynesian inhabitants (Kirch 1982, 1984; K i r c l ~
and Yen 1983).
These Outlier examples, all representing populatio~lswho appear t ~ ohave become Polynesian
~ I Irace, language a u d cult,ure in Western Polynesia, and were then blown back ir~t,oan already
long inhabited and more diverse Melanesian and
Micronesian world, are sufficient, I think, t o illustrate sonre of t h e problems involved. They
indicate t h a t even in relatively favoul.able areas,
such as t h a t geographically known a s Polynesia
plus its relat,ed Outliela, when atternpt,ing t o assign sonle kind of ethnic identification, it is rrecessary to separate t h e issues of race, language and
culture. Each should b e dealt with in its own
t.erms, and there need b e n o assumptioa t h a t all
three should correlate exactly either initially or
a t various points later in time and E-p ace.

POLYNESIANS A S SPEAKERS OF A
GIVEN LANGUAGE A N D ITS
DESCENDANTS

ETHNICITY AArD CULTURE

With the above as background, what can one
say on the basis of tlre linguistic evidence? Polyn e s i a ~here
~ refers t o a linguistically well-marked
subgroup belonging t o t h e Central Pacific Languages, wliich together form one member of
t,he larger Oceanic snbgroup of the Austronesian family of languages. I t is therefore possible to be quit,e certain wlrether a daughter language, either in the geographic area of Polynesia o r in Melanesia or Micronesia, is Polynesian a n d t h a t the people who therefore now
speak t h a t language may, if they wish, identify themselves on t h a t basis as Polynesian.
More important, it is possible to reconstruct
t h e elements of a n ancestral language, ProtoPolynesian, for which aspects of the pllonology, morphology, and syntax, and several thousand lexical it,en~sare k11ow11 (Biggs 1978, 1979;
Pawley 1966; Clark 1976). Proto-Polynesian
specifies t h e language at t h a t stage just before
i t split,s into two daughter languages, Tongic
r
Pre-Polynesian speciand N ~ ~ c l e aPolynesian.
fies t h a t interval between the Proto-Polynesian
stage and t h e Proto-Tokalau Fijian-Polynesian o r
slightly earlier Proto-Central Pacific stage when
the innovations t , l ~ a tmark off Proto-Poly~lesian
as a language group were accumulating. Clark
(1979362-63) on the basis of lexicostatistical and
glottocl~ronologicalconsiderations puts tlle separation of Proto-Polynesian from Proto-Fijian
(based on Banan Fijian) a t 1500 B.C. and tlre
break-up of Proto-Polpnesian a t around A.D.
l . Green (1981) in a more closely argued case
grounded in both archaeology and the linguistic evidence would agrre t h a t Proto-Central Pacific and its break-up dabes t o circa 1500 B.C.,
b u t t h a t various dates in t h e rniddle of the first
rnilleuniu~nB.C. seem more probable for ProtoPolynesian, before it split into Tongic and Nuclear Polynesian. This is because the differentiation of Nuclear F'olynesian into Samoic-Outlier
and Eastern Polynesian call b e reliably argued
on the linguistic and arcl~aeologicalevidence to
have begun by circa the fist century A.D. if not,
before (Green 1984:Zl). This rnearrs t h a t Polynesian a s a linguistic category a n d poter~tialethnic
marker was in place on different island groups by
500 B.C. a ~ r dt h a t languages and dialects which
are its descendants have retained t h a t status ever
since.
T h e development of this language, nloreover,
can be placed in a homeland region of eastern
Fiji and western Polynesia, with the formation of
Polynesian itself assigned t o t h e arcl~aeologically

Green/IDENTIFICATIOi\' O F A P E O P L E A S POLYNESIAN

known to be inhabited islands of Tonga, Samoa,

Futuna and Uvea. To do so requires the use of
a density dependent network breaking-chain dialect model for the whole region rat,her than a
radiat,ion model t h a t would i ~ n p l ya single island
group in the area as a irollleland (Green 1981:184;
Pawley a n d Green 1984). Polynesian then lras
a distinct meaning linguistically, t,he time of its
formation and its e~nerge~rce
a s such can be ident
within
tified, and the place~nentof t , l ~ a process
one portion of t h e geographic region now known
as Poly~resiacan be stated with some confidence.
Ethnically people may claim they are Polynesian, o r not, by reference t o the Iangoage they
speak. Archaeologically it is possible to argue
t h a t a given cultaral assemblage t h a t has been
excavated is in this sense Polynesian or not t o
the degree t h a t i t is possible t o successfully relate t h a t assemblage to the Proto-Polynesian ]anguage or t o one of the language units t,hat are
descended from it. In all cases the basic argu~rrentrests on demonstrated continuities for the
languages and cultural asst.mblages in qnest.ion
and close correlations between the two at their
ebhnographic endpoints, plus t h e maint,enance of
these backward in time.

POLYNESIAN A S MARKED IN
MATERIAL CULTURE
Becoming Polynesian in the cultural sense as
reflected i a the it,elns of nraterial culture able
t o be recovered from archaeological deposits has
also been attempted. One example is the esically. T h e cult~uralboundary now drawn between Melanesia (includirrg and especially Fiji)
and Polynesia did not exist a t 1500 R.C. and
for more than 1000 years t.hereafter. Rat.her,
there appears t,o have beetr a cornrnunity of cult,ure, exhibited by parallel assemblages and sequences for eaclr of the island groups concerned
througlrout t h e entire Fiji-West Poly~resianarea
during the first thousand years of its settlement.
A b o ~ l n d a r y which correlates with the ethnographic orre between Polynesia and Melanesia
(Fiji) becolrles well-marked by archaeological remains only around 200 B.C. After t h a t , with its
paddle-impressed pottery assemblages, the Fijian
region lreads off in one direct.ion and Polynesia
in another, with still other developments a t this
time in Melanesia11 regions farther west such as
New Caledonia, Vanuatu, and tlre Outer Eastern
Islands of t h e Solomons.

177

As external observers one lras, of course, "no

chance of demonstrating just wlricll specific items
of the cultural repertoire of any phase of an archaeological record people have actually selected
a s ethnic syrrtbols", b u t as Poulson (1974:265266), who considered this problem, rernarks,
"Dealing with ethnic matters in prelristory is
surely an extreme case of having ' t o rnake t h e
best of a bad job'" (Piggott 1965:9). For purposes of this paper, two it,elns over which Ocealric
archaeologists have some control, adzes altd pottery, have been selected among a number t h a t
might be, a s useful ethnic symbols in relation t o
the terrn Polynesian.
Adzes have long been employed in Pacific archaeology, oft.en inappropriat,ely, to idelltify a
people. One reads therefore of 'Austronesian a n d
Melanesian adze types". St.ill dislribution studies by Duff (1959, 1970), largely of nmseum a n d
ethnological collections, have showtl t h a t those
adzes fro111 the island groups of the Polynesian
geograpllic area map be distinguished by particular characteristics t h a t differentiate them from
those of otlrer areas of tlre Pacific to which they
are otherwise linked by a nunrber of more general morphological criteria. It seems t h a t on this
basis, various kinds of triangular sectio~laladzes
in particular are a Polynesia~r innovation, a n d
a l o l "~ ewith some otlrers are distinctive of adzes
kits associated with Polynesian societies b o t h
etIr~~o-IristoricaIIyand prelristorically. Vienred
from the perspective of temporally colltro]]ed
c]laeologically recovered assemblages from polynesia (Green 1971, 1974). the develoDme1lt of tlris
.A

Llagtls of the Eastern Lapita cultural complex

call be put d o w l ~t o tlrree processes. One is

the loss of oval arrd plano-lateral sectioned stone
adzes and of massive adzes in shell made from
the hinge of the Tridacna clam shell. Anot,ller
is the continuation of a variety of plano-convex
and quadrilateral sectioned stone adzes from t h e
previous Lapita phases. Lastly there is the innovation of a range of triangular sectioned adzes.
Tlte changes in adze form have part of their explanation in the technology of t,heir production
through an adaptation from the use of tough continental type igrreous and meta-volcanic rocks t o
t h e e ~ n p l o y ~ n e l loft different flaking tecfi~riques
on a restrict,ed suite of fine grained homoge~reous
Oceanic island type basalts. Thus t.he enlergence
of a dist,inctive ancestral Polynesian type adze kit.
out of those found in previous Eastern Lapita cultural assemblages can b e documented a t present

Green/lDEiVTIFICATION O F A P E O P L E AS POLYKESIAN

skeletons in t h e expected time interval from Eastern Lapita cult,ural assemblages number three,
and from sit,es wit,h Polynesia11 Plain Ware, none.
Howells (1979) talks about pre-Polynesian ancestors but there is a ~ n a j o rdebate between )rim and
Terrell (1986) and ot.liers as t o whether one can
o r cannot derive the Polynesian physical type out
of tlre plrysical and genetic diversity represerrted
by the human populatio~rsof adjacent Melanesia
today. My posit,ion is tlrat we can d o t,his, but
this has yet t o be demonstrated in relation to
the skeletal evidence from sites of appropriate age
and cultural content, though this position may alter shortly. Right now it is not possible to specify
the temporal span of when o r t h e geographic loca.tion of where people genetically became a population one might designate as Polynesian.

SUMMARY
Given t h e tern1 Polynesian as a valid category
in relation to gewith strong e t l ~ n i cco~rrrot~atior~s
ography, language, culture, and race, some things
nrsy be said about its use by a cultural lristorian.
For language and culture the regions in which
people 'become Polynesian' are in both cases reasonably congruent, a l t l ~ o u g ht,l:e linguistic differentiatio~rsreins to have preceded, perhaps by
some centuries, t h a t of identifiable markers in the
material culture. St,ill, both t,eniporally encompass the middle part of the first millennium B.C.
In my view the genetic differentiation, becanse
it would have required a ler~gbhyseries of events
niarked by drift, may have taken sliglrtly longer,
so ]nay have st.arted earlier in time and to the
west of t h e area occupied today by the Polynesian geograpl~icrace. This last, however, is a t
present in the real111 of speculation.
Polynesian as a term is ali~rostcertainly an
ethnic construct of outsiders: explorers, European colonist~s,a:~d later anthropologistc- and archaeologists. Still, it. functions as a n efficacious
one which h a s helped in underst,anding hist,orical
matters based on an identity wit11 a particular
group. Also i t has now acquired ethnic salience
and is well underst,ood and used by those people who are today called Polynesians. Wlrile the
concept or something like it was probably never
used by them in prehist.ory, this is true of many
of the current etlunic cat,egories, all of wlrich have
t,l:eir base in some kind of a hist,orical linkage to,
or derivation from, a given linguistic, cultural,
or genetic entity t h a t has arisen in the last few
centuries. \'et t l ~ eapproach may not be t,oo far
off the mark, for from Proto-Polynesian times it

179

wonld seen1 fror:~a n insider's perspective t h a t i t

was possible for these people t o refer t o themselves as t e t a n g a t a rna(a)?oli, thereby recognieing an affinity between "genuine, true or indigenous" people like then~selvesin language, culture
a n d race, and distinct from those "strangers"
who later came upon t l ~ e i rshores and named
tlnem Polynesiaas.
REFERENCES CITED

Riggs, B.G.
1978 The History of Polynesian Phonology.

In
Second International Conference o n Aurtronesion Lingui8tics: Proceedings, Fascicle 2: Eastern Austronesian, edited by S . A. Warm and

L. Carringt,on, pp. 691-716. Pacific Linguistics Series C, Department of Linguistics, Australian National University, Canberra.
1879 Proto-Polynesian WnrdList 11. Working Papers
in Anthropology, Archaeology, Lingui8tics and
Maori Studies No. 53. Department of Anthropology, University of Auckland, Auckland.
Black, S.J.
1982 Quantitntive Genetics of Antlrropnnetric I'ariation i n the Solomon Islands. P h D disprrtation, University of Auckland, Auckiand.
Clark, R.
Te
1976 Aspects qf Proto-Polyncsian Syntaz.
Reo Monograph, Linguistic Society of New
Zealand, A~ickla~id.
1979 Language. In Prthidtory of Polynesia, edited
by 3. D. Jennings, pp. 249-270. Harvard University Press, Carnbrjdge.
Davenport, W.H.
1968 Social Organization Notes on the Northern
Santa Cruz Islands: The Duff Island (Taumako). Baessler-ArchiulG:137-205.
Davidson, J . M.
1970 Polynesian Outliers and the Problem of Cultural Replacement i n Small Population~. In
Studies i n Oceanic Culture History, Vol. 1,
edited by R. C. Green and M. Kelly, pp. 6172. Pacific Anthropology Records 11.
1971 Archaeology o n Nuliuoro Atoll. Bulletin of the
Auckland Jnstit.ut,e and Museum 9.
Duff, R.
1959 Neolithic Adzes of Eastern Polynesia. I n
Anthropology i n the South Seas, edited by
J . D. Freeman and W. R. Geddes, pp. 121-148.
Thomas A w r y and Sons, New Plymouth.
1870 Stone Adzes of Southeast Asia. Bulletin of the
Canterbury Museum 3.
Green, R.C.
1970 Settlement Pattern Archaeology in Polynesia.
In Studies i n Oceanic Culture Htstory, Vol. l ,
edited by R. C. Green and M. Kelly, pp. 13-32.
Pacific Anthropology Records 11.

ET1f.VICITY AND CULTURE

180

1971 Evidence for the Developn~ent of the Early

Polynesian Adze Kit. New Zealand Archaeological Asso~intionNewsletter 14(1):12-44.
1974 A Review of the Portable Artifacts from Western Samoa. In Archaeology in Western Samoa,
Vol. 2, Bulletin of the Auckland Institute and
M u ~ e u m7:245-275.
1981 Location of the Polynesian Homclnnd: A
Continuing Problem. In Studies i n Pacific
Languages and Cultures in Honor of Bruce
Biggs, edited by S. Hollyman and A. K . Pawley, pp. 133-158. Linguistic Society of New
Zealand, Auckland.
1984 Subgrouping yf the Rapanui Language of Easter
Island i n Polynesian and Its Implications for
East Polynesian Prehistory. Working Papers
in Anthropology, Archaeology, Linguistics and
Maori Studies No. 68. Department of Anthropology, University of Auckland, Auckland.

Houghton, P.
1980 The First New Zealanders.
Stoughton, 'A'ellington.

Iiodder and

IJowells, '&'.W.
1970 Anthropometric Grouping Analysis of Pacific
Peoples. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Octania 5(3):192-217.
1973 The Pacific Islanders. Charles Scribner'e Sons,
New York.
1979 Physical Anthropology. In Prehistory oj Polynesia, edited by S. D. Sennii~ga,pp. 271-285.
Harvard University Press, Canrhridge.
Kirch, P.V.
1981 Lapitoid S e t t l e i ~ ~ e n tofs h r u n a arid Alofi,
W s t e r n Polynesia. Archaeology i n Oeeanto
16(3):127-143.
1982 A Revision of the Anuta Sequence. Journal of
the Polynesian Society 91:245-254.
1984 T h e Polyiiesim Outliers: Continuity, Change,
and Replacements. Jonrnoi of Pacific History
19:224-238.
Kirch, P.V. and Yen, D.E.
1883 Tikopia: The Prehistory and Ecology of a Polynesian Outlirr. B . P. Bishop M u a e u ~ nBulletin
238.
Pawley, A.K.
1960 Polynesian Languages: A Subgrouping Based
on Shared Innovations in Morphology. Journal
of the Polyneaian Society 75:39-64.
Pawley, A.K and R.C. Green
1984 T h e Proto-Oceanic Language Community.
Journal of Pacific History 19:123-140.
Pietrusewsky, M.
1970 Am Ost,eological View of Indigenous Populat i o n ~in Oceania. In Studies in Ocean Culture History, Vol. l , edited by R. C . Green
and M. Kelly, p p . 1-12. Pacific Anthropology
Records 11.

1971 Application of Distance Statistics to Anthroposcopic D a t a and a Comparison of Results

with Those Obtained by IJsing Discrete Traits
of t h e Skull. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 6(1):21-33.

Piggott, S .
1965 Ancient Europe. T h e University Press, Edinburgh.
Polllson, J.
1974 Archaeology and Ethnic Problems. Mankind
9:260-267.
Rouse, I.
1965 T h e Plsce of People3 in Prehistoric Research.
Journal of the Royal Anthropoloyical Institute
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 95 (Part
l):]-15.
Shapiro, H.L.
1933 The Physical Characteristics of the Ontong Javanese: A Car~tributionio the Sfudy of the NonMeletzesian Elements i n Melanesia. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History Vol. 33, P a r t 3.
Terrell, J.
1986 Causal Pathways and Causal l'rocepses: Studyi n g t h e Evnlutionary Prehistory of Human Diversity in Language, Customs, and Biology.
Journal ofAnthropologica1 Archatology5(2):187198.

ARCHAEOETHNIC RESEARCH AND THE

ONTARIO IROQUOIANS
Martha A. Latta
Division of Social Science
Scarborouglr College
University of Toronto
West Hill, Ontario

In archaeologicnl usage, Uet.l~nicity"most often

refers t o the int,eraction between two dist,inct cultures, either syncbronic, usually linguistic (Steckley 1982a), or diachronic (Trigger 1981:16-18) ill
nnt,nre. Although both uses refer to cultural
edge-areas, t h e former in space a n d the latter in
time, these concepts differ radically within most
archaeological tl~eoreticalfra~rreworksand should
be separat,ed. Diachronic culture change has
been widely discussed and a pletlrora of terms exist for observed culture difference on tlre chronological axis. Ethnic distinctions are prinrarily
valid in a syncl~ronicframework.
E t l ~ ~ ~ i cwill,
i t y therefore, b e used in this paper
to refer t o the archaeological definition of synchronic, interactive ethnic groups. Etlrnic groups
can be etically defined as groups which differ in
two o r more culture categories, including: (a)
language; (b) geographical location; (c) economy;
(d) settlement patterns; (e) kinship and inheritance systems; (f) religious and burial practices;
and (g) major material culture traits. Emically,
they are self-defining.
Tluee levels of Iroquoian ethnic variation are
reported in t h e seveuteentl~cent.ury literature,
particularly in t h e wrilir~gsof Samuel d e Champlain (Biggar 1929), Gabriel Sagard-Theodat
(Wrong 1968) and tlre anuual Relations of the Jesuit missionaries (Thwaites 1806-1901): (1) T h e
Iroquoians, as a group, were contrasted with
their Algonkian-speaking neighbours. (2) Different Iroquois-speaking groups were contrasted
with each other. (3) Some of these groups, including t,l~eHuron, were confederacies of smaller
entities which; althougb very similar, remained
geopolitically distinct. Tlre qnestions t o be answered are: C a n etic archaeology recognize and
utilise these emic distinctions? Conversely, what
does this information tell us about the degree of

precision to be obtained from the study of prehistoric ethnicity?

LEVEL I. DISLINGUAL
GROUPS: 1R.OQUOIAN AND
ALGONQUIN SPEAKERS
Nonlinguistic cultural difference between Iroquoian and Algonkian speakers has g e ~ ~ e r a l l y
been assurned to be ~rroderatelygreat. T h e Iroquoians were horticulturalists (cf. Noble 1975),
living in serni-permanent villages which could
have populations of u p t o several thousand people (Hayden 1978). T h e Algonkians t o the north
and west, including the Ottawas, Nipissings and
Ojibway a s well a s the Algonquins proper, spoke
languages of the great Algonkian stock, unlike
Iroquois in vocabular and grammatical structure.
They placed lit,tle emphasis on horticult,ure, relying on hunting a n d fishi~rgfor their subsistence.
A l g o r ~ k i agroups
~~
tended to be small ( a maximum of a few hundred people) and highly mobile, living in insubstarrtial l~ouseswith few possessions (JR 21:239-241'). Given suclr au,ide cultnral disparity, one would predict a high prohability for the archaeological differentiation of Iroquoian and Algonkian peoples.
There are frequent references in the Jesuit. Relations t o Algonkiar~ groups living in Huronia,
usually for the winter montlrs. These were most
oft,en the Nipissing (Bissiriniens) who lived imnrediately north of Huronia ( J R 13:191, 211; 14:7,
37; 2 0 3 7 ; 27:53-55; 33:153), b u t there is reference t o Algonqnins (JR 14:7; 20:39-41, 97; 23:19;
27:37) and one n r e t ~ t i oof~ ~the Island Algonqins
( J R 26:301). They came in large numbers: in
s
to their
April of 1637, tlre N i p i s s i ~ ~ greturned
country carrying with them 70 bodies of those
who had died while wintering among the Huron
( J R 14:37). A large group of Algonquin, forced

182

to a b a ~ r d o ntheir territory on the banks of t h e St.

Lawrence River, came t o live near t h e Hltron ( J R
27:37). Algonkians were present i ~ such
t
numbers
tltat in 1643 the Jesuits established special missions t o them.
T h e fur trade brought Hurons t o Algonkian
t,erritories on a more o r less regular basis, particr~larlyin the annual voyage t o meet the French
in Quebec. T h e Huron followed a route through
Lake Nipissing a n d down the Ott,awa river, passing through lands of several different Algonkian
groups, where they camped and established food
caches for the return voyage (Wrong 1968:60).
When threatened by war, a t least one group of
IIuron were reported t o have gone t o live with
the Algonkians ( J R 30:87), but on t h e whole,
Huron occupations in Algonkian territories appear to have been lr1uc11 less intensive t h a n Alg o ~ ~ k i aoccupations
tr
in Huronia.
There is no difficulty in t h e arcllaeological distinction of Algonkian from Iroquoian traditions
wltere
s
t,his interaction took place infrein r e g i o ~ ~
quently. In tlre edge-area between Iroquoia and
Algonkia, however, t h e ethnographic reports indicate t h a t both et,l~nicgroups moved with some
regularity t h r o t ~ g heach others' territory, producing an interaction zone. It is clear t h a t sites
represe~lti~rg
these intrusions must exist on both
sides of this border, b u t , t o my knowledge, n o Algonkian site has yet been identified in Hnronia.
This failure raises serious questions concerning
the nature of cultural difference which should b e
expected to reflect such a site.
Work outside t h e Iroquoian area offers some
explanatiorr of tltis problem, particularly two
studies which focus on the beginning and t h e
end of the Huron trade rout,e. Both t h e Frank
Bay site on Lake Nipissing (Ridley 1954) and
the Petawa~vasrnall sites (Mitchell 1970) provided evidence of Iroqnoian-like ceramics, mixed
with known Algonkian (Blackduck) styles. In its
lower st.rata, a t least, the former site probably
represents the historic Nipissing (Day 1978:788);
t h e latter nlay be A l g o n q u i ~(Mitchell
~
1975). In
their l~istoricperiod components, none of t h e
sites slrow evidence of attribute mixing on individual objects; inst,ead, mixing took place on
the type level, w i t l ~ i nthe t o t a l assemblage. This
could be interpreted as representirtg a populat.io11 (or a t least a female component) of mixed
ethnic background, t,he nearly-contemporary use
of the sites by different ethnic popnlations, t h e
widespread exchange of objects between ethnic
groups, o r tlte diffusion of concepts on an object

ETHhr1CITY AA'D CIJLTURE

rather than attribute level.
Neither study produced recognisable house
patterns, suggesting tenrporary structures, but
these would be as characteristic of itinerant Iroquoian traders as of Algonkians. Food remains,
if any, may provide some clue t o the identity of
these sites, but the ethnographic literature indicates t,ltat food was one of the pri~tcipalexchange
items between Iroquoians and Algonkians. The
frequency of chipped and ground stone tools appears f a r higher than on sites in Huronia, with
a regular use of more varied litlric raw ~ n a t e r i a l s
such as quartzite and slate.
Mitchell concludes that: "In the area under
discussion there has been n111ch opportunity for
contact and trait acceptaace, sharing or mutation. T h e remains studied in our area may all
be Algor~kinwork ir~clndingAlgonkin expression
of Iroquois types" (1975:66). Alternatively, the
sites may reflect ethnic Iroquoians residing in or
passing through Algonquia territory.
It is essential for some Algonkian sites to be
found and examined within Iroquoia in order
to test the validity of these small assenrblages.
On the basis of the limited information prese~rtly
available, i t would appear t h a t lithic sources will
probably be t h e most reliable ethnic markers.
Studies of distributiorts of litltic raw materials in
norbhern Ontario have begun, but most of these
are still in unpublished form. One conclusion can
be safely drawn: ethnolingistic distinctior~sare
not ~~ecessarily
clearly visible i ~ rthe arcltaeological record.

LEVEL 11. COLINGUAL

GROUPS: IROQUOIAN TRIBES
At least 12 groups of Iroquois-speakers can be
distinguished ethnograpl~ically,generally on geographical grounds, and two more are klrown f r o n ~
arcliaeological evidence. T h e New York branclr
includes t,he well-known League of the Iroquois the Seneca, Caynga, Onondaga, O ~ t e i d aand Mohawk - who lived along tlre s o n t l ~shore of Lake
Ontario. South of Lake Erie were the eponymous Erie who may (White 1978:414) or may not.
(Tooker 1967) be the Na.tion of tlre Cat. The
Andastes seem t o have lived far t o the south
(JR 14:9; 30:85, 253) where they traded with
the Dutch. 1x1 Ontario, tltr Neutral confederacy spread from the west end of Lake Ontario
t o the Grand River; the W e t ~ t r o w
, l ~ omay have
been part of this confederacy, joined the Huron
in 1638 ( J R 17:25-29). T h e Huron and Tionnant a t i or Peturl lived on the south shore of Georgian

Subsistence:

Defense structures:
Village organization:

House construction:

Bench support mechanisms:

Ceramics:

Chipped stone:

Pipes:
Gaming discs:
Bone tools:
Burial patterns:

Eeling
Maple sugaring
High dog consumption
Raised earthworks
Raised earthworks
Linear arrangements with streets,
plazas
Nonlinear house pattern
Wall trenching
Plank end construction
Large posts
Slit trenches
None clearly defined
Simple design, convex interior
Simple design, concave interior
Complex designs, convex interior
Very complex designs with annular
punctates
Beakers, goblets and bottles
Large amounts, esp. Onondaga chert
Very low frequency
Equilateral points
Isosceles points
Surficial blackening and burnishing
Ceramic sherds
Awls very rare
Large ossuaries
Small ossuaries and cemeteries
Large amounts of cut and lnodified
human bone

St. Lawrence Iroquoians

St. Lawrence Iroquoians
Huron
Western Neutral
St. Lawrence Iroquoians
Eastern Huron

Junker-Audersen 1984
Pendergast 1982
Latta 1976
Boyle 1902
Pendergast 1984:2-3
Knight and Cameron 1983

Neutral
Lake Ontario Iroquois
Neutral
Neutral
Lake Ontario Iroquois
Western Neutral
Huron
Huron
Petun
Neutral
Lake Ontario Iroquois
St. Lawrence Iroquois

Lennox 1984
Kapches 1980
Wright 1981
Lennox 1984:17

Huron
Seutral
Huron
Huron
Petun, Neutral
Huron
Huron, St. Lawrence Iroquois
Huron
Huron
Neutral
Lake Ontario Iroquoisns
St. Lawrence Iroquoians

Winternberg 1946:160
Jamieson 1981
Fox 1979
Fox 1979
Fox 1979
Latta 1976
Latta 1976
Latta 1976
Johnston 1979
Johnston 1979
Ramsden 1978
Jamieson 1983

Table 1: Traits which characterize specific Iroquoian groups

d

m
4

Lennox 1984
Latta 1986a
Emerson 1968
Garrad and Heidenreich 1978
Emerson 1968
Emerson 1968
Pendergast 1984:175

LEVEL 111. INTERNAL

GROUPS: HURON NATIONS
At least three of the Iroquoian groups appear
t o have consisted of confederacies of snraller subgroups: tlre Xew York League, the Huron and
the Neutral. Recent research lras suggested t h a t
these "confederacies" may ha.ve been quite different from each other in structure and function (Jamieson 1981; Noble 1984), and t h a t t h e
'League of the Iroquois" is n o t necessarily an
appropriate model for either the Neutral or the
Huron. Thus, although New York League members are distinguishable on the level of separate
Iroquoian entities, this degree of ethnic identity
calulot be assurned for confederacy members elsewhere. We sllall concentrate on the evidence
for ethnic differentiation between the Huron subgroups which t h e French called "nations".
With the exception of Chainplain, early ethnographers all agreed t h a t the Huron, o r Bendat, \rere divided into four "nations" - the
Attignawantan or Bear, the Att,ignernongnalrac or Fishing Net Cord (Steckley 1982b), the
A r c n r l a h r o n o ~ ~or Rock, and the Tohoritaenrat whose name may have signified "Deer"
(St,eckley 1982a:33). A fifth group, calld the
Ataronchronons, t h e "Marsh People", appears
about lialfway through the Jesuit Period. There
is no indication whether this group was formed
from members of t h e former four nations or
whether they came t o Huro~iiafrom elsewhere.
To date, no publislied d a t a have been attributed
to t.he A t a r o n c h r o ~ ~ o n .
These groups were geographically distinct. t o
some extent, for t h e Jesuits established dedicated
niissiolis t.o specified nations. These n~issions,indicated on seventeenth century maps, lrave provided t l ~ enlosLs u b s t a ~ i t i aevidence
l
for L11e actual
geograplrical locat,ion and ext,ent of these groups
( L a t t a 1986b). T h e Jesuits did not note arry distinguishing characteristics of these rations except
for geographical location and political affjliatioa,
from wliicll we may deduce t h a t any other distinguishing characteristics were either extremely
subtle o r represented in aspects of culture with
which the Jesuits were not concerned. T h e variously spelled plronemic transcriptions indicate
t h a t tlie Bear people spoke a slightly different
dialect (Steckley 1982a:29).
Tlle nreaning of 'nation" has been widely debated. Ra.geneau ( J R 16:227-229) noted t h a t the
nations were separate in origin: the Bear and
Cord groups had been residents in Huronia for a

long period, while t h e Rock and Deer groups had

recently joined them. Wright (1966) explained
t h e disappearalice of the Lake Ont,ario Iroquoians
by this tradition, while Tooker (196731) linked i t
t o the disappearance of the St. Lawrence Iroqnoians. As was shown above, n o sites in Huronia s h o ~ vtraits which are exclusively clraracteristic of either group, though tlre f r e q ~ ~ e n cofy Lake
Ontario Iroquoian ceramic traits is much higher
than t h a t of St. Lawrence Iroquoians.
Tooker argued tlrat the IIuroli nations were
separate tribes, noting t h a t their names did not
resemble the names of Iroquoia~lsclans o r moieties (1967), and this interpretation is widely accept,ed (cf. Tyyska and Hurley 1969; R i g g e r
1976). Steckley (1982a) has recently offered another model, based on lingl~isticevidence, which
suggests t l ~ a tthe IIuron nations were clans, organized in a three-part pbrat1.y structure similar
t o t h a t described for the New York Iroquoians.
from the archaeological viewpoint, these two
models are likely t.o appear rather different. If t.he
Huron nations were separate tribes, t.hen some
aspects of mat.eria1 cult.ure must surely exhibit,
ethnic distinctiveness correlating t o the politicalsocial reality. F ~ ~ r t h e r m o r eif, some of t,hese
nations originated outside Huronia, then these
traits sllould have their chronological antecedents
in some area otller t l ~ a i rHuronia. If, on the other
hand, the Ilnron nations are clans, then we may
hypothesize t h a t constant intermarriage would
lead to a mixing of material culture so tlrat nations would have n o distinguishing etllnic cliaracteristics. Under these circun~stances,the H u r o ~ l
can be effectively treated as a single ethnic group
rather than as a confederacy.
Based on factor analysis of ceramic at.tributes
from prehistoric and prot.ohistoric sites in Lake
O ~ r t a r i oIroquoians a n d Huron regions, Ramsden
concluded,

. . . that Iroquuian cultural events in

Ontario took place witllin an essentially
local context; witliin the context of a few
villages restricted to a local drainage systeur or to r few miles of territory . . .
These clusters appear to show chronological coherence, . . . and some of them
may have maintained their integrity and
distinctiveness long enough to be described by the Freiich as the named nations that were huddled into Hlironis at
the time of intensive contact (1977:295).

186

Ramsden's observations s t o p short of the historic period in Huronia, but they would generally
appear 1.0 support the clan model.
In searching for the nature of et.hnic differentiation, if any, between Huron nations, we shall
briefly compare two seventeenth century Huron
sites which can be c o ~ ~ f i d e n t lattributed
y
to different nations.
T h e Robit.aille site, BeHa-3, is located in the
northwestern part of the Penet,ang Peniasula, a
region occupied solely by the northern branch of
tlie Bear nation who were by far t h e most nunlerous and influential lnenrbers of t h e Huron
confederacy (Tyyska and Hurley 1969). T h e site
was excavated in 1969-1970 under t h e direction
of Alan Tyyska and myself, under f u ~ ~ d i nfrom
g
the Canada Council. It. is a palisaded village of
approxiurately 1.5 hectares, located on t.he edge
of a deeply eroded ravine leadirrg t o Georgian
Ray. One lol~ghousewas completely excavated,
together witlr representative samples f r o m several
middens and a section of palisade (Lat,ta 1976).
Recent research in glass bead chronologies suggests an occupation date of 1640 i-1-10 years,
during the Jesuit mission period (IJunter 1985).
T h e Auger site, BdGw-3, is situated on the
west bank of t h e Coldwater River, in the southeast part of Huronia. It was probably a Cord village. Excavation in 1982-1985, funded by the Ontario Heritage Foundation, revealed a palisaded
village of more t h a n two lrectares extent which
was situat~edon a glacial lake beach ridge high
above the Co1dwa.t.e~valley. Two complete longhonses, plus portions of four others, have been
excavated, together with representative samples
from seven middens and sections of palisade from
two sides of the village ( L a t t a 1986a). Glass bead
chro~rologyputs this site some 10 t o 20 years
earlier than t , l ~ eRobitaille site (Hunter 1985),
though t,he occupations Inay have overlapped to
solne extent.
As a result of the slight difference in occupation dates, a t a time when cultural changes were
extremely rare, we will not at,tempt t o compare
trade goods between the sites. Sliclr a different,iation is certainly possible and hopefully i t will be
carried o u t , but the present study incorporates
only native traits and t,echnologies.
There was n o real difference in subsistence remains although dog bone was present in higher
quantities at Robitaille and larger a ~ n o u n t sof
charred corn a n d beans occurred a t Auger. These
probably indicate a house fire shortly after harvest.

E?'HArlCITY AND CULTURE

Both sites are situated a t the t o p of steep

slopes a n d surrounded by wooden palisades. T h e
houses in t h e Auger site are tightly spaced and
organized along streets; middens accumulat,ed in
open plazas in two or more locations. No information a b o u t house orientat,ion was obtained a t
the Robitaille site, b u t Iniddens accumulated a t
both ends of t l ~ eexcavated house, suggesting t h a t
houses were more widely spaced.
T h e Auger houses had i~ndefinedeastern ends
which lrave been tentatively attributed t o lightly
built sections intended for seasonal removal
(Latta 1986a). T h e Robitaille house, like other
houses examined in Huronia, had clearly defined
ends.
T h e Robitaille house had a large number of
small, irregular pits a n d post moulds along the
central aisle. T h e post moulds were interpreted
as the remains of sweat batlrs (Tyyska 1972). T h e
pits, which are unstratified cache and refuse deposits, a r e comparatively uncommon in t h e side
wall portions of the house. T h e Auger liouses
have very few pits and post lnoulds in the central aisle areas. T h e post moulds w h i c l ~do occur
are very large a n d have been interpreted a s roofsupport fcat,ures (Latta 1986a). The pits, usually
only two o r three to a house, are also very large,
often more t h a n a metre in diameter a n d depth.
They contained stratified fill, including charred
botanical ren~ailrswlriclr suggest c o m n ~ u l ~storal
age vats or charring pits. They occur in the ends
of t h e longhol~sesor near t h e sides; the centre
aisles are altuost devoid of pits.
C e r a ~ n i c sare generally similar. T h e Auger
site had a much higher incidence of lip notching
and interior d a c o l . a t i o ~ ~while
,
sub-collar purrctates and full neck decoration were present in
higher freq~lelrciesin the Robit,aille assemblage.
Evidence suggests t h a t at, least sorne of the observed decorative variai~ces on Huron ceramics reflect the preferences of ilrdivid~lalpotters
(Latta 1985). Goblet-shaped vessels were present
a t Auger; similar vessels are known from other
sites in eastern Huronia (Latta 1986c) b u t none
are reported from western Huroaia.
Other aspects of nraterial culture are extremely
similar. Evidence of stone chipping is rare in both
cases. Both populations imported red siltst,one
and carved it into beads. Ground bone awls are
rare in b o t h assemblages, while needles and shell
disc beads are common.
T h e ceramic pipe assemhlagee cor~tainsimilar
non-effigy pipes. Effigy pipes have been suggested as possible nation markers (Noble 1979),

Latia/OArTARIO IROOQUOIAA'S

187

but it would be rash to attempt t o define dis- fore, t h a t national distinctions existed. These
tributional patterns from this study. T h e Ro- appear far t o o subtle t o be detectable on t h e
bitaille site produced wolf, dog, bird and human archaeological level, however; if the male memhead effigies; the Auger residents made owl and bers of the village were responsible for construc~
bird types. Both sites produced human effigies, tion, this pattern might be interpreted t . reflect
though the face on the single head fragment of a virilocal residence pattern, quite t,Le opposite of
Robitaille pipe is clearly a "Blowing Face" type t h e n~atrilocalpattern ge~lerallyascribed t o tlre
while the faces on t h e three cornplete bowls from Huron.
Auger have slit mouths, one of which has inlaid
slrell teeth. There has never been a distributional
study of Huron effigy pipes, b e t many specimens
Settlement. patterns, part,iclarly house confrom different sites appear so similar in style as struction, offer some means of ethnic group ideat o suggest a single craftsman. They d o not cor- tification, but, as has been show, special activity
respond t o the nations' names; bear effigies are sites nray be atypical in key traits, thus blurrare (Mathews 1981:37-38) and n o pipes lrave ring distinctiveness. Material culture, even o n
ever been described as deer, cord, o r rock effi- a small scale, can b e very suscept.ib1e t o crossgies. Perhaps they represent such socially cross- fertilization through populahio~rmovements a n d
cutting agencies as curing ceremonies.
concept diffnsion.
Bone was carved into objects of decor a t 'rve o r
Of the three levels of ethnicity presented in
ceremonial significance a t hot11 sites. T h e Ro- rhis paper, t h e most striking differences are
bidaille site produced a flute made from the leg found on the second level, t h a t of Iroquoian
bone of a large bird and two tiny masks; the faces groups. Archaeological patterns did not reflect
on these masks, incidently, resenrble the faces on t h e historically-documented lillguistic distribut,he effigy pipes from the Auger site, with indi- tion; interpretors of prehistoric ethnic it,^ should
cations of t,eetlr along the slit. mouths. A carved be relucbant t o identify language groups on t h e
ar~tlercomb was recovered from the Auger site. basis of material ciiltnre alone. As well, there
As with the effigy pipes, i t is impossible t o iden- is srnall chance t h a t tlre arcl~aeologistcan distify these unique objects with specific nations.
tinguish ethnicity on t h e level of the Huron naTwo sub-floor adult burials, one male and one tions, even tlrongh such distinctions are emically
female, were found in the single house a t Ro- accept,ed.
bitaille; bot,h were flexed, without grave goods.
T h e value of ethnic analogy for archaeologiNo burials have beer1 enco~rntereda t Anger. Nei- cal irtterpretation bas long been accepted wit11out
ther site has been aspociated with an ossuary.
question. This study clearly indicates a need t o
e , traits wlrich separate the reconsider traditional positiorls and t o apply t h e
To s u m ~ n a r i ~ the
Robibaille site from t h e Auger site, hence a village most rigorous scientific nletlrods t o the definition
of tlte Bear from orre of the Cord nation, are few
of lroquoian ethnicity.
in number. These include: (a) use of convertable
house ends, (b) 1ocat.ion and size of house pits, (c)
NOTES
presence of small post moulds in longhousc inte1 . J R refera to Thwaites (1959), followed by spariors, representirrg sweat. baths, arrd (d) selected
cific volunle and page references.
ceramic attributes i~lcludinglip totc cl ling and use
of sub-collar purrctates. Such small v a r i a t i o ~ ~ s
REFERENCES CITED
may represent fairly major differences in bellavBoy'e, David
ior and belief, especially the presence/absence of
1902 Earthworks in the Township of Moore. Annual
sweat lodges within longl~ouses,but the ceramic
Archaeological Reports for Ontario for 1901,
distir~ctionswere not recognized by tlre French
pp.32-35. Appendix t o the Report of the Minand their n~eanilrgt o the Huron is far from clear.
ister for Education, Toronto, Ontario.
As with the differel~ces noted previously beBiggar, H.P.
tween the Olltario Iroquoians groups, t.he pri1929 The Works of Samuel de Chnmplain. G volmary distinguishing cflaracteristics appear t o lie
umes. The Champlain Society, Toronto.
in house constructiorl and settlement patterns,
Ernerson, J . Norman
rather than in artefacts. T h e house patterlls a t
19G8 Understanding Iroquois Pottery
Ontario: A
the Rohitaille and Auger sites suggest t h a t differRethinking. Ontario Archaeological Society
ent arcl~itecturaltradit,ions did exist and, thereSpecial Publication, Toronto.

ETH.VIGITY AND ClfiTLIRE

188

Fox, Williari~A.
1979 An Analyxia of an Historic Huron Attignawantan Lithic Assemblage. Ontario Archaeology
32:Gl-88.
Garrad, Charles and Conrad Heidenreich
1978 Khionontateronon (Petun).
In Northeast,
edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 394-397.
Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15,
William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, P.C.
Hayden, Brian
1978 Bigger is Better? Factors Determining Ontario Iroquois Site Sizes. Canadian Journal of
Archaeology 2:107-116.
Hunter, James
1985 A Preliminary Statement Concerning the
Glass Trade Bead Sequence in Huronia. Paper
presented a t the Ontario Archaeoiogical Society symposium on the Prehistory of the Lake
Huron and Georgian Bay Drainage Basin, London.
Jaminson, James B.
1983 An Examination of Prisoner-Sacrific and Cannibalism a t the St. Lawrence Iroquoian Roebuck Site. Canadian Journal of Archaeology
7:159-175.
Jamieson, Susan M .
1981 Economics and Ontario Iroquoian Social Organization. Canadian Journal of Arshaeology
7:19-30.
Johnston, Ricl~ardB .
1979 h'otes on Ossuary Burial Among the Oiltario Iroquois. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 3:91-104.
Junker-Andersen, Christen
1984 Fauna1 Resource Ezploitation Among the St.
Lawrence Iroyuoians. The Zooarchaeology of
the Steward Site (BfFt-21, iWorrisburg, Ontario.
Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto.
Kapches, Mimn
1980 Wall Trenches on Iroquoian Sites. Archaeology
of Eastern North America 8:98-104.
Knight, Dean and Saly Cnrl~eron
1983 The Ball Site: 1975.1982. Special publication, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario.
Latta, Martha A.
1976 The Jrnotiotnn Cultures o f Hurontn: A Studv
of Acculturation through Archaeology. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto.
1985 In Search of the Individual in Prehistory: the
Huron Potter. Paper presented a t the 16th
annual meeting of the Canadian Arcliaeological
Association, Winnipeg.

