DOMESTIC CORPORATE GROUPS: AN ETHNOGRAPHIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF HOUSEHOLDS, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND COMMUNITIES By Alexandra Organek Conell A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Anthropology—Doctor of Philosophy 2021 ABSTRACT DOMESTIC CORPORATE GROUPS: AN ETHNOGRAPHIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF HOUSEHOLDS, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND COMMUNITIES By Alexandra Organek Conell In many different cultures throughout history, humans have chosen to live and work cooperatively, arranging themselves into domestic corporate groups. However, these domestic corporate groups are not identical in their nature or operation. For instance, the ways in which communities organize their domestic corporate groups, manage access to property and resources, and accomplish daily tasks vary between cultures and over time, as people simultaneously adapt to and shape the world in which they live. In this research, I combine ethnographic and archaeological evidence to examine this variation in the nature and operation of domestic corporate groups, as well as how those groups change over time. I first assess cross-cultural variation in the nature and operation of domestic corporate groups, as well as changes in those groups over time by analyzing historical ethnographic data on thirteen different variables related to corporateness. To achieve a broad regional perspective on this variation, I examine villages in five different North American culture areas: members of the multi-tribal affiliation of the Haudenosaunee in the Eastern Woodland Area; several tribal groupings within the North Pacific Coast Area; the exemplar cultures of the Pawnee and the Mandan in the Plains Area; the exemplar culture of the Navajo in the Southwestern Area; and the village residential unit of Tzintzuntzan in the Nahua Area. Ethnographies of the Boasians form the foundation of this component of my research. From the ethnographic data, then, I develop a model for distinguishing between different organizational types of domestic corporate groups, as well as how they change through time. I also establish archaeological correlates for each of the organizational types in my model. Finally, I conduct a preliminary test of the appropriateness and sufficiency of a selection of these archaeological correlates. I analyze several aspects of village and household organization, including nondomestic community buildings, household clusters, storage facilities, and food preparation and consumption facilities for three Wendat archaeological sites in southern Ontario: the Late Middleport Alexandra Site in Toronto (AkGt-53; A.D. 1390-1420), the Late Protohistoric Molson Site in Barrie (BcGw-27; A.D. 1580-1600), and the Late Protohistoric to Early Historic Mantle Site in Whitchurch-Stouffville (AlGt-334; A.D. 1596-1618). Ultimately, through its combination of ethnographic and archaeological evidence, my research supports the value of and potential for identifying variation in domestic corporate groups using archaeological evidence. It is my hope that my research will provide a useful foundation for future research on further refining our understanding of variation and change in domestic corporate groups and how they may be identified archaeologically. Copyright by ALEXANDRA ORGANEK CONELL 2021 "I didn't choose anthropology, anthropology chose me. Anthropology and I, we were made for one another." ~George Foster This work is dedicated to my family: Donna, Robert, Jonathan, Joseph, Frances, Eleonora, and George v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many people assisted in the development of the ideas within this dissertation and helped them progress and come to realization. First are members of the Department of Anthropology at Michigan State University. Our entering cohort at MSU facilitated discussions of research, keeping each of us stimulated and challenged. An invitation to participate in a recovery project in the City of Flint, Michigan, under the direction of Dr. Beverley A. Smith, University of Michigan-Flint, allowed me to early experience a connection with Native Americans that lived hundreds of years ago as the team recovered and reset to peace the remains of people accidentally disturbed by a housing renewal project. I am grateful to the Haudenosaunee, the native peoples of the Northwest Coast, the Pawnee and the Mandan, the Navajo, the Tzintzuntzeños, and the Wendat; information about their lives is foundational to my analysis. The support of my dissertation committee members has been immeasurable. They began to influence my graduate experience and career even before my committee was fully formed. Dr. Jodie A. O’Gorman led the excavations in Illinois that first introduced me to field work with MSU. Bonding forms strongly as an archaeology crew sweats in the sun while uncovering the past; bonding forms even more tightly as the team struggles to rescue equipment and vehicles from the fast-flooding Illinois River field camp. Dr. O’Gorman’s field work also provided invaluable opportunities to work with sophisticated instrumentation for Magnetometry and Ground Penetrating Radar; this training and an MSU class with Assistant Professor Dr. Remke L. Van Dam, Department of Geological Sciences, led to an once-in-a-lifetime archaeological field work experience in the astounding nation of Oman. Dr. William A. Lovis taught me the value of gray literature and statistics in research; I learned how deeply the research must go vi beyond superficial appearances and easy-to-access resources. My research assistantship with Dr. Lovis gave me important insights into the organization of archives, artifacts, and archaeological site reports, much of the last of which Dr. Lovis was inspired to move from gray to accessible literature. Dr. Susan Sleeper-Smith’s published works Women, Kin, and Catholicism: New Perspectives on the Fur Trade (2000) and Indian Women and French Men: Rethinking Cultural Encounter in the Western Great Lakes (2001) inspired me to critically examine the power and influence of women in trade as well as within their immediate circles of influence. My analysis of corporate groups within longhouses may be considered a derivation of that initial inspiration. Although Dr. Mindy J. Morgan was a later addition to my dissertation committee, her influence was felt even in a term at MSU during a linguistics class. As a linguistic anthropologist, Dr. Morgan provides a varied perspective to my research and analysis; however, the opportunity to observe her balance of a professional life with a personal life as early as my first term at MSU has left a lasting impression. My dissertation committee initially included Dr. Kenneth E. Lewis. Although Dr. Lewis retired from the MSU faculty early in my research, his focus on historical archaeology and the lessons I learned regarding classification of artifacts from his class are lasting; practicing classification with the attributes of the Barbie Doll phenomenon over the decades is a transferable skill. While I have so much for which to be grateful to my dissertation committee members, I am grateful to many others for their help and support. Two supportive women offering good counsel and listening ears during my journey are Dr. Sarah Surface-Evans, my instructor for North American Archaeology during my first year at MSU and now professor at Central Michigan University, and Dr. Megan M. McCullen, my colleague at Alma College and now vii Director of the Gordon L. Grosscup Museum of Anthropology, Wayne State University. Dr. Heather Walder, Honorary Fellow University of Wisconsin-Madison, has added important insights regarding analysis of artifacts of the Great Lakes Region as well as the research and writing process. Every summer Dr. Lynn Evans, Curator of Archaeology at Mackinac State Historic Parks, lifted my flagging spirits as we excavated together within the palisades of Colonial Michilimackinac, excavating the remains of a portion of the rowhouses within the Fort. More than the increased level of Vitamin D exposure and the opportunity to practice my yoga skills as I daily made my way to a deepening root cellar excavation, Dr. Evans provided continual intellectual support for my graduate school journey. For so many others I am thankful. Working with the staff at MSU’s Archives, especially my supervisor Sarah, exposed me to the intricacies of retention and maintenance of important MSU memories as well as assisting others with their own research. Special thanks for the assistance of staff of ProQuest Publishing Company especially Nicole Porter, Mark Dill, and Lindsey Morris. In the midst of the restrictions of the Covid-19 pandemic including the closing of libraries, they went to extra lengths to publish the 1975 dissertation of Denis Foley that had not been published previously but was important to providing data for my research. I could say that Dr. Mary Theresa Bonhage-Freund, my first anthropology professor during my undergraduate studies at Alma College, started me on my passage into archaeology with an assignment that required her students to “excavate” a fellow student’s trash basket. Dr. Freund over the years has frequently encouraged me to continue my pursuits in archaeology. My fascination with the field, however, was instigated by someone that suggested a cure for my skepticism about the value of the study of anthropology. She disagreed with my view and said viii that if I wanted financial help with pursuing my undergraduate degree, then I needed to take an anthropology course so that I could learn something about the topic. I took that introductory class and was hooked on the subject matter. Finally I am immensely grateful for the site reports authors, investigators, and field crew members for the intricate ethnographic analyses and archaeological investigations. The quality and detail of the reports of Archaeological Services, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, for the Alexandra and Mantle Sites were invaluable to this dissertation. Further, Dr. Heather E. Hatch, Collections Coordinator, Museum of Ontario Archaeology was of great assistance by facilitating my access to the museum’s collection of the Molson Site excavation’s original field notes and boxes of artifacts held in the museum’s repository. Here I am now and grateful to so many people and dedicate this to my family who supported me in innumerable ways. ix TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ………………..………………………………….……………….…...…… xiv LIST OF FIGURES ………………………………..……………..………..……………………xix CHAPTER 1: Introduction .………………..…………….………………………………………. 1 Introduction .…...……….……….......…………………….…………………….……..….… 1 Note on Cultural Names…………………...…………………………..…………………. 1 Research Problem ………………….……………………………….…………………..…… 2 Research Questions …………………………………………………….……………………. 3 Theoretical Underpinnings ………………………………………………………………….. 4 Approach to the Research Problem …………………………………………..….……….…. 5 Significance of the Research ………………………………………………………………… 9 Overview of the Dissertation ……….……………………………….….....…….….……… 12 CHAPTER 2: Corporate Household Dynamics at a Global Scale …………….…………...…… 16 Introduction ………………………...……………………………..….....…………………. 16 Foundations of Corporate Groups ……………………………………….…………………. 16 Variation in Corporate Groups …….…………….……………………………………….... 27 North America …………………………...……………………………………….…….. 27 Northwest Coast …………………………….………...…………………………….. 27 South America …………………………………………….………………………...….. 29 Brazil …………………………………………...…………………...………………. 29 Asia ………………………………………………………………………..……….…… 33 Philippines …………………………………………...……………...………….…… 34 Dayak of Borneo ………………………………………………….………....………. 35 Vietnam ……………………………………………………………...………..……... 36 Japan …………………………………………………….…………...……...……… 37 India ………………………………………………………………...……………….. 40 Summary ……………………………………………………………………………...…… 43 CHAPTER 3: Methodology ……………………………………………………………………. 57 Introduction ……………………………………………………..…………………….…… 57 Rationale ………………………………………………………..……………………….…. 57 Research Questions ………………………………………………………………………… 59 Methodology ………….…………...………………………...…………………………….. 59 Deductive Coding ……………………………………..……….…………………….…. 59 Culture Areas ……..…...………………………………………………….……….……. 61 Ethnographic Data ………………...…………………….…………….....…….………. 65 My Approach to the Ethnographic Data …..………………………...……...…..…... 65 Limitations of Historical Ethnographies …………………………….....………….… 69 Ethnographic Sources ………………………………..………….………..……….….… 71 (1) Eastern Woodland Area …………......……….…………....……………..…...….. 72 (2) North Pacific Coast Area ……..…………………..…………..………..……..….. 73 x (3) The Plains Area ……………………..…………..………....………….……..….... 76 (4) Southwestern Area …………………………….....….…..…………...…….…..… 77 (5) The Nahua Area ………………………………………..………..….…..….…...... 78 Modeling Domestic Corporate Groups ……………...………………………………….. 79 Applying the Model …………...………………………….………….……………….…. 81 CHAPTER 4: Ethnographic Analysis ………………………………………………………….. 85 Introduction …………………………………………………………..……………………. 85 Eastern Woodland Area ………………………..…...............……..………………….……. 87 North Pacific Coast Area ……………………..…………...........................………….……. 90 The Plains Area …………………………………..…….…………...………….…….…….. 94 Southwestern Area ………………………………………….………………...……….…… 97 The Nahua Area ………………...………………….…….............................……….……. 101 Characteristics of Corporate Groups in North America ……….………..…………..…….. 104 Community ………………………………………………...………………………… 104 Village ……………………………………………………….….………….…………. 105 Descent and Residence ………………………………………………………………... 106 House/Residential Structure ………………………….....…………………………….. 107 Household ………………………………...…………………………………………… 108 Access to Resources …………………………………………………..……………….. 109 Trade ……………………………………………………….………..…….….………. 110 Property ……………………………………...………......……………………………. 111 Storage ……………………………………………………………………..………….. 112 Labor ………………………………...……….………………..……………………… 113 Subsistence Production ……………………………………...………..……………….. 114 Non-subsistence Production …………………….……..……………………………… 115 Consumption ………………………………...……………………………..………….. 116 Summary …………………………….…..……….…….........………….….….…………. 117 The Descriptive Model ……………………………….…….…….………...…….…… 126 Domestic Corporate Groups ……………..……….…….………………………….. 128 Corporate Households ……….………….………………….……………...………. 129 Corporate Neighborhoods ……………………………….…………......………….. 130 Corporate Communities ………………………...….…………….……….…….…. 131 Modeling Change Over Time ……………………..………………….……………….. 131 CHAPTER 5: Modeling Corporate Group Dynamics Archaeologically ………………………. 134 Introduction ………………………………………………………………….…..……….. 134 Applications of Corporateness ……...………………..…………………………...………. 135 Tests of Corporateness …………………………………………..…………..……………. 144 Models of Corporateness ……………………………………………..…..………………. 152 The Model ….….……………….….…….…….…..……..…….………..….....…….….… 155 Domestic Corporate Groups ……………..……………...…………………………….. 157 Corporate Households ………………………………….…………………..……… 157 Round/Square House construction ………………………………..……………. 157 Longhouse construction ………………...………………………………………. 158 Corporate Neighborhoods ……….…………………….……….……...….……….. 158 xi Corporate Communities …………….…………….………….….….….…….……. 159 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 159 CHAPTER 6: Archaeological Case Study …………………………………………...……….. 161 Introduction ………………………………………………………………….....………… 161 The Great Lakes Region ………………..…………….…………………...………….…… 161 Nadowek ………………………...………………………..………………………………. 162 Wendat …………………………………………………………………..…………...…… 163 Wendat Households …………………………………………….……………..………. 167 Wendat Household Production, Storage, and Access to Resources ……..…...………... 171 Ontario Iroquoian Chronology ……………………………………….…….…………….. 175 Pre-Coalescence: Middleport Period (late fourteenth to early fifteenth centuries) …… 175 Coalescence (late fifteenth century) ………………..…………………………………. 176 Protohistory (mid to late sixteenth century)………………………..……..…………… 177 Case Study ……………………………………………...………………………..……….. 180 Wendat Households as Corporate Groups ………….………...……..……….…….….. 181 Expectations for Variation and Change in Wendat Corporate Groups ………..……… 182 Domestic Corporate Groups ………………….….…..…………………………… 183 Corporate Households ………………………………….………..……………….. 184 Pre-Coalescence ……………………….………………..…….…..…….…..….… 185 Coalescence …………………………………….……………..….…….………… 186 Protohistory ……………………………….…….……….………….….………… 187 Contact …………………………………………….……….…….…….………… 190 Testing the Model …………………………………………………………………...……. 191 Methodology ....................................................................................................................193 Communal Storage Facilities ...................................................................................194 Nondomestic Community Buildings ........................................................................ 195 Clusters of Households ............................................................................................ 196 Household Size and Layout ..................................................................................... 197 Ceramic Variation ................................................................................................... 199 Food Preparation and Food Consumption .............................................................. 200 Interpreting the Data ............................................................................................... 202 Archaeological Sites ………………...……………………………..………………….. 204 The Alexandra Site ……………………………………………………………….. 205 The Mantle Site ………………...…………………………………………………. 208 The Molson Site …………………………………………….…………………..… 213 Data ……………………………….……….……………………...…….………..…… 214 Data Analysis ………………………………………………………………………….. 217 Late Middleport Domestic Corporate Groups: The Alexandra Site ……………… 218 Household Sizes ………………………………………………………….……. 218 Village Organization ………………………………………………………….. 221 Corporate Neighborhoods: Intra-Neighborhood Organization ……….…….... 225 Northern Neighborhood ………………….…………………….….………. 226 Southeastern Neighborhood ……………….…………….…………….…... 231 Protohistoric Domestic Corporate Groups: The Mantle Site and Molson Site ...... 235 Household Sizes ……………………….……………………….………….….. 241 xii Village Organization ………………………………………………………….. 252 Corporate Household: Intra-Household Organization …..…..…...……...….... 259 Mantle Site House 13 …………………….…………………………….…... 267 Mantle Site House 3 ……………………………….…………………….…. 269 Mantle Site House 45 ……………………………….………………….…... 271 Mantle Site House 80 ……………………………….………………….…... 273 Mantle Site House 12 …………………………….…….……………….….. 275 Mantle Site House 14 ……………………………….…….……….……….. 277 Mantle Site House 18 ……………………………….……….……………... 278 Mantle Site House 20 ……………………………….…….………………... 280 Molson Site House 5 ……………………………….…………….………… 282 Molson Site House 6 ……………………………….………….…………… 284 Molson Site House 7 ………………………………….……….…………… 286 Molson Site House 9 ………………………….…….……….…..……….… 288 Conclusion ………………………………………….…………………….………………. 290 CHAPTER 7: Conclusions and Future Research ………………..………...………………….. 295 Introduction …………………………………………………..……………..……..……... 295 Interpretations and Discussion ………………………..………..…………….…………… 295 Significance ……………………..…………………………………………………..……. 305 Strengths and Challenges ……………………………………...…...……………….…….. 307 Future Research .…………………………………………………………………..…….... 309 Summary of Contributions ……………………………………………………………….. 311 APPENDICES ……………………………………………..………………………………….. 314 APPENDIX A: Eastern Woodland Area [Haudenosaunee] ….…....…..….….....…..…….. 315 APPENDIX B: North Pacific Coast Area [Northwest Coast] …..…...……...…..….…..…. 366 APPENDIX C: The Plains Area [Pawnee and Mandan] ……….....…..………...….…….. 463 APPENDIX D: Southwestern Area [Navajo] …………...…..………..……..…....….…… 511 APPENDIX E: The Nahua Area [Tzintzuntzeños] ………..……….…..…..…….….……. 590 APPENDIX F: Thirteen Characteristics of Corporate Groups in North America …...…..... 618 APPENDIX G: Alexandra Site Longhouse Attributes ………...…………...………..…… 694 APPENDIX H: Alexandra Site Longhouse Attributes—Contents ………..…..…..…..….. 696 APPENDIX I: Alexandra Site Longhouse Attributes—Ceramics ……..…..…..……...….. 700 APPENDIX J: Mantle Site Longhouse Attributes …..……...……..…..……..….….…….. 703 APPENDIX K: Mantle Site Longhouse Attributes—Contents ….……....……...…..…….. 708 APPENDIX L: Mantle Site Longhouse Attributes—Ceramics ……....….……..…..…….. 714 APPENDIX M: Molson Site Longhouse Attributes …………..…...…..……....…..…….. 720 APPENDIX N: Molson Site Longhouse Attributes—Contents ……..….……..……....….. 724 APPENDIX O: Molson Site Longhouse Attributes—Ceramics …...………..…..….……. 745 REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………………………...… 748 xiii LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Potential Characteristics Appearing in Corporate Groups …...……..………..…..….. 26 Table 2.2 Cultures Appearing in Global Survey …………………………………….…...…….. 43 Table 2.3 Potential Characteristics of Corporate Groups …………………..…………..……….. 44 Table 2.4 Characteristics of Corporate Groups within Global Survey …….……..….………….. 44 Table 2.5 Common Themes of Corporate Groups within Global Survey …………………..….. 46 Table 3.1 Variable Components of Corporate Groups ……….…………………..….….…...…. 60 Table 3.2 Aspects of the Boasian Approach ……………………………….….…..….….……... 67 Table 3.3 Eastern Woodland Area Ethnographic Data ………….………..……………...…....… 72 Table 3.4 North Pacific Coast Area Ethnographic Data …….…….…….………….…....…...… 75 Table 3.5 The Plains Area Ethnographic Data …………….….………….…..………...………. 77 . Table 3.6 Southwestern Area Ethnographic Data …..……….…….….……….…..…..…..…… 78 Table 3.7 Nahua Area Ethnographic Data ………….….….…..…….…..….…...…...……....…. 79 Table 4.1 Eastern Woodland Area [Haudenosaunee]—Cultural Characteristics ….…….…...…. 88 Table 4.2 North Pacific Coast Area [Northwest Coast]—Cultural Characteristics ……………. 92 Table 4.3 The Plains Area [Pawnee and Mandan]—Cultural Characteristics ……...…….…..…. 95 Table 4.4 Southwestern Area [Navajo]—Cultural Characteristics …..…...………………......…. 98 Table 4.5 The Nahua Area [Tzintzuntzeños]—Cultural Characteristics …………………..….. 102 Table 4.6 Community—Cultural Characteristics over Time …….…….………………..…..…. 105 Table 4.7 Village—Cultural Characteristics over Time ……….………….……….....….....…. 106 Table 4.8 Descent and Residence—Cultural Characteristics over Time ……………..…..….... 107 Table 4.9 House/Residential Structure—Cultural Characteristics over Time …….….....…..…. 107 xiv Table 4.10 Household—Cultural Characteristics over Time ……………….…………………. 108 Table 4.11 Access to Resources—Cultural Characteristics over Time ……………........…..…. 110 Table 4.12 Trade—Cultural Characteristics over Time ……………………………..….…..…. 110 Table 4.13 Property—Cultural Characteristics over Time ……………..……..……………….. 111 Table 4.14 Storage—Cultural Characteristics over Time ……………..……………………….. 113 Table 4.15 Labor—Cultural Characteristics over Time ……………………….…………...….. 113 Table 4.16 Subsistence Production—Cultural Characteristics over Time ………….…...…….. 115 Table 4.17 Non-subsistence Production—Cultural Characteristics over Time ………....…….. 116 Table 4.18 Consumption—Cultural Characteristics over Time ………………….……...…….. 117 Table 6.1 “Ontario Iroquoian Chronology for South-Central Ontario,” from Warrick 1990:189 .. ……………………………………………………………….…………....…………….……... 175 Table 6.2 Expectations for Domestic Corporate Groups of the Wendat …….…….…….......... 183 Table 6.3 Expectations for Corporate Households of the Wendat ………………………….... 184 Table 6.4 Alexandra Site—Longhouse Areas and Population Estimates …………………….. 221 Table 6.5 Neighborhoods Selected for Intra-Neighborhood Analysis ………………….…….. 226 . Table 6.6 Model Component and Archaeological Evidence—Houses 1, 7, and 10 …….……. 226 Table 6.7 Model Component and Archaeological Evidence—Houses 12 and 13 ……….….... 231 Table 6.8 Mantle Site—European Trade Goods …………………………………………….... 236 Table 6.9 Molson Site—European Trade Goods ……………………...……………………… 238 Table 6.10 Mantle Site—Longhouse Areas and Population Estimates ………………....…….. 247 Table 6.11 Molson Site—Longhouse Areas and Population Estimates ……………….……… 249 Table 6.12 Sample Variances—F-Test ……………………………………………………….. 250 Table 6.13 Sample Variances—T-Test ……………………………………………………….. 251 Table 6.14 Different Ceramic Types per House ……………………………………………… 265 xv Table 6.15 Sample Variances—F-Test ……………………………………………………….. 266 Table 6.16 Sample Variances—T-Test ……………………………………………………….. 267 Table 6.17 Houses Selected for Intra-Household Organization …………………...………… 267 Table 6.18 House 13 Model Component and Archaeological Evidence ……………………... 268 Table 6.19 House 3 Model Component and Archaeological Evidence ………………………. 269 Table 6.20 House 45 Model Component and Archaeological Evidence ………….…….….… 271 Table 6.21 House 80 Model Component and Archaeological Evidence ………...…………… 273 Table 6.22 House 12 Model Component and Archaeological Evidence ……………………... 275 Table 6.23 House 14 Model Component and Archaeological Evidence ……………………... 277 Table 6.24 House 18 Model Component and Archaeological Evidence ……………………... 278 Table 6.25 House 20 Model Component and Archaeological Evidence ……………………... 280 Table 6.26 House 5 Model Component and Archaeological Evidence ………………………. 282 Table 6.27 House 6 Model Component and Archaeological Evidence ………………………. 284 Table 6.28 House 7 Model Component and Archaeological Evidence ………………………. 286 Table 6.29 House 9 Model Component and Archaeological Evidence ………………………. 288 Table 6.30 Characteristics of the Eight Mantle Site Houses—Summary ……………..……… 291 Table B.1 “Table 1. Registered Indian Population, 1983,” from Inglis et al. 1990:287 ……… 368 Table B.2 “Table 1. Kwakiutl Population, 1835-1954,” from Codere 1990:367 ………….….. 371 Table B.3 “Table 1. Kwakiutl Band Population, 1983,” from Webster 1990:387 …………… 372 Table B.4 “Table 1. Nootkan Population, 1835-1984,” from Arima and Dewhirst 1990:408 .. 373 Table B.5 “Table 1. Tlingit Population, 1740-1930,” from de Laguna 1990:205 ……………. 375 Table B.6 “Table 1. Size of Haida Towns,” from Blackman 1990:257 ……………………… 382 Table D.1 “Table 4.2 Residence of Copper Canyon Couples, 1966,” from Lamphere 1977:78 …. …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 523 xvi Table D.2 “Table A—Size of Camps and Hogans, 1961,” from Shepardson and Hammond 1970: 246-247 ………………………................................................................................................... 533 Table D.3 “Table B—Composition of Camps, 1960-61,” from Shepardson and Hammond 1970: 248-257 ………………………………………………………………………………….….…. 534 Table D.4 “Table 4.1 Households in Copper Canyon,” from Lamphere 1977:75 ……………. 543 Table D.5 “Table 4.5 Classification of Copper Canyon Residence Groups,” from Lamphere 1977 :81 ………………………………………………………………………………....................... 545 Table D.6 “Appendix 4: Settlement Patterns in Three Copper Canyon Clans,” from Lamphere 1977:190-191 ………………………………………………………………………….………. 551 Table D.7 “Appendix 4: House-in-the-Rocks People,” from Lamphere 1977:195-196 ……... 555 Table D.8 “Appendix 4: Mountain-Recess People…Genealogy,” from Lamphere 1977:199-200. .………………………………………………………………………………………………… 558 Table D.9 “Table 6.3 Shearing Groups for Herds of More Than Seventy-five Adult Sheep,” from Lamphere 1977:117 …………………………………………………….…………………....... 580 Table F.1 Community Organization ........................................................................................... 619 Table F.2 Community Change, Pressure, Uncertainty ............................................................... 624 Table F.3 Village Nature ............................................................................................................. 627 Table F.4 Village Size and Density ............................................................................................ 628 Table F.5 Village Layout ............................................................................................................ 630 Table F.6 Descent and Residence Reckoning ............................................................................. 633 Table F.7 Descent and Residence Strategy ................................................................................. 634 Table F.8 House/Residential Structure ....................................................................................... 638 Table F.9 Household Size and Density ....................................................................................... 643 Table F.10 Household Membership ............................................................................................ 645 Table F.11 Household Leadership .............................................................................................. 648 Table F.12 Access to Resources Within and Outside Village ...................................................... 651 xvii Table F.13 Trade Items, Participants, and Methods .................................................................... 657 Table F.14 Property Ownership .................................................................................................. 661 Table F.15 Property Inheritance .................................................................................................. 664 Table F.16 Storage Contents ....................................................................................................... 667 Table F.17 Storage Location, Access, and Use ........................................................................... 668 Table F.18 Labor Division by Age and Sex ............................................................................... 671 Table F.19 Labor Cooperative .................................................................................................... 675 Table F.20 Subsistence Production ............................................................................................. 678 Table F.21 Non-subsistence Production Items and Participants ................................................. 683 Table F.22 Non-subsistence Production Training ....................................................................... 686 Table F.23 Consumption Location and Methods ........................................................................ 688 Table F.24 Consumption Food Distribution ................................................................................ 691 Table G.1 “Table 2: Alexandra Site House Variability,” from Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) 2008:7 ………………………………………………………………...….…….….…...…....… 695 Table H.1 Alexandra Site Longhouse Attributes—Contents ...................................................... 697 Table I.1 Alexandra Site Longhouse Attributes—Ceramics ....................................................... 701 Table J.1 Mantle Site Longhouse Attributes .............................................................................. 704 Table K.1 Mantle Site Longhouse Attributes—Contents ........................................................... 709 Table L.1 Mantle Site Longhouse Attributes—Ceramics .......................................................... 716 Table M.1 Molson Site Longhouse Attributes ............................................................................ 721 Table N.1 Molson Site Longhouse Attributes—Contents ........................................................... 725 Table O.1 Molson Site Longhouse Attributes—Ceramics .......................................................... 746 xviii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Map of Ethnographic Culture Areas, from Wissler 1922:219, modified by A. Conell ……………………………………………………………………………………………….…… 7 Figure 1.2 Locations of Archaeological Sites in this Research, map modified by A. Conell, from Tanner 1987:3 …………….….………………………….…….…………….……..…………..… 9 Figure 3.1 Map of Ethnographic Culture Areas, from Wissler 1922:219, modified by A. Conell …………………..………………………………………………………………….…………… 64 Figure 4.1 Map of Ethnographic Culture Areas, from Wissler 1922:219, modified by A. Conell …………………..……………………………………………………………………….……… 86 Figure 4.2 Descriptive Model of Domestic Corporate Groups …….……………..…………… 127 Figure 4.3 Descriptive Model of Change over Time in Domestic Corporate Groups …….…... 132 Figure 5.1 Descriptive Model of Domestic Corporate Groups …….…….….…....…..…...…… 156 Figure 6.1 Ancestral Iroquoian Settlement Locations within the Great Lakes Region, map modified by A. Conell, from Tanner 1987:3 ………………………….……………………...……..…… 162 Figure 6.2 “Figure 1: Northeastern North America showing major directions of material flow during the first half of the seventeenth century,” from Jamieson 1981:21 …………………..... 174 Figure 6.3 Location of Archaeological Sites in this Research, map modified by A. Conell, from Tanner 1987:3 …………………………………………………………..…………...…..…….. 205 Figure 6.4 Alexandra Site Longhouses, from ASI 2008:5 ……………………………………. 207 Figure 6.5 Mantle Site Plan, map modified by A. Conell, from ASI 2012:14 ………..………. 209 Figure 6.6 Mantle Site Longhouses and Palisades, map modified by A. Conell, from ASI 2012:97 ……………………………………………………………………………...……..……..…….. 212 Figure 6.7 Molson Site Longhouses, map modified by A. Conell, from Lennox 2000:7 ……... 214 Figure 6.8 Alexandra Site—House Areas (m²) ……………………………………………….. 219 Figure 6.9 Alexandra Site—House Population Estimates …………………………………….. 220 Figure 6.10 Alexandra Site Household Clusters, map modified by A. Conell, from ASI 2008:5 ……………….……….…….……..….……….….…..……...…………...…….……..….……. 224 xix Figure 6.11 Alexandra Site Houses 1 and 7 artifact distribution, map modified by A. Conell, from ASI 2008:8 ……………………………………………………………………………………. 230 Figure 6.12 Alexandra Site House 10 artifact distribution, map modified by A. Conell, from ASI 2008:34 ………………………………………………………………………………………... 231 Figure 6.13 Alexandra Site Houses 12 and 13 artifact distribution, map modified by A. Conell, from ASI 2008:36 ………………………………………………………………….………….. 235 Figure 6.14 Molson Site—Identifiable European Goods ……………………...……………… 240 Figure 6.15 Mantle Site—House Areas (m²) ………………………………………………..… 242 Figure 6.16 Mantle Site—House Population Estimates ………………………….…………… 245 Figure 6.17 Molson Site—House Areas (m²) ………………………………………………….. 248 Figure 6.18 Molson Site—House Population Estimates ………………………………………. 249 Figure 6.19 Longhouse Areas—Mantle Site vs. Molson Site ………………………………… 250 Figure 6.20 Mantle Site—Early Phase—Household Clusters, map modified by A. Conell, from ASI 2012:17 ……….….……….…….………..……..…….…….….…..….……..…..…..…… 256 Figure 6.21 Mantle Site—Late Phase—Household Clusters, map modified by A. Conell, from ASI 2012:18 …………………………………….………….…….…..…………….….…..…….…. 257 Figure 6.22 Molson Site Household Clusters, map modified by A. Conell, from Lennox 2000:7 …………………………………………………………………….……………....………....… 259 Figure 6.23 Mantle Site—Number of Different Ceramic Types per House …………………… 262 Figure 6.24 Molson Site—Number of Different Ceramic Types per House ………………….. 265 Figure 6.25 Ceramic Types per House—Mantle Site vs. Molson Site ………………………… 266 Figure 6.26 Mantle Site Houses 12 and 13 artifact distribution, map modified by A. Conell, from ASI 2012:33 …………………………………………………………………………………… 269 Figure 6.27 Mantle Site House 3 artifact distribution, map modified by A. Conell, from ASI 2012:24 ……………………………………………………………...………………………… 271 Figure 6.28 Mantle Site House 45 artifact distribution, map modified by A. Conell, from ASI 2012:61 ……………………………………………………………...………………………… 273 xx Figure 6.29 Mantle Site House 80 artifact distribution, map modified by A. Conell, from ASI 2012:85 ……………………………………………………………...………………………… 275 Figure 6.30 Mantle Site House 14 artifact distribution, map modified by A. Conell, from ASI 2012:29 ……………………………………………………………...………………………… 278 Figure 6.31 Mantle Site Houses 18 and 20 artifact distribution, map modified by A. Conell, from ASI 2012:38 …………………………………………………………………………………… 280 Figure 6.32 Molson Site House 5 artifact distribution, map modified by A. Conell, from Lennox 2000:24 ……………………………………………………………...………………………… 284 Figure 6.33 Molson Site House 6 artifact distribution, map modified by A. Conell, from Lennox 2000:30 ……………………………………………………………...………………………… 286 Figure 6.34 Molson Site House 7 artifact distribution, map modified by A. Conell, from Lennox 2000:33 ……………………………………………………………...………………………… 288 Figure 6.35 Molson Site House 9 artifact distribution, map modified by A. Conell, from Lennox 2000:39 ……………………………………………………………...………………………… 290 Figure 7.1 Descriptive Model of Domestic Corporate Groups …….…….......…….....….…..… 301 . Figure 7.2 Descriptive Model of Change over Time in Domestic Corporate Groups ….……… 304 Figure A.1 “Six Nations Neighborhoods circa 1900,” from Foley 1975:55 ………………….. 322 Figure A.2 “Six Nations Reserve,” Ontario, Canada, from Myers 2006:10 ……………….…... 324 Figure A.3 “Plate I. An Iroquoian Longhouse,” from Richter 1992:19 …………………...….. 329 Figure A.4 “Plate 22. Floor Plan of an Onondaga Longhouse, 1743,” from Richter 1992:261 ….. …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 330 Figure A.5 “Bark House” Exterior and Interior View, from Morgan 1954:2 ………………… 332 Figure A.6 “Plate XI” Log House, from Waugh 1916/1973:179/169 ………………………… 335 Figure A.7 “Plate VII Corn Crib, Grand River reserve, Ontario,” from Waugh 1916/1973:171/165 …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 352 Figure A.8 “Plate VIII Corn Crib, farm of Daniel Winnie, Grand River reserve,” from Waugh 1916/1973:173/166 ……………………………………………………………………….…… 353 Figure A.9 “Plate IX Corn Crib of poles, farm of Jacob Schuyler, Oneidatown, Ontario,” from Waugh 1916/1973:175/167 …………………………………………………………………… 354 xxi Figure A.10 “Plate X Winter caches or pits for vegetables, Grand River reserve,” from Waugh 1916/1973:177/168 …………………………………………………………………………….. 356 Figure B.1 “Fig 4. Bella Coola, B.C.,” from Kennedy and Bouchard 1990:327 …………….… 380 Figure B.2 “Plate 69 Khantaak Island and Martin Point, 1886,” from de Laguna 1972:986 ….. 387 Figure B.3 “Fig 2. Yakutat winter village where Chief Yanatchoo lived, Khantaak I., Alaska,” from de Laguna 1990b:207 ………………….……….….….………….….…………..………....….. 388 Figure B.4 “Plate 71, Village on Khantaak Island, Yakutat, 1889,” from de Laguna 1972:988 …. ……………………………………………………….………….…….……………………….. 389 Figure B.5 “Plate 82 The Old Village, Yakutat, 1915,” from de Laguna 1972:999 ………........ 390 Figure B.6 “Map 1. Plan of Klukwan village,” from Oberg 1973:58 ……….…….….……….. 391 Figure B.7 “Plate 83 the Old Village, 1915 or 1916, seen from the north,” from de Laguna 1972:1000 ……………………………………………………………………………………... 392 Figure B.8 “Plate 26 The Old Village, Yakutat, from the road to the Lagoon, June 1952,” from de Laguna 1972:943 ……………………………………………………………………………… 393 Figure B.9 “Fig. 4. Plan of an earth-lodge, showing the areas assigned to the beds of five families,” from Spier 1930:54 ……………………………………………………………………………. 395 Figure B.10 “Fig. 18. Plan and section of earth-lodge showing construction,” from Spier 1930:199 …………………………………………………………………………….………….….…….. 397 Figure B.11 “Fig. 19. Named parts of the house,” from Spier 1930:201 …….………….……. 398 Figure B.12 “Fig 3. Houses and Wealth Display, left. right, Interior of Chief Wiah’s house,” from Blackman 1990:243 …………………………………………………………………………… 399 Figure B.13 “Fig. 95, Plan of House,” from Boas 1909:415 ………………………………….. 402 Figure B.14 “Plate 68 Kayak, Wingham Island, Controller Bay, 1886,” from de Laguna 1972:985 …………………………………………………………………………………………….……. 411 Figure B.15 “Plate 84 Houses in the Old Village, Yakutat, 1912,” from de Laguna 1972:1001…. ………………………………………………………………………………………….………. 413 Figure B.16 “Plate 25 Yakutat homes, June 1952,” from de Laguna 1972:942 …………….…. 414 xxii Figure B.17 “Figure 27. --Residence in the icsaȧth house at Ehetisat in the late 1880’s,” from Drucker 1951:281 ……………………………………………………………………………... 418 Figure B.18 “Figure 28.—Residence in the tacīsȧth house at Kyuquot (1890-1900), and relationships of residents,” from Drucker 1951:284 ………………………………….……….. 419 Figure B.19 “Plate 127 Inherited Family Possessions,” from de Laguna 1972:1044 …………. 443 Figure B.20 “Plate 152 Harvey Milton wearing the Mount Saint Elias Blanket of the Kwackquan which he inherited from his uncle, Young George (1870-1915),” from de Laguna 1972:1069 .. 444 Figure B.21 “Figure 3. The relative amounts of time spent each month on the storage activities,” from Oberg 1973:76 …………………………………………………………………………… 447 Figure B.22 “Fig 2. Employees at crab factory at New Masset, Queen Charlotte Is., B.C.,” from Sterns 1990:263 ……………………………………………………………………………….. 449 Figure B.23 “Fig 1. Building a wood frame house in a one-family Euro-American style, Hydaburg, Alaska,” from Sterns 1990:262 ……………………………………………………………….. 450 Figure B.24 “Fig 3. Fishing. top, Weir. bottom left, Gitksan youth with salmon trap made by lashing sticks together. bottom right, Fishing platform and salmon trap being set out by a Gitksan on the west side of Hagwelget canyon, Buckley River, B.C.,” from Halpin and Seguin 1990:272 . …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 453 Figure B.25 “Fig 2. Fishing for eulachon. top, Spoon canoe filled with its catch,” from Kennedy and Bouchard 1990:326 ……………………………………………………………………….. 454 Figure B.26 “Fig 4. Ma-Ma Yockland, a Quatsino woman, picking salmonberries,” from Codere 1990:364 ………………………………………………………………………………………. 455 Figure B.27 “Figure 2. The relative amounts of time spent each month on the gathering of resources,” from Oberg 1973:77 ……………………………………………………………… 456 Figure B.28 “Plate 101 Minnie Johnson and her granddaughter gathering clams and cockles at the lagoon near the Old Village, Yakutat, in early September 1952,” from de Laguna 1972:1018 .. 457 Figure B.29 “Fig 11. Basketry, left. right, Plain close-twined basket with brown-dyed bands on the natural buff background, a characteristic of Haida basketry decoration,” from Blackman 1990:249 …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 458 Figure C.1 “Figure 5-1. Groundplan of the house where the boy, Otter, lived with his father, Victory Call, and his mother, White Woman,” from Weltfish 1965:62 ………………………. 478 Figure C.2 “Fig. 1—Arrangement of the Interior of Pawnee Earth-Lodge,” from Lesser 1930:99… …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 481 xxiii Figure C.3 “Fig. 26. Disposition of beds in two Skidi Pawnee earth lodges,” from Dorsey and Murie 1940:81 ………………………………………………………………………………… 483 Figure C.4 “Figure 13.2. A Hidatsa cache pit, redrawn from a sketch by Edward Goodbird,” from Fenn 2014:293 ………………………………………………………………………................ 497 Figure D.1 “Map 1.1 Copper Canyon winter residences and chapter membership” and “Map 1.2 Copper Canyon summer residences,” from Lamphere 1977:16-17 ………………………….. 517 Figure D.2 “Fig. 2 Interrelationships of Hogans and Camps at Navajo Mountain,” from Collier 1966:23 ………………………………………………………………………………............... 530 Figure D.3 “Fig. 4 Interrelationships of Hogans and Camps at Klagetoh,” from Collier 1966:48- 49 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 539 Figure D.4 “Fig. 2.1 Silversmith’s genealogy,” from Lamphere 1977:48 …………………….. 541 Figure D.5 “Fig. 2.2 John Begay’s genealogy,” from Lamphere 1977:51 ……………………. 542 Figure D.6 “Fig 6.1 Rebecca and Andrew’s kin,” from Lamphere 1977:120 ………………… 546 Figure D.7 Genealogical relationships for Fred’s, Janie’s, and clan relatives’ Transportation Requests, from Lamphere 1977:134 …………………………………………………………... 547 Figure D.8 Transportation Involving Edna, Mike, and Others—Provided and Received, from Lamphere 1977:136 …………………………………………………………………………… 548 Figure D.9 Genealogical relationships between Camp 32 and persons who provide transportation, from Lamphere 1977:137 …………………………………………………………………...... 549 Figure D.10 “Fig. 7.6 Genealogical relatives of members of Camps 12 and 19,” from Lamphere 1977:141 ………………………………………………………………………………………. 550 Figure D.11 “Map A 4.1 Within-His-Cover people winter residences,” from Lamphere 1977:192 …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 553 Figure D.12 “Map A 4.2 Within-His-Cover people summer residences,” from Lamphere 1977:194 …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 554 Figure D.13 “Map A 4.3 House-in-the-Rocks people winter residences,” from Lamphere 1977:197 …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 557 Figure E.1 “Figure 4.—Vicente Rendón yard plan,” from Foster 1948:37 …………………… 594 xxiv CHAPTER 1: Introduction Introduction German psychologist Kurt Koffka (1886-1941) has been credited as suggesting that “the whole is other than the sum of the parts.” A corporate group provides one example of such a whole that is other than simply the aggregate of the nuclear family units of which it is composed. As anthropologists and archaeologists, then, our understanding of the social dynamics of both past and contemporary cultures can benefit from a closer look at how the daily practices of its members fundamentally shape the corporate nature and operation of the group. I aim to further explore this idea throughout my dissertation. To that end, in this chapter, I introduce the research problem guiding this dissertation. I establish the research questions and theoretical underpinnings that form the foundation of this research. I also discuss the significance of this research to the field of anthropology, as well as to the disciplines of archaeology and ethnology and the area of Wendat studies. Finally, I present a brief overview of the remaining chapters of the dissertation. Note on Cultural Names Since its founding, the field of anthropology has had a somewhat complicated relationship with the Indigenous cultures it has endeavored to study. While this circumstance played a small role in my choice of ethnographies from which I collected data for Chapter Four, it has played a larger role in how I refer to cultures throughout my dissertation. I acknowledge that some terms that anthropologists have used over time to name the cultures they studied historically may now be seen as pejorative in twenty-first century contexts. In my ethnographic 1 and archaeological analyses, I will use the name by which people refer to themselves. I have chosen to include both the preferred name and the name used historically (in parentheses) in the appendices, since many of these names were not commonly used historically by anthropologists, and may therefore be less familiar. On the other hand, though the Wendat renamed it Jean-Baptiste Lainé in 2011, the archaeological site is still registered under the name of Mantle, so that is how I refer to it in this research. Finally, terms like “prehistory” may be viewed negatively by Indigenous peoples of North America. I use the terms “Prehistoric,” “Protohistoric,” and “Historic” strictly as markers of specific time periods that have been established in the archaeological chronology of northeastern North America. I acknowledge the rich history of Indigenous North Americans prior to contact with Europeans and its important influence on the region as a whole. Research Problem Anthropologists have been studying corporate groups around the world for at least the last 150 years. These scholars have approached corporateness in cultures around the world from different perspectives, many of which will be discussed in Chapter Two. My research, then, aims to fill two gaps in the existing literature on corporate groups. First, through this research, I aim to achieve a deeper understanding of the spectrum of variability in how domestic corporate groups are structured and how they operate, as well as how they change through time in response to internal and external factors. All too often, the term “corporate group” is liberally applied to situations in which people lived in physical connection to one another, such as multi-family dwellings or neighborhood segments without a thorough examination of how the ideas of corporateness were actually applied, enacted, and enforced in a 2 particular situation. Conducting our research as if “corporate groups” operate consistently across time and space does a disservice to a thorough understanding of the lived experiences of the individuals whose lives and communities we study. Further, as will be discussed in Chapter Five, archaeologists, in particular, have often struggled to agree on how to identify corporateness using archaeological evidence alone. The second aim of my research, then, is to apply what I discover about variation and change over time in domestic corporate groups to archaeological data. Using historical ethnographic data, I seek to systematically develop a set of archaeological correlates for the variation in domestic corporate groups that can be applied broadly, both in and outside of the regions from which the ethnographic data originates. While an exhaustive set of archaeological correlates for the variation in domestic corporate groups is beyond the scope of this dissertation, I intend that my work on this topic will form the foundation for future additions to and clarifications of the archaeological evidence of corporateness. Research Questions To examine the spectrum of variability in domestic corporate groups, my dissertation utilizes the following four research questions: 1) What variation exists cross-culturally in the nature and operation of domestic corporate groups? 2) Over time, what changes have been observed ethnographically in domestic corporate groups? 3) How can a more explicit examination of variation in domestic corporate groups inform the investigation of such groups archaeologically? 3 4) How might changes in domestic corporate groups over time be evident in the archaeological record? Theoretical Underpinnings This research will be situated within a framework of practice theory (Bourdieu 1978; Ortner 2006; Sahlins 1981) examining the interplay of the social structure with the daily practices of its individual social actors and emphasizing “the production of the world through human practice” (Ortner 2006:16). Social relationships are created through the action of these daily practices (Perrelli 2009). Practice theory acknowledges the importance of the actions of individuals while still accepting that these individuals are embedded in a larger social world that both impacts them and is impacted by them (Ortner 2006; Perrelli 2009; Sahlins 1981). Bourdieu (1978) emphasizes the fact that people create their social organization and then use it and operate within it, as it reproduces the practices through which it was created. Bourdieu (1978) and Ortner (2006) emphasize the role of these individuals, both consciously and unconsciously, in social transformations that unmake and remake the larger social world, in both intentional and unintentional ways. In this research, then, variation in the nature and operation of domestic corporate groups can be conceived through the lens of practice theory. The daily actions of individual members and nuclear family units occur within the confines of acceptability of the domestic corporate group. These actions simultaneously create and then maintain or change the nature and operation of that domestic corporate group. My research indicates that notable examples of such important daily practices concerning corporateness include the division of labor, particularly the organization of cooperative labor, as well as food preparation and consumption activities. The 4 way that individuals and nuclear families conduct these activities, as well as the amount of control of the leader over the group, determines the level of the domestic corporate group’s internal cohesion. The internal cohesion of the group also situates its members within it; changes occur as those members change their behavior in response to external pressures. Approach to the Research Problem My approach to answering the research questions begins with a survey of theoretical literature defining corporate groups and their characteristics, beginning with Maine (1861), who was the first to define and apply the concept of corporate groups to a cultural case study. Maine (1861) and many subsequent researchers focused on the collective nature of property ownership as a key characteristic of corporate groups. The collection of theoretical literature suggests the core and potential traits that corporate groups may possess, the different types of corporate groups that may exist, and the conditions in which they may develop. With these conditions in mind, then, I can turn to global ethnographic examples of corporate groups to begin to consider how and when the characteristics just identified may or may not manifest in practice. Pertinent global cases include cultures of North America’s Northwest Coast, the Kalapalo of Brazil, the Northern Tagalog and Ifugao cultures of the Philippines, the Iban and Kelabit Dayak of Borneo, the Ta Oi of Vietnam, Nakagiri in Japan, and the Nayar of India. The common themes, as well as the variation, that emerge from this global survey will then form the foundation for the next step in my approach. Based on the literature review and global survey, my next step will be to identify the important variables for understanding corporateness, as well as their specific components. For each of these variables, then, I will collect detailed ethnographic data from five different broad 5 culture areas across North America. My ethnographic data will be drawn from the following cases within Wissler’s (1922) culture areas: (1) members of the multi-tribal affiliation of the Haudenosaunee in the Eastern Woodland Area; (2) several tribal groupings within the North Pacific Coast Area; (3) the exemplar cultures of the Pawnee and the Mandan in the Plains Area; (4) the exemplar culture of the Navajo in the Southwestern Area; and (5) the village residential unit of Tzintzuntzan in the Nahua Area. While my foci of the five culture areas vary in scale, I will collect my ethnographic data at the village level, so that I may make comparisons between the villages in the different culture areas. The following map depicts the culture areas from which I collect ethnographic data. 6 Figure 1.1 Map of Ethnographic Culture Areas, from Wissler 1922:219, modified by A. Conell In each culture area, I focus my analysis on early twentieth century ethnographies conducted by Franz Boas and his students due to the nature and presentation of their data and, equally importantly, their comparability. These factors place Boasian ethnographies in a unique 7 position to understand cross-cultural manifestations of corporateness and to illuminate their patterns in the archaeological record. I will also supplement these ethnographies with additional ethnographies dating to different time periods in order to address facets of cultural change over time. In collecting my data, then, I record direct quotations from each ethnography, accompanied by its ethnographer and the time period during which the observations were made. I will synthesize the relevant characteristics and highlight any unique aspects and their material correlates within each region, as well as cross-cultural similarities and differences. From this ethnographic analysis, then, I will identify the most universally important variables in defining corporateness. However, the purpose of my research is to understand the variation present in domestic corporate groups, rather than their universal components. So, using the cross-cultural differences I can identify ethnographically, I will develop a descriptive model of variation within domestic corporate groups, as well as how those groups might change over time. Ultimately, my goal in identifying variation and change in the ethnographic data is to be able to identify it using archaeological evidence. To achieve this goal, I will build on the descriptive model I create from the ethnographic data and supplement it with perspectives from the archaeological literature in order to develop archaeological correlates for each domestic corporate group type in the model. Finally, I will conduct an examination of my model and the appropriateness of my model’s archaeological correlates. For this analysis, I will use archaeological data from three previously excavated archaeological sites: the Late Middleport Alexandra Site (AkGt-53; Toronto, Ontario; A.D. 1390-1420), the Late Protohistoric Molson Site (BcGw-27; Barrie, Ontario; A.D. 1580-1600), and the Late Protohistoric to Early Historic Mantle Site (AlGt-334; Whitchurch-Stouffville, Ontario; A.D. 1596-1618). The following map 8 displays the locations of the archaeological sites examined in this research within the greater context of the Great Lakes region. Figure 1.2 Locations of Archaeological Sites in this Research, map modified by A. Conell, from Tanner 1987:3 Significance of the Research My research is significant for the methodological, theoretical, topical, and practical contributions it makes to anthropological and archaeological research. An important contribution of my research is its demonstration of the existence of variability in domestic corporate groups. Using my descriptive model I establish that this variability can distinguish different types of corporate groups in a way that is visible archaeologically. My demonstration 9 of domestic corporate variability provides a first step toward explaining this variability, its causes, and its impacts, particularily in archaeological contexts. My work asks new research questions about domestic corporate groups, and it answers them in methodologically novel ways by uniting cross-cultural historical ethnographic data and archaeological data from Indigenous cultures of North America. Both the ethnographic and archaeological data fill gaps in the other. Situated within a long history of anthropological and archaeological research on corporate groups, my research is the first example of a study that systematically analyzes cross-cultural historical ethnographic data to model variation and change in domestic corporate groups and then uses the new perspectives afforded by that ethnographic research to develop appropriate archaeological correlates for corporateness in domestic contexts. Framing my archaeological data through the lens of the historic ethnographies has ultimately allowed me to build a strong bridge between the archaeological evidence and the anthropological theories about the characteristics of different types of corporate groups and conditions under which they may be found. My research also contributes to our understanding of the Wendat presence and their archaeological sites in Ontario, as well as their place in the archaeology of northeastern North America more broadly. This is particularly relevant to current regional research in light of Birch et al.’s (2021) ongoing reevaluation of existing fifteenth-century to seventeenth-century regional chronologies. As new radiocarbon dating modifies the timeline of existing archaeological sites and evidence, new research questions must be asked, and new analyses must be conducted in order to update our understandings of how people were living. My research takes a step in this direction by evaluating fourteenth-century to seventeenth-century Wendat kinship, households, 10 and economies to better understand how they were organizing themselves into corporate groups over this period of time. On a practical level, Wendat villages of the sixteenth century have often been neglected in 21st-century research in favor of either earlier studies on early and middle Late Prehistoric processes of village coalescences and later studies on post-contact processes of dispersal and communities in diaspora, which are both significant periods in Wendat history. Further, while much research has been and continues to be done on the Mantle Site over the course of the last decade, particularly by Jennifer Birch and her colleagues, little additional research has been conducted on the Alexandra Site following the publication of its site report in 2008 by Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI), and even less has been conducted on the Molson Site since Paul Lennox published the site report in 2000. To complete my research, I created a comprehensive catalogue of the available artifacts from the Molson Site in the Museum of Ontario Archaeology Repository, which had not previously been published. I also hope that my research increases the visibility of the Alexandra Site and the Molson Site and demonstrates their potential value for inclusion in future studies by other researchers who may not have yet realized their rich potential. Finally, the unique conditions of completing my dissertation research during a global pandemic meant that some interlibrary loans, including Foley (1975), were unavailable. Thus, at my request, Foley’s (1975) dissertation was finally published to ProQuest in July 2020, and it is now widely accessible to other researchers. Foley’s (1975) research is a valuable resource on changes in Haudenosaunee cultural practices from 1870 to 1975. I hope that its newly enhanced accessibility, as well as its importance to my research, will increase its use by others in future relevant research projects. 