A 17th Century Attigneenongnahzc Vill;~ge:

Settlement Patterns a t the Auger Site (BdGw3). Ontarto Archaeology, in press.
1986b Identification of 17th Century French Misslons in Eastern Huronia. Manuscript in possession of the author.
1986c Iroquoian Stemware. Manuscript in possession of the author.
I98Gn

Lennox, Paul
1984 The Hood Site: A Historic Neutral Town of
l640 A.D. National M l ~ s e u mof Man Mercury
Series, Archneological Survey of Canada, Paper No. 121, Ottawa.
MacNeish, K.S.
1952 Iroquois Pottery Types: A Technique for the
Study of Iroquois Prehistory. Bulletin No. 124,
h'ational Museur~laof Canada, Ottawa.
Mason, Roaald J .
1981 Great Lakes Archaeology. Academic Press, New
York.
Mathews, Zena Pearlstone
1981 The Identification of Animals on Ontario Iroquois Piper. Canadian Journal of Archaeology
5:31-48.
Mitehell, B.M.
1970 The Petawawa Small Sit,es Report. Ontario
Archaeology 15:20-53.
1975 Iroquois or Algonkin Ceramics? Ontorio Archaeology 25:61-78.
Noble, Ct'illiam C.
IQ75 Corn and t h e IIeselop,nent of Village Life in
Southern Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 25:3746.
1979 Ontario Iroquois Effigy Pipes. Canadian Journal of Archatology 359-90.
1984 Historic Neutral Iroquois Settlement Patterns.
Canadian Journal of Archneology 8:3-27.
Pendergast, .lames F.
1982 The Origin of hlaple Sugar. Syllogeus N o . 36,
Nations1 Museum of Natural Science, Ottawa.
1984 The Beckstead Site 1977. National Museum of
Man Mercury Series, Arch;~eologicalSurvey of
Canada, Paper No. 123, Ottawa.
Ramsden, Peter G.
1977 A Refinement of Some Aspects of Huron Ceramic Analysis. National Museum of Man htercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada
Paper No. 63, Ottawa.
1978 An Hypothesis Concerning the Effects of Early
European Trade anlong the Ontario Iroqois.
Canadian Journal of Archaeology 2:101-106.

Starna, William A.
1981 Old D a t a and New Models: Bridging the Gap.
In Foundattons o/Northeast Archaeology, edited
by Dean Snow, pp. 139-173. Academic Press,
New York.
Steckley, John
l982a T h e Clans and Phratries of the Huron. Ontario Archaeology 37:29-34.
1982b T h e Cord R i d e of the IIuron. Arch Notes
82:F-15, Toronto
Snow, Dean R.
1978 Shakinr:
- Down the New Paradipm.
- Archaeology
of Eastern North America F:87-90
Tliwaites, Reuben G . (editor)
1g59 The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents
Originally published 1899-1901. 73 volumes.
Pageant Press, New York.
Tooker, Elisabeth
1967 A n Elhnography of the Huron Indtans lfi151549. Huronia I-Iistorical Society, Midland,
Ontario.
Trigger, Bruce G.
1976 The Children o f Aataensic: A Hisloru" o f the
Huron People. 2 voluwes. McGill-Queens University Press, Montreal.
1981 Preliistoric Social and Political Oreaiiizat,ion:
An Iroquoia~lCase Study. In Foundations of
Northeast Archaeology, edited by Dean Snow,
pp.1-50. Academic Press, New York.

Tuck, James A.
1971 Onondaga Iroquois Prehistory. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, New York.
Tyyska, Allan
1972 Huron Sweat Baths. Paper present,ed a t the
5th annual meeting of the Canadian Archaeological Association, St. John's, Wewfoundland.
Tyyska, Allan and Willinm Hurley
1969 T h e Maurice Village and the Huron Rear.
Paper presented a t the 2nd annual meeting
of the Canadian Archaeological Association,
Toronto, Onthrio.
White, Marion E.
1978 Erie. In Northeast, edited by Rruce G. Trigger,
pp. 412-417. Handbook of North America11 111dians, Vol. 15, Williani G. Sturtevant, general
editor. Sinithsonian Institution, Washingt.on,
D.C.
Wintemberg, W.J.
1946 T h e Sidev-Mackay Village Sit,e. Amerrcan An
tiquity 11:154-182.
U'right, Jarnes V.
Bulletin
1966 The Ontario Iroquois 7iadition.
No. 210, National Museums of Canada, Ottawa.
Wright, Milton J .
1981 The Walker Site.
National Museum of
Man Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of
Canada Paper No. 103, Ottawa.

Wrong, George M. (editor)

1968 Sogard's Long Journey to the Country of the
Hurons. Fzcsimile of 1938 edition. Greenwood
Preas, New York.

ETHNICITY AND CULTURE

A N EXPRESSION OF CONFIDENCE:
ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR
ETHNICITY IN DAWSON CITY, YUKON
TERRITORY
Brian D. Ross
Klondike National Historic Sites
Parks C a n a d a
Dawson City, Yukon

When gold was discovered in t h e Klondike in

1896, t h e world had been in the grip of global
depression for over two decades. When news
of the Klo~rdikestrike reached t h e ouLside world
in 1897, i t "had the right psychological effect"
(Stuart 1980:14). T h e Klondike caught the attention of t h e world a n d "pro~nisedfort,une and
adventure t o depression-weary ~ n e nand women"
(Guest 1978:l). Of the estimated 100,000 wouldb e gold seekers t,hat set off for tlie Kloridike in
1898, less tlran a tliird act,nally arrived. Nevertheless, the result was a massive iirflux of people
that tra~isfoi-medtlie simple inining canrp t h a t
had sDruna UD a t the confluerice of the Yukon
and Klondike Rivers.
In two short years, t,his c a m p of 500 men
boonred into a metropolis of sonie 10,000 t o
D~~~~~~c i t y became tire most
20,000
cosmopolit.an mining camp t h e world had ever
seen.
A

" .

the erid of t,he Klondike Rush did not result in

the end of t h e Klondike.
Following the initial frenzy of the Klondike
stampede, a sense of orderly development and sophistication pervaded Dawson City ... [As] the bog was drained,
street? improved and municipal services introduced and improved, the raw mining
town of 1397-98 gave way to an Edwardian city with n number of solid, more substantjal stractures. There was an abiding
faiih in Dawson's destiny as a great northern metropolis (Waiser 1984:2).

However, this stabiliby was without a solid

foundation. "The city's fate was tied t o gold,
and as the productioll of gold slowly fell, Dawson began to fade away" (Guest 1978:73).
In 1975, Parks C a n a d a established the
Klondike Natio~ialHistoric Sites (KNHS) to deAlmost from the beginning, its populavelop, interpret and, in other ways, commemtion was polyglot. There were Canadiorate Dawson City and its environs as a herans, Englishmen, Chinese, Danes, Dut.ch,
itage reserve of t,he 1896 Kloudike gold discovFinns, French, Germans, Greeks, Indiery. Since 1976, twenty-three of tlre forty-one hisans, Italians, Japanese, Norwegians, Rust,oric KNHS propert,ies in Dawson C:it,y ha5.e been
sians, Spaniards and Swedes. But by far,
archaeologically investigated. Almost a decade
of work, a t a wide variety of residential, industhe largest number were Americans (Guest
1978:36).
trial, commercial a n d social service sites, has afThis o~rslauglrt eventually altered the origi- forded the Kh'HS Archaeology Project an opportunity t o make some broad and irisightful obllal frolltier nature of this boom town by
,,l,, transplanting the
into D~~~~~ servations. One such observation concerris t h e
determination of et,linicity through t h e archaeotime, i t was t h e largest
c i t y . ' c ~ oar
west, of WinI1ipeg and north of Seattie" (Guest logical record. Indeed, a nurnber of 'ethnic" or
"exotic" art.efacts have been recovered, includ1978:73).
When t h e boom ended in 1899, t,he population ing Dutch gill bottles, ceramics from Limoges,
of
region fell to half its former
H
~ f i a n c~e , tin can
~ fragments
~
iirscribed
~
~ oriental
,

192

characters, Swedish "oren coins and aboriginal

toggle buttons. T h e discovery of such art,efacts is
a simple m a t t e r of presence in the archaeological
record; but they cannot b e used, of themselves,
to infer the existence of any corresponding ethnic group. To demonstrate the archaeologicnl evidence of ethnicity requires the detection of pattern in the distribt~tioriof artefacts illustrative of
ethnic bellavionr.
An etlinic group can be defined as a group of
people who identify tliemselves and/or who are
identified by others as sliari~rga distinct culture
(Isajiw 1977:77). Culture itself can be viewed
"as a mental system wliicli dictates, in most
cases, subsequent behavioi~ralactions" (Burley,
1979b:13) or "patterns" (Isajiw 1977:77). From
the works of Deetz (1977) on the Afro-American
site of Parting Ways, Massachnsetts, and of
Teague and Shenk (1977) on the Chinese site a t
the Hannony Mines, California, it becomes clear
t h a t such cultural o r ethnic patierns c a n be determined a~~chaeologically.
It is not tlie great traditions of cult,ure (the fine arts, scholarly thought
and noble ideas) t,hat are fonnd; it is the r e ~ n a i n s
of the little traditiorrs of ordinary people doing
ordiirary things that, a.re inevitably discovered by
archaeologists. Ei~t,winedwith the folk a r t , folklore and folkways of a people, it is "the little tradition . . . t h a t makes the ethnic group distinctn
(Isajiw 1977:77).
T h e KNHS Arcl~aeologyProject has observed
a t least one recurring pattern in the arcliaeological record of certain sires in Dawson City.
This pat,tern appears t o be indicative of tlre little tradit,iori of Victorian worldview, identity and
behaviour wlriclr distinguislied the Anglo-Celtic
ethnic group as the donrinaot group in Klondike
society. Even though tlie political reigri of Queen
Victoria was to end with lrer death in 1901, the
impact of t.he socio-cnltural era tliat bore lrer
name was t o persist well into t,lre subsequent Edwardian age.
To illustrate this assertion, I will snmniarize
the arcliaeological observations from three sites:
St. Andrew's Presbyterian Manse, D. Jolrt~
Brown's Residence ( a k a . "McCormick't Place")
and the North West Mourit,ed Police post. of Fort
Herchmer. All three sites were a t their peak occupation during Dawson's Vict.orian/Edwardian
period. All three were residences (at Fort. Herchnrer, emphasis is given t o the nlarried oficers' quarters) and all three were tlre embodinielit of Anglo-Celtic Victorianism. T h e Manse
was built by a c o ~ ~ g r e g a t i ocharacterized
n
by

ETHA'ICITY An'D CULTURE

substance and position wit,lrin the conr~nnnity
(Stuart 1981:9). Indeed, t h e congregation was
composed of upstanding barristers, physicians,
judges, entrepreneurs a n d civil servants (Stuart
1981:Q) a n d tlreir church, their manse and tlreir
ministers were expected t o express and mainiairi
this social image.
Excavations were first undertaken a t this site
in 1981 t o locate and document the foundation
system and other buried architect,ural details. Investigations were clustered underneath tlie front
bow window along the north wall and in the
north-east yard adjacent t o t h e rear door. These
ilrvestigations proved successful, also revealing
a buried step feature at tlre back door and a
coal cliute in t h e north-east corner. All artefacts
were of a distinct rcsident.ial/personal nature and
t.Ireir distributioli pattern was interesting. Artefact density increased dramatically 'as excavations progressed from the front of the structure
to the yard area immediately adjacent t o the rear
door" (Ross 1982:6).
Dr. J o h ~Brown was a respec.t,able American
dentist whose "residence not only was iri keeping
with Browrl's affluence, b u t also reflected Dawson's optimistic outlook" (Waiser 1984:Z). This
appearance of affluerice a n d optimism was maintained when t h e property was take11 over by a
widowed telepllo~reoperator, Mrs. Elizabeth Wilson. At this site, the 1984 archaeology season
concentrated oil locating historic landscape features in tlre front (sout,h) yard, along tlre east wall
and in the rear (Ross 1984:8-11). The project
s~~ccessfully
located non-visible fence lines and
buried boardwalks. Tlie scarcity of artefacts in
the front areas of the site was profound. As wit11
the Manse, rile quantity of artefacts increased
markedly in t h e back yard. Indeed, the fairly
extensive remains of some sort of animal cage,
pea or coop were found t o tlie rear of the liouse.
T h e N.W.M.P. were t h e backbone of tlie order and stability t h a t cliaracterized Victorian
Dawson. T h e strong moral character and civicmindedness of the police have been historically
remarkable (see Guest 1981:133-134). This disciplined illtegrit,y and respectability was carried
over t o t h e development and lnaint,enance of the
post itself. Excavations in a n d around the married officers' quarters in 1977 (Minni 1978:63-66)
and 1978 (Burley and Ross 1079a:37-95) revealed
valuable structural and landscape information,
ilrclnding a highly o r l ~ a m e n t a lrockery along tlie
building's south wall. However, the most noteworthy observatiot~regarding t h e artefacts from

Ross/ETHNICITY IA' DAWSON CITY, YI!KOI\'

193

this site concerr~edtheir relative absence. This for this difference in artefact. yield between tlrese
meagre yield of artefacts was also encountered two types of resident.isl sites must therefore lie in
during excavations a t the police stable and a t tlreir original deposition.
T h e generally low yield of artefacts and esthe hospital cum jail (Burley and Ross 1979a:4851; Ross 1980:2-3; Ross 1982:3-4 and 6-7; and pecially the clustering of artefacts in secluded
Ross 198332-5). It has been argued t h a t this backyard areas for the three sites of the Manse,
dearth of artefacts may be due t o the "militarislic Brown's residence and Fort Herchmer is suggesregimentation and cleanliness standards during tive. It is my contention t h a t this pattern is inthe N.W.M.P. occupation a t Herchmer" (Burley dicative of the culture and, subsequently, the be1979a:5). I believe this t o be only a partial ex- haviour of the iahabitants of these sites. Specifiplanation for this pattern and t h a t some consid- cally, this pattern of artefact deposition and diseration must also be given t o the socio-cultural tribution reflects the Victorian little tradition of
environment in which the N.W.M.P. post f u ~ ~ c -their Anglo-Celtic occupants.
T h e Victorian age was truly the era of the midt:ioned.
In a town literally littered with historic ob- dle class. It was during this period that class
jects, the virtual absence of art,efacts from the distinctions rigidified with sucli groups as the
above t,hree sites is remarkable. This is espe- tradesmen, craftsmen and professionals assuming
cially true when these sites are compared to a and assert,ing their place, not just between peasi ~ u n ~ b of
e rother residei~tialsites which have been ant and nobleman, or between r i c l ~and poor, but
arcl~aeologicallyinvestigated (Minni 1978:RO-110; between working class and privileged class. Simand Burley and Ross 1979b). Originally occu- ilarly, as Dawson City matured beyond a minpied due t o t,lie population pressure of thousands ing boom town, its leading citizens were not the
of s t a ~ r ~ p e d e vying
rs
for the limited space avail- "Klondike Kings of t,he early years, but t l ~ etranable on Dawson City's flood-plain, the hillsides sient government officials, company management
were almost cornpletely cleared and covered by and professionals" (Stuart 1980:34). The Presthe tents of these new arrivals. As the popu- byt,erian ministers, an affluent dentist and the
lation of Dawson stabilized around the turn of married officers of the N.W.M.P. can be seen to
the century, these t,er~tswere quickly replaced by be leading ir~embersof Dawson City's burgeoning
clust.ers of residential cabins. As such, these hill- middle class.
T h e \'ict,arian era u,itnessed the "bnilding of
side resident,ial areas were contemporaneous with
the Manse, Brown's residence and Fort Herch- a new social conformity . . . t o complen~entthe
mer. Archaeology has located scores of remains work discipline t h a t was the prirtciple means of
on t l ~ ehillsides characterized by structural foun- social control in an industrial capitalist societyn
dations, terraces and retaining walls as well as (Bailey 1978:5). With the de\,elopment of the
innumerable middens in both direct and indirect middle class came the emergence of middle class
association with these structural areas. The arte- ehhics. The Vict.orian era became renowned for
facts in these middens represented a wide variety its prerequisites of conduct and appearance, such
as status, cleanliness, neatness, public image and
of household litter.
"As the population steadily declined, these other conditions of social visibility whereby the
outskirt areas were no longer ut,ilized and gradn- lives of t,he middle class were tlro~rgl~t
to be open
ally reverted back t o the ~ r a t i ~ rhillside"
al
(Minni t o public observation and scrutiny. By 1001,
1978:95). This abandonnlel~thas often served as "Dawson lrad become as secure and staid as any
the excuse for tile preservat.ion of artefacts on the community in central Canadan (Guest 1981:78).
hills. Yet the paucity of artefacts a t the Manse, T h e entire frontier nature of Dawson City was
Brown's residence and Fort Herchmer cannot be transformed wit,h the arrival of wives and chilsimply explained away by illicit collection. With dren, with the d e v e l o p n ~ e ~
of~proper
t
social clubs
the accumulated overburden of soil as a result of and atlrletic associations and with the increasing
regular floodir~gof the two rivers, the sites on aura of respectability t h a t repressed the racier
the floodplain have been better protected than forms of social behaviour (such as dance halls,
the siinply overgrown sites on the hillsides. In- ga~nblinghouses, saloons and brothels).
deed, other sites on the floodplains have yielded
The Victorian concern over public irnage relarge and well-preserved collections of artefacts sulted in a sense of collective moral integrity,
whereas a number of hillside sites show active dis- bourgeois respectability, and vigilance which
turbance by vandals (Minni 1978:85). The reason "were essential constituents of middle class iden-

194

ETHNICITY AND CULTURE

tity and class consciousnessn (Bailey 1978:65). of tlie KNHS

This cognitive fra~neworki~riposed a great deREFERENCES CITED
gree of uniform it,^ over the behaviour of AngloVictorians.
The constant concern over reBailey, Peter
spect,able public image and public scrutiny was
1978 Leisure and Class in Victorian England: Ratranslated into a behavioliral pattern whereby
tional Recreation and the Contest for Control, 1830-1885. University of Toronto Press,
the yards and houses of the Victorian middle
Toronto.
class were mailttained in i ~ n a ~ a c r ~ l acorldition
t,e
and appearance. Consequently, archaeology a t
Burley, David
1979a Archaeological Research of the Klondike Nat,l~esesites recovers very few artefacts, sir~iplybetional Historic Sites: The 1978 Season. Recause few were allowed t o be deposited in the first
search
Bulletin No. 113. Parks Canada, Otplace. Moreover, i t c a n be argued tlrat it was t h e
tawa.
facade of these l i o ~ n e st h a t was of p a r a m o u a t im1979b Cognitive Modelling: The Implications for
portance, for i t was the face offered t o the cornGold Rush Archaeology. Paper presented at
nlunity for inspection and approval. Conversely,
the conference of the Canadian Archaeological
the backyard can b e seen a s a refuge from the
Association, Vancouver.
public eye, an area reserved for more private a n d
Burley, David, and Brian D. Ross
personal activity. This interpretation would ac1979a
The
Dawson
City
count for the patLern of increased artefact density
Archaeological Program: Structural Report for
at, the rear of tlrese siies.
1978 Operations. Manuscript Report No. 384.
In contrast t,o t,his Anglo-Victorian pattern of
Parks Canada, Ottawa.
middle class fast,idiouzness, tlrere exists the hill1979b The North Dawson Hillside Project: A final
Report. Manuscript Report No. 384. Parks
side remains where "the inhabitants simply deCanada, Ottawa.
posited refuse lnat,erials in adjacent. areas" (Burley and Ross 1979b:45). T h e cognitive and beDeetz, Jaines
1977 I n Small Things Forgotten: The Archaeology
l~aviouralpat,terl~sappear to be quit,e different.
of Early American Life. Anchor Books, New
T h e former pattern reflecled t h e norm or ideal of
York.
social respectability, while the latter "was viewed
Guest, Hal .l.
as less tllarr fit,ting for those deemed socially ac1978
Dawson City, San Fmncisco of the North,
ceptable" (Burley and Rass 1979b:g). It is posor
Boomtown i n a Bog: A Literature Review.
sible "for several cognitive patterns t o co-exist,
Manuscript
Report No. 241. Parks Canada,
even in the midst of a single dominant popuOttawa.
lar culture" (Hurley 1979b:3). In our example,
1981 A History of the C,ty of Dawson, Yukon TerAnglo-Celtic Victorianisnr constituted the domiritory 1896.1920. Microfiche Report No. 7.
nant, popular culture, while class and/or ethnic
Parks Canada, Ottawa.
distinctio~lsaffected t h e different cognitive patIsajiw, W.W.
terns. Indeed, what we may be looki~rga t is
1977 Olga in Wonderland: Ethnicity in Technologan example of an "ethclass" (Millett 1981:78),
ical Society. Canadian Ethnic Studies 9(1):77where the dominant ethnic group also comprises
85.
the darninant ecol~onlicclass.
Millett, David
Donlina~ltgroup status and nlenrbersl~iprel981 Definin~the "Dominant Group". Canadian
quire that, certain ideologies be satisfied and acEthnic Studies 13(3):64-79.
cepted (Millett 1981:70). This paper has atMinni
t,elnpted t o show t h a t t h e Victorian middle class
1978 Archaeological Ezploration of the Klondike Hisconcept of respectability was an ideology of t h e
toric Sites 1976 and 1977. Manuscript Report
dominant Anglo-Celtic group in Dawson City
No. 309. Parks Canada, Ottawa.
around the turn of t h e cent,ury. Furthermore, i t is
R.088, Brian D.
argued t h a t , a s a corrcept.ual framework, this at1980 Archaeological Research of the Klondike Natit,ude towards public appearance a n d social c o ~ l tional Historic Sites: The 1a80 Field Season.
Research Bulletin No. 172. Park. Canada, Otspicuousriess greatly influerlced the group's betawa.
Iiavioural patterns. Consequently, i t has been the
The 1981 Field Season of Archaeological Re1982
little traditions of Anglo-Vict,orian culture and
search at the Klondike National Historic Sites,
ethic t h a t lrave been arcl~aeologicallp discerned
Dowson City, Yukon.
Research Bulletin
a t various liistorical middle class reside~it,ialsites
No. 182. Parks Canads, Ottawa.

Ross/ETNhrICITY IN DAIVSOA- CITY, Y U K O X

1983 Archaeology at the Klondike Notional Historic
Sites, Dawson City, Yukon: The 1.98s Field
Season. Research Bulletin No. 198. Parks
Canada, Ottawa.
1984 Archaeology at the Klondike National Historic
Sites, Dawaon City, Yukon: Tlie 1984 Field
Season. Mar~uscripton file with the author.
Stuart,, Richard
1980 The Underdevelopment of Yukon 1840.1960:
An Overview. Paper presented at the 59th
Conference of tlie Canadian Historical Association.
1081 St. Andrew's Manse, Dawbon, Y.T.: A StrucMicrofiche Report
tural and Use History.
No. 105. Parks Canada, Ottawa.
Teague, George A. and Lynette 0 . Shenk
1977 Ezcavations at Harmony Boraz Works: Ifistor-

ical Archaeology at Death Valley National Monument. Western Archrirological Center, Publications in Anthropology No. F. Nntiorial Park
Service.
Waiaer, W.A.
1984 The McCormick Place:

Staff Housing for

Klondike National Historic Sites. Research

Bulletin No. 22G. Parks Canada, Ot,tawa.

ETHA'ICITY AND CULTURE

SECTION IV

TRACING ETHNIC GROUPS ON THE

NORTHWEST COAST

ETHNICITY AArD CU1,TURE

COAST SALISH ORIGINS: ETHNICITY AND

TIME DEPTH IN NORTHWEST COAST
PREHISTORY
David V. Burleyl and Owen B. Beattie2
1, Department of Arclraeology
Sirnon Fraser University
Burnaby, British Columbia
and
2. Department of Anthropology
University of Alberta
Edmonton. Alberta

phase. Siuce delivery of t h a t paper, we both have

completed dissertations (Burley 197%; Beattie
The study of ethnicity in the archaeological
1981) within which the preceding theme continrecord is a cor~rplexresearch focus t h a t may be
ued t o be addressed t o a greater o r lesser degree.
carried o u t on several investigative planes. PoMoreover, Burley (1979b, 1980) has att,en~pt.ed
to
tentially, these vary from t,lie identificatiolr of thedevelop a systemic model t o explain the rise of
oretical precepts a n d n~ethodologiesto correlacultural conlplexity in this area based upon the
tions of material culture forms wit11 ethrrolingrrisprinciple of discontinuity. Given the continued
tic popnlatio~rs.It is the latter area, t h a t of culemphasis on continuity in regional culture histural identification in t h e archaeological record,
tory (see Murray 1982; Ham 1983; Carlson 1983;
t h a t is tlie priliripal concern of this paper. Ap- Fladnlark 1982), it wollld appear t h a t our tl~esis
plying t.he basic tenets of a direct historical aphas been rejected,
proach, we attenrpt t . define
~
a tinre arrd place
Though we appear t,o have had lit,tle impact.
of origin within Northwest Coast prehistory for
upon regional int,erpretat,ion, we continue t,o hetlle ethnographically identified Coast Salish. We
lieve firmly t.hat discontinuity is not only plausicontend t h a t this is an imperative study for the
ble given tlre existing d a t a base, but a more probprovision of a d a t a base for syst,emic analysis
able occurrence wit11 extreme implications for an
of culture process. We also firmly believe t h a t ,
explanation of culture change. T h e following paslrould we ever hope to move into the more abper reiterates this view througll a brief examiaast.ract realms of etlrnicity in tllis region, and if we
tion of the archaeological and plrysical anthropoevent,ually hope t o understand t h e evolrit.ionary
logical evidence. We also atterrrpt t o reconcile our
co~nplexitiesof Kortliwest Coast culture, a firm
positiorr with that of historical lir~guistics,a disbasis of culture history is required.
cipline used by continuity propor~entsfor interIn tlie 1977 Chacmool conference on Diffusion
pretive support. Finally, wit,hin the cortclusions,
and Migrat,iou, we (Burley and Beattie 1977) prewe offer a speculative lrypothesis concerning the
sent,ed a paper t h a t argued for a re-evaluation of
origins of t,he Coast Salish and the protolinguistlre then entrenched view of lorrg term cultural
tic affiliations of their predecessors in the Gulf of
continuity within t h e Gulf of Georgia region of
Georgia.
the soutllern Northwest Coast. At that t,ime we
felt that. t h e evidence for continuity, if nothing
THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ]FOR A
else, was highly equivocal and t h a t an equally
MODEL OF ETHNIC
plausible explanation of t h e archaeological record
DISCONTINUITY
was t h a t of a populat,ion replacement a t approxiIn our application of the direct hist.orica1 apmately 2400 years ago. This dat,e marks the transition of t h e Locarno Beach pliase t o t h e Marpole proach, we d o n o t single out a particular arte-

INTRODUCTION

200

ETHKIGITY Ah'U CULTURE

1980; Mitchell 1971 arnong others). Among the

most significant differences t h a t we feel cannot be
accounted for by stylistic or adaptive theoretical
principles, given t.he abrupt transition between
Marpole and Locarno Beach, are: 1) the almost.
total teclinological shift in lrarpoon form; 2) a
t,rar~sitioni a tlre tecl~nologyof fish preservation;
and 3) an i~rverserelationship of the frequency of
occurre~rceand diversity of form of chipped and
ground stone projectile points. T h a t some general similarities in asselnblage conrposition also
exist cannot and is not being disputed. However,
unless the immigrant population lras come fronr
a geographic locale so far dist,ant t h a t similarities
for diffusiou, and unof style have n o
less this i n ~ l n i ~ r a group
nt
has a totally different,
technological adaptation, should we not expect,
some degree of overlap?
The sudden change in harpoon form from one
and two-piece t.ogglingvarieties in Locarno Beach
t o a very distinctive u~rilaterallybarbed nontoggling for~rrin early Marpole is perhaps the most
diagnostic of traits for culture historical placement of asser~rblageswithin the region. We suggest this transition t o be t h e ant.it11esis of what
might be expected in the context of et,lrnic continuity and adaptive clrange. Although tlris has
never been empirically tested ( a t least to our
knowledge), i t is generally assumed that. cornposite harpoon tecllnology is a rnore evolved and
efficient adaptation to maritime environments.
Since conrposite forms have not been found in
the early Marpole phase, and only tlre occasiolral
noncomposite specimen has been firmly associated with Locarno Beach, we lack a suitable explanatory frantework in whicl~t o interpret this
transit.ion nuless a dislocation interpret,ation is
invoked. T h e tra~rsitior~al
nature of l ~ a r p o o n
technology within the Marpole phase from the
barbed variety back t o tire two-piece cornposite
form a t approximately 1500 B.P. (Burley 1980;
Mitchell 1971; Monks 1977) seems supportive of
our contention of adaptive efficiency.
Perhaps the most ubiquitoils of art,efact types
for tlrose Marpole sites situated along the Fraser
River are the fragments of thin, well-made
ground slat,e knives (Burley 1980:22, Borde~r
1968:18). Because they occur in site locatio~rs
st.rategically sit,uated t o intercept tlre salmon
runs, and because they were used cont~inuously
The A r c h a e o l o g i c a l C o n t e x t
into the historic period (see Stewart 1977), there
Archaeological assemblage variation between are few problelns i~rterpretingground slate knives
the Locarlro Beach a n d Marpole culture types is as an integral conrponeat of Marpole fish preseramply illustrat.ed in a variety of sources (Burley vation technology. Also, the sheer abundance

fact type or conrplex of types throng11 which we

identify and trace Coast Salish ethnic affiliation.
Rather, we prefer t o look a t the larger context.
of stylistic and t,echnological evolution oTrer time,
assunling a model of gradual change based upon
principles of seriation a n d inclusive adaptation.
At a point where these principles no longer seem
t o explain assenrblage variability, and other evidence may be interpreted a s supporting a population replacement, we would argue for a break in
t,he ethnic continuity of the arclraeological record.
There is little d o u b t t h a t the Coast Salislr
have occupied their lristoric territories for a considerable period of time (Mit.cIrel1 1971; Burley
1980). Historical linguistics, while inconclusive
in putting a specific temporal reference to this
cont.inuity, suggests an early aboriginal homeland
somewlrere west of t h e Coast range (Cascades),
perhaps in tile vicinity of t h e Fraser River mouth.
It was from here t h a t t h e split between inberior
and coastal divisions took place (Suradesh 1954;
Suttles and Elmendorf 1962; Kincade and Powell
1978; Jorgenson 1969, 1980). T h e archaeological
d a t a representative of the past 2400 years of Gulf
of Georgia occupatiorl d o not provide compelling
reasons for arguing against such population continuity (Mitchell 1971; Burley 1980; Fladnrark
1982). Finally, osteological d a t a for t h a t period
also seem ilrdicative of a single population with
little internal variation (Cybulski 1975; Beattie
1981). Altlrough sequent and contenrporaneous
phases have been defined for this prriod of time
(Borden 1968; Carlson 1970 arnong others), it.
can be argued t h a t they grade into each other in
terms of the characteristics of their arcl~aeological as~e~rrblages
or are explainable within a subsistence model of site variability. In short, the
Coast Salish et.11nic variant of Nortl~westCoast
culture 11ns a time depth of n o less than 2400
years.
16 is in the period prior t o 2400 B.P. t h a t we fail
t o recognize tire Coast Salislr ethnic variant. The
culture l~istoricaldivergence in t h e arclraeological record is bet,ween t h e Marpole and Locarno
Beach plrases. Here we will examine the various
lines of evidence t h a t have led us t o this position. If one develops a skept.icism due t o a lack
of detailed descriptive dat.a, we refer you t o our
respective dissert,a.tions.

201

Burley a n d Brattie/COAST SALISH ORIGIXS

of these specimens can be taken as a reflection

~
of the intensity and importance of s a l r n o ~fishing and a preserved surplus t o Marpole subsistence pat,Lerns. While ground slate knives are by
no means absent in Locarno Beach assemblages
(Mitchell 1971; Borden 1908), they are neither
abundant nor, in most cases, finished t o the extent of their Marpole count,erparts. O n t,l~isbasis
we contend t h a t there is a t,ransition in adaptive
technology which is tied t o a greater emphasis on
the salnron resource in coastal subsistence. Indeed, Burley (1979b) has gone so f a r as t o argue
for a total change in subsist,ence econornies from
t h a t based on generalized hunt,ing and gat,hering
t o t h a t of specialized artd intensified salmon fishing. This emphasis on ground slate knife tech.
nology is present 2000 years earlier in the Fraser
Canyon's Eyam phase (Borden 1968:19).
T h e final assemblage characteristic w h i c l we
have identified as pote~~t,ially
indicative of a population replacerrient is t h a t of an inverse relationship in the frequency of occnrrence and diversity of form of chipped and ground stone projectile points. In Locarno Beach there is a genera1 tendency toward fewer chipped stone; as opposed t,o ground stone, point styles, and chipped
stone points seem to occur less frequently (Borden 1968, 1970). For tlre early portion of the
Marpole phase t,Ire diversity of style a n d frequency of occurrence for chipped stone points is
11igI1, while t h a t of gronnd slate is low (Burley
1980). Tltese relationships, we suggest, are a n
important index of the relation of interior and
coastal trends in t.ec11nological adaptation.
To suggest t h a t changes in harpoon t,echnology, fish preservation tecl~nologyand chipped to
ground stone point ratios are indicative of a pop~llatiotlreplacenrent requires not just docurnentation !.hat they occurred, bnt also t h a t t.hey occurred abruptly u.it.11 n o intermediate stage. No
suc11 d o c u n ~ e n t a t i o n11as been illustrated for assemblage variation belween Marpole and t h e subsequent Developed Coast Salish phases (San Juan
ial
and Stselax), and a c o ~ ~ s e q l ~ e n tinterpretation
y resulted. For the Marof ethnic c o n t i ~ ~ u i thas
pole/Locarno Beach interface, it. is difficult t o
document. a b r u p t change in any one locale. Nevertheless, if we r x a r ~ l i r ~the
e suite of radiocarbon
dates available t o us (Burley 1980:32, 34-35), it
can b e see11 t h a t the initial Marpole occupation
on the mainland coast occurs within a 50 year
time span between 400 B . C . and 350 B.C.. Perhaps even more significant is t , l ~ efact that. Locarno Beach occupations, with two exceptions,

d o not overlap Marpole in time, yet are dated

t o within 100 years of its first presence. T h e exceptions can be explained within the context of
potential sample error.
Bnrley (1980) has calculated t,he mean centre
of spatial distribution for Marpole occupations
within {.he Gulf of Georgia based upon three ternporally defined intervals. These groupings inl
occupation
cluded sites having an i l ~ i t i aMarpole
prior t o 300 B.C., those having an initial Marpole
dated component between 300 B.C. and A.D. 1
a n d sites w l ~ e r ethe first evidence for the Marpole
phase occurs after A.D. 1. Tlie results of tllis exercise are rather revealing. T h e first presence of
Marpole in the Gulf of Georgia is firrnly rooted at
t h e mouth of the Fraser River wit11 a subsequent
spread out into the southern Gulf and San J u a n
Islands. Only after A.D. 1 does the mean centre
of Marpole distribution move sliglltly north, filling in t h a t area ethnograpl~icallyoccupied by the
Coast Salish. If we accept t h e proposition t h a t
Marpole o r i g i ~ ~ a t , eon
d the mainland, wit11 a subsequent spread into t,he islands, then it provides
t h e interest,ing possibility of finding contemporaneous Locarno B e a c l ~co~nponentsin t h e islands.

The Ost,eological Context

T h e earliest int,erpret,ations for population replace~rrent and biological discontinuity in t l ~ e
Gulf of Georgia region can be attributed t o
C l ~ a r l e sHill-Tout (1895) in the late 1800s, a n d
H a r l a r ~I. S ~ n i t , la~n d Franz Boas early this century (Smith 1903). In both cases, observed variation in cranial shape was used as the discriminating factor. In skeletal nlat,erials from t h e Marpole
site, for example, Boas argued there t o be popu1at.ions of "~rarrowheaded" and "broad headed"
peoples. In the 1930s, G.E. Kidd also analysed a
series of crania from Marpole (Kidd 1933). In deferring t o the earlier judgement of Boas, he again
snggested tlrere t o be two physical popolations,
based on cranial shape.
R . Heglar (1958a, 1958b, 1958c), in the late
1950s, cor~ducted t l ~ efirst scientifically-based
comparative analysis of cranial and post-cranial
mat,erials in the region. Analyzing osteological
remains from the Marpole, Locarno Beach, and
Whalen sit,es, he concll~dedt h a t the "Boasian"
head forms were, in fact, the result of artificial cranial deformation within a single population. However, he continued to support t h e idea
of two separate physical populations over time
based on other lines of evidence. Though his
Locarno Beach and Whalen samples were small,

there was distinct ~norpf~ological

variation between this sample and t h a t frorn Marpole. In his
terms (1958a,b), t,he Locarno/Whalen material
was representative of a population significantly
different from the Marpole ~ n a t e r i a l(see Beattie 1981). IJnfort,nnately, Inore recent physical
anthropological d a t a available for the assessment
of Heglar's conclusions still comes from but a few
sources, and each c o ~ ~ t i ~ r utoe sbe c h a r a c t e r i ~ e d
by small sample sizes or restricted time periods
(Finnegan 1972; Cybulski 1975, 1978; Haggarty
and Hall 1981;Beattie 1981, 1985; Gordon 1974;
etc.). These materials, nevertheless, may be used
for t h e identification of trends and as support for
refutat,ion of a n archaeological model of discontinuity.
In analysing coast,al skeletal materials, biological d a t a are derived fro111 a n inter-related series of a~ralyticalmethods, all describing morphological features irlrder varying degrees of genetic and/or environrnental and/or cnlt,ural control. Among others, these include: 1) metric morphological analysis reflecting quantitative
and qualitative informatiorl on skelet,al proportionality and robusticity, 2) non-metric morplrological analysis reflecting the approximate degree
of genetic affinities between skeletal samples, a s
well as micro-evolut,ionary change througll time,
3) palaeopatlrology reflecting environment,al and
cultoral influences on disease processes, 4) biochemical arlalysis providing informatio~lof varying quality on diet and health a s well a s age and
sex assessment, and 5) tnicro~norphologicalanalysis also providing informatio~rof varying quality
on diet, health, age and sex. Chalrgee in morphological features through t,irne can be explained
n t a l microevolut~ion,cbangby e ~ r v i r o r r ~ ~ ~ eshifts,
irrg cultu~.alpractices, and population dislocation
(Beattie 1981).
With srnall numbers of skeletons for any one
time period, the orrly practical approach t o a
det.ailed assessment of population variation is t o
lump the materials into two clrronologically distinct sub-sanrples; t.he divisiorl point is t h e Marpole/Locarao Beach chronological interface. We
thus define a n early Locarlro populat,ion having
approxilnate dates of circa 5000 to 2400 years
ago and a lat,er Salis11 population with a temporal span of circa 2400 t,o 1500 years ago. With
such long periods of time represented in each of
the samples, one must be cautious, and perhaps
crilical, of any conclusions of observed variation.
Silrce other alternatives do not exist, we accept
the inherent problems and criticism.

The dat,a upon which our discussion is based

recently have been analysed by Beattie (1981).
In his analysis, Beattie had access t o 38 individuals (12 females, 12 males, 14 indeterminate sex)
for the Locarno pop~llation,and 77 individuals
(23 females, 25 males, and 29 indeterminate sex)
for Coast Salish. These materials were excavat,ed
from eight regio~ralsites (see Beattie 1981) spanning most of the culture lristorical record of the
Grrlf of Georgia. From these samples, we suggest
that varied morphological patterns are present,
even though a majority c a ~ r ~ r obet statistically
validated d u e t o sample size. Tlre following discussion, therefore, necessarily is a qualitative review of the evidence.
Assessment of age based on dental attrition, osteoarthritis, pubic symphyses and cranial sutures
indicate major differences of lifespan between t h e
Locarno and Salish popnlations. Those individuala living longest were Locarlro males; Salish
males generally died a t a younger age. Observed
variation does not exist in t h e lifespan of Locarno and Salislr females. Critical factors leading to differences in male lifespan can be interpreted largely in a cultural context, and include
interpersonal aggression and, pel-haps, differential access to, and risk in obtaining, subsistence
reso~~rces.
A second series of observed diffel-ences which
reflect cultural variation is t,hat. associated with
cranial deforn~ation. Alnrost all Locarno skulls
lack d e f o r m a t , i o ~and,
~ where i t does occur, i t has
been suggested t,o be an unintentional byprodnct
of cradleboard use (Beatt,ie 1981). In comparison, virtually all Salish skulls display one of t.hree
types of int,e~rt,io~ral
defol-nation. Such forms of
deformation may, based on ethnographic d a t a ,
represent sta.t,us variation or, possibly, cosmetic
st,andards.
Unfortunatcly, deformation interferes wit11 the
ability t o cornpare cranial n~orpllologicald a t a .
Both metric and non-metric features are alt.ered
by the deformit~gprocess, a n d comparisons of
early and late samples is a t best dificult, and
oftelr ilnpossible. Table 1 provides a qualitat,ive
c o m p a r i s o ~of
~ the size, shape and other proportionate characteristics of the Locarno and Salish
samples. In summarizing the o b s e r v a t i o ~ ~ofs Table 1, we suggest some cranial variation t o be
present, wit11 Locarno skntls being longer, lower
and narrower than those of t h e Salish population
(realizing t h a t there are deformation effects). As
well, lna~rdiblesin Locarlro males are more robust
and larger than their Salish counterparts.

Aurley a n d Beattie/COAST SALISH OHIGIIVS

.~

-~-..~p

Locarno Samples
~.~
mesiocraaial
moderate braincase size
medium vault height
moderate forehead width
nledium upper facial width
broad t o t a l facial width
very narrous nasal aperture
square/circular orbits
broad maxillary
alveolar profile
-.-p--.-.p

..-.