11 Overview of the Dissertation This dissertation seeks to examine the spectrum of variability in domestic corporate groups to better understand: (1) the variation cross-culturally in the nature and operation of domestic corporate groups; (2) changes observed ethnographically in domestic corporate groups; (3) how more explicit examination of variation in domestic corporate groups can inform archaeological investigation of such groups; and (4) how changes in domestic corporate groups over time may be evident in the archaeological record. I will achieve these goals first through a cross-cultural analysis of historic ethnographies guided by a literature review of theoretical and global perspectives on corporate groups. Upon this cross-cultural ethnographic analysis, I construct a descriptive model of the organizational variation in domestic corporate groups based on levels of intra-group cohesion. I then develop archaeological correlates for each type and conduct a preliminary test of their appropriateness, using three previously excavated Wendat sites in southern Ontario. In this chapter, I have introduced the research problem and its significance, and I have laid out the primary research questions and approach of this dissertation. I will now briefly preview each of the remaining chapters of my dissertation. In Chapter Two, I provide background information that frames the anthropological study of corporate groups around the world over the last 150 years. I present approaches from sociocultural anthropology and archaeology, emphasizing perspectives from sociocultural anthropology. I also explore a selection of global examples of corporate groups in order to broadly present the variation in corporate groups that has been identified in different cultures around the world over time. The contents of this chapter form the foundation for my research. I begin Chapter Three by returning to my four primary research questions. I then lay out my methodology for answering those research questions over the course of this dissertation. 12 First, I discuss the results of the deductive coding I conducted on the literature I reviewed in Chapter Two and how that process informs my ethnographic analysis. Next, I define the culture areas and cases within them from which I collect my ethnographic data. The ethnographies from which I collect data are drawn from Wissler’s (1922) Eastern Woodland Area, North Pacific Coast Area, Plains Area, Southwestern Area, and Nahua Area. Then, I describe my approach to the ethnographic data that forms a fundamental component of answering my research questions, including the importance of my approach, limitations of the historical ethnographies, and specific ethnographic sources from which I collect my raw data. Finally, I discuss my methodology for the creation of my descriptive model of domestic corporate groups from the ethnographic analysis and how it will be examined using archaeological data. For Chapter Four, I collected ethnographic data from a substantial set of central and supplemental ethnographies covering cultures in the five named regions of North America; the raw data is included in Appendices A, B, C, D, and E. Within Chapter Four, then, I synthesize the characteristics of the corporate groups within each region, as well as material correlates where possible. Further, I identify characteristics unique to the cultures and corporate groups within each region. Following the five regional syntheses, I discuss each variable for which I collected ethnographic data; comparative tables summarizing the characteristics of each culture for each variable are located in Appendix F. I evaluate the similarities and differences in the corporate groups and the relationships between the identified variation and the nature and operation of different types of domestic corporate groups. Finally, I conclude Chapter 4 by using this ethnographic analysis to develop a descriptive model of the spectrum of variability in domestic corporate groups; I also establish a secondary component of the model to suggest how 13 domestic corporate groups might move between different types in the model from a more cohesive corporate organization to a less cohesive corporate organization, and vice versa. My goal in Chapter Five is to explore how my modeled variation in domestic corporate groups, as well as their processes of change, might be visible archaeologically. I review literature that has attempted to identify corporate groups archaeologically and discuss how and why archaeologists have sought to identify change over time in corporate households. I evaluate the three primary ways in which scholars have examined corporate groups archaeologically. Following discussion of the literature, I revisit the descriptive model I created in Chapter Four, and I develop a set of material and spatial correlates for each of my model’s types of domestic corporate groups and how those might vary if the dynamics of the group change over time. In Chapter Six, then, I complete an assessment of my model by applying it to three Wendat village sites in southern Ontario. I begin by introducing the Wendat within the context of Iroquoian cultures in the Eastern Woodlands of North America. I assess their suitability as a case study against which to test my model of variation in domestic corporate groups. I then identify the reasons that change over time in the domestic corporate groups of the Wendat villages might be expected, and why, in light of my ethnographic and ethnohistoric analysis, this variability may exist, and if it does exist, the likelihood of its visibility archaeologically. After establishing my expectations for how the archaeological cases will fit my descriptive model, I analyze aspects of village organization and intra-household organization that relate directly to the material correlates of my model’s types of domestic corporate groups, including the presence of nondomestic community buildings and household clusters, as well as, for a sample of houses from each site, each house’s layout, internal storage, food preparation, and food consumption areas. Raw data is included in Appendices G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, and O. Finally, I discuss how 14 well the results support the appropriateness and sufficiency of the material correlates in my model. Chapter Seven concludes my dissertation. In this final chapter, I return to my four research questions; for each research question, I synthesize my approach to the aspects of that question and interpret the results of my research. I revisit the significance of this research within the field of anthropology and identify its strengths. I also recognize the challenges I encountered during this research and suggest potential avenues for future research to address those challenges and to build upon the work I have completed for this dissertation. To end the chapter, I draw conclusions about what my research has illuminated about variation in the nature and operation of domestic corporate groups and how those groups can change over time. 15 CHAPTER 2: Corporate Household Dynamics at a Global Scale Introduction In this chapter, I provide background information that frames the anthropological study of domestic corporate groups around the world over the last 150 years. I cover approaches from both sociocultural anthropology and archaeology, with an emphasis on perspectives from sociocultural anthropology; archaeological perspectives will be dealt with more thoroughly in Chapter Five. This chapter broadly addresses the characteristics of corporate groups, the operation of corporate groups, and the material correlates of corporate groups. Finally, I explore a selection of global examples of corporate groups in order to paint with a broad stroke the variation in corporate groups that has been identified in different cultures around the world over time; this is in contrast to Chapter Four, which examines domestic corporate groups found in North America. Foundations of Corporate Groups In this section of the literature review, my goal is to introduce how scholars who have come before me have understood corporate groups over time and in different contexts, as well as their conceptions of the various facets of corporateness. The concept of the corporate group has changed over time and has been applied in theoretical, sociocultural, and archaeological contexts, all of which have contributed to the understanding of corporate groups that is employed in this research. I begin with the definitions that scholars have applied to the term “corporate group” and the conditions under which such groups may be found. Then, I identify the different types of corporate groups that scholars have distinguished. Finally, I discuss the core traits of 16 corporate groups upon which scholars generally agree. I conclude this section with a list of potential characteristics that may theoretically appear in corporate groups and their cultures, which I will then compare to global case studies of corporate groups in the following section. First, authors frequently use the term “corporate group” without ever explicitly defining it. However, corporate groups have been defined in different ways by different authors in different contexts over the last century and a half. As first defined by Maine (1861), many authors emphasize the collective nature of property ownership as the key defining feature of corporate groups; Maine’s (1861) work was primarily a theoretical application of his concept of corporate groups based in Roman law to his observations of Indian culture. Berle and Means (1931) provide the following encyclopedic definition for “corporate group:” “a form of organization which enables a group of individuals to act under a common name in carrying on one or more related enterprises, holding and managing property and distributing the profits or beneficial interests in such enterprises or property among the associates” (414). However, their preferred focus is the business corporation of industrial civilization (Berle and Means 1931), which makes their definition less useful in the context of this research. In contrast, Goodenough (1951), whose ethnographic research aimed to study the intersections between the formation of kin groups and their norms and practices regarding property holding, defines corporate groups as “groups that function as individuals in relation to property” (30-31). Smith (1966) adds seven critical characteristics that a corporate group must possess: “identity, presumed perpetuity, closure and membership, autonomy within a given sphere, exclusive common affairs, set procedures, and organization” (117). In the first published attempt to apply the concept of corporate groups to archaeological contexts, Freeman (1968) defines a corporate group as “one which has a body of collective rights 17 and duties, and ‘estate,’ vested in all members and ‘activated in diverse situations,’ so that it can be said to be a ‘multipurposive’ group (Fortes 1953; Nadel 1951, p. 160)” (266). A narrower definition intended for archaeologists attempting to utilize the concept of the corporate group comes from Hayden and Cannon (1982), who focus on “corporate groups … which have come into being as a result of strong economic or environmental pressures, and which, as a result, exhibit a recognizable degree of residential coherency among two or more nuclear families within the community” (134-135). Many of the early sociocultural applications of the concept of corporate groups were based on work completed among tribal cultures in Africa, such as the Ashanti matrilineages studied by Meyer Fortes (Fortes 1950) and the !Kung bushmen bands studied by Lorna Marshall (Marshall 1960). Fortes (1953) contends that “the most important feature of unilineal descent groups in Africa ... is their corporate organization” (25). Larger households, especially in communities in which there are differentials in production or socioeconomic status, are also more likely to operate in a corporate fashion in terms of both production and distribution (Wilk and Rathje 1982). Hayden and Cannon (1982), however, argue that corporate groups become common when societies begin to show signs of stratification. Hayden (1976) likewise suggests pronounced competition between Iroquoian corporate groups: “not only competition in recruiting members, but also competition over trade rights and goods” (9). For some authors like Fortes (1953) and De Lepervanche (1967), however, underlying the successful functioning of corporate groups is an assumption of social stability. Befu and Plotnicov (1962) assume that “the corporate functions of a unilineal descent group ... and the strength of its corporateness are determined by structural factors, namely, by the spatial arrangement (settlement pattern) and size 18 of the group” (313). Going a step further, Goode (1970) proposes that a group’s corporate nature “waxes and wanes in response to political and economic processes in the larger social system” (149; see also Dobyns 1964; Wolf 1967). Netting (1990) adds that corporate groups work best “under conditions of middle-range population density and local competition for land” (52) since highly dense populations seem to encourage individual success over group success. Service (1962) and Fried (1967) support this position. Goode (1970) suggests that traditional agrarian societies provide these appropriate conditions for corporate groups to thrive. In a similar vein, Befu (1968a) emphasizes that ecological conditions are ultimately responsible for the nature of corporate groups in central Japan. Likewise, the corporate groups created through voluntary associations serve to fulfill the changing needs of individuals in increasingly urbanizing twentieth-century Latin American cities (Goode 1970). Different conditions fostering the development and maintenance of corporate groups lead, then, to the existence of different types of corporate groups. Befu and Plotnicov (1962) distinguish between economic, political, and religious corporate groups. While a specific corporate group might operate in only one of these arenas, any two, or all three, it must operate in at least one of these arenas in order to be considered corporate; the authors conclude that “descent groups at different levels of inclusiveness are corporate for different functions and in different degrees” (Befu and Plotnicov 1962:325). There is significant overlap between the economic and political arenas and between the political and religious arenas (Befu and Plotnicov 1962). Within their framework, an economically-based corporate group is identified by its “members’ dependence for their daily subsistence on a property in which the corporation has certain rights—ownership, management, or use” (Befu and Plotnicov 1962:314), with property 19 including “the exclusive right or obligation to perform certain services or tasks” (Befu and Plotnicov 1962:314) and “a monopoly of certain skills or knowledge” (Befu and Plotnicov 1962:315) in addition to agricultural land or access to territory for food foraging. Within economically-based corporate groups, Bell (1998) adds a more nuanced distinction between residential corporate groups centered on consumption and descent-based corporate groups centered on property-holding based on ethnographic research on family groupings in India; these two types of corporate groups may operate simultaneously in a community, with some members belonging to both groups and others belonging only to one. Next, a politically-based corporate group is distinguished by an “unequal distribution of command among its members, with authority usually vested in the adult male members, who act as the group’s representatives in dealing with outsiders” (Befu and Plotnicov 1962:315-316), and its members are “supposed to be bound by the decisions and sanctions made by its authoritative heads” (Befu and Plotnicov 1962:315). Finally, a religiously-based corporate group is present when a “group either maintains its order through supernatural sanctions or recognizes its solidarity through acts or performances which manifestly symbolize its unity” (Befu and Plotnicov 1962:316). However, Goode (1970) also notes that many corporate groups of different kinds often have “special deities and rituals” (148). Scale provides another means for dividing corporate groups into types. Domestic units, like the household, comprise the smallest corporate groups. One of the key defining characteristics of a corporate household group is an emphasis on internal economic orchestration arranged by an economically and socially influential household leader and operationalized as intra-household specialization of production and division of labor. If households are corporate, they are usually economically corporate and only rarely religiously corporate, though they may 20 be religiously corporate if “supernatural sanctions or taboos are specifically applicable to its members” (Befu and Plotnicov 1962:321). Additionally, patrilineal households are more likely than matrilineal households to be politically corporate, which is determined in practice “by the extent to which authority over [household] members is vested in offices or persons” (Befu and Plotnicov 1962:321) belonging to the household. Above the level of the household, one might also encounter a corporate community, ranging in size from a single neighborhood to an entire town. Wolf (1957) identifies examples of such communities in both Mesoamerica and Central Java. One example at the neighborhood end of the scale is the Mesoamerican barrio, or municipal ward, which comprises segments of a pueblo larger than the family (Thomas 1979); an example at the town end of the scale are many Indigenous villages in southern Mexico, such as San Mateo (Cheney 1979). As with corporate households, corporate communities emphasize the communal ownership of agricultural resources and products and preserve “a perpetuity of rights and membership” (Wolf 1957:2; see also Cheney 1979). Wolf (1957) suggests that corporate communities develop under conditions of geographical and/or social isolation from their larger societies. Such corporate communities are frequently self-“closed” to the outside, thereby restricting “privileges to insiders” (Wolf 1957:2), excluding outsiders from community membership, limiting member access to society outside the community, and discouraging “close participation of members in the social relations of the larger society” (Wolf 1957:2; see also Cheney 1979). Outside people, ideas, and goods are all excluded from closed corporate communities (Cheney 1979; Wolf 1957). Additionally, membership in these endogamous corporate communities is often highly restricted; members are often born and spend their entire lives within the community, participating in all of its economic, social, and religious rituals, their activities strictly monitored and sanctioned by the community (Cheney 21 1979; Wolf 1957). For example, membership in the closed corporate barrios of Mesoamerica is “patrilineally inherited ... for males” (Thomas 1979:52). Closed corporate communities are “territorial, not kinship-based” (Wolf 1957:3); however, it seems likely that the community members would ultimately form a large extended kin network as a result of sustained community endogamy. Finally, the core traits of corporate groups include external unity, criteria for membership, co-residence, collective rights to property, group leadership, and cooperative labor and consumption practices. The collective nature of the corporate group’s rights and obligations is frequently emphasized in sociocultural research as a primary component of the corporate group’s external unity (Ensor 2013; Fortes 1953; Goody 1969; Goody 1990; Keesing 1975; La Fontaine 1973; Maine 1861; Radcliffe-Brown 1950; Read 1954; Sahlins 1961; Salisbury 1956; Smith 1956; Smith 1966; Sobel 2004). Ensor (2013) insists that “corporate groups need to reproduce their members through marriage” (200) both in order to continue and to thrive. Membership in corporate groups is frequently ascribed, although the basis for membership may take many different forms (Goode 1970). Chinese clans formed corporate groups on the exclusive basis of real kinship, while the Japanese dozuku and Inca ayllu formed corporate groups based on both real and fictive kinship (Goode 1970). A case study among the Maya involving ethnography, ethnohistory, and archaeology suggests that a corporate household group can include affinal members, as well as nonrelated individuals of varying statuses referred to in both kin and nonkin terms (Gillespie 2000). Criteria other than kinship or descent might also form the basis for corporate group membership. Smith (1966) argues that corporate groups may be formed on the basis of a 22 minimum of two of the following characteristics: “sex, age, locality, ethnicity, descent, common property interests, ritual and belief, occupation, and ‘voluntary’ association for diffuse or specific pursuits” (126), providing examples of specific ways in which certain of these variables can be combined to create different kinds of corporate groups in both structure and function: ... lineages are recruited and defined by descent, common property interests, and generally co-residence. Besides equivalence in age, age-sets presume sameness of sex and, for effective incorporation, local co-residence. Guilds typically stressed occupation and locality; but they were also united by property interests in common market facilities. In India, caste is incorporated on the principles of descent, ritual, and occupation [Smith 1966:126]. Islamic corporate group membership was typically based on ethnicity, and occupation has often provided the basis for corporate group membership, such as in the “Indian caste, Aztec pochteca, [and] European guild” (Goode 1970:148). Corporate barrios in Mesoamerica required service as a condition for membership (Thomas 1979). Endogamy frequently characterized such corporate groups not based on kinship and served to maintain the group’s boundaries over time (Goode 1970). However, both sociocultural anthropologists and archaeologists emphasize the ability of membership in corporate groups to change (Hayden 1976; Harris 1971; Radcliffe-Brown 1950; Suttles 1968). Co-residence is also an important component of corporate groups, although both ethnographic and archaeological research indicate that sometimes it may be operationalized as an entire corporate group contained within one household and other times it may be operationalized as a set of neighboring households encompassing the members of the corporate group (Bell 1998; Goode 1970; Hayden and Cannon 1982; Kaberry 1967; Keesing 1975; Sahlins 1961; Smith 1956). Burial data may be combined with residential data to interpret the corporateness of household groups (Bettinger 1983; Curet and Oliver 1998). Cultures practicing neolocal residential strategies will rarely be organized into corporate groups (Ensor 2013). Lowie (1920; 23 1927) emphasizes the importance of residential arrangements in influencing kinship and descent relationships; for example, “if patrilineal descent is to be explained, then look for conditions that would bring together as a continuing and corporate unit a group of male kin related in the male line” (Murphy 1972:71). Sociocultural research also consistently demonstrates that corporate groups necessarily hold collective rights to group property, which must continue through time (Bell 1998; Coupland and Banning 1996; Ensor 2013; Fortes 1953; Fried 1957; Goody 1961; Goody 1969; Goody 1990; Keesing 1975; La Fontaine 1973; Marshall 1960; Maine 1861; Radcliffe-Brown 1950; Sahlins 1961; Schneider et al. 1972; Smith 1966). However, individual members of the corporate group very well might not actually hold identical rights to particular pieces of property even though the property belongs to the collective unit (Bell 1998; Goody 1969). Though sharing is emphasized within the corporate group, the social structure and leadership of the group is still well-established (Bell 1998; Fortes 1953; Goode 1970; La Fontaine 1973; Leacock 1983; Smith 1956; Sobel 2004; Weber 1947; Weiner 1982). For example, as evidenced by Sahlins’s (1957) observations among the Moala in Fiji, tasks are scheduled and labor is assigned throughout the corporate household by the head of the household. Similarly, in the civil-religious corporate barrios of Mesoamerica, civic leaders are selected by and from the corporate group members in order to ensure the coordination of members’ labor for the increased success of all members (Thomas 1979). However, Smith (1966) contests the stability of leadership in corporate groups, arguing that sometimes the leaders of corporate groups serve in more of an advisory capacity or are even merely representative in nature, existing as symbolic leaders only, such as the divine kings found in the Ngonde and Shilluk cultures, with no control over daily corporate group activities. 24 Another key characteristic of corporate groups as demonstrated by sociocultural research is that members of corporate groups actively function cooperatively to fulfill common obligations (Ensor 2013; Goode 1970; Kaberry 1967; Radcliffe-Brown 1950; Read 1954). In this way, members of early English boroughs might be considered corporate in their collective efforts towards “mutual defense and civic works” (Berle and Means 1931:414). In New Guinea, ethnographic research among Wabaga patriclans has shown that corporate groups emphasize contributions to group success rather than individual achievement (Read 1954), and ethnographic research among the Siane reinforces the fundamentality of “the interdependence of parts of the wider [corporate] groups” (Salisbury 1956:5) within their ideology. Thus, production (both subsistence and of objects, including ceramics) is a primary function of the corporate group (Birch and Hart 2018; Perrelli 2009). Consumption, independent of household production, is also less expensive when people live together in larger groups than when they live separately in small groups (Befu 1968b; Imori 1937). Archaeologically, then, the corporate nature of longhouses may be evident in intra- longhouse economic planning and specialization (Hayden 1976). Archaeologists have also further expounded on this idea to operationalize how it might be achieved in practice by corporate groups: while some tasks might be divided amongst members or sub-groups of the larger corporate group, other tasks may require more extensive corporate-group-wide cooperation to accomplish successfully (Coupland and Banning 1996; Engelbrecht 2003; Wilk and Rathje 1982). For example, one could consider whether production activities are occurring in the same places as other activities or if there are special locations for production of certain items, such as ground stone tool or chipped stone tools (Foster et al. 1996). 25 In sum, the following table contains a list of potential characteristics that may theoretically appear in corporate groups and their cultures based on the preceding literature. In the next section, I will explore several global cases of corporate groups in order to begin to understand which characteristics are consistent among corporate groups across time and space and which characteristics vary between cultures and/or through time. Table 2.1 Potential Characteristics Appearing in Corporate Groups shared internal identity perpetuity through time geographically/ socially isolated economic/ environmental/ political pressures external social stability stratified society mid-range population density restricted membership membership based on real kinship membership based on fictive kinship membership based on territory/location membership based on age and sex membership based on occupation membership based on ethnicity membership can change self-sufficient endogamous emphasize group success patrilineal matrilineal co-residence non-neolocal post- marital residences based at household level based at neighborhood level based at village level internal status differences group leader with authority symbolic group leader collective ownership of knowledge collective property ownership/ management/use collective rights to products of collective property agrarian cooperative labor labor assignments/ task scheduling intra-group specialization of production communal consumption economically-based politically-based religiously-based supernatural sanctions/special deities 26 Variation in Corporate Groups Though an exhaustive review of ethnographic examples of corporate groups around the world is beyond the scope of this current chapter, a few examples have been chosen to highlight some of the known variety in corporate group structure and function through time and space. The remainder of this chapter considers a selection of the global variety in corporate groups through space and time; North America is only covered briefly since it will be the focus of the ethnographic analysis conducted in Chapter Four. North America Northwest Coast On North America’s Northwest Coast, scholars widely agree that “the extended household was the long-term unit of production and consumption” (Ames 1994:210; Ames 1995; Ames 1996; Ames 2003; Ames 2004; Codere 1990; de Laguna 1990b; Drucker 1951; Gahr 2006; Gahr et al. 2006; Hayden 1995; Marshall 2004; Mitchell and Donald 1988; Sobel 2004; Suttles 1990). While Northwest Coast cultures are not identical throughout the region or over time, some generalizations can be made. Generally, multi-family households exhibit intra- household specialization of food production and labor (Ames 1994). Household production tasks are typically divided amongst simultaneously-operating nuclear families (Ames 1994). Differences in social status within, and between, corporate groups appear to have resulted from differential rights of ownership to resources by individuals and families, and villages, respectively (Ames 1994; Ames 1995; Hayden 1995; Sobel 2004). Ethnographic and ethnohistoric research reveals that northern Northwest Coast households are generally the most corporate and internally hierarchical, with their leaders tightly 27 controlling household dynamics, as compared to households further south along the Northwest Coast (Coupland et al. 2009). For example, among the Chilkat Tlingit, the highly corporate nature of food preparation is evidenced by the rotation of each woman in the corporate group through the responsibility of food preparation for the entire household (de Laguna 1972; de Laguna 1991). Food preparation and other domestic activities within the household are coordinated by the principal wife of the chief of the house (de Laguna 1983). On the other hand, de Laguna (1983) also notes independence in certain aspects of the corporate household, such as individual ownership and storage of the salmon each woman has cut and smoked. Additionally, access to resources among the Tlingit occurs at both the level of the clan and the level of the house, with corporate houses controlling resources like small streams and clans controlling resources such as beaches, firewood, and larger streams (de Laguna 1983). Moving southward, though, ethnographic and ethnohistoric research indicates that southern Northwest Coast households operate more loosely as corporate groups, with both greater independence for the nuclear families that compose them and greater egalitarianism between them (Coupland et al. 2009). For example, among the central Coast Salish, within multi-family households, nuclear families each have their own storage pits and hearths for their own food preparation and consumption activities; overall, these nuclear families operate mostly independently of each other, but they do participate cooperatively in some economic and social activities when they feel it is necessary (Donald 1997; Suttles 1990). Donald (1997) explains that “independent family households were more likely to have some autonomy of action, although the complex household was still important” (24). For example, among the Twana, nuclear families sometimes “produced and consumed independently of the household” (Coupland et al. 2009:84). Coupland et al. (2009) suggests that these multi-family households 28 might be more accurately considered “collective” households rather than “corporate” households, which they explain in the following way: “families living collectively are essentially self-interested and realize that participation in a multifamily collective is the best way to achieve their goals” (84). In a “collective” household, nuclear families live in the same dwelling and cooperate in certain labor tasks, but they do not place the group identity or group needs above those of their own nuclear family (Coupland et al. 2009; Moemeka 1998). In Oregon, Coupland et al. (2009) report that Kalapuyan and Athabaskan households were only weakly corporate, but Zenk goes so far as to suggest that “there is no evidence that Kalapuyan society had any sort of corporate kin group” (1990b:549) and that Alsean “residence group[s] ..., so far as is known, had no corporate identity” (1990a:569). However, small extended families were still autonomous and internally ranked; they also owned house sites, economic resource sites, names, and ceremonies (Drucker 1983). South America Brazil Basso’s (1973) work among the Kalapalo living in the village of Aifa, Brazil, during the 1960s provides an example of corporate groups largely insulated from the modernization of twentieth-century Brazil, due to their acute geographic and social isolation. Among the Kalapalo, both the village and the household are typically characterized by a sense of autonomy and solidarity among the members, especially in the context of relationships with individuals belonging to other units of the same order ... and ... can be considered “corporate” in that each controls rights to territorial resources, acts as a unit when performing certain economic and ceremonial activities, and under these circumstances, is considered internally undifferentiated by outsiders [Basso 1973:43]. 29 Kalapalo villages are permanent; houses are located around the circular plaza at the center of the village, and when they are rebuilt, household groups may be moved to a completely new location in the village (Basso 1973). Public areas, such as bathing areas and the plaza, are accessible to all (male) members of the village, but access to houses and gardens is strictly restricted to members of the households that own them and occasionally their kin (Basso 1973). The Kalapalo live in communal houses without internal partitions, which are composed of as many as 26 individuals; these houses “are not located near one another according to the relationships of persons who live in them” (Basso 1973:48). Basso (1973:49) describes the internal organization of Kalapalo houses in the following way: At each end of the house is a living area where the residents sling their hammocks and store personal possessions. Several stout poles are placed along the inner periphery of this area, so as to allow hammocks to be slung between them and the outer wall. Members of a nuclear family, or two unmarried men, usually share a single pole. Fires are built near each cluster of hammocks, where small quantities of food are prepared for an individual’s or nuclear family’s meal ... Personal possessions are kept along the wall, stuck in the thatch or tied to the framework. The house is divided by a large central platform, called ogo, on which is stored manioc flour in large silos and sun-dried manioc mash kept in men’s carrying baskets. ... The main fire area, always located in the back of the house opposite the rear entrance, is used for preparing major meals. ... The open space in front of the central platform, from which the plaza can be seen, is used as a communal work area. Here men and women can work on individual tasks, such as spinning cotton, making arrows, or weaving baskets, and at the same time see what is going on outside. When a person desires privacy, a small work area is cleared near his hammock, and a small opening is made in the thatch to allow light to enter. Each independent Kalapalo household consisted of a “core” of two nuclear families who then recruited additional household members from their own consanguineal and affinal kin; in this way, household members share a kin relationship of some kind with some but not all other members of their household (Basso 1973). In the seven households whose memberships Basso (1973:52) observed between 1966 and 1968, household cores were composed: 30 (a) ... of persons in a sibling-exchange relationship ...; (b) [of] a single nuclear family household ...; (c) ... of two brothers-in-law ...; (d) of a set of siblings ...; (e) of a single couple ..., who have kept their children and children’s spouses together; (f) of a man and his wives ...; and (g) of a man and his son .... In all of these households, except (b), noncore members include sons- and daughters-in- law, unmarried siblings and offspring, and brothers-in-law. Kinship is a necessary but not sufficient condition for membership in Kalapalo corporate groups, although siblings tend to “live together in the same village or households” (Basso 1973:94). Interestingly, group membership is quite flexible and changes relatively easily over time for various reasons, so much so that a person “may participate in the corporate activities of several different groups by taking advantage of relationships of kinship and affinity throughout the Upper Xingu Basin, and thus it is not unusual for a person to have been active in several groups throughout his lifetime” (Basso 1973:43). Kalapalo individuals can acquire personal property, called iŋikogu, including “payment (fipïgï), water in a container, harvested crops, and material paraphernalia such as fish hooks, arrows, hammocks, baskets, ceramics, and feather ornaments” (Basso 1973:20) via economic, social, or ceremonial exchange. Trading ceremonies, called uluki, take place at the household level, the village level, and the intervillage level, each with its own set of established customs; these ceremonies serve a variety of purposes, including redistribution of wealth, social enjoyment, and increased access to goods and information (Basso 1973). Such items of personal property are burned over individuals’ graves when they die (Basso 1973). Certain types of property, especially subsistence tools, while owned by individuals, are often shared with other members of the owner’s household group, as well as kin outside of the household group (Basso 1973). Other types of property that result from household production, such as arrow cane, corn, fish, gourds, peppers, and salt, are shared within the entire household even though they are officially owned by individuals (Basso 1973). 31 Members of a village have the right “to manufacture a specialized commodity” (Basso 1973:55). Children are taught the specialties of their parents, although “persons who marry into a village group may continue the specialty of their natal village, but do not teach their offspring this specialty. Similarly, these persons do not learn the specialty of their new village” (Basso 1973:55). However, production tasks primarily occur at the household level, organized by the male leader of the household, with the men of a household responsible for clearing land and planting manioc and the women of a household responsible for harvesting it (Basso 1973). Engaged men are responsible for assisting both their in-laws and their own household groups with manioc planting (Basso 1973). Fishing is typically conducted by “two men of the same household group” (Basso 1973:39) but might instead consist of a husband and wife, with the husband fishing while his wife paddles the canoe. Spouses are expected to openly support each other with their subsistence activities: One important symbol of a newly established marriage is the creation of a manioc garden by a man for a particular woman, who is responsible for harvesting it and who has exclusive rights to it. A wife, in turn, processes the manioc and corn from her husband’s gardens and prepares several kinds of food from these cultigens. While he is away fishing for her, she is expected to make manioc soup and bread in anticipation of his success, for the ideal Kalapalo meal unites the fruits of the manioc harvest (which is women’s labor) with the fish and game caught by men [Basso 1973:102]. Otherwise, women and their daughters are the most important economic component of the household, responsible for: “drawing water, collecting firewood, making palm fiber string, spinning cotton, processing manioc and piqui, and caring for younger siblings” (Basso 1973:71). The women of a household are responsible for preparation of the subsistence resources acquired by the men of that household, such as fish, as well as subsistence resources that they themselves acquired, such as piqui or wild fruit they collected or manioc they harvested from the fields of their husbands, fathers, and/or unmarried brothers (Basso 1973). Intra-household 32 distribution of food occurs daily from what members of the household have contributed to the household supply; not all household members need to contribute every day (Basso 1973). Intra- household distribution is practiced in the following way: Each household prepares almost daily a common stock of telsiñï and manioc bread for the use of unmarried men, those whose wives are menstruating, and small children. This food is kept on or near the central household platform and can be offered to visitors. In addition, each married woman is given a share of this common stock for her and her husband’s exclusive use [Basso 1973:63]. Inter-household food sharing is uncommon during times of scarcity but common, though not required, during times of plenty (Basso 1973). While adults do not hesitate to ask their kin for food, it is only socially acceptable for children to request food from nonrelatives; however, there are means to gift food to nonrelatives who need it without anyone having to ask (Basso 1973). Asia As noted above, the early ethnographic applications of the idea of corporate groups came out of Africa. However, anthropologists have since applied the concept thoroughly in Asia as well. I will briefly describe two case studies from the Philippines, two case studies from Borneo, one case study from Vietnam, one case study from Japan, and one case study from India. I selected these case studies because they are particularly well-documented cases, which demonstrate known variation in the operation of corporate groups across a single continent. Demonstrating variation in corporate groups across Asia provides support for the examination of variation across the North American continent in the following chapters of this research. 