~~

203

Salish Sample
l~vnerbrachvcranial
nroderate braincase size
high nlale and medium to low feniale vault heights
narrow forehead widt,h
medium upper facial width
broad total facial width
average nasal aperture
sqnare/circular orbits
broad inaxillary alveolar profile
S

Table 1: Comparative Observations of 1,ocarno and Salis11 Cranial Traits

Examining t h e post-cranial skeleton, Locarno resources required for balanced nutrition.
males are found to b e larger, longer and more
T h e determination of sexual dimorphism is ofrobustly built in the upper body. Lower body t,en qualit,ative. However, we suggest t h a t there
traits are similar for bot,l~with a slight tendency are major differences between the Locarno and
fortarger size in the Salish male population. This Salish samples with the most extreme variasituation is repeated in t h e fernales, but to a tion occurring in Locarno times. Locarno felesser degree. Stature estimates based on fe- males are the most gracile of the sl~bsamplesand
mur l e n g t l ~indicate Locarno niales and females t o they dernonst,rate t h e most advanced degenerabe slightly taller t h a n Salish males and fernales; tive arthritic changes indicative of a very physithe magnitude of this difference, admitt,edly, is cally demanding lifestyle. Tliis observation Inay
small in c o m p a r i s o ~t~o other skeletal observa- be important in suggesting possible poprilat,ion
tions (Beahtie 1981:109-110):
differences related t o sexual division of labour.
Degenerative joint disease (osteoarthritis) Other conrparisons show t,he Locarno males to be
cornrnonly is more advanced in Locarno and Sal- very robust with well developed upper limb and
is11 females, with those from Locarno exhibiting masticatory musculature, while Salis11 nlales are
tlie Inore serious attrition. Sslish males exhibit. n~oderatelyrobust with welldeveloped 1ou.e~limb
the least evidence for ost,eoarthritic clrange. Os- n~usculatnreand ~noderatelydeveloped masticateophytosis is most advanced in the Locarr~opop- tory musculat,ure. T h e Salish females are slightly
ulation, again wit11 fenrales 1ea.ding the way. The to nloderately robust with moderate masticatory
Salish males possess t h e least severe osteophyte musculature.
forrnat,ion. T h e observation t h a t t h e Salish males
Analysis of mean rank difference for available
demonstrate the fewest degenerative and osteo- metric and non-metric d a t a do not illustrate a
phytir changes (cun~ulativefeatures) seems re- clear sequence of relative morphological diverlated to their younger ages a t deat.h.
gence when compared t o other published osteCranial lesions associated with i ~ i t e r ~ e r s o r i a lological dat,a from t h e Nortliwest Coast (eg. Cyviolence seem t o occur more often in Locarno bulski 1975, Gordon 1974, Finnegan 1972). T h a t
males and Salis11 females. O t h e r bone fractures is, overall, the Locarno and Salish samples tend
do not. indicate significallt interpersonal violelrce t o diverge less from llistoric Coast Salisli samfor either sample, t h o u g l ~direct injuries, as op- ples t h a n with any other reported populat.ior~
posed t,o injuries due to life style or degenerative (Beattie 1981). However, s i ~ r ~ p comparison
le
of
processes, are restricted t o t h e lat,er period.
postcranial metric values with those published for
Indicators of n~etabolicimbalances and/or nu- Tsimshian skeletal remains from Prince Rupert
tritional deficiencies such a s cribra o r b i t a l h ap- Harbour (Cybulski e t al. 1881) illustrates the Lopear in higher frequency within t h e Salish popu- carno population to be more similar to t h a t group
lation. Again this might be taken a s sorne indica- than t o the Salish. This is an interestir~gassociation of an unequal access t o subsistence resources tion t h a t may well have significal~tconsequence,
concomitant with a strat.ified society. Snch im- as suggested in our conclusions.
balances also can be related t o varied subsistence
In commenting on the range and type of varifocus on salmon has ation t h a t exists between the Locarno and Salish
patterns where an ir~ter~sive
jeopardized the successful exploitation of other samples, there is n o single trait t h a t unequiv-

204

ocally illustrat.es separate physical popnlat,ions.

Various forms of osteological d a t a taken as an
aggregate, however, indicate t h a t morphological variation, resulting from both cultural and
biological discont,inuities, does exist. We suggest this variation t o be sufficient t o support a
model of population replacelnent t h a t is arrticipated in the Locarno Beach/Marpole archaeological record.

The Contradiction of Historical Linguistics?

For those who favour a continuity model, historical linguistics often forms an integral component of blreir argnlnent,s against dislocation
(eg. Mit,cl~ell1971 o r Carlson 1983). Mit,chell,
for example, has referred to bhe results of glottochronological analysis of tlre Salishan language
family as firrn evidence for a cultural continuum
u~it,lrinthe Gulf of Georgia region. He states that.
U. . . the Salis11 have been on the Coast a very
long time and those in the sout,l~erninterior represent a more recent spread" (Mitchell 1971:69).
Mitchell's conclusions are based upon the
works of several historical lir~guists (Swadesh
1954; Snttles and Elmendorf 1962; Jorgenson
1969, 1980; Kincade 1976; Kincade and Powell 1978) who hold remarkably similar positions.
This position holds that: 1) the interior Salishan linguistic snbgroup separated easlier t h a n
any other subgroup, 2) the Coast Salish branches
developed as a chain along the coast, with Bella
Coola representing the northernmost extent and
Olyrnpia forming the southern perimeter, 3) the
original Salishan populations were in some fashion familiar wit11 the riverine and forested valley
el~vironl~rent,s
of the Pacific Northwest, a n d 4)
the most probable lromeland, and hence dispersal
centre of the Salish langnagefamily, is around t h e
moutlr of (.he Fraser River. Regarding this position, Sutt.les and Elnie~rdorf(1962:47) are quick
t o cautioll us t h a t glottoclrro~~ological
arlalysis
prolrides only a relative measure of associatiorr
and is rotally depende~rtup011 the reliability of
available word lists. Indeed, it is their opinion
t h a t , should new word lists become available for
analysis, higher cognate scores could well result.
Our intent is ~ i o tt,o refute the historical Iinguistic posit,ion. Rather, we suggest t h a t i t is
irrelevant t,o an understanding of arcl~aeological
data in the Gulf of Georgia region, given t.he time
depth of wlriclr we are speaking. It'e also suggest
t h a t , time depth aside, t h e specifics of t h e archaeological d i r l o c a t i o ~model
~
parallel t h e internal relationships proposed within the position of tlre

ETNhrIClTY AND CULTtJHE

historical lingnists. T h e tinre/space distribution
of Marpole asselnblages, with its central dispersion point a t the mouth of t h e f i a s e r River and
its subsequent spread south, a n d north, along t h e
coast, is a n association t h a t cannot be ignored.
T h e question of time depth estirnat,es and how
they are t o b e used is a problem of glottochronology. U11ti1resolved, these estimates sllould not be
brought t o bear in interpretations of Coast Salish
prehistory.

CONCLTJSIONS
Within the preceding paper, we have argued
for the generally unaccepted model of discont,inuit,y within Gulf of Georgia prehistory (see
Mitchell 1969for a dialectic), and applied i t as a n
explanation for a ratller a.brupt transitin11 from
the Locarno Beach t o the Marpole phase some
2400 years ago. It'e have argued for an immigration of people who, as far a s can be determined,
were ?Ire progenitors of t h e et,hnograpIric Coast
Salish. i4'e feel l h a t t h e archaeological d a t a are
illustrative of onr argument, with the physical
anthropological evidence also weighted in this direction
If the Coast. Salish, or its ancestral population,
were not on the coast 2400 years ago, then the
ilnmediate questions t h a t come to mind are: 1)
where were they and 2) w h o did they replace?
T h e answer to either question is not readily apparent. Eventnally, these probleins can and will
be solved. However, the archaeologist must be
looking for the solution which presupposes the
acceptance of a model of discontinuity.
We are not the first t o propose a model of
disrontitluity. Borden (1951) originally saw t h e
Marpole site assemblage a s falling within a group
t h a t reflected an "int,erior culture" in a "state
of transition" t o a coastal adaptation. He proposed t,hat tllis culture replaced an earlier "Eskimoid" culture (Borde~r1951:46). Borden's position resulted in a heabed debate between himself (1954) and Osborne, Caldwell and Crabtree
(1956; Caldwell 1954) over t h e viability of an "interior" population lnovement out t o the coast.
Since Osborne and his colleagues found nothing
in t11e inierior t h a t even r e n ~ o t e l yresembled the
Marpole assemblage, and since they also felt Borden had wrongly idendified several of his artefact classes as int,erior-derived, they tabled a solid
refutation. To this, even Bordelr succun~bed(see
Borden 1968, 1970).
Similarly, we imply some form of interior origins for Marpole. O u r definition of interior, how-

205

Burley a n d Heat,tie/COAST S A L I S H ORIGINS

ever, is not ~iecessarily interior plateau as was

the case in Borden's (1951) original co~lception
of a population displacement. In fact, u,e would
suggest t h a t one has but t o go a short distance
t o tlie Fraser C a r ~ y o nto find assemblages similar enough t o Marpole t o i l l ~ ~ s t r a tcontinuity
e
of ethnicity. Here, specifically, we refer to the
Baldwin phase. Bmden (1908:20) also noted tlie
compatibility of a Marpole/Browri relationship,
yet st.opped short of developing a full nlodel of
a Baldwin displacement of Locarno Beach. He
did find i t intriguing, nevertheless, t h a t at. exactly 400 B.C., when Marpole first appeared on
the coast, there was a most definite displacement
of Baldwin by peoples of t h e Skamel phase (Borden 1968:20). T h e Skamel phase brought with
it so ~ n s new
~ ~ ytraits, including t h e use of pit
houses, t h a t interpretations other t h a n discontinoity were improbable. T h e idea t h a t Marpole
developed along t h e Fraser River in proximity
t o the Fraser Canyon provides a powerful explanatory framework for an intcrlsification of the
salmon fishery (see Matson 1982) and the production of surpluses beyond immediate need (see
Burley 1979b, 1980. 19821.
If we can accept the idea of tlie Baldwin phase
being a proto-Salishan ethnic variant, then we
can fully recognize the liistorical linguistic model
within Gulf of Georgia prrhistory. T h e Baldwin
phase has bren proposed a s t h e culmination of
a lengthy continuum of occupation going back
t o the beginnings of the Eayam phase of 5500
B.P.. and urobablv further (Mitchell 19711. T h ~ s
would pro;ide aJnile time depth for the ikterior
subdivision t o have taken place as well as providing the appropriat,e corridor through which
i t could move. Moreover, a f a l l l i l i a r i t ~with the
forested riverine geography of t h e Pacific Northwest fulfills tlie final requisite for a n aboriginal
Salishan l~omeland.
If Locarno Beach is not Salish. then what is
Locarno Beach? We believe t h a t t h e ost.eological
d a t a can b e used t o support not only the proposition of a separat,e li~iguisticgroup b u t , also, t h a t
of a separat.e physical population. While we must
be extremely caut,ious in affiliaring 2400 year old
archaeological assemblages with a language family, i t is possible t o speculate. In this context,
we feel t h e proto-Penutian model, developed by
Cressnian (1977), is worthy of remark.
In this model, Cressman (1977) argues for the
origins of the Penutian language family in the
archaeological concept of t h e Desert West Culture of t h e Great Basin. Subsequently, this

linguistic group would have spread dolpn t h e

Colu~nbiaRiver t o t h e Coast and, t,hence, along
the coast northward t o a t least those Lerritories ethnographically occupied by the Tsimshian.
This would imply a solid proto-Penut,ian speaking front along the entire length of tlie Northwest Coast from t h e Colu~nbiarivern ~ o u t l ti o the
Skeena. Lat,er intrusion by Wakasban and Salishan speaking peoples provides a logical explanation for the physical separation of the Tsimshian
and Cliinook. They, arguably, are the coastal
remnants of Penutian (see Carlson 1983 and
Adams l983 for a n alternative view).
While we have n o hard physical data to support either t,he Baldwin association with Salishan
nor the Locarno affiliation with proto-Penutian,
we feel the archaeological and osteological data,
respectively, are tantalizing. We also feel t h a t i t
is srrfficient t o initiate cousideration for dislocation within the Gulf of Georgia. Perhaps then,
and only then, will coast,al archaeologists begin
to discover interesting and previously overlooked
relationships.
REFERENCES CITED
Adams, J.W.
1981 Recent Ethnology of the Nortliwest Coast. Annual Review of Anthropology 10:361-392.
Beattie, O.B.
1981 An Analysis of Prehistoric Skeletal Material
from the Gulf of Georgia Region of British
Columbia. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C.
C.

1951 Factr and Probleil~sof Northwest Coast Prehistory. Anthropology in British Columbia 2352n
U?.

some A S P ~ C of~ Sprehistoric ~ ~ ~ ~

Relations in the Pacific Northwest. Anthropology in British Columbia 4:26-32.
1968 Prehistory of the Lower Mainland. In The
Lower Fraser Valley: Evolution of o Cultural
Landscape, edited by A. H. Siemens, pp. 9-26.
B.C. Geographical Series No. 9, Vancouver.
1970 Culture History of t h e fiaser Delta Region:
An Outline.
In Archaeology in
British Columbia, New Discoveries, edited by
R.. L. Carlson, pp. 95-112. B.C. Studies Nos. 6
and 7, Vittorja.
Buriey, D.V
1951

1979a Maruole: Anthre~olooieni

Reronstruetions o f
. "

a Prehistoric Northwest Coast Culture Type.

Unpubiished P11.D. dissertation, Silrlon Fraser

University, Burnaby, B.C.
1979b Specialization and the Evolution of Com~lex
Society in the Gulf of Georgis Region. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 3:133-144.

206

ETHArICITY A N D CULTURE
Gordon, M.
1974 A Qualitative Analysis of Human Skeletal Remains from DgRw 4, Gabriola Island, British
Columbia. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.

1980 Marpole: Anthropologieol Reconstructions of n

Prehistoric Northwest Coast Culture Type. Publication No. 8, Simon Fraser University Press,
Burnaby.
1982 Cultural Coinplexity and Evolution in the Development of Coastal Adaptations Among the
Micmac and Coast Salish. In The Evolution of
Maritime Culture on the Northeast and hrorthwest Coasts of America, edited by R. J. Nash,
pp. 157-172. Publication No. 11, Simon Frsser
University Press, Burnaby.

Haggarty, J.C. and R.L. Hall

1981 An Analysis of Human Skeletal Remains and
Associated Cultural Material from the Hill site,
DfRu 4, Saltspring Island. Manuscript on file,
British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, B.C.

Burley, D.V. and O.B. Beattie

1977 Cultural Continuity on the Southern Northwest Coast: An Evaluation. Paper presented
to the 8th Annual Calgary Archaeological Conference, Calgary.

Ham, L.
1983 Seasonolity, Shell Midden Layers and Coast Solishsubsistence: Actiuities at the Crescent Beach
Site, DgNr l . Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Caldwell, W.
1954 An Archaeological Survey of the Okanagan and
Similkameen Valleys of British Columbia. Anthropology in British Columbia 4:lO-25.

Heglar, R.
1958a An Analysis of Indian Skeletal Remains from
the Marpole Midden. Manuscript on file, Museum of Anthropology, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver.
1958b A Report on Indian Skeletal Material from
the Locarno Beach Site (DhRt G ) . Manuscript
on file, Museum of Anthropology, University of
British Columbia, Vancouver.
1958c Indian Skeletnl Remains from the Whalen
Site, Point Robcrts, Washington. Manuscript
on file, Museum of Anthropology, University of
British Columbia, Vancouver. Hill-Tout, C.
1895 Later Prehistoric Man in British Columbia.
Dansactions of the Royal Society of Canada
(second series) 1:103-113.

Carlson, R.L.
1970 Excavations at Welen Point on Mayne I ~ l a n d .
In Archaeolouv
" " in British Columbia, New Discoueriea, edited by R.L. Carlson, pp. 113-125.
B.C. Studies Nos. G and 7, Victoria.
1983 The Far West. In Early Man i n the New World,
edited by R . Shutler, pp. 73-96, Sage Publications, London.
Cressman, L.S.
1977 Prehistory o j the Far West: Homes of Vanished
Peoples. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake
City.
Cybulski, J.S.
1975 Skeletal Variability in British Columbia Coastal
Populntions: A Descriptive and Comparatiue
Assessment of Cranial Morphology. National
Museum of Man, Mercury Series No. 30, Ottawa.
1978 An Earlier Population of Hesquiot Narbour,
British Columbia. B.C. Provincial Muaeu~nSeries, Cultural Recovery Papers, No. 1, Victoria.
Cybalski, J.S., D.E. Howes, J.C. Haggerty and
.' Eldridge
1981 An Early Human Skeleton from South-central
British Columbia: Dating and Bioarchaeological Inferences. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 5:49-59.
Finnegan, M.J.
1972 Population Definition on the h'orthwest Coast
b y Analysis of Discrete Character Variation.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Colorado, Denver.
Fladmark, K.
1982 An Introd~~ct,ion
to the Prehistory of British
Columbia. Canadian Journal of Archaeology
6:95-156.

Jorgenson, J.G.
1969 Salish Language and Culturc, A Statistical Analysis of Internal Relationships, History
and Euolutton, Language Science Monographs,
No. 3, Bloomington.
1980 Western Indians: Comparatiue Environments,
Languages, and Cultures of 172 Western American Indian Tribes. Freeman Press, San Francisco.
Kidd, G.E.
1933 Report on a Collection of B.C. Indian skulls
in the Vancouver City Museum. Manuscript.
on file, British Columbia Provincial Museum,
Victoria, B.C.
Kincade, M.D.
1976 Area1 Features in the Pacific Northwest. Paper
presented to the Northwest Coast Anthropological Studies Conference, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.
Kincade, M.D. and 3 . Powell
1878 Language and the Prsl~istvryof North Amer;
ica. World Archaeology 8(1):83-100.

Burley and Benttie/COAST SALISH ORIGIhrS

Matson, R.G.
1982 Intensification and the Development of Cultural Complexity: The Northwest Versus the
Northeast Coasts. In The Evolution of Maritime Cultures on the Northeast and Northwest Coasts of America, edited by R.J. Nash,
pp. 125-148. Publication No. 11, Simon Fraser
University Press, Burnaby.
Mitchell, D.
1969 Site Survey in the Johnson Strait Region.
Northwestern Anthropological Research Notes
3(2):193-216.
1971 Archaeology of the Gulf of Georgia Area: A
Natural Region and its Culture Types. Syesis,
Vol. 4 , Supplement 1, Victoria.
Monke, G.
1977 An Ezamination of Relationships Between Artifact Classes and Food Resource Remains at
Deep Bay, DiSe 7. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Murray, R.
1982 Analysis of Artifacts from Four Duke Point
Area Sites near Nanaimo, B.C., A n Ezample
of Culturnl Continuity in the Gulf of Georgia
Region. Xational Museum of Man, Mercury
Series No. 113, Ottawa.
Osbourne, R., W. Caldwell and R. Crabtree
1956 The Problem of Northwest Const-Interior Relationships as seen from Seattle. American Antiquity 22:117-128.
Smith, H.I.
1903 Shell-heaps of the Lower Baser River, British
Columbia. The Jesaup North Pacific Expedition, Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History, V1.11, Part IV, New York.
Stewsrt, H.
1977 Indian Fishino: Earlu Methods on the Northwest Coast. 5.3. Douglas Ltd., Vancouver
Suttles, W. and M'. Elrnendorf
19GZ Linguistic Evidence for Salish Prehistory.
Symposium on Language and Culture. Proceedings of the 1988 Spring Meeting, American
Ethnological Society ,pp. 40-52, Seattle.
Swadesh, M.
1954 Time Depths of American Linguistic Groupings. American Anthropologist 56:361-362.

THE TSIMSHIAN ARE CARRIER

John W. Ives
Archaeological Survey of Alberta
Edmonton. Alberta

INTRODUCTION

I have styled the title of this paper after an article by Newcomer (1972), whiclr he titled "The
Nuer are Dinkan. F r o n ~ the t , i ~ n eof EvansP r i t c l ~ a r d(1940, 1951), analyses of tlre Nuer of
tlie African Sudan have had a powerful iafluerlce over antlrropological t,hougl~t. To this debate, Newcomer offered a clear statement of the
premise t h a t Ll~eexpansionary Nuer were Dinka,
or more precisely, as Kelly (1985:79) has concluded, t h a t the R'uer and Dinka shared c o m m o ~ i
cultural roots.
ern
To anyone familiar with ~ r o r t l ~ u ~ e s t ~North
America, such an a~ialogymight a t first appear
eminently incorrect. T h e Carrier are an Athapaskan people, while Tsimshian - the Nishga,
G i t k s a ~ rand Coast Tsimshian - use an entirely
different language oft,en termed "Penutian". Ohs
peoviously, direct cultural c o n ~ ~ e c t i o nbetween
ples sucli a s the Carrier and t h e Tsimshian are
impossible, though they are adjacent t o eacll
other (Figure 1). W h a t , then, could t.he point
of my aualogy be?
My positiori has two key tenets. O n the one
hand, I feel t h a t the fully developed coastal societ.ies are so imposing t h a t , for many, it has bee11
impossible t o escape the conclusion t h a t the socioeconornic coniplexities of t.he region must hiwe
entirely coastal origins. O n tlle other liarld, I
feel there is significant evidence t h a t the differences between interior societies and realistic antecedents for complex coastal societies are far
smaller than we somet,imes imagine.
Thus, I use the title in a provocative way to
speak of ethnogenesis, a n d 1 adopt the perspective of looking outward t,o t h e coast from tlie interior. By exploring tlre idea t h a t sources for
certain social complexities can just as well be
sought in iriterior settings, I hope t o show horn'
influence our ability
theoretical preco~lceptio~rs
t o recognize ethnic identities. When archaeologists have presumed t h a t the prehistory of norih-

western Nortli America reflects e ~ ~ o r m o tempous

ral and cultural continuity (e.g., Fladmark 1975;
~
~
~ 1969;
D Matso11
~
~1983),
~ they~ havel been
d
reluctuat, t o suspect the arrival of new cultural
groups, Yet, long term co~rtinnityin cultural development a t the coast, witli a late expansion of
influence u p draillage syst.ems, is ouly one of the
models available for the prelristory of tlie region.
ITere, 1 wish to state the case for allother model:
one in w l ~ i c hsuccessive movements downstream
of illterior peoples have a fornrative role t o play
in tile e~nergenceand ramification of social cornplexity.
The argu~llentwhich follows may be contrasted
with earlier approaches to cultural development
in n o r t I ~ w e s t e rNorth
~~
America. In t.he works of
Snttles (1968), Riclres (1979) and Schalk (1977),
to name sorue represent,at~ivesof a general trend,
tllefe is a tendency o r even an urgent necessity, t o
see the colnplex mat.rilinea1 societies of the northNorthwest Coast a s evolutionary products of
simpler bilateral social structures found 10 the
south.
It is my content,ion t.hat this is bo look in the
wrong direction, a n d t h a t despite some flaws in
tlieir analysis, Rubel and Rosnlan (1983) are correct t,o seek the d e ~ e l o ~ n r e n t aautecedents
l
of
Haida social sdructures
Tsimshiali, T l h g i t
01, the int,erior. They proposed that the incipient
social form must have featured: 1) some form of
dual organization, perhaps moieties; 2) a preferential rule for bilateral cross cousin marriage; and
3) custorr~sin which, on ceremonial occasions,
and for funerals in part,icular, guests would perform services for hosts, who recompensed the former with goods (Ruhel and Rosman 1983:Q). By
pursuing this line of inquiry, I suggest we will find
t h a t tlrere are crucial similarities between Carrier
Tsilnshian social structures, and that similar historical processes may have affected both
peoples.

,,,,

210

ETHA'ICITY AND CULTURE

Figure 1: The distribution of coastal peoples and Nortlrern Athapaskal~sin ~iorthwesterlr British
Columbia, ca. 1850 (after Farley 1979:6-7).

Ives/TNE TSIMSHIAN A R E C A R R I E R

PREHISTORIC INTERIOR SOCIAL

COMPLEXITY
There seerns little quest,ion t h a t interior peoples occasiorially became il~corporatedin coastal
social systems. Indeed, there is some suspicion t h a t t l ~ eGitksan might be "Tsirnshianized" Atl~apaskans, or, a t least a n admixture
of coastal and interior Athapaskan peoples (see
A d a ~ n s1973:22; A111es 1979a:220). When, in
1820, a landslide partially blocked the Bulkley
River near Moricetown, the Rulkley Carrier secured p e r n i i s s i o ~t ~o take u p residence a t Hazelton, adjacent t.o t h e Gitksan. W i t h exteusive
intermarriage and potlat,clring between t h e two
groups, the Carrier began t o rr~akea preferential use of t h e Tsinishian language on cerernonial occasions. Ames (1979x237) went so far as
t,o suggest i.lrat, owing t o t h e precariously srnall
number of people in Gitksan lineages arrd houses,
iudividual and small groups of A t l ~ a p a s k a ~were
~s
drawn iuto the Gitksan crest system (see also
Adams 1973:27-34, artd Kobrinsky 1977). A serioue smallpox epidemic in the 1860s truucated
the process.
Such processes are clearly part of a pattern
continger~tupon the prior existence of complex
and dominant coastal societies. I a m seeking instead reference t o periods in which the political
status of int.erior societ,ies may not have been inferior. I will use a s a point of departure two conclusions reached by Fladmark (1982:136) in his
He felt
summary of British Colunlbia
first, t h a t a t sorne tirires in t h e past, there may
have been n o significant differences between iaterior and coastal cultures, and second, dhat certain interior areas may have been culturally more
complex t h a n conternporary coastal areas.
There is every indicatior~t h a t , beyond sonre
3000 to 5000 years ago, there were n o societies
in rsorthwestern North America with ascriptive
ranks, specialized salmon l ~ a r v e ~ t i neconomies,
g
rnarked sedentism o r high population densities
(cf. Arnes 1981; Domond 1978; Fladmark 1982).
Among the instances we may glean from Fladmark's generalizations are two examples. First,
we may note the relatively early appearance of
pithouses in interior British Colutnbia, a t such
sites as Tezil and Punchaw, nearly 4000 years
ago. Tliese events lag only slightly behind the
onset of shell midden accurnulatio~iso n the coast
(Donahue 1975:28, 39; 1977:149-155; Fladrnark
1976:30). Second, tliere is t h e contrast between
the relatively "spartan" Developed Coast Salis11

211

phase of the lower Fiaser during the first millennium A.D. a n d a distinctive, contemporaneous cultural conlplexity well u p t l ~ eFraser in the
Lytton-Lillooet area (Hayden, Eldridge and Cannon 1985:187-190).
Fladmark's empirical generali~ations:about interior cultural complexity ring true for several
good econoinic reasons. These centre upon the
peculiar characteristics of the Pacific salinon resource for a n interior zone corresponding rougllly
t o t h a t occupied by Athapaskans in recent times.
Abst,racting from syntheses given by Kew (1976)
a n d Schalk (1977), t h e following observa.tions on
t l ~ i sresource are pertinent:
l ) . Pacific salmon travelling upstream retain
sigrlificant caloric value well into their migration.
2). T h e climat,ic conditions of this zone lend
tl~emselvest o simple modes of preservation (such
a s sun drying) much more s o t,han do coastal locales.
3). Generally speaking, salmon are least accessible t o simple t~echliologiesi a coastal and estuarine waters, arid most accessible at interior
locations, including spawnirlg beds, rapids, lake
outlets arid inlets, a n d gorges. Each of the latter
features tends t o funnel fish.
4). Nurnbers of spawning salmon a t interior locations fluct,uate. Irregular fluctuations are triggered by events such as landslides, wl~ileregular fluctt~ationsfollow pat,ter~issuch as t h a t described for the Fraser system by Kew (1976) a s
"quadrennial dominance". Salrnon runs cycle
from enormous a b u ~ r d a r ~ ct oe greatly reduced returns every four years in this scheme.
m'itl~out pretending to propose any comprehensive solution t o t h e problem of early specialization in salmon harvesting, it would remain my
coaten!ion t h a t sucli specialization is predictable
for interior locales. Large riunlbers of fish, both
readily stored and of great food value, remain accessible t o very simple t,ecl~nologies.Yet, cyclical
returns embody a process in which groups wishing to exploit. salmon resources are drawn in duriug years of abundance, only t o face shortages in
the low years of a cycle. If cyclical lows pushed
groups inward t h e kinds of int,er~sificationof harvesting (such as fishing all night and fishing for
a greater number of days) Tyhurst (n.d.:83, 89,
92) reported for t h e Cllilcotin, t h e application of
the saiue techniques in succeeding years of abundance would result in production of a significant,
easily stored surplus.
Building upon t l ~ eplausibility of sucll econoniic processes, I allege t h a t the natural loca-

Ives/THE TSIMSHIAA' A R E CA RRlER

A*-

LINEAGE A C - - L I N E A G E

B C-- LINEAGE C -LINEAGE

n/Imm
*=A

@=A

@=A

AAAA
AAI'IA
AAAA
=

*=A

@=A

*=A

@=A

A A A A
@

@=A

@ =A

0=

O=

o=

a=A

*=A

@=A

=A

O=

Male matrilineage members

@ 0 Female motrilineage members

c-

Direction in which women move

between lineages

Figure 2: T h e relation between wife-giving and wife-taking ~natrilineagesin a sysdem of mat:rilateral

cross cousin m;trriage.

ETHh'IClTY AND CULTURE

cr

e
G2

G'

' L ..

nape'p-L'

mk&
,+dZ.

MM, FM

nagw~"d-L'
:S~F

,.

F, FB, MZH

FZH

,.L'

wa'g-

ncxdz.' M, MZ, F B W ~ FZ, MBW

,'
":

a .

L:

FBW

;ehimcm ,L
an&'! -L :
SPM

;egi.'gw-L':

fzwvfXatw.' -

H2.U

L:

kWvtxalw" -

,-L:

: MB

yct1ne."t'6-~':

FF, MF

- Za'mcvn
ga"ad-~'
Y

l/

l/

YCLYE"-C

Y
e

-L':

0 '

A.:

FZS, FIBS
e

&a/an-L

WB,

dB, dFBS
~ M Z S

P Z , PFBD,
PMZ~

dZH

FZD, MBD

. ..,

k w v d j ~ c-L':
HZ,

PBW

0-

klw"t'kc-c'

HE,
y

klw"t'kc-L'

,.

9ZH

X&

PB,
PFBS
PMZS

na'hc-L':

d Z , OFBD,
dMZD

Zko"Zkvm

g a/ ad - L ' :
OdZS, P B S
La m u n i
ga"d-~'
A

G-

Mii'fp~'

Id

hv&'m

6'

-li:

&ku"Zkvm

kwvceC'cni

I '

aa./ad-L1

DH

kMii/g-&

I:D

Z k ~ " ~ $ g w :- ~ ~
Ch, d B C h , PZCh, HBCh,
gBWCh, WZCh, PZHCh ( ? )
hoxda"k'&n-e'

'i.

anii'!-&
.
d Z D , ?BD
Za'mcm , ,
anii/t-& L.
SW

SS, DS, DD, SD

Figure 3: Tlie Nass River Tsirnshian, o r h'ishga, kin terminology, as reported by Supir
(1920:262-263). T h e ternrs are listed in a paradigm developed by T r a u t ~ n a n n(1981: 40), which
lists kin terms by dimensions of generat,ion (G-'....G1), sex (male o r female) and crossness ( " X for
a l and "//" for parallel or consanguinea1 kin).
cross or a f f i ~ ~kin

Ives/THE TSIMSHlAN ARE CARRIER

nrarked similarities, and these affinal equations
are also reported: MB:FZH,
BW=WZ, and
WZ==BW (Durlach 1928:lIG-156; Dunn 1984:108109). These terlnil~ologiesare not Iroquoian because Iroquois systems d o n o t stipulate affinal
relationships (Buchler and Selby 1968:233-234;
Trautnrann 1981:85).
Moreover, the numerous affinal equat,iolrs are
not coml~atible with matrilateral cross cousin
marriage. T h e logical struct,ure of ~nat,rilateral
systerns il~volvesa t least three lineages. Any reciprocal exchange of wives disrupts the circular
movelnent of spouses intended for such syst.ems.
For a mall in a system of matrilateral cross cousi11
marriage, M B can be W F , but he cannot. be FZH,
for MR must take his wife from the third lineage
(which can be verified by returning to Figure 2).
The widespread appearance of affinal equat,ions
is consistent with s y n ~ m e t r i c aal n d n o t asymmetrical cross cousin marriage.
In order t o see just wl~at.kind of system the
Tsilnshian nomenclature most closely resembles,
I must ask the reader's forbearance wlrile I digress
t o main points of a nruclr larger study I have reported elsewhere (Ives 1985). T l ~ eTsimshian kin
system finds its closest. analogy in the Dravidian
kin systems of South India. Those systert~smake
a crucial distinction bet,ween cross and parallel
relatives, cross relatives being aflir~es and parallel relatives being consanguines. Dumont (1953)
and Trautrnann (1981) have slrown t h a t such systems are founded upon the logical premise of perfectly syrnrnetrical cl-oss cousin marriage, as is
shown in Figure 4.
In and of itself, this is not a remarkable fact.
In the larger study t.o which 1 have referred,
however, 1 have shown t h a t Nort11er11 Athapaskan ter~ninologicalsyst,elrls are also Dravidiarr in form, as is t h e R'rigley Slavey schedule
recorded by Asch (in press), showr~in Figure
5. Tile Bnlkley Carrier terminology reported by
Jenl~ess(1943:526-527) shows these telrdel~cies',
and in fact, the proto-Athapaskan kin lexicon as
reconstructed by Dye11 and Aberle (1974) shares
t,his logical structure (Figures B and 7).
Tsimshian legends say repeatedly t h a t their
ancestors came from above t h e Skeena Canyon,
and bere we recognize evidence of a strong formal
similarity between these coast,al kin systems and
those of an interior people. Even though a n ideology of matrilateral cross cousin marriage appears
to have gained a s c e n d e ~ ~ cine Tsimshian society,
a t,er~ninologicalstructure keyed t o symmetrical
cross cousiri marriage persisted, betraying the an-

215

tecedent condition.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE
I have argued t.hat, through achieving certain
advantageous attributes of social complexity, interior peoples c o ~ ~ have
l d made successive movements d o w r ~drainage syst,ems toward the coast.
Speaking with respect t o the Skeena drainage, for
tile period prior t o 3500 years ago (Prince Rupert
III), there is an archaeological record for a rather
generalised ecouonly Iackiag traces of social complexit,y (MacDonald a n d Inglis 1981:43-45). For
tile period after 3500 years ago (Prince Rupert
II), MacDo~raldand Irlglis (1981:45-52) reported
rapid shell midden build-up. House outlines were
present, as were post-moulds, apparent,ly for drying racks. These remains were believed t o reflect
larger village occupatior~swith a substant,ial population increase.
T h e basic inventory of cllipped stone t,ools coiltiaued, but ground slate assumed greater importance.
A rrun~ber of new artefact forms
appeared, among them labrets and lip-pins,
nephrite adzes, pigment balls and "sharnan mirrors" (ihid). Zoonrorphic bone and siltst.one
iterns were present. Trade items such a s obsidian
and amber carne t o the fore.
This artefact inventory hints t h a t some import a n t cult.era1 cllanges were taking place. Nowhere
is this clcarer t.han with a large s a ~ n p l eof Prince
Rupert I1 burials believed to d a t e between 2500
a n d 1500 years ago (MacDonald and Inglis 1981).
MacDonald and 111glis (1.981:52) felt t h a t grave
goods reflected s t a t u s differentiation within the
community. Skeletal t r a u m a s were reported to b e
common, especially cranial depression and forearm fractures. Coupled with the evidence for war
clubs, and possibly armor, it would seem t h a t
intergroup host.ility had become common (MacDolrald and Inglis 1981; Ames 1981:795). A subsequent period, from 1500 years ago to bl~ehistoric period (Prince Rnpert I ) , saw a full eRorescence of the coastal ethnographic pattern in
material cult,ure.
Prince Rupert Period I1 obviously was crucial t o t h e emergence of social complexity in
the Skeena region. Contemporaneous events 120
kilometres farther inland, a t t , l ~ Kitselas
e
Canyon,
are intriguing. T h i s portion of the Skzena is
a broad glacial trough, wit,h strong ecological
ties t o t h e coast (Ames 1979:225). The first
occupation of this locality comes with tile Bornite Phase, known from the earliest component
at the Paul Mason Site (GdTc-16). Diagnostic

ETHNICITY A N D CULTURE

MB
FZH

Morr~es

Morr~es
MBS = FZS etc.'

-- -S-

e--

SW

OH

Figure 4: Dravidian-type kin systems are generated by the logical premises of perfectly symmetrical,
bilaleral cross cousin marriage. Tlle diagram iltdicat,es how affines (e.g., WB, ZII) are equated with
cross kin categories (e.g., MBS, FZS).

IvesITHE TSIMSHIAA' A R E CARRIER

217

or

Q
l!

e
2-

G'

l1

dze:

e-tzun:

FF, MF

MM, FM

be'e:

go&:

sets:

nemu:

emu:

embe:

MB, FZH,

FB,

FZ, MBM,

SPF

MZH

NZ,
FBW

,&a,

beye:

MBS, FZS,
WB

G*

eB, e ( F B S ) ,

eZ, e ( F B D ) ,

e(MZS),

e(MZD),

FZDH,

MBDH

A&:

FZSW,

MBD, FZD

MBSW

WZ, MZSW

n&a:
MZDH

G-'

SPM

emba:

gunde:

0G

b e dene:

YB, y ( F B S ) ,

yZ, y(FBD),

be tbeke:

y(MZS),
MBDH

y(MZD),
MBSW

b e b a : b Z S , PBS
dDH, d F Z S S
dMBSS , dFBDS,
dMZDS, PMBDS,
P F Z D S , PMZSS,
PFBSS
ne &M: P D H

dh:

ua:

FZDH,

S,dBS,neXue:
5eza:
PZS, @FBSS,
dBD,
dMZSS, OFZDS,
dFBSD,
dMBDS, PMZDS,
dFZDD,
PFBDS, PFZSS,
PMZDD,
PMBSS
9FZSD,

FZSW,
D,

PZD
dMZSD,
dMBDD,
PFBDD,
PMBSD

ne pi:

d S S , ~ D S ,d D D , d S D

h e ca:

?SS,

PDS, ?DD,

neenda: d Z D ,
dSW, dMBSD,
dFZSD, dFBDD,
dMZDD
b e ca:
?BD,
?SW, PFBSD,
PMZSD, PZSW

PSD

Figure 5: T h e Wrigley Slavey kin t,erminology, as reported by Asch (in press). Note the consistent
equation of cross relat.ives wit11 affines in the nredial generations.

ETHNICITY AND CULTCJRE

6
l/

2-

naz'e:

MB
neza:

SPF

n2ai:

hunghi:

na.2:

eB

eZ

Go

hen:

VFZS, OMBS

eh&:
YB

ZH, WB,
HB

nVno:

G-l
Y

nnanten:

DH

nezi.2:

FZD,
MBD
Ahe:
BW, WZ
HZ

HBW

naet'en:

WBW

&a:

n2chd:

HBS
WZS
WBS!
HZS!

nZLt&:
YZ

nPa:

ZS !

FZ, MBW
SPM

MZD,
FBD

WZH, HZH
e

n&ef
ae:

MZS ,
FBS

nhe:

nb&:

MZ

d F Z S , cfMBS

nezi.2:

FM

an'e': na'klai:

nbeb:

FB ,
NZH,
FZH
(?)

no'ntdi:
e

naani:

MM

FF, MF

ndo:

n&et5 :

G'

l/

n*es

h a :
@BD,
~WBD
nLLti.&:

PHBD

n a ' k a i : ZD!
nVbo:
ZD!
n,tai:
WZD
n i q e h ' a * : SW
nb.&:

OBD,

OHZD

n2chLti:

SS, DS, DD, SD

Figure 6: Jenness (1943:526-527) collected a rather scant set of kin terms for t,he Bulkley Carrier,
some of wl~ichdo not fit the Dravidian-type pat,tern. Note, however, the equations FB=MZH and
FZ-MBW:SpM.
The great weight of bl~eAthapaskan evidence leads m e t,o posit an underlying
Dravidian element (See Ives 1985:247-26).

Ives/THE TSIMSHIAhTA R E C A R R I E R

.
9

C?

e
-

2
G

G'

*-~cwZnZ:

*-X ' cen;:

FF, MF

MM

PI

*-Raye':

MB, FZH
1:

*-gm-:

*-onayZ,
*-Pax, *-tag :
eB, e(FBS),
e(MZS)
*-Pax, *-tag:

11

NZ,
FB 14

*-ad&:

FZ, MBW,
SpM

*-gondZyh,
*-zed;:

eZ, e(FBD),
e (MZD) , GlBW

FZD, MBD

*-Lax,

* -gen-:

*-Lug:

BM, NZ

IdZH, HZH

NB,

PZH, HB
Y

*-me,&;:

*-man, k'ay2:

FB ,
MZH

SpF

d Z H , NB

*-&l:
*-an, *-an&C.:

*-gondZyE,
*-zedZ:
FZS, MBS,
WZH!
*-Len:
0-

*-,tceyWl:

*-z2e:

l/

/l

*- kanl:
H

*-kYel2,
*-Lax, *-bag:
YB, Y(FBS),
Y( m )
*-Lax, *-Pug:

HZ
YZ, y(FBD),
Y(MZD)

*-lad$:
W

WZH, HZH

e
G*'

- *-kYell:

9 BS

* -gel:
S, d B S

* -&ei':
D,

dBD

*-me&!,

G-

- 6 : aZS,
PBS

*-?ayadanZ:
DH

*-ya2:
S,

PZS

*-day;,

*-R'ce2:
?D,

PZD

*-S&:
GZD
*-deyE: ?BD
*-2ya'-lat:
SW

d why^:

SS, DS, DD, SD

Figure 7: The proto-Athaparkan lexical reconstruction of kin t.erms made by Dyen and Aberle
(1974:23-70, 123). Critical a f f i r ~ aequations,
l
i ~ l c l u d i rFB=MZH,
~~
MZ==FBW, FZ=MBW=SpM and
MB=FZH, are prominent. T h e i~nplicationsof t,l~ispatterning are oublined in Ives (1985).

characteristics of t h e comporrent, dated a t 5050

+/- 140 B.P., included a developed microcore
and blade industry, a variety of cobble and flake
tools and an absence of groundstone tools. Coupland (1985b) inferred t h a t the assemblage resulted from a short t e r m s u n ~ ~ r icamp,
er
a t which
fisl~ingmay have been important.
T h e external relationships of the Bornite Plrase
are not clear cut. Microblade techlrology has not
been discovered at. Prince Rupert Harbor. Tlre
obsidian used to ~ n a n u f a c t u r etlre blades, however, came from Anaheirn I, from wlrich Coupland (1985a:325) suggested tlre possibility of interior trading relationships. He was prepared t o
speculate t h a t there may have been no real cultural differences between coast and interior in
this region before 4500 B.P.
T h e subsequent phase, t e r ~ n e d Gitaus, is
named after a nearby site excavated by Allaire
(1979:45-46). T h e early co~rrpo~rent
t.l~ereranged
from ca. 4300 to 3600 B.P., making i t contemporaneous with late Period 111 a t Prince Rupert Harbor. Two trends are evident. Microblades are not present a n d tlrere is an increase
in the groundstone industry. Tlrere are genuine
si~nilarit,ieswit11 coeval coastal assemblages, including tlre numerous cobble t,ools and cortex
spalls, more abrrndant grourrdst,one implements
(abraders, stone saws, rubbed slate points) and
the rare occurrence of leaf-shaped points. In addit,ion, Gitaus Phase obsidian, like obsidian from
Prince Rupert Harbor a t this time, comes from
M t . Edziza (Coupland 1985a:326).
Allaire interpreted t h e early Gitaus component
as a temporary fishing c a m p for coastal peoples
of the Prince Rupert area. Coupland (1985a:327328) used several liner of evidence t o suggest t h a t
fislring was import,ant, thouglr fauna1 remains
were lacking. He t o o viewed this early component as a snlnrner base c a m p , particularly insofar a s there was no evidence of perlnalrent winter
dwellings.
Tlre Git.aus Plrase was succeeded by tlre Skeena
Plrase, known from a later component a t Gitaus
and from zone A a t site GlrSv-2 in the Hagwilget,
Canyon. T h e earliest component a t the last site
has been dated a t 3439 +/- 200 years B.P., a n d
is believed to range fro111 3600 t o 3200 years B.P.
(Ames 1979b:183; Coupland 1985a:328). T h e
tool assemblages for this phase show substantial increases in formed bifaces, lalrceolate points,
nnifaces and ret,ouched flakes.
Allaire (1079:48-50) colrcluded t h a t the lrrost
likely explanation for t h e Skeena Phase was a

migration of people, presulrrably from farther

u p the Skeena. Though Coupland (1985a:329332) disputed this int,erpretation, he has conceded t h a t there are general sinrilarities between
the Skeena Phase and otlrer interior assentblages.
Tlrey all share well-made, chipped st,one t,ools,
and have in conrmon specific types, such a s lanceolate points. In t u r n , C o u p l a t ~ dargued t.hat tlre
differences between Prince Rupert I1 and Skeena
Plrase assemblages are esse~rtiallyquantitat,ive.
There a r e a t least sonre groundstone tools in
the Skeena Plrase, and there are some lanceolate points in contempora~reouscoastal assemblages. Diagnostic interior tools -- fish-tailed and
corner-notched points - are weakly represented
or absent in Skeena River assemblages. Conpland
(1985a:330-331) countered t h a t Skeena Phase assemblages represent sulrrnrer and fall use of t h e
canyon by prelristoric peoples who over-wint,ered
a t the n1out.h of the Skeena.
T l ~ ePaul Mason Phase, dated between 3200
and 2700 years B.P., marks a critical change
in Kitselas Canyon prehistory. T h e assemblage
from tlre Paul Mason site shows a rednct,ion in
the proportior~of cllipped stone tools (bifaces and
formed unifaces), with increases irr groundstone,
cobble a n d flake tools. Wit,h this phase comes t h e
first evidence of a winter village in the canyon.
T h e Paul Mason site yielded the remains of 1 0
prepared house floors wit,], associated cache pits
3 . In Iris ana,lysis, Coupland (1985a:379,399) argued t h a t pronounced h o n ~ o g e ~ r e i tiny house size
(average two families per dwelling), coupled with
a general absence of artefact forms related to status a n d personal adornment, inkplied the existence of corporate, but egalitariarr social groups.
For t,lre succeeding Kleanza Phase, known from
Gitaus a r ~ ddating from 2500 to 1500 B.P., Conplaud (1985a:337-340) suspect.ed t h a t status distirrctions had emerged. Assrmblage content remains gelrerally t h e same (low clripped stone tool
proport,ions, high groundstone and cobble implement proportions, and widespread fire brok e r ~rock scatters), but labrets, slate mirrors, and
slate knives a n d daggers appear. Regrettably,
tlrere is little solid evidence concerning dwellings
in bhis period.
Once again, Allaire and Coupland differ in
their interpretations. Allaire (1979:47-48) regarded tire Kleanza Plrase as a local technological
development fro111tlre Skeena Phase - an episode
in wlrich tlrere occurred increasing accultnratiolr
of interior peoples from coastal sources. Coupland preferred the idea of t h e Kleanza Phase as

Ives/THE T S I J W H I A N ARE CARRIER

221

a develop~nentparalleling event,s on the coast. which nliglrt have had interior ties, lhere are cruT h a t is, to him, the Kleansa Phase could be seen cial developments in tlre Paul Mason Phase. Key
t o have evolved from an essentially "coastal" ba- assemblage proportiorrs drifted in the direction of
sis over t h e last 4300 years. There then follows frequencies typical for the coast, while prepared
a subst,antial g a p iir the Kitselas sequence, so house Aoors wit,hin a planned village appeared.
t h a t t h e next archaeological renraiirs come from This marks a real departure in subsistence setthe historic villages of Gitlaxdeawk and Gitsaex, tlelrrent strategy, with a decrease in the diversity
of resources used and increasing specialisat.ion in
with fully evolved Tsirnshian culture.
Tlre differing interpretations of Allaire and salmon fishing. Coupland (1085:336) explained
Coupland leave a problem of familiar propor- this developmeirt for this point in time in two
tions, t h a t of det,ern~iningwhen variability in tlre ways. First, adequate storage and preservation
form a n d content of assen~blagesindicates ethnic technology had been absent earlier. Second, seadifferences and when tlrat variability represents sonal control of the canyon from the coast lrad
functiorral differences witlrin a subsistence settle- been sufficient in earlier times. Whereas the reqlneirt system. Coupland and Allaire are in by uisite technologies d o not seem difficult. or even
far t h e best positions t o make i~rferencesconcern- necessarily absent, the second point begs a funing these remains, and Coupland in part,icular is damental question. Why, if sociopolitical dynamt o be comrr~endedfor his thorough and percep- ics were not cltangiag, had long dishance control
tive treat,ment of tlre d a t a . Yet, his perspective from the coast ceased to be possible'! By the
on t h e lower Skeena was strongly influenced by K l e a i ~ s aPhase, the Kitselas Canyoir begins t o
a theoretical framework stressing gradual, long- yield evidence of pronounced status differeirtiaterm, in situ evolutiolr of lower Skeena societies. tion within prehistoric society.
T h e onset of key pheiromena, such as seden111my view, t,lris prehistoric record favours an interpretation of alternating "interior" as opposed tism, specialised salmon harvesting and sharply
t o cLcoastally"orient.ed t,eclrnologies more in ac- non-egalitarian status distinctions, remain t o o
poorly documented for the lower Skeena t o make
cord with Allaire's treat,ment.
T h e orlly Bornite Phase site is "interior" in its a definitive commentary. For the present, howovertones, a t least t o t,he exrent t h a t the teclr- ever, one can argue equally well t h a t interior
nology of the period may n o t perrnit a discrim- people were i~rtiinatelyinvolved in historical proination of coastal versus iltt,erior peoples. TIre cesses of great importance. A prehistoric socipresence of obsidian froin A n a h e i ~ nI may sug- ety of coastal affinities (the Gitaus Phase) may
gest trade with t h e interior, and conceivably, the have been displaced by one of i~rterioraspect (the
operatiolr of wide-ranging snbsist,e~rcesettlement Skeena Phase). Subsequent t o this, egalitarian
systems. In contrast, t,l~eGitaus Phase assem- corporat,e groups in a sedentary, planned village
blage does appear coastally oriented. Obsidian appear ( t h e Paul Mason Phase); with the passt,here comes fro111 t h e same source ( M t . Edziea) ing of relatively litt,le more time, social inequalas tlrat for sites on tlte coast, while the assem- ities become increasingly evident (t,he Klcanza
blage resembles others from the coast in qualita- Phase4).
None of t l ~ i sis t o allege that these archaeotive and quantitative senses. By Skeena Phase
logical
eviderrces pert,ain t o Tsinrshian, Gitksan
times, assenrblages slrow a t least a quant.itative
or
Carrier
prehistory. This is sinrply riot. known.
shift, with some specific and certainly general
inlerior perspective causes several
Even
so,
an
resemblances t o t,lre interior. If, a s Conpland
fruitfel
propositions
to come t o mind at once:
argued, tlre Skeerra c o n ~ p l e xis also part of a
pressure
from
int.erior
may have stimucoastally cent,ered subsistence settlemeirt system,
lated
a
more
complex
polit,ical
respouse
from prethen two issues arise. Why is there so ~iot,iceable
existing
coastal
peoples;
more
war-like
inherior
a shift in assemblage proportions, when presumpeoples
nray
have
superimposed
themselves
upon
ably, sites in the canyon ought t o have similar
sedentary
coast,al
popnlations;
aggressive
interior
fulrctiolrs in b o t h periods? And why should we
assume t h a t overwintering in Skeena occurred a t peoples in the canyon area may have influenced
tlre coast? W i t h diminished formal links in t h a t early trade between t h e coast and peoples father
direction, t h e absence of permanent winter habi- inland, and so forth.
ta,tion in t h e Kitselas Canyon does n o t mean, ipso
CONCLUSIONS
facto, t h a t overurintering took place a t the coast.
Shortly after tlre appearance of a n asse~nblage From these considerations of myth, kinship

222

and prehistory, I wish to draw three conclusions.

First, I hope to have shown that it is not entirely misleading to say that t,he Tsin1shin.n 'are"
Carrier. The relatively few facts available foster the suspicion that various Tsimshian ancestors may once have lived on the interior, and
that, in gross form, their social and economic arrangements Inay not have diverged greatly from
those of groups such as the Northern Carrier.
In this sense, the Northern Athapaskans themselves may be seen as simply last in a sequence
of peoples drawn by similar processes toward the
coast. The Haida may likewise have been first,
or a t least earlier, in this sequence of coastward
Inovenrents. They speak a "creolized" language
and were treated symbolically as uancestorsn in
marriages between them and the Tsimshian (see
Dunn 1984 and Fladmark's remarks for this symposium). Fladmark (conference abstracts) has
described the last few millennia of Queen Charlotte prehistory as accretional in nature, with the
mixture and fusion of mainland and island traits.
Second, I feel there is sr~fficient latitude to
move from this last generalization t o a broader
level of analysis. Indeed, Borden (1954a:31;
1954b:194) remarked upon the significance of
downstream population movements to coastal
prehistory on several occasions. Specifically, he
saw cult,ural connections between coastal manifestations of the Marpole Phase and the Baldwin Phase of the Fraser Canyon (Borden 1968:20;
1970:105-106). In a stimulat,ing way, Burley
(1979) has resurrected this position by arguing
that an expansion down the Fraser toward the
coast of Baldwin Phase peoples, who had begun to engage in fully specialized salmon harvesting wit11 storage, laid the basis for the Marpole Phase. Such an argument becon~esall the
more intriguing in light of a recent suggestion
from Rosman and RubeI(1985) that the cognatic
social structures of tlre more southerly coastal
societies call similarly be traced to interior antecedents. I suspect that some of tlre principles
elucidated here are relevant to other drainages,
and that they can be used to generate profitable
researcli for these settings as well.
And last, I would observe that concrete reflections of ethnicity occur always within particular historical and cultural contexts. During
the conference, each discussion of ethnic identity based upon ethnoarchaeological information
showed that material expressions of this phenomenon have enormous complexity. Wiessner's
(1983, 1984, 1985) work with the San has been

ETHNIGlTY AND CULTURE

most instructive hr this regard. Where lrletal projectile points are the medium, large areas of the
San populace show homogeneity of style. Such
homogeneity, whether it is active or passive, apparently conveys conformity to land use norms.
When beaded headbands become the medium,
different design sets within a repertoire of attributes are used to stress regional complernentarity. This seeming contradiction of material
expression is in fact generated by crucial underlying processes in San society, forenrost among
them being a strong impetus to exogamy and circulation of personnel between local groups. Unpredictable, severe drought provides the cl~aracteristic dynamic of the Kalahari, and the San
rely upon economic access t o other local group
ranges in times of drought. The different material expressions appear to be glosses upon a value
system stressing social interaction.
In like fashion, we must understand the historic
context for the ethnic differentiation of coastal
and interior peoples. Many models for the emergence of coast,al cultures have stressed in situ development. Yet, it may very well be tlre case
that socioecono~nictransfornlations of interior
societies, u,ith econonlic and political incentives
to move downstream, were of paramount significance t o the region's prehistory. I believe these
historic processes sllould give us pause in our efforts to discern prehistoric ethnic identities in
this region; they should lead us to question what
is truly "coastal" as opposed t o "interior" in all
cultural senses; and they sllould perhaps alert us
that the historical processes themselves - not so
much the detection of ethnicity - are the fundamental issue for research.
NOTES
1. This line of reasoning cannot be fully elaborated here. It is important, however, to be aware
of two connotations for the term "interior" with respect to salmon harvesting. For the middle and upper reaches of rivers, variability in salmon returns
can be so pronounced that salmon are not a viable
resource in some years. For principal canyons on
the lower reaches of major rivers, it is unlikely that
fluctuations in salmon returns had tangible effects
for human populations - salmon remaining so numerous in any event. These canyon settings were
of great prehistoric significance in that they combined features of both interior and coast. Salmolr
remained abundant, they could be taken with simple
harvesting technologies, and preservation was more
readily obtained than at the coast. Most critically,
canyons were of enormous strategic significance. Kitselas Canyon on the Skeena, for instance, is but two

Ives/THE T S I M S H I A N A R E C A R R I E R

kilometres long, and offers only a limited number of

fishing stations (Coupland 1985b:43). &om an interior perspective, such canyons represent the final
positions on a drainage where the problem of variability in salmon returns can be solved, yet where
access remains restricted and susceptible t o political
control.
2. Kobrineky (pers. comm.) has been so kind
as to provide me with field notes concerning Babine
Lake Carrier terminology. That information is not
fully analyzed and has not been phonetically systematized. Because there is a significant degree of variability, and even confusion, in terminological usage,
I will not presume to represent the Babine terminology In a figure. Nevertheless, there are even stronger
Dravidian-type overtones in Kobrinsky's data then in
Jenness's.
For Gl, through terms such as saz'e, szeye and
szec, there is a tendency to equate MB, FZH, W F
and H, while the terms apiyits and apiyc and variants on saga iy are given for MZ=FBW. Kobrinsky
could not resolve the cousin terminology, but two patterns merit attention: 1) extension of a sibling term
(sateeyn) to all cousins , and 2) a distinction between
sibling terms (e.g., satecyn for B=FBS=MZS) and
cross cousin terms (e.g., s wntiy for MBS=FZS and
sziyt for MBD=FZD). Both patterns are known for
other Athapaskans (Ives 1985). In addition, the term
slez (and variants) denoted spouse's siblings's spouse,
with the connotation that such individuals are "just
like same companyn. Many speakers did not represent G-1 crossness (distinguishing sex only), but
some made discriminations which might arise from
either crossness or lineality, where scaw was given for
sister's children whereas scaz was given for brother's
children.
While both the Babine and Bulkley terminologies
show marked skewing from purely Dravidian form,
Dravidian-type antecedents for the terminologies are
clearly present. Lower Carrier terminologies feature
cognate terms but are organized along completely different logical lines (see Ives 1985:247-262).
3. The element of crossness in Dravidian-type kin
reckoning is one of duality, and it is frequently associated with concepts of dual organization in northwestern North America (as Rubel and Rosman (1983)
established). Societies with dual organisation frequently make spatial representations of duality in the
design of their settlements (Levi-Strauss 1963:292).
In this respect, it is worth noting that Coupland
(1985a:379) considered the layout of the Paul Mason village to be well-conceived: it was comprised of
a row of four houses facing a row of six houses, each
with consistent spacing, direction and shape.
4. The existence of something like egalitarian corporate groups Inay be fleeting. Legros's (1982) work
with the Tutchone suggests that the prospects of inequality are deeply and inherently embedded in particular social structures, requiring little time for ex-

pression.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My perspective on this problem has benefited from
discussions with David Burley, Bruce Ball and Martin Magne, each of whom have provided me with
valuable sources of information as well. I am particularly grat,eful to Vernon Kobrinsky, Department of
Anthropology, University of Calgary, who generously
shared unpublished information on kin terminology
from his field notes on the Babine Lake Carrier.

REFERENCES CITED
Adams, John W.
1973 The Gitksan Potlatch. Population Fluz, Resource Ownership and Reciprocity. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Toronto.
Allsire, Louis
1979 The Cultural Sequence at Gitaus: A Case
Study of Prehistoric Acculturation. In Skeenu
River Prehistory, edited by R. Inglis and
G.F. MacDonald. National Museum of Man,
Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of
Canada Paper No. 87353-166.
Allaire, Louis, Richard Inglis and George F. MacDonald
1979 Gitlaxdzawk: Ethnohixtory and Archaeology.
In Skeena River Prehistory, edited by R. Inglis and G.F. MacDonald. National Museum
of Man, Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey
of Canada Paper No. 87:53-1G6.
Ames, Kennetli M.
197% Stable and Resilient. Systems along the
Skeena: The Gitksan/Carrier Boundary. In
Skeena River Prehistory, edited by R. Inglis
and G.F. MacDonald. National Museum of
Man, Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of
Canada Paper No. 87:53-166.
1979b Report of Excavations at GhSv-2, Hagwilget
Canyon. In Skeena River Prehistory, edited by
K. Inglis arid G.F. MacDonnld. National Museum of Man, Mercury Series, Archaeological
Survey of Canada Paper No. 8753-166.
1981 The Evolution of Social Ranking on the Northwest Coast of North America. American Antiquity 46:789-805.
Asch, Michael I.
in press The Dene Community of Pitzekin (Wrigley,
N . W . T . ) in 1969-1970: A Discussion of Economy, Social Organization and Drum Dance Music. National Museum of Man, Mercury Series, Canadian Ethnology Service Paper (Revision of an unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
1972, Department of Anthropology, Columbia
University).

ETHA'ICITY AND CULTURE

224

Boss, Franz
1916 Tsirnshinn Mythology.
Bureau of American Ethnology, 31st Annual Report, 190919IO:pp. 29-1037. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington.

Dunn, John Asher

1984 International Matri-Moieties: The North Maritime Province of the North Pacific Coast. In

Borden, Charles E.
1954a Some Aspects of Prehistoric Coastal-Interior
Relations in the Pacific Northwest. Anthropology i n B.C. 4:26-32.
19541, Distribution, Culture and Origin of the
Indigenous Population of British Columbia.

109. University of British Columhia Press,

Vancouver.

Transactions yf the Seventh B.C. Natural Resources Conference, pp. 186-196.

1968 Prehistory of the Lower Mainland. In Lower
Fraser River Valley: Euolulion of a Cultural
Landscape, edited by A.H. Siemens, pp. 9-26.
B.C. Geographical Series,No. 9.
1970 cultural ~i~~~~~of the fiaser.~elta ~
An Outline. 8.6. Studies 6-7:95-112.

Buchler, Ira R . and Henry A. Selby

1968 Kinship and Social Organizntion. A n Introduction to Theoru rand Method The Mncrnillan
Company, New York.
Burley, David V.
1979 Specialisation and the Evolution of Complex
Society in the Gulf of Georgia Region. Canadian Journal oJArehaeology 3:131-143.
Coupland, Gary
1985a Prehistoric Cultural Change at Kitselas
Canyon. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Depertnrent of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
1985b Household Variability and Status Differentiation at Kitselas Canyon. Canadian Journal of
Archaeology 9:39-56.
Donahue, Paul F.
1975 Concerning Athapaskan Prehistory in British
Columhia. Western Canadian Journal of Anthropology 5:21-62.
1977 4500 Years of Cultural Continuity on the Cen-

tral Interior Plateau of British Columbia. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of

Anthropology, University of Wisconsin.
Drucker, Philip
1965 Cultures of the North Pacific Coast. Chandler,
San Francisco.
Dumond, Don E.
1978 Alaska and the Northwest Coast. In Ancient
Native Americans, edited by Jesse D. Jennings,
pp. 43-94. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco.
Dumont, Louis
1953 The Dravidian Kinship Terminology as an Expression of Marriage. Man (n.s.), 54:34-39.

The Tsimshian. Images of the Post; Views for

the Present, edited by Margaret Sequin, pp. 99-

Durlach, Theresa Mayer

1928 The Relationship Systems of the Tlingit, Haida
and Tsimshian. Publications of the American
Ethnological Society, Volume XI. New York.
and
F, Aberlc
1974 Lezical Reconutruction. The Case of the ProtoAthapaskan Kinship System. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Evans-Pritchard, E.E.
1940
A~ Description
of: the Modes of Liueli~ The Nuer:
i
~

hood and Political Institutions of o Nilotie People. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
1951 Kinship and Marriage among the Nuer. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.

Farley, A.L.
1979 Atlos of British Columbia. People, Enuironment and Resource Use. The University of
British Columhia Press, Vancouver.
Fladrnark, Knut R.
1975 A Paleoecological Model for Coast Prehistory.
National Museum of Man, Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper No. 43.
1976 Punchaw Village: A Preliminary Report. The
Archaeology of a Prehistoric Settlement. In
Current Research Reports, edited by R . Carlson, pp. 19-32. Publication No. 3, Department
of Archaeology, Simon Fraser Univewity, Burnaby, B.C.
1982 An Introduction t o the Prehistory of British
Columbia. Journal of Archaeology 6:95-156.
Hayden, Brian, Morely Eldridge and Aubrey Cannon
1985 Complex Hunter-Gatherers in Interior British
Columbia. In Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers.
The Emergence of Cultural Complezity, edited
by T. Douglas Price and J.A. Brown, pp. 181199. Academic Press, New York.
Ives, John W.
1985 Northern Athapaskan Social and Economic
Variability. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertztion,
Department of Anthropology, University of
Michigan.
Jenness, Diamond
1943 The Carrier Indians of the Bulkley River.
Their Social Life. Bureau of American Ethnology, Blilletin No. 133, Anthropological Papers
No. 25. Washington, D.C.

225

Ives/THE TSlMSNIAN A R E C A R R I E R

Kelly, Raymond C.
1985 The Nuer Conquest. The Structure and Deuelopment of an Ezpansionist System. University
of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Kew, Michael
1976 Salmon Abundance, Technology and Human
Populations on the Fraser River Watershed.
Paper presented at the Northwest Coast Conference. Sirnon Fraser University, April 1976.
Kobrinsky, Vernon
1977 The Tsi~nshianization of the Carrier Indians. In Problems in the Prehistory of the North
American Subarctic: The Athaposkan Question,
edited by J.W. Helmer, S. Van Dyke and
F.J. Kense, pp. 201-210. University of Calgary
Archaeological Association, Calgary.
pers. comm. Field notes concerning Babine Carrier
kin terminology.
Legros, Dominique
1982 Reflexions snr L'origine des Inegalities Sociales
a Partir du cac des Athapaskan Tbtchone. Cullure II:65-84.
Levi-Strauss, Claude
1963 Social Structure. In Structural Anthropology,
edited by Clande Levi-Stranss, pp. 277-323.
Basic Books, New York.
1969 The Elementary Structures oJKinship. Beacon
Press, Boston.
MscDonald, George F.
1969 Preliminary Culture Sequence from the Coast
Tsirnshian Area, B.C. Northwest Anthropologicol Research Notes 3240-254.
MacDonald, George F. and Richard I. lnglis
1981 An Overview of the North Coast Prehistory
Project (1966-1989). B . C . Studies 48 (Winter
1980-1981):37-63.
Matson, R.G.
1983 Intensification and the Development of Cultural Complexity: The Northwest versus the
Northeast Coast. In The Euolution of Maritime
Cultures on the Northeast and the Northwest
Coasts oJNorth America, pp. 125-148. Publication Number 11, Department of Archaeology,
Simon Fraser University.
Newcomer, Peter J .
1972 The Nuer are Dinka: An Essay on Origins and
Environmental Determinism. Man, n.s., 7:s11.
Riches, David
1979 Ecological Variation on the Northwest Coast:
Models for the Generation of Cognatic and Matrilineal Descent. In Social and Ecological Systems, edited by P.C. Burnham and R.F. Ellen,
pp. 145-166. Academic Press, New York.

Rosman, Abraham and Paula E. Rubel

1971 Feasting with Mine Enemy: Rank and Ezchange
Among Northwest Societies. Columbia University Press, New York.
1985 'West Coast Tribes" and their Social Slructural Transformations. Paper presented at, the
Sapir symposium of the AAAS annual convention, May 1985, Los Angeles.
Sapir, Edward
1920 Nass River Terms of Relationship. American
Anthropologist 22:261-271.
Schalk, H.andal1
1977 The Structure of an Anadromous Fish Resource. In For Theory Building in Arehaeo!oqy,
edited by Lewis R. Binford, pp. 200-250. Acadcmic Press, New York.
Shuttles, Wayne
1968 Coping with Abundance: Subsistence on the
Northwest Coast. In Man the Hunter, edited
by Richard B. Lee and Irven DeVore, pp. 5669. Aldine, Chicago.
Trautmann, Thomas R.
1981 Dmutdtan Ktnshtp.
Press, Cambridge.

Canlbridge University

Tyhurst, Robert.
n.d. Tlie Chilcotin: An Ethnographic History. Unpublished manuscript in possession of the author.
U'iessner, Polly
1983 Style and Social Information in Kalahari San
Projectile Points. American Antiquity 48353276.
1984 Reconsidering the Behavioral Basis of Style.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3:190234.
1985 Style or Jsochrestic Variation? A Reply to
Sackett. American Antiquity 50:160-166.

PROJECTILE POINT AND LITHIC

ASSEMBLAGE ETHNICITY IN INTERIOR
BRITISH COLUMBIA
Martin Magne and R . G . Matson
Archaeological Survey of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
and
Department of Anthropology and Sociology
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, British C o l u m b ~ a

INTRODUCTION
Tlrere have been 111any doubts expressed as to
t,lle archaeologist's abilities t o attribute ethnic
identity to arcl~aeologicalassemblages. Some of
these doubts have been aired in connection with
the problem of identifying Plateau Athapaskans.
For example, Fladmark has stated:
The "Athapaskan Question", in the
end, is the qucstion whether archaeologists can distinguish any historic ethnolinguistic group in millennia-old sinrple
stone tool kits . . . the answer must be
"no", a t least until we seriously reassess
our methods and realistically evaluate
the true resolving power of archaeological data (1979:253-254).
In a similar vein, Dotralrue remarked on tlre
state of research into antiquity of At,llap;~ekan
culture? on t h e Plateau: " . . . the isolation of
historic material culture set.? by language g~.oup
would be extremely difficult if not a c t ~ ~ a l limy
possible" (19773108); and also ilrat:
Rather than classify and simply look
at the presence or absence of traits we
should examine minute attributes and
techniques of lnanufacture using a systemic or set theory approach . . . Where
applicable, greater attention should be
given to the uae of numerical taxonomy
. . . (Donahue 1977:118).

region t h a t is critical t o underst.anding Athapaskan movements. A furt,her advancement in

our metl~adology is to apply similar numerical
t,axorlornic metlrods to entire stone tool assemblages, unfortunately lacking debitage ar~illyses
a t present.
This paper is an attempt to show tlrat with
continued refinement of our allalytic nretlrods, archaeological ethnicity can be realized. It is n o t
assumed t h a t sinrilaritics and differellces in material culture to be discussed a,-e in any way intentional, only that they are traditional irr t h e
sense t h a t some groups of people may make and
use stone tools differently from other groups,
whether tlre differences are recognized or not.
This study stems from research a t Eagle Lake,
British Columbia (Figure l ) ,where the problem
of identifying the C:lrilcotin migration to southcentral British Columbia was examined arclraeologically (Magne and Matkon 3984, 1985). Thus,
in tlre Eagle Lake region, remailis of bot,lr Athapaskan and Salish occupations were expected,
and the problenr is t o devise ways of sorting assemblages into the two etbno-linguistic groups.

QUANTITATIVE ANALYTIC
METHODS

It has been demonstrated previously (Magne

and Matson 1982) t h a t Interior Plateau sidenot,ched points exhibit ethnic patt.erning. This
paper extends this research t o Anahim Lake, a

In general, the n~etlrodis to use several niultivariat,e 1net.hods t o test for local and regional
homogeneity of artefacts and assemblages, being
aware of sample size factors. It is largely these
factors which determirle t.he extent Lo which common regression techniques can be applied, and
we have found that. non-parametric scaline
.techniques are rigorous methods for sorting many

227

Location of dofa Source

Athapaskan/Saiish boundary

Magrle/LITHIC ASSEMBLAGE ETHR'ICITY

types of archaeological rernains. In the iuterests

of brevity, niucl~methodological detail and justification have beerr omitted from the following
discussion.
T h e regression method used throughout the
following analyses is lnultiple discriminant analysis (MDA); the scalirlg method is n ~ e t r i cmultidirller~sionalscaling (MDS). MDA is used in
three basic ways: 1) to see if differences exist
between groups; 2) t o discover which sets of variables discriminate the groups; and 3) to classify
ungrouped kerns into the most likely groups. Althouglr there is discussion of t h e "reliability" of
the teclir~iquewhen t h e d a t a d o not fit certain assumpt,ions (see Cooley and Lohnes 1971:263, Van
de Gees 1971), the technique is usually robust
even when t,he assurnptions are not Inet (Klecka
1975:435). Olily one variety of MDA is used here,
The stepwise metlrod, or in t h e SPSS system, the
Wilks option (Klecka 1975). Like multiple regression, the method resxrlts in a factoring of the
variables contribubing most t o an equation sorting groups.
On the o t l ~ e rhand, multidirnensional scaling
does not use a priori classification arrd serves as a
good test of t,lle discriminant analyses. Whilediscriminant analysis attempts t o maximize differences between groups, multidirnensional scaling
attempts t o display actual differences arnong individ~ralitems. Thus if a trend from Athapaskan
t o Salish points can be perceived with scaling,
there is a strong suggestion t h a t ethnicity acc o u ~ l t sfor much of the total variability among
small side-notched points. While this kind of
result is technically a stronger
- one than a similar one wit11 MDA, i t is less useful since MDA
provides an equation with w l ~ i c hfuture unkllown
items can be grouped. With MDS, an erktirely
new similarity matrix would need t o be factored,
although this is no probleln with today's computers.

229

materials have been previously analysed (Magne

and Matson 1982) except three from Eagle Lake
(Figure 2:11, 12, 13) and all those from Potlatch
and Lillooet.
T h e criteria for selection of projectile points
were t h a t they be triangular, side-notclled, and
reasouably con~plete. Points were retained for
analysis if their bluntness o r basal width appeared t o be intentional flaking rather than accident. T w o of the Eagle Lake points defiuitely
have broken bases and oxre is slightly unfinished.
In applyingmeasures, symmetry was assur~redfor
these points, and they are inclnded since it was
necessary to study as many Eagle Lake points as
possible. Unlike Greaves (1982), we d o not analyse sizeable collections of broken projectile points
for ebhrric differenti a t'1011s.
T h e 15 at,trihutes measured are the same a s
those reported for the 1979 Eagle Lake s t , ~ d y
(Figure G; Maglre and Matson 19R2). All ar-e fully
contiurlous and were recorded by the author. is an
explicit att,elnpt to avoid the redundancy t h a t is
so prevalent. in litlric analyses of this type. Thus,
while there is no deductive reason for choosing
several of these variables, there are good reasons
for eliminating niany others. Multiple notches,
all otr one side of the blade o~rly,are preseut
on tliree poilrts from Eagle Lake, two from t h e
Mouth of the Chilcot,in, and one each from Punchaw a n d Potlatch. Tlrese points are used in all
analyses, but the variable itself of multi-notclking
o r the number of multiple rlot,ches is not. Multi~rotchingis a trait t h a t appears in quantity in
Salish areas only, and Inay be a n irrdicator of
component mixing.

PROJECTILE POINT SAMPLE

HOMOGENEITY

Here t h e object is t o ascertain whether or

not the points obtained from one project area
are distir~guislrablefrom t h e points from other
projects,
and to see where the Eagle Lake cases
PROJECTILE POINT ANALYSIS
are grouped. If point.^ from different projects inT h e 69 projectile points enlployed in the study terrnirlgle but d o not cross the "ethnic boundary"
were obtained from seven sources (Figure l ) ,in- then this can be t.aken as !,Ire kind of evidence
cluding the Eagle Lake region, which contributed t h a t is beiug sought.
1.3 points from seven sites (Figure 2). The Moutll
lJsirrg stepwise hlDA, overall correct assignof the Chilcot,in (13 poi~rt,sfroni 6 sites; Figure nrellt t o project is possible among 69.4is con3 ) , Hat Creek (G points from 5 sites), and Lil- verted t o At.hapaskan/S;ilish regiorrs, the rate is
looet (4 points from 3 sires) items are used a s Olcorrect assignment (Table 1). T h a t is, most
Salislr samples, while collections fro111 the sites of the "incorrect" Salish classifications are t o allof Chinlac (14 points; Figure 4), Punchaw Lake other Salish region, and likewise for t h e Atha(13 points) and Potlatch (6 points; Figure 5) are paskarr regions. Note t h a t Hat Creek and Lilused a s Athapaskan representatives. All of these looet, being relatively close t o each other, are

ETHNICITY AArlI CULTURE

Figure 2: Eagle Lake projecdile points

Figure 3: Mouth of the Chilcotin projectile points.

ETHNICITY AND CI!LTURE

13
Figure 4: Chinlac projecLile points.

Magne/LITHIC ASSEMBLAGE ETIIA'ICITY

Figure 5: Potlatcl~projectile points.

A N D CULTI'HE

DISTAL POINT
OF JUNCTURE
DISTAL
MEDIAL
WlNT OF
JUNCTURE

0
I

(from Mouth of Chilcotln)

3 CM
I

(from Chinlac)

MALE : Maximum L e n g t h
BLLE : B l a d e L e n g t h
BLWI : B l a d e W i d t h
BAWI : B a s e W i d t h
NEW1 : N e c k N i d t h
BLTH: B l a d e T h i c k n e s s
Neck Thickness
NETH:
Base Thickness
BATH:

NlDE:
N21.71 :
NOPO:
MILE :
ANTI :
DEBC :
BALE :
IEIT:

~ o t c hD e p t h
tlotch N i d t h
Notch P o s i t i o n
Minimum L e n g t h
A n g l e of T i p
Depth Basal Concavity
Base Length
VJeight

-.~~

P R E D I C T E D G R O U P MEMBERSHIP
...
Mouth of
Hat Creek/
Chilcotin Clrinlac Purrclraw
~ i l l o e t Anahi~n
10
1
0
2
76.9
7.7
15.4

Mouth of Cl~ilcotin

13

Clrinlac

Hat Creek/Lillooet

10

3
30.0

7
70.0

13

7.7

5
38.5

3
23.1

2
15.4

Anahim

Eagle Lake
(Ungrouped)

~.
~~

~~

~~~~~~

~.

15.4

~~~.~~~~
.

Table 1: MDA classification of projectile p o i l ~ t sby region. Pecerrt of "grouped" cases correctly
classified: 69.49.
used as a single group in t,liis and further analyses. The six variables required t,o achieve this set
of groups, in order of importarrce, are base width,
neck widt,l~,blade thickness, neck thickness, tip
angle and base length.
As for t.he Eagle Lake points, 1 is classed a s
Moutll of Chilcotin, 2 as Slat Creek/Lillooet, 5 as
Chinlac, 3 as Punchaw arrd 2 a s Anahini. Thus
10 of the 1 3 Eagle Lake points are classed here a s
Athapaskan. In grneral, this analysis shows that.
tlre most distinctive points are froin Chinlac, not.
t.
surprising since it is a sirrgle c o m p o ~ ~ e nassemblage from a singular rectangular house. Next
are those from t h e Mouth of the Cliilcotin region, and those from Purrcliaw Lake are t h e least
distinctive, also not surprising since this assernblage is definitely mixed, perhaps over some 4,000
years (Fladmark 1976). However, a t this stage of
tlie ai~alysisa Salisli/Athapaskan distirict,ion does
trot appear to exist across tlre entire sample.
~

ETHNIC IDENTIFICATION OF
PROJECTILE POINTS
Tile llext step is t,o Lest for accuracy ill using
tlre 15 variables t o assign the G9 points t,o Salish
o r A t h a ~ a s k a ~groups,
l
by lumpillg t h e 3 Salish
region collections and the 3 Atliapaskan collections. Again, the Eagle Lake cases are included
as ur~knowns.

Tlre results of this discriminant analysis (Table

2) show correct classificatiori a t a rate of 92.86 Of
the 23 Salis11 points, only 2 are classed as Atliapaskan arid of t h e 3 3 Athapaskan points, orily 2
are classed as Salit-h. Tlre multi-notched points
fro111 Anahir~iand Eagle Lake appear t o be Salish it,ems. Seven variables are required irr the
stepwise solution: blade \r-idth, base width, blade
tl~ickness,neck thickness, notch positio~r,depth
of basal concavit,y, and rnean notch depth. Again,
tire width and thickness measures combine t o be
the inost iiliportant variables fact.ored out.
In all, 5 of t h e Eagle Lake points are classed
as Salish and 8 as Athapaskan. Both points from
lit,hic scatter site Quad 19:l are Salish, t.hr 2 from
litl~icscatrer CR-98 are split, 3 of 4 from lit,lric
scattrr/housepit sire EIRw-4 are Atllapaskan,
and 1 from the small isolated housepit CR-73 is
Athapaskan, as is t h a t from nearby lithic scatter CR-92. Most significa~rtis t h a t both point,s
from the Bear Lake rec&angularlodge site (EkSa36) are Athapaskan, while t h a t from the Shields
houseuit
is Salistr. In all, these dis. (EkSa-13)
~
crimiuant airalyses a r e very satisfying and they
should be reliable givell tile Inoderate sample illvolved, Tile two-group analysis is rile favoured
result since it uses t ~ i elargest grolrp sizes arld
problenl,
directly approaclles tile

MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCALING

E?'HhrlCJTY AND CL.jLTtIRE

236
-

p
~

-~

~
~
~

---p-----.,-

~
~

..... .,-.--p---..--p---.
~

Salis11
~.
21
91.3
~

23

13

Eagle Lake
(Ungrouped)

p-,,,-

~~~

Athapaskan
.~
8.7

5
38.5

%
~~~

# C A S E S ~ P R E D I C T E DG R O U P MEMBERSHIP

ACTUAL G R O U P

p
,
,

61.5
~

Table 2: MDA classificatiorl of projectile poirrts by etlrnic group. Percent of "grouped" cased correct.ly classified: 92.86.

ANALYSIS OF PROJECTILE POINTS

For this analysis, the differences among t h e
poillts were nleasllred llsing a City Block dist a r ~ c emetric upori standardized d a t a (see Sneat.11
*'le
1974).
and Sokal 1973:152-'57; Matsol'
T h e matrix is double centred and then factol-ed
to produce dimerrsiorrs int.erpretable in terms of
actual variables or new l~ypotheticalconstructs.
Here we are not so rnirch interest'ed in inberpreti r ~ gd i ~ n e n s i o r ~ass in exalrrinirlg t,he distribntions
of the points across tlre various axes. Given the
Our
(Magne
1982) we expected a good separation of ethnic
varieties.
Tlre MDS yielded 7 dimensions, which is close
to the mrmber of siglrificant variables factored
by tile MDA, and wllicll suggests st,rongly
there are about 7 "factors" irlvolved in t h e 15
nleasures of the poilrt sample. Ethnic separation is observed in the plot of tlre first versus t,lle
third dimetrsior~s(Figure 7). Tlie st,raight line
n a s drawn through the origin t o separate Salis11 and ilt.lrapaskan grolrps wit11 78Eig11t of t'lrese
are rlow Salish arid 5 are now Athapaskan, not
errt,irely col~sistentwit,lr tlre MDA results. Both
poirrts from Wear Lake are still Athapaskan, but
tile point from CR-73 is now Salis11 ( b u t close t o
the line), and that fronr tlre Shields site is now
Athapaskan.
By visual irrspectiorr sorrle col~sist~e~rcies
can be
Atllapaskan poirrts t'end to be less
seen.
equilaterally triangular; they teud t o lrave longer
genblades, wider b u t shallower not,chesi tlley
erally thicker, and have basal corrcavit,ies a n d occasiorral basal spurs.

LITHIC ASSEMBLAGE ETHNICITY

The problem of distirrgnishing At,hapaskan and
Sslislr material culture can perhaps b e more con-

viucirrgly derno~rstratedwith entire litlric assemblages than with just one artefact type. Hou.ever,
it
not,
to me;tsure eacll stone tool
wit,ll a st,andardized variable list, arid tinis
er;,l artefact types are used here a,s
,,,,its
of
analysis, Tire emp]lasis is lll~rCl~
more on "teclrriology,, rat,ller tlrall c < s t y l e ~ .
A total of 26 cllipped storle tool classes
been tablllated for 20 housepit, and lodge
Mouth of the
sites from Eagle
WillianlsLake,
and hi^^
(Table
l,ear
Williams
Lake
did
not
inTwo
clude snrall ride-not,cl~edpoints, and assemblages
from Hat Creek, Lillooet, arrd Prrnchaw are ]lot
included ill blris part. of t,l~est,udy. T h e remaining
call be
to main 'cpllasess
and ~ ~ s u b p l r u s eons ~
basis of
ages and
projectile point types, s i x are u.llat will be called
$ields site I~~~~~~ 1,2 alld
Late ~~~~l~~~~
5 from Eagle Lake, Suzcllet. House from Anahim
Lake, and EkRo-YI and E k ~ o - 4 8froin ~~~~h
of t,he Chilcotin. Xine sites are coxrsidered to
be Early Karnloops Phase, wit,h stemnled and
corner-not,clled poillts alld
dat,ing froll, A,D,
1 to A.D. 800: Boyd site lrouses 1 and 2 fro111
Eagle
Daniktco, SpafyaIl B ~ ~ , ~yaz,
,
and Tloliut, fronl Arlalrinl Lake; E k ~ o - 1 8fro,,,
~ ~ , , ~of, ,,he
l , ~ l , i l arid
~ ~E1Rn-3
~ i ~alld
~ F~ ~ R , , from
Willialns Lake, As prot,r,llistoric
Atl~apaskansites, tlrere are Bear Lake from Eagle Lake, Chinla,c from Carrier territory, and
Tco, Tshandu and Potlatch houses from Anahim
Lake,
wqlile this is a n arrangerrrerlt of \Vilmeth's sites
at
Lake
agrees
well witir his
(1978) sclleme of "Component Clusters", exanrination of these collections has led tlre authors
to believe tlrat t h e dangers of house pit stratigraphy tllat \?'ilmet,lr (1977) made explicit have

TMK CLASSES
1

2
55 1 6
1
1
3 2

2 54
1

9 1 0 11 1 2 13 1 4 15 16

1 2 1 3 3
6 6 1
37 l 4 21 21 40 2
7 151 58 77
1 3 2 1 5 2 5 2 2 3
1
1
1
2 8
l
2
4 4
3 6 1 4 2 1

17 18 19 20 21 22

1 1
1
3
13 8 12 9 11 39
3 4 4 2 2 7 3
2 1
2
4
10 l

23 24 25

1
21
19
31

l
2

26

SITEIHOUSE

Bear Lake
Chinlac
Ber Tco
Potlatch
Tshilndu
3 Shields 1
Shieldr 2
1 Shields 5
EkRo-31
EkRo-48
Suzchet

GROUP

'Athapa~kan"

L a t e Kamloopi
"Salizh"

,....

1 Boyd 1
2 8ayd 2
EkRo-18
1 ElRn-3
Early Kamlaopr
l Faun-3
"Salish"
Oaniktco
Spalyan B a t ' o
Ber Yaz
Tlokut

ARTIFACT CLASS
Side-notched p o i n t s
Kavik p o i n t s
Corner-notched p o i n t r
Stemed pointr
X i ~ ~ e l l a n e op ~o isn t s
P o i n t fragments
Large f o m e d b i f a c e r
Small f o m e d b i f a c e s
Large formed b i f a c e fragments
Small formed b i f a c e fragments
Formed s c r a p e r s
Spurred s c r a p e r s
8 i f a c i a l retouch f l a k e s

lb.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.

ARTIFACI CLASS
Unifacial retouch f l a k e s
Utilized flakes
M u l t i p l e edge u n i f a c e r
Gravers
Perfo~atovs
Drills
Pieces esquilleer
Wedges
Spa11 t o o l s
Core t o o l s
Hicroblader
Hi~r0~0rer
Sinuous edge u n i f a c e r

Table 3: Stone tool frequencies for 20 interior plateau assemblages.

N
W

ETtlArIC13'1' AND CLrLTIJRE

238

S"$"

Maulh 01 ChllColln 1131

Hal

Creel l61

m Lbll-l

SALISM STYLE

(41

II"nPA$Xl"

0 Chlnloo ( l 4 1

Punchow (I31

Anohlm (61

. ..

O**.

EaOIL L d l l l

-Go

-20

(l31

O+
ATHAPASKAN STYLE

o n

0.