33 Philippines Among the Northern Tagalog of San Isidro, Nueva Ecija, households, somewhat fluid in their boundaries, form corporate groups on the basis of locality within their larger barrio (Murray 1973). While primarily tight-knit nuclear family households participate in “day-to-day, face-to- face group activit[ies]” (Murray 1970:32), small extended family households might also include members of a grandparental generation (Murray 1970; Murray 1973). Together, these Northern Tagalog family-households function as corporate groups, which Murray (1973) defines as “groups of two or more adjoining, or nearly adjoining, households which are consanguineally, and sometimes affinally, related, whose members exhibit patterns of constant visiting and sharing” (Murray 1973:30). Within these corporate groups, both independent and cooperative activities appear to occur with regularity. Intra-group cooperation is evident primarily in the creation of small work groups to tend the fields and in the coordination of food preparation and caring for children and animals (Murray 1973). On the other hand, other activities are not orchestrated by a corporate group leader but occur on a more individualized basis as nuclear families within the corporate group assess their own needs and the needs of others. Examples of this phenomenon include food sharing and labor trading between nuclear families within the corporate group (Murray 1973). To their north, in the Ifugao Province of the Philippines, the case of Ifugao cultures demonstrates how the interaction and relationships of kinship groups and corporate groups preserving undivided estates over multiple generations crosscut lineage lines and create Ifugao social structure (Acabado 2013). Ifugao corporate groups crosscut lineage divisions; while they form the primary locus for economic, political, and religious activities, Ifugao corporate groups are particularly important in managing collectively-owned land, especially rice terraces, over the 34 course of multiple generations (Acabado 2013). Families with nearby agricultural lands settle together into hamlets; nonkin neighbors interacting for primarily ecological reasons thereby create secondary bonds (Acabado 2013). Finally, kin relations, evidenced by marriage and meat- sharing patterns, are not restricted to fixed territories; while the strongest bonds are between parents and siblings, hamlets often have relationships with one another for support (Acabado 2013). In sum, Ifugao individuals are part of wide social webs in which “inheritance rule ensures the continuity of property ownership (estate) of the household; marriage and meat distribution illustrate that fixed territories do not bound relationships; and conflict resolution rituals almost always result from property claims” (Acabado 2013:175). Dayak of Borneo Although post-marital rules are flexible, Iban families in Borneo are defined by the longhouses in which they reside together (Dove 1985; Freeman 1955; O’Gorman 2010). Each Iban longhouse is a central place for activities of production, reproduction, and ritual (O’Gorman 2010; Sutlive 1978). Although the roles of and the relationships between the nuclear families within each longhouse are highly structured, overall the longhouse operates as an egalitarian corporate group (Bala 2002; Freeman 1955; Hong 1987; O’Gorman 2010). Each longhouse operates independently of its neighbors, but kinship connections also exist between them; Iban longhouses are able to use these inter-household kinship connections in order to develop and maintain the reciprocal exchange relationships on which they sometimes depend to fulfill their goods and labor needs (Bala 2002; Hong 1987; O’Gorman 2010). To their northeast, among the Kelabit, multiple nuclear families also live in each longhouse; however, for them the primary focus is on their own nuclear hearth-group rather than 35 on the entirety of the longhouse in which they live (Janowski 1995). Each nuclear family hearth- group is responsible for maintaining its own section of the longhouse’s central public area, and this central public area is freely used by all who live in the house (Janowski 1995). While cooperative work groups are necessary to work in the rice fields, each hearth-group’s primary conjugal couple is responsible for producing rice for the other members of its hearth-group (Janowski 1995). Within each longhouse, each nuclear family has its own apartment and its own hearth, thus forming its own hearth-group (Janowski 1995). Strict norms ensure that each nuclear family eats only its own rice at its own hearth; rice is explicitly owned by each hearth- group, and the head woman of the hearth-group maintains primary responsibility for cultivating, processing, and cooking that rice (Janowski 1995). It is permissible for rice to be shared between hearth-groups within the longhouse if individuals are in danger of hunger, but then the recipients of that rice are indebted to the givers (Janowski 1995). Within each hearth-group, the primary conjugal couple is responsible for providing rice, a heavily cultivated food; their dependents are responsible for providing the supplemental meat, fish, and vegetables, which are all wild or semi-cultivated foods (Janowski 1995). Each rice meal, then, includes a combination of rice, meat, fish, and vegetables (Janowski 1995). As mentioned above, rice is owned and consumed by its own hearth-group; however, supplemental foods, like meat, fish, and vegetables, that are hunted, gathered, or planted are shared freely between hearth-groups within individual longhouses (Janowski 1995). Vietnam An avid researcher of corporate groups in archaeological contexts, both in Ontario and North America’s Northwest Coast, Hayden (2011) found many ethnographic sources lacking in 36 descriptions appropriate to apply to the material remains recoverable at archaeological sites. To address this, Hayden (2011) conducted ethnographic research of his own, seeking applicable archaeological correlates for the social characteristics of corporate groups. Working with Professor Tran Quoc Vuong to study the Ta Oi of the Quang Tri Province in the northern Vietnamese Highlands, Hayden (2011) found that among the Ta Oi, corporate groups have nine primary functions: (1) to hold feasts …; (2) to pay bride prices and reciprocal wealth exchanges between members of different corporate groups …; (3) to cover funeral expenses for members; (4) to protect members involved in disputes; (5) to assure subsistence for members; (6) to provide for the defense of members; (7) to provide curing for members; (8) to worship lineage ancestors; and (9) to act as an intermediary with other corporate groups [Hayden 2011:9]. Within Ta Oi corporate groups, nuclear families are relatively independent in daily production tasks, such as cultivation and meal preparation; each nuclear family also possesses its own property, such as a granary (Hayden 2011). However, group leaders still maintain a significant amount of control over the nuclear families within their corporate group, including the activities of the group members and the resources that are created or acquired by the group members (Hayden 2011). For example, wealth items, such as bronze cauldrons, gongs, and wooden dressers, are required to be exclusively stored in the apartment of the corporate group leader (Hayden 2011). Japan The central Japanese village of Shirakawa provides an example of “political, economic, and ritual” (Befu 1968a:33) corporate groups that practice both a duolocal post-marital residential strategy and patrilineality of succession within a set of intra-village hamlets. In 1966, Befu (1968a) studied the seven hamlets of Nakagiri, whose household clusters contained a range 37 of two to fourteen large households; while large household size was maintained throughout Shirakawa, however, duolocality was confined to Nakagiri. Befu (1968a) does not quantify “large” household sizes, but he does note that records from 1853 indicate households averaging 9 to 21 members, depending on the particular hamlet. Households in Nakagiri were strictly duolocal, and children belonged to the household of their mothers (Befu 1968a); after marriage, each spouse continued to live with and participate in his or her natal household group. Duolocality decreases the likelihood of the formation of intra- household subgroups that could be prone to segmentation and, ultimately, household fissioning, and it “had the effect of minimizing marital bonds and the mutual rights and obligations of spouses, and of strengthening the corporateness of the household by obliterating the father-child relationship” (Befu 1968a:40). Serving primarily to fulfill the need for sexual relations, which were “prohibited between members of the same household, no matter how distant the relationship, although such liaisons did occasionally occur” (Befu 1968a:35), marriages were exogamous at the household level but endogamous within Nakagiri. An exception to the otherwise strict practice of duolocality, the household head and his patrilineal heirs practiced a patrilocal or virilocal post-marital residential strategy, in which they brought their wives into their own households or the households of their descent groups; likewise, a woman would only leave her natal household if she were to marry the head/heir of another household (Befu 1968a). Thus, each household was composed of the relatives of each household head in each generation: his wives, siblings, and all of their children; “all women of the house slept together in one large room, in which the head, or the heir if married, also slept with his wife” (Befu 1968a:34). Households comprised individual co-residential units of production and consumption, with no real ties between households (Befu 1968a). Living in separate households means that 38 husbands and wives, though married monogamously and permanently, operated as part of separate corporate groups; Befu (1968a) explains that “spouses had no special place in each other’s households. A spouse was not even summoned at the death of the mate nor given any special role in the funeral, participating in the ceremony simply as a member of his or her community or household” (35). Each household is a corporate group based on cooperative labor by its members (Befu 1968a). Managed by the household head, all members of the household participated in agricultural labor, directly supervised by the kuwa-gashira, or hoe-leader, who “was one of the oldest and most experienced male members of the household; he was not ordinarily the heir, ... but was ordinarily the household head’s paternal uncle or brother” (Befu 1968a:29). Silk was also produced at the household level (Befu 1968a). In addition to serving as the representative of his household in extra-household matters, the head of each household served as “political leader, manager of the household property, and priest to propitiate the deceased members” (Befu 1968a:33). Additionally, the heads of each household involved needed to approve a marriage between the patrilineal heir of the household head and his wife (Befu 1968a). Below the household head and his patrilineal heirs, members of the household were equal to one another; there is a notable absence of status distinctions by age and generation in terms of address and reference within households, which serves to emphasize the “primacy of the household as a corporation” (Befu 1968a:37). Further, cultivated land is owned communally and highly accessible; there is no “differential access to communal lands” (Befu 1968a:27). “All agricultural equipment and household utensils and furnishings” (Befu 1968a:29) were owned and used by all members of the household, and “with one exception..., all 39 crops harvested from the land belonged to the household” (Befu 1968a:29). The one exception was a day off once a week during the agricultural season called shingai: On this day the household did not provide for subsistence of its members, and all adult men and women, except the head, his parents, his wife, and his son’s wife, were required to feed themselves. This was most commonly accomplished by each member relying on the products of a small plot of individually cultivated land, usually on a slope of the communal land cleared through the slash-and-burn technique. Work on these days-off apparently produced a certain surplus, which was applied to buy personal necessities, such as clothes, tobacco, and sake [Befu 1968a:30]. Mothers were responsible for providing for all of their children’s needs except for food, with the optional help of her husband, if necessary; the children’s food was provided by the household (Befu 1968a). Befu (1968a) attributes the corporate practices of Nakagiri at least in part to the community’s geographical remoteness, which led to social separation. Another significant ecological factor was the difficulty of successful agricultural cultivation in the area (Befu 1968a). Keeping large groups of people together to cultivate large plots of land was ultimately necessary for human survival; fissioning both land and people would be unsustainable (Befu 1968a). India Among the Nayar along the Malabar Coast of India, lineage segments 5 to 7 generations deep traditionally formed a joint property-owning unit and a matrilocal household of 15 to 35 members, which was “at once the property-holding unit, the dwelling group, the group within which operated the legal and moral authority of kinship, and the group whose members combined in propitiation of dead male heads of the lineage” (Gough 1952:73). The members of the taravad collectively owned both the group’s house and land (Gough 1952). The head of the property-group, or taravad, was the senior male member of the lineage segment, who was 40 responsible for “organiz[ing] the economic affairs of the group, exercis[ing] legal authority over its members, and [being] a member of the local sub-caste assembly” (Gough 1952:72), as well as choosing the husbands of the women in their taravad. Befu and Plotnicov (1962) view the Nayar taravad, or property group, as religiously corporate because “it expresses solidarity through some rituals, such as the propitiation of its own ancestors” (321). However, Gough (1952) focuses primarily on changes in the structure of Nayar corporate groups over time and the factors that have influenced those changes. She attributes changes in the structure and function of Nayar corporate groups primarily to changes in economic factors like technology and subsistence, including rule by the British, the rise of individual cash wage labor, the expansion of trade, and the availability of new and more varied occupations (Gough 1952). Interestingly, these are all external forces that are changing Nayar corporate groups. First, legal changes necessarily changed social practices among the Nayar. The Malabar Marriage Act of 1896 permitted the governmental registration of Nayar men’s marriages, thereby legally tying men economically to their wives and children and changing the inheritance of a man’s property from his taravad to his wife and children if he died without a will (Gough 1952). Additionally, the Malabar Marumakkattayam (Matriliny) Act of 1933 “allows a man for the first time to claim an individual share of the ancestral estate as his personal property to dispose of as he will” (Gough 1952:81). Legal changes led to economic changes. Individual ownership of property has developed as lineages divide their property amongst individual women (and their children), rather than holding property collectively as a taravad (Gough 1952). This trend is reinforced by the increased opportunities to acquire land, property, and money outside of their lineage in order to support their wives and children, who now expect less support from their brothers and uncles 41 than they do from their husbands and fathers (Gough 1952). Women can also own land and property independently now (Gough 1952). Thus, nuclear families are becoming more independent economically (Gough 1952). Further, economic changes led to social changes. There has been a shift from polyandry to monogamy, resulting partly from a military collapse that increased the number of men at home and partly from nineteenth-century European pressure so intense that “most Nayars now exhibit a strong sense of shame about their former marriage customs, and deny that their women were ever polyandrous” (Gough 1952:83). There has also been an increase of men’s involvement with their wives and children, but Gough (1952) suggests that “the first stage in the disintegration of the taravad” (83) was the shift from polyandry to monogamy, which “began the weakening of matrilineal bonds” (83-84). As nuclear families become more economically independent, emphasis is increasingly shifted from the lineage segment to the nuclear family as the primary group (Gough 1952). Men choose to prioritize their wives over their matrilineal kin, like their sisters (Gough 1952). In sum: Modern changes in the Nayar kinship system included ... the collapse of the unilineal descent group as a corporate land-holding group with functions in village organization; the increasing importance of paternity and of the conjugal relationship; the emergence of the parental family as the nuclear kinship unit and, frequently, as the domestic group; the transition from exclusively matrilineal to bilateral inheritance; and a narrowing of the range of kinship relationships to a smaller number of close bilateral kin. These changes in kinship are correlated with the gradual breakdown of the caste system; the breakdown of the village as a relatively autonomous legal and economic unit; and the emergence of new social classes between which there is mobility [Gough 1952:81-82]. 42 Summary In conclusion, the theoretical literature and the broad survey of corporate groups both globally and through time has established the basic characteristics necessary for the identification of corporate groups theoretically, ethnographically, and archaeologically, as well as means by which they may be demonstrated to vary. It is clear that every corporate group has collective rights and collective obligations, but these collective rights and obligations differ in substance and practice between corporate groups in different cultures and of different types. The following table summarizes the characteristics of corporate groups (identified in the theoretical literature) that I identified in the global survey. In the left-most column of the table, the cultures from the global survey are identified as A through I. Table 2.2 Cultures Appearing in Global Survey A. Northwest Coast cultures B. Kalapalo (Aifa, Brazil) C. Northern Tagalog (San Isidro, Nueva Ecija, Philippines) D. Ifugao cultures (Ifugao Province, Philippines) E. Iban Dayak (Borneo) F. Kelabit Dayak (Borneo) G. Ta Oi (Quang Tri Province, Vietnam) H. Nakagiri, Shirakawa, Japan I. Nayar (Malabar Coast, India) Across the top of the table are the forty potential characteristics of corporate groups identified earlier in this chapter. 43 Table 2.3 Potential Characteristics of Corporate Groups 1. shared internal 11. membership identity 2. perpetuity based on territory/location through time 12. membership 21. co-residence 22. non-neolocal post- marital residences 23. based at household 3. geographically/ socially isolated based on age and sex level 24. based at 31. collective rights to products of collective property 32. agrarian 33. cooperative 4. economic/ 13. membership neighborhood level labor 34. labor 25. based at village 26. internal status 35. intra-group differences assignments/ task scheduling specialization of production 36. communal consumption 37. economically- based success 19. patrilineal 20. matrilineal ownership of knowledge 38. politically-based 39. religiously- 30. collective property based ownership/ management/use 40. supernatural sanctions/ special deities 14. membership level based on occupation based on ethnicity 15. membership can 27. group leader with change 16. self-sufficient 17. endogamous 18. emphasize group authority 28. symbolic group leader 29. collective environmental/ political pressures 5. external social stability 6. stratified society 7. mid-range population density 8. restricted membership 9. membership based on real kinship 10. membership based on fictive kinship The presence of an “x” in the table indicates the presence of that corporate group characteristic in that particular culture. The table has been divided in half (characteristics 1-20 and characteristics 21-40) for purposes of visual accessibility. Table 2.4 Characteristics of Corporate Groups within Global Survey A B C D x x E x F G H x I x x x x x x 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 44 Table 2.4 (cont’d) x x x x 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 x A x x x B x C x x x x D x x E x x F x G H x x x I x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Of the collective rights and obligations, collective property ownership, as well as the continuation of these rights to property over time, consistently appeared in the ethnographic examples and theoretical perspectives. Cooperative fulfillment of subsistence production and construction tasks are another recurring characteristic emphasized repeatedly in the preceding examples, as well as the leadership position within a corporate group necessary to fulfill such tasks. Co-residence also occurs regularly in the global survey, although the level at which corporate groups co-reside, i.e., household, neighborhood, etc., varies between cultures and types of corporate groups. On the other hand, corporate group membership requirements appear to be the most variable aspect of corporate groups, with significant differences occurring between the global examples explored in this chapter. Further, the global survey has highlighted differences in the environmental and cultural conditions in which corporate groups have existed and thrived around the world. The following table, then, summarizes the common themes that have emerged from my review of the theoretical and global literature. As will be described in the next chapter, these results will provide the foundation for my ethnographic analysis in Chapter Four. 45 Table 2.5 Common Themes of Corporate Groups within Global Survey Theme References Case Studies Comments social and political organization at a higher level than that of the corporate group Befu 1968a; Befu and Plotnicov 1962; Fried 1967; Goode 1970; Gough 1952; Hayden and Cannon 1982; Netting 1990; Service 1962 Japanese hamlet of Nakagiri Nayar in India conditions of social stability and change, as well as any influences of external or internal pressures Befu 1968a; De Lepervanche 1967; Fortes 1953; Goode 1970; Gough 1952; Hayden 1976; Hayden and Cannon 1982 Japanese village of Nakagiri Nayar in India Hayden and Cannon (1982) suggest links between social stratification and the formation of corporate groups. On the other hand, Nayar corporate groups broke down as they abandoned their caste system for social classes with greater mobility between them. External economic and environmental influences have the ability to impact the formation of corporate groups and how they change over time. For example, in Japan, corporate groups developed as a means to cope with a combination of ecological conditions and geographical isolation. Additionally, the case study of the Nayar shows the effects of legal changes on social and economic practices of corporate groups. 46 Table 2.5 (cont’d) Theme References Case Studies Comments In some circumstances, village organization and corporateness are connected, while in others, they are not. For example, the spatial organization of families and households within a Mesoamerican pueblo is directly related to how those neighborhoods form and operate within corporate barrios. In contrast, among the Kalapalo, corporate groups are contained within households, whose location around the village’s central plaza is unrelated to their corporate nature. Access to public and private spaces within a village may or not may be restricted similarly to the restriction of access to property like land and water resources or trading routes. Among the Kalapalo, for example, access to certain spaces within the village was restricted by sex, as well as by corporate group membership. On a larger scale, corporate communities are often entirely closed to outsiders. village size and organization Acabado 2013; Basso 1973; Befu and Plotnicov 1962; Thomas 1979 Ifugao in the Philippines Kalapalo in Brazil access to public and private spaces within the village Basso 1973 Kalapalo in Brazil 47 Table 2.5 (cont’d) Theme References Case Studies Comments Lowie (1920; 1927) argues that descent practices result from the external conditions that determine the composition of corporate groups in a particular culture. The descent practices and property- holding practices of corporate groups were intertwined. This is consistent with observations among the Nayar that one of the first changes that began their shift away from corporate groups were legal changes that shifted the inheritance of a man’s property from his taravad to his wife and children. Corporate groups involve co-residence of some type, but there is variation cross- culturally in how co- residence is practiced. For example, in the hamlet of Nakagiri within the village of Shirakawa, duolocal post-marital residence served to strengthen intra- household corporate bonds in perpetuity. Likewise, external pressures on the Nayar shifted their post- marital residence from matrilocal to neolocal as they simultaneously shifted away from operating in corporate groups. descent practices Befu 1968a; Befu and Plotnicov 1962; Bell 1998; Fortes 1953; Gough 1952; Lowie 1920; Lowie 1927; Murphy 1972; Smith 1966; Wolf 1957 Japanese village of Shirakawa Nayar in India residential practices Befu 1968a; Befu 1968b; Bell 1998; Bettinger 1983; Curet and Oliver 1998; Ensor 2013; Goode 1970; Gough 1952; Hayden and Cannon 1982; Imori 1937; Kaberry 1967; Keesing 1975; Lowie 1920; Lowie 1927; Sahlins 1961; Smith 1956; Smith 1966 Japanese village of Shirakawa and hamlet of Nakagiri Nayar in India 48 Table 2.5 (cont’d) Theme References Case Studies Comments The configuration of the living and working spaces of a corporate group appears to vary in conjunction with the operational practices of that corporate group. For example, the open floor plans of Kalapalo houses fits well with their high levels of group cohesion. In contrast, the more independent nuclear families of the Kelabit lived in longhouses with an individual apartment and hearth for each nuclear family. Households form the smallest corporate groups but can also combine to form more dispersed corporate groups. Corporate groups necessarily have an emphasis on group success, but it turns out that there can also be significant independence of the units within the corporate group. For instance, nuclear family units had considerable independence among the central Coast Salish and the Twana on the Northwest Coast, the Northern Tagalog, and the Kelabit. Kalapalo in Brazil Kelabit in Borneo Northwest Coast Kalapalo in Brazil Northern Tagalog in the Philippines Iban and Kelabit in Borneo Japanese hamlet of Nakagiri Nayar in India internal organization of houses Basso 1973; Janowski 1995 household membership and dynamics Ames 1994; Basso 1973; Bala 2002; Befu 1968a; Befu and Plotnicov 1962; Coupland et al. 2009; Donald 1997; Dove 1985; Drucker 1983; Freeman 1955; Gillespie 2000; Gough 1952; Hong 1987; Janowski 1995; Murray 1970; Murray 1973; O’Gorman 2010 49 Table 2.5 (cont’d) Theme References Case Studies Comments Northwest Coast Kalpalo in Brazil Northern Tagalog in the Philippines Japanese hamlet of Nakagiri Nayar in India Northwest Coast, particularly Tlingit Japanese hamlet of Nakagiri Leadership roles varied between corporate groups, with some leaders holding significant authority over the daily activities of their members and other leaders serving as advisors or representatives with less control over their members. As compared to other types of corporate groups, heads of corporate households appear to have exercised the greatest actual authority over the members of their corporate groups. For example, in Nakagiri, heads of corporate households managed and supervised the cooperative agricultural labor of the household members. The restriction of access to resources to members of corporate groups was closely tied to practices surrounding property ownership of those groups. On the Northwest Coast, for example, particularly among the Tlingit, access to resources was highly restricted by clans and corporate houses. In contrast, in Nakagiri, access was not restricted to communal agricultural land, and physical possessions within a corporate household were owned and used by all members. leadership roles, rights, and responsibilities within the corporate group Basso 1973; Befu 1968a; Bell 1998; Coupland et al. 2009; de Laguna 1983; Fortes 1953; Goode 1970; Gough 1952; La Fontaine 1973; Leacock 1983; Murray 1973; Sahlins 1957; Smith 1956; Smith 1966; Sobel 2004; Thomas 1979; Weber 1947; Weiner 1982 access to resources, both within and outside of the community Befu 1968a; de Laguna 1983 50 Table 2.5 (cont’d) Theme References Case Studies Comments An emphasis on trading practices was unique to the Kalapalo in this global survey. In this culture, trade provided a means for the acquisition of personal property by individuals in various group settings. Such practices potentially have implications for the intersections of individual and group interests among members of a corporate groups. Collective property ownership is the most important defining factor for corporate groups. For economically-based and politically-based corporate groups, both physical property and non-physical property are cooperatively owned, with their particular importance varying between cultures. On the other hand, non-physical property is the focus of religiously-based corporate groups. trading practices Basso 1973 Kalapalo in Brazil Acabado 2013; Basso 1973; Befu 1968a; Befu and Plotnicov 1962; Bell 1998; Berle and Means 1931; Cheney 1979; Coupland and Banning 1996; Ensor 2013; Fortes 1953; Fried 1957; Goodenough 1951; Goody 1961; Goody 1969; Goody 1990; Gough 1952; Hayden 2011; Janowski 1995; Keesing 1975; La Fontaine 1973; Marshall 1960; Maine 1861; Radcliffe-Brown 1950; Sahlins 1961; Schneider et al. 1972; Smith 1966; Wolf 1957 Northwest Coast Kalapalo in Brazil Ifugao in the Philippines Kelabit in Borneo Ta Oi in Vietnam Japanese hamlet of Nakagiri Nayar in India 51 nature of the ownership, access to, and inheritance of both physical and non-physical forms of property Table 2.5 (cont’d) Theme References Case Studies Comments Storage practices show a range of variation from exclusively communal storage for the entire corporate group to exclusively private storage for the individual units within the corporate group. For the central Coast Salish, for example, one indication of increased independence of units within the corporate group was the maintenance of storage pits at the nuclear family level rather than at the corporate household level. Cooperative labor of some sort is found in every corporate group, but it varies in nature, organization, and practice in different corporate groups. Organized by a leader with varying amounts of authority over the activities of the members of the corporate group, different groups approached the tasks of cooperative labor in different ways, for example, by dividing some tasks between members and working together for others. Such differences point to differing relationships between the members of the corporate group, such as, for example, when comparing Tlingit corporate groups to those of the Northern Tagalog or the Kelabit. storage facilities and practices de Laguna 1983; Donald 1997; Hayden 2011; Suttles 1990 Northwest Coast, particularly central Coast Salish Ta Oi in Vietnam cooperative labor practices Befu 1968a; Berle and Means 1931; Coupland and Banning 1996; Coupland et al. 2009; Donald 1997; Engelbrecht 2003; Ensor 2013; Goode 1970; Hayden 2011; Janowski 1995; Kaberry 1967; Moemeka 1998; Murray 1973; Radcliffe- Brown 1950; Read 1954; Sahlins 1957; Thomas 1979; Wilk and Rathje 1982 Northwest Coast Northern Tagalog in the Philippines Kelabit in Borneo Ta Oi in Vietnam Japanese hamlet of Nakagiri 52 Table 2.5 (cont’d) Theme References Case Studies Comments While it is common for cultures to divide labor by age and sex, it is important to understand how those divisions intersect with cooperative labor practices in corporate groups. Often, these divisions of labor appear to have been related to subsistence production. For instance, the Kalapalo divided their manioc production into clearing and planting tasks completed by cooperative labor groups of men and harvesting tasks for cooperative labor groups of women. Subsistence production and food preparation were common arenas in which members of corporate groups act jointly for the benefit of the group. On the Northwest Coast, for example, among the Chilkat Tlingit, the principal wife of the house chief organized a rotation of individual women preparing meals for all members of the group. In contrast, the nuclear families within Northern Tagalog and Kelabit corporate groups managed their own subsistence production tasks. Kalapalo in Brazil Japanese hamlet of Nakagiri Northwest Coast Kalapalo in Brazil Northern Tagalog in the Philippines Kelabit in Borneo Ta Oi in Vietnam Japanese hamlet of Nakagiri examination of the division of labor by age and sex Basso 1973; Befu 1968a subsistence production and food preparation practices Ames 1994; Basso 1973; Befu 1968a; Befu and Plotnicov 1962; Birch and Hart 2018; Coupland et al. 2009; de Laguna 1972; de Laguna 1983; de Laguna 1991; Donald 1997; Hayden 2011; Janowski 1995; Murray 1973; Perrelli 2009; Suttles 1990 53 Table 2.5 (cont’d) Theme References non-subsistence production practices Basso 1973; Befu 1968a; Befu and Plotnicov 1962; Birch and Hart 2018; Perrelli 2009 Case Studies Kalapalo in Brazil Japanese hamlet of Nakagiri teaching processes of non- subsistence production tasks Basso 1973 Kalapalo in Brazil consumption practices Befu 1968b; Bell 1998; Coupland et al. 2009; Donald 1997; Imori 1937; Janowski 1995; Suttles 1990 Northwest Coast, particularly Twana Kelabit in Borneo 54 Comments Non-subsistence production was typically conducted at the household level. Among the Kalapalo, specialization occurred at the village level. Though several authors addressed non-subsistence production practices, information about how such practices were learned was notably absent from the global survey aside from one case. Among the Kalapalo, parents taught their children their craft specialties. Therefore, specialties were maintained by members of particular households within particular villages. Consumption practices varied among corporate groups and were used as a measure of corporateness in several of the case studies I explored. As mentioned above in regards to food preparation, there was a range of practices from corporate groups whose members always ate together to corporate groups whose members always ate separately. Consumption practices do not appear to be dependent on subsistence production or food preparation practices. Table 2.5 (cont’d) Theme References Case Studies Comments examination of distributions of food both within and between households Acabado 2013; Bala 2002; Basso 1973; Hong 1987; Janowski 1995; Murray 1973; O’Gorman 2010 Kalapalo in Brazil Northern Tagalog and Ifugao in the Philippines Iban and Kelabit in Borneo Considering the emphasis that corporate groups place on group success, there was some interesting variation in the global case studies. For example, among the Kalapalo and the Ifugao, sharing of resources between corporate groups was common. In contrast, among the Kelabit, it was uncommon to share even between members of a single corporate group. In conclusion, this literature review has set the stage for my subsequent ethnographic analysis of five distinct case studies of domestic corporate groups in North America. The global survey has begun to explore the cross-cultural variation that exists in the nature and operation of corporate groups, as well as the changes that can occur in those groups over time. It introduces the idea of different types of corporate groups and different levels at which corporate groups operate within a particular community. The particular case studies throughout Asia, as well as the variation along the Northwest Coast from weakly to strongly corporate cultures, demonstrate that some aspects of corporate behavior, as defined in the theoretical literature, may be practiced without the practice of other aspects, and that different aspects of corporateness may be combined in different ways. These examples suggest that variation is likely to be found in a deeper cross-cultural examination of domestic corporate groups within a region like North America. Additionally, cases like that of the Nayar provide important examples of corporate groups changing over time, demonstrating how corporate groups have changed over time, as well as the causes of change. These outcomes of the global survey will be utilized in Chapter Three 55 as the foundation for my ethnographic analysis of domestic corporate groups across North America. 56 CHAPTER 3: Methodology Introduction I begin this chapter by returning to the research questions I laid out in Chapter One. I then lay out my methodology for answering those research questions over the course of this dissertation. First, I discuss the results of the deductive coding I conducted on the literature I reviewed in Chapter Two. Next, I define the culture areas and cases within them from which I collect my ethnographic data. Then, I describe my approach to the ethnographic data that forms a fundamental component of answering my research questions, including the importance of my approach, the limitations of the historical ethnographies, and the specific ethnographic sources from which I collect my raw data. Finally, I discuss the creation of my descriptive model of domestic corporate groups from the ethnographic analysis and how goodness of fit will be evaluated for archaeological data. Rationale Archaeological remains are a finite resource. In an attempt to mitigate the effect of our research on this resource, there has been a relatively recent shift in the field away from excavation for its own sake; instead, when possible, some North American archaeologists are returning to existing archaeological collections and using them to answer new research questions and gain new insights. I chose to take this approach with my own archaeological data in Chapter Six; to test my model, I selected existing collections from two archaeological sites that had been thoroughly excavated and well documented. 57 I also believe that this tactic can provide a powerful way to approach ethnographic data as well. Certainly, collecting one’s own ethnographic data firsthand provides an unparalleled means to access the precise types of information that will answer one’s research questions. As I discussed in Chapter Two, Hayden (2011) and Professor Tran Quoc Vuong did precisely this among the modern Ta Oi of the Quang Tri Province in the northern Vietnamese Highlands. Dissatisfied with existing ethnographies, Hayden (2011) sought to discover firsthand the potential archaeological correlates of the social characteristics of corporate groups. In contrast, as with existing archaeological collections, I find great value in turning to the contents of historical ethnographies in order to frame archaeological data and thereby answer new research questions and gain new insights. Though historical ethnographies have their own limitations, they also have important advantages over modern ethnographies in certain cases. First, their historical nature provides access to aspects of cultures that may no longer be believed and/or practiced, and thus no longer observable; this time depth has the added advantage of allowing for an understanding of change over time. Second, completing new ethnographic research from scratch is a complex endeavor requiring significant time and effort; using existing ethnographies, on the other hand, allows a researcher to thoroughly study multiple different cultures and employ cross-cultural comparisons with a much broader perspective. Further, as will be discussed below, the Boasian ethnographies I have selected are full of detailed descriptions of “all” aspects of particular cultures, discretely divided into accepted topics of relevance at the time. These advantages allow historical ethnographies a unique ability to illuminate patterns in the archaeological record. Fresh readings can tease out subtle patterns of connection between topics originally described separately, such as economies, households, and kinship in this research. 58 Research Questions As previously discussed, this dissertation seeks to examine the spectrum of variability in domestic corporate groups in order to better understand the following research questions: 1) What variation exists cross-culturally in the nature and operation of domestic corporate groups? 2) Over time, what changes have been observed ethnographically in domestic corporate groups? 3) How can a more explicit examination of variation in domestic corporate groups inform the investigation of such groups archaeologically? 4) How might changes in domestic corporate groups over time be evident in the archaeological record? In this chapter, I explicitly focus on my methodology for addressing the first two research questions. However, I also introduce my methodology for subsequently addressing the second two research questions. Methodology Deductive Coding In Chapter Two, my literature review explored corporate groups on a global scale. This literature review provided an important foundation for my analysis, as it sampled the variation that exists in corporate groups around the world and considered the impacts of external factors on the way corporate groups change over time. More importantly, however, I used a process of deductive coding while reading through the theoretical and global literature in order to identify 59 variables of importance for an analysis of cross-cultural variation in domestic corporate groups and how they can change over time. The important variables for understanding corporateness that I identified in the literature review, as well as their specific components, are laid out in the following table. These variables form the framework for my ethnographic data collection, guiding the data collection for each ethnography within each culture area, as will be described throughout the remainder of this chapter. Table 3.1 Variable Components of Corporate Groups Variable Community Village Descent and Residence House Household Access to Resources Components of the Variable Is the community stratified, and if so, how? At the time of the ethnographic fieldwork, is the community in a state of social stability, or is the community undergoing a period of change? Is any subsistence, social, or political uncertainty occurring at the time of the ethnographic fieldwork? What external and internal pressures are impacting the community at the time of the ethnographic fieldwork? How large is the village in hectares? What is the population density of the village? What is the layout of the village? Where are public and private spaces located in the village, and how are they accessed? How is descent reckoned? To what group do children belong? What post- marital residential strategy is typically practiced? Who is typically removed from their natal household upon marriage? How much variation is there in post-marital residential strategy, and for what reasons does this variation occur? How is succession to leadership roles determined? What are the physical dimensions of houses? How are houses constructed? How are houses internally organized? Are houses reconstructed on the same location multiple times, or are they moved to a different location? When reconstructed, are the internal layouts of houses changed? How many people live in a house? What is the population density of a house? Who lives in each house? How is household membership determined? How flexible is household membership? How does household membership change over time, and how often does this occur? Is there a household leader, and if so, who is the household leader? How is the household leader selected? What are the rights and responsibilities of the household leader within the household and within the village? Who has access to which resources within the village, and how is this access determined? Do community members claim access to particular resources outside of the village? If so, who has this access, and how is it determined? 60 Table 3.1 (cont’d) Variable Trade Property Storage Labor Subsistence Production Non- Subsistence Production Consumption Components of the Variable What items are traded externally to the community? Who participates in this trade, and how is this trade conducted? Who owns property? What property is owned individually? What property is owned by groups, and how are these groups determined? How is property inherited? How are non-physical types of property, such as cultural symbols, accessed and owned by individuals and groups? How are non-physical types of property distributed within and between households? What do people store? What kind of storage facilities do people create? Where are these facilities located? What storage facilities exist inside houses, and where are they located? How are they accessed and used by members of the household? What storage facilities exist outside of houses, and where are they located? How are they accessed and used by members of the village? How is labor divided by age? How is labor divided by sex? How are cooperative labor groups organized? What subsistence items are produced? Who participates in subsistence production? Where, how, by whom, and for whom is food prepared? What items are produced? Where, how, and by whom are these items produced? How does an individual learn to produce these items? How is food distributed within a household? How is food distributed between households? Where and how is food consumed? Culture Areas Although Chapter Two took a global approach in order to suggest important variables, my analysis is constrained to ethnographies of Indigenous cultures of North America. In part, this analysis is constrained to this continent because the model created from the analysis will then be tested on an additional Indigenous culture of North America. While the analysis is limited in geographic scope to a single continent, there is still significant variability in the operationalization of the domestic corporate group between Indigenous cultures of North America. 61 The broad ethnographic culture areas used in this research are in line with those defined by Clark Wissler in Chapter XIV of his The American Indian (1922), which seemed particularly appropriate for this research for two reasons: (1) Wissler was an early student of Boas (the importance of this factor will be discussed below), and (2) “the set of nine areas that [Wissler] designated has never been modified by subsequent scholars” (Adams 2016:77; see also Stocking 1992). I would like to acknowledge that Wissler’s (1922) characterizations of each of the culture areas are problematic in their essentialization of the cultures within them, which differed from one another, as well as through time. However, for my purposes within this research, I find Wissler’s (1922) divisions useful for two primary reasons. First, as mentioned, as a fellow Boasian, Wissler’s (1922) framework would have been utilized by many of the ethnographers from whose works I collect my ethnographic data. Second, I use Wissler’s (1922) culture areas primarily for their geographic and environmental divisions; any cultural characteristics within them, I draw strictly from specific ethnographies on particular cultures within each region. The five culture areas included in the ethnographic analysis, and the specific cases upon which I draw in each area, are as follows: (1) Eastern Woodland Area: Within the Eastern Woodland Area, my research focuses on members of the multi-tribal affiliation of the Haudenosaunee. (2) North Pacific Coast Area: Within the North Pacific Coast Area, my research focuses on several tribal groupings within the analytic area. (3) The Plains Area: Within the Plains Area, my research focuses on the exemplar cultures of the Pawnee and the Mandan. (4) Southwestern Area: Within the Southwestern Area, my research focuses on the exemplar culture of the Navajo. 62 (5) The Nahua Area: Within the Nahua Area, my research focuses on the village residential unit of Tzintzuntzan. I acknowledge that the foci of the five culture areas vary in scale. However, the specific ethnographic data I collect for each case arises from observations at the village level, allowing for comparisons between the villages within each culture area. I selected largely sedentary case studies in order to achieve these cross-cultural and cross-regional comparisons at the village level, as well as because the Wendat, whose villages form the focus of my archaeological data, were also sedentary. The difference in scale, then, primarily distinguishes the quantity of villages from which I collected ethnographic data within each culture area. The only variable for which this is not specifically the case in the ethnographies’ descriptions is the first variable, which considers community stratification, social stability and change, economic and social uncertainties, and external and internal pressures; however, I still attempt to relate these factors to their impacts at the village level in each case. 63 Figure 3.1 Map of Ethnographic Culture Areas, from Wissler 1922:219, modified by A. Conell 64 Ethnographic Data In order to answer the proposed research questions, I first conducted a cross-cultural analysis of the variation found in historical ethnographies on Indigenous North American cultures containing domestic corporate groups that I based on observations I made from the theoretical literature and the global survey conducted in the preceding literature review. My Approach to the Ethnographic Data In this research, it is my goal to build a model of the variation in domestic corporate groups, as well as how they change over time, to be applied to archaeological data. To accomplish this goal, I use ethnographic texts as the foundation for my model. As introduced above, I take a novel approach to the content of historical ethnographic descriptions and analyzing it in order to frame the archaeological data. I primarily focused my analysis on the early twentieth century cornerstone ethnography or ethnographies for each culture area due to the comparable nature of the fieldwork and data collection priorities and strategies practiced by the anthropologists. Generally, the ethnographic fieldwork for these publications was conducted in the 1920s and 1930s by students of Franz Boas. There are four primary reasons that these ethnographies are important to this research, each of which will be discussed below: (1) their breadth of coverage; (2) their comparability; (3) their presentation of their observations; and (4) the nature of their data. First, Boas and his students were incredibly prolific researchers in their time, and they published extensively on many different cultures across the continent of North America. A fear by anthropologists that Indigenous cultures and traditions were rapidly disappearing inspired the comprehensive ethnographic information they worked to collect and recorded about these 65 cultures; although the Indigenous cultures did not ultimately disappear, the ethnographies provide useful data describing in detail many different aspects of Indigenous life at the time. Their prolificacy means that I had a significant body of work from which to draw my ethnographic samples, that I could use a broad selection of multiple case studies in my data collection, and that therefore my cross-cultural comparisons could be more robust. Further, they provide access to aspects of cultures that have changed since their recording, providing the added perspective of change over time. Boas’s students who worked in the 1920s and 1930s, in particular, focused their ethnographic work on observing the details of contemporary behaviors within their holistic cultural contexts from a perspective of cultural relativism (Adams 2016; Darnell 1998; Jacknis 1996; Stocking 1976). Boas and his students also engaged in ethnography of memories of the remote past by interviewing older community members regarding their recollections of their experiences or information that had been passed down to them about life before the arrival of Europeans and Americans (Suttles and Jonaitis 1990). Second, students of Boas were preferred for the bulk of the ethnographic data due to the high comparability of their data collection. Though Boas’s students worked in many different cultures, they did so using consistent approaches to ethnographic research; this means that the data they recorded have high comparability, regardless of differences between the cultures themselves. For American anthropology of the first half of the twentieth century, “disciplinary coherence rested on detailed and rigorous ethnographic description of the American Indian” (Darnell 1998:6), which aimed to understand each Indigenous culture on its own terms. The observations found in their ethnographies dealt with similar anthropological questions and were collected using similar research techniques, resulting from similarities in their training. Likewise, Boas’s students, from those who followed him most strictly to those who pushed his 66 boundaries, held a similar set of underlying assumptions when conducting their research, including a denunciation of cultural evolutionism, an emphasis on holism and cultural relativism, and an assumption of culture as integrated (Adams 2016; Darnell 1998; Stocking 1974; Stocking 1992). The following table details their consistencies most relevant to this research. Table 3.2 Aspects of the Boasian Approach Aspect of ethnography Boasian approach culture as a pattern, including both observable behaviors and the ideas and explanations that people hold about them (Darnell 1998; Darnell 2001; Stocking 1974; Stocking 1992) “ relativistic, pluralistic, holistic, integrated, and historically conditioned framework for the study of the determination of human behavior” (Stocking 1974:18-19; see also Stocking 1992) “detailed study of customs in their bearings to the total culture of the tribe practicing them, and in connection with an investigation of their geographical distribution among neighboring tribes” (Boas 1896:905) in order to better understand “the environmental conditions ... ; ... psychological factors ... ; or ... historical connections ...” (Boas 1896:905) that have contributed to the specific development of that culture’s characteristics “synchronic pattern within a single culture and the coherence of such a culture for the individuals within it” (Darnell 1998:274) concept of culture historical approach emphasis of research Third, the rich ethnographic descriptions of the Boasians are extremely detailed in their recording of information on cultural behaviors, many of which are no longer observable due to cultural change over the last century. Even critics of Boasians admit that, in trying to fully reconstruct each culture that they studied, they collected a rich and voluminous data set full of detailed and contextualized description that has contributed significantly to the work of future anthropologists (Adams 2016; Darnell 1998; Hieb 1993; Stocking 1996; Suttles and Jonaitis 1990). Adams (2016) praises their “comprehensiveness” (12) born out of the fear that the cultures were disappearing, which “ma[de] it essential to record every detail, no matter how mundane” (12) in an attempt to record “human variability in all its aspects” (Stocking 1992:124). 67 Fourth, these historical ethnographies predominantly do not focus on aspects of material culture specifically, which some may consider to be a disadvantage. Boas himself preferred to focus on “the linguistic/symbolic/humanistic” rather than “the physical/archaeological/natural science” (Darnell 1998:xii). However, I do not view this as a disadvantage to using these ethnographies since their focus is on the beliefs, norms, and practices that ultimately create the spatial patterns of the material record. The Boasians’ projects were essentially salvage ethnographies designed to collect information about all aspects of a culture and to understand how the community functioned as an integrated whole. Combined, all of these aspects place Boasian ethnographies in a unique position to illuminate archaeological patterns. Viewing these historical ethnographies from a fresh perspective allows for new understandings of cultural characteristics separated by the original ethnographers, such as aspects of household and economic organization in the case of this research, and how they can be connected to frame interpretations of archaeological remains. Franz Boas and his students dominated the field of anthropology in North America for the first half of the twentieth century, fostering American anthropology’s shift into historical particularism from cultural evolutionism (Darnell 1998; Darnell 2001; Hieb 1993; Stocking 1974; Stocking 1992). Adams (2016:27) summarizes their contributions to the field: the things that Boas and his students brought to anthropology ... were egalitarianism, a view of culture as the primary determinant in human behavior, a particularistic view that every culture was interesting and important in its own right, a tendency to idealize the cultures they studied, a preference for historical rather than evolutionary explanations for cultural development, with a special emphasis on diffusion, and a highly particularized, trait-list approach to ethnography. While anthropological theories and methods have advanced since these ethnographies were written, the data contained in these ethnographies can still be used to make important 68 contributions to anthropological studies today, such as will be demonstrated in this research. As Foster (1979) remembers, “as a student of Kroeber and Lowie, I was taught that all forms of behavior, all data, have meaning and that they are relevant to interpretation and explanation, even if this relevance is not apparent at the time they are noted or recorded” (171). Limitations of Historical Ethnographies While the natural history approach to anthropology taken by Boasians had the advantages of non-judgmental neutrality, i.e., cultural relativism, and thoroughly recording every available aspect of a culture’s traits and behaviors, with no detail more or less important than another, one of its most significant disadvantages was its normative nature, which dominated the field before World War II (Adams 2016). Ethnographies written in such a normative fashion do not seek to portray the variation within a culture in their descriptions of observed cultural behaviors, even though they may acknowledge the possibility of its existence; rather, they explain “a single idealized model, ... the whole of a culture exactly as if it were a language, having only one correct set of rules” (Adams 2016:32). Further, although Boas trained his students in statistics and American Indian languages, he did not provide them any training in fieldwork methodology even though he maintained that fieldwork was the essential role of the anthropologist; Boas believed that his students must be able to think independently when conducting their research, but many felt that this lack of training hindered their work (Adams 2016). Foster et al. (1979) also note that “most American ethnographical research prior to the 1940s was carried out in relatively short visits, of a few weeks or months, sometimes repeated over a number of years” (4). Within the Boasian normative perspective, then, data from all of these research trips was frequently collapsed into one cohesive, but static, normative picture of the culture (Foster et al. 69 1979). To address these methodological limitations, I supplement the Boasian ethnographies’ data with data from additional ethnographies in order to tease out the variation, particularly through time, that tends to be absent from the normative cultural descriptions. Stocking (1974) also refers to Boasian anthropology as “rather self-consciously conservative” and “somewhat insular” (15); Adams (2016) refers to their ethnographies as “idealize[d]” and “static” (12). Additionally, Boasians openly did not agree about “the proper relationship of culture to individual, history to contemporary society, and primitive to civilized” (Darnell 2001:157). Moreover, Boasians have been critiqued for their concept of culture, the lack of theory in their ethnographies, their anti-cultural-evolutionism, their methods, and their morals (Stocking 1996). While these conceptual factors limit the ways these historical ethnographies can be used in present-day research, they largely do not impact the usefulness of the ethnographies for my approach to this research on domestic corporate groups. Further, though modern anthropologists critique these aspects of Boasian ethnographies, their consistency throughout these works allows them a comparability essential to my analysis. Ultimately, I feel it is important to acknowledge both the methodological and theoretical limitations of the historical ethnographies of the Boasians. As products of their time, their approaches appear quite dated compared to those of modern ethnographies. However, the consistency of their approaches allows for high levels of comparability between the data from different cultures. Further, the richness of their detailed descriptions provides excellent access to an understanding of the cultural characteristics in which variation of domestic corporate groups may be found. The prolificacy of Boas’s students and their research means that ethnographic data exists for a wide range of cultures across the entire continent of North America, allowing for greater sample sizes and more robust comparisons. Plus, the most concerning limitation, the 70 normative nature of the cultural descriptions, can be corrected through supplementation with additional ethnographies dating to different time periods. Ethnographic Sources As described above, I began my data collection within each culture area with the early twentieth century cornerstone ethnography or ethnographies of Boasian anthropologists. Once I recorded data from the central ethnography or ethnographies for each culture area, I supplemented the analysis with additional ethnographic data that either elaborated on a particular aspect of the culture or revealed change over time. Unfortunately, one disadvantage of most of the ethnographies from which I collected data provided snapshots of their cultures at single moments in time; sometimes these snapshots dated to the time of the ethnographic fieldwork, while other ethnographers attempted to access Indigenous people’s memories of earlier times in their cultures without comparing those memories to conditions at the times of their recordings. However, by comparing observations from multiple ethnographies, as well as observations from different time periods within ethnographies, change over time was identifiable in most of the cultures in this analysis. The primary anthropologists and their central ethnographies from which I collected data for my ethnographic analysis are described below. All of the ethnographies, including both the central and supplemental ethnographies, from which I collected data for each culture area are then listed with the time periods of their content. 71 (1) Eastern Woodland Area Within the Eastern Woodland Area, my research focuses on members of the multi-tribal affiliation of the Haudenosaunee. William N. Fenton (1908-2005) spent virtually the entirety of his career studying the Haudenosaunee, or the Iroquois, as he refers to them in his publications (Becker 2006; Darnell 2007). Such a career could not contain the vastness of its collected data in a single ethnography; therefore, this analysis includes data from Fenton’s publications over the course of his life and work among the Haudenosaunee. These include: An Outline of Seneca Ceremonies at Coldspring Longhouse (1936) and “Locality as a Basic Factor in the Development of Iroquois Social Structure,” in Symposium on Local Diversity in Iroquois Culture (1951). An ethnographic analysis of Haudenosaunee corporate groups would be incomplete without an examination of Lewis Henry Morgan’s (1818-1881) two-volume League of the Ho- De’-No-Sau-Nee or Iroquois (1851), Lewis Henry Morgan’s article “Laws of Descent of the Iroquois” (1858), and Denis Foley’s dissertation, An Ethnohistoric and Ethnographic Analysis of the Iroquois from the Aboriginal Era to the Present Suburban Era (1975), which I also thoroughly explore in this research. Finally, in choosing supplemental ethnographic sources for the Haudenosaunee, I considered not only works focusing on particular aspects of the Haudenosaunee or change over time, but also works focusing on individual cultures of the Haudenosaunee, including the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca. Table 3.3 Eastern Woodland Area Ethnographic Data Time Period of Ethnographic Data c. 1200 BC; late 1500s; 1600s; 1700s; 1720s-1730s; 1743; 1750-1751 1600s-1914; 1950-1975 1634; 1677; 1800s; 1978 1661-1664 1667-1684 1687; 1800; 1951 Source Specific Culture Richter 1992 Foley 1975 Campisi 1978 Brandão 2003 Parmenter 2010 Fenton 1951 Oneida 72 Table 3.3 (cont’d) Time Period of Ethnographic Data 1791; 1978 1830s-1860s 1851 1858 c. 1900-1910 1911-1912 1912-1915 1913 1916 1918 1936 1950s 1951 1951 1952 1956-1958 1978 Source Blau, Campisi, and Tooker 1978 Weaver 1978 Morgan 1954 [1851] Morgan 1858 Parker 1910 Goldenweiser 1913 Waugh 1973 Goldenweiser 1914 Hewitt and Fenton 1944 Hewitt 1920 Fenton 1936 Landy 1978 Snyderman 1951 Randle 1951 Conklin and Sturtevant 1953 Myers 2006 Tooker 1978 Specific Culture Onondaga Six Nations of the Grand River, Ontario Seneca Tuscarora Seneca Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada (2) North Pacific Coast Area Within the North Pacific Coast Area, my research focuses on several tribal groupings within the analytic area. The Northwest Coast is home to several different tribal groups, a few of which have already been briefly discussed. The Northwest Coast cultures for which I have collected ethnographic data for this analysis include: the Eyak; the Tlingit [Northern]; the Haida [Northern]; the Tsimshian; the Nuxalk (or Bella Coola) [Central]; the Kwakwaka’wakw (or Kwakiutl) [Central]; the Nuu-chah-nulth (or Nootka) [Southern]; and the Klamath. I have chosen to analyze all of the cultures of the Northwest Coast together due to their significant similarities across the culture area. However, in collecting my data, I noted observations that 73 relate to specific tribal groups of the Northwest Coast to highlight variation within the culture area. Considering the multitude of tribal groups living on the Northwest Coast, I consulted multiple sources of ethnographic data in order to achieve a thorough analysis, including Franz Boas (1858-1942), Leslie Spier (1893-1961), and Frederica de Laguna (1906-2004) as my central ethnographers, plus additional supplemental ethnographers. I consulted two monographs written by Franz Boas: The Kwakiutl of Vancouver Island (1909) and Ethnology of the Kwakiutl (1921). Boas’s work on the Northwest Coast began as early as 1886 and continued with varying intensity for the remainder of his life (Suttles and Jonaitis 1990). While Boas collected some of his own data through firsthand fieldwork on the Northwest Coast, his research was greatly supplemented by data collected by George Hunt and transmitted to Boas over a series of lengthy correspondence. Hunt assisted Boas in his research on the Kwakwaka’wakw for 40 years (Suttles and Jonaitis 1990). While Leslie Spier is most famously known for his work in the Southwest, his work on the Northwest Coast is nearly as influential. I collected data from Spier’s Klamath Ethnography (1930) due to its detailed and comprehensive nature. I collected data from Frederica de Laguna’s monograph Under Mount Saint Elias: The History and Culture of the Yakutat Tlingit (1972), which many scholars, including de Laguna herself, have regarded as her best work. Its combination of ethnographical and archaeological data made it well-suited for this analysis. As supplemental data sources, I added a selection of other works, which include archaeological, ethnographical, and historical data on multiple cultures within the Northwest Coast culture area, such as George Thornton Emmons’s monograph on the Tlingit, which de Laguna edited and published after his death. In addition to de Laguna and Spier, I collected data from more students of Boas, including John R. Swanton’s work on the Haida and Viola 74 Garfield’s work on the Tlingit, as well as some non-Boasians like George Peter Murdock’s work on the Haida and Kalervo Oberg’s work on the Tlingit. The Tsimshian were considered only supplementally since they are so similar to the Tlingit and the Haida, which were both analyzed in greater depth. Table 3.4 North Pacific Coast Area Ethnographic Data Time Period of Ethnographic Data 1700s; 1780s-1880s; 1890; late 1800s-early 1900s; 1912-1916; early-mid 1900s; 1940s- 1950s 1700s-1985 late 1700s-early 1800s; 1825; 1830s-1930s; 1963; 1970s; 1984; 1990 1835-1904 1835-1954 1835-1984 mid-1800s; 1925-1926 1857-1986 1870-1900; 1935-1936 c. 1870; 1990 1873; 1930; 1977 1885-1900 1885-1983 1893-1901 1898-1900 1900-1901 1902; 1945 1918; 1920 1931-1933 1936 1950 1956; 1968 1983 1983 75 Source Culture de Laguna 1972 Tlingit de Laguna 1990b Tlingit Blackman 1990 Haida de Laguna 1991 Codere 1990 Arima and Dewhirst 1990 Spier 1930 Dunn and Booth 1990 Drucker 1951 de Laguna 1990a Eyak Kennedy and Bouchard 1990 Boas 1909 Holm 1990 Boas 1921 Boas 1900 Tlingit Kwakwaka’wakw Nuu-chah-nulth Klamath Tsimshian Nuu-chah-nulth Nuxalk Kwakwaka’wakw Kwakwaka’wakw Kwakwaka’wakw Nuxalk, Kwakwaka’wakw Haida Tlingit Tsimshian Swanton 1905a Garfield 1947 Halpin and Seguin 1990 Oberg 1973 Murdock 1936 de Laguna 1952 Stearns 1990 Inglis et al. 1990 Tsimshian Webster 1990 Tlingit Haida Tlingit Haida Kwakwaka’wakw (3) The Plains Area Within the Plains Area, my research focuses on the exemplar cultures of the Pawnee and the Mandan. Although the Pawnee and the Mandan are distinct cultures, I grouped them together as a result of the many similarities in their cultural characteristics, their close geographical relationship on the Plains, and the significant interrelatedness of their histories through time. However, within my analysis, I clearly distinguish between data that I collected from ethnographies of each culture. For the Pawnee, the central ethnography I analyzed was Gene Weltfish’s (1902-1980) salvage ethnography The Lost Universe (1965). A pioneer in Plains ethnography, Weltfish’s research is still considered the most comprehensive examination of Pawnee culture to date. I primarily chose supplemental sources for the Pawnee that elaborated on specifically relevant aspects of Pawnee culture. For the Mandan, I based my analysis on the work of Alfred W. Bowers (1901-1990) and Elizabeth A. Fenn (1959-). I collected data from both Bowers’s dissertation A History of the Mandan and Hidatsa (1948) and his ethnography Mandan Social and Ceremonial Organization (1950); because Bowers designed these monographs to complement each other and two others of his major monographs, the information they contain is not repetitive. Though Bowers was not trained directly by Boas, he completed his doctoral fieldwork and dissertation under one of Boas’s notable students, Fay-Cooper Cole; thus, Bowers’s field research, conducted in the late 1920s and early 1930s, still takes the culture-historical approach of the Boasians. I also collected data from Fenn’s history Encounters at the Heart of the World: A History of the Mandan People (2014). Though Fenn is a historian, and was not trained by Boas or his students, her work is still useful for the purposes of my research due to her detailed and thorough integrations of multiple 76 sources of evidence, including evidence of a historical, archaeological, and ethnographic nature. Further, Fenn’s approach to telling the story of the Mandan from about A.D. 1000-2014 is comparable to that of the Boasians in its conceptions of the integrated nature of culture, historical and contextual approach, and extensive detail of description. Table 3.5 The Plains Area Ethnographic Data Time Period of Ethnographic Data 1000; 1300; post-1400; 1450; 1500-1800s; 1804-1806; 1811; 1820; 1825; 1833; 1838; 1841; 1845-1906; 1929- 1931; 2002; 2014 1300-1785; 1797; 1929-1931 1500s-1890; 1892-1893; 2001 1700s; 1750-1837; mid-1800s; 1910; 1921; 1928-1936; 1939; 1945; 1990; 2001 1700s; 1870-1872; 1875; 1908; 1910; 1929-1931 1738; pre-1800s; 1812; mid-1800s; 1867; 1928-1936 1851 1903-1907 1914 1929 Source Culture Fenn 2014 Mandan & Hidatsa Mandan Bowers 1948 Mandan Parks 2001 Pawnee Wood and Irwin 2001 Bowers 1950 Mandan Weltfish 1965 Pawnee Pawnee Smith 1852 Dorsey and Skidi Pawnee Murie 1940 Pawnee Murie 1914 Lesser 1930 Pawnee (4) Southwestern Area Within the Southwestern Area, my research focuses on the exemplar culture of the Navajo. While the Navajo, or Diné, have been studied extensively by many different people for over a century, I have selected the work of Gladys Reichard (1893-1955), who lived and worked among the Navajo throughout 1923 to 1955 (Babcock and Parezo 1988), as the central ethnographer for my analysis, using primarily her work Social Life of the Navajo Indians with Some Attention to Minor Ceremonies (1928) and secondarily her later book Navajo Shepherd and Weaver (1936). Beyond her Boasian framework, I chose Reichard for her particularly scientific perspective, the remarkable thoroughness of her research, and her attention to the 77 variation within Navajo social organization. Further, as Lamphere (1993) points out, “Living within a Navajo extended family and learning to weave from its female members allowed Reichard access to the nuances of interaction between women in a matrilineal, matrilocal society” (159). As part of the supplemental ethnographic sources, however, I consider a range of additional authors who worked in different time periods in order to round out my analysis of corporate groups among the Navajo. Table 3.6 Southwestern Area Ethnographic Data Time Period of Ethnographic Data 1582-1629; 1710-1715 1860s; 1945; 1988; 2004 1890; 1949-1955 1920s; 1930s; 1950; 1965- 1966 1923-1925 Source Brugge 1983 Adams 2004 Kluckhohn 1966 Lamphere 1977 Reichard 1928 1925; 1938-1939 Collier 1966 1930-1933 1950s-1981 1960-1966 1966-1968 1983 1983 Reichard 1936 Aberle 1981 Shepardson and Hammond 1970 Witherspoon 1975 Ford 1983 Witherspoon 1983 Subculture Ramah Navajo Copper Canyon Navajo; Rimrock Navajo Navajo Mountain Navajo; Klagetoh Navajo Navajo Mountain Navajo Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo (5) The Nahua Area Within the Nahua Area, my research focuses on the village residential unit of Tzintzuntzan. This section of the ethnographic analysis is based primarily on George M. Foster, Jr.’s (1913-2006) central ethnography of the people of the town of Tzintzuntzan in Michoacán, Mexico, which was published as Empire’s Children: The People of Tzintzuntzan (1948, completed with assistance from Gabriel Ospina). Foster’s later work Tzintzuntzan: Mexican 78 Peasants in a Changing World (1967) provides an important look at changes in the community over time, which Foster was able to further observe from the 1950s through the 1960s. Supplemental sources for this portion of the ethnographic analysis come from several articles on specific aspects of life in Tzintzuntzan that Foster wrote over the course of his work there. Table 3.7 Nahua Area Ethnographic Data Time Period of Ethnographic Data 1530s; 1639; 1875; 1917; 1944-1946 1940; 1945; 1969-1970 1944-1946 1944-1946; 1959-1966 1945 1958-1963 1959-1969 1961 1967-1968 1970 1980 Source Foster 1948 Kemper 1974 Nutini 1967 Foster 1967 Kemper 2002 Foster 1965 Foster 1969 Foster 1961 Brandes 1979 Kemper 1979 Kemper 1981 Modeling Domestic Corporate Groups As described above, I used the deductive coding of the theoretical and global literature to identify variables relevant to an ethnographic analysis of domestic corporate groups. I then use the deductively coded variables to collect data from each ethnography. As expected, not every culture area has available data for every aspect of every variable, but I collect as comprehensive a set of data as possible with the ethnographies available for each culture area. I record the data in the form of direct quotations from each ethnography, accompanied by its ethnographer and the time period during which the observations were made; I record the time period during which the ethnographers conducted their fieldwork since several of the ethnographies were formally published long after the fieldwork. The raw ethnographic data for each culture area can be found 79 in Appendices A through E. The cross-cultural ethnographic data is summarized for each of the variables in Appendix F. I then conduct inductive coding on the collected data for each variable within each culture in order to identify the presence and absence of particular traits related to the operationalization of different aspects of that variable. Following the data collection, and inductive coding of the data, I synthesize the major characteristics of the structure and function of the corporate group(s) within that culture area. I also identify unique aspects of those corporate groups and highlight material correlates where possible. Once I complete this examination of the corporate group(s) within each culture area, I turn to the comparison between them. Comparing the cross-cultural results of my inductive coding process suggests recurring themes within each variable. Within the constraints of the available ethnographic data, I use the themes I identify within each variable by the process of inductive coding to then evaluate: (1) the similarities in the internal dynamics of these corporate groups that occur across the board regardless of differences in geography or time period; and (2) the differences between these corporate groups within the contexts of their distinct cultural trajectories. Using these similarities and differences between the different domestic corporate groups across North America, I build a descriptive and dynamic model of the organizational variation of domestic corporate groups in North America. I aim to create a descriptive model of the range of variability found in corporate groups so that I can then try to identify archaeological correlates sensitive to this variability. My model is, by nature, a “dynamic description of a particular case” (Hegmon 2003:229) that illustrates the properties of different types of domestic corporate groups. My goal in constructing such a descriptive model using the ethnographic and then archaeological data is “summarizing [and] 80 representing the data structure in a compact manner” (Shmueli 2010:291). My descriptive model identifies associations between cultural characteristics in the organization of different types of domestic corporate groups. Such descriptive models result in “enhanced understanding” rather than a “simple answer to the ‘why’ questions” (Hegmon 2003:229). By creating a robust descriptive model of types of domestic corporate groups, then, my work can form a useful prerequisite for future research that might seek to then examine co-varying cultural characteristics, causes of aspects of the different types, or cultural effects of organizing into the different corporate group types (cf. Hymes 2005). The first two layers of my descriptive model cover: (1) the spectrum of variability in domestic corporate groups, and (2) how domestic corporate groups might transform over time. In dealing with change over time, my model focuses on illustrating how change occurs rather than why it occurs (cf. Hegmon 2003). Following the development of these layers based on the ethnographic data, I will conduct a review of the archaeological literature on domestic corporate groups with the goal of exploring how my descriptive model of variation and change over time in domestic corporate groups might be visible in the archaeological record and then adding material and spatial correlates to my model. This will add additional layers to my descriptive model to address (3) the material and spatial correlates of domestic groups operating corporately; and (4) how the material and spatial correlates might vary if the dynamics of the domestic corporate group change over time. Applying the Model I will examine archaeological data in order to assess my descriptive model’s value in identifying the existence of domestic corporate groups and changes in those corporate groups 81 over time. To do this, I will apply my model to three Wendat village sites in southern Ontario. I will apply my model to the Wendat because it is generally accepted by scholars of Iroquoian cultures of the Northeast that their longhouses operated as corporate household groups, perhaps as early as around A.D. 1200 (e.g., Allen 1988; Bamann 1993; Bamann et al. 1992; Birch 2016; Birch and Hart 2018; Creese 2012; Hasenstab 1990; Hayden 1976; Hayden 1978; Hayden 1979; Jordan 2013; Kapches 1990; Prezzano 1992). Obviously, no ethnographies about the Wendat exist from this time, and the earliest descriptions of the Wendat were written by Samuel de Champlain after his visit in A.D. 1615 and the Jesuit Recollets like Gabriel Sagard in the A.D. 1620s, none of whom sought to understand the corporateness of Wendat household groups. Therefore, archaeological evidence is the primary data source for determining whether the Wendat had domestic corporate groups and for how long, as well as how those groups were organized and how they functioned, making them an appropriate archaeological case study to examine using my descriptive model. The three specific archaeological sites to which I will apply my model are: the Late Middleport Alexandra Site (AkGt-53) in Toronto, Ontario, occupied from about A.D. 1390 to 1420; the Late Protohistoric Molson Site (BcGw-27) in Barrie, Ontario, occupied from about A.D. 1580 to 1600; and the Late Protohistoric to Early Historic Mantle Site (AlGt-334) in Whitchurch-Stouffville, Ontario, occupied from about A.D. 1596 to 1618. From a theoretical perspective, the time period covered by these sites is important to gaining an understanding of Wendat social organization prior to their extended interactions with Europeans beginning in 1634 and the more drastic changes that followed, such as epidemic disease and displacement in 1649. The time period covered by these sites also provides an important period in which to examine change over time in Wendat social organization because: the Late Middleport occurs 82 just before Wendat communities undergo the significant changes associated with fifteenth- century processes of coalescence; there is over a century and a half’s worth of time for social changes to take place and spread; and then Late Protohistory represents the final point at which European goods are prevalent at sites in South-Central Ontario before the Europeans themselves establish a presence in the area, beginning with Champlain’s arrival and winter stay at Cahiague in 1615. From a practical perspective, these sites also have advantages that supported their selection for analysis: they have each been extensively excavated; materials from their excavations were available for analysis, either in detailed reports or in a combination of reports, field notes, and the collections themselves; and they each have clearly-defined house structures within discrete village boundaries. I will analyze the available archaeological data from each archaeological site with two primary goals in mind. First, I will use the archaeological evidence to determine if the individuals living at each site were organized into domestic corporate groups, and if so, where those groups best fit into the variation outlined in my model. Assessment of the archaeological evidence will include household sizes, aspects of village organization like the presence of nondomestic community buildings or identifiable clusters of households, and intra-household spatial patterning of the types of artifacts, ecofacts, and features at each of the sites. After determining where the domestic corporate groups at these sites fit into my model, I will compare them in order to evaluate whether I can identify change over time in the domestic corporate groups of the earlier site versus those of the later sites, as well as any variation between the contemporary later sites. Finally, following my application of the model to these archaeological sites, I will assess the value of my model to understanding domestic corporate group dynamics among the 83 Wendat and to identifying archaeologically any variations that may have been present. From that assessment, I will make suggestions about the broader applicability of my model to other archaeological case studies in different geographical locations and time periods. 84 CHAPTER 4: Ethnographic Analysis Introduction As I described in Chapter Three, based on the relevant variables of corporateness I identified in my literature review in Chapter Two, I collected ethnographic data from a substantial set of central and supplemental ethnographies covering cultures in five different regions of North America. The ethnographic data I collected can be found in Appendices A, B, C, D, and E. I recorded data in the form of direct quotations from each ethnography, accompanied by the ethnographer, the time period of the observations, the time period of the ethnographer’s work, and the corresponding page and paragraph in the ethnography. This ethnographic data covers Wissler’s (1922) (1) Eastern Woodland Area, (2) North Pacific Coast Area, (3) Plains Area, (4) Southwestern Area, and (5) Nahua Area. 85 Figure 4.1 Map of Ethnographic Culture Areas, from Wissler 1922:219, modified by A. Conell In this chapter, then, I begin by synthesizing the characteristics of the corporate groups within each region, as well as material correlates where possible. Within these syntheses, I also 86 identify characteristics unique to the cultures and corporate groups within each region. Following the five regional syntheses, I discuss each variable for which I collected ethnographic data. Comparative tables summarizing the characteristics of each culture for each variable are located in Appendix F. I close this examination with an evaluation of the similarities and differences in the corporate groups, as well as the relationships between the identified variation and the nature and/or operation of different types of domestic corporate groups. Finally, I conclude this chapter by using this ethnographic analysis to develop a descriptive model of the spectrum of variability in domestic corporate groups, as well as how domestic corporate groups might change over time. Eastern Woodland Area Within the Eastern Woodland Area, my research focuses on members of the multi-tribal affiliation of the Haudenosaunee. The ethnographic data I collected for the Haudenosaunee is located in Appendix A. In what Wissler (1922) labels the eastern maize area, the Haudenosaunee are composed of the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, Seneca, and Tuscarora. The Haudenosaunee are known for their “highly developed political organization” (Wissler 1922:237), sometimes referred to in various contexts as the Iroquois Confederacy, the League of Five Nations, Six Nations, and similar titles. At least by the 1600s and through the 1800s, the Haudenosaunee matrilineage formed a corporate group defined by matrilineal descent and led by an older woman elected from the lineage for daily purposes such as distributing food, organizing the productive activities of the members, as well as higher level activities like arranging marriages, sometimes appointing chiefs or engaging in extra-lineage alliances. 87 The following table summarizes the ethnographic data I collected on the Haudenosaunee. Three characteristics of Haudenosaunee corporateness stood out in the data: the organization of the house and household, the cooperative agricultural process, and the intra-household communal storage facilities. Table 4.1 Eastern Woodland Area [Haudenosaunee]—Cultural Characteristics Variable Community Village Cultural Characteristics  bands largely independent of one another until late 1800s  League of the Iroquois  hereditary male clan chief positions; clan chief positions appointed for the duration of a man’s life (late 1800s to early 1900s)  semi-permanent villages beginning in late 1500s  shifted in location about once a generation (~ every 10-20 years)   average village of the 1600s: 60 multifamily longhouses containing in the late 1500s, as many as 2000 people in a single village 150 families totaling 800-1000 individuals Descent and Residence  during the 1700s, villages declined in size to less than 1000 people  matrilineal until patrilineal descent gained importance in late 1800s  variation in post-marital residential strategies (matrilocal; patrilocal; House Household Access to Resources Trade Property Storage shift between both; live with whichever family had room) in the mid-1900s, neolocal residence most common o siblings clustered their homes near each other  o large rectangular longhouses of multiple nuclear families - dominant from 1600s to mid 1700s; declined in popularity by the 1730s- 1750s; no longer in use by 1800 longhouses replaced by single nuclear family homes In the 1600s, longhouses belonged to the women of the matrilineage o   household was composed of the matrilineage: a mother, her adult daughters, their husbands and children  access to hunting territories restricted by nation  agricultural fields communally owned either by tribe or clan    to receive part of communal harvest, an individual contributed labor traded primarily for social value rather than solely economic value from 1600s-1800s, agricultural land communally owned by all women of all the matrilineages of a village  women owned their tools (e.g., carrying baskets, hoes) in common; men owned their tools for hunting/fishing individually  storage pits as early as 1200 BC  in the 1950s, family possessions (clothing, burial garments, masks, sacred items, money) were all stored in the family’s bedroom 88 Table 4.1 (cont’d) Variable Labor Cultural Characteristics  sexual division of labor established at least by the 1600s o men hunt and fish; women gather wild vegetal foods/firewood, make baskets/ceramic pots, process game  women worked cooperatively to clear, plant, harvest fields  intensive cultivation of maize, beans, and squash combined with hunting, fishing, and gathering  manufacture of ceramic pottery  2 families per hearth meant a shared cooking space/facilities for both families across the hearth from one another Subsistence Production Non-Subsistence Production Consumption First, longhouses of the 1600s were about 20 feet wide and averaged 100 feet long, though they ranged from 40 to 200 feet long depending on the needs of a particular matrilineage and could be extended in length over time as a matrilineage grew. The individual apartments for each nuclear family were approximately 6 feet by 12 feet in size, with individual storage spaces between them. A hearth was constructed every 20 feet or so along the communal central aisle between the nuclear family compartments; hearths were shared between nuclear families on both sides of a longhouse. Two families, or really two women of the matrilineage, per hearth meant a shared cooking space and facilities for both families across the hearth from one another. In the 1600s, these longhouses belonged to the women of the matrilineage, and the household was composed of the matrilineage: a mother, her adult daughters, and their husbands and children. Additionally, agriculture was a cooperative process in which an older woman organized the labor of the women from the households within her lineage; these women worked together on the agricultural land belonging to the lineage and shared the food produced at the end. Foley (1975) argues that the primary Haudenosaunee corporate groups were such women’s mutual aid societies, since they were the most important cooperative production group in the village. Access to the products of this cooperative labor was also communal; to receive part of the 89 communal harvest, individuals contributed labor. Finally, communal storage facilities existed either inside or outside the house, depending on the time period and size of the household, for the primary purpose of storing the products of cooperative subsistence labor. The time depth of the ethnographies (circa 1200 BC to the 1970s) provides an important perspective on how Haudenosaunee corporate groups changed over time. This perspective will be an important component in my modeling of change in domestic corporate groups. Haudenosaunee culture changed significantly over time, especially as they adapted to reservation conditions established in 1870 and then again to those of suburban America throughout particularly the second half of the 1900s. For example, over the course of the 1800s and early 1900s, a shift occurred in both the household and the primary locus of productive activity from the matrilineage to the nuclear family. Nuclear family households were clustered together, likely with members of a matrilineage living close to one another; Richter (1992) suggests this means that “the intense communal interaction among members of an ohwachira characteristic of earlier generations had loosened in fundamental experiential ways” (261). Most significant, however, seems to be the shift from maize agriculture managed by the women of matrilineages to grain agriculture mimicking white American agriculture and dominated by male farmers and laborers from prehistoric times to the early 1900s that accompanied the shift to reservation life. North Pacific Coast Area Within the North Pacific Coast Area, my research focuses on several tribal groupings within the analytic area. The ethnographic data I collected for the Northwest Coast is located in Appendix B. The Northwest Coast is generally characterized by its northern cultures, including the Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian, whose “art, social, and ceremonial traits ... thin out as we 90 move southward” (Wissler 1922:229). However, the Northwest Coast is home to many different cultures, which I discuss together due to their significant similarities; I also note variation between specific cultures. Since this research could not include an exhaustive examination of every Northwest Coast culture, I chose a set of cultures that represented the variation found on the Northwest Coast broadly from north to south. Therefore, cultures examined in this section include (listed from north to south): the Eyak; the Tlingit [Northern]; the Haida [Northern]; the Tsimshian; the Nuxalk (or Bella Coola) [Central]; the Kwakwaka’wakw (or Kwakiutl) [Central]; Coast Salish peoples; the Nuu-chah-nulth (or Nootka) [Southern]; and the Klamath. Known for a subsistence emphasis on marine resources that led to Wissler (1922) labeling this the Salmon area, as well as the gathering of berries, inhabitants of the Northwest Coast traditionally lived in “large rectangular gabled houses of upright cedar planks with carved posts and totem poles” (Wissler 1922:227). The Northwest Coast is notable among the cultures in this research due to its system of ranking and the use of the potlatch ceremony as a means of redistribution of wealth. Among at least the Kwakwaka’wakw, corporate groups, which Boas (1920) called numaym, were originally formed patrilineally, but population declines shifted the nonexogamous group membership from unilineal to bilateral, including individuals related through patrilines or matrilines, as well as through marriage (Suttles and Jonaitis 1990). The following table summarizes the ethnographic data I collected on the cultures of the Northwest Coast. Two characteristics of corporateness within these cultures stood out in the data: the organization of the house and household around activities of food preparation and consumption and the restriction of access to resources. 91 Table 4.2 North Pacific Coast Area [Northwest Coast]—Cultural Characteristics Variable Community Cultural Characteristics  social ranking into “chiefs, nobles, common people, and slaves” Village Descent and Residence House Household Access to Resources Trade Property Storage (Wissler 1922:228)  houses in one long row along beach (Haida, Tlingit)  transitions between larger permanent winter village and smaller temporary summer encampments (Klamath, Kwakwaka’wakw)  patrilineal (Kwakwaka’wakw)  matrilineal (Haida)  matrilineal, avunculocal (Tlingit, Eyak)  both patrilocal and matrilocal (Klamath)  patrilocal (Nuu-chah-nulth) o circular or square houses with hearths, nuclear family living spaces, storage areas (internal organization varied by culture) o houses owned communally  multifamily households of related kin (e.g., men of a lineage)  ~ 40-50 people - 6 nuclear families, unmarried adults, slaves   (Tlingit) restrictions on trade routes, waterways, hunting/fishing locations families could pay for access to gather resources from another family’s land (Haida, Tlingit, Nuu-chah-nulth)  Klamath did not restrict ownership/access of land/resources  extensive trade between different cultures across Northwest Coast   both men and women involved in different capacities  frequent travel (up to 200 miles) to trade food, goods, slaves inherited matrilineally within lineage tribes specialized in different resources that were more accessible to their villagers, traded with other tribes for their specialties (Tlingit)  ownership occurred at clan level; subdivided by household, lineage   potlatch ceremony  different kinds of food and valuables stored in baskets/bags/boxes  large (15 foot diameter, 3 feet deep) underground pits for storing food under tule mats and dirt (Klamath) Labor Subsistence Production Non-Subsistence Production o communally dug/used by group of neighbors located near pits  divided by gender: men hunted/fished; women gathered berries/kelp  housebuilding was cooperative  emphasis on marine resources  hunting and gathering of berries, seaweed, shellfish (Tlingit)  women made canoes, clothing, baskets  parents, parents’ siblings, grandparents taught children of same sex 92 Table 4.2 (cont’d) Variable Consumption Cultural Characteristics  varied between cultures o all women of household prepared food together in cooking facility; all members of household ate together o women of individual nuclear families had their own cooking facilities; nuclear families ate separately, shared food between nuclear families in their household only occasionally First, the variation in the organization of the household surrounding food preparation and consumption covered a wide spectrum of cohesion in these activities within the corporate group. For the most cohesive, a single central hearth existed for all food preparation and consumption activities. For example, square Kwakwaka’wakw houses and circular winter Klamath houses contained a central hearth for communal food preparation and consumption. In less internally cohesive situations, the single central hearth was used for communal food consumption, with multiple individual nuclear family hearths for separate food preparation; or the single central hearth was used only for non-food purposes, with multiple individual nuclear family hearths used for both separate food preparation and consumption. For example, in Nuu-chah-nulth houses, the central fireplace was only for ceremonial purposes, and families had small hearths around the edges of the house for their daily food preparation. Finally, in the corporate households with the least internally cohesive daily activities, only individual nuclear family hearths existed. Additionally, the collective ownership of property, as well as the restriction of access to this property and its products, was heavily emphasized along the Northwest Coast, excluding only the Klamath. Ownership predominantly occurred at the clan level, and then were subdivided by household and lineage, in which they were inherited matrilineally; “the larger territorial rights seem to have been owned by the clan, while specific fishing places were owned by houses ...” (de Laguna 1991:27). The first access to resources was restricted to the land- 93 owning families. The Tlingit were the most strict of the Northwest Coast cultures about restrictions on access to resources like trade routes, waterways, and hunting and fishing locations; “once use and occupancy are established, these properties are inalienable” (Garfield 1947:451). However, other families might pay for access to gather resources from another family’s land; this practice has been recorded ethnographically among the Haida, the Tlingit, and the Nuu-chah-nulth. The Plains Area Within the Plains Area, my research focuses on the exemplar cultures of the Pawnee and the Mandan. The ethnographic data I collected for the Pawnee and Mandan is located in Appendix C. I have combined the Pawnee and the Mandan because of their geographical proximity, cultural similarities, and history of interaction. Further, in 1806, Alexander Henry (1897:334) notes, “Not many years ago the Pawnees and Mandanes were allied to each other and lived together in the same villages, on the Missourie” (334). A significant factor impacting this data is the depopulation of the Plains due to epidemics over the course of the 1700s and first third of the 1800s; thus, the Pawnee and Mandan are particularly important as examples of the operation of corporate groups following the experience of traumatic change. Also referred to as the Bison Area by Wissler (1922), the Plains is characterized by the presence of the bison (Bison bison bison) and its importance for the subsistence and survival of the relatively mobile Plains tribes (DeMallie 2001; Wissler 1922). Plains tribes are organized into bilateral bands of extended families to the north and unilineal clans to the south (DeMallie 2001; Wissler 1922). The seasonal nature of buffalo hunting conditions split Plains tribal groups into small social units for the majority of the year but brought them together into larger groups 94 for the cooperative summer hunt (DeMallie 2001). Notably, Bowers (1950) suggests that an entire Mandan village acted corporately for the duration of the summer hunt: (1) summer hunts were communal activities for all men, women, and children of a town; (2) meat was widely shared, and processing it was a communal activity for men and women; and (3) everyone contributed their labor regardless of what share of the meat they might receive for themselves. The following table summarizes the ethnographic data I collected on the Pawnee and the Mandan. What stood out in the data about corporateness in these cultures was the way that the integration of household organization with subsistence production, storage, and consumption practices served to organize the members of the corporate household into a cohesive group. Table 4.3 The Plains Area [Pawnee and Mandan]—Cultural Characteristics Variable Community Cultural Characteristics  significant depopulation due to epidemics Village Descent and Residence House Household Access to Resources Trade o Pawnee: over 10,000 people circa 1700 to ~1,200 by 1882 o Mandan: ~12,000 people in early 1700s to ~300 in 1838  Pawnee: hereditary chieftainship  Mandan: merit-based chieftainship  10 to 100s of earthlodges per village  no consistent village organization  seasonal villages - permanent winter villages split into smaller family units for summer resource acquisition  Pawnee: bilateral, endogamous villages  Mandan: matrilineal, matrilocal o large (20-60 foot diameter), domed, multifamily earthlodges with central hearths in permanent agricultural villages o single-family teepees when participating in summer buffalo hunt  30-50 individuals  male head of household, his unmarried siblings, his wives/their children/parents/siblings & their families  access acquired by payment to owner (individual, household, or clan)  Mandan: food caught in household game pits was distributed to all moieties in village  extensive trade network focused on foodstuffs involved Mandan, Assiniboine, British, Comanche, Pawnee, Crow, Kiowa, Arapaho, Cheyenne, Cree, Lakota, Hidatsa, Sioux 95 Table 4.3 (cont’d) Variable Property Storage Labor Subsistence Production Non- Subsistence Production Cultural Characteristics  Pawnee: women collectively owned/controlled earthlodges, agricultural fields, storage pits and their contents  Mandan: most property owned by clans; game pits owned collectively by households; women of household collectively owned household goods; clothing, pipes, weapons owned individually  one large bell-shaped storage pit per earthlodge to store food  division of household labor by gender, then by age  household labor also divided by north/south halves of earthlodge  corn was primary crop; beans and squash also grown  women of multiple generations within each family (as young as 10) cleared their fields, sowed seeds, weeded, harvested crops  women processed buffalo hides, made pottery, woven mats, clothing; specialists made wooden mortars, bowls  men made bowstrings; specialists made pipes and arrowshafts  prior to marriage, girls learned from elder women of their households and boys learned from elder men of their households Consumption  2 main meals a day  one side of household provided/prepared morning meal; other side of household provided/prepared evening meal  all members of household together partook equally of both meals High internal cohesion of Pawnee and Mandan corporate households in all daily activities resulted from a seamless integration of household organization with subsistence production, storage, and consumption practices. Households of two to ten families included a head wife and husband, unmarried sons, daughters with spouses and children, and sometimes additional relatives. Each household was led by the woman who built and owned the earthlodge; she coordinated the labor of the women in the household. The village chief assigned a small family plot of about three to five acres to each woman to cultivate. Women, then, were responsible for agricultural subsistence, including clearing the fields; breaking up the sod and loosening the soil; raking and mounding the soil; planting corn, beans, squash, and sunflowers; and hoeing and weeding. Agriculture could involve pairs of husbands and wives working together on each woman’s fields. Each earthlodge possessed a large bell- 96 shaped cache pit for storage of the food products of their cooperative labor, built at the time of the earthlodge’s construction. The cache pits ranged from six to ten feet deep, most commonly with a ten foot depth; they were round at the bottom with a ten foot diameter. The north side and south side of a cache pit were each owned and used by the north family and south family of the earthlodge, respectively. The women of the household were responsible for the cache pits; they cleaned, maintained, organized, inventoried, and accessed the cache pits and their contents. Finally, there were two daily meals for all household members, with the north side of the earthlodge preparing one meal and the south side preparing the other meal; “the woman who cooked the meal had raised all the vegetables in her own gardens, had dried and preserved them and kept them in her storage pit, and ... all the meat she served was dried and packed by her on the buffalo hunt, carried back to the village ..., and also stored in the pit” (Weltfish 1965:14). All members of the earthlodge ate together, sitting around the central hearth in the same arrangements as their beds, which were located around the outer edge of the earthlodge. Southwestern Area Within the Southwestern Area, my research focuses on the exemplar culture of the Navajo. The ethnographic data I collected for the Navajo is located in Appendix D. Located on the Colorado Plateau of modern-day Arizona and New Mexico, in an area of intensive agriculture, the Navajo depended on maize agriculture in their very arid environment (Adams 2004, Wissler 1922). Known for their maize agriculture and their pottery, the Navajo lived in small encampments, rather than the towns that were common to other cultures of the Southwest (Adams 2004). The Navajo have generally been characterized as organizing into matrilineal, matrilocal extended family groups (Lamphere 1993). Aberle (1981) identifies the Navajo 97 coresidential kin group as consisting of a core matrilineage and the associated husbands. Within coresidential kin groups were camps composed of an extended family comprising multiple households. Each married couple had its own household within the camp; likewise, each older single woman had her own household within the camp, too. Each camp or residence group was focused around a head woman and was the locus of a Navajo corporate group. The following table summarizes the ethnographic data I collected on the Navajo. The data indicate that the Navajo are unique among the cultures in this research in the way their domestic corporate groups are spread out into multiple nuclear family households, which act corporately for some purposes but individually in other aspects of daily life. Table 4.4 Southwestern Area [Navajo]—Cultural Characteristics Variable Community Village Descent and Residence House Household Access to Resources Trade Cultural Characteristics  no formal political organization or governing entities  egalitarian, no system of ranking  kin groups held authority and were responsible for making decisions for their members  semisedentary (farming, herding)  clusters of encampments of extended family groups in 1-8 nuclear family hogans (residential groups) reservation population density = 3.2 people/square mile   matrilineal exogamous clans residing predominantly matrilocally  post-marital residence became more varied in 1900s o neolocality gained popularity o permanent winter hogans and more temporary summer shelters o  hogans part of cluster of buildings (sweathouses, storage buildings, typically one room structures for eating, sleeping, daily activities smaller cabins, sheep/horse corrals, woodpiles, water barrels)  preferably composed of four generations of a matrilineage  organized into residential groups of nuclear family houses  determined access to different resources (primarily houses and land for both grazing and agriculture) in 3 primary ways: matrilineage rights, residence group rights, and initial settlement rights  Lamphere (1977) suggests significant flexibility in access rights  traded items like hides, meat, minerals, medicinal treatments/practices to acquire ceremonial objects, peaches, medicinal treatments/ practices, shell beads, animals 98 Table 4.4 (cont’d) Variable Property Storage Labor Subsistence Production Non- Subsistence Production Consumption Cultural Characteristics  agricultural and grazing land owned collectively by residential group    above-ground storage facility external to house for storing food livestock owned individually; meat shared with residence group inherited matrilineally products and valuables  care of herds is cooperative in residential group (men and women)  agriculture is cooperative in residential group (men and boys)  women - household tasks  combination of herding (sheep) and agriculture (maize)  agriculture conducted cooperatively among neighbors/family members within residential group  crafts involving buckskin = men’s work  women responsible for weaving and secondarily for basketry o designs unique to each weaver  meat of butchered sheep, cooked meals, produce all shared among members of residence group  one nuclear family cooked a meal in their own hogan  prepared meal shared among all families in residence group  each nuclear family ate separately in individual hogans The Navajo are most obviously unique in this research for the residential arrangement of their domestic corporate groups. In contrast to the three preceding cases, in which the entire corporate group was contained within a single household, each Navajo corporate group was composed of a cluster of up to several moderately independent nuclear family households forming a neighborhood or residential camp. Within a single residential camp, the nuclear family households could be attached to one another, a few yards apart, or even a few miles apart, with communal spaces, a communal storage facility, and occasionally other nondomestic neighborhood buildings between their houses. The members of these residential camps worked cooperatively on a daily basis, largely for subsistence production purposes. For example, a Navajo corporate group possessed a sheep herd; the membership of that corporate group was defined based on whose sheep were all 99 together in that same herd, regardless of where exactly each house was located, though the households of a corporate group were generally located fairly close together. Economics were governed by the corporate group, and labor was shared throughout the corporate group. Navajo food preparation and consumption, however, were not exclusively corporate activities. A nuclear family butchered a sheep and then cooked a meal in an individual house. While the prepared meal was then shared with other nuclear families in the residence group, each nuclear family ate the meal in their own respective house, or outside of it, separately from the other nuclear families in the residence group, even though they were sharing the same meal. Likewise, if multiple nuclear families lived in one house, they each ate at their own respective tables inside or outside the house. The only times an entire residence group customarily ate together were for ceremonies, special occasions, or upon the butchering of a sheep. Beyond each nuclear family household’s independence for sleeping and food consumption activities, non-subsistence production tasks were also conducted separately. For example, each Navajo woman did her own weaving in her own house with her own loom and her own unique designs. Weaving was typically conducted during a woman’s leisure time. Ultimately, the leader of the corporate group, often an older married adult couple, was still responsible for organizing the cooperative labor of the residential camp, such as scheduling herding duties for the members of the camp. However, that leader had less control over the daily activities of households beyond their own. Each nuclear family had more control over their own daily activities, as long as they did not interfere with cooperative labor responsibilities. 