MO

htsrior Plotsou ~ o j s c l i l epin!, N : 6 9

T ,role dlmanlion. A ood Q
48.5% and 12.2% of lroce
Diogonol

7 0 % occurale closrilicoeon

Figure 7: Plot of first and third dimensions of projectile point ~rrulLidime~rsionsl

scaling
beer, in operation here and t h a t t h e assemblages
from Analrim represent some unknown degree of
n~ixing. Tlrus the analyses t o follow uzere also
airned a t sol-ting o u t tlrese cases more objectively
t11a.u in the past. Given the ages of some of the
Analrim sites, it was lioped t h a t light cor~ldbc
shed on the antiquity of Atlrapaskans in tlrat region.

PHASE A N D SUBPHASE
IDENTIFICATION
Using a stepwise MDA, loothe three grollps
(Lake Kanlloops, Early Ka1nloops, prot'ollisloric
Athapaskan) was achieved (Table 4). T h e sires
are sorted very discretely, and t h e calculated
probability t h a t any of the assigned sites will belong to another group is nil o r less t,lrar~5 in 1000.
Tlre stepwise solution derived 12 arl.efact types
for the two funct,ions, where Kavik points and
nricroblades appear t o be good identifiers of the
At.hapaskan group. T h e Athapaskan sites contain an average of 3.8 Kavik points (mean of 0 in
the other t,wo groups), a u d these sites contaiu ali
average of 14.2 nricroblades (nreaa of 0 in Late
Kamloops and 4.2 in Early Kamloops). Spurred
scrapers, wlriclr Wilmeth (1978) specified as a
diagnostic Athapaskan trait, average 2.4 in the
Atlrapaskan sites, 0 in Late Kamloops, and 0.67

in Early Kamloops assemblages. Furtlrernrore,

Borden (1952) sdated the opinion t h a t thrifty use
i c Atlrapaskan
of lithic nraterials was d i a g ~ ~ o s bof
occupations. Tlrie is supporhed here with an average of 20.4 unifacial ret.ouch flakes per Athapaskan assemblage, wlrile La.te Kamloops average 3.83 of these and the Early Kanrloops assenrblages average 6.78 u~rifacialretouch Rakes.
While not overwlrel~nirrg, tlrese results slrou~
t h a t distiuct differences do exist a m o ~ r gthe 20 assemblages. Howetrer, t,he very low sample size of
asselnblage cases may he causing problems. For
the Early Krrrnloops groups appears to
ex]libit
slirl,t
to the At,llaDaskall
group, arrd the 100snspect. Thus, here is an exof wIiere multidi~rrerrsionalscaling call lrelp
resolve tile issue,

MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCALING OF
LITHIC ASSEMBLAGES
Again, what. is beirrg asked is: to what extent,
do tlre individual cases, a s opposed t o the groups,
reflect ethnicity? It was lroped tlrat this a~ralysis
would resolve t l ~ ecase of t h e A~rahirncollections,
especially t h e early ones assigned t o tlre Early
Kanrloops group in t h e MDA above.
A City Block Dist,ance ~ n a t r i xwas computed
on tlre artefact type percentages, to reduce the

Magne/LITfllC ASSEMBLAGE E T H N l C I T Y
-~

ACTUAL G R O U P
Atlrapaskan

Late Kamloops

lif

CASES

~.~

P R E D I C T E D G R O U P MEMBERSHIP
Atliapaskan
Late Kamloops Early Kamloops
..
-5
5
0
%
100.0
~~

~~

p
p

100 , 0

Early I<amloops

Table 4: MDA classification table for three group asselnblage problem. Percent of 'grouped" cased
correctly classified: 100.0.
effects of various satripling rat,es, and the mat,rix tween t h e Salisli/Athapaskan grouping tlrat bewas facbored and scaled, yielding eight dimen- tween the "Phase' groupings.
sions. T h e assemblages were plotted by their
It is important to note t h a t with tlie possible
scores on t,he first two dilnensions of the solu- exceptiori of the small formed biface class, all of
liori, however, tlris diagram wn.s n o t very discrete tlrese srtefact classes are quite formalized, well
in t,ernrs of the patterns being sought, but fur- defined and easy t o classify. It is also difficult
i
ther suggested t,liat solire of tlte A ~ i a l ~ i ncases
t o imagine t h a t tlrese are reflecting differences in
were being iritproperly assigned t o "Phases".
eriviroulnel~lalconditio~issince assentblages from
To a t t e m p t to clarify tlre issue, another scal- several environments are closely related t,o each
ing analysis was used, this dime using 15 vari- ot,her, alt,lrougli spurred scrapers and microblades
ables isolated in the discriminant analyses. T h e may be refiect,iirg t,eclinological traditions or trclifirst two dimer~sionsof this solution are shown nically specific tasks. Furt.liermore, not one of
in Figure 8. In this diagram there is good sepa- these individual classes could be used by itself t o
rat,ion of t,he Athapaskan, Early Kamloops, and sort. ethnicity of an "unknown" assemblage, and
Late K a ~ n l o o p cases,
s
particularly between Atha- tlie discrinrinant scores calculated in this study
packan and Late Kamloops. In t,ltis diagram, a woilld need t o b e applied or new ones derived.
45 degree line drawn through the axis of the plot
CONCLUSIONS
would sort the Atliapaskan and Salishan "Late
K a r ~ i l o o ~Phase"
s
assemblages perfectly. This is
These analyses detnorrstrate t h a t small Salisli
indeed a significant result. It. is clear tlrat the
and
Atlrapaskan side-notched projectile poirit,s
"Early Karnloops" cases are of two sorts: those
exhibit
significant, if subtle, differences, arid t.hat
~riostsimilar t o the At,llapaskan assemblages; and
t
l
~
e
separate
point styles can be distingaislied.
those most similar t o t,he Late Karnloops Phase
There
is
corifiderrce
in tliese resulttl in that. the
l i s s e ~ n b l a ~ e s .In otber words, tlre term "Early
sample
size
permits
reliable 1nultivariat.e paraKamloopsn s l ~ o u l db e dropped altogether, as it,
nrrtric
and
non-parametric
techniques to comdoer not appear t o liecessarily indicate "Early
plenielit
each
otlier.
Overall,
it is felt. t.l~at.
Salisli" .
srnall
side-~iotclied
points
exlrihiting
bases with
Wilcoxin rank-sum tests were run t o establish
indentations,
short
spurs,
and
elongate
blades
which variables are t h e most useful to dist,inguisl~
are
Adliapaskar~
irc
slyle,
and
those
which
are
between t,he two groups observed in the scaling
equilat,erally
triangular,
especially
witli
multiple
analysis, and six variables exceeded a probability of 0.05. Small formed bifaces, spurred scrap- notches, are Salisltan.
T h e lithic assemblage analyses are solnewhat
ers, microblades, Kavik points and unifacial resurprising
in t h a t t h e assiglnnent of ethnicity t o
touch flakes are all most abundant in the Athaindividual
houses a n d groups of asserlrblnges is
paskarr group, wl~ilesinuous edged unifaces are
perfectly
feasible,
and also t h a t traditiorial artemost abundant in wliat can b e called the Salfact
classes
used
by
previous researchers, espeislran group. These tests were also run for difcially
Wilmeth
(1978)
are the most useful items
ferences between tlte "Phases" and i t was found
by
which
t
o
make
such
distinctions.
It is very sigt h a t Cllere are more reasons for differences be~iificantt h a t Kavik points, spurred scrapers, arrd

* T.hondu

ATHAPASKAN

,D ~ n i k ~ c o

TRADITION
?

8 e s Yoz

* P ~ I I O I ~ ~

Be% T C O *

*chinlOc

/
Tlokut

?
E kRo l 8

ElR"

Shitldl 5

,Spolyon Bat'.

Suzch.1

3
? B O Y *2

Beor L a k e 7

Shl.lds

/
/

EkRo 4 8

2?

0
?

shiridr I

8oyd I

SALISH
TRADITION

Figrue 8: Lithic assemblage scaling analysis, 15 stone tool classes

ibfag~re/LITHICASSEMBLAGE ETHNICITY

microblades figure so prominently in the analyses even tlrrouglr the classes were not differentially weighted. Microblades are a definite problem, since the time span of the occurrence is u p
to A.D. 1300 a t Anahinl Lake (Wilmeth 1978),
not.wit,lrstandingt h e problems of cornponent mixing.
Tlre most significant finding of t,he ethnicity
studies is t h a t different kinds of multivariate
analyses of different sets of d a t a will colrsistently
yield patterns along the lines of Salish and Athapaskan differences in material culture. Tlle parametric regression methods appear t,o work best
in situations of relatively large sample size, and
are not very reliable in situations where sample
size approaches only 20 cases. T h e value of multidimensional scaling is both a s a cl~eckon tlle
regression models t h a t can be derived, and also a
gronping metlrod itself wlren parametric assumptiorls cannot be met. One ]nore very import.ant
aspect of the study with respect t o researclr into
the Parallel Direct Historic Approacll (Matson
1982) is t h a l the ettlr~ic differences have been
sllown to exist in areas which share quite s i r ilar environlnent,s a s well a s in areas which do
not.
T h e findings are quite useful for the Eagle
Lake region research as well. T h e Bear Lake site
is definitely a Chilcotin Athapaskan site (with
bob11 hist,oric and prel~istoric co~nponents),the
Shields site is Salishan (probably late prehistkxic
Slrusu~ap),and t h e Boyd site, while lacking small
side-notched points, is also Salisharr. Site EIRw4 (Qniggly Holes) was probably a Slluswap site
t h a t was later occupied by Cl~ilcotinin their late
18th celltury eastward move, s h e Quad 19:l appears t o have been a S11oswa.p fishing site, and
sites CR-73, CR-U2 and CR-S8 are best seen as
Chilcotin occupations.
As tlris research is cont.i~~ued
and improved
upon, tlrere will no doubt b e changes to sonre
of these conclusions. As the researchers quoted
a t the b e g i n ~ ~ i nofg this paper were aware, continual assessment of ~netllodologyis needed if
progress is to be made on solne classic archaeological problems. Tlle methods used here need
to be applied elsewhere as a check on their validity, and in tlle InLerior Plateau the spirit of
cooperation needs t o persist so t,llat access t o
many collect.io~~s
relnairls possible. As concerns
specific issues, techrrological variation arnorrg Salish and Athapaskan c u l t ~ ~requires
rr
debit,age and
raw material source analyses. Tlte significance of
nricroblades is i~nnlenselyproblematical, and we

241

sorely are in need of single component. or clearly

stratified inicroblade sites wit,h firm dates. In
conclusion, this study supports Sackett's (1982)
notions of isochrestic origins of stylistic differences. Tlle distilrctiol~sbetween Salish and Athapaskan litl~icswere likely not perceived as such by
members of the respective groups.
REFERENCES CITED

Borden, C.
1952 Results of Archaeological Investigations in
Central Brit,ish Colunrbia. Anthropology i n
British Columbia 3:31-43.
Cooley, W. and P. Lohnes
1971 Multivariate Data Analysis. Wiley and Sons,
New York.
Donnhue, P.
1977 4500 Years of Cultural Continuity on the Central Plateau of British Columbia. Ph.D. dissertation, University of C\'isconsin.
Fladmark, K.
1976 Punchaw Village: Prelirilinary Report, Arcliaeology of a Prehistoric Settlement. In Current Reicarch Reports. No. 3, edit,ed by R.. Carlson, pp. 19-32. Department of Archaeology,
Sinton Fraser liniversity.
1979 Review of Prehiriary of the North American
Sub-Arctic: the Athapaskan Question, edited by
J. Helmer, S. Van Dyke and F. Kense Canadian
Journal of Archaeology 3:250-254.
Greaves, S.
1982 (Jpon the Point: A Preliminary Inacstigetion
o f Ethnicity as a Source of Metric Variation i n
Lithic Projectile Points. National Museu~llof

Man Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of

Cai~adaPaper No. 109.
Kleckn, W.
1975 Discrinlinant Analysis. In SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, cdited by
N . Nic, C. Hall, J . Jenkins, K. Steinbrenner, and D. Bent, pp. 434-467. McCraw-Hill,
Toronto.

Magne, M. and R.G. Matson

1982 Identificatio~iof "Salish" and "Atlispaskan"
Side-Notched Projeciile Points from t,lie Interior Plateau of British Columbia. In Approaches t o Algonquian Archaeology, edited by
M. Hanna and R. Kooyman, pp. 57-79. University of Calgary Archaeological Association.
1984 Athapaskan and Earlier Archaeology at Big Eagle Lake, British C:o/uri~bio. Archaeology Laboratory, University of Rritisl Coluh~bia.Report
submitted to Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada.

ETllArICJTY AND CULTURE

1985 A Preliinii~aryModel of Athapnskan Move-

ments on the Interior Plateau of British

Columbia. Paper presented at the 1985 meeting of the Canadian Archaeological Association, Winnipeg.
Matson, R.G.
1982 The Parallel Direct Historic Approach: Ethnic Identification at Eagle Lake, B.C. In Approaches to Algonguian Archaeology, edited by
M. Hanna and B. Kooyman, pp. 233-241. University of Calgary Archaeological Association.
Matson, R.G. and D.1,. True
1974 Site Rela,tionships at Quebrada Tarapaca,
Cliile: A Coniparison of Cluster and Scaling
Techniques. American Antiquity 39:51-74.
Sackett, J.R..
1982 Approaches to Style in Lithic Archaeology.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1 5 9 112.

Sneath, P. and R. Sokal

1973 Numerical Tazonomy.
Francisco.

W.11. Freeman, San

Van de Geer, J.P.

1071 Introduction to Multivnriate Analysis jor ihe Soeinl Sciences. W . H . Freeman, S s n Francisco.
Wiln~eth,R.
1477 Pit-house Construction and the Disturbance of
St,ratified Sites. Cmrat~adianJournal of Archaeolo g y 1:135-150.
1978 Annhim Lake Archaeology and the Early Ifis-

toric Chilcotin Indians. National Museum of

Man Mercury Series Archaeological Survey of
Canada Paper No. 82.

CULTURAL DIVERSITY WITHIN THE

COAST SALISH CONTINUUM
Wayne Suttles
Department of Anthropology
Portland State University
Portland, Oregon

INTRODUCTION

C u l t l ~ r a ldiversit,y can be illustrated by listing differences between two tribes separated by

Within t h e Coast Salish portion of the Northsome distance within the region, as I hax,e done
west. Coast we can m a p over a dozen Coast Salish
in Table 1 for the Musqueam ( a Halkornelemlanguages a n d discover differences in every aspect
speaking tribe a t the mouth of the Fraser) and
social organization, beof culture - f~ecl~nology,
the Skokomish (a Twana-speaking tribe a t the
liefs, ceremonies, and a r t . At the same t,ime, we
bend of Hood Canal). In dhis list we see bhat
can find n o clear evidence for social or cultural
the Musqueam and Skokomish differed in house
boundaries. This may sound contradictory a n d
types, fishing methods, ownership of productive
paradoxical. However, as I urill argue, a resoresonrces, wealth and its use, kinship, and, eslution of this apparent contradiction is possible,
pecially, in ceremony and art. Lists showing as
and i t has important implications for the reconmany differences could no doubt be made for any
struction of t h e prehistory of the region a s well
two tribes equally separated.
a s for social theory. Let m e first present the eviDifferences of this n l a g r ~ i t ~ r dmay
e suggest that
dence.
we are looking a t two different "cultures", and so
EVIDENCE FOR DIVERSITY
t h a t we have here two "sociwe might suppose
.eties", and we might expect to find boundaries
Linguistic diversity is shown in Figure 1. There
were 13 (or possibly 14) contiguous Coast Salish marking off where one society ends and arrotl~er
languages. Nine (or ten) of t h e m were within t l ~ e begins. But s u c l ~boundaries are hard to find.
Georgia Strait-Puget Sound Basin, the speakers
EVIDENCE FOR A CONTINUUM
of each in touch wiLh their lreighbors by canoe;
Linguistic bou~idariesdid exist bnt they were
t h e other four were on t h e ocean shore and in
The
d
i s Comlitz drainages. These lan- not as sharp as our maps w o ~ ~ lsuggest.
the C l ~ e l ~ a land
of overlapping or
guages were oft,en called "Salish dialects" by ear- maps d o not reflect i~~sbances
lier scholars, but. they urr truly languages, not int.erlocking tribal territories, and they d o not redialects. They are not ~nut,nallyintelligible, and flect the fact t h a t marriages often joined prrsons
for an adult speaker of one t o learn a n o t l ~ e rtakes who spoke differerlt languages, leading to the resseveral months 1.0 several years of coat.it~uousex- idence of half of t,hese persons within territories
identified with languages other than their own
posure.
Each of t.hese languages %,as spoke11 by one o r and leading t o bilingualism - ill their own and
more "tribes", a "tribe" being a cluster of vil- subsequent generations. Linguistic boundaries
lages o r even a single village with a dist,inctive were fuzzy and were certainly not social boundname. Often t h e tribe had its own dialect of t h e aries.
Political boundaries were certainly absent.
language, b u t the villages within a tribe are said
t o have differed in speech and even differences T h e groups I have (following traditional local
within a village are reported. T h e tribes are t o o practice) identified as "tribes" were not groups
numerous t o be shown easily on a m a p of the united by any political iast,itut.ions. For mucl1
scale of Figure 1. A list of t h e tribes that appear of the region it is doubtful that the village itself
in the literature of the region runs t,o more than was a political unit in the sense of one having any
formal "government" - a village cltief or a village
sixty.

=
S
,

i?
L.

*li

.i
-S

:
42 E2

.a

S WZ
-2.E =

g
el,
d. -0 =
2 z
%%

'53

g235
2 :$

- g '3
.?

l
P:

oC O- ... q j j & . s

pL

&g?>

.h

y
8 E U b Vh
SE::

- .-

'?

5; .G
- 4 z z -g
0"

S.-;;%

o o Y e

...-;-,z; .P?:S 2
g
. .S a, 3
-*h2
3

0 :E

?i

gg

'D

!i

0,

$ = " a

'
.

P:

2s 2 2

U-

.-m

.5:- ?g1 *

-c
-.-

-a

-0 C

a5
. iEz
1
.S6
b 9 E

a
E .Xg

c ","

.E k c

-n .P

.-Fd

.S

--

2- .g 6 2
,3
~ ~ ~ ; ~ i P b ' ' $ 5 2E -E
$ $ ~ ~ $ g b ; , s z . ~ % a Z E ~2~ X$ :
P P : : ~ . $2 S:s,"a
: : O P2~ u~ E s
6 i P Q % 8 2 4 % a C !i a . . c . C C C2 C8 3v >, 2. L'.:
EPPC.*n
2:
* a
2"";

z e . ~ .

,,,p-;;

.a

$544
$

+.

-"
5

. -5
m

8 %
E

2.o .:c

71

--

2L.

23

'E

cl

U
P

"

..

..
5
b

-2

.S

.-

c
2

5 8 .-U
i-

L ;

2.5

246

council. One might argue t h a t in this region marriage o r the potlatch or both have political functions and so are political institutions, b u t that,
would not lead to a de~liolistrationt h a t there are
bour~dedpolitical units. Wlier~we look at social
relations we find a network of kinship ties with
economic and ceremonial obligations exterrdi~ig
througl~outthe region.
Figure 2 indicates solnethi~rgof this network.
In his monumental ethnography of tlre Twana,
W.W. Elmendorf (1960:302, Table 3) showed
the area from which upper-class Skokomish men
obtained wives around the middle of t h e nineteenth century. I have transposed Elmendorf's
area1 boundary o r ~ t oFigure 2 as Line 3. It
sliows t h a t Skokomislr mexi were getting wives
from groups speaking five other Coast Salish languages (Clallam, Lushootseed, Upper Chelialis,
Lower Chehalis, and Qoinault.) as well a s one
non-Salishae language (Chemnkunr). Lines 1 and
2 on the m a p show the exdent of marriage ties of
the Musqueam and L ~ r m m irespectively, as indicat,ed in genealogies I collected a t Musqueam
n ~ the
i
1940s. (I
in t l ~ e1950s and a t L o r ~ ~ in
count.ed nrarriages of botli men and wornerr in the
earliest generations.) T h e Musquealn line s l ~ o w s
nrarriages with speakers of two other languages,
Northerrr Straits and Sqnamish. T h e Lurnmi
line shows marriages with three or four others,
Lusl~ootseed,Nooksack, Halkori~elenr,arid t l a l lanr (which nlay or may 11ot be nrutllally int.elligible wit11 north er^^ Straits).
T h e three lines sliow t h a t while no SkokomisliL u n ~ m imarriages are indicated, the Skokomisli
and Llrmmi marriage areas overlap. Both were
marrying Clallaln and D ~ l w a n ~ i s hLikewise,
.
no
Lunrmi-Musqueam ~liarriagesare indicated, b u t
the Lurnnii and Musqueam arcas overlap. Both
were marrying Saanich, Cowichan, and Samish.
Tlre same ger~ealogiesshow st.ill wider ties; for exa ~ n p l e a, Nooksack who married a Lumrni had a
Chilliwack mother. Ger~ealogiesfro111other tribes
would show different. rilarriage areas; the Nooksacks were marrying wit11 both t h e Chilliwack
and other groups on the R a s e r and Upper Skagit and others to the south. T h e Squamish,
w l ~ o nthe
~ Musqueam were marrying, were also
n i a r r y i ~ ~the
g Sechelt. T h e region was a social
and biological continuum.
T w o questioris might be asked a t tllis point.
T h e first is: isn't it possible t h a t this network
of interlirarriage is recent? The answer is: i ~ o if
t
we can believe the genealogies. One genealogy,
collected by Franz Boas (1894:facing 454) on the

ETHArICITY AND CULTliRE

Lower Fkaser in 1890 goes back seven generations

before a m a n borii about 1840. Allowing or~ly
20 years per ge~ierationwould put t,he earliest
at
beginning of the 18th century. T h e three
earliest ge~reratiotlsshow an Upriver Halkomelem
f a ~ ~ r i lgetting
y
wives from Kwantlen (Dowlrriver
Halkomelem), Cowichan (Island Halkomelem),
and S o r ~ g l ~ e e(Northen1
s
Straits) a n d niarrying
daughters off t o Skagit (Lushootseed) and Maka
(son-Salisl~) men. Genealogies t h a t I collected
in the 1940s arid 1950s go back t o persons who
were grown u p by the beginning of tlie ninet~eenth
century and show t , l ~ a they
t
were marrying pers o ~ from
~ s other tribes a n d languages. While it
is quite possible t h a t the marriage area of each
tribe expanded after the European presel~cereduced ilrt,ertribal warfare, the practice of establislririg marriage ties with dist,airt villages niust
be older.
The second question is: Wasn't irrtertribal
marriage simply a practice of t h e elit,e and so
n o more an ir~fiueirceon tribal gene pools and
cultures t,llan royal marriages in Europe were an
i~rfluenceon European gene pools and cultures?
My answer i:. t h a t , t,o judge from late nineteenthcentury practice, intertribal marriage was not
sinrply t h e practice of the wealtl~iestbut a pretty
ger~eralpract,ice, and t h a t t h e marriages of the
wealthiest nlerl each with several women from
different tribes must have had corrsiderable biological a n d cultural impact. But there was also
the social (or political) coiniectioi~,which was after all tlie reason for European royal marriages.
(David Kelley has commented t,hat t,he biological
impact of E u r o p e n ~ iroyalty was not slight; millions of Europeans are likely the descendarits of
Charlemagne,)
As further evidence for a cultllral continuurrr,
I refer t o the whole of Elmendorf's Table 3 ,
cit,ed earlier for its marriage area. W h a t this
table shows is the overlap of circles embracing
the tribes with wlroln tlre Skokomislr participat,ed
in four different activities: l) i~rtervillageeating
contests; 2) intervillage disk games; 3) upperclass marriage (already slrowi~on M a p 2); and
4) secret-society initiations. Elmendorf uses the
table t o illi~st,rat.ehow "important features of
Twana culture did not i a any way coiricide with
tlie boundaries of the Twana speech c o n r ~ n u i ~ i t y
. . . ". T h e Skokomish participat,ed in eating cont,ests with non-Twana t o the south but not with
all other Twana, and they participated in secretsociety initiations with non-Twana t o the north
but not with all other T w a ~ i a . T h e Skokomisli

Szlttles/COAST SALISH CO.\'TIh'tJlJM

248

ETIIR'ICITY AND CULTURE

were in fact. unique in participating in both of place a s long a s the resources were there, prot,hese activities. Elniendorf's d a t a show t,hat such vided for exchanges of resources, and provided for
activities were not only independent of language the movement of people in adjustment t o changes
but were independent of one another.
in resources. Cultural diversity was a large part
As Elrnendorf point,s out, participation in such of what kept people in place, while the social netactivities mapped wit,h anot,her group as the work was what allowed tlie exchange and movest,arting point would give allother configurakion. ments to occur.
T h e Songhees, for example, could be slrown as
Looki~rga t what t h e people thenrselves were
a point of overlap of secret society i~ritiatiorls doing, we can suppose t h a t the strategy of famand the use (though n o t the ownership) of the ily heads had t o be to develop and maintain
szwayzzuey mask.
their claims to place and the control of resources,
As one might suppose fi-onr such overlappilrg through symbols of local identity, suclt as unique
distributions, these activit,iee or culture conr- myths, ceremonies, and ever1 forms of speech,
plexes were n o t stable. T h e secret society had wlrile a t t h e same time developing and maintainalmost certainly spread from the Makah t o the ing ties with neigltbors, especially rich and powClallam and on t.o t h e Skokomish and from the erful ones.
Nitinat t o the Songhees. T h e szwayzzuey is beIf fire have n o clear social or cultural boundlieved to have spread witliin t,lle Halkomelem area aries, can we talk about "societies" o r "cultures"?
(tliol~ght.raditions d o not agree on the direction) If by "society" we 1nea.11something like the most
and it seerxrs t o have been spreading recerttly into extensive group within which people ordinarily
tlle Nortltern Shraits area. T h e mechanism has have social relations, then i t is not the llo~rsehold
heeri iriterrnarriage a n d the transfer of ceremo- nor t,he village nor the bribe. It has t o be either
nial privileges t o sons-in-law and grandchildren. defined differently for each village or else identiT l ~ u swe find not orlly t h a t the distributions of fied as the whole region o r niore.
culture traits or complexes - brait o r complex
As for 'culture", I see no problem with identiboundaries - d o not come in neat bundles t h a t fying i t as knowledge (in some sense) of how to
allow us to draw bourtdaries of societies, but we interpret t,he world around us a n d how t o behave.
also find t h a t the t,rait or complex boundaries can But if by 'a culture" we mean knowledge or unmove. It seerris likely t h a t ceremonial activities derstandilrg shared by some groups, then we are
move more readily t,llan some other kinds of cul- up against a problern something like the one we
ture conrplexes. But it would be unwise t o sup- have with 'society". Elmendorf's table (Map 2)
pose t h a t any b u t t h e ~rrostenvironment-bound illust,rates the overlapping nature of shared parare altoget,ller stable.
ticipation and, preaumably, shared knowledge.
Language bou~lilaries also shifted, probably The Skokomish (or sorue Skokomish?) shared t l ~ e
less often through nrigration or invasion than esoleric knowledge of tlie secret society with peot,hrongll the gradual substitution of one language ple (some people?) t o the north b u t with none
for anotlrer in villages a t boundaries.
to tlre sout,h, and the Skokomish (most or all
Skokomish?) slrared an nnderstanding of lrow
INTERPRETATION
to behave in a n eating cont,est wit,lr people (all
I started wit,lr what might seem like a contra- people?) to the sontli but with none t,o t.lie
diction o r a paradox - cultural diversity within ~ i o r t h .This particular aggregation of knowledge
a social continuum. But tliis is a paradox only was unique t o the Skokomisli (and may not even
if we expect t o find neatly bounded units - lit- have been shared by all Skokomish). If it was
tle communities, small-scale societ,ies, etc. - as "a culture", then there may have been as many
we would from muclt of older social theory. A cultures as villages. We miglrt. speak of 'the culsearch for such units is fruit.less. It would be ture" of a region in the sense of all of t,lre knowlmore appropriate to see t h e people of t h e region edge its inhabitants had, without supposing t h a t
as a population (or a segment of a population) they all shared all of it. But if we want to identify
"the culture" of a region a s simply what is slrared
is
and ask how i t m a i ~ i t a i ~itself.
I suggest t h a t t h e Coast Salis11 population did and no niore, tlren we will have t o describe it in
so tlirough practices t h a t distributed people in pretty abstract terms, recognizirrg t h a t its conthe environment in a way t h a t provided a fairly crete realizations could vary greatly. Feat,ures of
good (not necessarily perfect) r a t i o of people t o "the culture" of "the Coast Salish" included some
resources. These practices kept local groups in general principles guiding int.ervillage cerentonial

activities, b u t what tlri~rgrwere exclranged and

what ceremoriies perfor~nedvaried from one part
of the region t o a r ~ o t l ~ eand
r possibly from one
generation t o another.
T h e inrplications of all this for arclraeology
seem pretty clear. If the ~ ~ l e n t b eof
r s a tribe or the
speakers of a language [lid ]tot cor~stitutea cul(urally distinct o r cult~urallystable group, then
one cannot expect t o find ir~disputablemarkers
of tribal o r linguistic identity in the archaeological record. It may be t h a t a t any moment ~ I I
llistory speakers of lmrguage A and speakers of
larrguage B differed in t h a t one group used artefact type X and tile other used type Y. But if features of cult,ure n ~ o v e dreadily across tribal and
linguistic boundaries and if linguistic boundaries
could shift, then a t anot,lrer moment the speakers of hot11 A arrd B ~rriglrt.use X, bodlt Y, o r
both 2. Under suclr conditions one cannot know
which a t e f a c t types go wit11 wlricb langnages,
except for the most recent period. For example,
it appears t h a t in lristoric times when speakers
of Halkornelem or Strait,s built u.eirs they used
t
a row of stakes braced on t,he d o w ~ ~ s t r e a nside
and a t r a p on t.he upstream side, u.1rile speakers
of Lushootseed and T w a r ~ aused a row of tripods
and a lift-net platform or1 tlre dou,~rstreamside.
This difference did follow a language boundary in
lristoric times, b u t I see n o j~rst.ifica.tiorrfor supposing t h a t there was a similar correspondence
500 or 1000 years ago.
Rather than pursuing illusory markers of tribal
or linguistic identity, arclraeology in Northwestern h'orth America might bet,ter devot,e it,s energies, as indeed it gelrerally has, t o tlre reconstruction of regiolral culture l~istories.Meanwhile, ethnology and ct1tno1rist,ory, also t o o long distracted
bv tribal arrd linnuistic
identities, still lrave mnch
t,o d o in identifying and analyzing the regional
social
svstelr~s
t,ha,t existed in the earlv lristoric
- ..~
~~,
period. We may event,ually be able t o reconstruct
the hist.ories of these systeins.
~

~~

n o sharp cult.ura1 boundaries. Social systems of

this type include those of the Northwest Coast,
a t least from the Coast Salish southward, probably the Plateau, and almost certainly t,he Great
Basin. In social systems of the second type, there
a r e endogamous groups, often wit11 different economic roles and different political power. T h e
c u l t t ~ r a ldifferences anrong tliese groups may be
great and tlre boundaries sharp. Social systems
of this type probably include most "civilizations"
of t h e Old World, our own not excepted, and perhaps those of the pre-Columbiaa New World. For
social systems of t h e second type we need a term
for the culturally different endogamous groups we
find within them. T h e term usually used is "ethnic group". This is a good, useful term, and t o
use it for the tribes o r bands o r liirguistic groups
we find in social syst.ems of tlre first type detracts
from its usefulness a n d conceals t h e diversity of
human social systems.
It may be worth 11ot.ing t h a t in t h e regions of
Nort~hu~estern
North America t h a t I would identify as without "etllnic groups", native terms
t h a t now mean 'Indian' (as opposed t o 'White',
'Black', etc.) seem earlier to have meant simply 'person' or 'peo]>le', witlrout any restriction
t o one's own tribe, language, or region. Thus
wlrat were, in the social systems of tlre first type,
generic terms for human beings have become, in
a social syst,em of t h e second type, terms for an
et'hnic group.
NOTES
1 . For a recent example see Hajda 1984.
2. This section was not part of the paper as presented but is a rewording of a
I l,,ade during the final discussion,

REFERENCES CITED

AFTER,WORD O N "ETHNIC: GR.OUPSX

T h a t other term - implied by t h e title of t,his
conference - "ethnic groupY,presents in tlris region all tlte problzlns of "society" and "cult,ure"
and another one as well. We can, I tlrink, contrast two types of social systems. (This is not
to say tlrat there are only two types). In the
first, principal groups are based on kinship and
residence, a n d they are generally exogamous, certainlv not endonamons.
Cult.ura1 differe~rcesare
"
cun~ulative(incremental) over space; there are

Boas, Etnnz
1894 Indian Tribes of the Lower Fraser River.
British Association for the Advancernenl of Science 40:454-463

Elmendorf, W. W.
19GG The Structure of I'wana Culture. U7ashington
State University Research Studies, Monograph
Supplement 2.
Hajda, Yvonne P.
1984 Regional Social Organization in the Greater
Lower Columbia, 1792-1830.
Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington.

ETHATCITY AA'D CLJLTURE

THE POTENTIAL OF BASKETRY FOR

RECONSTRUCTING CULTURAL DIVERSITY
ON THE NORTHWEST COAST
Kathryn Bernick
Vanconver, British Cohmbia

I used to say in jest tliat my goal was

to discover prehistoric pottery on the Northwest Coast. Assemblages of bone points, miscellaneous ground slate, occasional waterworn
chipped stone, and tJle odd L'u~liatsit"-even with
piles of clarn shells and fish bones - seemed bleak
compared with buckets of sherds from wliicli one
might read dates and places and peoples.
I am not looking for pottery anymore. We have
something better: basketry. Once we have overcome our reluctance to seek it out and learn to
read it, we will no longer be the ones who are
e~ivious.
Basketry is probably the most useful artefact
type on the Northwest Coast in terrns of information on ethnicity. It is tecl~nologicallycomplex, stylistically sensitive and relatively abundant when prcsent. Even srnall fragnrents can
be instructive, especially if they include finished
edges, ornamentation or appendages.
The following examples of the kinds of information forthcoming from basketry are from
t,he Coast Salish region. First is the distirictioli
between coiled and woven basketry (Figure 1).
These are very different ways of making baskets:
oue would need to know. wllicll kind one was going to make even while gathering and preparing
the raw materials. Moreover, the distinction is
readily recognizable even on tiny scraps.
Tlie Coast Salisli made both coiled and woven
baskets. The woven varieties were also made by
neighbouring groups, but the Coast Salish are the
only people on the Northwest Coast who made
basketry by coiling. Coiled basketry was an important Coast Salish industry, and it is cited as
one of the traits distillguisliii~gthe Coast Salis11 from surronnding peoples (Drucker 1963:202).
Gulf of Georgia coiled baskets are generally angular, whereas those from Washington %ate are
rounded. There is a corresponding difference in

tlle methods of base and rim construction (Haeberlin et al. 19283142; Jones 1976:175; Thompson
and Marr 1983:27).
To date no coiled basketry has been reported
from prehistoric context,^ in t,he Coast. Salish region. This statement is qualifed by the observation that only a few aseeii~blagesare available,
none from the very recent prehistoric period.
Nevertheless, it does lend support to the argument put forth by etlinographers (for example,
Barnett 1955:124; Haeberlin et al. 1928:133-136;
Waterinan 1973:91) t h a t coiled basketry technology is an Interior Salish trait which diffused down
the Fraser River, and over other communication
routes frorn the interior to the coast, during relatively recent times, likely tlie nineteenth century.
There is nothing incongruous in postulat,ing
t h a t coiled basketry among the Coast Salish
was a post-contact introduction. Other groups
on the coast experienced sirnilar shifts - borrowing or innovating weaving techniques, basket shapes and/or methods of ornamentation (see
Jones 1908, 1976:77-85). In retrospect, it rnight
have been predicted. Interior Salish coiled baskets decorated by imbrication are of outstanding
technological and artistic quality - 'world class"
in fact - and were avidly sought by collectors,
tourists, art dealers, and antliropologists. As far
as we know, neither the Gulf of Georgia nor the
Straits Salish made a type of wove11 basket that
appealed to the tastes of collectors. Puget Sound
groups (notably the Twana) did make decorated
woven baskets, but ttiese were report,edly not as
useful and took longer to make (Smith 1940:304).
Indeed, it seems logical to suppose that tlie Coast
Salish adopted the manufacture of coiled basketry in response to the developing production
economy.
What jars is the att,ributio~~
of such a late origin to one of the very few items of material cul-

ETHNICITY AND CULTURE

252

COILED BASKETRY
A. S p l i t s t ~ t c h
bundle f o u n d a t ~ o n

BASKETRY

B. Checker

D.

plaiting

WEAVING TECHNIQUES
C. T w i l l

plaiting

II

Twining

E. Wrapped t w i n i n g

F. P l a i t e d wrapped
twining

KB

Figure 1: Nortlrwest Coast basketry reconstrnctio~r tecl~niques: A, typical Coast Salis11 method of
coiling, B-F, weaving tecllniqltes documented in the Coast Salisll region.

I?ernick/ClILTLJRAL DIVERSITY ON THE NORTIlWEST COAST

ture that is supposed to be diagnostic of the ethnic identity of the region.

It is possible that coiling on the coast is older
than present evidence indicates. A few specin~ens
of coiled basketry were recovered at Ozette, from
deposits dated to 300-500 years ago. Since the
sanrple was srnall (3 out of 325 conrplete baskets plus some fragments), and tlre Makah are
not known to ever have made coiled basketry,
the coiled specimens were considered to be exotic imports. Stylistic attributes suggest an upper Fraser River origin (Croes 1977:71,90, 364).
If we had an assortment of baeketry assemblages from the period spanning the introduction
of coiling to t l ~ ecoast, it would be a relatively
simple matter t o d o c u ~ ~ l e nwhen
t
this occurred
and to begin to sort out where, for example, the
Ozette specimens came from. We ~rriglrtalso discover s o ~ n e t l ~ i nabont
g
c ~ ~ l t u r diversity
al
in t,he
region.
Should we find that coiled basketry diffused to
the coast well before the contact period, we would
t,hen need to ask why this happened. What accompanied the basketry (for surely its introduction was not an isolated event) and why did it
not spread to the Vancouver Island Salish?
Let us now consider Coast Salish woven basketry. Perhaps there is a type (or several types)
wit11 a distribution coincident with that of coiled
basketry on the coast. Perlraps woven basketry,
which is present in prel~istoricdeposits, will clarify questions of continuity over time.
My objective when beginning research was to
collate information that might be useful for interpreting the 3,000 year old Musqlream Northeast assemblage. Hasty conclusions drawn from
preliminary reports were that basketry technology on the Northwest Coast was consistent over
time and reflected the etl~nographicallyrecognised sub-areas (Croes 1977:502-503, 1980:222).
At the t,ime it was first excavated in 1973, the
Musqueam Nortlreast basketry was recognized as
"different," but the significance of that difference
was not realized. In fact it is not at all like Coast
Salish woven basketry, nor is it like the basketry
from any other region of the Northwest Coast
(Archer and Bernick 1986).
Before proceeding with the discussion, a few
defi~ritionsare given. These are followed by a
synthesis of Northwest Coast woven basketry derived from available published sources, including
specialiced studies of basketry, cnlture element
lists and descriptions in etlrnographic reports.
During the historic era three major weav-

253

ing teclrniques were employed on the Northwest

Coast: plaitirrg, twining, and wrapped twining.
Plaitinq (Figure lb,c). This is a simple technique but one wit11 essentially unlimited possibilites for variation. The plainest is checker
weave - over one, under one. Decorative effects
are prodnced by varying the widths of the elements, or their colours, or the number in each
stitch. A staggered 2/2 regular int~ervalover the
entire surface produces a twill weave. Selective
use of twilled stitches results in designs.
Twining (Figure id). One set of elements in
twined weaving is always passive, the otfrer set
is active. Each row is woven wit11 two flexible
strands that t,wist around one anotl~eras they
reverse sides. When the rows of weaving are compact we have "close twining" and when they are
co~rspicuouslyspaced it is called "open twining."
Wrapped Twining (Figure l e ) This is sometimes considered a variant of twining. It is also
woven with two strands in each row, but one of
these is rigid and passive, lying across the opposing set of elements; it is wrapped onto them with
the second flexible strand. Wrapped twining can
be close or open.
Woven basketry on the Northwest Coast falls
into three geographic clusters (Figure 2). ltp]
The nortlrcrnnrost, wlrich includes the Tlingit,
Haida and possibly some of the Tsimshian, is
characterized by cylindrical close twined baskets
with twining stit,ct~eslear~ingup to the left (\).
South of that area and including all of the
Wakasharr region and the Vancouver Island and
lower fiaser Salish, baskets tended to be angular
with defined corners, often rectangular in plan.
Close weaves were plaited, and open weaves were
typically made in wrapped twining.
The Straits Salish and the gronps on Puget
Sound made (wined baskets: open weave globular
forms and close woven circular baskets, always
with stitches leaning u p to the right (1). Basketry
was made in this manner over tlre entire southern
part of the culture area, into nortl~ernCalifornia.
Available d a t a convincingly document these
major divisions, althongh it is not clear exactly
where the lines should be drawn. Accurate
boundaries probably cannot be reconst,ructed
from the ethnograpl~icrecord but archaeological
research could provide the necessary information.
There is definitely a breach between the Gulf of
Georgia and the Puget Sound areas, and I expect
that it corresponds t o breaks in the distributions
of other cultural traits (see Mitchell 1971:19-24).
Less conclusive is the apparent absence of a sig-

ETHNICITY AA'D CULTURE

NORTHWEST COAST
WOVEN BASKETRY
cylindrical baskets
i n close twining (\)

angular baskets

Figure 2: Distributio~~
of woven basketry types on the Nortlrwest Coast

Bernick/CliLTURAL D1VF;RSITY ON T H E PI'OHTHWEST C O A S T

A
Clipped

edge

255

Basketry Seivages from

the Musqueam
Northeast site;

Figure 3: Basketry selvage types: A, continuous weft side selvage; C , t w o - s t ~ a n dwrapped selvage;
D, tllree-strand wrapped selvage; E , F , variant forms of two-strand wrapped selvage.
uificant difference between Gulf of Georgia Salish 1976; Sprague 1976).
l.'inally, there is Mnsqneam Northeast in t h e
woven basketry and the general m k a s h a n pattern, and between the Puget Sound and general R a s e r Deltz~. A aizeable assemblage of basketry
south coast techniques. It s l ~ o u l dhe possible to was excavated from a Locartro Beach component.
detect cultural variability a t this level in archae- and, a s already rnerrtioned, it is not a t all like
ological assemblages, but the ethnographic liter- any ethnograpl~iccollrct~ion.Approximately half
ature - with very few exceptions - is not suffi- t h e it,ems are woven irr plait,ed wrapped t.wirling
ciently det.ailed, and museum collections gener- (Figure i f ) , a unique technique t h a t has been reported as a rare ocnrrence a t the conten~poraneally have poor records of provenience.
C u r r e ~ ~ t l available
y
arcl~aeological d a t a are ous Hoko River site (Croes 1980:192) but is not
sparse: there are only a handful of assemblages; known from anywhere else in North America.
Other Musqueam No~.tlreastbaskets are wove11
they are scattered geographically and temporally; aud most have not yet been reported in full. in techniques common to tile Northwest Coast,
In some cases tile apparent ethnograpl~icpattern but in otherwise u n k ~ l o w nvariauds and combinaseenrs to hold. T h e 1,000 year old basketry from tions. T h e single s p e c i ~ n e nfrom tile nearby and
the Little Qualiculn River site - adlnit,tedly a c o n t e n ~ p o r a ~ ~ e oPui tst River site ( B e n ~ i c k1981)
small sample - is typically Wakashan. Tile site is equally unusual b u t different.
T h e Musqueam Norrheast baskets are made
is on V a ~ ~ c o u v Island,
er
well within Coast Salish
territory, and t h e bone and stone assemblage is from the same kinds of materials as are baskets
characteristically Gulf of Georgia Culture Type in otller Northwest Coast assernblages, and funct,ional types are consistent. T h e weaving tech(Bernick 1983).
In the Puget Sound area basketry has been ex- nology is vast,ly different. Stylistic attribut.es,
cavated from four sites. Three assernblages are includir~gstructural decoration and edge finish,
from the past 1,000 years and o11e is presurned appear t,o be "trend sensitive."
Selvages (edge finishing techniques) are probt o be somewhat older. According t o preliminary
ably t,he most. valuable at,tributes of basketry for
nt
reports, twined basketry is tllc p r e d o ~ n i ~ r a type
a t each site (Muasell 1976; Nordqnist 1976; Onat tracing ethnicity. Selvage t,ype can be ideati-

ETNA'ICITY A N D CUI,TURE

250

fied from any edge fragment. Except for uncompleted articles, all woven items - baskets, mats,
hats, textiles - have finished edges. T h e possible
variations are almost infinite. Those present on
Musqueain Northeast basketry artefacts are illustrated in Figure 3. I have not seen any two asselitblages of basketry from the Northwest Coast
t h a t have the same sets of selvage types, although
there are overlaps, a s well a s simple styles t h a t
appear t o be ubiquitous.
T h e variability is a t present unexplained. It
is not random. It cross-cuts categories of size,
function and raw material. Tfie presence of several variants of a particular selvage type a t one
site, and of several variants of another type at a
second sibe, suggests variability correlated with
residence groups, kin groups and/or individual
innovation.
Once we hiwe a reasonable lliimber of basketry asserriblages with appropriate geographic
and temporal controls, i t slio~ildbe possible t o
set u p chro~~ological
series of stylistic attributes
t h a t reflect et,hriic diversity. Conceivably these
could be used t o trace patterns of cultural interaction and group mobility.
Excavating a n d analyzing basketry is laborious and expensive. It may not seem worthwhile
to archaeologists who look upon baskets as being
either large, medinm, o r small, in openwork for
carrying clams nud fish, finely uwven for berries,
and watertight for water carrying. But baskets
are invaluable t o anyone wlio wants t o know who
was fishing, whether they had contact with the
people across the water a n d what their relationship was t o occupants of the same s p o t 1,000
years later. If s e want t o u ~ i r a v e lthe intricacies of social organization during t h e prehistoric
era on the coast, we must look a t baskets.
REFERENCES CITED

Archer, David J.W. and Knthryn Bernick

1986 Perishable Artifacts from the Musquearn
Northeast Site. Ms. on file, B.C. Heritage Conservation Branch, Victoria.
Barnett, Homer G .
1955 The Coast Salish of British Columbia. University of Oregon Press, Eugene.
Bernick, Kathryn
1981 Perishable Artifacts from the Pitt River Site,
DhRq-21. Ms. on file, B.C. Heritage Conservation Branch, Victoria.