100 The Nahua Area Within the Nahua Area, my research focuses on the village residential unit of Tzintzuntzan. The ethnographic data I collected for the Tzintzuntzeños is located in Appendix E. Similarly located in an area of intensive agriculture like that of the Haudenosaunee and the Navajo discussed above, Tzintzuntzan practiced the most intensive agriculture of the three (Wissler 1922). About 230 miles west of Mexico City, Tzintzuntzan, Michoacán, was “a relatively homogeneous settlement of potters, farmers, and fishermen, where shared poverty is the rule” (Foster 1969:264), which has been referred to as approximating a “closed corporate community” (Murray 2013:81; cf. Foster 1969:264; cf. Kemper 2002:305) into the A.D. 1940s when George Foster first began his ethnographic research there. Almost all of the villagers of Tzintzuntzan were born there or had parents who were born there (Foster 1948). In the 1530s, the Spanish intended to reform the Indigenous people of Mexico by creating a series of pueblo-hospitals based on communal living and working. Large, extended family households could include up to two dozen adults, plus children, who were all subject to the oldest male of the house. Fields were owned and worked communally, and the fruits of the communal fields were distributed communally. However, household gardens were owned and profited individual extended families. Non-agricultural work was also communal in nature, with individuals trained in different trades in order to benefit the community as a whole. Over time, these communal conditions changed and evolved into the quite different corporate community studied by Foster and his students (Brandes 1979; Foster 1948; Foster 1961; Foster 1965; Foster 1967; Foster 1969; Kemper 1974; Kemper 1979; Kemper 1981; Kemper 2002; Nutini 1967). The following table summarizes the ethnographic data I collected on the Tzintzuntzeños. The corporate community at Tzintzuntzan is unique among the cultures in this research, and the 101 data shows how certain aspects of daily life were treated corporately, such as property ownership and access, while most others were not. Table 4.5 The Nahua Area [Tzintzuntzeños]—Cultural Characteristics Variable Community Village Descent and Residence Cultural Characteristics  endogamous, closed community, socially isolated  egalitarian (wealth-based status began developing in 1960s)   significant population growth (200 families in 1639 to 2,635 largely informal governing body (Comunidad Indígena) people in 1980)  permanent village  clusters of houses into neighborhoods (up to 16 households of biological/fictive kin) within village  bilateral  new households next to husband’s parents or occasionally bride’s parents, at times married siblings set up houses next to each other House  2-room homes - one for sleeping; other for other daily activities Household Access to Resources Trade Property Storage Labor Subsistence Production o separate kitchen in yard behind house, porch, enclosed patio  nuclear family or joint households (86% headed by men)  use rights to fishing waters determined by membership in village  some villages had reciprocal fishing right agreements that allowed fishing by village outsiders if they asked for permission  use rights for resources on owned land could be purchased  specialization at village level meant that villages were not self- sufficient but depended on trade of each of their local products  4 primary means of exchange: markets, stores, home transactions, the rescatón (muleteer)  property within the village ejido belonged to a farmer for his lifetime but was officially owned communally by the village  agricultural land in the form of milpas (owned by individual farmers) divided between a man’s sons and sometimes daughters  animals owned/branded by individual families  no community granaries; minimal food storage  trades conducted at both a professional level by specialists and a household level for personal use or extra income  many sons learned their professional trades from their fathers  women’s tasks: washing clothes at the spring; grinding wheat either at home on a metate or at the mill; sewing  agriculture and fishing - male-dominated subsistence activities, women provided some assistance  maize, beans, wheat grown in household gardens 102 Table 4.5 (cont’d) Variable Non-Subsistence Production Consumption Cultural Characteristics  pottery manufactured at household level, with members of household groups sitting together and socializing as they worked farmers usually only produced crops for their own nuclear families  different households specialized in different pot forms   housewife prepared large noon meal, brought it to the field, ate with her husband, other agricultural laborers working with him  smaller evening meal eaten by nuclear family together in kitchen The primary characteristics upon which Tzintzuntzan’s corporateness was based included: its restriction of group membership to those born in the community and its collective ownership of and access to fishing resources and emphasis on the specialization of production of non-subsistence goods at the community level. The collective ownership of and restriction of access to subsistence resources by the corporate community at Tzintzuntzan was consistent with all of the cultures in this research. In contrast, Tzintzuntzeños are the only group in this research who built their corporate groups on locational rather than kinship criteria; however, the closed nature of their membership also emphasized kin relations within the domestic corporate group. Additionally, trade was a much more essential part of life for the corporate community at Tzintzuntzan than in any of the other cultures in this research due to the emphasis both on specialization at the village level throughout the region and on specialization of pottery form at the household level within the village; beyond interactions for trading purposes, however, Tzintzuntzeños had little interaction with the world outside their community. There was also an absence at Tzintzuntzan of characteristics of domestic corporate groups found in the other cultures in this research, including an absence of social stratification within the community, communal spaces within houses, cooperative labor to construct houses, cooperative food preparation and communal food consumption beyond that which occurred in each nuclear family, and communal storage facilities for the products of cooperative subsistence 103 labor above the level of the joint household. In part, these differences are due to the sheer size of the corporate group at Tzintzuntzan in both number of individual members and the space over which they were spread, as well as to the informal nature of the elected corporate group leaders composing the governing body of the Comunidad Indígena. Nuclear families in the corporate community of Tzintzuntzan had the greatest amount of independence of any of the nuclear family members of corporate groups in this research. Characteristics of Corporate Groups in North America In the following sections, I specifically examine each relevant variable I identified during my literature review. For each variable, I used inductive coding to identify cross-cultural themes in the data; these themes are displayed below in tables showing their presence and absence throughout the five regions of North America from which I collected ethnographic data. Comparative tables summarizing the characteristics of each variable cross-culturally in greater detail are located in Appendix F. By combining the results of these cross-cultural comparisons, I will conclude this chapter by proposing a model of variation in domestic corporate groups, with a secondary component addressing how domestic corporate groups can change over time. Community Under this variable, I examined how communities were stratified if they were. I also examined whether the communities were undergoing periods of change or of relative social stability at the time the ethnographic data about them was collected. For example, was a community enduring any subsistence, social, or political uncertainty at the time the ethnographic 104 fieldwork was conducted? Finally, I looked for any external or internal pressures that might have been impacting the community at the time of the ethnographic fieldwork. Table 4.6 Community—Cultural Characteristics over Time Characteristic Eastern Woodland Area mid 1800s- 1950s mid 1800s- 1950s early 1700s egalitarian wealth-based status hereditary stratification elected chiefs governing body population movement population growth depopulation external pressures moved to reservation Village North Pacific Coast Area mid 1800s- 1930s 1870s- 1930s mid 1800s Plains Area Southwestern Area Nahua Area early 1900s late 1700s - mid 1800s late 1700s - early 1900s late 1700s - early 1900s 1860s-1960s 1940s 1960s 1920s 1940s 1639- 1980 1900s 1910-1990 1864-1988 1800s - early 1900s 1870s- 1920s circa 1400s- 1910 late 1700s- 1890 1850s- 1890 1930s-1960s 1960s 1950s-1960s Under this variable, I examined the size and population density of the village, as well as the village’s organizational layout. Further, where possible, I assessed the locations of public and private spaces within the village; I also assessed access rights and restrictions to different spaces. 105 Table 4.7 Village—Cultural Characteristics over Time Characteristic seasonal permanent semi-permanent endogamous small population houses in clusters houses in rows nondomestic community structures fortifications 1700s 1680s 1850s large population late 1500s- Eastern Woodland Area North Pacific Coast Area Plains Area Southwestern Area Nahua Area 1800s 1800s mid 1800s 1600s late 1500s - mid 1900s 1500s- 1876 1500s- 1876 1930s-1960s 1790s - mid 1800s just before 1900 late 1700s - late 1800s 1940s 1940s 1940s 1940s- 1960s 1960s 1800s - early 1900s circa 1450 1960s 1940s- 1960s 1600s-1700s late 1800s circa 1475; 1797; 1800s Descent and Residence Under this variable, I examined how descent was reckoned and to what group children belonged. I also sought which post-marital residential strategy was typically practiced and thus which spouse was typically removed from his or her natal household upon marriage. Further, I investigated the amount of variation in post-marital residential strategy and the reasons such variation might occur. Finally, where possible, I assessed how succession to leadership roles was determined. 106 Table 4.8 Descent and Residence—Cultural Characteristics over Time Characteristic Eastern Plains Area Southwestern Area Nahua Area North Pacific Coast Area circa 1900 circa 1900 1950s mid-late 1800s Woodland Area 1600s - mid 1900s mid 1900s 1600s - mid 1900s bilateral patrilineal matrilineal avunculocal patrilocal matrilocal bilocal late 1700s - mid 1800s 1800s - mid 1900s 1920s-1960s 1930s-1960s 1960s 1940s 1940s mid 1800s 1800s 1920s-1960s mid 1900s mid 1800s consanguineo- local neolocal mid 1900s mid 1900s mid 1900s- 1980s 1960s mid 1900s- 1960s flexible residence 1600s - mid mid-late early-mid 1900s 1800s 1900s 1920s-1980s 1940s House/Residential Structure Under this variable, I examined the physical dimensions, construction, and internal organization of houses. I also sought to understand elements of house reconstruction, including whether houses were reconstructed on the same location multiple times or moved to a different location, as well as whether the internal layouts of houses were changed when they were reconstructed. Table 4.9 House/Residential Structure—Cultural Characteristics over Time Characteristic large multi-family houses Eastern Woodland Area North Pacific Coast Area 1600s-1910s 1800s-1910s Plains Area Southwestern Area Nahua Area 1300s- 1930s 107 Table 4.9 (cont’d) Characteristic round/square construction long construction common features between houses interior communal spaces one-room nuclear family houses multi-room nuclear family houses cooperative labor for construction reconstructed in place moved during reconstruction Household Eastern Woodland Area North Pacific Coast Area mid 1800s 1600s-1910s 1800s-1910s 1600s-1910s 1830s-1910s 1730s-1970s 1800s 1950s-1970s 1600s-1910s 1800s-1910s 1600s-1910s mid 1800s Plains Area Southwestern Area Nahua Area 1300s- 1930s 1600s- 1900s 1600s- 1930s early 1700s- 1960s 1920s-1960s 1940s 1920s-1960s 1940s Under this variable, I examined the size and population density of the household. I assessed household membership and how it was determined, as well as its flexibility. I also assessed how household membership changed over time and how often this process occurred. Finally, I investigated the role of the household leader. Was there a household leader, and if so, who held that position and how was that person selected? I also sought to understand the rights and responsibilities of the household leader both within the household and within the village. Table 4.10 Household—Cultural Characteristics over Time Characteristic Eastern Woodland Area single nuclear family mid 1700s - 1970s North Pacific Coast Area 1960s 108 Plains Area Southwestern Area Nahua Area 1600s- 1930s 1920s-1960s 1530s- 1980s Table 4.10 (cont’d) Characteristic multiple nuclear families flexible membership contain consanguineal kin contain affinal kin contain fictive kin contain non-kin internal status differences male head Eastern Woodland Area 1630s-1950s North Pacific Coast Area 1870s- 1960s 1670s-1950s 1870s-1950s 1950s 1870s-1970s 1870s- 1960s mid 1800s- 1960s 1880s- 1900s 1880s- 1930s 1870s- 1900s 1870s- 1940s female head 1600s-1950s Access to Resources Plains Area Southwestern Area Nahua Area 1600s- 1930s late 1700s - mid 1800s 1600s- 1930s 1600s- 1930s 1920s-1960s 1530s- 1970s 1960s 1920s-1980s 1920s-1980s 1940s- 1970s 1940s- 1970s late 1700s - mid 1800s 1600s - mid 1800s 1920s-1960s 1920s-1980s 1530s- 1960s 1960s- 1970s Under this variable, I examined who had access to resources within the village, as well as how such access was determined. I also examined whether community members claimed access to particular resources outside of the village, and if so, who had that access and how it was determined as well. 109 Table 4.11 Access to Resources—Cultural Characteristics over Time Eastern Woodland Area North Pacific Coast Area Plains Area Southwestern Area Nahua Area Characteristic unrestricted restricted by village restricted by clan restricted by household early-mid 1900s 1800s - mid 1900s individual level early-mid restricted to trade routes restricted to hunting, fishing, grazing, or gathering territories restricted to non- physical property rights changed over time 1900s 1700s 1800s - mid 1900s gained through payment early-mid 1900s Trade mid 1800s- 1970s 1870s- 1940s 1880s- 1900s 1940s 1880s- 1900s 1700s- 1900s 1700s- 1940s 1870s- 1940s 1920s- 1930s 1920s- 1930s 1920s- 1930s 1920s- 1930s 1920s 1940s 1960s 1960s 1960s 1940s 1920s-1960s 1940s- 1980s 1920s- 1930s 1960s 1920s- 1930s 1940s Under this variable, I examined what items were traded externally to the community, who participated in that trade, and how it was conducted. Table 4.12 Trade—Cultural Characteristics over Time Characteristic Eastern Woodland Area based on kin relations access restricted long distance North Pacific Coast Area 1780s-1880s 1880s-1900s Plains Area Southwestern Area Nahua Area 1500s- 1700s 1940s c. 1200 BC 1830s-1880s 110 Table 4.12 (cont’d) Characteristic Eastern Woodland Area North Pacific Coast Area Plains Area Southwestern Area Nahua Area for economic needs in local specialties for social purposes for sacred items men trade women trade markets 1900s 1820s-1870s 1500s- 1800s 1500s-1900s 1940s 1880s-1900s c. 1200 BC - mid 1900s c. 1200 BC 1880s-1900s 1880s-1900s 1780s-1880s 1830s-1870s 1500s- 1700s 1500s-1900s 1940s 1940s 1940s 1940s Property Under this variable, I examined who owned property, including what property was owned individually and what property was owned by groups, as well as how those groups were determined. I also assessed how property was inherited. Finally, where possible, I investigated how non-physical types of property, such as cultural symbols, were accessed and owned by individuals and groups, as well as how those non-physical types of property were distributed within and between households. Table 4.13 Property—Cultural Characteristics over Time Characteristic Eastern Woodland Area North Pacific Coast Area subsistence resources owned communally house owned communally non-physical property owned communally 1600s-1910s 1900s-1950s 1940s- 1950s 1880s- 1950s 111 Plains Area Southwestern Area Nahua Area 1860s 1930s-1960s 1800s- 1930s 1930s 1500s- 1940s Table 4.13 (cont’d) Characteristic property owned by chiefs subsistence resources owned individually house owned individually tools owned individually non-inheritance property transfer matrilineal inheritance non-matrilineal inheritance Storage Eastern Woodland Area 1950s North Pacific Coast Area 1870s- 1900s 1600s-1970s 1880s 1850s-1950s 1950s 1870s- 1950s 1940s- 1950s 1870s- 1950s Plains Area Southwestern Area Nahua Area late 1700s- 1930s 1920s-1960s 1800s 1930s-1960s 1500s- 1940s 1900s- 1940s mid 1800s- 1930s 1920s-1960s 1940s Under this variable, I researched what people store. I examined what kinds of storage facilities people created and where these facilities were located. Then I compared storage facilities inside houses to those outside houses. For both storage facilities inside houses and storage facilities outside houses, I looked at what facilities existed in each location, where specifically they were located inside or outside of the house, and how they were accessed and used by members of the village. 112 Table 4.14 Storage—Cultural Characteristics over Time Characteristic Eastern Woodland Area North Pacific Coast Area Plains Area Southwestern Area Nahua Area food stored c. 1200 BC - early 1900s mid-late 1800s valuables stored 1950s late 1800s 1600s 1600s no storage private storage communal storage storage inside homes storage outside homes storage pits storage structures storage containers Labor 1700s - early 1900s 1700s - early 1900s late 1500s - early 1900s late 1500s - early 1900s 1600s-1950s mid 1800s 1840s 1800s - early 1900s c. 1200 BC - early 1900s 1800s - early 1900s c. 1200 BC- 1950s mid 1800s mid 1800s mid-late 1800s 1700s - early 1900s 1700s - early 1900s late 1500s - early 1900s late 1500s - early 1900s mid 1900s 1940s Under this variable, I examined how labor was divided by both age and sex. I also examined how cooperative labor groups were organized. Table 4.15 Labor—Cultural Characteristics over Time Characteristic Eastern Woodland Area subsistence labor divided by sex/age 1600s - early 1900s North Pacific Coast Area mid 1800s- 1970s 113 Plains Area Southwestern Area Nahua Area 1600s- 1930s 1920s-1960s 1940s Table 4.15 (cont’d) Characteristic subsistence labor cooperative cooperative labor involved multiple genders non-subsistence labor divided by sex/age house construction cooperative single leader to organize cooperative labor multiple leaders to organize cooperative labor labor concentrated in single nuclear family labor divided between multiple nuclear families Eastern Woodland Area North Pacific Coast Area 1600s - mid 1900s late 1800s 1600s - mid 1900s 1600s - mid 1900s mid 1800s- 1970s mid 1800s- 1970s Plains Area Southwestern Area Nahua Area 1600s - early 1900s mid 1800s - early 1900s late 1700s- 1930s 1930s-1960s 1940s 1960s 1940s 1920s-1960s 1940s mid 1800s 1600s - mid 1900s 1900s mid 1800s mid 1800s 1960s 1960s 1940s- 1960s mid 1800s 1920s-1960s Subsistence Production Under this variable, I examined which subsistence items were produced and who participated in this subsistence production. Where possible, I also examined, where, how, by whom, and for whom food was prepared. 114 Table 4.16 Subsistence Production—Cultural Characteristics over Time Characteristic hunting fishing agriculture gathering herding responsibility of men responsibility of women responsibility of single nuclear family responsibility of multiple nuclear families cooperative activity Eastern Woodland Area North Pacific Coast Area 1600s - mid 1900s mid 1800s - early 1900s mid 1800s - early 1900s mid 1900s mid 1900s 1600s - early 1900s mid 1900s Plains Area Southwestern Area Nahua Area late 1700s - early 1900s late 1700s - early 1900s late 1700s - early 1900s late 1700s - early 1900s late 1700s - early 1900s late 1700s - mid 1900s 1940s 1500s- 1940s 1940s 1900s 1900s 1940s 1900s mid 1900s 1600s - mid 1800s 1940s late 1700s - early 1900s late 1700s - early 1900s 1900s 1900s 1940s Non-subsistence Production Under this variable, I examined what non-subsistence items were produced and who participated in non-subsistence production. I also examined how an individual learned to produce these items. 115 Table 4.17 Non-subsistence Production—Cultural Characteristics over Time Eastern Woodland Area North Pacific Coast Area Plains Area Southwestern Area Nahua Area 1930s mid 1900s 1500s- 1900s 1500s- 1900s 1500s- 1900s mid 1900s 1950s 1900s 1950s late 1800s late 1800s late 1700s - mid 1900s late 1700s - mid 1900s 1930s 1800s- 1930s late 1700s- 1930s 1800s- 1930s mid 1900s mid 1900s 1500s- 1900s 1500s- 1900s mid 1900s 1940s mid 1900s Characteristic emphasis on pottery or weaving division of production by sex cooperative production within nuclear family cooperative production between multiple nuclear families intra-group specialization specialization between groups access to designs restricted learned from parent of same gender learned from other relative of same gender paid for instruction Consumption Under this variable, I examined how food was distributed both within a single household and between households. I also examined where and how food was consumed. 116 Table 4.18 Consumption—Cultural Characteristics over Time Characteristic food prepared collectively food prepared by nuclear family food consumed collectively food consumed separately guests invited for meals 1 main meal/day 2 main meals/day 3 main meals/day food shared with kin food shared with nonkin Eastern Woodland Area North Pacific Coast Area early-mid 1900s early 1900s early 1900s mid-late 1800s mid-late 1800s mid-late 1800s mid-late 1800s mid-late 1800s late 1800s late 1800s Plains Area Southwestern Area Nahua Area mid 1800s 1930s-1960s 1940s mid 1800s - early 1900s mid 1800s 1800s- 1930s 1800s- 1930s 1930s-1960s 1940s 1930s-1960s 1940s 1940s 1940s 1930s-1980s 1940s 1930s-1980s 1940s Summary With the preceding, I have sought to address two of my research questions: 1) What variation exists cross-culturally in the nature and operation of domestic corporate groups? 2) Over time, what changes have been observed ethnographically in domestic corporate groups? Due to my chosen sample of North American cultures, at the most fundamental level, every domestic corporate group I examined was composed of multiple nuclear family units that practiced some degree of sedentism. Based on this ethnographic analysis, I conclude that the three most universally important variables in defining the nature and operation of domestic 117 corporate groups are: (1) the nature of the ownership, access to, and inheritance of physical and non-physical forms of property; (2) cooperative labor practices, especially regarding subsistence production and food preparation practices; and (3) storage facilities and practices. The importance of property ownership as one of the most significant defining characteristics of domestic corporate groups was expected, based on the literature review and global examples explored in Chapter Two. To some degree, property was owned collectively by the domestic corporate groups in every culture in this ethnographic analysis. Sedentary communities like those of the cultures for whom I collected ethnographic data required a means for food storage, as well as a means for providing and restricting access to those resources. However, the importance of the collective nature of storage practices within these domestic corporate groups was also closely linked to both their practices of collective property ownership and cooperative subsistence labor production. The Pawnee and Mandan provided the most elaborate example of communal storage, with their large underground storage pits meticulously divided in half for the use of the women of each half of the earthlodge to store the subsistence products that they prepared in turn for the consumption of all members of the corporate earthlodge. The Haudenosaunee provided another good example of variation in combining communal and private storage practices within a single longhouse, as well as a demonstration of how these practices changed in tandem with changes in household composition and corporate group operation. My ethnographic data reinforced several other characteristics of corporateness that I had previously identified in my literature review. Some type of specialization and status differentiation within the corporate group were common in my ethnographic data, although these varied significantly between cultures. Likewise, each corporate group in this study had some 118 form of dominant person, family, or leader who served to organize the cooperative labor of the group; for example, in the cases of both the Navajo and the Haudenosaunee, the head of the domestic corporate group was a woman from the matrilineage around which the corporate group was focused. Access to resources was also strongly tied to property ownership and subsistence practices. As expected, beyond the three dominant variables, these secondary variables were each involved in shaping the variation between the corporate groups. It was clear from my ethnographic analysis that understanding the nature and operation of the domestic corporate groups in different cultures requires a consideration of multiple cultural characteristics and the ways in which they work together. No single defining variable was sufficient to characterize all of the corporate groups in this analysis within their cultural contexts. On the other hand, I was also able to make several observations about corporateness from my ethnographic data that I had not necessarily expected based on my earlier literature review and global survey. In these observations, I have been able to tease out variation in the nature and operation of domestic corporate groups that will form the basis of my descriptive model at the end of this chapter. I will now discuss these unexpected observations. One surprising similarity common to all of the ethnographies in this analysis was that, regardless of the size of the household, household members were predominantly either consanguineal or affinal kin; it was rare to have a nonkin member in any of the households about which I collected data. In some cases, such as among the Pawnee, the Tzintzuntzeños, and the Nuxalk, entire villages were endogamous and therefore essentially composed of extensive kin relations. The greatest overall similarities among these five cultural case studies occurred between the Haudenosaunee, the Pawnee and Mandan, and the cultures of the Northwest Coast. At the most fundamental level, all three of these cultures maintained corporate households, with 119 multiple nuclear families composing each household; as expected, the sizes of these multi-family corporate households still varied between these cultures. In contrast, both the Navajo and the Tzintuntzeños preferred single nuclear family households, multiple of which composed their domestic corporate groups. Likewise, house layouts were more similar for the Navajo and Tzintzuntzeños than between these cultures and the three cultures where the domestic corporate group was confined to a single household; however, there were a few similarities between the Navajo and the Pawnee and Mandan regarding non-subsistence production activity areas within the house. Among the cultures with corporate households, the Haudenosaunee, as well as the Haida, Nuu-chah-nulth, Tlingit, and Eyak, lived in longhouses; the Pawnee, Mandan, Klamath, and Kwakwaka’wakw lived in round or square houses with activity areas in the center and nuclear family sleeping quarters around the interior edges of the house. Food consumption and distribution practices also varied in notable ways. Not surprisingly, at Tzintzuntzan, food preparation, consumption, and distribution were activities concentrated at the level of nuclear family households. Tzintzuntzeño farmers grew and women purchased and prepared for the needs of their nuclear families, and sometimes food was exchanged with or gifted to neighbors. On the other end of the spectrum, among the Haudenosaunee, Pawnee and Mandan, and cultures of the Northwest Coast, food was also prepared, consumed, and distributed largely within households, just at the much larger scale of multi-family corporate households. However, these activities were not undertaken in identical ways in all of these cultures. In some cases, food preparation was a task divided amongst nuclear families within the corporate household, using the food stores belonging to the entire household, and prepared food was subsequently consumed by members of the nuclear family 120 who had prepared it. In other cases, food prepared by a subset of the corporate household members was consumed collectively by the entire household, again using the food stores belonging to the entire household. Further, sharing mechanisms did exist in a variety of forms for distributing food between these corporate households and to visitors. In contrast to all of these cultures, Navajo food preparation and consumption crosses household boundaries within the corporate group. Here, food for the entire group was usually prepared in a single household, distributed among all of the households, and then consumed separately in the individual households of the corporate neighborhood. Even though every culture I analyzed includes some form of domestic corporate group in a foundational way, these five cultures had more differences than they did similarities; these differences will form an integral part of my descriptive model of variation in domestic corporate groups. One of the most striking differences was in village organization and population density. The corporate neighborhoods of the Navajo composed the largest and least densely populated villages I studied; at Tzintzuntzan, houses were clustered into neighborhoods and around resources similarly to the house clusters of the Navajo. In contrast, the villages of the Pawnee and Mandan, the Haudenosaunee, and the Northwest Coast, who consolidated their domestic corporate groups into individual households, composed the most densely populated villages in this research. These cultures were also the only cases that actively included defensive features in their village layouts, though not continuously over time; however, they organized the arrangements of the houses in their villages in several different ways. Descent and post-marital residential strategies also varied substantially, involving practices of patrilineal, matrilineal, and bilateral descent, as well as significant flexibility in residential strategies. The variation in descent reckoning was unexpected, and there did not seem 121 to be a significant connection between descent and the other variables in this research. On the other hand, residential strategy had a much more significant impact on the nature and operation of all of the domestic corporate groups analyzed in this research. Due to my chosen sample of North American cultures, matrilocal post-marital residence was the most commonly preferred residential strategy among the cultures I analyzed. In every case, however, regardless of the specific residential arrangement employed, residential strategy formed the foundation for the membership of the domestic corporate group and frequently had an influence on who was eligible to be the leader of the corporate group and the organizer of its cooperative labor efforts. Beyond food sharing within and between households, other types of trade were most significant in the case of Tzintzuntzan’s corporate community. While trading occurred in every culture included in this research, it was only for Tzintzuntzan that trade was a defining component of its corporateness. Trade was an essential component of interactions between Tzintzuntzan and its neighboring corporate communities, which allowed them to acquire the necessary resources and products in which each different village specialized. A lack of storage facilities for subsistence products was also unique to the case of mid-twentieth century Tzintzuntzan, since women purchased from local shops and the trade markets on an almost daily basis; there was evidence for communal storage facilities for agricultural products at Tzintzuntzan in earlier centuries, however, before changes occurred in their subsistence production practices. As discussed above, the Haudenosaunee, the Pawnee and Mandan, and the cultures of the Northwest Coast share the most similarities with one another as they confine their domestic corporate groups to single multi-family households. However, cultures on the Northwest Coast also had some notable differences when compared with the Haudenosaunee, Pawnee, and 122 Mandan. For instance, cultures of the Northwest Coast were the most highly socially stratified of any of the cultures in this research. Additionally, although the tradition of potlatch ceremonies served several important economic, social, and ceremonial purposes for members of Northwest Coast cultures, it provided a means of redistributing property that was unique among the case studies in this research. Subsistence strategies among cultures along the Northwest Coast were most different compared to the four other regions, since these were the only cultures who depended extensively on fishing to fulfill their subsistence needs. This difference in subsistence strategy did not impact some characteristics of corporateness, such as the collective nature of ownership and access to resources like fishing territories. Access to fishing territories on the Northwest Coast, as well as at Tzintzuntzan, was restricted by membership in the domestic corporate group of the owners of the fishing territories. This restriction of access was similar to the restriction of access to hunting territories and agricultural fields by the Haudenosaunee and the restriction of agricultural and grazing land by the Navajo. Though the specific resources differ in each case, the restriction of access to property by membership in the domestic corporate group was consistent cross-culturally. On the other hand, this difference in subsistence strategy did impact other aspects of corporateness, such as cooperative labor practices. For example, in Pawnee, Mandan, and Haudenosaunee households, subsistence tasks were largely accomplished through cooperative labor; an older woman of the household organized the cooperative labor of the household’s women to fulfill the agricultural needs of the corporate group. On the other hand, subsistence tasks on the Northwest Coast were primarily accomplished through a division of labor by gender. Among the Klamath, the Kwakwaka’wakw, the Nuu-chah-nulth, the Tlingit, and the Haida, the men hunted and fished, while the women gathered vegetal foods; hunting and 123 fishing were also subsistence tasks completed by Tlingit slaves for the benefit of their corporate households. The most significant overall differences appear to be due in large part to the differing degrees of control that the group leaders maintained over the cooperative subsistence production process and distribution of the resulting products, as well as to the size and population density of the corporate group itself. In the domestic corporate groups of the Pawnee and Mandan, the Haudenosaunee, and the Northwest Coast, which were restricted to a single household of multiple nuclear families, household leaders held the greatest amount of control over daily household activities, and the nuclear families composing the corporate household operated cooperatively for the greatest amount of domestic activities. In contrast, in the domestic corporate group at Tzintzuntzan, which encompassed the entire community, the community leaders held the least amount of control over daily community activities, and the nuclear families composing the corporate community had the greatest amount of independence from one another. Finally, there were several factors impacting change over time in the nature and operation of the domestic corporate groups suggested by the ethnographic data. For example, there is evidence of change in George Foster’s work in Tzintzuntzan from what had been recorded in the 1530s to what Foster and his students recorded ethnographically in the mid-twentieth century (Brandes 1979; Foster 1948; Foster 1961; Foster 1965; Foster 1967; Foster 1969; Kemper 1974; Kemper 1979; Kemper 1981; Kemper 2002; Martinez Solórzano 1903; Nutini 1967). In Tzintzuntzan, domestic corporate groups shifted over time from large extended family households with male heads and communally owned and worked fields whose produce was shared communally in the 1530s to smaller households with male heads and individual ownership of agricultural lands in the 1940s; over the course of this period, there are varying 124 degrees of a division of labor and a specialization of production, especially of pottery, within the community. Further, Denis Foley’s (1975) dissertation explicitly examines change over time among the Haudenosaunee. Foley’s work illustrates the fundamental changes that occur in Haudenosaunee corporate groups as a result of changes in their household and later neighborhood compositions and in their subsistence production practices that accompany the conditions of reservation life imposed on the Haudenosaunee in the nineteenth century and twentieth century. Notable changes occurred in Haudenosaunee corporate groups as they shifted from households containing entire matrilineages headed by women to nuclear family households headed by men. Notably, during the process of this shift, there were periods in which the nuclear family households of a matrilineage clustered together in ways reminiscent of the corporate neighborhoods of the Navajo. Haudenosaunee storage practices also shifted from more similar to those of the Pawnee and Mandan to more similar to those of the Navajo as their residential practices shifted. Reservation conditions in the twentieth century caused similar shifts from multi-family households to nuclear family households and in the operation of domestic corporate groups among the Pawnee and Mandan. Alongside this shift in household composition was a shift in practices of both property ownership and subsistence production. The tradition of communal land ownership by matrilineages shifted to a practice of land owned by the heads of nuclear family households and passed down patrilineally; agricultural labor also shifted from matrilineages to nuclear families. Then, labor shifted away from agriculture entirely toward wage labor for men and household labor for women by the mid-twentieth century. The first of these shifts to occur was in household size and composition, next came the nature of property ownership and inheritance, 125 and finally the changes in labor practices. Though the two earlier cultural shifts impacted the operation of Haudenosaunee corporate groups, when labor practices involved in subsistence production changed, the nature of their domestic corporate groups changed most dramatically. The Descriptive Model Following my ethnographic analysis, I now turn to another of my research questions: How can a more explicit examination of variation in domestic corporate groups inform the investigation of such groups archaeologically? To begin to address this research question, I propose a descriptive model of the range of variation within domestic corporate groups, rather than a model designed to distinguish corporate groups from noncorporate groups. Based on the preceding findings of my ethnographic research, my model of the properties of different types of domestic corporate groups includes two types of corporate households, corporate neighborhoods, and corporate communities. Further, I identify associations between the cultural characteristics of these types. 126 Figure 4.2 Descriptive Model of Domestic Corporate Groups Corporate Households Corporate Neighborhoods Corporate Communities Round/Square Houses Greatest Intra- Group Cohesion Longhouses Least Intra- Group Cohesion Domestic Corporate Groups The left-most component of the descriptive model represents the core characteristics of all domestic corporate groups. As their foundation, all of the different organizational levels of domestic corporate groups share a set of core characteristics that define their corporateness at its most basic essence. These core characteristics are at the heart of the existence of domestic corporate groups and essential in defining these groups as corporate. Thus, these characteristics are expected to occur in every domestic corporate group, with rare exceptions. Beyond the core characteristics, each organizational type has its own additional set of cultural characteristics defining the nature of that particular type of domestic corporate group. Variation can exist in these characteristics, which leads to variation in the operation of domestic corporate groups both within and between the different types. Some characteristics outlined in the model can be visible archaeologically, while other characteristics are only observable ethnographically in living populations. 127 At the peak of the descriptive model are corporate households. Historically identified as the most classic and most common of domestic corporate group types, corporate households represent domestic corporate groups in which the entire group is contained to one self-sufficient household. Corporate households maintain the greatest cohesion within the corporate group, with corporate households occupying round and square houses maintaining greater intra-group cohesion than corporate households occupying longhouses. At the base of the descriptive model are corporate neighborhoods and corporate communities, due to the greater similarities they have to one another than they do to corporate households. Corporate neighborhoods maintain the domestic corporate group within a self- sufficient cluster of nuclear family households, while corporate communities do so in an entire village. These groups have greater independence of the nuclear family units within the domestic corporate group; corporate neighborhoods maintain equal or less intra-group cohesion as compared to corporate longhouse households, while corporate communities maintain the least intra-group cohesion of any type of domestic corporate group. Corporate neighborhoods and communities also serve to maintain the benefits of corporate group operation in response to external pressures on the community, especially those of colonizing cultures. In the following section, I summarize each component of my descriptive model with lists of the most pertinent cultural characteristics gleaned from the ethnographic analysis and for which the more expansive raw data are presented in Appendices A through F. Domestic Corporate Groups The following characteristics comprise the core of domestic corporate groups:  multiple nuclear families: minimum of two  households composed of consanguineal, affinal, and/or fictive kin 128 o One exception to this is the occurrence of slaves who occupy a unique position within households, such as that found among some cultures on the Northwest Coast.  collective ownership of, or access to, and inheritance of physical and/or non-physical property o Access to this property is restricted by membership in the domestic corporate group. o Examples of physical property include: agricultural land, trade routes, raw material resources, and territories for hunting, fishing, grazing, and/or gathering o Examples of non-physical property include: rituals and ceremonies, songs, knowledge, titles and offices, and names  emphasis on cooperative labor and intra-group specialization o Subsistence production and large-scale construction are the most common purposes for cooperative labor. o Individual labor activities, such as tool production, co-exist with cooperative labor activities.  Leadership position(s) exist to organize and manage cooperative labor endeavors.  Members of the group have rights to the products of the collective property and/or cooperative labor of the group. o However, these rights may not be identical for all members of the group.  communal storage facilities o These are predominantly used for the products of the collective property and/or cooperative labor of the group. o Small, private storage facilities, such as small storage pits along walls within nuclear family compartments, may co-exist with larger communal storage facilities. Corporate Households  The domestic corporate group is a self-sufficient household. o Multiple nuclear families live together as a single household. o The nuclear families have the least amount of independence.  ranked or stratified community o Status differences can also occur within and between households.  can accommodate either moderate population growth or moderate population decline, but neither significant growth nor significant decline  seasonal, permanent, or semi-permanent settlement, from 2 to 150 households in size o no household clusters o nondomestic community buildings rare  never neolocal residential strategy  large, multi-family houses long construction - greater daily independence of nuclear family units o round or square construction - greater daily group integration o o completely separate from one another o communal spaces within houses - e.g., open area around a central hearth; 129 o require cooperative labor to construct  communal storage facility for each household o inside or outside house - e.g., one large storage pit outside house; storage compartments at either end of house interior  head of corporate group is one individual o greatest amount of control over the daily activities of group members  food preparation and consumption activities vary: o single (or two) central hearth for all food preparation and consumption activities o single central hearth for food consumption with multiple individual nuclear family hearths for food preparation o single central hearth for non-food activities with multiple individual nuclear family hearths for both food preparation and consumption o exclusively multiple individual nuclear family hearths for both food preparation and consumption, utilized by one or two nuclear families  Different nuclear families focus on different aspects of non-subsistence production for the entire group. Corporate Neighborhoods  The domestic corporate group is a cluster of self-sufficient households. o Multiple (generally between 1 and 8) nuclear families live in clusters of individual households. o The nuclear families have moderate independence.  predominantly egalitarian community   seasonal, permanent, or semi-permanent settlement readily accommodates either population growth or population decline o households clustered into neighborhood o nondomestic community buildings occasional  never neolocal residential strategy  small, nuclear family dwellings o shared common features between dwellings - e.g., walls, connecting passageways, outbuildings, common terraces, activity areas o communal spaces between dwellings; no communal spaces within dwellings o may or may not require cooperative labor to construct - The more structurally complex the shared common features, the more likely the houses will require cooperative construction.  communal storage facility for each neighborhood o outside houses  head of corporate group is a married adult couple o strong control over production activities, but less control over other daily activities of group members  Food preparation for the entire group occurs separately in one large location within each house.  Food consumption occurs separately as nuclear families in smaller locations within each house. 130  non-subsistence production activities repeated in each house in the group o skills learned within neighborhood, not necessarily within nuclear family household o products benefit nuclear family household  Specialization within the neighborhood may involve one member of the group producing goods that will be traded outside of the neighborhood for the benefit of the group. Corporate Communities  The domestic corporate group is a village. o Multiple nuclear families live in individual households throughout the village. o The nuclear families have the greatest amount of independence.  egalitarian community  readily accommodates population decline; accommodates population growth less effectively  permanent settlement; never seasonal o households clustered into neighborhoods o nondomestic community buildings common  neolocal residential strategy  small, nuclear family dwellings o completely separate from one another o no communal spaces within dwellings o do not require cooperative labor to construct  head of corporate group is largely informal body of elected individuals o very little control over daily activities of the community or individual households  Food preparation for each nuclear family occurs in one small location within each house.  Food consumption occurs among each nuclear family in its own house.  non-subsistence production repeated in each nuclear family house in the group o Forms of these products may vary between nuclear family houses.  specialization occurs both within the community and between the community o Specialization is most important between different corporate communities. o emphasizes importance of trade in allowing for acquisition of specialties of different villages by community members  This trade accounts for possession of objects from other corporate communities that individual nuclear families would not otherwise be able to access. Modeling Change Over Time In the ethnographic cases I examined, I only found examples of domestic corporate groups becoming less cohesive over time as their nuclear family units became increasingly 131 independent of one another. However, this process should also work in reverse, with independent nuclear families becoming increasingly dependent on one another until they form a domestic corporate group. In illustrating change over time, my descriptive model’s purpose is to address how change occurs. Figure 4.3 Descriptive Model of Change over Time in Domestic Corporate Groups Corporate Household Corporate Neighborhood Corporate Community Noncorporate Group • Multi-family households shift to nuclear family households • Cooperative labor • Communal property responsibilities/benefits shift to individuals/nuclear families ownership/access shifts to individuals/nuclear families Nuclear families dependent on one another Nuclear families independent of one another Change in domestic corporate groups is predominantly, though not exclusively, fueled by external, rather than internal, pressures. These pressures may include: increasing or decreasing opportunities to acquire resources, such as land, property, goods, trade connections, and/or money; increasing or decreasing connections between group members and outsiders; significant and/or rapid population growth or decline; village coalescences, disintegrations, or recombinations; and changes in social organization, such as increasing social stratification. As mentioned previously, some of these changes in domestic corporate groups should be visible archaeologically, while others may only be observable ethnographically. However, additional archaeological correlates may exist that provide evidence of cultural conditions changing in ways that would also change domestic corporate groups; in these cases, the archaeological evidence 132 for changing cultural conditions may support the archaeological evidence for changes in domestic corporate groups, and vice versa. 133 CHAPTER 5: Modeling Corporate Group Dynamics Archaeologically Introduction The literature review in Chapter Two was designed to identify important cultural characteristics which relate to the nature and operation of corporate groups both generally and in domestic circumstances more specifically. Using the relevant characteristics I identified during the literature review, I then collected ethnographic data on domestic corporate groups in different cultures living in multiple regions of North America. In the ethnographic data, I explored the pertinent cross-cultural variation in the nature and operation of domestic corporate groups, as well as the changes over time that have been observed in these groups. From that ethnographic analysis, I developed a descriptive model of domestic corporate group types based on their level of intra-group cohesion surrounding daily activities, largely related to production and consumption. I also developed a secondary component of the descriptive model to illustrate how domestic corporate groups might move between the types in the model from a more cohesive corporate organization to a less cohesive corporate organization, and vice versa. In this chapter, then, my goal is to begin to explore how my modeled variation in domestic corporate groups, as well as their processes of change, might be visible in the archaeological record. To accomplish this, I review the archaeological literature that has attempted to identify corporate groups archaeologically and discuss how and why archaeologists have sought to identify change over time in corporate household structure. I evaluate the three primary ways in which scholars have examined corporate groups archaeologically. The most common type of study assumes the corporateness of a site’s inhabitants and then uses it as the framework for interpreting the archaeological remains at the site. The other two types of 134 literature are rarer; these include scholars explicitly attempting to test or infer whether the people occupying a particular archaeological site were operating corporately and scholars attempting to create models of corporateness from ethnographic and/or archaeological data, which can then be used in the future to distinguish between corporate groups and groups that are not corporate. I review each of these applications with an eye towards the types of material correlates used and their potential shortcomings, based on my earlier analysis of the ethnographic data. This information is then used to revisit my descriptive model of corporate group variability, focusing particularly on the material and spatial correlates of the different types of domestic corporate groups and how those might vary if the dynamics of the group change over time. In the next chapter, then, I will evaluate the appropriateness and sufficiency of these material and spatial correlates using an archaeological case study of three Wendat village sites in Ontario. Applications of Corporateness The most common type of archaeological literature addressing corporate groups includes scholars who use a framework of corporateness to interpret the archaeological evidence at a particular site(s). These scholars assume that site occupants existed within corporate groups that governed their daily activities. These case studies span the continent of North America, as well as sites in other locations around the globe. Many of the interpretations found in this literature support the characteristics of corporateness identified in my literature review in Chapter Two, including dwelling sizes and arrangements, intra-household organization, division of labor, access to resources, village organization, and social status, as well as the impact of change over time on the corporate nature of groups. 135 Multi-family households or household clusters are frequently interpreted as having housed corporate groups. Longhouse households are often interpreted as corporate groups and “products of active human agency” (Creese 2012:370). On the Northwest Coast, scholars begin applying the idea of corporate groups around 1050 B.C., at the Paul Mason Site (GdTc-16) in Kitselas Canyon on the Lower Skeena River in British Columbia, where the first regional evidence appears for ten rectangular two-family houses, which Coupland (1988) interprets as corporate households. As this type of rectangular multi-family plankhouse starts to become more common throughout the Northwest Coast around A.D. 450, these plankhouses are interpreted as having housed corporate household groups (Matson and Coupland 1995). Similarly, multifamily apartment compounds at Teotihuacan, which first date to around A.D. 200, have been interpreted as corporate groups “sharing kinship, residence, and occupation” (Manzanilla 1996:233). Likewise, Hohokam household clusters identified archaeologically by “the distribution of shared features, including terraces, clearings, and ancillary walls” (Pailes 2014:471) are interpreted as corporate groups (Foster et al. 1996; Pailes 2014). Some authors assume that their research subjects lived in corporate groups, and then they attempt to explain the reason for that corporate organization from the archaeological evidence. For example, Peregrine (2001) argues that Chacoan matrilocality was essential to the operation of these corporate groups and also that the Chacoan corporate groups were necessary for the success of matrilocality. While this may have been true for the Chacoans of A.D. 700-900, my ethnographic analysis of North American corporate groups indicated that matrilocality is not a necessary condition of domestic corporate groups at any scale. On the other hand, Byrd (1994) argues that the shift to sedentary life in villages in Neolithic Jordan and Syria created a need for corporate groups to organize subsistence production and manage access to resources, as well as 136 group ceremonies and decision-making. Byrd’s (1994) argument is consistent with my ethnographic findings that some degree of sedentism occurs in every level of domestic corporate group. However, since my ethnographic sample set did not include any examples of highly mobile hunter-gatherers, I cannot say with certainty that sedentism is a necessary condition of domestic corporate groups. Other authors combine assumptions of corporateness with the archaeological evidence in order to interpret aspects of village organization. Continuing with the research in Neolithic Jordan and Syria, Byrd (1994) identifies the presence of centrally located nondomestic buildings which were over two to three times as large as other buildings on the tell and which would have required cooperative labor to construct; each of these buildings had a single large central hearth and little archaeological evidence of production, consumption, or trash accumulation, in contrast to domestic buildings which featured significant artifactual remains, as well as smaller hearths located away from the centers of the buildings. He interprets these buildings as corporate structures. Within my descriptive model, such structures are one of the characteristics unique to corporate communities. A different approach to the social organization of assumed corporate compounds within a village comes out of Hohokam research in Arizona. At some sites, like Pueblo Grande, corporate compounds appear to be equal in status throughout the village; at other sites, however, like Cerro Prieto, there were significant differences in economic, and possibly also social, status between corporate house clusters but little difference among the individual houses within them. While my model suggests that communities with corporate neighborhoods should be predominantly egalitarian, it is possible that variation exists in this aspect of corporate neighborhoods that was not apparent in the ethnographic sample upon which I built my model. 137 Similarly, some authors attempt to connect changes in archaeological features over time with the effects that those social changes likely had on assumed corporate organization. In Neolithic Jordan and Syria, the changing shapes and configurations of individual houses over time, as well as the increasing privatization of food storage, has been interpreted as suggesting a lessening in importance of the larger corporate groups and an increase in autonomy for each individual household (Byrd 1994; Kuijt et al. 2011). Byrd (1994) argues that this shift away from corporate groups toward individual households was a result of the development of agriculture and its associated sedentism, citing advantages for labor mobilization, increasing intra-household productivity, knowledge, and ultimately success. This research bears similarities to the second component of my descriptive model, addressing change in domestic corporate groups over time. According to my model, the characteristics observed by Byrd (1994) at early Neolithic Beidha in Jordan, including the increasing prevalence of nuclear family households with discrete areas for intra-household production activities and storage, are indicators that the nature and operation of the domestic corporate groups is changing; the nuclear families become more independent of one another as the domestic corporate groups become less internally cohesive and shift from corporate households to corporate neighborhoods or even corporate communities. In contrast, for Precolumbian Puerto Rico, Curet and Oliver (1998) conclude that the shift away from corporate groups occurred as a direct result of the emergence of social stratification and an elite social class above the commoner class. Curet and Oliver (1998) argue that “the dismantling or neutralization of the extended kin group (which probably also functioned as a corporate group) by the emerging elite is a necessary step to ensure control over basic resources and status, to eliminate possible competition, and to remove any possible mechanism of 138 communality” (220). Within this new chiefdom-level social organization, then, these elite individuals and families controlled community leadership and access to both material and immaterial resources (Curet and Oliver 1998). As explained by Curet and Oliver (1998), this process does not fit into the component of my descriptive model addressing change over time in domestic corporate groups as it stands. However, this may be because my model and the case study of Precolumbian Puerto Rico are dealing with two different phenomena. My model is designed to address change in domestic corporate groups as they become less cohesive and the nuclear family units comprising them become more independent; however, even the least cohesive of corporate communities still maintain the core characteristics of corporate groups. On the other hand, the case study in Precolumbian Puerto Rico appears to feature a forced shift from corporate groups to completely noncorporate groups. Finally, some authors interpret the spatial patterning of archaeological artifacts and features at the household level as the result of corporate group organization. These authors address various aspects of intra-household organization, including the division of labor and access to resources. Several authors, especially when researching the Northwest Coast, use the number, size, and location of features like hearths, storage pits, and communal spaces and architectural features to interpret which activities corporate groups conducted cooperatively and individually (Acheson 1991; Coupland et al. 2009; Fladmark 1973; Lepofsky et al. 1996; Manzanilla 1996; Martindale 1999). For instance, at Teotihuacan, the nuclear households within the Oztoyahualco apartment compound are connected by intra-compound passages; each contained its own “zone for food preparation and consumption, sleeping quarters, storage areas, sectors for refuse, patios for cult activities, and funerary areas” (Manzanilla 1996:233). It is notable that each nuclear household within the compound had its own kitchen area, its own 139 ceramic styles, and its own ritual courtyards containing differing symbolism and material culture (Manzanilla 1996). This suggests that, at Teotihuacan, there were important aspects of daily life definitively excluded from the corporate organization of the apartment compound. On the Northwest Coast, at Keatley Creek (A.D. 450-850), based on a notable absence of archaeological remains, “the center of each structure may have been used equally by all members of each pithouse for communal events or activities” (Lepofsky et al. 1996:57). Based on the locations of hearths, storage pits, and concentrations of faunal materials within the housepits, however, Lepofsky et al. (1996) identify increasing communal functionality in food consumption activities as household size decreases. In the smallest housepits, a single hearth with a single concentration of fire-cracked rock and faunal remains suggests completely communal preparation of food within the household, while the largest housepits exhibit multiple discrete intra-household locations for food preparation and consumption; faunal remains in mid-sized housepits suggest a more communal approach to food preparation and consumption than in the largest houses while still exhibiting more than one hearth location for these activities (Lepofsky et al. 1996). For example, the evidence from one large housepit shows a repeated pattern of hearths, storage pits, and faunal remains in the northeast, southeast, southwest, and northwest areas of the house; Lepofsky et al. (1996) conclude that “the presence of a number of distinct domestic subgroups in the large structure is ... supported by the repeated occurrence of hearths around the perimeter of the house, and by storage pits, clusters of fire-cracked rocks, debitage, stone tools, anvils, and abrading stones associated with those hearths” (59). They also note differences in the assemblages in the four distinct areas of the large housepit, such as the occurrence of woodworking materials in only the northeast area; combined with the occurrence of “rare” and “special” faunal remains (e.g., grizzly bear, dentalium and dogwinkle shells, a dog 140 burial, red fox, hawk wings, and bighorn sheep in only the northwest area), these areas are interpreted as housing domestic subgroups higher in socioeconomic status than other subgroups within the house (Lepofsky et al. 1996). Both the ethnography, e.g. among the Yakutat, the Chilkat Tlingit, the Tsimshian, and the Haida, and archaeology, e.g., at the Richardson Ranch Site, the Tclu’uga Site, and the Kitandach Site, indicate that these households had a single central hearth which was obviously a center of food preparation and consumption for the entire household, but was also likely a communal work space for individuals to work cooperatively or in tandem (Coupland et al 2009). One exception to this pattern is found at the early 1800s Psacelay Site (GbTh-4) in House 2, which Coupland et al. (2009) interpret as having “a large central hearth and six smaller peripheral hearths” (94) based on their interpretation of the site feature maps drawn by Martindale (1999). In contrast, ethnography, e.g., among the Quinault, and archaeology, e.g., at the Sbabadid Site, the Scowlitz Site, and the Xay:tem site, show that in these households, nuclear families each have their own hearths and storage pits; there is no central hearth for the entire household (Coupland et al. 2009). Coupland et al. (2009) argue that this points to the self-sufficiency of each nuclear family within the household, particularly in subsistence pursuits. Additionally, ethnography, e.g., among the Chinook and the Tillamook, and archaeology, e.g., at the Meier Site, the Nehalem Bay Site, the Netarts Sandspit Site, and the Palmrose Site, indicate the absence of communal hearths and communal spaces and, most commonly, the presence of a central row of hearths shared by two nuclear families each, one on either side of the hearth, although in some cases, it seems that each nuclear family had its own hearth (Coupland et al. 2009). These cases are similar to my observations regarding the internal organization of Haudenosaunee longhouses based on my ethnographic data in Chapter Four. 141 Several authors use the framework of corporate groups to interpret intra-household and inter-household divisions of labor and specialization of production (Foster et al. 1996; Longacre 1964; Manzanilla 1996; Mitchell and Donald 1988; Peregrine 2001). Both Peregrine (2001) and Manzanilla (1996) provide examples of neighborhood and household groups operating independently for certain activities and corporately in other realms of daily life. For example, at Chaco Canyon (A.D. 700-900), some tasks, like building homes and pueblos, required collective cooperation of corporate group members, while other tasks, like craft production, were achieved through division of labor and specialization of production within the corporate group (Peregrine 2001). In addition to within corporate groups, specialization of production can also occur between corporate groups, with each corporate group specializing in manufacturing different items; for example, the Oztoyahualco compound specialized in stucco plastering while other compounds at Teotihuacan specialized in basketry, ceramics, cutting wood, figurine production, painting, spinning, stonework, or textiles (Manzanilla 1996). Similarly, Longacre’s (1964) research at the Carter Ranch Site in Arizona (A.D. 1100-1250) reveals that ceramic designs appear to cluster by groups of dwelling rooms within the larger complex; there are three distinct groups of neighboring rooms, each with its own kiva and its own ceramic microtradition (Longacre 1964). Scholars interpret these labor and production patterns to indicate that even though the nuclear family households in a corporate neighborhood may have been internally cooperative, each corporate neighborhood was relatively self-sufficient (Longacre 1964). For example, at the Hohokam village of Pueblo Grande in Arizona (A.D. 500-1450), analyzing the spatial distribution of various artifacts with an economic function and their associated activities of production, including lithic tool manufacturing with both local and nonlocal lithic materials, spinning yarn, production of shell, indicates that each compound operated independently of the 142 others both domestically and economically as its own corporate compound group (Foster et al. 1996). Further, each corporate compound group also appears to have been part of its own network of social and economic relationships outside of Pueblo Grande (Foster et al. 1996). Hayden et al. (1996), Manzanilla (1996), and Peregrine (2001) each argue that corporate groups, including both corporate households and corporate neighborhoods, had differential access to resources like lithic resources, agricultural land, and faunal and floral resources. At Teotihuacan, Manzanilla (1996) suggests that access to resources was determined by membership in corporate apartment compounds because spatial analysis revealed vastly different quantities of faunal resources, such as birds, marine mollusks, and rabbits, exotic floral resources, such as avocado, cotton, and Nicotiana, and agave end-scrapers in different compounds. Likewise, visual, petrographic, and geochemical analysis of the lithic assemblages at each pithouse at the Keatley Creek Site (EeRl-7) on the Fraser River near Lillooet, British Columbia, (ca. 1550-450 B.C. to A.D. 1750) revealed that each house had access to distinct stone resources; Hayden et al. (1996) extrapolate from this conclusion to suggest that these corporate household groups had differing access, passed down internally through time, to local and nonlocal territories and all of the associated resources in those territories. A possible limitation for some of the interpretations in the preceding literature is its assumption of corporateness to interpret archaeological evidence without independently establishing that the occupants of the site were organized into corporate groups. Further, there are no consistent definitions of corporateness across the various sources within this set of literature. However, this literature is useful to my research in its identification of material correlates related to several of the variables present in my descriptive model of domestic corporate groups, including access to resources, dwelling sizes and arrangements, division of 143 labor, intra-household organization, social status, and village organization. Further, these case studies support the existence of the different forms of domestic groups that I distinguish in my model, corporate communities (Byrd 1994; Kuijt et al. 2011), corporate neighborhoods (Foster et al. 1996; Longacre 1964; Manzanilla 1996; Pailes 2014), and corporate households (Acheson 1991; Coupland 1988; Coupland et al. 2009; Fladmark 1973; Hayden and Spafford 1993; Hayden et al. 1996; Lepofsky et al. 1996; Martindale 1999; Matson and Coupland 1995; Mitchell and Donald 1988), configured both as longhouses and as round/square houses, as well as how I model change in domestic corporate groups over time (Byrd 1994; Kuijt et al. 2011). Tests of Corporateness Rather than using assumptions of corporateness to explain patterns in the archaeological record, this set of literature explicitly tests their archaeological data against some measure of “corporateness” which differs in each case. The authors attempt to choose fundamental characteristics of corporateness that should be clear in the archaeological record. For example, Hayden and Cannon (1982) propose that “archaeologically, corporate groups can be defined where residential coherency and internal hierarchies are demonstrable” (132). However, this definition seems too simplistic. Based on my descriptive model, there are many more aspects of corporateness to consider, even excluding the ones which cannot be easily accessed in the archaeological record. Further, in my model “residential coherency” occurs in different ways for each type of domestic corporate group. Internal hierarchies also vary between the different types of domestic corporate groups in my model, occurring most strongly in round/square corporate households and most weakly in corporate communities. Based on my ethnographic analysis, I agree with the cautions by Aberle (1968) and Deetz (1968) against assuming the simplicity of 144 identifying corporate groups archaeologically due to their multidimensional nature created by “certain essential conceptual relationships between people and objects held by people” (Deetz 1968:48). Four cases exist in which scholars have attempted to explicitly test with archaeological data whether the occupants of their research sites were organized into corporate groups, rather than assuming the corporateness of the site occupants like the cases just discussed. These cases include: (1) Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Çatalhöyük in Turkey; (2) Sobel’s (2004) dissertation research at the late pre-contact through early post-contact Cathlapotle and Clahclellah sites in the southern Northwest Coast’s Lower Columbia River Valley, (3) Hayden’s (1976) analysis of House 2 at the Draper Site (AlGt-2) in southern Ontario, and (4) late pre-contact eastern Aleuts living in the Agayadan Village on Alaska’s Unimak Island. Ian Hodder (Hodder 2006; Hodder 2010; Hodder and Cessford 2004) argues that the minimum requirement for corporate household groups is the extended maintenance of social memory, which he assesses archaeologically via two criteria: (1) multiple reconstructions of the same houses in basically identical locations and configurations, and (2) burials of important household members under the floors of those houses. Based on these criteria, Ian Hodder (Hodder 2006; Hodder 2010; Hodder and Cessford 2004) has argued that the people of PPNB Çatalhöyük were indeed organized into corporate households. However, Carleton et al. (2013) use eight different variables to operationalize Hodder’s corporate criteria, including house platforms, house pillars, house benches, house decorations, house burials, house ovens, house rooms, and spatial continuity, and thereby reject Hodder’s conclusions about the existence of corporate household groups there at that time. Hodder (2016) rebuts the entirety of Carleton et al.’s (2013) publication, citing their use of inadequate and flawed site data rather than recent 145 accurate site data, inappropriate tests for the research question, and general misunderstanding of Ian Hodder’s (Hodder 2006; Hodder 2010; Hodder and Cessford 2004) research, arguments, and conclusions; ultimately, Hodder (2016) dismisses the entirety of Carleton et al. (2013). The most productive aspect of this research is that Ian Hodder (Hodder 2006; Hodder 2010; Hodder and Cessford 2004), as well as Carleton et al. (2013) are attempting to use the archaeological evidence to test whether the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) occupants of Çatalhöyük in central Turkey were organized into corporate groups, rather than just assuming that they operated corporately. However, the definition of corporate groups utilized in their research is problematic. The extended maintenance of social memory is not the minimum requirement for domestic corporate groups of any kind; this criteria was notably absent from the literature review I conducted for Chapter Two, including both the theoretical literature and the global case studies. The case could be made for my North American ethnographic data that social memory was maintained for the length of time required by Ian Hodder’s definition. However, social memory is only loosely related to some of the most important components of my descriptive model of the nature and operation of the different levels of domestic corporate groups. Sobel (2004) used two criteria to determine the presence of corporate household groups: (1) that the dwellings are large enough to house at least two nuclear families, and (2) that the dwellings are continuously occupied for a minimum of three generations. To access these criteria through the archaeological record, Sobel (2004) assessed dwelling size and dwelling lifespan. For each house, Sobel (2004) calculated dwelling size by combining statistical formulas for household size based on house maximum and minimum floor areas with local ethnographic documentary evidence. For each house, Sobel (2004) calculated dwelling lifespan 146 through consistency in house orientation and locations of walls, hearths, and storage pits over the duration of the house’s use, combined with determination of temporal range of house features based on their stratigraphical contents, particularly readily datable European trade goods. Based on these factors, Sobel (2004) determines that the seven houses at the Clahclellah Site (45SA11) and the four houses at the Cathlapotle Site (45CL1), which all date from about A.D. 1500-1840, did all indeed represent corporate household groups, as is generally assumed for plankhouses on the Northwest Coast. Sobel’s (2004) tests of corporateness represents an improvement over Hodder’s (Hodder 2006; Hodder 2010; Hodder and Cessford 2004). Though Sobel’s (2004) use of dwelling lifespan is another attempt to use a measure of social memory to define corporate household groups, she also measures dwelling size to establish the number of families living in the household. However, based on my descriptive model derived from ethnographic data, a dwelling large enough for multiple nuclear families defines only some types of domestic corporate groups, round/square and longhouse corporate households, and excludes the possibility of corporate neighborhoods or a corporate community. One might argue that Sobel (2004) is exclusively attempting to test for corporate households, and therefore corporate neighborhoods and communities are not relevant to her research; however, her test criteria are still insufficient. The models of corporateness in the subsequent section of this chapter point out that multiple nuclear families may reside together in one large dwelling without operating as one large corporate group (Blanton 1995; Coupland et al. 2009; Hayden 1976; Moemeka 1998). Hayden’s (1976) interpretations of Theresa Ferguson’s (1979) analysis of activity areas within Structure 2 at the Draper Site attempt to more robustly define corporateness archaeologically by combining measures of dwelling size and internal organization, particularly 147 as it relates to the intra-household division of labor. Ferguson (1979) statistically compared observed artifact frequencies in sections of this longhouse to expected artifact frequencies for the entire house. Ferguson (1979) divided Structure 2 into eleven distinct activity areas based on the concentrations of artifacts within them; the following list of these activity areas is based on Hayden (1976:15-16, Figure 4) and Ferguson (1979:110-111, Figure 12): 1. Chipped stone manufacture = concentration of cores, debitage, and scrapers 2. Bone manufacture = concentration of scored bone fragments, bone beads, ground bone fragments, ground phalanges, bone awls, and lithic knives 3. Pecking and preforming adzes = concentration of adze blanks, hammerstones, and adzes 4. Grinding and finishing adzes = concentration of adzes and grinding stones 5. Woodworking = concentration of adzes, a biface, and utilized flakes 6. Floral processing = concentration of manos and scrapers 7. General boneworking = concentration of ground bone fragments, ground phalanges, bone beads, scored bone fragments, scrapers, ground stone, and debitage 8. Bead manufacture = concentration of scrapers, scored bone fragments, unfinished bone beads, and an unfinished lithic knife 9. Recreational area = concentration of ground and faceted phalanges and a cup-and- pin phalange game 10. Hideworking and recreation = concentration of awls, scrapers, projectile points, and ground phalanges 11. Bipolar technology workshop = concentration of cores, anvil stones, debitage, scrapers on bipolar flakes, and a punch/flaker Hayden (1976) interprets these clearly defined intra-household activity areas as evidence of significant intra-household specialization and “economic orchestration of the production of goods and services on a nuclear family basis” (7). Thus, Hayden (1976) concludes that the Draper Site (AlGt-2) shows clear differences in activity loci throughout the Structure 2 longhouse that appear to be indicative of corporate planning and specialization of intra- household production activities by individual nuclear families within the household. Hayden’s (1976) research has significantly influenced the use of the term corporate group to refer to multi-family longhouses in southern Ontario prior to Indigenous contact with 148 Europeans in the region. While my descriptive model incorporates non-subsistence production practices in distinguishing different types of corporate groups, as Hayden (1976) did, my cross- cultural ethnographic data has suggested that Hayden’s (1976) focus on non-subsistence production as the only relevant aspect of intra-household organization may be inadequate for confidently defining a particular longhouse as a corporate household. Even in the presence of a dwelling large enough for multiple families, non-subsistence production practices alone cannot definitively establish corporateness. My ethnographic analysis suggests that they are less important than many of the other defining characteristics of corporate groups outlined in my model; non-subsistence production should be considered in conjunction with other lines of evidence establishing corporateness because its patterning in the archaeological record may be impacted by several other cultural factors unrelated to corporateness. Hayden’s (1976) conclusions should also be accepted cautiously due to concerns with the specific archaeological evidence: the western end of longhouse Structure 2 appears to have been built over the location of an earlier palisade wall for the village; debris from around the earlier palisade wall was likely mixed in with the living deposits from the longhouse floor, making interpretations of the longhouse’s activity areas questionable (Finlayson 1985). Hoffman’s (1999) approach is similar to Hayden’s (1976) in that it uses intra-household spatial patterning to assess corporate households archaeologically. In addition to dwelling size, Hoffman (1999) used two more criteria to assess corporateness, hearth complexes and storage pits, measuring their quantities, sizes, and locations within houses in order to draw his conclusions. In the Agayadan Village (UNI-067) on Unimak Island, Alaska, from about A.D. 1500-1750, late pre-contact eastern Aleuts or Unangans organized themselves as multiple nuclear families living together in one large dwelling (Hoffman 1999). Within these houses, 149 Hoffman (1999) found that each nuclear family maintained its own sub-floor food storage pits, but each dwelling only had one or two central hearths; each hearth also had a large associated rock-lined basin designed for cooking for half or all of the household’s membership. He also found small clusters of storage pits and lithic manufacturing debitage, which were located together in each nuclear family compartment (Hoffman 1999). Hoffman’s interpretation of these findings is that food preparation and consumption was a cooperative activity for the household, while other activities, like food storage and tool production, may have been conducted more independently by nuclear families, thereby “suggesting a degree of economic independence” (Hoffman 1999:158). Ultimately, he concludes that “communal meals … undoubtedly strengthened the social bonds among household members and are a strong indicator of the corporate nature of the Agayadan houses” but “the implied ownership of surplus by nuclear families demonstrates the corporate entity of the dwellings was not the exclusive unit of economic organization” (Hoffman 1999:159). Hoffman’s (1999) use of archaeological evidence to establish the corporateness of a multi-family household is the most closely aligned with my research’s approach to archaeological correlates of corporateness based on the descriptive model I developed from the ethnographic data. First, Hoffman (1999) uses dwelling size to establish the presence of multi- family households. More important, however, is his examination of the intra-household spatial patterning of storage pits, hearths, and cooking basins, in addition to artifacts related to non- subsistence production activities. In doing so, Hoffman (1999) is able to assess how multiple daily household activities were conducted either cooperatively as a group, by nuclear family units, and/or by individuals. Furthermore, the particular activities he assesses are important components in my descriptive model for distinguishing between the different types of domestic 150 corporate groups and, in turn, understanding how cohesively the corporate groups of a community may have operated. Therefore, Hoffman’s (1999) research will be particularly important in the final section of this chapter, in which I establish the archaeological correlates associated with the components of my model. Again, in each of these cases, the authors attempt to use the archaeological data to ascertain whether corporate groups exist before applying concepts of corporateness to their interpretations of their sites. This literature is particularly useful in my research in identifying archaeological correlates of the characteristics of the different types of domestic corporate groups I identified from my ethnographic analysis. As discussed, Hoffman’s (1999) research is particularly useful in regards to archaeological correlates of communal versus individual storage facilities, the organization of food production and consumption, and the management of intra- household non-subsistence production; likewise, Ferguson’s (1979) methodology for understanding intra-household divisions of labor and specialization of non-subsistence production activities is also pertinent to testing my descriptive model archaeologically. These variables, and their archaeological correlates, are important in differentiating between the types of domestic corporate groups in my model. However, each author chooses different site-specific criteria to test their expectations that the site’s occupants were organized corporately. I take a different approach and attempt to test the goodness of fit between the archaeological data and my more general cross-cultural descriptive model of corporateness, determining which of the model’s characteristics are present and absent at my sites, and then interpreting what that means about how corporate groups operated there. Further, my approach adds an emphasis on examining the variation within domestic corporate groups that I was able to model based on the ethnographic data. In my research, I seek to move beyond determining whether or not 151 communities contained corporate groups and to begin to understand how those corporate groups were arranged and operated. Models of Corporateness Finally, some authors have explicitly attempted to create models of corporateness which can then be used to systematically evaluate whether or not groups are operating corporately, using ethnographic and/or archaeological data for the evaluation. These authors, including Schneider et al. (1972), Hayden (1976), and Coupland et al. (2009), following Moemeka (1998) and Blanton (1995), have suggested models based on a dichotomy between corporate and noncorporate groups. Among these models of corporateness, my model is unique in its efforts to directly incorporate the potential variation within corporate groups. Schneider et al. (1972), based on ethnographic fieldwork in the Mediterranean from 1965 to 1967, introduce a dichotomy between “corporate” and “noncorporate” groups. Schneider et al. (1972) define corporate groups similarly to some components of the core characteristics of domestic corporate groups in my descriptive model; however, their definition emphasizes collective ownership of property and multi-generational longevity of corporate groups. Noncorporate groups, however, are not chartered, although there may well be an ideology, a common mentality, or behavioral grammar which defines the routes of entrance into the group and regulates the conduct of its members. Most important, the assets of a noncorporate group are not vested in the group, per se. They remain the property of its individual members. In short, the noncorporate group may be a coalition, clique or patron-client chain, in which individuals pool resources and skills [Schneider et al. 1972:334]. While corporate groups are more stable, noncorporate groups are more flexible and adaptable (Schneider et al. 1972). Importantly, Schneider et al. (1972) also point out that both corporate 152 and noncorporate groups “provide means of regulating power relationships, defining access to resources, stratifying and controlling people” (334). This is important because if these characteristics are not exclusive to corporate groups, they cannot be used singularly to define them. However, based on my literature review, as well as on my ethnographic analysis, corporate and noncorporate groups accomplish these goals in markedly different ways, though these may be difficult to distinguish archaeologically. Hayden (1976), in an attempt to test the corporateness of one, unfortunately disturbed, Wendat household at the Draper Site in southern Ontario, as discussed above, introduces a dichotomy between “corporate” residential groups and “associational” residential groups. I define corporate households similarly to the way that Hayden (1976) defines corporate groups; however, my model does not depend solely on intra-household status differentiation and specialization, as I also consider aspects of village organization. An important contribution of Hayden’s (1976) work is the identification of associational residence; he describes the possibility of longhouse residents “merely residing in given longhouses because of associational preferences, or/and inherent advantages to living in large structures (warmth, economy, etc.), with no corporate responsibilities within the house other than the maintenance of the structure— much as a small commune” (Hayden 1976:4). Membership in this type of associational residence is expected to be flexible, with egalitarian relationships between the nuclear families of which it is composed (Hayden 1976). As I discussed earlier, while this might be an important characteristic of corporate households, based on my model, non-subsistence production practices cannot independently identify domestic corporate groups. Further, while similar artifact patterns of non-subsistence production activities may result from different behaviors, these activities, 153 particularly task specialization and status assignments, vary in their practice between the different types of domestic corporate groups in my model. Coupland et al. (2009), based on copious reviews of ethnographic and archaeological data on the Northwest Coast, introduce a dichotomy between “communalist” and “collectivist” (Moemeka 1998) or “incorporative” (Blanton 1995) household groups. Coupland et al. (2009) define communalist household groups most similarly to my descriptive model’s round/square corporate households; the authors focus on the unity of the communalist household in both production and consumption. However, in collectivist households, “individuals and families may live and work together, but they do not ‘lose the self’ for the welfare of the community. Families living collectively are essentially self-interested and realize that participation in a multifamily collective is the best way to achieve their goals” (Coupland et al. 2009:84, citing Moemeka 1998:124), and in incorporative households, there is a “congruence of individual member interests” (Blanton 1995:109). Coupland et al. (2009) use the terms collectivist and incorporative interchangeably for their purposes, indicating that in both cases “individuals and families consider a number of alternative household memberships and choose to live where they perceive their interests will be best served” (84). Like other authors, Coupland et al. (2009) view communalist households as more stable and internally cohesive than collectivist or incorporative households, which are more flexible and internally independent. I was particularly inspired by Coupland et al.’s (2009) model since it gets at the heart of the reason for living within a corporate group. To take this approach further, my model expands the definition of corporate groups to also include corporate longhouses, corporate neighborhoods, and corporate communities. 154 This final set of studies attempt to systematically model corporate groups in generalizable ways that allow their models to be more broadly applied to other (archaeological) contexts. While the prior sets of readings assume or test corporateness or testing corporateness, their criteria is case-specific and pertinent to only a certain time or place. I acknowledge that these types of models founded simply on the dichotomy between corporate and noncorporate domestic groups provide a reasonable starting point for examining corporate group dynamics. However, based on my ethnographic analysis, and the descriptive model I created from it in the last chapter, I find these types of models too simplistic to encompass the nuances of variation in actual domestic corporate groups. A significant reason that these three models fall short is that they only attempt to model corporate groups as households. My research has clearly shown that corporate households are not the only type of domestic corporate group in existence; neglecting to consider corporate neighborhoods and communities creates the potential for failing to identify important aspects of a community’s social organization, particularly when analyzing archaeological data. The Model Rather than a model based on a dichotomy between corporate and noncorporate domestic groups, I have proposed a descriptive model of domestic corporate groups, including two types of corporate households, corporate neighborhoods, and corporate communities. I will now revisit the model I proposed in the last chapter, incorporating perspectives from the archaeological literature reviewed in this chapter, with a particular emphasis on the archaeological correlates of the characteristics of each level of domestic corporate group organization. 155 Figure 5.1 Descriptive Model of Domestic Corporate Groups Domestic Corporate Groups Corporate Households Corporate Neighborhoods Corporate Communities Round/Square Houses Greatest Intra- Group Cohesion Longhouses Least Intra- Group Cohesion As explained in the last chapter, with rare exceptions, there are certain characteristics that are expected to occur in every domestic corporate group. Corporate households are domestic corporate groups in which the entire group is contained to one self-sufficient household. Corporate households maintain the greatest cohesion within the corporate group, with corporate households occupying round and square houses maintaining greater intra-group cohesion than corporate households occupying longhouses. Corporate neighborhoods maintain the domestic corporate group within a self-sufficient cluster of nuclear family households, while corporate communities do so in an entire village. These groups have greater independence of the nuclear family units within the domestic corporate group; corporate neighborhoods maintain equal or less intra-group cohesion as compared to corporate longhouse households, while corporate communities maintain the least intra-group cohesion of any type of domestic corporate group. Some characteristics of the different types of domestic corporate groups in my descriptive model are only observable ethnographically in living populations. However, some characteristics 156 outlined in the model can be visible archaeologically. In this section, I will lay out the archaeological correlates, which translate to observable expectations, for the different components of the model. Domestic Corporate Groups  differential access to resources (e.g. trade routes, raw material resources) - identifiable by differing quantities of different resources (e.g., flora, fauna, lithic, trade good, etc.) in different corporate groups (c.f. Hayden et al. 1996; Manzanilla 1996)  communal storage facilities (sometimes combined with small private storage facilities) Corporate Households  dwelling large enough to contain a minimum of two nuclear families  dwelling entrances/doorways neither facing nor close to other dwelling entrances/doorways  absence of dwelling clusters  absence of nondomestic community buildings  communal spaces within dwellings, e.g., open area around a central hearth, central aisle down the length of a house  identifiable by absence of archaeological remains (c.f. Lepofsky et al. 1996)  non-subsistence production activities occur in specialized locations within houses visible as distinct activity areas (c.f. Foster et al. 1996; Ferguson 1979; Hayden 1976)  ceramic styles similar within households and different between households (c.f. Longacre 1964; Warrick 1984) Round/Square House construction  single (or two) central hearth (with associated rock-lined cooking basin and/or concentration of FCR and faunal remains) for all food preparation and consumption activities (c.f. Coupland et al. 2009; Fladmark 1973; Hoffman 1999; Lepofsky et al 1996; Martindale 1999) - pots larger than six liters (c.f. Warrick 1984)  single central hearth for food consumption (with associated concentration of faunal remains) with multiple individual nuclear family hearths (with associated concentrations of FCR) for food 157 preparation (c.f. Coupland et al. 2009; Fladmark 1973; Hoffman 1999; Lepofsky et al 1996; Martindale 1999) - pots both larger and smaller than six liters (c.f. Warrick 1984)  single central hearth for non-food activities (absence of cooking basin, FCR, faunal remains) with multiple individual nuclear family hearths (with associated rock-lined cooking basins and/or concentrations of FCR and faunal remains) for both food preparation and consumption (c.f. Coupland et al. 2009; Fladmark 1973; Hoffman 1999; Lepofsky et al 1996; Martindale 1999) - pots smaller than six liters (c.f. Warrick 1984) Longhouse construction  exclusively multiple individual nuclear family hearths (with associated rock-lined cooking basins and/or concentrations of FCR and faunal remains) for both food preparation and consumption, utilized by one or two nuclear families (c.f. Coupland et al. 2009; Fladmark 1973; Hoffman 1999; Lepofsky et al 1996; Martindale 1999) - pots smaller than six liters (c.f. Warrick 1984) Corporate Neighborhoods  multiple (less than nine) small, nuclear family dwellings organized into clusters  shared common features between dwellings - e.g., walls, connecting passageways, outbuildings, common terraces, activity areas  dwelling entrances/doorways facing and/or close to other dwelling entrances/doorways within corporate neighborhood (c.f. Warrick 1984)  communal spaces between dwellings; no communal spaces within dwellings  identifiable by absence of archaeological remains (c.f. Lepofsky et al. 1996)  communal storage facility for each neighborhood, outside dwellings  Food preparation for the entire group occurs separately in one large location within each house - cooking pots larger than six liters (c.f. Warrick 1984). Food consumption occurs separately as nuclear families in smaller locations within each house - serving pots smaller than six liters (c.f. Warrick 1984)  multiple large hearths for food preparation (with associated concentrations of FCR) with multiple small hearths (with associated concentrations of faunal remains) for food consumption (c.f. Coupland et al. 2009; Fladmark 1973; Hoffman 1999; Lepofsky et al 1996; Martindale 1999) - pots both larger and smaller than six liters (c.f. Warrick 1984) 158  non-subsistence production activities repeated in each dwelling in the neighborhood  ceramic styles similar within neighborhoods and different between neighborhoods (c.f. Longacre 1964; Warrick 1984) Corporate Communities  multiple small, nuclear family dwellings organized into neighborhoods  dwelling entrances/doorways neither facing nor close to other dwelling entrances/doorways within neighborhood  nondomestic community buildings common - identifiable by the absence of production and consumption activities and trash accumulation (c.f. Byrd 1994)  dwellings completely separate from one another  no communal spaces within dwellings  Food preparation for each nuclear family occurs in one small location within each house - cooking pots smaller than six liters (c.f. Warrick 1984). Food consumption occurs among each nuclear family in its own house - serving pots smaller than six liters (c.f. Warrick 1984).  exclusively multiple individual nuclear family hearths (with associated rock-lined cooking basins and/or concentrations of FCR and faunal remains) for both food preparation and consumption, utilized by one nuclear family (c.f. Coupland et al. 2009; Fladmark 1973; Hoffman 1999; Lepofsky et al 1996; Martindale 1999) - pots smaller than six liters (c.f. Warrick 1984)  non-subsistence production repeated in each nuclear family house in the community  entire community specializes in a particular craft  little patterning to ceramic styles throughout community (c.f. Longacre 1964; Warrick 1984) Summary In this chapter, I have explored multiple types of archaeological literature examining various aspects of corporateness in an attempt to identify archaeological correlates to apply to my descriptive model of the range of variability in domestic corporate groups. In assigning archaeological correlates, I have divided them neatly between the different types of domestic corporate groups in my model. However, I acknowledge that the realities of archaeological data 159 are not this simple; in practice, the archaeological signatures of the different types of domestic corporate groups likely overlap along multiple boundaries. The archaeological literature has filled in gaps in Chapter Four’s ethnographic data. For example, the archaeological literature has illuminated spatial aspects of ethnographically- recorded behaviors relating to food preparation and consumption. This exercise has also revealed potential limitations of my approach, such as the difficulty of distinguishing corporate communities from noncorporate communities using exclusively archaeological evidence. In the next chapter, I will attempt to ascertain the goodness of fit between my descriptive model and the archaeological correlates I have identified in this chapter. 160 CHAPTER 6: Archaeological Case Study Introduction In this chapter, I introduce the archaeological case study of the Wendat within the context of Iroquoian cultures in the Eastern Woodlands of North America. I then identify the reasons that change over time in the domestic corporate groups of the Wendat villages might be expected, and why, in light of my ethnographic and ethnohistoric analysis, this variability may or may not exist, and if it does exist, the likelihood of its visibility archaeologically. Later in this chapter, I apply the model I developed in Chapter Four and Chapter Five to three Wendat archaeological village sites, ranging in time from the late fourteenth century through the early seventeenth century, in southern Ontario. I analyze intra-village and intra-household spatial patterning of structures, artifacts, ecofacts, and features at each of the sites. Finally, I assess the appropriateness of the model for understanding corporate household dynamics among the Protohistoric Wendat and for identifying archaeologically any variations that may have occurred over time. The goal of this preliminary test of my model against this archaeological data is to assess whether the archaeological correlates I developed in Chapter Five are appropriate and sufficient for the identification of each organizational level of domestic corporate groups using archaeological evidence. The Great Lakes Region The Northeast and the Great Lakes formed one extensive indigenous space where Algonquian and Haudenosaunee (Iroquoian) communities had forged interdependent and long-term connections over millennia by linking people and goods in networks of waterways and pathways [Howey 2012:41-42]. 161 This research will be situated within the Great Lakes region of North America, as defined by Loren (2008) as the areas of the “present-day United States and Canada surrounding the Great Lakes” (33). The Wendat have traditionally lived between Georgian Bay and Lake Simcoe (Birch and Williamson 2013b). Figure 6.1 Ancestral Iroquoian Settlement Locations within the Great Lakes Region, map modified by A. Conell, from Tanner 1987:3 Nadowek Within the Great Lakes region, Northern Iroquoian cultures self-identify as Nadowek, including the Wendat, the Tionontaté, the Neutral, the Wenro, the Erie, and the Haudenosaunee, 162 including the Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, and Mohawk (Birch 2015). Located throughout the northeastern woodlands, from Quebec through New York and Ontario, south to Pennsylvania and Ohio, the Nadowek were intensive agriculturalists or slash and burn horticulturalists in substantial palisaded longhouse communities with a sexual division of labor (Fenton 1978; Fenton 1998; Garrad 2014; Labelle 2013; Steckley 2014). Although Iroquoians were predominantly matrilineal and matrilocal, exceptions resulted from intervillage non- aggression pacts (Warrick 1996). Wendat The Wendat were known by the French as the Huron and the Petun (Garrad 2014; Steckley 2014). The name “Huron” was assigned by the French: Arriving at the French settlement, some Sailor or Soldier seeing for the first time this species of barbarians, some of whom wore their hair in ridges—a ridge of hair one or two fingers wide appearing upon the middle of their heads, and on either side the same amount being shaved off, then another ridge of hair; others having one side of the head shaved clean, and the other side adorned with hair hanging to their shoulders—this fashion of wearing the hair making their heads look to him like those of boar [hures], led him to call these barbarians “Hurons;” and this is the name that has clung to them ever since [Thwaites 1896- 1901:16:229-231]. They call themselves “Wendat,” or “8endat,” which has been interpreted to mean “islanders” or “dwellers on a peninsula” (Hodge 1913:206). “8endat” may have been derived from the noun root -h8en’d-, which means “island, separated piece of land” or from a combination of the noun root -8end- and the verb root -t-, which mean “word, voice” and “to be one” respectively (Steckley 2007:24; 26). The matrilineal, matriarchal clans of the Wyandot or Wendat Confederacy include the Attignawantan (Bear Nation), Arendaeronnon (Nation of the 163 Rock), Attigneenongnahac (People of the Cord), Tahontaenrat (People of the Deer), and possibly Ataronchronon (People of the Marsh) (Labelle 2013; Steckley 2014). The Wendat have been considered non-state societies, i.e., small in scale, with minimal social differentiation and vertical or horizontal complexity, managed by kin-based relationships and other lateral organizational mechanisms, like cosmology, ideology, and language (Ehrhardt 2013; O’Shea and McHale Milner 2002). In general, in matrilocal communities: women compose the primary work groups managing horticultural subsistence strategies, husbands are unrelated and lose any status or authority from their natal communities, resources and access to them are controlled by matrilineages, children are raised by a core group of women, and men act away from the home (Aberle 1961; Ensor 2013; Peregrine 2001). Among the Wendat, the female heads of households owned the household’s agricultural lands, as well as much of the household property aside from other individuals’ clothing and personal items (Powell 1881; Tooker 1991). Documentary evidence from the A.D. 1600s suggests that Wendat men were spending increasing amounts of time away from their villages (Trigger 1990). The A.D. 1500s may have ushered in the era of tribal formation for the Wendat initially in the form of village clustering (Tuck 1971; Tuck 1978; Trigger 1985; Warrick 1990; Warrick 1996). White (1991) emphasizes that Indigenous communities were primarily organized by village, with each village composed of multiple clans, lineages, and families, and that kinship played the strongest role in intra-village interactions, as well as between neighboring villages. These villages were principle loci for Wendat social and political matters (Birch and Williamson 2013b). Iroquoian villages have been defined as “a cluster of longhouses greater than 0.41 ha (one acre) in size and showing evidence of having been occupied by a single semi-permanent community” (Warrick 1984:8), with “semi-permanent” meaning “occupied for several years at a 164 stretch but not for as long as a generation, and where most adult inhabitants will have lived elsewhere previously, and will expect to move again before they die” (Orme 1981:106). Champlain recorded the Wendat tradition of village semi-permanence by saying, “They sometimes change their village site after ten, twenty, or thirty years, and move it one, two, or three leagues from the former spot, if they are not forced by their enemies to decamp and move to a greater distance…” (Biggar 1922-1936 Vol. 3:124). While Champlain varied in his use of the word “league” throughout his writing, in this case, he was likely referring to the French lieue commune, which translates to 4.44 kilometers; however, the actual distances he recorded may be slightly longer than the official definition of a “league” (Chardon 1980; Heidenreich 1978). Ontario Iroquoian villages contained: “palisades with restricted entrances, numerous longhouses of variable size and arranged in ‘rows like streets’ and house fronts ‘painted with all sorts of beasts’” (Warrick 1984:21). The “parallel and paired rows” (Birch 2016b:104) of longhouses at the Mantle Site, for example, as well as the clear central plaza of its first occupational phase, are both indicators of village integration. According to Warrick (1984), “Additional ethnographic evidence, supporting the priority of matrilocal or uxorilocal residence among the Ontario Iroquois, is that matrilineal sub-clans appear to have been localized in separate residential wards or clan neighbourhoods in large [Wendat] villages” (100-101). While clan lines may be a point of social schism, lateral alliances resulted from extensive kin networks created by traditions of exogamous marriage (Bohaker 2006; Cleland 1992). These villages were likely segmented villages, in which multiple clans or lineages effectively created small neighborhoods within the village, containing a combination of houses, plazas, and/or special purpose or communal buildings (Chang 1958; Warrick 1984). 