1983 A Site Catchment Analysis of the Little

Qualicum Riuer Site, Disc 1: A Wet Site on
the East Coast of Vancouver Island, B.C.. National Museum of Man Mercury Series, Paper
No. 118. Ottawa.
Croes, Dale R.
1977 Basketrv" from
. the Ozette Villaue Archoeolooical
Site: A Technological, Functional, and Comparative Study. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Washington State University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
1980 Basketry Artifacts. In Hoko River: A 2,500
Year Old Fishing Camp on the Northwest Coast
of North America, edited by Dale R. Croes and
Eric Blinman, pp.188-222. Washington State
University Laboratory of Anthropology, Reports of Investigations No. 58.
Drucker, Philip
1963 Indians o f the Northwest Coast. Natural History Press, Garden City, N.Y.
Haeberlin, H.K., J. A. Teit and H. Roberts
1928 Coiled Basketry in British Columbia and Surrounding Region. Bureau of American Ethnology Annual Report 41:119-484. Washington,
D.C.
Jones, Joan Megan

1988 Northwest Coast Basketry and Culture Change.

Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State
Museum, Seattle.
1976 Northwest Coast Indian Basketry: A Stylistic Analysis. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Washington. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Mitchell, Donald H.
1971 Archaeology of the Gulf of Georgia Area, a
Natural Region and its Culture Types. Syesis,
vo1.4, supplement 1. British Columbia Provincial Museum.
Munsell, David A.
l976 Excavation of the Conway Wet Site 45SK59b,
Conway, Washington. In The Ezcauation of
Water-Saturated (Wet Sites) on the Northwest Coast of North America, edited by Dale
R. Croes, pp.86-121. National Museum of Man
Mercury Series, Paper No. 50. Ottawa.
Nordquist, Delmar
1976 45SN100 - The Biederbost Site. Kidd's Duval Site. In The Ezcouation of Water-Saturated
(Wet Sites) on the Northwest Coast of A'orlh
America, edited by Dale R. Croes, pp.186-200.
Nationnl Museum of Man Mercury Series, Paper No. 50. Ottawa
Onat, Astrida R. Blnkis
1976 A Fishtown Site, 45SK99. In The Ezeauation
of Water-Saturated (Wet Sites) on the Northwest Coast of North America, edited by Dale
R. Croes, pp.122-145. National Museum of
Man Mercury Series, Paper No. 50. Ottawa.

Bernick/CCiLTURAL DIVERSITY ON THE NORTHWEST COAST

Smith, Marian W.
1940 The Puyallup-Nisqually. Columbia University
Press, New York.
Sprague, Roderick
1976 The Submerged Finds from the Prehistoric
Component, English Camp, San Juan Island,
Washington.
In The Ezcauation of WaterSaturated (Wet Sites) on the Northwest Coast of
North America, edited by Dale R. Croes, pp.7885. National Museum of Man Mercury Series,
Paper No. 50. Ottawa.
Thompson, Nile and Carolyn Marr
1983 Crow's Shells, Artistic Basketry ofpuget Sound.
Dushuyay Publications, Seattle.
Waterman, T.T.
1973 Notes on the Ethnology of the Indians of Puget
Sound. Indian Notes and Monographs No.59,
Museum of the American Indian Heye Foundation. N.Y.

ETHhrICITY AND CVLTURE

LOCARNO BEACH AT HOKO RIVER,

OLYMPIC PENINSULA, WASHINGTON:
WAKASHAN, SALISHAN, CHIMAKUAN OR
WHO?
Dale R. Croes
Department of Antl~ropology
Waslrirrgton State University
Pullman, Washington

Over the last ten years of Hoko River site excavation and analysis, we have approached the
question of who, ethnically, the site illhabitants
may have represented a s early a s 3000 years
ago. T w o main, albeit contradictory, lines of
evidence emerge. First, the litllic colnponent
from the 3000 t o 2400 B.P. campsite area has
been defined as representing tlre 1,ocarno Beach
Cultural Type (Mitchell l982), a "phase o r cult,ure type" inore commonly represented by sites
in t h e eastern Gulf of Georgia/Puget Sound region a t this time period. And second, tlre abund a n t Hoko River basketry a n d cordage artefacts
from the associated wat,erlogged sit,e areas reveal
styles most similar t o outer West Coast t,ypes,
particularly the Ozette Village site (45CA24)
(Croes 1977,1080a-c). These st,yles are in cont,rast t o Gulf of Georgia/Pnget Sound basketry
and cordage styles over t,he past 3000 years.
Therefore, d o (1) styles of lithic artefacts, defining widespread "phases", or (2) style-cont.inuit.y
trends of basketry artefacts better reflect aacest,ral et.hnicity? Also, if one aspect of artefact,
style analysis better represents ethnicity, then
what. does t h e other aspect represent? In this
paper I will (a) describe t h e Hoko River site come
plex, (h) place it in a broader regional u p l ~ a s sequence" context, (c) review comparisons of hasketry and cordage st,yles on a coastwide basis, and
(d) a t t e m p t , through econolnic decision-making
modeling, t,o best explain why "phases" crossc u t regional basketry and cordage style continuity trends.

THE HOKO R.IVER SITES

T h e Hoko River site complex is located approximately 30 km from the northwest tip of the
Olympic Peninsula, Washington State, along the
Strait of Juan de Fuca (Figure 1). T h e complex consists of two temporally distinct areas
of prehistoric occupation: (1) a n upriver waterlogged (wet) site a n d adjoining (dry) campsite
area (45CA213) dating from 3000 to 2200 years
B.P. and (2) a rivermouth liviug area within a
large rocksl~elter(45CA21), occupied from about
1,000 t o 100 years ago (Figure 1).
Water-saturated siltlsand deposits exposed
along the edge of the IIoko River contain over
30 layers of well-preserved organic vegetal mats,
which coirt,ain discarded perishable artefacts, including basketry, cordage, fishing hooks, haft,ed
n~icrolith"fish" knives, woodworking tools, and
a r t (Croes 1987; Croes and Blinman 1980; Flennikerr 1981; Howes 1982; Stucki 1983; Figures 24). A predominance of flatfish (especially halibut) and roundfish (especially Pacific cod) remains occur in the wet site in association wit11
the recovery of over 400 wooden fishing hooks,
demonstrating the offshore fisheries focus a t t,lris
early site (Croes 1987; Croes and Blinman 1980;
Croes and Nackenberger 1087; HOE 1980; Stucki
1983)(Fignre 4).
T h e c u t bank above the wet deposits represents a crosssection of an ancient point bar, up011
whiclr tlre original fishing cainps were established.
These d r y campsite deposits have been stratigraplrically traced t o corresponding wet layers of
organic material belou, the high-tide line of the
river (Stucki 1983; Figure 2). The dry deposits
lack any preserved orgat~icdebris; however, they
include campsite floors a n d contain numerous

260

E T I N C I T Y AA'D CIJL'I'L'RE

OCKSHELTER SITE

Figuie 1. Location of the Hoko River site complex

Croes/I,OCARNO REACH AT HOKO RIVER

261

Figure 2: 1979 excavatio~lsof the offshore wet site areas (45CA213 A and B). Site e x c a v a t i o ~is~
s
and to the right.
hydraulic using fine-gauge water nozzles. Note dry carupsite e x c a v a t i o ~ ~shove

Baskets such as this were probably used t o transport fish from the beach t o the onslrore camp.

ETMIYICI'I'Y A N D CULTURE

Figure 4: Over 400 bentwood and composite fishhooks have been recovered from the Hoko River
wet site. Both fishhook types are found with double twisted spruce root string leaders. These were
used t o catch offshore marine fish, particv~larlyllalibut and Pacific cod.

Croes/LOCARn'O BEACH A T HOKO RIVER

263

features, such as slab-lined "hearths" or pits, con- types" (Mitchell 1971:70). T h e preserved pere ntth e
ce~rtrationsof fire-cracked rock debris, and vein isltable artefacts frorrt t h e wet c o n ~ p o ~ ~ of
quartz microlit11 manufact.uring areas (Flerrniken Hoko site complex have greatly expanded our un1981; Howes 1982; L. Gross 1984, 1986). Spatial derstandirrg of ~nat,erialculture and subsistence
pat,terns of these r e ~ n a i n ssuggest distinct activ- focuses from this location and time period (Croes
ity areas, probably irrcluding part of a dwellirig 1976, 1977, 1980a-c, 1987; Croes and Blinnlan
(Howes 1982). Because of a lack in preservation, 1980).
In co~nparison,tlre Hoko Rockshelter bone tool
only stone artefacts are recovered in the dry site.
~
site (45CA21; Fig- asse~nblage(dating from about 1000 t o 100 years
T h e r i v e r m o r ~ t lrockshelter
11re 1) cont,ains over 3.5 vertical ~ n e t e r sof rel- B.P.) is technologically similar t o contemporaneatively undisturbed shell midden. Over 1300 ous Gulf of Georgia Culture T y p e assemblages
distinct layers have been recorded, representing and is in strict contrast to the earlier stone and
several types of depositional feat,ures associat,ed bone assen~blagerecovered a t the Hoko wet/dry
nrith o c c ~ ~ p a t i o nfrom
s the historic period back to site (Croes 1985). T h e appearance of the Gulf of
approxi~nately1,000 years ago. Deposits inside Georgia bone tool assemblage type represents a
the rockshelter contain living surfaces il~cluding dramatic shift thronghout the souther~rcoast tohearths and refuse areas. An extensive refuse ward an emphasis on bone techr~ologiesfor many
area with abundant shell and bone remains oc- specialized tools (Carlson 1983). The snlall bone
curs in areas extending from the back of the rock- bipoint appears to he one of the most ilnporta~rt
shelter t o the beach below the rockshelt,er ~ r ~ o n t hc l e n r e ~ ~oft s the asse~r~blages
from this tinre period
(Peter 1986; St.ucki 1984, 1985; Wigen and Stucki (Carlson 1960, 1983). Over 60percent of the artefacts recovered from t h e Hoko Rockshelter are of
1987).
these categories, and this high percentage is typiHOKO RIVER ASSEMBLAGES I N
cal of tool assemblages from other Gulf of Georgia
ASSOCIATION WITH REGIONAL
type sites (Mitchell 1971:47) whereas often less
ARCHAEOLOGICAL PHASES
than 5percent are recorded in earlier periods.
T h e two distinct Hoko site assemblages relate
well t o defined cultural phases or types commonly
distributed in t,he Gulf of Georgia/Pnget Sour~d
areas to the east. These are t h e (A) Locarno
Beach and (B) Gulf of Georgia Cultural Types
respectively (Mitchell 1971; Figure 5).
T h e Hoko River n.et/dry site produces lithic
artefacts (3,000-2,200 B.P.) technologically identified with t h e Locarno Beach Cultural Type
(Howes 1982; Mitcl~ell1982; Gross 1984, 1986).
These Locarno Beach assemblages include: thick,
faceted ground slate points; quartz crystal microblades; hifacially Raked corttracting stem prod
jectile points; microliths; f o r ~ r ~ ewhetstones;
chipped schist "knives"; small, well-made celts,
rectangsllar in cross-section; graphite beads;
and slab-lined ''hearthsn o r pits (Mitcltell 1971;
Howes 1982; Gross 1984, 1986:38-49; Figures 69 ) . On t h e basis of litl~icartefact assen~blage
d a t a , the Hoko wet/dry site occupations have
been designated as a westerly extelrsion of this
cultural type (Mitchell 1982; Figure 10). This
period of soutlrern h'ortltwest Coast prehistory
has been considered a formative era, leading t o
the clasgic Northwest Coast ethnographic pattern
and is considered t o reflect "a more specific adaptation t'o t h e coastal e ~ ~ v i r o n r n than
e ~ ~ tdid earlier

NOR.THWEST COAST WET SITE

BASKETRY A N D CORDAGE
ARTEFACTS A S A NEW MEDIUM
FOR PREHISTORIC ETHNIC
IDENTIFICATION
111recent years, basketry and cordage artefacts
have become increasingly available from excavations of water-saturated (wet) sites located along
tlre North~vest Coast (Croes 1976, 1977, 1980ac; Figure 7). These artefacts, and basketry in
particular, are c o ~ n p l e xand ideal for comparative studies, often revealing sensitive and measurable degrees of stylistic si~nilarityamong sites
through time and across space. Since a group's
and
distinctive basketry and cordage t~ecl~niques
styles are undoubtedly passed on from one generation to the next. a n d retain a degree of si~nilarity
t h a t is ~neasurablydifferent from those developed
in other areas, this degree of sensitivity is particularly useful in constructing hypotheses about
cultural int,errelationships among sites. In fact,
Hoko River basketry and cordage analyses indicate that regional ethnicity may have been developing ever since the formative Locarno Beach
time period (Croes 1976, 1977, 1980a-c).
Careful c o m p a r i s o ~ ~ofs all distinct basketry
and cordage (a) modes o r attributes, (b) types

ETHKlCITY A N D CULTURE

264

GRADUATED
TlME(BP)

ASSOCIATED TIME
PERIOD DESIGNATION

"Gulf

of Georgia"

HOKO SITE COMPLEX

TIME PERIODS

Hoko River
Rockshelter
(45CA21)

Marpole

Locarno Beach

. . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - St. Mungo

Old Cordilleran,
Olcott

-____-----_-_----Pebble Tool Tradition

Hoko River
WetlDry
Site
(45CA213)

C 1 o e s / L 0 C A l l N 0 BEACH AT HOKO RIVER

265

Figure G : C h ~ p p e dbasalt and chalcedony projectile points fiorn can~psitearca (arnnroaium cllloride
coated; scale: 314 X)

Figure 7: Ground slat,e projectile points from tlre campsite. Note faceted examples typical ot Locarno
Beach cultural type or, the Northwest Coast (ammoninrn cl~loridecoated; scale: 112 X).

ETN.VIC1'I'Y A A D CIlLTtiRE

Figure 8: Quartz crystal microblades from the carrrpsite area. They are typical of cutting tools from
Locarl~oBeach p l ~ a s rsites on Llie Nortl~westCoast (ammonium chloride coated; scale: 2 X).

Croes/LOCARNO REACH A T HOKO RIVER

site vegetal m a t layer dating t o 2,800 B.P. (scale: 1 X)

or classes, and (c) f~lnct,ionalcat,egories from
the major excavat.ed Northwest Coast wet sites
reveal a unique sensitivity (Croes 1974, 1975,
1976, 1977, 1980a-c). When comparing dist,inct basket,ry modes, definitive aspects of each
attrilmte d i l n e n s i o ~provided
~
new insiglrts into
the usefulness of these wet site artefacts in prelristoric Nortlrwest Coast comparative studies.
I will briefly snnln~arize the particular value
of each basketry mode dimension as observed
during this research: (a) construction materials exhibited regional preference patterns betwcer~split l i ~ l l h / ~ ~ and/or
oot
cedar barks throng11
time (Croes 1977:21-31); (b) shapes of baskets, m a t s arid hats reflect,ed some regional
t,rends, though shape can b e difficult to reconstruct from flattened and often damaged wet
sit,e examples (Croes 1977:32-49); (c) base a n d
body construction techniques are coniplex and reveal dist.inct and measurable regional similarit,ies
tlrrongh time and across space (Croes 1977:49108; Figure 11); (d) eztensions olr basketry items,
such a s handles, flaps and tumpline loops, often
exhibited regional styles (Croes 1977:107-124);
(e) selvages are particularly complex, but often

so site-specific t.hat t,l~eircomparative scnsitivity among sites becomes lirnited; lrowever, sonie
trends are worth pursiling (e.g., forms of mock
braid rims: Croes 1977:124-143); (f) gauge oj
weave llas limited comparative value, but may
reflect t e n ~ p o r a l trends in terms of e n ~ p l ~ a s i s
011 "fineness" by technique bl~roughtime (Croes
1977:143-160); (g) size also has lirnited comparative value, and ofteir is hard t o measure because of tlie fragnlent,ary ltat.ilre of most wet site
basket,ry (Croes 1977:160-172); and (h) surface
ornnmentation. may prove to be useful as more
wet sites are investigated; however, few prehistoric basketry itenrs have elaborate ornarnentalion (except strncturally) (Croes 1977:172-190).
Exclading less i ~ s a b l eattribute dimensions of
gauge of weave, size, and surface ornament~ation,
84 distinct basketry inodes have been statistically coinpared among the eight major Northwest
Coast wet sires using an average linkage cluster
analysis on a matrix of Jaccard coefficients, producing a dendrogram illust,rating degrees of similarity (Croes 1977:190-199; 1980b:202-207; Figure 12). The r e s u l t i ~ ~clusters
g
are regional, even
tlioug11 spatial and/or ternporal factors are not

Figure 10: Distribution of Locarno Beach culture type sites (after M~tclhell1982; Ham 1982)

Croes/LOCARNO BEACH A T HOKO RIVER

No. of
ll~fL
Al;rdc,l,clllollt

I(1ernl:nLs
(per rori)

liow ~ l a r e n e n t

iief t

0rett.c wrapping

01

o r i e n r n t . i o n of
"iect/warp L"
"asketry P l s s u

,lame and i l l c ~ t ; tr a l . i o n

mchnirlaan
one

weft els:mest i s
a l o n g back o f w,%rp;the
ot.~ler w c f t

c l e ~ n c n ti s

w r a p g ' r i l around each

""rl. e i e m c n t allcl
tile back-up w e f t
elnmelll.

one v e f t

e l e n ~ e n Li s

llack

or warp; t h e

o t h e r weFL clement is
wrar,ped sround encl,

warp e l c ? m o s l alirl L l l e
l,n,:k-,,,> wart c l m c n l . .
l l v u lean 01 the weft
wrilppinq alLernalee
I l e L w e e r l rows.

Figare 11. Example of basketry const~uctionterhniques (Croes 1977)

SIMILARITY COEFFICIENT'

Ozette Village
Hoko River

:: :L.._.._

, Lachane

Axeti

n . 4

Musqueam Northeast
' Biederbost

C2*

Conway
Fishtown
,

Figure 12. Derld~ogralnrepreserrting an avrrage linkage cluster analysis of Nortllwest Coast wet site
baqkrtry modes on a matrix of Jaccard's coefficients Degrees of similarity l = complete s~milanty,
0 = no similarity Dasiied lines lepresent test iesults u ~ t l previous
l
data (Croes 1977 195) Number
of attr~butes(modes) con~pared= 87.

270

introduced as a factor in the testing. The similarity coefficient between the regionally close Hoko
River and Ozette Village sites is not as strong as
between the temporally closer Musqueam Northeast and Biederbost or Conway and Fishtown
sites, but their relative similarity d i s t a ~ ~ ccan
e
be explained by (a) their 2500 year temporal distance and (b) the fact that the Ozette collection
represents a primary deposition, containing an
entire winter village llouse assemblage preserved
under a mudslide, whereas the Hoko deposits are
secondary, being discarded and broken examples
fro111 along a fishing camp beach. Therefore, as
expected, Ozette has a much wider variety of
available household basketry, making any degree
of similarity wortlly of note.
The clustering of Musqueam Northeast Biederbost and Conway - Fishtown basketry
modes is particularly tight (cluster "C", Figure 12) and is proposed to represel~t a Gulf
of Georgia/Puget Sound stylistic region (Croes
1977:195-199). Since the former sites are early,
and Musqueam Northeast is a classic Locarno
Beach site (Border 1976) contemporary with
Hoko River, this "C" cluster tends to stylistically separate (a) the outer coast and (b) the
Gulf of Georgia/Puget Sound style regions for
approximately 3000 years (Figure 13). Other
isolated finds of basketry from sites in the Gulf
of Georgia/Puget Sound area also share charact,erist,ics common to Musqueam Northeast and
Biederbost. These irlclude (1) an undated basket with reinforcement rows from English Camp,
San Juan Islands (455524; Sprague 1976), (2)
an approximately 3000 year old basket fragment constructed of splint limblbark from Pitt
River site (DlrRq21:No. 3345 a-c) wit11 an "ornamental" conrbination of distinct body weave
techniques, very typical of Mnsqueam Northeast
(Croes 1977:73-80; Bernick 1985:303-304) and (3)
an undated basket fragment with the early characteristic of body reinforcement rows, associa.t,ed
with a site in the same region (DhPp19). Therefore a consistent and early style pattern appears
to be en~ergingfrom the Gulf of Georgia/Puget
Sound region, distinct from colltemporary outer
coastal styles from Hoko River and Ozette Village
(Figure 13).
Cordage attributes or modes compared alllong
Northwest Coast wet sites included material,
coast,ruction technique, number of strands,
lay/twist, gauge size, forms, and knotting tech~ ~ i q u e s . These attributes, in contrast t o the
basketry attributes, have mucll less comparative

ETHh'lCITY AND CULTURE

complexity, and therefore were of limited use for
inter-site comparisons (Croes 1980a:9-46).
As another, possibly more sensitive, means for
comparison, basketry and cordage modes were
combined t o define the possible range of basketry
a ~ l dcordage types, wllicll produced useful units
of comparison among sites. Though over 200,000
basket types could be generated wit11 all possible combinations of occurring basket modes, o111y
72 actual basket types have been ide~rt~ified
from
wet sites, and 12 hat 2nd 11 mat types (Croes
1977:200-260; Figure 14). With a smaller potential for cordage types (over 300 mode cornbinations possible), 26 actual types have been identified and, when considering guage size (diameter), 67 subclasses are formed (Croes 1980a:4770; Figure 15). Measuring the degrees of similarity in terms of basketry and cordage types at
each site produces dendrogra~nssimilar to those
created with isolated mode comparisons, forming
the same regional clusters (Croes 1980b:207-213;
Figures 16-21).
The basketry types produce a patterned spatial
and te~nporalsequence from Musqueam Northeast (approximately 3000 B.P.), to Biederbost
(approximately 2000 B.P.), to Conway and Fishtown (approximately 1000 B.P.) (Figure 16).
This sequenced continuity is proposed as a hypothetical Salishall sbyle development, progressively
linked through time a r ~ dacross space.
The separate west coast cluster of Hoko and
Ozette (Figure 16) nlay not appear strong, yet,
as indicated before, the array of primary deposit
basketry recovered in a "Pompeii-liken preserved
winter village house would be expected in itself
to be different from an assemblage of secondary
deposit basketry, 2500 years older, fragmentary,
and discarded along a fishing camp beach. That
a consistent similarity occurs with this difference
in deposit and t,ime is distinctive in itself and
is proposed to reflect a hypot,hetical west-coast
or Wakasllan style continuity through time. Of
note here, a wrap twining basketry trend is very
distinctive of a west-coast style into the historic
time period (Jones 1976, especially style group
4:169j.
With the considerahle spatial separation, the
North Coast cluster associating 1,achane and Axeti are viewed as a n o r t l l e r ~ trend
~
(especially
with an emphasis on cedar bark basketry and
cordage), but does not closely associate cultural
styles across this distance. A distinct pattern of
similarity does exist when comparing t,he approximately 1500 to 2000 B.P. Lachane basketry and

271

Croes/LOCARh1O BEACH AT HOKO RJVfiR

L A S K A

The a p p r o x i m a t e t i m e
p e r i o d o f each s i t e :

.:

v:
A:

m:

5 0 0 B.P.
5 0 0 - 1 5 0 0 B.P.
1500-2500 B.?.
2500-3000 B.?.

THE NORTHWEST COAST

Ozette V i l l a

Flgure 13. Regions of basketry and cordage style sirnilarlty on the Northwest Coast, based on average
linkage cluster analyses Reglon A, soi~thcentralcoast; Reg~onB, nolthern coast; Region C, Puget
Sound/Gulf of Georgla; Subregion C l , sltes dating 2000-3000 B.P.; Subregion C2, sltes dating to
about 1000 B.P (Reproduced fiom Croes 1077.)

ETNKICITY AND CULTURE

Definition

Illustrated Reconstruction
and Frequency ofoccurrence

I4USQUEAM NORTHEAST
MATERIAL:
s p l i n t s (cedar)
SHAPE:
inverted, subrectangular, truncated
c o n e or ?
BASE CONSTRUCTION:
t w i l l 2/2
or t w i l l
3/3 or ?
BODY CONSTRUCTION:
wrap around
plaiting
EXTENSIONS : s i n g l e o p p o s i n g lcoped
h a n d l e s . series of
looped h a n d l e s o r ?

or

MATERIAL:
s p l i n t s (cefiar)
SHAPE:
inverted, s u b rectangular, truncated c o n e ; ovate,
inverted, truncated
cone, or ?
BASE CONSTRUCTION:
?
BODY CONSTRUCTION:
open twining
EXTENSIONS:
single opposing
h a n d l e s or ?

MATERIAL:
s p l i n t s (cedar)
SHAPE:
i n v e r t e d . subrectangular, trunc a t e d cone o r ?
BASE CONSTRUCTION:
?
BODY CONSTRUCTION:
checker
EXTENSIONS:
s i n g l e o p p o s i n g looped
h a n d l e s or ?
(REINFORCEMENT:
r o w s double o r
single w r a p
reinforcementor?)

(n=33,

20%)

Figure 14. Exa~npleof basket typr definitions (Croes 1977)

Croes/LOCARAfO BEACH AT HOKO RIVLR

I l l u s t r a t i o n and
Frequency o f Occurrence

XI.

MATEFUAL: c e d a r b o u g h
CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE:
twist
NO. OF STRANDS:
1
LAY/TWTST:
-/L
GAUGE SIZES (DIAMETER) :
a. S t r i n g :
n = l l l . 23%
n-338, 7 0 9
b.
Cord:
c. Rope:
n= 2 9 ,
60
d.
Heavy-gauge
rope :
n = S,
19.

X2.

MATERIAL:
c e d a r bough
CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE:
twist
2
NO. OF STRANDS:
LAY/IWIST:
Z/R
GAUGE SIZES (DIAMETER) :
a. s t r l n g :
n= 1 4 .
59
b.
Cord:
n = 1 5 0 , S30
c.
Rope:
n = 99, 3 5 0
d.
Heavy-qauge
rope:
n- 2 0 ,
79

OC3.

HRTERIAL:
c e d a r bough
CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE:
twist
NO. OF STRANDS:
2
LAY/TWIST:
S/L
GAUGE SIZES (DIAMETER) :
a. S t r i n g :
n= 8, 5 7 9
b.
cord:
n= 4 , 2 9 %
c. Rope:
n= 2 , 1 4 %

X4.

MATERIAL: c e d a r b o u g h
CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE:
twist
NO. OF STRANDS:
3
LAY/lWIST:
Z/R
GAUGE SIZES (DIAMETER) :
n= 4 . 3%
a. String:
b.
Cord:
n= 7 4 , 5 3 %
c. Ro~e:
n= 4 7 . 3 3 %
d.
Heavy-gauge
n= 1 5 , 11%
rope:

(n-140.

Figure 15. Examples of cordagz class type definitions (Croes 1980a,c).

7%)

E;TJiA'IC'lTY A N D ClrLTIrRE

SIMILARITY COEFFICIENT
00

0.1

r---

0.3

0.2

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

11

L.

Ozette Village
Hoko River

Lacllane
Axeti

1.O
I

II

c1

------ C

Musqueam Northeast
Biederbost

C2

Conway

Figure 16: Dendrogra.m representing average linkage clust,er analysis of North\rest Coast wet site
basketry classes on a matrix of Jaccard's coefficients. Degree of eirnilarity: 1 = complete similarity,
0 n o similarity. Dashed lines represent test results with previous d a t a (Croes 1977:257). Nuniber
of basketry classes (baskets, h a t s and mats) compared = 91.

cordage with the unique Tsimshian style of basketry and cordage into tlle historic period (Croes
1975).
To sunrmarize, recently available basketry and
cordage d a t a from Northwest Coast wet sites
c o ~ n b i n eto produce 117 defined types of basketry
and cordage, t h a t create a dendrogram revealing
similar c l ~ ~ s t e r i nthrongh
g
time (Figures 13 and
20). Presently available basketry a n d col-dage
analyses provide sensitive d a t a for hypotliesising
conti~luityof styles, proposed t o represent general
ethnic grouping, lrypotlretically associated widh
langnage families, in different areas of the coast
for as nruclr a s 3000 years (Figures 13 and 20).
This lrypothesiaed regior~alcultural co~rtilruity
appears t o cross-cut ( a t least in the south coast
region) well-established cultural phases (Figure
n
particularly prob20). This c o ~ ~ c l u s i obecame
Iemat,ic a s Hoko River lit,lric and bone artefacts
revealed nearly identical phase assemblages of
Locarno Beaclr (45CA213) and "Gulf of Georgia" (45CA21) cultural iypes, yet. t,he Hoko River
wet site basketry was analytically distinct from
Musquearn Northeast (a classic Locarno Beach
Phase site) and Biederbost (basketry and cordage
most similar to Musqueam Northeast). If this

style conflict exists between regional basketry asse~nblages,b u t not stone and bone assemblages,
then we must explain why horizontal 'phase"
assemblages might cross-cut proposed verdical
"ethnic" contin~titytrends in ~,tylisticallysensitive basketry and cordage assemblages. Obviously lrorizontal phases of Locarno Beach, Marpole and Gulf of Georgia are sbatistically 'realn
(Matson 1974), b n t what do they act,ually mean?

MODELING ECONOMIC TRENDS I N

THE HOKO RIVER REGION
During the past six years of Hoko River Arclraeological Project research, we have explored
approaches for ~ n o d e l i ~ rtgh e evolutio~rof econo~ilicdecision-making (Croes and Hackenberger
1984, 1985, 1987). We believe t h a t this approaclr may produce an i~rrprovedundersta~rding
of bhe relationship between cultural phaseltype
and ethnicity on the southern Northwest Coast.
We have argued tlrc case for explaining cultural
change (evolution) on the southern Northwest
Coast. thn)ugh the use of explicit models of popic
ulation growth a n d e c o ~ i o n ~decision-making.
Our population/economic modeling, and t h e
tesdir~gof these nrodels wit.h the archaeological

CI.~~S/I,OCARNOBEACH AT WOKO RIVER

SIMILARITY COEFFICIENT
0.0

0.1,

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Ozette Village
Hoko River

Musquearn Northeast

C1

Qi~clerbost
Blederbost
Little Qualicurn River

Conway.

C2

Fishtown

Figure 17: Dendrogrnm representing average linkage cluster nlralysis of Nortllwest Coast wet site
cordage classes on a rnatrix of Jaccard's coefficients. Degree of similarity: 1 = complete similarity,
0 = no similarity. Number of cordage classes compared = 26 (Croes 1980c:244-247).

SIMILARITY COEFFICIENT
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.1

0.5.

I
-

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.O

Ozette Village

Hoko River

Musqueam Nortiieast
Biederbost

C1

Little Qualicurn River

Conway

C2

Fishtown

Figure 18. Dendrogram representing average linkage cluster analysis of Northwest Coast wet site
cordage subclass (based on diameter gauge) on a matrix of Jaccard's coefficients. Degree of sirn~lality:
I = cornplete similarity, 0 = no similarity. Number of rordage subclasses conlpared = 66 (Croes
1980c 244-248).

SIMILARITY COEFFICIENT
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

04

0.5

0.7

08
I

0.9

1.0

Ozette Village
Hoko River

0.6

C1

Musquealn Northeast
Bietlerbost

C2

Conway
Fishtown

Lacttane
Axeti

Figure 19. Dendrogranl representing average linkage cluster analysis of Nortllwest Coast wet site
basketry and cordage classes on a matrix of Jaccard's coefficients. Degree of similarity: 1 = complete
similarity, 0 = no similarity. Number of basketry and cordage classes defined = 117.

Cr:roes/LOCARh'O BEACH AT HOKO RIVER

SPACE
Nortll
Coast

(Tsimshian)

Central
Coast

Pllgel Sound1
Gulf o f
Georgia

(Salishan)

Sotrth-Central
Coast

(Waitashan)

oz-

Ir

Gulf of
Georgia

Marpole
Locarno
Beacli

St. Mtrngo

Figure 20: Hypotl~eticalstylistic/ethnic continuity pattern based on basketry and cordage artefact
analyses. LA: Lschane; AX: Axeti; CO: Conway; FI: Fisl~town;BI: Biederbost; MU: Musqueam
NE; OZ: Oeet.te Village; HO: Hoko River.

ETHNICITY AND CULTURE

l
I

a,

Gulf of
Georgia

f-7

OZLTTE
VII I AGE
45CA24
l

IIOKO RIVER
WETlORY SITE
I (45CA213)
,

I
I

i-----7
tlOI<O ROCKSHELTEH
(45CA21)

GRADUATED TIME BEFORE

. TNESERP
Figure 21: Proposed model of exponential population growth with Nolthwest Coast cultural
"phase/types" representing stabillzed econonric plateaus sepalated by perzods of relatively rapid
exponelltial population growth (Croes and Hackenbelger 1987).

280

west Coast curltural tirrre period, t.he Marpole

(2400-1400 B.P.), we can predict tlre eco~rornic
evolution creatirrg patterns recorded for this era
(Mitchell 1971; Carlsorr 1983; Burley 1980; Matson 1981, 1983). As rrrore resource storage became a part of the solution for e c o ~ ~ o m iand
c
population pressures a n d resource fluctuations,
a logical extension of tlrese practices would be
an increased emphasis or1 summer-fall resources,
exparrdiug overall storage production. At tllis
time, a growing e ~ s p l ~ a son
i s riverine salmoll resources a n d storage thereof would be expected,
and, along with this, perhaps a locational shift
of archaeological slrell rnidde~r sites into riverine/estuarine areas. This type of settlement and
site distribut.ion along riverways (for illstance up
the klaser Delta) is characteristic of Marpole
sites (Burley 1980, 1983). This rapid charge
would not require a n elltire move~nrlrtof peoples
from uprivcr interior areas onto tlre coast (Burley
1980, 1983). Instead, in situ accelerated population pressure and mixing of interior-coastal ideas
and teclrniques might act t o expand production.
As suggested by Mitchell (1971:52), t h e Marpole
nray well have developed a specific focus on riverirre salmon fisheries never again equalled. This
shift is predicted t o have been part of the solution t o maintaining a desired standard of living
while population pressures continued. We would
expect anot,lrer small, b u t rapid, population increase and a new adaptive/economic plateau,
representing tlre Marpole Economic Stage (Figure 21, E).
F. In the final period, t h e Gulf of Georgia Cultural Type/Phase, we would predict further intensification of offslrore fisheries, including offshore salrnon procurement.
This intensification would be stirnulated by increased enrphasis on low cost population aggregation (particularly in fall/winter), assuming suitable secure
income (stored resources) were well establislred.
A particular coast-wide emphasis on bone technologies, and particularly bone points, becomes
prevalent (averaging over Gopercent of the collections, whereas in earlier periods (especially
Marpole arrd Locarno Beach) they contributed
less t.han l0percerlt of t h e artefacts) (Carlson
1983). This trend in bone tecl~~rology
is well documented in t h e Hoko Rockshelter shell Inidden
(Croes 1985). When observing the bone points
in their complete form a t t h e contemporaneous
and wat.erlogged Ozette Village Site (45CAZ4),
it becomes clear t h a t many points are fislrhook
barbs associated wit11 a variety of offshore, jig-

ETHNICITY AND CULTURE

ging, trolling, arld set liiring hooks (Croes 1985).
Possibly t,he reasorr for an increase in t h e frequency of bone points a t many places is related to
a need for salmon trollirrg/jigging hooks, as well
a s rake teetlr for herring, t o inteusify the procurement of anadronrous fish in nearslrore waters
prior to their entry into rivers in surnmer and fall.
These increased economic focoses wourld add additional arradrornous fislr t o t h e deuse r~ridderrsof
this late time period, as noted irr the Hoko Rockshelter (Figure 21, F)(Csoes arid Nackenberger
1987).
Also, an outer coast emplrasis on sea manunals
is postulated during the last 1000 years, slrown
by the increared number of fur seal and whale
remaias found in later rnidderus a t Hoko (Wigeu
1985; Wigen and Stucki 1987), Ozette and other
West Coast sites.
These patterns would create another rise in
population and a new econo~nicplateau, stabilising through the historic period (Figure 21, F).
From this research, the well doclnriented and
idelrtified cultural phases or types (Pebble Tool,
Old Cordilleran, St. Mungo, Locarno Reach,
Marpole, and Gulf of Georgia) appear to be
better identified as economic stages o r plateaus
underlain by: (a) early exponential population
growth; (h) eve~rtualterritorial circumscription
(about 4000 B.P.); and (c) critical resource
stresses. T h e stability of these econo~nicplateaus
concentrates the stylistically associated stone and
bone artefacts which mostly make u p parts of
t h e subsistence techlrologies over tlrese regions.
Once economic trends shift, s o d o t h e technological styles, until another long period of temporal
stability concentrates new subsistence equipment
types. These shifts would probably be relatively
rapid, appearing in the archaeological record to
be dramatic Ureplacerrrelrtsnin style.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

T h e regiorrwide lrorisontal tvends seen in
these economic stages o r plateaus may reflect a
widespread evolution and resulting shift in subsistence solutions, rtot "ethnic" cultural style or
population shifts. In fact, presently available prehistoric basketry and cordage d a t a indicate that
actual regional ethnicity may have been developing frorn tlre formative Locarrro Beach Stages
on. Basketry and cordage appear to have contrasted significairtly between t h e early Locarno
Beach wet sites of Hoko River and those of the
corrtemporaneous Musqueam Northeast (in the
Gulf of Georgia) and Biederbost sites (in tlre

(ioes/LOCARNO REACH A T HOKO RIVER

281

Puget Sound region). Musquearn Northeast and paradigms, such a s the ecological paradigm,
Riederbost basketry and cordage were stylisti- where tlre 'discont,inuity' 111igllt be ~rnderstood
cally 111uch more similar, forming an early Gnlf a s more of an adaptive change . . . "
of Georgia/Puget Sound style region during the (1983b:5). We c o ~ l t e n dt h a t the major assemLocarno Period (Croes 1977, 1980a-c) (Figures blage clra~rges archaeologically observed along
r~
Coast are most proba1 3 a n d 20). These specific styles continued t o the s o r ~ t l ~ e rNorthwest
have more continuity regionally, contrasting the bly linked t o shifts in adapt,ations. Furthermore,
outer coast sites (Hoko and Ozette) and Gulf of ethnic origin can best be demo~lstratedthrough
Georgia/Puget Sound sites (Musqueam North- stylistically nrore sensitive artefacts such as baseast, Riederbost, Fislrtown and Conway), even ketry and cordage.
Wit11 similar results, Giddings nicely aunrmathrong11 the following Marpole and Gnlf of Georgia periods (Croes 1977, 1980a-c) (Figures 1 3 and rizes t h e concept of widespread, but abrupt, regiolral trends tlrat crosscut loag-term in-place
20).
These d a t a reflect cultural style distinctions style continuity in tlre western Arctic:
between regions even though each area tends
The fabric of Bering Strait archaeology,
t o procede through the same economic plateaus
it appears to me, has its warp in the pat(Figures 20 a n d 21). The hypothesis is argued
terns of behavior handed down by part h a t distinct Wakasl~an and Salisl~anbasketry
ents to their children in a single locality,
and a weft made up of the continuous inand cordage styles may have been taking form
terchange of thoughts outward through
by 3000 B.P., but t h a t the economic solutions
space. The passage of ideas by contemt o similar problerns caused by population presporaries
may be lightning swift. It need
sure, territorial circu~nscription and needs for
not
be
conceived
as a result of either min
being met in simresource r e d i s t r i b ~ ~ t i owere
gration or slow, directional drift. While
ilar manners tllrough shared general economic
I do not wish to doubt the occasional
innovations, and these are reflectd in the stone
migration of groups, or the retardation
and bone artefact asse~nblagesa s widespread ecoof drift, I am drawn to the probabilnomic plateaus (Figares 20 a n d 21).
ity that cultures also come to look alike
This situation nray also be reflected i a
across spans of sir~iilsrenvironment bethe ethnographic northern Northwest Coast
cause they are constantly receiving im"CO-Tradition" conceut defined bv MacDonald
oulses - acceutine
. " ideas - on the same
time level 11961:157)
(19691. In this area. the Tlineit-IIaida-Tsilnsl~ian
are considered a co-tradition since, though in IanIn this case, "weftn cultural aspects wo~rldbe
gunge and ethnic origin quite distinct (especially
the rapid spread of eco~lornictrends and their stathe Tsimshian language (Penutian) and Tlinbilization over broad areas. On t,he other Band,
git/Haida lal~guages(Athapascan)) they remain
the basketry and cordage patterns can be convery similar in a r t , equipment, technologies, sosidered sturdy "warps" t h a t are passed on more
cial systems, and so on, and interact very closely
specifically along ethnic lines through the t,raineco~lomicallyt o the point t h a t they are linked
ing process and d o not con~monlyexhibit abrupt
etlrnograplrically as a CO-traditionor North Coast
shifts. These kinds of d a t a are becoming more
interactive sphere (MacDonald 1969). This crosscommon through recent coast,al wet site research,
etlrnic similarity may have been widespread along
and probably represent the most sensitive and
the Nort11.ivest Coast. (at least in the last 3000
r s tracing ethnic heritage along
specific ~ n e a ~ for
years). We should further point out t h a t within
the prellistoric Nortl~westCoast of North Amerthe Northern CO-tradition one of the few traits
Ica.
readily differentiating Tsi~nslria~ls
fro111 tlre Tlingit/Haida is their basketry styles, a n d this may
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
have over 2000 years of continuity a s evidenced
The Hoko River project research is CO-sponsoredby
by prehistoric basketry a t the Lacl~anewet site
the Makah Tribal Nation, and has been made possible
(GbTo 33) (Figure 20; Croes 1975).
appear to facilitate alld fol- through the support of t h e M.J. Murdock Charitable
~l~~~~
low ~
~ proposal
~
corlcerlling
h
,
stlldies
~
of pre- Trust, The National Endownlent for the Humanities,
The Caughey Foundation and Crown Zellerbach Core
'%he seesaw bathistoric r n a r i t i ~ i ~societies:
poration. Numerous project researchers, Makah comtle of discontinuity vs. conti~ruitynlay b e remunity members, feild personnel and students have
solved in t h e process of conducting work i a other
U

ETHA1IC1TY A N D CULTURE

282

contributed to data recovery, analysis and synthesis. Special thanks toes to the Chacmool Conference
Staff who organized and the conducted the Culture
and Ethnicity conference, providing an opportunity
for presenting the results of this research. Though
this research owes its existence to these and many
previous researchers, the summary and conclusions
remain the responsibility of the author.