165 Active participants in both traditional and Catholic fictive kin networks, the Wendat sought strategic marriages usually of Wendat women to Anishinaabe and French men (Labelle 2013). The Wendat maintained their exogamous, matrilineal, matrilocal clans in the face of Algonquian and European patrilineal patrilocality (Garrad 2014; Steckley 2014). Steckley (2014) more specifically identifies key characteristics of Wyandot clans: “They were matrilineal; they possessed names that they revived or resuscitated; they were exogamous; they were recruited; and they were organized into phratries” (28). Blood-related women and children from the same clan typically lived together with husbands from other clans; clans had members in multiple villages, and one longhouse could even contain members from every Petun clan (Garrad 2014). While Wendat moieties served a primarily ceremonial role, it was Wendat clans whose functions were principally sociopolitical in nature (Quain 1961). While matrilocal residence may have been preferred by the Wendat, exceptions to matrilocality were documented in the 1600s. Based on 17th century documents, some argue that the Wendat were not even matrilocal until after at least 1650, after they had contact with Europeans or that matrilocality and patrilocality were both acceptable practices to the Wendat (Richards 1967; Tooker 1991). Of 23 documentary case studies dating from 1609-1655, from Samuel de Champlain, Father Gabriel Sagard, and the Jesuit Relations, among others, Richards (1967) argues that 83% described non-matrilocal residential practices and only 13%, dating to 1636-1637, clearly described matrilocal residential practices. Powell (1881) notes the temporary nature of Wendat matrilocality, and Fenton (1951) suggests that patrilocality, ambilocality, and neolocality may have all become commonplace occurrences over time. Engelbrecht (2003) suggests that the Wendat practice of matrilocality may have begun to decrease beginning in the A.D. 1500s as a result of the increasing incorporation of non-Iroquoians into their villages, while 166 Tuck (1978) attributes the decrease in the practice of matrilocality to an increase in inter-village population movements. Referencing a comparative ethnographic case study in Taiwan (Anderson 1970), Hayden (1976) goes so far as to argue the possibility that the Wendat did not have a preferred residential strategy and that membership in particular longhouse corporate groups was primarily a matter of economically-based choice, though possibly a choice within one’s greater kin networks. Wendat Households Matrilocal Iroquoian families occupied longhouses of varying sizes, with two families sharing each of the hearths that ran the length of each longhouse (Fenton 1978; Fenton 1998; Ferris 2013; Petersen and Cowie 2002; Powell 1881; Warrick 1996; Warrick 2013; Williamson 2013). Each small family, often of “two adults and three children, sometimes with an unmarried relative or a grandparent” (Warrick 2013:65), occupied one side of the hearth (Ferris 2013). Based on a cross-cultural examination of the relationship between population sizes and house floor sizes, Casselberry (1974) determined that population size of a multi-family dwelling could be estimated at approximately one-sixth of the structure’s floor area (measured in square meters), i.e., 6 square meters of roofed floor space per person is the average for houses occupied by multiple nuclear families. Benches or raised sleeping platforms are found alongside hearths, and domestic activities mostly occurred inside longhouses (Creese 2014; Fenton 1978; Fenton 1998; Warrick 1996). Small early and middle Early Iroquoian longhouses may have housed only one or two families (Ferris 2013). Creese (2014) argues the longhouse provided an important vehicle for population growth. 167 Longhouses were historically referred to as “ganonchia” according to Gabriel Sagard (Wrong 1939:93). He writes: Their lodges, which they call Ganonchia, are constructed … like arcades or garden arbours covered with tree-bark, twenty-five to thirty fathoms long, more or less (for they are not all of equal length), and six in breadth, with a passage down the middle ten to twelve feet wide running from one end to the other. At the two sides there is a kind of bench four or five feet high, extending from one end of the lodge to the other, on which they sleep in summer … and in winter they sleep below on mats near the fire for greater warmth … [Wrong 1939:93]. While longhouses begin to appear in southern Ontario around A.D. 1000, prior to A.D. 1200, their internal organization does not appear standardized, with sleeping compartments not clearly delineated and hearths not placed with any patterning (Hayden 1976; Noble 1968; Noble 1969). Longhouse standardization in shape, interior layout, and length had generally increased after about A.D. 1200, along with village organization (Ferris 2013). Virtually the norm after A.D. 1200, a longhouse’s row of central hearths may have served to simultaneously integrate and separate longhouse occupants, as both “a focus of shared production and consumption, and a boundary marking out the balanced opposition of allied but distinct family units on either side, and the unbalanced relation between hosts and guests” (Creese 2012:377-378). Hayden (1976) argues that the central hearth alignment was caused by the organization of longhouses into functioning corporate groups. Longhouse lengths and village populations grew during the A.D. 1200s and particularly during the 1300s (Engelbrecht 2003; Tuck 1978; Warrick 1996). Around A.D. 1300, villages, like at the Bennett Site, begin to exhibit greater degrees of intra-village planning, deliberately organizing longhouses in parallel rows (Noble 1968; Noble 1969). Sleeping compartments become clearly delineated, and storage compartments appear on the ends of longhouses as early as A.D. 1300 (Noble 1968; Noble 1969). During the A.D. 1300s, Iroquoian longhouses doubled 168 in length as village populations tripled, and the largest of these Iroquoian villages housed over 2,000 people (Warrick 2013). Rapid population growth among the Wendat has been documented from A.D. 1300-1430 (from 8,000 to 24,000 people), stabilizing at about 30,000 people from 1430-1630 prior to devastation by diseases (Trigger 1990; Warrick 2013). Some authors have argued that steadily increasing longhouse sizes indicate that the Wendat placed greater and greater importance on the integrative functions of household groups during the A.D. 1300s and 1400s (Birch and Williamson 2013b; Dodd 1984; Warrick 1996). Longhouses appear to have reached their greatest average lengths during the A.D. 1400s (Tuck 1978). By the late A.D. 1400s, longhouses appear to have functioned as corporate groups, with longhouse heads distributing different production tasks amongst the nuclear family units within the longhouse (Hayden 1976). As the A.D. 1400s drew to a close, Williamson (2013) notes “the variation between houses, which may have signalled [sic] dominant lineages within villages, began to decrease, perhaps reflecting the increasing importance of clans over lineages” (58-59), particularly as a means of village integration. Trigger (1990) also notes the increasing importance of clans and decreasing importance of households at this time, as indicated by decreasing longhouse lengths and changing village configurations. Tuck (1978) notes this trend as well, suggesting the alternative possibility of simply an increased convenience of smaller houses over extensive longhouses, and little change in the overall function of the corporate group even though its physical arrangement had been altered. Regionally, longhouses dating between A.D. 1450 and 1650 are preferentially oriented Northwest or North Northwest to Southeast or South Southeast (Noble 1968; Norcliffe and Heidenreich 1974). 169 Longhouses began to decrease in length beginning around A.D. 1500 and continued to do so throughout the 1500s (Engelbrecht 2003; Tuck 1978; Warrick 1996). In the A.D. 1600s, an average of six families composing a matrilineal extended family occupied a typical Iroquoian longhouse; central hearths were each shared between two families with an average of five members (Fenton 1978; Fenton 1998; Warrick 1996). Pierre Boucher (1883 [1664]) records that among the Wendat, “the wife does not go to live with her husband, but the husband goes to live with his wife” (56). Further, Sturtevant (2016) explicitly describes the effects of the combination of matrilineality, matrilocality, and clan exogamy on the composition of the longhouse community: these longhouses were, by necessity, integrated units that involved peoples from different clans. …the women in each longhouse all belonged to the same clan, as did their children. …the men living in the longhouses belonged to different clans from their wives. Each longhouse, then, contained many related women and children from the same clan and men from different clans. [Among the Wendat,] elders from the Deer and Wolf clan even lived in the same longhouses as those of the Turtle clan. In a very real way, then, the longhouse brought together people from different clans into one integrated domestic space [41]. The core of each residential longhouse group, then, was formed by the women of its primary matrilineage, with a sprinkling of household members from other matrilineages in the form of their husbands (Fenton 1978; Fenton 1998; Parmenter 2010). Richter’s (1992) analyses of historical documents, including the Jesuit Relations (Volume 43, Chapter 12) and Father Joseph François Lafitau’s Customs of the American Indians Compared with the Customs of Primitive Times, point to a slightly different understanding of the nuances of daily life among the Iroquois; his interpretation of the documents indicates that men principally occupied separate longhouses from their wives and children. 170 Although typical Late Prehistoric villages contained large longhouses, by the late 1500s, small longhouses began to reappear; their numbers increased until the late 1700s, when families began inhabiting log cabins and longhouses transitioned to primarily communal buildings (Ferris 2013). Other proposed purposes for these small longhouses and cabins include: temporary housing, guest housing, seasonal housing, housing for Anishinaabe families, and makeshift sweat lodges (Engelbrecht 2003; Kapches 1984; Ritchie and Funk 1973; Thwaites 1896-1901). Small unpalisaded hamlets of only three to four longhouses and isolated longhouses with middens also appear later (Ferris 2013). Wendat Household Production, Storage, and Access to Resources It is commonly assumed amongst researchers of Iroquoians that women made ceramics and decorated them in intentional and meaningful ways (Birch and Hart 2018; Bliege Bird and Smith 2005; Engelbrecht 2003; Hart and Engelbrecht 2012; Hart et al. 2016; Hart et al. 2017; Hayden 1979; Parmenter 2010; Trigger 1976; Whallon 1968). Wendat ceramics, and Iroquoian ceramics more broadly, are typically grit tempered and created via paddle and anvil, with a smooth surface and incised geometric designs on the collars (MacNeish 1952). Sagard describes pottery production among the seventeenth-century Wendat: The women savages make them, taking suitable earth which they sift and pulverize very thoroughly, mixing with it a little sandstone. Then when the lump has been shaped like a ball they put a hole in it with their fist, and this they keep enlarging, scraping it inside with a little wooden paddle as much and as long as is necessary to complete the work. These pots are made without feet and without handles, quite round like a ball, except for the mouth which projects a little [Wrong 1939:109]. Among the Wendat, the women of each household appear to have been producing their own ceramics; i.e., ceramic production was not a specialized form of production (Allen 1992; 171 Engelbrecht 2003; Warrick 1984). Further, evidence suggests that women taught their children to make pottery; upon examining 552 adult ceramic sherds and 85 juvenile ceramic sherds from the Molson Site, in addition to similar samples from several other 14th-to- 16th-century sites, Smith (1998) concludes that ceramic decorative elements experienced cross-generational transmission, both from mothers and grandmothers to children and from children to their mothers and grandmothers. Additionally, pots were generally neither exchanged nor borrowed between Iroquoian households; they remained within and were used by members of the households in which they were created (Warrick 1984). Whallon (1968), envisioning stylistic differences like gene flow, argues that when ceramic styles become more homogenous throughout a village, the village is becoming more corporate in nature; there is decreasing interaction between that village and other villages. Storage in Wendat households was predominantly underground inside of their longhouses. Caches beneath longhouses were used for storing valuables (Trigger 1976). In the seventeenth century, Father Gabriel Sagard described Wendat storage facilities in the following passage: For fear of fire, to which they are very liable, they often put away in casks their most precious possessions and bury them in deep holes dug inside the lodges, then cover them up with the same earth, and this preserves them not only from fire but also from the hands of thieves, because they have no chest or cupboard in their whole establishment except these little casks [Wrong 1939:95]. It is widely accepted among researchers of the Wendat that their lineages owned and controlled particular trade routes and access to the partners active along those routes, as determined by the discoverers of those routes (Hayden 1978; Heidenreich 1972; Noble 1968; Noble 1971; Thwaites 1896-1901; Tooker 1967; Tooker 1991; Trigger 1961; Trigger 1969; Trigger 1990). For example, the Arendaeronnon controlled Wendat trade with the French since 172 they were the first to encounter them in the east, although they did eventually extend direct trading rights to other Wendat as well (Noble 1971; Smith 1970; Thwaites 1896-1901; Trigger 1990). Such interpretations are based heavily on accounts contained in historical documents like the French-created Jesuit Relations (A.D. 1632-1673) (Thwaites 1896-1901), which indicate that Indigenous kinship networks formed a vital component of trade relationships. For example, in Chapter Six of Volume Ten, Jean de Brébeuf’s Relation of 1636, the Jesuit Relations outline the role of kin relationships in controlling Wendat trade connections: specific trade connections were controlled by specific families determined by the original discoverer, and while members of those families had access rights, non-kin had to take steps to gain permission to participate as well, or else there would be varying degrees of consequences (Thwaites 1896-1901). Hayden (1978) argues that these types of ownerships of trade routes likely existed well before they were recorded by Europeans and that they were likely much more monopolistic in nature than researchers often describe. Hayden (1976) proposes that such a cultural practice could have easily led to increases in economically-based influence of particular lineages and their heads, which in turn fostered the development of household corporate groups around them. Thus, some trade routes could be monopolistically owned by individuals and some by corporate groups (Hayden 1978). Further, it is likely that kin relations and their associated obligations functioned at multiple levels simultaneously. Wendat individuals had connections and obligations within their nuclear families, within their matrilineages, and within their paternal lineages even though they were not used to reckon descent (Engelbrecht 2003; Fenton 1978; Fenton 1998; Parmenter 2010). Ethnohistorically, the extensive trade connections of the Wendat are known to have extended in multiple directions from their homeland in southern Ontario. After contact with 173 Europeans, but before their dispersal from Ontario in 1650, the Wendat served as a primary source of European trade goods to other Indigenous communities, acting as intermediaries between those communities and the French (Warrick 1984). To the east, Anishinaabe bands north of the St. Lawrence River traded furs to the Wendat for both subsistence-related goods like maize and fishing nets and exotic goods like tobacco, wampum, and French trade goods; the Wendat then traded these furs to the French for more trade goods (Herman 1956). To the south, the Wendat traded for exotic goods from Ohio and along the Mississippi River (Jamieson 1981). Finally, to the west were trade connections with Anishinaabe bands of the western Great Lakes, such as the Odawa (Jamieson 1981). Figure 6.2 “Figure 1: Northeastern North America showing major directions of material flow during the first half of the seventeenth century,” from Jamieson 1981:21 174 Ontario Iroquoian Chronology Table 6.1 “Ontario Iroquoian Chronology for South-Central Ontario,” from Warrick 1990:189 Period Contact Contact Contact Contact Contact Late Prehistoric Late Prehistoric Late Prehistoric Middleport Middleport Uren Early Iroquoian Early Iroquoian Early Iroquoian Middle Woodland Phase Late Historic Middle Historic Early Historic Late Protohistoric Early Protohistoric Late Middle Early Late Early Late Middle Early Years A.D. 1639-1650 A.D. 1625-1639 A.D. 1609-1625 A.D. 1580-1609 A.D. 1550-1580 A.D. 1500-1550 A.D. 1450-1500 A.D. 1420-1450 A.D. 1370-1420 A.D. 1330-1370 A.D. 1300-1330 A.D. 1200-1300 A.D. 1050-1200 A.D. 900-1050 300 B.C. – A.D. 500 Pre-Coalescence: Middleport Period (late fourteenth to early fifteenth centuries) A period of “small- to medium-sized dispersed villages [and] extensive interregional interaction” (Manning et al. 2018), the Middleport period preceded the fifteenth century processes of coalescence that resulted in larger, more fortified Wendat villages in southern Ontario. It is possible that clans began to develop during the Middleport period as a means of village integration and that this period may have witnessed the first elections of governing bodies in Wendat communities. There was significant and rapid population growth, with the Wendat population increasing from about 11,000 individuals to about 29,000 individuals over the course of less than a century (Dodd et al. 1990; Trigger 1990; Warrick 2000; Warrick 2013). These individuals occupied villages averaging over 600 people and about 1.2 hectares in size; these villages were slightly larger than the villages of the early fourteenth century (Dodd et al. 1990; Warrick 2000). Within these villages, the Wendat lived in longhouses typically arranged in 175 groups of two or more houses with a shared orientation; averaging 33.1 meters long, these longhouses were longer than those of the early fourteenth century. Finally, their subsistence practices involved an “increasing reliance on corn and bean cultivation ... and intensive exploitation of locally available land and water species” (Dodd et al. 1990:352). Coalescence (late fifteenth century) Coalescence may be viewed as a process rather than a singular event (Birch and Williamson 2013b). Jennifer Birch has conducted extensive research on the fifteenth-century Wendat in southern Ontario, focusing on processes of coalescence occurring at that time, which involved previously small communities aggregating into larger villages together (Birch 2010; Birch 2012; Birch 2015; Birch 2016a; Birch 2016b; Birch 2016c; Birch and Williamson 2013a; Birch and Williamson 2013b; Birch et al. 2016; Hart et al. 2016). Coalescence may have been a means to increase small group protection in response to increasing threats of violence and warfare (Warrick 1996). Villages merged into larger fortified, frequently palisaded, villages generally occupied for about 30 to 40 years, possibly indicating establishment of political alliances and potentially even the origins of tribes or nations (Ferris 2013; Petersen and Cowie 2002; Warrick 2013; Williamson 2013). Not only did larger villages characterize the process of coalescence, but so did longhouses of increasing lengths within those villages (Engelbrecht 2003; Snow 1995a; Snow 1995b). Early coalescing villages, such as the Draper Site (AlGt-2) were not fully integrated, as evidenced by discrete clusters of longhouses within these villages. Birch and Williamson (2013b) go so far as to argue that the Draper Site is more so “a settlement composed of multiple small groups sharing a palisaded compound” (59) rather than an actual Iroquoian village. Not 176 unexpectedly, then, closer relationships existed within longhouse clusters than between them (Birch and Williamson 2013b). Coalescence, particularly at early sites like Draper, appears to be characterized by high levels of intra-village heterogeneity (Ramsden 1978). Intra-village integration appears to have increased over time, leading to more cohesive household arrangements within villages, as well as more designated public spaces for community activities, both of which are evidenced at the Mantle Site (Birch 2012; Birch 2016b; Birch and Williamson 2013b; Noble 1969). Protohistory (mid to late sixteenth century) Protohistory followed the lengthy process of the coalescence of Wendat villages. The Protohistoric period is defined as “the interval between the first evidence of European contact influencing a native culture, however indirectly, and the beginning of the intimate and well- documented contact that characterizes the beginning of the historic period” (Trigger 1981:11). The Protohistoric period results from the thousands of years of Indigenous social and economic network creation and maintenance throughout the Northeast and the Great Lakes region (Howey 2012). It has been characterized by a dramatic increase in Indigenous interaction throughout northeastern North America, including increased exchange of goods, increased migration of peoples, and increased sharing of stylistic variation (Abel and Burke 2014; Betts 2006; Bradley 1987; Jamieson 1981; Lapham and Johnson 2002; Trigger 1981; Trigger 1990). Due to the nature of the Protohistoric period, it does not occur simultaneously throughout the Great Lakes region, nor even in southern Ontario, where protohistoric sites in the west and the north postdate those in the east (Noble 1968). 177 The Protohistoric saw increased interaction, exchange, and population movements; population decline potentially resulted from diseases hastened by escalation of Indigenous trade relationships (Abel and Burke 2014; Betts 2006). Clear protohistoric trade connections existed between the Iroquois of New York, Fort Ancient peoples in and around Ohio, and the Petun and Neutral of Ontario (Johnson 2001). These exchange networks “began to circulate larger quantities and a greater variety of goods” (Lapham and Johnson 2002:101) as availability of European trade goods increased throughout the A.D. 1600s. Further, it appears that rates of long-distance trade in particular increased considerably during the Protohistoric period (Jamieson 1981; Trigger 1990). Increasing exchange of exotic goods at this time, including exotic goods of both European and Indigenous manufacture, is also correlated with increasing village areas (Jamieson 1981). Richter (2001) argues that objects and information traveled through a series of small-scale reciprocal interactions via existing traditions of reciprocity and redistribution. While it may be possible that coastal Indigenous people had opportunities even before A.D. 1400 to trade with intermittent European travelers and fishers whose journeys went undocumented by history (Witthoft 1966), Ramsden (1978) suggests that European goods, particularly small brass and copper items, could have been available in southern Ontario through indirect trade routes as early as 1500. The Basque, French, and Portuguese were already establishing a fishing, exploring, and trading presence along the shores of Newfoundland and the Gulf of St. Lawrence by A.D. 1497 to 1510, interacting with the Indigenous residents there who were likely already involved in their own trading networks throughout the region (Hoffman 1961; Ramsden 1978; Waselkov 2009). On the other hand, Trigger (1979) argues that European trade goods reaching southern Ontario would have been few to none before A.D. 1534 and even only in “small and irregular quantities” (215) between 1534 and 1550. 178 Down-the-line trade through the St. Lawrence River and the Lower Great Lakes would have been a primary source of European goods before 1630 (Johnson 2001). A trade network between western Pennsylvania and the Lower Great Lakes may have been especially active during the 1500s (Lapham and Johnson 2002). Similarly, Betts (2006) proposes that diseases likely traveled from the Northeast through the Great Lakes. There is also the possibility of connections to the English in Chesapeake Bay for the Susquehannock and Monongahela (Johnson 2001; Lapham and Johnson 2002). While there may have been a period in the mid- 1500s of strained relationships with the French along the St. Lawrence River following Jacques Cartier’s kidnapping of the chief’s sons at Hochelaga in 1534, trade appears to have resumed by 1580, heralding the beginning of the Protohistoric period for the Wendat (Noble 1968). Trade centered at Tadoussac was strengthened in 1580 by the efforts of professional traders sending goods via ship, which means more trade goods and a greater variety of trade goods were available in Ontario (Trigger 1979). Direct contact between the French and the Wendat began around A.D. 1600, even though the Wendat likely knew of the French and their goods prior to this time (Thwaites 1896-1901; Tooker 1991). Direct trade between the Wendat and the French can be documented as early as A.D. 1609 along the St. Lawrence River between Champlain and a small group of Arendahronon (Tooker 1991; Trigger 1979). In 1609, “Champlain sent several French youths, (one was possibly Etienne Brulé), to live with the [Wendat] and Algonkians (Grant 1907:208)” (Noble 1968:32), and between 1615 and 1616, Champlain spent the winter at Cahiagué (Biggar 1929). In 1639, Father Lalement recorded: “It is about forty years since these peoples (the [Wendat]) for the first time resolved to seek some safe route by which to come themselves and trade with the French, of whom they had some knowledge” (Thwaites 1896-1901:16:229). 179 Case Study This research will examine the case of the Wendat in southern Ontario as it attempts to understand variability within the nature and operation of domestic corporate groups and how they might change over time as a result of a century and a half of regional processes of coalescence. The Wendat in southern Ontario provide a particularly useful case for examining change in the operation of domestic corporate groups in part because of the widespread application of the label “corporate group” to their households in addressing other research goals, without systematic regional investigation of how the people dwelling in Wendat villages may have organized themselves into such domestic corporate groups and how those domestic corporate groups worked. Wendat villages are also particularly well-suited for preliminary testing of my model of variation and change over time in corporate groups because their village organization was primarily determined by social and economic variables (Warrick 1984); such social and economic variables include the nature and operation of corporate groups. This factor lessens the possibility of other variables, such as building materials, climate, cosmology, defensive strategies, drainage, fire prevention, sanitation, or space constraints (Warrick 1984), impacting the village organization in a way unrelated to corporateness that might mask the effect of corporateness on spatial patterns and make it harder to actually test the model of corporateness. Thus, this factor makes it more likely that I am actually measuring the phenomena I am trying to measure, rather than inadvertently measuring something else and mistakenly interpreting it as a result of corporate group organization. 180 Wendat Households as Corporate Groups Iroquoian longhouses, including those of the Wendat, are generally accepted as having been organized into matrilineal, matrilocal, corporate extended family households prior to and during European contact (e.g., Allen 1988; Bamann 1993; Bamann et al. 1992; Birch 2016c; Birch and Hart 2018; Creese 2012; Hasenstab 1990; Hayden 1976; Hayden 1978; Hayden 1979; Jordan 2013; Kapches 1990; O’Gorman 2010; Prezzano 1992). Hayden (1976) envisions Wendat corporate longhouse households as smaller versions of those documented ethnographically, ethnohistorically, and archaeologically along the Northwest Coast, like those that have been discussed in earlier chapters. According to Hayden (1976), the creation and thus foundation of the longhouse household among the Wendat in Ontario was a direct result of external trade; trade was the glue that held longhouses together. Hayden (1976) proposes that Wendat household corporate groups developed as certain lineages and their lineage heads increased in economic influence through differential monopolistic ownership of trade routes first by individuals and then by the developing corporate groups. He suggests that these corporate household groups may have started to organize around A.D. 1200, as evidenced by increasing internal spatial organization of longhouses around a row of central hearths (Creese 2012; Hayden 1976). By the late A.D. 1400s, Wendat corporate household groups appear to have been well- established in Ontario, with their characteristic division of production tasks between the nuclear family units composing the longhouse, as orchestrated by the head of the longhouse (Hayden 1976). Although these corporate households were generally self-sufficient, they also maintained exchange relationships for labor and goods, both within their village and outside of their village (O’Gorman 2010; Trigger 1990). Hayden (1976) suggests that each longhouse functioned as a 181 corporate group led by one or two titular heads who managed residential activities, including trade; he argues that both lineal and affinal kin were recruited for longhouse membership in order to increase trade connections as widely as possible and therefore benefits to the longhouse household. While membership in these corporate groups was likely curated from greater kin networks, Hayden (1976) maintains that ultimately, choice of membership could have been primarily driven by economic factors. Tuck (1978) suggests that the introduction of smaller Wendat houses at the close of the 1400s may be indicative of a physical reconfiguration of these household corporate groups rather than a functional change in how Wendat corporate groups functioned. For example, Knight (1987) proposes that corporate groups based on kinship at the Ball Site (BdGv-3, A.D. 1585-1610, redated to ca. A.D. 1565-1590 by Manning et al. 2019) in southern Ontario might be operating in the form of groups of longhouses, each surrounding its own small central plaza; however, his purpose was not to test this proposal systematically. Expectations for Variation and Change in Wendat Corporate Groups Later in this chapter, I apply the descriptive model I created to archaeological data from three Wendat sites to examine the variability in the organization and operation of Wendat household groups at contemporary villages, as well as change over time between the late A.D. 1300s and the early A.D. 1600s. The existing interpretations of Wendat villages, households, and culture history reviewed in this chapter can be combined with my model of corporate groups and how they change over time constructed through the prior chapters to establish my expectations for the behavior of Wendat domestic corporate groups. Based on existing interpretations of Wendat villages and households, the Wendat appear to fit my descriptive model’s expectations for the existence of domestic corporate groups, 182 specifically corporate longhouse households, which maintain significant intra-group cohesion. This is illustrated in the following tables. Domestic Corporate Groups Table 6.2 Expectations for Domestic Corporate Groups of the Wendat Model Expectations multiple nuclear families: minimum of two households composed of consanguineal, affinal, and/or fictive kin collective ownership of, or access to, and inheritance of physical and/or non- physical property emphasis on cooperative labor and intra- group specialization Leadership position(s) exist to organize and manage cooperative labor endeavors. Members of the group have rights to the products of the collective property and/or cooperative labor of the group. communal storage facilities Wendat Characteristics (A.D. 900-1200) small longhouses may have housed only one or two families (Ferris 2013). (A.D. 1600s) average of six families. (A.D. 1600s) matrilineal extended family occupied longhouse. Women of primary matrilineage, and their husbands, and their children. However, Richter (1992) suggests that men principally occupied separate longhouses from their wives and children. Resources and access to them are controlled by matrilineages. Female heads of households owned the household’s agricultural lands, as well as much of the household property aside from other individuals’ clothing and personal items. Matrilineal clans possessed names. Specific trade connections were controlled by specific families determined by the original discoverer, and members of those families had access rights. Women compose the primary work group managing horticultural subsistence strategy. Female head of household manages the cooperative labor of the women of her matrilineage for horticultural subsistence production. The products of the cooperative subsistence labor feed all members of the household. (After A.D. 1300) communal storage compartments on the ends of longhouses. Caches beneath longhouses for storing valuables. Nuclear family storage pits under bunklines. 183 Corporate Households Table 6.3 Expectations for Corporate Households of the Wendat Model Expectations The domestic corporate group is a self- sufficient household. ranked or stratified community can accommodate either moderate population growth or moderate population decline, but neither significant growth nor significant decline seasonal, permanent, or semi-permanent settlement, from 2 to 150 households in size never neolocal residential strategy Wendat Characteristics (A.D. 1600s) average of six families composing a matrilineal extended family occupied a longhouse. Minimal social differentiation and vertical or horizontal complexity. Ownership of and access to trade routes and partners led to increases in economically-based influence of particular lineages and their heads (Hayden 1976). Varying lengths of longhouses indicate dominant lineages existed within villages (Williamson 2013). Significant population growth from A.D. 1300- 1430. Relatively stable population from A.D. 1430-1630. Significant depopulation from disease after A.D. 1630. Semi-permanent community. (After A.D. 1300) longhouses arranged in parallel rows. (After A.D. 1609) “... matrilineal sub-clans appear to have been localized in separate residential wards or clan neighbourhoods in large [Wendat] villages” (Warrick 1984:100- 101). Likely segmented villages, in which multiple clans or lineages effectively create small neighborhoods within the village, containing a combination of houses, plazas, and/or special purpose or communal buildings (Chang 1958; Warrick 1984). Matrilocal residence preferred. However, this is widely debated by scholars, as summarized above, who suggest that residential strategy was very flexible and frequently not matrilocal in either preference or practice. 184 Table 6.3 (cont’d) Model Expectations large, multi-family houses communal storage facility for each household head of corporate group is one individual food preparation and consumption activities vary Different nuclear families focus on different aspects of non-subsistence production for the entire group. Wendat Characteristics Longhouses of varying sizes. (After A.D. 1200) two families shared each of the hearths that ran the length of the longhouse; each nuclear family occupied one side of a hearth. Benches or raised sleeping platforms found alongside hearths. “... a passage down the middle ten to twelve feet wide running from one end to the other” (Wrong 1939:93). (After A.D. 1300) storage compartments on the ends of longhouses. Female heads of households. Row of central hearths as “a focus of shared production and consumption” (Creese 2012:377). (By late A.D. 1400s) longhouse heads distribute different production tasks amongst the nuclear family units within the longhouse (Hayden 1976). Women of each household produced their own ceramics, teaching the craft to their daughters. In Wendat corporate longhouses, the female household head managed the cooperative labor of the women of her matrilineage for horticultural subsistence production; these predominantly matrilocal corporate longhouses collectively owned their agricultural lands and the products obtained from the cooperative labor endeavors on those collectively owned lands, as well as non-physical property like names and trade connections. Pre-Coalescence Based on my model, I would suggest that the Wendat may have been organized into corporate neighborhoods prior to the A.D. 1400s, while their populations were growing rapidly and their dwellings were growing in size and internal organization. The Wendat population stabilized by A.D. 1430, during the century in which Wendat longhouses were at their largest in 185 size, as well as household membership and household labor power. This is the point at which Hayden (1976) argues that Wendat households become corporate, with longhouse heads organizing both subsistence and nonsubsistence production activities. Based on the expectations detailed in my model, I agree with his assessment that Wendat corporate longhouses arise in the early 1400s and dominate Wendat villages. The increasing social stratification suggested for this period also supports the likelihood of a shift from corporate neighborhoods to corporate households for the early fifteenth century Wendat. Coalescence However, beginning in the late 1400s, changes in Wendat culture begin occurring that, based on my descriptive model, should have affected the nature and operation of their domestic corporate groups. First, as described, the process of coalescence occurred in the late 1400s, as smaller communities merged into larger villages. According to my model, village coalescences, disintegrations, and recombinations all change domestic corporate groups. My ethnographic analysis indicated that, when villages are not seasonal, recombining village occupants into new villages, such as occurred during the process of coalescence, results in a preference for corporate neighborhoods that are composed of people who had previously occupied separate corporate households in a single prior village. This interpretation is consistent with Birch and Williamson’s (2013a) observations of discrete clusters of longhouses at the early coalescing Draper Site village. Further, longhouses began decreasing in size after coalescence was underway, as the fifteenth century ended and the sixteenth century began. While Trigger (1990) associates continually decreasing longhouse sizes throughout the sixteenth century with overall changes in 186 village organization, they are also suggestive of the shift from multi-family households to nuclear family households that dominates the shift from corporate households to corporate neighborhoods. Tuck (1978) and Knight (1987) also hint at the possibility of the existence of corporate neighborhoods in Late Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric Wendat villages, without testing these hypotheses. Decreasing longhouse sizes and increasing frequencies of small longhouses over the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, however, is insufficient by itself to establish a shift away from corporate households toward corporate neighborhoods during that time. These community-level changes in daily and social practices result in the regional patterns archaeologists have identified at larger scales throughout Iroquoia (Birch and Williamson 2013b). Among Iroquoians like the Wendat, these changes associated with the period of regional coalescence are likely to have had a significant effect on the nature and operation of their domestic corporate groups and households (Prezzano 1992). Protohistory Then, on top of a pattern of decreasing Wendat dwelling sizes, the Protohistoric period was ripe with external pressures that likely caused variation in the operation of Wendat domestic corporate groups. Decreasing dwelling sizes, combined with the population decline documented by Abel and Burke (2014) and Betts (2006) and the increasing village areas documented by Jamieson (1981), suggests that some Wendat communities may have experienced the decreasing population densities that thrive in corporate neighborhoods. The increased exchange of goods and the increased migration of peoples characteristic of Protohistory’s increasing Indigenous regional inter-community interaction are precisely the irregular kinds of external pressures that 187 may differentially decrease the cohesion of some domestic corporate groups and increase the social and economic independence of the nuclear families that belong to them. To the east, trade in European goods increased over the course of the 1500s, intensifying most rapidly for the Wendat during the final decades of the sixteenth century and throughout the seventeenth century. While Hayden (1976) views trade as a catalyst for the development of corporate longhouses among the Wendat during the 1400s, my model suggests that the increasing Indigenous trade of the mid-to-late 1500s, especially the long distance trade in exotic goods, is a catalyst for the breakdown of the Wendat’s corporate longhouses into corporate neighborhoods. Differential access to trade connections by different nuclear families and by different corporate longhouses may have had the capacity to alter the ways individual Wendat prioritized their connections and obligations to their nuclear families, to their matrilineages, and to their paternal lineages, leading to variation in the operation of their corporate groups. According to my model, any factor that can increase the economic independence of nuclear families has the ability to fundamentally change the nature of the domestic corporate group. For that reason, increasing interactions with village outsiders have a significant ability to cause variability in the operation of domestic corporate groups according to my model. According to my model, increasing interactions with others outside the village have the ability to impact corporate households and neighborhoods differently than corporate communities; while the members of a corporate community have essentially equal access to the outsiders, corporate households and neighborhoods vary in their access. As different members of corporate households or corporate neighborhoods gain increased access to the resources available from outsiders, they may be able to change their roles within their domestic corporate group and 188 thereby alter the internal hierarchy of the group or the organization of the cooperative labor force. However, Birch et al. (2021), based on their working refining the dates of protohistoric Iroquoian archaeological sites, maintain that “there was considerable variability among communities in terms of the initial appearance and use of European materials and, by proxy, engagement with European settlers” (83) that may have resulted from internal factors like personal choices surrounding the adoption of European goods or from external factors like restriction of access for various reasons. This type of economic variation may lead to social variation (Friesen 2013; Smith 1970); Hayden (1976) emphasizes the substantial impact that trade can have on social organization. The following two examples support these arguments and support the likelihood that variation existed both between Wendat domestic corporate groups in different villages and within individual villages. One comparable Wendat site contemporary to those considered in this research provides an example of marked differential acceptance of European goods at the household level and only weakly at the household neighborhood level (Ramsden 2009). The two longest houses at the Benson Site (BdGr-1) (ca. A.D. 1550-1600, redated to ca. A.D. 1520-1550 by Manning et al. 2019), House 14 and House 10, provide contrasting examples of one household comprising families who maintained traditional community economic lifeways and another household comprising families whoSite accepted progressive new economic lifeways (Ramsden 2009). While House 10 at the southern end of the village incorporated significant numbers of St. Lawrence Iroquoian immigrants and acquired and used European metal trade goods, House 14 at the northern end of the village incorporated significant numbers of immigrants, possibly St. Lawrence Iroquoians as well as others, but did not have access to or use European trade goods 189 (Ramsden 2009). This example is important for this research because it supports Birch’s (2021) points about the prevalence of variation in trade good access and acceptance during Protohistory, thereby also supporting the likelihood of variation in the operation of Protohistoric domestic corporate groups. Additionally, Morrison (2002) discovered that an increasing trade in European goods disrupted the corporate nature of traditional Montagnais-Naskapi residential groups. Traditionally, ten to twenty individuals lived in a multifamily corporate lodge, though lodge membership was flexible and changeable (Labrecque 1978; Leacock 1983). It was the addition of increased trapping in order to supply furs to trade for European goods that led to a cultural shift away from larger multi-family corporate groups and towards a greater emphasis on smaller extended family groups (Morrison 2002). If it is true that variation existed both between Wendat domestic corporate groups in different villages and within individual villages, my model suggests that this variation should be visible archaeologically. However, intra-village variation in domestic corporate groups may not be visible in every Protohistoric Wendat village. Likewise, inter-village variation in domestic corporate groups may not be evident in every comparison of multiple Protohistoric Wendat groups. The results will largely depend on the specific experiences of the members of a particular village. Thus, variability may not be archaeologically identifiable, and may or may not have been present, in every comparison of contemporary archaeological sites. Contact Finally, corporate neighborhoods or a corporate community would be able to accommodate the significant depopulation from epidemic diseases that plagued the Wendat 190 during the A.D. 1630s, following contact with Europeans. After contact with Europeans, multiple scholars (Heidenreich 1971; Ramsden 1978; Trigger 1969; Warrick 1984) accept that Wendat clans and lineages clustered into small neighborhoods with communal buildings, which according to my descriptive model places Wendat domestic corporate groups of the time between corporate neighborhoods and a corporate community. Ferris’s (2013) assertion that, by the late 1700s, Wendat longhouses were becoming communal buildings used by families beginning to instead live in nuclear family log cabins supports the decrease in intra-group cohesion to the point of corporate community, according to my model. It is important to note that corporate neighborhoods and communities provide a means for Indigenous populations to maintain the benefits of corporate group operation in response to external pressures on their peoples, especially those of colonizing cultures. Testing the Model Based on my ethnographic analysis, my model of domestic corporate groups, and current understandings of Wendat culture and history, I expect that Wendat domestic corporate groups increased in intra-group cohesion over the course of Coalescence as the nuclear families of which they were composed decreased in independence from one another. During Protohistory, I expect to see variation in the operation of Wendat corporate groups, as well as the beginnings of a shift away from corporate households and toward corporate neighborhoods in the late 1500s that continued through the historic period. I will now test these expectations of Wendat domestic corporate groups for goodness of fit against the archaeological evidence at three Wendat village sites, comparing a Late Middleport village (dating from circa A.D. 1390-1420), a Late Protohistoric village (dating to circa A.D. 1580-1600), and a Late Protohistoric to Early Historic 191 village (dating to circa A.D. 1596-1618). Variation and change in Wendat domestic corporate groups should be visible in the archaeological record in the group behavior that results in artifact clusters throughout the sites in this research, as well as in the community behavior that creates the larger spatial patterning of the sites (Deetz 1968). Since household size is one of the primary distinguishing characteristics of the different scales of domestic corporate groups, it is important to measure the size of the dwellings. From dwelling size, it is necessary to estimate the number of families living in each dwelling. Based on my descriptive model, if the Wendat are operating in corporate households, their dwellings must be large enough to house a minimum of two nuclear families. On the other hand, if the Wendat are operating in corporate neighborhoods or a corporate community, their dwellings may be small enough that they only accommodate a single nuclear family. Following household size, it is important to examine organization at the village level. Are there large nondomestic community buildings, defined by both their size and the absence of evidence for production and consumption activities and trash accumulation? According to my descriptive model, the presence of such buildings, coupled with community-wide specialization in a particular craft, suggests a corporate community; in contrast, the absence of nondomestic community buildings suggests the possibility of corporate households or corporate neighborhoods, contingent on the presence of other characteristics that I will discuss momentarily. In the absence of nondomestic community buildings, my model suggests that dwellings in corporate neighborhoods will be intentionally grouped into identifiable self- sufficient clusters, sometimes sharing construction features between them. In the absence of both nondomestic community buildings and identifiable clusters of dwellings, the village may be composed of corporate households. 192 The final step is to examine multiple aspects of intra-household organization. The configuration of living quarters in relationship to the shape of the dwelling is a key component of intra-household organization. The historical record suggests a length of approximately 20 feet or 6 meters for the nuclear family compartments running along either side of the length of each longhouse. The number, size, and location of storage pits are also key components of intra- household organization. Estimates from the historical record suggest that communal storage areas within each household should compose a rough average of 4 meters on both ends of each longhouse. Archaeologically, storage pits can be recognized by their size and location, but their contents vary considerably; typically Iroquoian storage pits are located under bunklines, and often they are filled with refuse. Additionally, the number, size, and location of hearths, cooking areas, and food consumption areas are key components of intra-household organization. Archaeologically, hearths are typically identifiable by their shallow basin shapes and their fire- reddened soil ideally found beneath a thin layer of ash and charcoal. Clusters of fire-cracked rock (FCR) are one indicator of cooking areas. The patterning of faunal remains within a house provide a means of accessing food consumption practices. The patterning of non-subsistence production materials is a final important component of intra-household organization. Testing activity loci like Hayden (1976) and Ferguson (1979) completed for one house at the Draper Site provides a means to access this variable archaeologically. Methodology My descriptive model of domestic corporate group types is based on different levels of intra-group cohesion in each type. I use internal cohesion as a measure of the amount of daily activity that is conducted cooperatively by the nuclear families composing the domestic 193 corporate group under the management of the household leader versus the amount of daily activity that is conducted independently by individuals or individual nuclear family units of the domestic corporate group. At the most internally cohesive end of the spectrum are the domestic corporate groups whose activities fall almost exclusively into the first category. At the least internally cohesive end of the spectrum are the domestic corporate groups whose activities fall almost exclusively into the second category. Based on my data from the North American ethnographies, domestic corporate groups generally will fall somewhere between these two extremes, with certain types consistently tending toward a particular end of the spectrum. My goal for these preliminary archaeological tests is to look for variation and change over time through the material correlates I have developed in my descriptive model. To do this, I will conduct preliminary tests of appropriateness and sufficiency on a set of specific measures of corporateness that I identified in my examination of the historical ethnographies and the archaeological literature. These measures include: the presence of communal storage facilities, the presence of nondomestic community buildings, the presence of distinct clusters of households, household size and layout, ceramic variation, and variation in food preparation and consumption practices. In this section, I will discuss each of these measures, including how it fits into my descriptive model, the specific archaeological data with which I will assess it, and how I will interpret the data. I use the same set of measures for each of the three archaeological sites I examine in this research. Communal Storage Facilities My ethnographic survey (both global and North American) indicated that some form of communal storage was present in all domestic corporate groups, but this ranged from exclusively 194 communal storage to predominantly private storage. For example, the highly cohesive corporate households of the Pawnee and Mandan maintained exclusively communal storage facilities, while the much less cohesive corporate community at Tzintzuntzan placed much more emphasis on private nuclear family storage. Further, my survey of the archaeological literature indicated that the replacement of communal storage with private storage has been interpreted as decreasing corporateness by Byrd (1994) and Kuijt et al. (2011). Scholars (e.g., Noble 1968; Noble 1969; Trigger 1976; Warrick 1984; Wrong 1939) agree that the Wendat used two primary means of storage in their longhouses after A.D. 1300: (1) communal storage compartments at one or both ends of each longhouse, and (2) smaller storage pits for nuclear families under their bunklines that were later used for trash disposal. The former are interpreted as communal storage facilities, while the latter are interpreted as private storage facilities. To make my interpretations in this research, I use the identifications (both strong and possible) of clean-floored storage spaces at the ends of longhouse and storage pits provided by the original archaeologists in their published site reports. Nondomestic Community Buildings Among my ethnographic cases, nondomestic community buildings were predominantly evidenced in the corporate community at Tzintzuntzan. In contrast, nondomestic buildings also occurred along the Northwest Coast and among the Navajo (until the 1960s); however, these nondomestic structures belonged to specific corporate households and neighborhoods, respectively, and their use was restricted to the members of those corporate units. Therefore, in my descriptive model, I specifically associate nondomestic community buildings with the least internally cohesive domestic corporate groups. 