REFERENCES CITED
Burley, David V.
1980 Marpole: Anthropological Reconstructions of a
Prehistoric Northwest Coast Culture Type. Department of Archaeology Publication No. 8, Sirnon Fraser University, Burnaby.
1983 Cultural Complexity and Evolution in the
Development of Coastal Adaptations among
the Micmac and Coast Salish. In The Euolulion of Maritime Cultures on the Northeast and
Northwest Coasts of America, edited by Ronald
.l.
Nash, pp 157-172. Dopnrt~nentof Archaeology Publication No. 11, Sinlon Fraser Uliiversity, Burnaby.
Carlson, Roy L.
l9G0 Chronology and Culture Change in the San
Juan Islands, Washington. American Antiquity
25:562-586.
Carlson, Roy L. (editor)
1983 Indian Art Traditions of the Northwest Coast.
Sirnon Fraser University, Rurnaby.
Croes, Dale R.
1974 Musqueam Northeast Basketry and Cordage.
Manuscript appended to Charles E. Rorden's
Musqueam Northeast Report, on file, Archaeological Survey of Canada, National Museums
of Man, Ottawa.
1975 Lachane Basketry and Cordage: A Definitive and Comparative Study. Man~iscriptof
file, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Nat,ional
Mxseuii~sof Man, Ottawa.
1976 An Early "Wet" Site at the Mouth of the
Hoko River, the Hoko River Site (45CA213).
In The Ezcauation of Water-Saturated Archaeo-

logical Sites (Wet Sites) o n the Northwest Coast

of North America, edited by Dnle R . Croes,
pp 201.232, National Museum of Man Mercury Series, Arcliaeological Survey of Canada
Paper No. 50. Ottawa.
1977 Basketry from the Ozette Village Archaeolugical

Site: A Technological, Functional and Comparative Study. Ph.D. dissertation, Washington

State University. University Microfilms, Ann
Arbor.
1980a Cordage from the Ozctte Village Archaeological

Site: A Technological, Functional and Comparative Study. Laboratory of Archaeology and History, Project Report No. 9, Washington State
University, Pullman.

1980b Basketry Artifacts. In fIoku River: A 2,500

Year Old Fishing Camp on the Northwest Coast

of North America, edited by Dnle R. Croes and
Eric Blinman, pp. 188-222. Reports of Investigations No. 58, Laboratory of Anthropology,
Washington State University, Pullman.
1980c Cordage. In Hoko River: A 2,500 Year Old
Fishing Camp on the Northwest Coast of North
America, edited by Dale R . Croes and Eric
Blinman, pp. 230-256. R e ~ o r t sof Investigations No. 58, Laboratory of Anthropology,
Washington State University, Pullman.
1985 IIoko Rockshelter Bone Artifact Distribution.
In Interim Arznuaf Report, Hoko River Archaeological Project, Phase X I V , National Endowment for the Humanities, Attachment B.
Croes, Dale R. and Eric Blinman
1980 Hoko Riuer: A 2,500 Year Old Fishing Camp on
the Northwest Coast of North America. Reports
of Investigations No. 5 8 , Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
Croes, Dale R. and Steven Hackenberger
1984 Economic Modeling of Anadromous Fish Utilization in the Hoko River Rsgion. In In-

terim Annual Report, Hoto Riuer Arrhaeologicol Project, Phases XIJI and X I V , National En-

dowment for the Humanities At,tnchment .I.

1985 Prehistoric Ecosystems and Economics: Regional Computer Models for the Northwest
Coast of North A~nerica. In Interim An-

nual Report, Ifoko River Archaeological Project,

Phase XIV, National Endowment for the Humanities, Attachment E.
1986 Hoko R.iver Archaeological Complex: Modeling Prehistoric Northwest Economic Evolution. In prepara,tion for Research in Economic
and Anthropoloyy, Supplement 3, JAI Press,
Connecticut,.
Flenniken, J.J.
1981 Replicative Systems Analysis:

A Model Applied to the Vein Quartz Artifacts from the

Hoko River Site. Reports of Investigations
No. 59. Laborat.ory of Anthropology, Wasliington State University, Pullman.

Giddings , James L.
l9Gl Cultural Continuities of Eskimos. American
Antiquity 27:155-173.
Gross, Lorraine S.
1984 Determination of the Nature of Short Term
Changes in the Site Functions at a Fishing
Camp (45CA213) on the Hoko River, Washington. In Interim Annual Report, IIoko River

Archaeological Prgieet, Phases XIII and XIV,

National Endownment for the Humanities, Attachiirent H.
1986 Determination of the Nature of Short Term

Changes in Site Function at a Fishing Camp

Croes/LOCARNO REACH A T H01CO RIVER

on the Hoko Riuer, Washington. Unpublished

Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology,
Washington State University, Pullm;~n.
Ham, Leonard C.
1982 Seasonality of Shell Midden Layers and Sub-

sistence Activities at the Crescent Reach Site

(DgRr 1). Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Hoff, Ricky
1980 Fishhooks. In Hoko River: A 8,500 Year Old
Fishing Camp on the Northwest Coast of North
America, edited by Dale R. Croes and E. Blinman, pp. 100-188. Reports of Investigations
No. 58, Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
Howes, Donald W.
1982 Spatial Analysis at a Northwest Coast Fishing Camp: The Hoko River Site. Unpublished
Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology,
Washington State University, Pullman.
Sones, Joan M.
1976 Northwest Coast Indian Basketry, A Stylistic
Analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor,
Krantz, Grover S.
1981 The Process of Human Euolution. Schenkman
Publishing
Company,
Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
MacDonald, George F.
1969 Preliminary Culture Sequence from the Coast
Tsimshian area, B.C. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 3(2):240-254.
Matson, R.G.
1974 Clustering and Scaling of Gulf of Georgia Sites.
Syesis 7:101-114.
1981 Prehistoric Subsistence Patterns in the Fraser
Delta: The Evidence from the Glenrose Cannery Site. In Fragments gf the Past, edited by
K.R. Fladmark, pp. 64-85. B.C. Studies special issue 48.
1983 Intensificaton and the Development of Cultural Complexity: The Northwest Ver811s the
Northeast Coast. In The Evolution of Maritime

Cultures on the Northeast and Northwest Coasts

of North America, edited by Ronald 3. Nash,
pp. 125-148. Publication No. 11, Depart,ment
of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University.
Mitchell, Donhld H.
1971 Archaeology of the Gulf of Georgia Area, A Natural Region and its Cultural fipes. Syesia Vol.
4, supp. 1
1982 The Gulf of Georgia Sequence. Pictures of
Record. Inc.

283

Nash, Ronald J . (editor)

1983a The Evolution of Maritime Cultures on the
Northeast andNorthwest Coast of America. Department of Archaeology Publication No. l l ,
Simon Fraser University.
Nash, Ronald S.
1983b The Progress and Process of Theory Building: The Northeast and Northwest Coast.
In The Evolution of Maritime Cultures on the

Nortl~eastandNorthwest Coasts of North America, edited by Ronald J . Nash, pp. 1-25. Publication No. 11, Department of Archaeology, Simon Raser University.
Stiefel, Sheryl K.
1985 The Subsistence Economy of the Locarno Beach
Culture (3,300-2,400 B.P.). Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology and
Sociology, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver.
Stucki, Barbara R.
1g83 Nuvial Processes and the Formation of the Hoko

River Archaeological Site (45CAZ13), Olympic

Peninsula, Washington. Unpublished Master's
thesis, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
1984 Evaluating Activities at a Northwest Coast
Shell Midden Site Using Renewal Processes.
Paper presented at the 49th Annual Meeting
of the Society for Arnerican Archaeology, Portland, Oregon.
1985 Geoarchaeology Investigations at the Hoko
River Rockshelter (45CAZ1). In Interim An-

nual Report, Iloko River Archaeological Project,

Phase XIV, National Endowment for the Humanities, Attachment A.
Wigen, Rebecca J .
1985 Basic Vertebrate Fauna Analysis, Hoko River
Rockshelter Site. In Interim Annual Report,

Hoko River Archaeological Project, Phase XIV,

National Endowment for the Humanities, Attachment C.
Wigen, Rebecca J . and Barbara R. Stucki
1986 Taphonomic and Strstigraphic Factors Influencing the Interpretation of Economic Changes
in a Northwest Coast Shell Midden. In preparation for Research i n Economic Anthropology,
Supplement 3, JAI Press, Connecticut.

ETHNICITY AA'D CULTURE

SECTION V

CASE STUDIES FROM THE

ETHNOGRAPHIC RECORD

ETHhrlCITY A N D CULTURE

CLOTHING A N D TEXTILES AS SYMBOL ON

NINETEENTH CENTURY ARCTIC
EXPEDITIONS
Barbara F. Schweger
Boreal Institut,e for Northern Studies
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta

S T U D Y PROBLEM
An exploratory study has been conducted t o
establisli t h e socio-environmental conditions under which cert,ain cold weather clothing assemblies were used by British and American arctic explorers in blie nineteenth century (Schweger
1983). Information was sought as t o t,he types
of clothing assentblies t h a t were l) designed in
advance for use in northern exploration, 2) were
procured for use while enroute t o arctic Canada,
o r 3) were made in t h e field situation by tlie explorers or tlieir native associates.
When evaluatir~gclothing used in the nineteenth century arctic by explorers, one seeks t o
isolate factors of design, materials, and details of
construction t h a t affect t l i e r ~ n a lbalance between
the body, tlte environment, t h e clot,lrirrg materials, and clotlling form. However, there exists a
range of choices of clothing design and materials
t h a t will stlccessfully provide sufficient body protection in a cold environnlent. While the Inuit
fur clot,hing system is often suggested to be the
most efficient syst,em, it is not the only clotlti~rg
assembly t h a t can provide sufficient thermal insulation for t h e arctic environment.
One can expect t o find differences in clothing
n~at,erials,styles a n d usage by different peoples
frequent.ing the same geograpl~icarea during the
same decades. This paper will focus on similarities and differences in cold weather clothing usage
by British and American ship-based expeditions
t o t h e Canadian arctic in t h e nineteelit11 century
a n d will suggest the syn~bolicimportance t h a t
can be attributed t o t,he different clot.liing assemblies.

M E T H O D OF RESEARCH

Research on historic cold weather clolhing

practices was conducted using written records,
visual d a t a , and surviving textile and leather
artefacts, Infor~nationwas sought on the design, materials of marrufacture, t h e use of specific
clotlling items, and the number of layers in t h e
total clotlling assembly worn by the explorers on
specific expeditions, relative t o the type of activity being undertaken, seasonality of usage, and
varying conditions of cloud cover, temperature,
wind velocity and drifting snow.
Clotliing d a t a from represent,ative British and
American expeditions, both publicly and pri\,ately funded, were collected initially froin published lvrit,ter~sources, sucfl as journals and expedition narratives, housed a t the Boreal Institute for Northern Stndies, University of Alberta. Fundi~lgprovided by the Boreal Inst,itute
made it possible t o then undertake short study
trips t o other institutions, ir~cludingthe Public
Archives of Canada, the Scott Polar Research Instii.ute, and t,lle National Maritime Museu~nin
England t o survey selected unpublished papers,
art collections, and historic nineteenth century
clothing collections. Expedition clothing items
were briefly examined a t the Scott Polar Research Institute and t,he National Maritime Museum in England. Tinte and facilities did not allow laboratory analyses of the clothing artefacts
housed in these Engish collections. IIowever, two
small artefact collections from Canadian arcbic
historic sites were available for detailed analysis. These were a collection from the McClint,ock
C a r t Site (Den~psey19G7) and fragmentary textile and leather artefacts found on Banks Island
t h a t can be attributed t o the McClure Expedition (Hickey 1979; Kerklroven 1981). These collections were made available for study through

E7'Hh11CITY AND CULTURE

288

t h e Glenbow Museum, Calgary, and the Department of A ~ ~ t h r o p o l o g University

y,
of Alberta.
More recently, analyses of the clothing samples collected during the temporary exhumation
of the crewman, John Torrington, a n~ernberof
the t.11ird Sir John f i a n k l i n expedition of 1845,
have been completed. This research has provided
detailed inforrnat,ion on yarn and Fabric structure
found in examples of 1840s British arctic exploration textiles (Schweger and Kerr 1985) and has
focnsed npon the s y ~ n b o l i crelationship of clothing and textiles relative to mortnary practices of
the nineteenth century.

THE SC1O-ENVIRONMENTAL
USAGE
OF

T h e nunrber of British a n d American expeditions to t h e Canadian Arctic rapidly increased in

tlre nineteenth century. In t h e first half of the
century t h e British counted on obtaining clothing materials and already manufactured clothing
from native groups to s n p p l e ~ ~ ~ etheir
r r t clotl~ing
supplies. For example, John Ross (1969:509),
writing in 1831, states:
Our disappointment in not seeing the Esquimaux continued daily increasing, as
their expected arrival was the longer delayed . . . nor were we so well stocked with
akin dresses as not to wish for more.

To facilitate this exchange, Ross (1969:487) made

an a t t e r n ~ tto encourage natives t o conre t o the
ship by setting out direction posts for the natives
Little information has yet been 1ocat.ed to proso t h a t i t w o ~ l l dbe easier for them to locate the
vide detailed infortnation on the design, conBritish exploration party in its winterquarters.
struction, and materials f o n r ~ din clot.hing used
Thus, we know t h a t tlre Britielr certainly utiby Europeans in northern America prior t o the
lized native-st,yled clotl~ingand/or clotlring conni11eteent.h century. However, there can be no
structed of native materials.
doubt t h a t British explorers were well aware of
Even so, the British atte~npt,edto maintain
the materials a n d design of Innit clothing. Bidtraditional dress standards, i.e., "On Sunday,
dle (1832:241) noted t,hat the early explorers were
n o work was allowed. Tlre nlen were mustered,
equipped for trading with t h e natives, saying t h a t
and inspected ill their best clothes . . . "(Ross
Jolrn Cabot, who conducted a British Northwest
1069:214). As the expedition continued longer
Passage expedition in 1497, had vessels which
than expected, Ross (1969:721-722) lamented
were 'fraught with gross and slight wares for
t h a t his ~ n e ncould no longer b e guessed t o be
conlruerce with barbarous people". Martin Frogentlemen since they were "dressed i11 t h e rags of
bisher (1938:49), in tlre 1570s, explored the area
wild beasts rather instead of the tatters of civiwest of Greenland, the present Frobisl~erBay
lization" when the group was located by a rescuarea. He and his men traded for coats of seal
ing ship. Published drawings on the Ross expediand bearskin, but took along wool clot11 to make
t,ion all show the men in Et~ropean-styledfabric
jerkins, breeches, and hose, and canvas and linen
clotlring. Few visual records exist of British ext o make other clotlring t h a t they would need on
plorers wearing native-styled clothing, nor is its
the journey.
use stressed in first. person written accounts.
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries,
By the mid-nineteenth century, after tlre loss
various expeditions t o the North were s p o ~ ~ s o r e d
of the third Sir John Franklin expedition, t h e
by private British c o ~ n p a n i e sand by the British
n n ~ n b e rof British expeditions and the resnlting
Admiralty (Cooke and Holland 1978:26-46). T h e
publicity given t o t h e activities of the explorEast India Company, T l ~ eNorthwest Company,
ers rose dramatically. T h e Britis11 began placarrd the Hudson's Bay Company greatly influing ]nore empl~asison developing special polar
enced arctic exploraaion and the bringing in of
clothing which was issued t o tlre men by the Adtrade items t h a t affected native clothing manumiralty. T l ~ i swas described by Alexander Armfacture.
strong (1857358) a s uconsisting of one conlpfete
T h e Americans, t o a lesser extent, were acsuit of blue double milled box cloth, boots, st,ocktive in the North in t h e eight,eenth century. For
ings, boothose, comfort,ers, ~ n i t t sand caps . . .".
example, in 1729, 1753, and 1758, Henry Atkills
Before 1857 there had beet1 n o st,andard onisailed from Boston, on whaling arrd t,rading exform for men in t.11e British Navy (Dickens 1977).
peditions. Benjamin Fra~rklinarrd o t l ~ e r ssponSome clotlring had been provided free by the Adsored a Northwest Passage expeditio~lwhich had
miralty on some of the arct,ic expeditions, e.g.,
as one stated purpose "to cultivate a friendship
Lyon (1971:2, 13) wrote t h a t a complete suit
with the Nativesn (Solis-Cohen 1943-:25).
of warm clothing was issued t o each officer and

Schweger/TEXTILES A S SYMBOL

man by the Government. However, more often,

the men were responsible for purclrasing t.lreir
own suitable, warm clothing through the ship's
slopchests. Michael Lewis (1965), a social historian who has done much research on the British
Royal Navy, attributed t.he encouragement of the
use of i ~ n i f o r m sto a t t e m p t s by n ~ e d i c a persolrnel
l
to erlcourage e ~ ~ f o r c ecleanliness
d
a n d hygiene 011
the crowded ships, rather t h a n on a desire for increased conforlrrity of dress. T h e clotl~inglirade
available by t h e A d n ~ i r a l t ywas generally not considered t o be very satisfactory for northern conditions. Collinson (1889338) uoted t h a t "Clotlres
generally supplied by t h e Admiralty are not very
satisfactory; n o t good erlough material and badly
made".
Tlre nineteenth century American expeditions
in the North tended t o b e rrruch smaller than
the British sponsored expeditions. This fact
alone explains how i t was possible for Alnerican explorers t o obtain a greater percentage of
tlieir required clothing from native seamstresses
(Schweger 1984). Nonetheless, American expeditions, after t h e 1850s, expressed a different philosophy of expediting practices t h a n one finds in
British expedition narratives. T h e writings of t h e
American leader of tlie Grir~nellExpeditions, Eli s l ~ aKent I l a n e (1857:114, Vol. l ) epitorrrized the
idealized outfit,ting of the Ali~ericanarcLic explorers savinr:
We afterward learned to modify and reduce
our trnveling gear, and found that in direct
proportion to its simplicity and our apparent privation of articles of supposed necessity were our actual comfort and practical
efficiency. Step by step, as long as our arctic service continued, we went on reducing
our sledging outfit until at last we caine to
the Esquimaux ultimatum of simplicity raw meat and n fur bag.
Tlre u.ritings left by the men on t h e snrall-sized
American exploration parties conrmonly stress
the ties wit11 lrative families. Commonly, American expeditions had Inuit o r Greenlanders with
them t o aid in the obtainment of food and clothing. For exanrple, Charles F. Hall (1970:113, 124,
210) empl~asizedhis use of native-made boots
and clotlring; natives, present on shipboard, obtained and dressed sealskins t o make clotlring for
the men, as well as keeping clotlring in repair.
T h e American arctic expedition clothing assembly utllized both native-styled a n d Europeanstyled items.
For example, Hall (1970.168)

289

stated, when going on a t r i p by dogsled, UFor

clothing besides my native dress upon me, I look
l extra undershirt, 1 woolen shirt, 2 pairs extra
stockings, 1 pair extra pants, 2 towels, and 2 pair
of mittens."
In the 1870s tlie best known arctic expeditions were bent upon reaching the North Pole.
T h e United States North Pole Expedition was
headed by Hall, Budington, and Tyson. T h e
British Admiralty sporrsored expedition t o the
Pole was led by George S. Nares. Clothing lists
contained in Arctic Blue Book 45256 e n ~ ~ l n e r a t e d
t h e large quarrtities of clothing and textile strpplies taken by the British on this expedition. For
exanrple, knitted frocks, box cloth jackets and
trousers, hose, Welsh wigs, flalrnel helmet caps,
sealskin jackets, trousers, hats, mitts, Hudson's
Bay blankets, Fisherman's boots and cloth boots
with cork soles By contrast, Hall's (1876) writings suggest t h a t the American party utilized
ntostly native-styled fur clot,hing.
In doc~ilirenting clotlring variation of nonnative men in t h e Canadian arctic, one concludes after conlparing clothing usage by specific
groups of people through time a n d across space,
t h a t there were major strategy differences between British and American explorers in obtaining hppropriate clothing for northern environmental conditions. T l ~ e s edifferences can sometimes be explained in ternrs of the availabilitv of
native-made clotl~ingt o crews. Of greater importance, however, is t h e use of dress for prrserrti~ig
visual cues as symbol of cultural meaning.
While having t o a d a p t t o the harsh environment of arctic Canada, t h e explorers had t o adjust b o t h t o the social-physical environment of
their rnrrnediate surroundings and t o the expectations of expedrtion spo~rsorsback horne. For
example, British officers included in their written
reports t o the Admiralty indications t h a t they
had successfully maintained Sunday dress standards. By contrast, Americans wrote letters t o
their friends d e ~ n o ~ r s t r a t i nhow
g self-reliant they
were i n p ~ o v i d i n gfor themselves. For example,
Elisha Kane (1854:366) stated:
I wish some of my soda-in-the-morning
club friends could see me perspiring over
s pair of pants . . . We do our own
fiewing, clothing ourselves cap-a-pie; and it
astonishes me, looking back upon my dark
period of previous ignorance, to feel how
much I have learned.

We know tliat British explorers were well aware

290

of Innit technology for native dress. However, it

carlnot be construed hhat t.lre early British expedition leaders used this infornration to greatly
modify their own clothing assemblies. This may
seem strange in liglrt of bhe apparent advantages
of the native cold weather clothing system. To
be aware of a technology, as the Britislr were of
native clothing, does not necessarily irnply accept.ailc.e and application of the teclrnology to their
own sit,uation. The adapt,ation or rejection of a
technology, in this case native clothirrg design,
itlust be viewed within the cultural context of
Britis11 society.
Clotlring is a tliglrly visual symbol that acts as
a sign to the wearer and onlooker; also, it is partic~llarlyeffective as a signal of the ideology and
status attributes of the wearer. By using clothirrg
as a visible synrbol, the expeditior~leader readily had a t his disposal a ~ n e a n sto communicate
certain roles of behavior. However, clotlring only
funct.ions successfirlly as a syrnbol when all parties irrvolved understand those behavioral rules
and cultlrral values implied when the clothing
symbol is employed.
Defined variation between clothirrg assemblies
elicited varying responses. The extent to which
tlre British expedition personnel valt~edportrayal
of English men in traditional English clothing
was a clear indication of the rigid, non-wavering
use of clotlrir~gas a symbol of ninrteentlr century
British society. It becoirres apparent, however,
that the American explorers used clothhrg as a
sy~nbolto the same extent, but in a very different manner.
The survey of nineteenth century arctic expedition literature and illustrations indicat,es that
exploration leaders of both nationalities assigned
illzaning to tlreir clothing assentblies, conscio~rsly
or unconsciously, and then expected others to
act towards them on the basis of t.he meanings
held by the wearer. In general, both Britislr and
Anrerican explorers lrad come to the Canadian
Arctic to experience the environnlent as hazard,
as a challenge to overcome. Career advancernerrt
or notoriety demanded favorable publicity upon
return to the home country. Data collected in
t,his study indicate that clothing was utilized in
portrayals of the explorers to create the appropriate illrage. Tlre Englislimen used clot.hing to suggest tlrat the British value system renlained intact in spite of environmental hazards; tire American explorers used clot.l~iagto suggest tlrat the
frontier spirit continued.
Eaclr of the Britislr arctic expedit.ions was one

ETHNICITY AND CULTURE

of a series of journeys supported by the Admiralty or other agei~ciest,o further English interests in North America. To obtain recognition as
a successful leader, one needed to demonstrate
to superiors that English traditions were being
nplield and perpetuated. How the Eaglislr officer and crewrnan actually dressed when working
alone in isolated regions may remain unrecorded.
Written and visual comn~unications,as well as
subsequent releases of this information to the
public, in nearly every case, portrayed expedition members in clothing bhat emphasized the
upholding of British social traditions.
American expedition leaders also used clothing very effectively to enhance the image of the
explorer. The clothing assernbly most often portrayed in writings or illustrations tended t o be
n~arleof nat,ive rrlaterials and of native design.
In contrast to the rigidity and subn~issionto authority t h a t expedition clothing symbolized in
the British context, the adaption of native clothing and strategy techniques by the Americarrs appears to have symbolized the romantic heritage of
the United States, both to private sponsors and
t,o the An~ericanpublic. The explorer's clotlring
perpetuated the ideal of expedition personnel as
daring frontiersmen.
As the American expeditiorrs were often onetinre projects funded by a private sponsor and
designed to fulfil1 t,lre individual goals of both
the sponsor and the expedit,ion leader, expediting
practices were chosen which were considered to
be most successful or which the expedition could
financially afford to utilize. In the case of clothing, this meant that it had t o serve satisfactorily
so that the clrosen destination or goal could be
reached, and that is might stimulate the imagination of the population a t home. Responsibility,
dedication, and perseverance were not sufficient
for glory in the United States. Great,er value was
placed upon individualism and the clothing assembly was readily used to symbolize this persorral qnality. Thus, though one finds evidence
that Ainerican explorers commonly utilized many
elements of European-styled clothilrg while working in the North, visual representations gerrerally
show the men in traditional lnuit fur clothing assemblies.

SUMMARY
~ ~thet ~ ~h i t i ~ ~~~~~~i~~~
h
llilleteenth tentnry explorers had kllowledge of fnnit clothing teclrnology and both ~ttilizednative clot,hi~rg
forms to some exterlt in their daily activities. ~h~

Scbweger/TEXTILES A S SYMBOL

style of Brit:ish exploration, t h a t is, t h e large size

of the expeditio~rsa n d the hierarchical arrangenrent of tire Admiralty, officer, crew, and n at lves
'
prevented t h e use of a high percentage of native
clotlring and discouraged portrayal of British explorers utilizing native clot,hirrg while a t work.
T h e style of American exploration, by contrast,
encouraged t h e use of native technologies, including clothing, because expedition parties were
small enough s o t h a t the extra rru~nbersof people
present in a given geographic area would not auto~naticallydeplete resources. Also, the romantic
idealism of tlre American people encouraged social interaction s a d borrowi~rgof techniques between natives and non-natives.
T h e c o ~ r t r a s t sin clothing usage by British and
American lnerr in the North reflect differe~tcesin
clllt~lralbelravior. Thus, tlre clothing assemblies
t,hat are portrayed in written and visual records
left by the British and the Americalrs on nineteenth century ship-based expedit,ions served successfully a s a symbol in each respective country
because of bhe differences in social attitudes between the English and the American explorer.

REFERENCES CITED
Armstrong, Alexander
1857 A Pcrsonal Narrative of the Discovery of the
Northwest Passage. Hurst and Blackett, London.
Riddle, Richard
I832 A Menoir of Sebastian Cabot. Love11 Reeve,
1,ondon.
Collinson, Richard
1889 Journal of H.M.S. Enterprise, on the Ezpedition i n Search of Sir John Franklin's Ships
i n Bering Strait. 1850-55. Sampson Low,
Marston, Sesrle, and Rivington.
Cooke, A. and C. Holland
1978 The Ezploration of Northern Canada. 500 t o
1920. A Chronology. Tlie Arctic History Press,
Toronto.
Dempsey, Hugh A.
1967 McClintock Cart Site (QiNq). Unpublished
report, Glenbow-Alberta Institute. August 26,
1987.

Dickens, Gerald
1957 The Dress of the British Sailor. Her Majesty's
Stationary Office, London.
Frobisher, Martin
1938 The Three Voyages of Martin Frobisher in
Search o f Cathaw and Indian bv the North- West
Passage A.D. 1576-78. The Argonaut Press,
London.

291

Hall, Charles Francis

1876 Narratiue of the North Polar Ezpedition. U.S.
Ship Polaris.
Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
1970 Life with the Espuimauz. A Narrative of Arctic Ezperience Search of Suruivors of Sir John
Franklin's Ezpedition. M.G. Hurting, Edmonton.
Hickey, Clifford G.
1979 Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Research
on Banks Island.
Etudes/lnuit Studies
3(2):132-133.

Kane, Elisha Kent

1854 The U.S. Grinnell Ezpedition in Search of Sir
John Fronklin: A Personal Narrative. Salnpson
Low, Son, London.
1857 Arctic Ezplorotions: The Second Grinnell Ezpedition in Search of Sir John Franklin, 1853,
1854, 1855, Child and Peterson, Philadelphia.
Kerkhoven, Marijke
1981 19th Century Textiles in the High Arctic: An
Analysis of 5 Textile Fragments from Banks
Island. Unpublished Report. March 23, 1981.
Lewis, Michael
1965 The Navy in Transition. 1814-1864. A Social
History. Hodder and Stoughton, London.
Lyon, Captain G.F.
1971 (Facsimile Edition 1825) A n Atternvl to Reach
Repulse Bay i n His Majesty's Ship "Griper" i n
the Year MDCCCXXIV. Coles, Toronto.
Ross, John
1909 (Reprinted from 1835 Edition) Narrative of a
Second Voyage i n Search of North- West Passage
i n the Years 1829, 1830, 1838, and 1853. First
Greenwood Printing.
Schweger, Barbara F.
1983 Documentation and Analysis of the Clothing Worn by Non-native Men i n the Canadian Arctic prior to 1920, with an Emphasis on
Footwear. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University
of Alberta.
1984 Clothing the Early Expeditions: An Essential
Contribution by the Native Seamstress. Proceedings of the Yukon Historical and Museum
Association No. 2.
Schweger, Barbara F. and Nancy Kerr
1985 Analysis of the Clothing found in the Franklin
Expedition Graves, Beechey Island, N.W.T.
Paper presented at the Canadian Archaeological Association Amrual Conference, Winnipeg.
Solia-Cohen, Bertha
1943 An American Searcl, for t h e Nort.liwest Passage. Beaver Outfit 274. September.

ETHNICITY AND CliLTlJHE

TEXTILE CRAFTS AT EARLY

AGRICULTURAL FAIRS IN ALBERTA AND
SASKATCHEWAN, 1880-1915
Marijke Kerkhoven
Clenbow Musenm
Calgary, Alberta

PURPOSE
Research of textile history has been based
mostly on the study of art,efacts - the tools and
of t,extile craftslrren. Studies of art,efacts
alone, however, are seldom satisfactory because
the exceptional rather than the commonplace object rends t o be preserved (Rathje 1979:11), o r
because t h e tools have vanished - a s in the case
of home spinning with a pencil o r wooden spoon
November 6 ,
(Lambert, personal comn~unicat,ion,
1984). The more valuable studies on textile history are based on the colnbination of a study of
artefacts with t h a t of other sources, such as oral
history and/or documentary research.
This study was iiudertaken t o establish a list of
bexdile crafts generally practiced in Alberta and
Saskatchewan during the early agricultural settlement period (1880-1915), and to obtain quantifiable infornratiou on the change over time and
the difference amoug colrin~unitiesin the practice of these crafts. Since few textiles of this period have survived, and many of the craftspeople
are no longer alive, it was decided t o explore the
potential of regularly, systematically kept official
records on textile crafts. These records are the
prize winners' lists of the atlt~ualagricultural fairs
held in Alberta and Saskatchewan from 1879.
Nature of the Prize Winners' Lists
Organized by local agricultural societies, the
a n n i ~ a lfairs were t h e main venue of agricultural education prior to the establishment of agricultural colleges (MacEwan 1950; Auld 1961:l).
T h e societies were also col~cerr~ed
with improvenret~tof t h e staudard of rural life in all aspects,
not only in crop raising or stock breeding but
also in donrestic productivity such as home baking and the making of family garments.

Agricultural societ,ies published two lists, one

a l T h e first list
before and one after the a n ~ ~ ufair.
was published several weeks in advance of the fair
t o i ~ i f o r mthe interested public of the type of categories and the anlount of prize money. Within
ten days after the fair the list of prize winners
was pnblished, usually in the local newspaper.
Duriug this sdudy i t was found t h a t the first list
reflected t l ~ eexperience of the organiziug committee wit,h past fairs, while bhe winners' list was
a modification of it.
These changes were the results of "special
prizes" awarded by entrepreneurs t o reflect their
business interests (e.g., a flour inill owrier often
awarded a geeerous prize t,o the best baked loaf
of bread ruade with flour f r o n ~his mill), o r t o
attract the attention o r goodwill of pot,ential patrons (e.g., a general merchant offering a tea service for the best embroidered slippers). T h e entries themselves could also act a s lnodifiers because the less popular categories would attract
few o r n o entries while t h e more popular categories would attract so many entries tlrat t h e
judges, urho usually had discretionary power, created extra prizes or separate categories if the entries were deemed worthy of a prize. T l ~ u st h e
prize winners' lists reflected more accurately t,llan
t h e prize lists the general practice of textile crafts
(Kerkhoven 1986:146-147).

CONTENT ANALYSIS OF PR'IZE

WINNERS' LISTS
T h e prize winners' lists were usually publisl~ed
in t l ~ elocal newspapers. These newspapers are
almost all available for research in the form of mic r o f i l ~ nin the major archival institutions. Prize
winners' lists lend themselves t o content analysis, a method of extracting quantifiable information from a large body of conrmunications d a t a ,

f.;TNNICITY AND ClrLTlrRE

294

which can be coded systematically into relevant

cat,egories (Holski 1969). This ~ i l e t h o dwas developed t o study a t first overt, and later hidden,
coliterlt in political speeches, novels, etc. Its use
has expanded during t.l~elast ten years t o an everwidening range of topics.
T h e precedent of tliis study was t h a t of
D.W. Moodie and A.W.J. Catchpole (1975), wlio
st,udied eight.eeuth a n d nineteenth century logbooks of northern outposts for refere~icesto t h e
freeze-up and break-up of estuaries. They recognized phrases in tlie logbooks as descriptions
of certain stages in a modern t l ~ e o r yof freezeu p and break-up of ice. By systematically coding each of these phrases Moodie and Catclipole
forged a link bet.ween historic documents and a
modern theoretical framework. During a pilot
study i t was found tliat text,ile terms in the prize
winners' lists could be coded into cat,egories represent,ing a craft o r technique within t h e modern ter~ninologyprovided by Irene Emery's P r i mary Structures of Teztiies (1980) a n d Dorotliy
R. Bt~rnham's A Textile Terminology: Warp a n d
Weft (1981).

RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS

Textile Crafts
Before coding i t was necessary t o determine exactly wliat was nleant by each term appearing on
the prize lists. "Braiding", for example, referred
in the 1880s not t o a type of plaiting or finger
weaving but t o t h e couching of a narrow braid
o r t a p e into a decorative pattern onto a fabric.
"Maltese Lacen in the early twentieth century did
not refer 10 a silk bobbin lace of the type found on
Malt,a since the charitable efforts of Lady Ilamilt.011 Cliisest,er in t h e 1830s but t o a type of crochet also known a s "hairpin crochetn o r "hairpin
lace". Other terms are n o longer used. Such
terms were "Coronation Braidn, a type of braid
used for coucliing o r in combination with crochet
froni 1911 t o 1915, and "Rambler Rose", an embroidery stitch resulting in a three-dimensional
flower motif.
All terms appearing on t l ~ eprize winners' lists
were researclled in needlework manuals and periodicals publislred between 1870 and 1920. Historic description of t h e terms were compared with
nod ern d e f i ~ ~ i t i oprovided
~is
by Enrery and Burnham.
More than 7,600 categories were coded and
analysed frorn ten selected fairs: Regina, Saskatoon, Prince Albert, t h e Battlefords, Yorkton,
Edmonton, Calgary, Red Deer, Lethbridge, and

Medicine Hat. Twenty textile crafts were recognized of whicli euibroidery was tlte most popnlar (almost 28% of all analysed categories), followed by knitting (almost 13%), sewing (almost
S%), and crochet (about 8%). Other crafts were
lace making (5.5%), spinning (less t,l~an1.5%),
painting on fabric ( l % ) ,tattooing, beadwork,
macrame, home made flowers of fabric o r yarn,
and hairwork (all less than 1% each).
Altl~oughtliey were not traditionally thought
of as textile crafts, mending and laundry were
also recognized as relevant categories. They accounted for respectively almost 1.5% and . l %
each. Leather work and straw weaving were also
included in the a~ialysisbecause t,hey involve similar techniques as found in textile crafts. Both
accounted for less than 1% each of all analysed
categories.
Social and C u l t ~ i r a Aspects
l
T h e names of sonie of t h e el~ibroiderytechniques looked cosmopolitan: "Swiss netting",
"Bulgarian embroidery", "Russian cross-stitch",
etc. Upon ir~vestigationof tlie 1870-1920 craft
manuals and periodicals, i t became clear t h a t
these terms represented either a watered down
version of a a ethnic craft or an exot,ic name for a
technique already known by another name.
According t o Caulfield a n d Saward (1972) the
term "Russian cross-stitch" referred t o crossstitched geo~netricalor stylized floral motifs. T h e
use of the term "Russian cross-stitchn may orig~s
with traditional
inate with the l i ~ i e ~stamped
Russian peasalit e~nbroiderymotifs marketed by
the Broderie Rnsse C o n ~ p a n yin London in the
1880s. These lirrens were a welcome relief from
tlie ubiquitous Berlin wool work so popular during Victoria's reign (Clabbarn 1976:230; Every
Woman's Encyclopedia 1910:7:1721-3).
Otlier enibroidery techniques were adapted
from ethnic embroideries successfully niarketed
in the capitals of Europe dnriug the second half
of the ninet.eenth century. One of these t,echniques was lredebo enibroidery lrl~icliwas evolved
from Renaissance ope~iworkby the farniers of
the lreat,h close t o Copenhagen. IIedebo ernbroidery became faslrior~ableoutside Denniark in t h e
1880s (Clabburn 1976; Every Woman's Encyclopedia 1910:5:3495). At the same time tile technique still evolved. W h a t is described in Englishlanguage needlecraft ~nagaeinesof 1900-1910 differs subtly from the work described twenty years
earlier (de Dillmo~it1977:81-83; Modern Priscilln
1915 (28):12).

Kerkhoven/TEXTILE C R A F T S

Another adaptation of Renaissance open-work

e~nbroiderywas t,hat of t11e people of tlie Bardanger district in Norway. A sinrpler version of this
work was described in English-language needlework n~agazinesfrom t.he turn of the century on
(e.g. Home Needlework 1914). Special fabrics
were marketed for Russian cross-stibchery and
Efardar~gerembroidery called "Java cloth", "Aida
clothn, or "Hardanger cloth". These fabrics had
a lower yarn count than tlre linen used by Russian and Sca~idinavianpeasants and were easier
t o work on.
Some terms were hard t o trace t o a specific
etlinic craft. The term "Bulgarian embroidery",
for inst,ance, was described in 188G as a type of
counted t,l~readwork (de Dillrnont 1977:133-134),
in 1913 as afree form floral motif in satin stitches
(Modern Priscilla 1913), while a prize winning
entry for Bulgarian e ~ ~ i b r o i d e rayt the 1916 EdInonton fair hail figures of dancing peasants (Edmonton Journal 1916).
Altl~onglrt l ~ eterms of the embroidery techrriqnes had a cosmopolitan flavour the naines
of the prize winners were almost exclusively
Anglo-Saxon. There were a few French names
on the Edmonton lists. This is hardly surprising since Edmonton had, prior to 1911, the
Iasgest French-speaking cointnunity in Alberta
and Saskatcl~ewan(Canada, Bureau of Statist,ics 1911:3:Tahle X). There is also a sprinkling
of Ger~rranand Scandinavian names, especially
after 1910. In 1911, for instance, a Mrs. Thygesen won first prizes in Calgary for "knyplinqn and
"hedebo sygning", Danish terms for bobbin lace
and l~edeboembroidery (Morninq Albertan 1911).
This is one of the few instances of a successful
non-Anglo-Saxon conrpet,itor.
Altl~oughmany non-Anglo-Saxon inumigrants
seltled in Alberta and Saskatcliewan after 1900,
only one example was found of categories invitirig entries from these new Canadians. In l910
the Yorktoli fair featured a special category for
Doukhobor needlecrafts, which was won by a
Mrs. Bnhar. Subsequent Yorkton fairs did not
feature this category again. Perhaps it was to be
ts
expected t h a t non-Anglo-Saxon i n ~ n ~ i g r a ndid
not participate in the agricultural fairs. Agricultural societies, like all major educational, social and political institutions in Western Canada,
were organized by people of British descent,
creat,ing an environment in which other AagloSaxoils would feel imnrediately a t home, while
i t took non-Anglo-Saxons several years t o adjust
(Palmer 1983:18).

295

The one non-Anglo-Saxon ethnic group whose

participation was eagerly sought by t l ~ eorganizers of most country fairs was the Indians. Regina
and Prince Albert encoi~raged them to participate in the livest,ock and domestic mannfacture exhibits. Other fairs, Calgary and Medicine
Hat, feat,ured "Indian Departments" with categories such as "boffalo horns", "tobacco pouches"
and other curios. Marry societies, realizing t h a t
dressed-up Indians attracted visit,ors, gave a free
pass t o every Indian wearing full regalia (nit11
1982). Parades and shows often included Indians for the same reason. Federal officials and
the Mounted Police frowned on this. In 1908 a
form letter was sent t o all agricult~uralsocieties in
Alberta and Saskatchewan request,ing that they
refrain from organizing parades or dances involving Indians as this inight lead t o the "neglect of
their pursuit of agriculture" (Frith 1982). This
dichotomy in attitude towards Indians was typical at t h a t time ( G . Nicks, personal communication, July 1984).
Most of the prize winners' names were preceded hy Mrs. or Miss. There were a rrnntber
of abbreviations of Inale Christian names on the
wineers' list of Edmonton, Regina and Prince
Albert in the 1880s. Although there were men
who submitted their own knitwork or embroidery, their work was usually acknowledged in a
descriptive paragrapl~,e.g., Captain Hoey's knitting, in Prince Albert Tlmes (1884). Some societies publisl~edthe tla~nesof the persons who
claimed the prize money as winners. W.C. Reely
(1935) in his study on agricultural fairs in the
United States, stated that women were reluctant
t o claim their prizes a t fairs in the 1840s. It is
possible that a similar reluctance was still felt
in the 1880s. It is also likely t h a t men, having
won priaes for livestock, tlrought it expedient t o
claim all prize money won by themselves and by
n l e ~ r ~ b e rof
s their families. This would also explain the Clrarles, Jarnes and Georges winning
livestock and needlework prizes even in categories
for girls under twelve years.
Careful examination of the addresses of the
prize winners revealed that not all winners lived
in the community served by t,l~eagricoltural fair.
A ~iuniberof women travelled across t,he prairies
t o compete a t several fairs. Some were so successful a t their home fair t h a t they entered their
work a t larger fairs in the province. After 1905
others came from Manitoba and Ontario and regularly flooded the fairs a t Regina, Calgary and
Edmonton. This cnlminated a t bhe 1910 Cal-

ETHNICITY A N D CULTURE

296

gary fair where 107 of the 207 textile craft prizes

were awarded t o out-of-town entries. Fifty-one of
then1 one worl by a single lady, Mrs. McCutcl~eon
of Toronto. She had already won 43 prizes a t the
1909 Calgary fair a n d 28 a t the 1908 fair. It
would be interesting t o c o ~ ~ d u ac tfurther st,udy
on other large fairs in C a n a d a t o trace t h e range
of these travelirrg exhibitors a n d t o see whether
this practice continued after 1915.

CONCLUSION
Although this study was undertake11 t o extract quantifiable irrformation on textile crafts,
the names of tire prize wimlers indicate several
irrterestir~gsocial-cultural phenon~ena.Although
almost forty percent of the population of the two
p r o v i ~ ~ c eafter
s
1910 was of non-Anglo-Saxon descent, almost all prize wi1111ers had Anglo-Saxon
narnes. It is possible t h a t a portion of these
people were Indians or of mixed Indian descent.
Many inale names appear on the prize winners'
lists for textile categories. This may indicate
t h a t these men claimed all the prize money won
by tlreir family nren~bers,rather blrar~t h a t they
practiced tlre textile crafts themselves. T h e addresses of the prize winners indicate t h a t some
women from 1004 on traveled across Canada dnri ~ i gtlrc summer exfrihiting their work a t several
fairs, a phenonlenon t h a t may need filrt,l~erinvestigation.

REFERENCES C I T E D
Auld, F.H.
1961 The Saskatchewan Aaricultural Societies Association. Saskatchewan History 14(1):1-16.
Burnham, Dorothy K.
1981 A Teztile Terminoloov:
.. Warp and Weft. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Canada, Bureau of Statistics
1911
Census of Canada 1911, Vol. 3. C.K. Parmelee,
Ottawa.
Caulfield, S.F. and Blanche Saward
1972 The Dictionary of Needlework: A n Encyclopedia of Artistic, Plain and Fancy Needlework.
Reprinted by Arno Press, New York. Originally published 1882, L. Upcott. Gill, London.
Clabburn, Parnela
1976 The Needleworker's Dictionary. Willinm Morrow, New York.
De Dillmont, Tl~erese
1977 The Comvlete Encvelopedia
of Needlework.
. .
Reprinted by The Running Press, Philadelphia. Originally published 1886 by DolfussMieg.

The Edmonton Journal

1916, July 12.

Emery, lrene
1980 The Primary Structure of Fabrics 2nd ed. The
Textile Museum, Washington, D.C.

Every Woman's Encyclopedia

1910, 7 vols. Bowery Street, London.
Frith, J .
1982 Treatise of a Society. Prince Albert Exhibition
Association, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan.
Holski, O.R.
1969 Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and
Humanities. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Minnesota.

Home Needlework Magazine

1914:lG:l-3; 1915, 17:30-31.

Kerkhoven, Marijke
1986 Analysis of Teztilc Crafts nt Selected Agricultural Fairs in Alberta and Saskatchewan, 18791915. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Faculty of
Home Economics, University of Alberta, Edmonton.
MacEwan, J.W.G.
1950 Agrieulfure on Parade: The Story of the Fairs
of Western Canada. Thomas Nelnon and Sons,
Toronto.

Modern Priseillo
1913:27:4 (June)
1915:28:12 (February)

Moodie, D.W. and A.W.J. Catchpole

1975 Environment Data Jrom Historical Documents
by Content Analysis: Freeze-up and Break-up of
Estuaries on the Hudson Bay, 1714-1871. Manitoba Geographical Studies, No.5. University
of Manitoba, Winnipeg.

Morning Albertan
1911 July 5, Calgary, Alberta.
Neely, W.C.
1935 The Agricultural Fair. Columbia University
Press, Morningside Heights, New York.
Palmer, M.
1983 Patterns of Prejudice: Natiuism in Alberta.
IIurtig, Edmonton, Alberta.

Prince Albert Times

1884, October 23.
Rathje, W.C.
1979 Modern Material Culture Studies. In Advances
in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 2,
edited by M.B. Schiffer, pp.1-37. Academic
Press, New York.

ETHNICITY AND CULTURAL SURVIVAL:

THE OMAHA TRIBE
Robin Ridington
Department of Anthropology and Sociology
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, British Columbia

THE SACRED POLE

In 1888, the sacred pole of the Omaha tribe
came into the care and keeping of anthropologists Alice Fletclier and kiancis La Flesche. Until the buffalo disappeared from the prairies and
the Omaha tribe was forced to abandon Huthuga,
its ceremonial camp circle, the pole had symbolized tlle unity of the Omaha as a people
and their ide~~tification
with cosn~icand natural
forces Francis La Flesche was a member of the
Omaha tribe. As a child, he had participated
h1 the tribe's annual ceremo~~ies
of renewal. La
Flesche and his co-worker, Alice Fletcher, were
aware that the pole and its associated sacred
bundles were 'of ullique and etl~nologicvalne"
(Fletcher and La Flesche 1911:221).
The anthropologists believed that if the pole
and its story were buried with the old man who
was the last traditional keeper rather than being put on display in the Peabody Museum of
Harvard University, 'the full story of the tribe
(would) be forever lost, for that story was as yet
imprrfectly known, and until these sacred articles, so carefully hidden from inspection, could
be examined it was in~possibleto gain a point of
view wlleuce t o study, as from the center, the ceremonies connected wit11 these articles and their
relation t o the autonomy of the tribe" (Fletcher
and La Flesche 1911:222).
With the pole on its way to the "great brick
house" in Cambridge, Massachusetts, the aathropologists wished to obtain the sacred story of
its origin. They persuaded Smoked Yellow, the
pole's last keeper, to tell them the story whicll
~ ~ o r m a l would
ly
be told only t o the keeper who
would succeed him. He agreed to tell it in the
presence of chief Inshtamaza (Iron Eye), the father of Francis La Flesche. Iron Eye assured
Smoked Yellow that he would "cheerfi~llyaccept
for himself any penalty that might follow the re-

vealina- of these sacred traditions" (Fletcher arid

La Flesche 1911:224).
The sacred pole and the story of its origi11 symbolized the collerence and integrity of a people.
Tlle old keeper knew that these symbols were
l o s i ~ ~their
g
power. He knew that the O m a l ~ a
faced a serious challerrge to their identity. Iron
Eye knew also that the tribe would never again
live according t o the ancient communal order of
the buffalo hunt. He led the Uyour~g
men's faction" that advocated allotment of lands to individual families. He and his followers built frame
houses and were called "the village of the makebelieve whitemen". Botlr Iron Eye and the keeper
agreed, however, that the sacred pole's story represented the tribe's essential history. In the end,
it was lron Eye, the progressive chief, who gave
his life for the transfer of the sacred pole's story
into the keeping of antl~ropology.Two weeks after hearing its story, Iron Eye lay dead in the
room where the transfer had taken place.
Tlle story Smoked Yellow told to Iron Eye in
September of 1888 came to rest at the centre of a
book published in 1911 by Iron Eye's son and the
white woman who adopbed him, Alice Fletcher.
According to the old keeper's story, the pole came
iuto being as a sacred symbol at a time
'A great council was being held to devise some
means by which the bands of the tribe might be
kept together and the tribe itself saved from extinction" (Fletcher and La Flescl~e1911:217). At
the same time, the young son of a chief was lost
in the forest. During the night, he looked up t o
fiud his place in relation to the "motionless starn,
the pole star. Where the world axis thus defined
tonclled the earth, he discovered a luminous tree.
The sacred pole was taken from that tree.
The Omaha people looked to the pole as the
symbolic centre of their identity. It stood for a
'point of view as from the centre" around which

298

ETHNICITY AND CULTURE

said, "You now see before you a mystery.

their world turned. It passed o u t of O m a h a life
wlten it became a n etl~nologicalspecimen in t h e
Whenever we meet with troubles we shall
bring all our troubles to him (the pole).
Peabody Museum. As a n ethnological specimen
We shall make offerings and requests. All
in a glass case, it no longer represented tlte Omour prayers must be accompanied by gifts.
a h a tribe. T h e buffalo disappeared f r o ~ l lO m a h a
This (the pole) belongs to all the people,
l i e in the 1870s. Without t h e buffalo, t h e tribe
but it shall be in the keeping of one famwas n o longer able t o renew the pole in t h e anily (in the Honga gens) and the leadership
nual o r bi-annual world renewal ceremony called
shall be with them. If anyone desires to
Waztheze zzgzthe, "the sacred pole t o tinge with
lead and to take responsibility in governred". T h e O m a h a "religious ceren~oniesneeded
ing the people, he shall make presents to
t h e buffalo for their observance, and its disapthe keepers of the pole and they shall give
pearance, wliich in its suddenness seemed t o him
l ~ i mauthority." U'hen all was finished the
supernatural, had done much t o dernoralise h i n ~
people said, "Let us appoint a time when
morally as well as socially" (Fletcher and L a
we shall again paint him and act before
Flesche 1911:244).
him the battles we have fought." The time
We would call t h e pole's origin story a 'myth".
was fixed. It was to take place in "The
To the O m a h a , i t was tribal history. It told of
Moon When the Buffaloes Bellow". This
essential rather t h a n contingent truth. Its events
was the beginning of the ceremony Wazreflect univprsal patterns of relationship between
theze zigithe and it was agreed that this
the social and t h e natural order rattier t h a n the
ceremony should be kept up. (Fletcher and
particular happenings of a single time and place.
La Flesche 1911:217-219).
In order t o understand Indian history, t h e scholar
must become familiar with t h e conventions of a
THE MARK OF HONOUR
symbolic language
. - t h a t was enacted in t h e tribe's
ritual order. T h e following is a precis of the S"
The sacred pole was called Waztheze. Accordcred story:
ing to Fletclter and L a Flesche, Xtheze means,
'~nottled a s by shadows". It "has also t h e idea
A young man was hunting alone in the forof bringing into prominence t o be seen by all the
est at a time when the elders were in counpeople a s somethir~gdistinctive." T h e prefix Wa
cil "to devise some means by which the
indicates tltat "the object spoken of had power,
bands of the tribe might be kept together
and the tribe itself saved from extinction."
the power of motion, of life." Xthexe also referred
Alone and at night, he came upon "a tree
t o 'the mark of honour" t h a t was tattooed on the
that sent forth light". When he returned to
forehead and throat of a young woman whose fathe shining tree with his father, the older
ther had joined t h e 'order of chiefs" by performman observed that the trails of animals
ing one hundred named deeds of honour. 'The
came toward the tree from the four direc]lame of the Pole, Waztheze, signifies t h a t the
tions. Re told the chiefs of all the tribes,
power
t o give the right t o possess this 'Mark of
"My son has seen a wonderful tree, makHonour'
was vested on t h e Pole . . . T h e deing a trail of fire that leaves four paths on
signs
tattooed
on the girl were all cosmic symthe burnt grass that stretch toward the four
bols"
(Fletcher
and L a Flesche 1911:219). The
winds. When the thunderbirds alight upon
the tree it bursts into flame and the fire
mark on t h e young woman's forehead symbolmounts to the top. The tree stands burnized the sun a t its zenith "from u~ltichpoint i t
ing but no one can see the fire except at
speaks", and its life-giving power passes tltrough
night."
her body and out into the c a m p circle. T h e mark
on her throat was a four-pointed s t a r radiating
The men stripped, painted themselves, put
from a perfect circle.
on their ornaments and struck it as they
According to Fletcher and L a Flesche, t h e sunwould an enemy. Then they cut the tree
down a n d four men, walking in a line,
sign stood for "the noise of teeming life moving
carried it on their shoulders to the vilover t h e earth." T l ~ estar represented night, "the
great ntother force". T h e young woman received
lage. A tent was made for the tree and
the mark on a bed flanked with 100 knives and
set up within the circle of lodges. The
chiefs worked upon the tree; they trimmed
100 awls driven into the ground on either side of
it and called it a human being . . . When
the morning fire. These tools were said t o represent the union of work done by men and women.
they were gathered, the chiefsstood up and

ftidi~~~ton/ETHNlClT
AND
Y CULTURAL SURVIVAL

Tlie servers of the ceremony pricked the tattoo's

pigment into her skin with flint points bound to
rattlesnake rattles.
Fletcher and La Flesche present the pole's origin story and the rites surrounding the 'mark of
honour" in different sections of the ethnography,
yet it is clear from their c o ~ n m e ~ ithat
t s the two
are complernentary, They are, in fact, a single
symbol of Omaha identity. The narne shared by
the pole and the mark of honour indicates t,heir
common identity. Their ritual and symbolic associations indicate their complementarity. The
origin story is about the initiatory experience of
a chief's son. The tattooing ritual describes the
co~nplementaryinitiation of a chief's daughter.
A Chief's son discovered Waztheza beneath the
star around which all others turn. The trails of
game animals converged upon it, creating an image of the world's quarters and directions. The
Huthuga itself was a great circle upon which tlie
trails of animals converged. The burning centre of the young man's vision could be seen only
during the dark hours of night, just as tlre star
that marks the centre of the heavens is also visible orily a t night. A Chief's daughter received
the mark of honour after the morning fire liad
died t o ashes. She lay on a bed of fine robes, facing west "for, being emblematic of life, slie had
to lie as if rnoving with the sun". The tattooing was completed when the sun passed directly
overhead.
The tattooing ceremony aligned s~in-signand
star-sign with the young woman's body. When
the sun came into line with the tattooed marks,
tlre people chanted a song whose words meant literally "the sun, the round sun, comes, speaks or
says. Yonder point, when it comes, comes, speaks
or says". As t,lie girl received the star sign, the
people chanted a song wliose words mean "Night
moves, it passes and the day is coming" (Fletcher
and La Flesche 1911:504-505). The words nieant
literally:
Night - moving - going.
Night - moving - going.
Night - moving - going.
Day - is - coming.
Day - is - coming.
Day - is - coming.
The young woman received the sun's power
when sire was a t a point on the earth's surface
directly berween the earth's centre and the highest point in the sun's heavenly arc. Her complement, the young man in the origin story, received

299

his power by recognizilrg the star around which

all others turn. Both boy and girl came into contact with powers beyond themselves when they
were centred in a ceremony. Through them, the
tribe as a whole became centred. A single centre
may be found in many places. The pole was a
centre that travelled as the people travelled. The
mark of horiour worn by a young woman was also
such a centre. Tlre young Inan found his centre
burning beneath the steady star around which
the star-world reeled as he watched it, amazed
tllrough the night. The young woman found hers
in the sound of all living things like a great wind
aligned with her body between earth and sky at
the centre of the Huthuqa.
Vision comes through a shift in ~erspective.
The young man's lonely vigil through the night
showed him how stars circle around a siligle point
of light among their multitude. The trees heneath that central star burned itself into his
mind. The night force and his isolation revealed
t,liis sky-world t o him. "The whole tree, its trunk,
branches, and leaves, were alight, yet remained
unconsumed." But by day, "the briglitliess of the
tree began to fade, u~itilwith the rising of the
sun t,he tree with its foliage resumed its natural
appearance" (Fletcher aird La Flesche 1911:217).
The yout~gwoman gained her shift in perspective by day when the sun was at the highest point ill its arc. During tlte tat,tooii~gshe
"strove to make no sound or outcry" (FIetcher
and LaFlesclr 1911:506). The sharp rattle of the
serpent-tailed flint, "representative of the teeming life that 'moves', it is said, 'makes a noise',
as does the living wind in the trees" (Fletclier
and La Flesche 1911:506). The fonr points of the
tattooed star stood for "the life giving winds into
the midst of which the child was sent tlrrough the
cerenlorly of Turning the Child" (Fletcher aud La
Flesche 1911:505). The symbols of night and day
were aligned with the young woman's face, her
body, even t l ~ epart in lrer hair. As the tattooirig
was completed, people sang the following words:
Yonder unseen is one moving
Noise
Yonder unseen is one moving
Noise
For that reason - over the eart
h Noise
Yonder unseen is one moving
Noise
Yonder unseen is one moving
Noise
The cry of the living creatures

ETHArlCITY AND CULTURE

300

THE OMAHA TODAY

identity that has acquired racial associations, American Indians represent one of
the major intractable groups among the
culturally deprived (Mead 1932:xvi).

T h e O m a h a came t o the middle Missouri from

a place t h a t was "near a large body of water, in a
wooded country where there was game" (Fletcher
O~m a hha people
and La ~
f 1911:70).
~
~~
~h
~& ~ his- ~
~ in~ t h e ~late 'nineteenth
~
h ceutury
~
experienced
the
failure
of
a
resource
t h a t had
toric period they moved extensively. Even after taking u p residence in earth lodge villages sustained tflem for generations. BY 1930 they
like those of the other Missouri River tribes, the were suffering considerable Poverty and deprivaO m a h a continued t o move a s a single tribal unit tion. They were not, ]lowever, a broken culture.
during t h e allnua1 buffalo hunt. Their c a m p cir- T h e identity t o which they were "emotionally
cle, t h e ~ ~ t wash divided
~ ~illto~llorthern
,
and bound" was not, archaic. Tlreir core identity was
southern moieties called sky people and eartlr as a tribe of people committed t o devising "some
people. It was open t.o t h e east like t h e tipi of means by which the bands of the tribe nlight b e
a single family. "Through i t , t h e people went kept together aud the tribe itself saved from exill quest of game, and through it tlrey re- tinction". During the ceutury t h a t followed their
turlled with tlleir supply of food, as
ellters settling down in and around the reservation town
the door of one's home" (Fletcher a n d L a Flesche of Macy, Nebraska, t h e O m a h a have been redefing of symbols by which tlre tribe has saved
1911:137-138). Like the sacred ~ o l e t,h e Huthuya i ~ a~set
represented the essence of O m a h a identity. Like itself from extinction.
Whell I visited t h e tribe and spoke t o them
the pole, t h e Huthuyabecame anachronistic when
a
t
the 155th annual pow-wow in the summer of
the buffalo disappeared.
1985,
I learned t h a t the tribe has been successful
A tribe
renew t h e ,,ision of its identity
in
renewing
tire vision of i t s identity. T h e name
in perspective, ~f~~ o m a h a of a
through a
century ago faced a critical challenge a s the fun- of Xethezc continued t o represent "the idea of
d a n ~ e n t a lsymbols of their identity became ob- bringing into prominence t o b e seen by all t h e
solete. They were expected t o settle down, to people as something distinctive," in the form of
become farmers, a n d t o a d o p t t h e culture and t h e Inark of honour. I was introduced to Hevalues of their white rreighbours. They were l m G r a n t Walker and Maggie Johnson, two old
believe whitemen". u r o ~ n e nwho had received t h e mark when they
expected to become
When Margaret Mead studied tlre O m a h a (whom were girls. Mrs. Walker expressed her pride and
she called t h e Antlers) in 1930, she described t h a t of t l ~ etribe when she exclaitned, "My father
them as being marginal t o urhite culture and still paid a hundred horses." Both wonlen were given
very much l,,dian, at least emotionally, s h e felt public honour in the consecrated pow-wonr arena.
Tile O m a h a of long ago devised symbols t o
t h a t this emotiollal Indian identity contributed to
their disadvantage. From her perspective, they keep tllemselves together a s a tribe during peappeared to be Yculturally deprived* and a qbro- riods of n ~ i g r a t i o n . For more than a hundred
ken culture" (h,lead l g 3 ~ : i ~ - ~ is ih)e. wrote tllat: years, tlreir challenge has been t o travel as a tribe
tlrrough time rather than from one place t o anThose individual Indians who have been
other. Women bearing tlre mark of honour have
able to seize some opportunity to enbeen wit11 them throughout these years. Today,
ter the majority culture - who have obthe Huthuga has been replaced by the pow-wow
tained an adequate education and have
made a career in the modern world arena i n Macy, Nebraska. It is a circle of oak
succeed as other Americana do, on an
trees, open t o t h e east. T h e circle has been creindividual basis. But others remain tied
ated by selective cutting over t h e years. A Bagthrough their self-definition to s childpole stands a t its centre, symbolic of tile ancient
hood way of life that binds them to
sacred pole. In this consecrated place, tlre tribe
the reservation. And still others retreat
gathers in ceremony once a year. O n a bright
before outsiders' definitions of them ss
day, the arena appears t o be "nrottled as by shadalien in race and, therefore, alien as huows". When I attended the 1985 pow-wow, I was
man beings. Where by definition Indiasked t o speak t o t h e tribe gathered in the sa;
ans are set apart and exist, in their recred arena. I told them, "As I was watching the
lations t o the world, not as individuals
pow-wow for the last few days I noticed how the
but as an undifferentiated group, they
sky changes. Sometimes it's light and sometimes
do not share in modern American culture. Emotionally bound to an archaic
it's dark, and sometimes right here in the centre

Ridington/ETHNICITY AND CULTURAL SURVIVAL

of t,his arena, there was a balance of light and

dark. And then I t h o r ~ g l ~about
t
that the name
(Xetheze) also refers to a balance of people that
make up this tribe, the Omaha people. And so
that name seems to me to refer to soxnethil~gthat
is the life at the heart of this tribe."
Recently, the Olnal~a have revived the
Hethu'shka or warrior society.
According to
Fletcher and La Flesche (1911:459), "It is said
that, the object in establishing the Hethu'shka
society was to stimulate an heroic spirit anlong
the people and to keep alive the memory of historic and valorous acts". In the modern context,
these objectives of the society are being realized
through a renewal of interest in ancient traditions. A member of the society, Dennis Hastings, has been active as an arcliivist locating and
collecting photogmphs and documents pertaining t o Omaha history. Some of this work was
done in collaboration with the Anlerican Folklife
Center of the Library of Congress. The collaboration resulted in a handsomely illustrated album
of remastered wax cylinder recordir~gsof Omaha
by Francis La Flesche.
music collected origi~~ally
During the 1985 poxv-wow, the album was presented with full cerenrony to the tribe and to each
of the elders.
The lnoder~rHethu'shka society is maintaining
" a p o i ~ rof
t view whence to study, as from the center, the ceremonies connected with these articles
and their relation to the autonomy of the triben
(Fletcher and La Flesche 1911:222). The modern
pow-wow provides an opportunity for the Omaha
to come together as a tribe. Although the Pole
and the Mark of Honour are no longer central
symbols of tribal unity, the tribe itself is strong
and coherent. It is bringing back old traditions as
these fit into co~rternporarylife. Far from being
a "broken culture" or a "vanishing Indian tribe",
the Omaha have managed t o "devise some means
by which the bands of the tribe might be kept together and the tribe itself kept from extinction".
REFERENCES CITED
Fletcher, Alice C. and Francis La Flesche
1911 The Omaha Tribe. Bureau of American Ethnology 27th Annual Report, Wnslrington, D.C.
Mead, Margaret
1932 The Changing Culture of an Indian Pibe.
Columbia University Press, New York.

ETHNIC PERSISTENCE AND IDENTITY:

THE MATERIAL CULTURE OF UKRAINIAN
ALBERTANS
Heinz Pyszczyk
A r c l ~ a e o l ~ ~ iSurvey
cal
of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta

INTRODUCTION
In this paper 1 will ilrvestigate the meaning of
the concept cornmo~llyreferred t o as "etl~nicity",
and the applicability it has t o arcllaeological research. An etlrnic group can b e defined as:

. . . a reference group invoked by a people

who share a common historical style (which
may only be assumed), based on overt features and values, and who, through the
process of interaction with others, identify
t h e n ~ s e l v ~ass sharing that style. Ethnic
identity is the sum total of feelings on the
part of group ~nernbers about those values, symbols, and common histories that
identify them as a distinct group (PetersonRoyce 1982:18).
Ethnic identity is based on stable relations
which are maintaiaed, l ' . . . on the basis of dichotomized ethnicity; t h a t is, a dicl~ototnybetween 'we', t,he people, a n d everyone else in
the
who are
(Kelly and Kelly
1980:134). I have used the two words, "persistence" and "identityn in the paper title t o emphasiee t h a t I believe there are two specific aspects of ethnicity. Persiste~rceis taken from the
title of tlre study of Ukrainians by Hobart et al.

and refers
Ineanings, a n d beliefs t h a t make the group distinct.
Identity refers t o the self-consciousness of the
may 'lave 'lread)'
lost mally
'lhnic group,
of tlreir traditional cultural values or beliefs, but
still retain a strong historic identity. I will argue t h a t these two parts of ethnicity are related
differently t o material cnlture.
First, however, I will begin tlre discussion by
questions which are germane t o considerarcllaeolation of ethnicity in anthropology
ogy.

l. W h a t criteria are most important t o define

the ethnic group?
2, ls tile degree of ethrlic persistence of a particular ethrlic group
3.. w h a t factors are resDonsible for cllallRes in
ethnicity?
4. Hou, is the change in et,lrnicity related t o
forms of ~ u a t e r i a lculture?
T h e last question is perllaps t h e most import a u t one in archaeology. However, without. prior
consideration and understanding of t h e other
questions, t h e investigation of ~ u a t e r i a lcultllre
and ethnicity becomes a dangerous adventure
into the unknown. Tlris is d u e t o an assumptin11 con~monlyheld in archaeology that. cl~alrges
in the attributes o r form of material culbure are
related t o cl~angesin the degree of etlluic persistence. Many anthropologists (i.e., Kelly atrd
Kelly 1980:135, warn against the use of such a
simplistic relationship. Other relationsllips between ethnicity and material culture may exist,
such as:
1. some forms of material culture change b u t
the values and beliefs of the group re111ain t,he
same;
2. some forms of material culture r e n ~ a i nt h e
the values and beliefs of tile group
same
change.
the additiorl of derailed doculnentary information in historical archaeology,
tionships, t,ogether with explanations for their
existence, can be nlore t l ~ o r o u g h linvestigat,ed
~
(McGuire 1982; Kelly and Kelly 1980).
T h e purpose of t,lris paper is t o investigate t h e
four questions posed above, a11d the in~plications
they lrave for the arclraeological iuquiry of ethnic
groups. I will examine the first three questions
only briefly, a n d the last question, regarding t h e
relationship betweell material culture a n d ethnic~~~

304

ETHNICITY AND CULTURE

Ethnic criteria are those that the group feel

ity, more extensively. My data base will refer to
one of the most unique ethnic groups to have mi- they have in common and make them distinct
grated to western Canada - tlre Ukrainian immi- from others; these are not necessarily what othgrants who began to settle much of the Canadian ers feel are the most important ethnic criteria
prairies during the latter part of tlre 19th century. to define that group. For example, Pohorecky
(1984:131) found that both Ukrainians and nonBACKGROUND
Ukrainians agreed upon whiclt types of criteria
are important indicators of Ukrairlia~rethnicity
A review of the history of Ukrainian Albertans (Table 1). But both groups ranked the relative
indicates that these people formed a distinct eth- importance of these criteria differently. With the
nic group, possessing common lristory, values and exception of food, the order of importance is tolifestyle. The migration of Bukovinian and Gali- tally reversed.
cian immigrants into east-central Alberta began
The results of these, and other studies indicate
in the 1890s. These settlers continued t o practice that many criteria are important to distinguish
the traditional peasant farming lifestyle of east- an ethnic group, and that not all indicators are
ern Europe; there are still many remnants of that equally important. Measurement of the rate of
past to be seen in the Alberta countryside today. overall ethnic change can be misleading, if based
The persistence of U k r a i ~ ~ i aculture,
~r
even on only one ethnic indicator. Presumably, also
among the third and fourth generations, has been the set of material culture, related to each crilargely attributed to the ability of Ukrainian terion, will change at different rates, reflected by
Canadians t o maintain close social relationships their relative frequency or a change in their form.
with one another. Such ties are believed to have It is therefore also misleading to base the degree
led to the maintenance of Ukrainian language, of ethnic loss or change on only a few items of
lifestyles, and religious beliefs. This rich histori- material culture (e.g., arrowheads). As an excal context is ideal for examining these and other ample to support this statement, the forms and
reasons that have been proposed for both t,he per- frequencies of Ukrainian houses and churches are
sistence of Ukrainian culture and retention of a examined.
Ukrainian identity.
Traditionally Ukrainian houses and churches
were very distinct architecturally in Canada, reMETHODOLOGY
sembling the style of ttiose in eastern Europe.
Many important studies about Ukrainian his- Each building type is related to a different segtory and culture lrave been undertaken in tlre last ment of Ukrainian culture, and there is every
20 years. Perhaps two of tlre most extensive of indication that the form and frequency of each
these studies are by Darcovich and Yueyk (1980) structure has changed a t a different rate. By
and Hobart et al. (1962). I will refer to some the third generation, Ukrainian houses had lost
of their results and discuss the implications they most of the visible architectural attributes that
have for the study of archaeological ethnicity, es- were distinctly Ukrainian (Lehr 1976). The
pecially of the relationship between ethnicity and clrurches, however, still retained some traditional
material culture. My other sources of d a t a iu- attributes, although these bad evolved into a
clude the extant Ukrainian buildings in Alberta more ge~reralisedform (Zuk 1984). In this examand many old photographs of past tJkrainian ar- ple, two architectural functional types are changchitecture and lifestyles. Until more archaeolog- ing at different rates, but are they monitoring
ical information is gathered from old Ukrainiau the rates of changes in the related segment of
honlesteads in Alberta, these data must suffice Ukrainia~rvalues and beliefs? Apparently they
for inferences regarding possible patterning in the are, as the results from surveys conducted by Hobart et al. (1962:384) demonstrate. Not only do
archaeological record.
Ukrainians rank the relative importance of their
ethnic criteria, but the relative rate of change in
RESULTS
each criterion reflects that ranking. Apparently,
The results of this study are divided into four the rate of change in the traditional Ukrainian
sections, according to the questions prese~itedat techno-economic sphere is much faster than in
the ideological sphere. For example, 32% of
the beginning of the paper.
1. What criteria are co~lsideredmost impor- the third generation Ukrainians think "getting
ahead" is the most important value, compared
tant to define and ethnic group?

Pyssczyk/ETHNIC PERSISTENCE AND IDENTITY

-

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6

Etic
Item
Food
Dance
Song
Wedding
Religion
Relieion

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Emic
Item
Food
Language
Religion
Art
Wedding
Song
Dance

tA

Table 1: Table 1: Relative Importance of Ukrainian Ethnic Criteria.

to 13% of first generation Ukrainians. Only 6%
of third generation Ukrainians tliouglit religion
was the most important, as opposed to 15% of
first generation Ukrainians. The results of these
studies lead t o the second question.
2. Is Ukrainian cultural persistence changing?
According to a survey (Hobart et al. 1962),
Ukrainian Albertans feel strongly about abandoning some of their traditional customs and
lifestyles, and less so about others. But the figures indicate that regardless of whether they wish
to maintain traditional customs, there is a continual decline in the strength, or change, of traditional etliriic values from first to third generation
IJkrainians. However, the rates of clrange of particular customs and values are not the same. For
example, the rate of inter-marriage has steadily
incrrased, from approxin~ately 13% in 1921 to
61% by 1971 (Hobart et al. 1962:734). Traditional religious beliefs have continually declined,
from 79% in 1931 to 52% by 1971 (Darcovich
ancl Yuzyk 1980:175). The rate of church attendance by Ukrainians has also decreased, from
40% by the first ge~ierationto only 24% by tlie
third generation (Hobart et al. 1962). There
is also some indication that the rate of decline is
faster in urban khan in rural communities, adding
yet another variable to consider when measuring
rates of ethnic change (Hobart et al. 1962). Finally the degree of social interaction with other
Ukrainians (e.g., inter~uarriage,friends) is also
declining. These are all indications that Ukrainians are losing 111any of the traditional values and
customs. But are they losing their identity or
self-consciousness as a group? There are many
signs in Alberta that suggest that they are not.
In central Alberta, for example, the number of visible Ukrainian symbols would lead one
to think that traditional Ukrainian culture is
strong arid healthy; what better examples of this

could there be than a house-sized model of the

world's largest Easter egg at Vegreville and tlie
Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Village near Edmonton. As some very important aspects of traditional Ukrainian customs and social relations
between Ukrainians are decreasing, others seem
to be flourishing. Is there an inverse relationship
between the degree of cultural persistence and
the use of material symbols to maintain a strong
identity? Obviously, not all forms of material culture are important in this regard, since the traditional Ukrainian houses and chiirches are gradually disappearing from the Alberta landscape.
Other studies shed more light on the relationship between material culture symbols and ethnic identity. Isajiw (1984) demonstrated that
the aspects that third generation Ukrainians retained and valued most were Ukrainian food
(over 82%), food/festivities (roughly 62%) and
art/dress (about 45%); retention of other customs were considered less important. The most
popular groups of items are also those that
non-Ukrainians identify with Ukrainian ethnic
groups. They are the easiest traits to retain,
in terms of the cultural knowledge that must
be transmitted fro111 one generation to the next.
They are tlie most visible, the least complex, slid
are available to all members of Ukrainian society, making tliem most suitable to denote historic ties to traditional Ukrainian culture. But,
perhaps as important as these characteristics, is
tlie fact that these symbols interfere least with
personal advantage to be gained in the cultural
system of the host society, because they are liked
rnost by the host society. The use of some parts
of one's cultural heritage as an adaptive strategy has bee11 documented in other societies as
well (Peterson-Royce 1980). By retaining these
items there is still loyalty to Ukrainian culture
'in the abstract", but a decreasing loyalty (less

306

interaction) to the group as a whole (Hobart et

al. 1962). It is also apparent that these retained
features certainly are not the items that are capable of measuring the persistence of Ukrainian values and the assimilation of Ukrainians into Canadian society. Traditional houses and churches
are much better for that. Apparently, Ukrainian
identity and pride become stronger while the underlying traditional customs disappear.
What generalizations can be made regarding
the relationship between material culture and
ethnicity, from the two exarnples of Ukrainian
material culture presented here? Material culture can be divided into two major groups (and
maybe even more). Changes in stylistic attributes of the first set, such as houses and
churches, measure the contillual decline in the
inlportance of traditional economic, social, aud
ideological institutions of the ethnic group. This
is one set of material goods that is related more
to the separate cultural subsystems of the ethnic
group. This change in persistence can be measured by a gradual change in the form of material
culture. Today's Ukrainian churches, even when
they are designed by Ukrainians, d o not resemble
those of the 1930s or early 1900s, but they still
have such features as a simplified, stylized church
dome, which has some resenlblance to the original
Ukrainian church domes. A continual change in
dome styles and a reduction in the size of domes,
may denote a decrease in the importance, or understanding of the firmament in Ukrainian religion, for which the dorne has such an important
connection. Predictably, the retention of even
the simplified Gothic dome in Ukrainian churches
will last as long as some meaning and significance of the firmament in Ukrainian region is retained. Thus, it is postulated that cultural meaning and significance are very closely connected
to any stylistic changes that might occur in this
set of material culture. In this example, stylistic
change is a function of cultural persistence, and
not of cultural identity.
The second gronp of material culture (e.g.,
food, dress, etc.) allows Ukrainians t o redain an
identity with the traditional historic society. The
designs of these items remain relatively constant,
regardless of how the values of the group change.
The group can be pnrged, or totally fragmented
geographically , yet may, for example, celebrate
the traditional holidays in the same manner.
This consistency in ritual, and related material
culture, must remain constar~tand general to be
of any use as an ethnic indicator (Wiessner 1984).

ETHNICITY AND CULTURE

It may be used to denote distinctiveness from

others and affiliation with fellow members, either
because of prejudice from outsiders, or as a strategy for economic gain. It may become more or
less pronounced as the need arises. This type of
cultural identity, and related material culture, is
a social strategy.
Tllis brings us to the third major question.
3. What factors are responsible for the maintenance of ethnic identity or persistence of ethnic
values and beliefs?
There are really two questions here, as the
above discussion has already demonstrated. The
first question asks whether Ukrainians are maintaining a strong identity or link to their past, regardless of t,lte other changes in their society, and
the second question asks what factors are responsible for the change in traditional Ukrainian values and beliefs. One question is about 'culture
in the abstract" (maintained primarily with material symbols) and the other refers to 'culture
in the real" (see Wiessuer 1984 and Sackett 1982
for the debate on the isochrestic and iconological
view of style and material culture).
It has been suggested that the reluctance of the
host society t o allow an ethnic minority access to
resources or power will cause that group t o maintain its traditional values and beliefs; the group
forms and retains a prestige-power system of its
own in which traditional values and beliefs may
become important (McGuire 1982). The results
from the Ukrainian data (from Darcovich and
Yuzck 1980:392) indicate that Ukrainian Canadians have continually improved in the Canadian political and economic sectors. Of the total
elected menlbers to the Alberta provincial legislature, only 3% were Ukrainians in 1910 compared to 29% in 1975. The number of Ukrainians
in professional or managerial positions rose from
l%in 1921 to 14% by 1971 (Darcovich and Yuzck
1980). Thus, the barriers preventing greater potential assimilation are slowly eroding. However,
Hobart et al. (1962) found that the single-most
important factor for an increased tendency toward acculturation was education. Traditional
values and beliefs are discarded at a much taster
rate as education increases, regardless of income
or generation (Hobart et al. 1962). Presumably,
education serves to transmit the values and beliefs of the host society through literature and
perhaps greater interaction with non-Ukrainians.
Varying degrees of interaction do not appear
to be useful to explain cultural transmission and
loss of ethnic values and beliefs. For example, the

Pyszczyk/ETHNIC PEXSISTENCE AND IDENTI'I'Y

data show that the loss of some Ukrainian values

is greatest in Willingdon, Alberta, where interaction of Ukrainians with otlier Ukrainians is much
higher (94%) than in Edmonton (38%) (Hobart
et al. 1962). The greater ethnic awareness
or identity of Edmonton Ukrainians fits Barth's
(1969) boundary model quite well. This model
suggests that because tlie greatest iuteraction
with non-Ukrainians occurs in Edmonton, tensions and the realization that one is different from
others will be more apparent. Rural Ukrainians
are ]rot reminded of their ethnic identity as often
as urban Ukrainians, even though they may iuteract more with other Ukrainians. Unfortunately,
the material culture data are presently not available to determine wliether "ethnic syn~bols",or
culture "in the abstract", are Inore predominarit
in the urban Ukrainian population.

CONCLUSIONS
To conclude, tlie fourth and final question
posed in the beginning of the study, regarding
how ethnicity is related t o the form, frequency
and use of material culture, has been answered
throughout the paper.
I have deliberately avoided elaborating upon
the controversy presently surrounding "stylen in
material culture and "ethnicity" (Sackett 1982;
Wiesslrer 1984). The background and history of
that controversy is long and conrplex, and therefore, cannot be addressed in this study. However, the results of this study have some very obvious implications to material culture style and
ethnicity. I feel that a strictly iconological approach to style and ethnicity explains formal variatiorr in some types of material culture, but not
for other types. Yes indeed, there seems to be
greater conscious investment in the symbolic conteat of some items of material culture to reflect,
as Sackett puts it, Uself-conscioussocial groups",
or ethnic identity. But no, this does not apply t o stylistic change in a11 types of material
culture. The second group of stylistic change,
for example, that are found in Ukrainian houses
and churches, is truly an "ethnic idiom" (Sackett 1982:59). In other words, it is indicating an
emphasis o r change in the values, meanings or
beliefs found in the ethnic group.
The implications for the archaeological investigation of material culture and ethnicity are clear.
The best indicators of ethnic acculturatio~rare
those types of material culture that are most
closely associated with each of the subsystems of
that group; original attributes will measure the

307

rate of change in those subsystems (i.e., change in

traditional house styles measures changes in the
techno-economic sphere, while changes ia traditional church styles measure changes in the ideological sphere of society). The best indicators
of ethnic self-consciousness or identity, are those
items that are highly visible and general, maintaining a high degree of consistency. They denote
an increase in identity by becoming more prominent (either in frequency or size), more uniform,
more stable and generalized in their form. But
they can be totally independent of the degree of
traditional values remaining in that society. And
therein lies the danger for archaeology.
REFERENCES CITED
Barth, Frederick (editor)
1969 Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Little, Brown,
Boston.
Darcovich, William and Paul Yuzyk
1980 A Statistical Compendium on Ukrainians in
Canada, 1891-1976, University of Ottawa
Press, Ottawa, Ontario.
Hobart, C.W., W.E. Kalbach, J.T. Borhek, and
A.P. Jacoby
1962 Persistence and Change: A Study of Ukrainians
in Alberta. The Canadian Centennial Series,
Ukrainian Research Foundation, Edmonton.
Iszjiw, Wsevolod W.
1984 Symbols and Ukrainian Canadian Identity:
Their Meaning and Significance. In Visible
Symbols, edited by Manoly R. Lupul, pp. 119128. Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies,
Edmonton.
Kelly, M.C.S. and R.E. Kelly
1980 Approaches to Ethnic Identification in Historical Archaeology. In Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicity in America, edited by Robert
L. Schuyler, pp. 133-144. Baywood, Farmingdale, New York.
Lehr, John
1976 1Jkmininn Vernacular Architecture in Alberta.
Historic Sites Service. Occasional P a ~ e No.
r 1.
Edmonton.
h?cGuire, Randall
1982 The Study of Ethnicity in Historical Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
1:159-178.
Peterson-Royce, Anya
1980 Ethnic Identity.
Bloomington.

Indiana University Press,

Pohorecky, Zenon
1984 Ukrainian Cult,ural and Polit,ical Symbols ia
Canada: An Anthropological Selection. In
Visible Symbols, edited by Manoly R. Lupul,
pp. 129-141. Canadian Institute of Ukrainian
Studies, Edmonton.
Sackett, Jaines R.
l982 Approaches to Style in Lithic Archaeology.
Journnl of Anthropoloyical Archaeology 1:59112.
Vi'iessner, Pollp
1984 Reconsidering the Behavioral Basis for Style: A
Case Study Anlong the Kalahari San. Journal
ofAnlhropoloyica1 Archaeology 3:190-234.
Zuk, Radoslav
l984 Endurance, Disappearance and Adaptation:
Ukrainian Material Culture in Canada. In Visible Symbols, edited by Manolp R. Lupul, pp. 314. Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies,
Edmonton.