195 Byrd (1994) uses three primary criteria to identify nondomestic community buildings archaeologically. First, nondomestic community buildings are centrally located, and access to them by members of the community is not restricted; they are also substantially larger than domestic buildings and require cooperative labor to construct (Byrd 1994). Finally, they exhibit a single large central hearth but are devoid of archaeological evidence for any activities of production, consumption, and trash disposal, which are commonly found in domestic buildings (1994). To make my interpretations in this research I identify nondomestic community buildings using Byrd’s (1994) criteria, as well as the identification of domestic and nondomestic structures provided in the site reports by the original archaeologists. Clusters of Households Among my North American ethnographic cases, household clusters occurred almost universally among the Navajo, whose domestic corporate groups I have characterized as corporate neighborhoods in my descriptive model. On rare occasion, a single Navajo household operated alone; otherwise, up to eight nuclear family households clustered together to form domestic corporate groups. Loosely bounded clusters occurred at Tzintzuntan as many kin members chose to live closer to one another than to nonkin; however, these households still operated individually rather than cooperatively. Finally, meaningful household clusters were entirely absent ethnographically among the Haudenosaunee (until the 1850s), Pawnee, Mandan, and cultures of the Northwest Coast. Additionally, my North American ethnographic analysis indicated that when a corporate group was spread among multiple households (e.g., among the Navajo), the corporate group leader held less control over the daily activities of individual 196 nuclear families, particularly activities of food preparation and consumption. Therefore, I interpret such domestic corporate groups as less internally cohesive than corporate households. The published site reports did not specifically seek to test for or identify clusters of households, so I will depend on the following criteria in making my own interpretations of likely clusters at my archaeological sites: physical proximity of dwellings, similar orientation, entrances facing and/or close to one another, shared common features, and communal spaces between dwellings. The appropriateness of these criteria is supported by my ethnographic cases and the archaeological literature. Out of my five North American culture areas, common features between houses, such as exterior communal spaces, common terraces, connecting passageways, outbuildings and walls were predominantly found in the Southwestern Area (e.g., among the Navajo ethnographically from the early 1700s to the 1960s and among the Hohokam archaeologically from around A.D. 500 to 1450) and secondarily in the Nahua Area (e.g., at Teotihuacan circa A.D. 200). Finally, I supplement these criteria with criteria that Warrick (1984) has specifically established for identifying household clusters in Ontario Wendat villages from A.D. 1450 to 1650, including close physical proximity and similarity of orientation of dwellings, as well as dwellings having entrances or doorways facing and/or close to one another. Household Size and Layout I found a clear division in my ethnographic data between cases in which multiple nuclear family households made up the domestic corporate group (among the Navajo and at Tzintzuntzan) and cases in which each corporate group was contained within a single household (among the Haudenosaunee, Pawnee, Mandan, and cultures of the Northwest Coast). As indicated in my descriptive model, the ethnographic data further suggests that corporate 197 households are more internally cohesive than corporate neighborhoods or communities, based on the definition of internal cohesion provided at the beginning of this section. Scholars generally accept that the Wendat were living in multi-family longhouses from about A.D. 1000 until at least the 1600s, and often as late as the late 1700s (Creese 2012; Creese 2014; Engelbrecht 2003; Fenton 1978; Fenton 1998; Ferris 2013; Garrad 2014; Hayden 1976; Kapches 1984; Noble 1968; Noble 1969; Parmenter 2010; Petersen and Cowie 2002; Powell 1881; Ritchie and Funk 1973; Tuck 1978; Trigger 1990; Warrick 1996; Warrick 2013; Williamson 2013). Because our field accepts this to be true, I assume in my research that the Wendat at my three archaeological sites were living in multi-family longhouses. In my analysis, I base household sizes directly on the sizes of the houses themselves, which were published in the three site reports; the lengths and widths of each house at the Molson Site were published in Lennox (2000), and the lengths, widths, and areas for the Alexandra Site and the Mantle Site were published in ASI (2008) and ASI (2012), respectively. My calculations of household size using house size are based on accepted estimates used by other archaeologists engaged in studies of the Wendat. From house area, I estimate the number of individuals per house based on Casselberry’s (1974) estimate of six meters of roofed floor space per individual in a multi-family dwelling; Birch and Williamson (2013b) also apply this specific calculation to Wendat longhouses. From the estimated number of individuals, I estimate the number of nuclear families per house based on Warrick’s (2013) estimate of five individuals per Wendat nuclear family. Beyond household size, I consider house layout as a measure of intra-group cohesion within corporate households. My global survey suggested that multi-family corporate households living in longhouses with an individual compartment and hearth for each nuclear 198 family (e.g., Kelabit in Borneo) are less internally cohesive than those with more open plan layouts (e.g., Kalapalo in Brazil). This was supported in my North American ethnographic case studies; the corporate longhouses of the Haudenosaunee, Haida, Nuu-chah-nulth, Tlingit, and Eyak maintained less internal cohesion (based on my definition presented at the beginning of this section) than did the corporate households of the Pawnee, Mandan, Klamath, and Kwakwaka’wakw, who lived in round or square houses with activity areas in the center and nuclear family sleeping quarters around the interior edges of the house. In my study, I identify the layout of the Wendat houses as longhouses based initially on the shape of the houses, but more importantly on the presence of bunklines; bunklines are typically interpreted as marking the division between the communal space down the central aisle of a longhouse and the spaces belonging to individual nuclear families along the long walls of a longhouse (Ferris 2013). To make my interpretations in this research, I use the identifications (both strong and possible) of bunklines and/or associated slash pits and posts provided by the original archaeologists in their published site reports. Ceramic Variation The evidence for the impact of different domestic corporate group types on ceramic style variability was less clear in ethnographic record for my five North American culture areas; I found that designs were only actively restricted in the Plains Area. In various examples throughout my ethnographic data, non-subsistence production occurred both individually and cooperatively within nuclear families, as well as in parallel by individuals in corporate households. However, it was essentially universal that non-subsistence production tasks were learned from a parent or other older relative of the same gender within the corporate group. 199 Turning to the archaeological literature, then, I would suggest that, based on Longacre (1964) and Warrick (1984), ceramic style variation should be low within corporate households and corporate neighborhoods but higher between corporate households and high in noncorporate neighborhoods. This is supported by Birch and Hart’s (2018) suggestion that the greater the internal cohesion of a group, the fewer distinct ceramic collar motifs will be produced within the group. The maximum number of ceramic types in any house at the three archaeological sites in my research is nine different types, when defined in terms of the types defined by MacNeish (1952). Therefore, because neither my ethnographic cases nor the archaeological literature established more concrete guidelines for determining high or low variation, I create my own scale based on the archaeological remains at my three specific sites. In my scale, I define less than four ceramic types as “low” variation, more than six ceramic types as “high” variation, and any number in between as “medium” variation; I then inversely correlate these ranges with high, low, and medium intra-group cohesion, respectively. Food Preparation and Food Consumption Finally, in both my North American ethnographic cases and my review of the archaeological literature, I found a range in variation from food exclusively prepared and consumed collectively by the domestic corporate group in a multi-family household to food exclusively prepared and consumed separately by nuclear family units in nuclear family households, with different iterations in between these extremes. Ethnographically, echoing patterns discussed above, I found that food preparation and consumption was conducted most cooperatively and communally in the highly cohesive corporate households of the Pawnee and Mandan. In the much less cohesive corporate community of Tzintzuntzan, food was both 200 prepared and consumed separately by individual nuclear family households. In between these extremes, Haudenosaunee nuclear families prepared and consumed food separately from other nuclear family units; individual Navajo nuclear families prepared meals for all members of the corporate neighborhood which were then eaten separately by each nuclear family household. However, the historical ethnographies include little information on the spatial aspects of these activities that would be most useful in interpreting patterns in the archaeological record. To fill this gap in the ethnographic record, I turn to archaeological evidence on the Northwest Coast, where attempts have been made to match archaeological patterns to similar ethnographic variation (cf. Coupland et al. 2009; Fladmark 1973; Hoffman 1999; Lepofsky et al. 1996; Martindale 1999). The most internally cohesive ethnographic and archaeological cases on the Northwest Coast (e.g., Yakutat, Chilkat Tlingit, Tsimshian, Haida; Richardson Ranch Site, Tclu’uga Site, Kitandach Site) exhibit a single central hearth with a single concentration of FCR and a single concentration of faunal remains, which has been interpreted as evidence of cooperative food preparation for communal consumption by the entire corporate household (Coupland et al. 2009; Lepofsky et al. 1996). A slightly less internally cohesive case comes from the Psacelay Site where a single large central hearth for communal food preparation or consumption was combined with a small hearth in each nuclear family compartment for separate food preparation or consumption (Coupland et al. 2009; Martindale 1999). At the other end of the spectrum are cases with lower internal cohesion. For example, some ethnographic and archaeological cases (e.g., Chinook, Tillamook; Meier Site, Nehalem Bay Site, Netarts Sandspit Site, Palmrose Site) lack a single central hearth; instead, a central row of hearths, each hearth shared by two nuclear families was utilized for preparing and consuming 201 meals in pairs of nuclear families (Coupland et al. 2009). Finally, in the least internally cohesive ethnographic and archaeological cases on the Northwest Coast (e.g., central Coast Salish, Quinault; Sbabadid Site, Scowlitz Site, Xay:tem Site), food was prepared and consumed separately by each nuclear family; archaeologically, these houses did not exhibit a central hearth (Coupland et al. 2009; Lepofsky et al. 1996). Instead, each nuclear family had and individual hearth, with an individual cluster of FCR and an individual cluster of faunal remains; this pattern was repeated in each nuclear family compartment (Coupland et al. 2009; Lepofsky et al. 1996). Based on these ethnographic and archaeological findings, then, I use the following expectations to interpret internal cohesiveness from evidence for food preparation and consumption at the three archaeological sites in my research. In the most cohesive corporate households, I expect to find a single central hearth (with associated rock-lined cooking basin and/or ash pit, concentration of FCR, and faunal remains) for all food preparation and consumption activities. In the least cohesive corporate households, I expect to find exclusively multiple individual nuclear family hearths (with associated rock-lined cooking basins and/or ash pits, concentrations of FCR, and faunal remains) for both food preparation and consumption, utilized by one or two nuclear families. In between these extremes, I expect that I might find cases where a single central hearth is combined with multiple individual nuclear family hearths, for an approach to food that combines cooperative and communal aspects with separate and individual aspects. Interpreting the Data Based on the above measures and data, I will assess levels of intra-group cohesion in the following ways. As explained above, I measure internal cohesion by comparing two factors: (1) 202 the amount of daily activity that is conducted cooperatively by the nuclear families composing the domestic corporate group under the management of the household leader; and (2) the amount of daily activity that is conducted independently by individuals or individual nuclear family units of the domestic corporate group. Domestic corporate groups whose activities fall predominantly into the first category are interpreted as more internally cohesive than domestic corporate groups whose activities fall more into the second category. I expect to see a spectrum of internal cohesion, rather than corporate groups that fall exclusively into one or the other of these categories. For my specific archaeological sites, then, villages with nondomestic community buildings, household clusters, and nuclear family households are interpreted as having less cohesive domestic corporate groups than those villages with unclustered multi-family households and no nondomestic community buildings. Domestic corporate groups that prioritize communal storage facilities are interpreted as more cohesive than those that prioritize individual storage facilities. Domestic corporate groups with low ceramic variation are interpreted as more cohesive than those with high ceramic variation. Corporate longhouses are interpreted as less internally cohesive than round/square corporate households. Finally, corporate households with individual food preparation and consumption for each nuclear family unit are interpreted as less internally cohesive than those in which food is prepared cooperatively and consumed communally. Again, I expect to see a range of these characteristics in practice at my three archaeological sites, rather than domestic corporate groups that can be neatly defined as having strictly either high or low internal cohesion. 203 Archaeological Sites The archaeological sites that will be compared in order to preliminarily test my model of organizational variation in domestic groups and how they can change over time are: the Late Middleport Alexandra Site (AkGt-53), in Toronto, Ontario, occupied from about A.D. 1390 to 1420; the Late Protohistoric Molson Site (BcGw-27) in Barrie, Ontario, occupied from about A.D. 1580 to 1600; and the Late Protohistoric to Early Historic Mantle Site (AlGt-334) in Whitchurch-Stouffville, Ontario, occupied from about A.D. 1596 to 1618. All three sites have been extensively excavated. I originally selected the Mantle Site for inclusion in my research based on the date it was assigned during its original analysis by Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) (2012), which placed the site’s occupation at about A.D. 1500-1530. I intended to compare it to the later Molson Site in order to examine changes that may have occurred over the course of Protohistory in conjunction with the increasing population movements and exchange occurring at that time. However, new radiocarbon dates were published for the Mantle Site in 2018, pushing its occupation back about a century to about A.D. 1596-1618 (Manning et al. 2018). To measure change over time, then, I instead added the earlier Alexandra Site to my research; this site was dated to the late A.D. 1300s to early 1400s (ca. A.D. 1390-1420). This date places the Alexandra Site before the period of village coalescences during the fifteenth century, allowing for a comparison of Wendat domestic corporate groups before and after coalescence. Further, I have retained both the Molson Site and the Mantle Site for my analysis of Late Protohistoric Wendat domestic corporate groups in order to evaluate contemporary intra-cultural variation in domestic corporate groups against my model. An examination of intra-cultural variation between the domestic corporate groups living at these two Wendat sites may be particularly 204 salient since Birch et al. (2021) suggest that the Mantle Site’s distinctness among its new contemporaries may be due to the internal choices of its members or to external conditions imposed by its neighbors. Figure 6.3 Locations of Archaeological Sites in this Research, map modified by A. Conell, from Tanner 1987:3 The Alexandra Site The Late Middleport Alexandra Site (AkGt-53) in Toronto, Ontario, was likely occupied from the late A.D. 1300s to the early 1400s, based on the results of ceramic seriation (ASI 2008). Two AMS radiocarbon dates from the charred woven reed fabric recovered from a sweat lodge in House 7 support a late fourteenth century to early fifteenth century occupation of this site, 205 circa A.D. 1390-1420 (Creese 2011). At the unpalisaded Alexandra Site, there were sixteen longhouses, ranging from 11.4 meters to 72 meters in length, covering over 6 acres (2.5 hectares) and divided by House 6 into a northern segment and a southern segment (ASI 2008). David Robertson proposes that the southern half of the site was established first, while the northern half represented later additions (ASI 2008). Creese (2011) suggests that the village layout was planned, due to both the occurrence of longhouses in clusters and the overall radial or “fanlike” configuration of the houses throughout the village. Sweat lodges (n = 28) are a prominent feature across the site, with two-thirds of the sample located in the northern half of the site (ASI 2008). In addition to subsistence resources acquired through hunting and fishing, maize formed an important component of the diet at the Alexandra Site (ASI 2008). The Alexandra Site was located near a city intersection that was once a plowed field. In 2000 and 2001, salvage excavations were led by Ronald Williamson and Martin Cooper under the auspices of Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI). Excavation with shovels and trowels was used in combination with screening through a six millimeter mesh and flotation (ASI 2008). As will be noted for all of the archaeological sites, the excavation techniques used at each site were comparable in thoroughness and level of recovery. This is important in allowing me to compare the archaeological evidence recovered from the three sites. The following map shows the results of the Alexandra Site excavations. 206 Figure 6.4 Alexandra Site Longhouses, from ASI 2008:5 207 The Mantle Site Though the site is registered under the name of Mantle, the Wendat have since renamed it Jean-Baptiste Lainé (Birch and Williamson 2013b). The Mantle Site was located in a plowed field. Between 2003 and 2005, survey and excavations were led by Ronald Williamson and Martin Cooper under the auspices of Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI). A combination of mechanical and hand excavation was used with screening through a six millimeter mesh and flotation (ASI 2012). A century and a half of plowing had disturbed the top 25-30 centimeters of topsoil across the entirety of the site (Birch and Williamson 2013b). The following image shows the full map of the Mantle Site excavation. 208 Figure 6.5 Mantle Site Plan, map modified by A. Conell, from ASI 2012:14 209 It was previously thought that the very early coalescent community at the Draper Site (AlGt-2) relocated to the Spang Site in the late A.D. 1400s, and the community at the Spang Site relocated to the Mantle Site in the early 1500s (Birch 2012; Birch 2016b; Birch and Williamson 2013a; Warrick 2008). The late Late Prehistoric Mantle Site (AlGt-334) in Whitchurch- Stouffville, Ontario, was originally determined to have been likely occupied from about A.D. 1500 to 1530, based on the combined results of ceramic seriation and radiocarbon dating of carbonized maize kernels (Birch and Williamson 2013b). However, as mentioned above, new radiocarbon dates have pushed its occupation back about a century to about A.D. 1596-1618; these dates are based on recent AMS dating of 40 additional samples (5 strawberry seeds, 8 wood charcoal, 27 maize) (Manning et al. 2018). Birch and Williamson (2013b) argue that there is “evidence for complex corporate organizational structures operating at the Draper and Mantle sites” (163). At the Mantle Site, over 1,300 ancestral Wendat individuals lived in approximately 96 longhouses over 5 to 7 acres (2-3 hectares), enclosed in multiple defensive palisades, over the course of two primary occupational phases (ASI 2012). The three identified palisades evidence that the village decreased in physical extent, as each palisade is notably interior to the last (Birch and Williamson 2013b). While the first palisade enclosed 2.9 hectares, the second palisade reduced the village area to 2.5 hectares, and by the end of the village’s occupation, it had been reduced to 2 hectares in extent by the third and final palisade (Birch and Williamson 2013b). The layout of the village during the first occupational phase was highly spatially organized, with significant consistency in longhouse orientations but variation in their lengths, as well as regular spacing between longhouses (Birch and Williamson 2013b). While the 54 longhouses of the first occupational phase were primarily arranged in parallel rows with a central 210 plaza, the additional 50 houses of the later occupational phase were organized far less regularly into the space available (ASI 2012). Over time, the plaza was filled with houses of varying sizes, including temporary structures and more permanent longhouses (Birch and Williamson 2013b). There are several overlapping longhouses from multiple episodes of construction and reconstruction (Birch and Williamson 2013b). The longhouses range in length from 7.1 to 55.5 meters long and would have housed from one to ten families each (ASI 2012). The majority of houses at the Mantle Site (about 80%) are less than 40 meters long (Birch and Williamson 2013b). Houses 13 and 26 appear to be two of the earliest houses built on the Mantle Site (Birch and Williamson 2013b). Birch and Williamson (2013b) suggest that high-ranking village leaders lived in Houses 15 and 20, which were both the longest houses at the Mantle Site and the houses situated at the highest elevations within the village. The Mantle Site population has been estimated at about 1,667-1,730 individuals during the first occupational phase and 1,338 individuals during the later occupational phase (Birch and Williamson 2013b). The following map shows the houses and palisades at the Mantle Site. Maps distinguishing the earlier phase from the later phase will be included in a subsequent section. 211 Figure 6.6 Mantle Site Longhouses and Palisades, map modified by A. Conell, from ASI 2012:97 212 The Molson Site The Late Protohistoric Molson Site (BcGw-27) in Barrie, Ontario, was likely occupied from about A.D. 1580 to 1600. At the Molson Site, about 500 likely Wendat individuals lived in about a dozen houses in a diffuse pattern over 3 acres (1.2 hectares), the area of which was unpalisaded (Lennox 2000). Although Lennox (2000) reports that some houses were only partially excavated and acknowledges the possibility that additional houses may have been “missed and not excavated” (149) during fieldwork, the spatial patterning displayed by the houses makes the site potentially particularly important for investigation. Three large, intensively-occupied “long houses” were located in the center of the village, while six smaller houses were located closer to the village edges (Lennox 2000). The Molson Site was located in a primarily plowed field. Between 1984 and 1985, survey and excavations were led by Paul Lennox and Gary Warrick under the auspices of the London Museum of Archaeology. Excavation with shovels and trowels was used in combination with screening through a one-eighth inch mesh and flotation (Lennox 2000). The following map shows the results of the Molson Site excavations. 213 Figure 6.7 Molson Site Longhouses, map modified by A. Conell, from Lennox 2000:7 Data Excavations at the Alexandra Site resulted in a total assemblage of 19,645 artifacts. The Alexandra Site’s artifact assemblage appears typical of late Middle Iroquoian sites in Ontario and includes ceramics, including diagnostics and smoking pipes, flaked and ground stones artifacts, including significant amounts of debitage, as well as worked bone and a few copper 214 artifacts (ASI 2008). The site report contains feature content summaries, as well as appendices organized by artifact type. To tabulate the contents of each house in order to analyze intra- household organization, I combined the data from the appendices and the feature content summaries. Excavations at the Mantle Site resulted in a total precontact assemblage of 104,432 artifacts. The Mantle Site’s artifact assemblage appears typical of late Late Prehistoric Iroquoian assemblages in Ontario and includes significant ceramics, including diagnostics and smoking pipes, flaked and ground stone artifacts, and copper artifacts, as well as a couple of European copper artifacts and a fragment of an iron artifact, which have been interpreted as acquisitions from early Basque whalers via Algonquian or St. Lawrence Iroquoian trade relationships (ASI 2012). However, ideas about what constitutes a typical Late Prehistoric assemblage are currently being called into question by ongoing work on chronological refinement through a combination of AMS dating and chronological modeling (Birch et al. 2021). The appendices at the end of ASI (2012) containing the site catalogue have sorted the artifacts by artifact type. To tabulate the contents of each house in order to analyze intra-household organization, I re-sorted the artifacts first by house number, then by feature number, and finally by artifact type. Excavations at the Molson Site resulted in a total of 12,370 artifacts, excluding floral and faunal remains, as well as ceramic microsherds, defined as having a diameter of less than 2 centimeters. The Molson Site’s artifact assemblage is typical of Protohistoric assemblages in Ontario and includes significant ceramics, including diagnostics, and smaller amounts of lithics, worked bone and shell, and European trade goods (Lennox 2000). Since no catalogue exists for the Molson Site, I tabulated the contents of each house by using the original excavation field 215 notes and boxes of artifacts held in the repository at the Museum of Ontario Archaeology in London, Ontario. To collect the data necessary to complete this analysis, I read the excavation notes and forms, collecting the following information for each feature in each house: feature type; feature northing and easting; feature length, width, and depth; and the field summary of the artifact types recovered from the feature. While there were eight professional archaeologists working on the excavation, including its leaders Paul Lennox and Gary Warrick, fieldwork was predominantly completed by high school field school students and untrained volunteers; the excavation itself also had a relatively tight time limit of only a few months. The field notes varied in quality, and often I needed to estimate feature sizes and contents based on a combination of interpreting the written information with the hand drawn plan and profile maps. I examined all of the boxes of artifacts available in the repository, focusing on those with contents recovered from feature contexts within longhouses. For each bag, I recorded the types of artifacts and the quantity of each artifact type that had been collected and curated. I counted all artifact quantities manually, except in cases of substantial quantities of fish bones and carbonized plant remains, which I estimated. It was necessary to use my best judgment to reconcile the various sources of data for this site, including the excavation notes, collection contents, and provenience information provided in the final site report. This combination of information I gathered from examining each of these sources was used to create a master catalogue of the artifact contents of each feature in each house, as well as the location of each feature within each house; the master catalogue I created for the Molson Site is located in Appendix N. 216 Data Analysis The following analysis represents a preliminary test of the archaeological correlates (developed in Chapter Five) associated with the different organizational levels of domestic corporate groups I modeled ethnographically in Chapter Four. My goals are to explore how my descriptive model of organizational variation and change in domestic corporate groups, based on ethnographic data, can be applied to the archaeological record and to assess the suitability of my model’s archaeological correlates for understanding this variation in domestic corporate groups using archaeological evidence. For this preliminary test of the model, I examine the following components of my model: (1) the presence of communal storage facilities in domestic corporate groups; (2) the absence of nondomestic community buildings and distinct clusters of households amongst corporate households; (3) the absence of nondomestic community buildings combined with the presence of distinct clusters of households with shared common features and activity areas between them in communities with corporate neighborhoods; and (4) the variation in food preparation and consumption practices between round/square corporate households, corporate longhouse households, and corporate neighborhoods. A more extensive test of additional aspects of the model, such as the differential access to resources between domestic corporate groups and the variation in non-subsistence production practices between corporate households and domestic corporate groups occupying multiple houses, is beyond the scope of this dissertation and is addressed in the concluding chapter. 217 Late Middleport Domestic Corporate Groups: The Alexandra Site Household Sizes First, I consider dwelling size to estimate the population size within each longhouse and the number of nuclear families composing each household. According to my descriptive model, a domestic corporate group must contain a minimum of two nuclear family units. For the Alexandra Site, I used the house areas calculated by Bruce Welsh and Ronald F. Williamson and presented in the site report (ASI 2008:7). As noted earlier, Casselberry (1974) has determined that the population size of a multi-family dwelling could be estimated at an average of one person for every six square meters of roofed floor space, so I estimated house populations by dividing the (estimated) house areas by six. Additionally, Warrick (2013) estimates Wendat nuclear families at an average of five members from two or three familial generations, so I estimated the number of nuclear families per house by dividing the estimated house populations by five. The data on the longhouse attributes for houses at the Alexandra Site is located in Appendix G. The following two graphs display the house areas, estimated house populations, and estimated number of nuclear families per house for the Alexandra Site. 218 Figure 6.8 Alexandra Site—House Areas (m²) 219 28530533722426972243219525254292320166333172207231278992683711582233042262722743273730100200300400500600H-1H-2aH-2bH-3aH-3bH-4H-5H-6aH-6bH-7aH-7bH-7cH-8aH-8bH-9aH-9bH-9cH-9dH-10H-11aH-11bH-12aH-12bH-13H-14aH-14bH-16H-17aH-17bAlexandra Site House Areas (in m2) Figure 6.9 Alexandra Site—House Population Estimates The following table displays the descriptive statistics for longhouse areas and population estimates at the Alexandra Site. 220 47.5050.8356.1737.3344.8312.0040.5036.5087.5042.3348.6753.3327.6755.5028.6734.5038.5046.3316.5044.6761.8326.3337.1750.6737.6745.3345.6754.5062.179.5010.1711.237.478.972.408.107.3017.508.479.7310.675.5311.105.736.907.709.273.308.9312.375.277.4310.137.539.079.1310.9012.43020406080100H-1H-2aH-2bH-3aH-3bH-4H-5H-6aH-6bH-7aH-7bH-7cH-8aH-8bH-9aH-9bH-9cH-9dH-10H-11aH-11bH-12aH-12bH-13H-14aH-14bH-16H-17aH-17bAlexandra Site House Population EstimatesIndividualsNuclear Families Table 6.4 Alexandra Site—Longhouse Areas and Population Estimates Maximum Minimum Mean Median Mode Sample Standard Deviation Sample Variance Longhouse Areas 525 square meters 72 square meters 263 square meters 269 square meters 220-230 square meters; 270-280 square meters 88.3471 Individuals 87.5 12 43.83 44.83 37; 45 14.7406 7805.2143 217.2857 Nuclear Families 17.5 2.4 8.77 8.97 9 3.0225 9.1355 All of the longhouses at the Alexandra Site were large enough to house a minimum of two nuclear family units; these houses fit my model’s expectations for the number of nuclear families in a corporate household. Village Organization I next consider two aspects of village organization that relate to my descriptive model’s organizational levels above the corporate household: nondomestic community buildings and identifiable clusters of houses. In my model, nondomestic community buildings are common in corporate communities and absent among corporate households; they can occur in corporate neighborhoods. I identify nondomestic community buildings by their large size, central location, and absence of production and consumption activities and trash accumulation (cf. Byrd 1994). In my model, identifiable clusters of less than nine houses are most prominent in corporate neighborhoods and absent among corporate households; they can occur in corporate communities. In addition to the closeness of the houses to one another, I identify such clusters by the orientation of their houses and by their entrances facing and/or close to one another (cf. Warrick 1984). 221 The Alexandra Site had no buildings that were identified as nondomestic buildings in the site report; all structures were identified as domestic longhouses (ASI 2008). However, Creese (2011) suggests that House 4 was “probably not a residential building” (110). Based on my definition of nondomestic buildings, there is insufficient evidence to interpret House 4 as either a house or a nondomestic building. House 6b also appears to present an anomaly on the site, due to its incredible size (large enough to house 18 nuclear family units) and central location on the site; while the features and artifacts found in the house seem low for a dwelling of its size, they are comparable to the types of evidence found in the other domestic dwellings on the site. It is possible that House 6b was used both as a domestic house and as a nondomestic community building at different points in its existence, but further research is required to explore this possibility and its implications. Based on my assessment of the site report, field notes, and artifacts, I agree that none of the buildings excavated at the Alexandra Site were definitively being primarily used as nondomestic community buildings. Thus, there is no concrete evidence for nondomestic community buildings at the Alexandra Site; however, this interpretation must be accepted cautiously due to the possibility of two nondomestic community buildings (House 4 and House 6b) at the Alexandra Site. This finding is most consistent with my model’s conditions for corporate households or corporate neighborhoods. As a secondary line of evidence within village organization for the nature of the domestic corporate groups at this site, I made a preliminary attempt to determine whether there were identifiable clusters of houses at the site. In the site report for the Alexandra Site, rather than clusters of houses, Bruce Welsh and Ronald F. Williamson identify a main occupation area, with four small groups of houses oriented similar directions, plus three outlying houses to the north (ASI 2008). For this preliminary examination, I looked for identifiable clusters of houses within 222 the spatial patterning of Alexandra Site houses, based on my descriptive model’s criteria of physical closeness, shared common features, communal spaces between dwellings, similar orientation, and entrances facing and/or close to one another. I identified six potential household clusters: (1) House 7, House 10, (and potentially House 1); (2) possibly House 5 and House 6; (3) House 8, House 9, and House 11; (4) House 12 and House 13; (5) House 14, House 16, and House 17; and (6) possibly even a large cluster including House 8, House 9, House 11, House 12, House 13, House 14, House 16, and House 17. Since I found multiple characteristics associated with household clusters to support these groupings, it seems that my model’s corporate neighborhoods are a likely fit for the Alexandra Site’s domestic corporate groups. The following Alexandra Site map shows the locations of house entrances, shared common features, and communal spaces between dwellings, as well as the corporate neighborhoods and house clusters I proposed. I would like to emphasize again that these household clusters are based on a preliminary look at the available evidence. 223 Figure 6.10 Alexandra Site Household Clusters, map modified by A. Conell, from ASI 2008:5 224 Corporate Neighborhoods: Intra-Neighborhood Organization Even though the sizes of their dwellings were more consistent with my descriptive model’s expectations for corporate households, the preceding section points to corporate neighborhoods as the most applicable type of domestic corporate group at the Wendat Alexandra Site. Therefore, for the final component of this preliminary test of the model, I consider multiple aspects of intra-neighborhood organization, particularly as they relate to my model’s expectations for corporate neighborhoods. First, I consider the storage facilities in each neighborhood; according to my model, all domestic corporate groups have communal storage facilities, sometimes in addition to small private storage facilities. My model suggests that communal storage facilities should be located between the dwellings in a corporate neighborhood. Next, I consider the physical features of the neighborhood, including the shared common features and communal spaces between the dwellings. I also considered the variety of ceramic types per house and per neighborhood as a measure of intra-group cohesion. Finally, I finish by considering the hearths, cooking areas, and food consumption areas within each neighborhood; my model suggests that food preparation for the neighborhood should occur separately in one large location within each house but that food consumption should occur separately as nuclear families in smaller locations within each house. I selected two neighborhood groups containing a total of 5 houses from the Alexandra Site for this intra-neighborhood analysis. To select neighborhoods for analysis, I first narrowed my sample by both completeness of excavation and houses with minimal overlap with other houses or structures. I then considered the presence of external features in my sample selection. Using these criteria, I selected the following neighborhoods for analysis of intra-neighborhood organization: 225 Table 6.5 Neighborhoods Selected for Intra-Neighborhood Analysis northern neighborhood southeastern neighborhood House 12, House 13 House 7, House 10, potentially House 1 The data on the longhouse contents for houses at the Alexandra Site is located in Appendix H. The ceramic types used in this research were established by Richard MacNeish in 1952 based on combinations of identified attributes and “the assumption that sets of combined attributes (types) represent a style in the mind of the potter” (ASI 2012:135), and the types were assigned by the ceramics analyst for the Alexandra Site (Robert B. Wojtowicz). The data on the ceramic types for houses at the Alexandra Site is located in Appendix I. Each neighborhood will now be assessed for how well it fits the expectations for corporate neighborhoods proposed in my descriptive model. Northern Neighborhood Table 6.6 Model Component and Archaeological Evidence—Houses 1, 7, and 10 Archaeological Evidence House 1 area of 285 square meters; estimated population of 10 nuclear family units Inter-Household total estimated population of 24 nuclear family units low variation in ceramic types (2 different types) = high internal cohesion medium total variation in ceramic types (6 total different types) = medium internal cohesion 47E east of north House 1 and 7 same orientation House 10 area of 99 square meters; estimated population of 3 nuclear family units medium variation in ceramic types (4 different types) = medium internal cohesion 73E east of north 226 Model Component nuclear families internal cohesion House 7 maximum area of 320 square meters; estimated population of 11 nuclear family units medium variation in ceramic types (5 different types) = medium internal cohesion orientation 46E east of north Table 6.6 (cont’d) Model Component Archaeological Evidence House 7 House 10 House 1 household configuration (and common features) bunklines along northern and southern walls; maximum house dimensions of 46.4 meters by 6.9 meters no bunklines identified; house dimensions of 10 meters by 6.6 meters bunkline along the northern wall; house dimensions of 37.5 meters by 7.6 meters communal spaces 3.5 meter wide central corridor evidence unclear central corridor doorways food preparation 1 doorway in center/ northwest corner of west end, 1 doorway in north wall, 1 doorway in south wall 1 large hearth (Feature 171; 190 cm by 69 cm by 16 cm) in center along south bunkline; 1 FCR concentra- tion (near center of the house) Inter-Household House 7 was 3 meters south of House 1; a fence stretched “from the southeast side of House 10 westward and northward to the west end of House 7. This fence ... may have been associated with exterior activities” (ASI 2008:43) external activity area at the west end of House 7 - related to food preparation and consumption and to non- subsistence production facing and relatively close to each other between the three houses 1 doorway in center of west end, 2 doorways in east end 1 doorway in center of west end no evidence concentrated in/outside of House 7 1 FCR concentration at the west end of the house 227 Table 6.6 (cont’d) Model Component food consumption storage facilities Archaeological Evidence House 7 3 separate concentrations of faunal remains along the north and south bunklines in the center and western half of the house (outside of the faunal and floral remains associated with the hearth) about 27.6 square meters of clean- floored storage space at the west end of the longhouse; 13 storage pits (Features 152, 155, 156, 158, 159, 160, 161, 174, 175, 176, 179, 180, and 185) located along north and south bunklines and central corridor House 10 House 1 Inter-Household no evidence 2 separate concentrations of faunal and floral remains in the central southern half of the house nuclear families eating more communally in larger groups in House 7 and House 1 1 storage pit (Feature 249) at the west end of the house; possible clean-floored storage space at the western end of the longhouse clean-floored storage spaces at both ends of the longhouse; 10 storage pits (Features 96, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 109, and 111) along south wall and central corridor large and smaller external storage pits at the west end of House 7 Overall, this household cluster appears to mix my descriptive model’s characteristics of corporate households and corporate neighborhoods. Several inter-household features fit my model’s expectations for corporate neighborhoods, including: similarly-oriented dwellings built close together; a shared fence; doorways facing and relatively close together; a communal space outside of the central house’s west end, enclosed by the common fence; and a communal storage pit in the external communal area. The evidence from House 10 actually suggests to me that it 228 may have possibly been a nondomestic neighborhood building, rather than a house; this evidence includes its lack of bunklines, internal communal areas, refuse, and evidence for food consumption, as well as the way it is fenced like the external communal areas at the site. However, while my model suggests that corporate neighborhoods should be composed of multiple small, nuclear family dwellings, this corporate neighborhood contains multi-family longhouses, each of which also contain a combination of communal and private storage facilities; House 1 and House 7 also contain internal communal spaces. Finally, my descriptive model proposes that corporate neighborhoods should contain large food preparation facilities to prepare food for the entire corporate group and small food consumption facilities, one for each nuclear family. The large food preparation facilities central to and outside of House 7 fit my model’s expectations. On the other hand, the evidence for food consumption suggests that food may have been consumed more communally by four or five nuclear families inside or outside of each house. These patterns are less consistent with my model’s expectations for corporate neighborhoods or corporate longhouse households and more consistent with my model’s expectations for round/square corporate households. The following two maps display the locations of different artifact types in House 1, House 7, and House 10 in the northern neighborhood. 229 Figure 6.11 Alexandra Site Houses 1 and 7 artifact distribution, map modified by A. Conell, from ASI 2008:8 230 Figure 6.12 Alexandra Site House 10 artifact distribution, map modified by A. Conell, from ASI 2008:34 Southeastern Neighborhood Table 6.7 Model Component and Archaeological Evidence—Houses 12 and 13 Model Component nuclear families Archaeological Evidence House 12 maximum area of 223 square meters; estimated population of 7 nuclear family units internal cohesion low variation in ceramic types (2 different types) = high internal cohesion medium variation in ceramic types (6 different types) = medium internal cohesion 231 House 13 Inter-Household area of 304 square meters; estimated population of 10 nuclear family units total estimated population of 17 nuclear family units medium total variation in ceramic types (6 total different types) = medium internal cohesion Table 6.7 (cont’d) Model Component Archaeological Evidence House 12 House 13 orientation 108E east of north 104E east of north household configuration (and common features) bunklines along northern and southern walls; maximum house dimensions of 31.4 meters by 7.1 meters bunklines not clearly identifiable; house dimensions of 40 meters by 7.6 meters communal spaces 3.9 meter wide central corridor evidence unclear doorways 1 doorway on south side of west end 1 doorway in center of west end Inter-Household very similarly oriented House 12 was immediately south of House 13; Houses 12 and 13 were attached; west ends were connected by a fence; “At the west end of the house[s], there is some provisional evidence that Houses 12 and 13 shared a wall and common entrance into both houses as well as coordinated west end cubicles” (ASI 2008:35) external activity area at west end of houses 12 and 13 associated with their connecting fence - related to non- subsistence production two doorways close to one another food preparation no evidence 1 ash pit (Feature 288) in the center of the house; 2 FCR concentrations at the east end of the house concentrated in House 13 232 Table 6.7 (cont’d) Model Component Archaeological Evidence House 12 food consumption no evidence storage facilities 1 storage pit (Feature 308) located along the south wall towards the eastern end of the house; probable clean- floored storage space at west end of the longhouse, possible clean-floored storage space at east end of the longhouse Inter-Household concentrated in House 13; nuclear families eating separately in pairs 1 large storage pit in the external activity area associated with these houses House 13 5 separate concentrations of faunal remains throughout the house (outside of the faunal remains associated with the ash pit) 8 storage pits (Features 287, 289, 307, 313, 314, 315, 320, and 325) concentrated in the center and eastern half of the house; probable clean-floored storage spaces at west end of the longhouse, possible clean-floored storage space at east end of the longhouse Similarly to the group above, overall, this household cluster appears to mix my descriptive model’s characteristics of corporate households and corporate neighborhoods. Several inter-household features fit my model’s expectations for corporate neighborhoods, including: similarly-oriented dwellings built close together; a shared wall, fence, and common entrance; doorways close together; a communal space outside of the houses’ west ends, enclosed by the common fence; and a communal storage pit external to the houses. However, while my model suggests that corporate neighborhoods should be composed of multiple small, nuclear family dwellings, this corporate neighborhood contains two multi-family longhouses, each of which also contain a combination of communal and private storage facilities; House 12 also contains an internal communal space, but it is not clear whether House 13 does as well. 233 Finally, my descriptive model proposes that corporate neighborhoods should contain large food preparation facilities to prepare food for the entire corporate group and small food consumption facilities, one for each nuclear family. Since there was no evidence for food preparation in House 12, it is possible that food preparation was conducted exclusively in House 13 or simply that the archaeological evidence for food preparation in House 12 was not preserved. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to fully evaluate food preparation practices in this corporate neighborhood against my model. Likewise, evidence for food consumption activities are also absent from House 12, possibly due to poor preservation. However, the evidence for food consumption in House 13 suggests that food was likely consumed separately by pairs of nuclear families within this household; this is consistent with my model’s expectations for food consumption practices in corporate neighborhoods containing multi-family households. The following map displays the locations of different artifact types in House 12 and House 13 in the southeastern neighborhood. 234 Figure 6.13 Alexandra Site Houses 12 and 13 artifact distribution, map modified by A. Conell, from ASI 2008:36 Protohistoric Domestic Corporate Groups: The Mantle Site and Molson Site I first consider variation in acceptance of and/or access to European trade goods as a means to assess whether to expect variation in the domestic corporate groups found at these two Protohistoric sites. As discussed above, opportunities for trade in European goods increased for the Wendat over the course of Protohistory; according to my descriptive model, such circumstances that increase opportunities for individuals or nuclear families to acquire resources will increase their independence from one another and alter the operation of their domestic corporate groups. However, as also previously discussed, throughout Protohistory, different 235 communities and members of those communities appear to have had differential access to European trade goods, as well as different ideas about what to accept from Europeans. A total of three European trade goods were recovered from the Mantle Site. This is not enough evidence to suggest whether or not to expect variation in domestic corporate groups within the Mantle Site. The following table summarizes those trade goods and their proveniences. House 29 appears in two columns due to the way it overlaps with Houses 28, 30, and 31; Feature 1464 lies in the overlap of Houses 28 and 29, while Postmold 1 lies in the overlap of Houses 29, 30, and 31. Table 6.8 Mantle Site—European Trade Goods The Molson Site contained a total of 142 “items of European origin.” The following two tables summarize those trade goods and their proveniences. The following European Trade Goods were found at the site but were not identified with a House or Midden Number: Copper Scrap (25), Brass Scrap (13), Iron Beads (3), Copper Rings (4), Copper Tinkling Cone (1), 236 MANTLE SITE--European Trade Goodsn=3House/Midden #H-1 to 27H-28/29H-29/30/31H-32 to 96Feature #0 0Total Trade GoodsTotalCopper Tubes #11, PM-1Copper Beads #1Iron Tools (beveled) #11, F-1464**located bottom of sterile pit at 41 cm as if intentially buriedMANTLE SITE--European Trade GoodsHouse/Midden #M-1M-2M-3 Feature #. 00Total Trade GoodsTotal Copper Tubes #.Copper Beads #1, w of H-15 Iron Tools (beveled) #. *located bottom of sterile pit at 41 cm as if intentially buried Copper Bell (1), Copper Bracelet (1), Iron Scraper (1), Stone Beads (2), Unidentified Burnt Bead (1), and II2a55 Bead (1). The European goods were not distributed evenly across the Molson Site. Neither House 3 nor House 8 contained any European goods, while House 1 contained both the greatest quantity of European goods and the greatest variety of European goods anywhere on the site. This evidence supports the possibility of variation between domestic corporate groups within the Molson Site. 237 Table 6.9 Molson Site—European Trade Goods 238 MOLSON SITE--European Trade Goods House(H) #H - 1H - 2H - 3H - 4H - 5H - 6H - 7H -8Feature (F) #Iron Scrap # 2, F - ?1, F - ?1, outsdCopper Beads #?,F-75*Brass Beads #?,F-75* *4 total copper/brass; unspecifiedCopper Rings #1, F-63Brass Rings #1, F-56Iron Rings #1,F-138Brass Tinkling Cones #1, F-43Copper Points #1, F-14Iron Knives #1, F-321, plgzn1, F-29Iron Awls #1, F-2Iron Spoons #1, F-74Iron Bail Fasteners #1, F-14Iron Wires #1,F-163Iron Celts #1,F-130Iron Chisels #1, F-27Iron Nails #1, F-42 1, F-43Iron Hooks #1, plgznLead #1, F-651, F-83IIa40 Beads #1,F-72B1,pm80IIa28 Beads #1, F-11, F-11, F-171, F-27 1, F-271, F-93IIbb28 Beads #1, F-2IIb64 Beads #1, F-3IIIm1 Beads #1, F-3Unidentified Blue Frag.1,F-165House(H) #H - 9H - 10H - 11H - 12Feature (F) #Iron Scrap # 1, outsd1, outsdCopper Beads #?,F-17*Brass Beads #?,F-17**copper/brass; unspecifiedCopper Tinkling Cone #1, F-15IIa28 Beads #1,pm448 Table 6.9 (cont’d) 239 MOLSON SITE--European Trade GoodsMidden(M) #M - AM - HM- JF - 17F - 48BFeature (F) #Iron Scrap # 16Copper Beads ##?copper/brass; unspecifiedBrass Beads ##?copper/brass; unspecifiedIron Beads #21Copper Bracelets #1Iron Knives #111Iron Awls #1Iron Nails #1, plgznIron Scrapers #1Stone Beads #2, 44N22EIIa40 Beads #1 + 11+1+11IIa28 Beads #1Unidentified Burnt 1IIa55 Breads #1 Figure 6.14 Molson Site—Identifiable European Goods At both sites, European trade goods compose extremely small percentages of the assemblages (0.000029% of the Mantle Site assemblage and 0.011% of the Molson Site assemblage). This difference between the sites is not statistically significant. However, there is still a difference in the occurrence of trade goods between the Mantle Site and the Molson Site. Based on my descriptive model, this difference may not be sufficient to cause much variation in 240 02468101214161820H -1H -3H -4H -5H -6H -7H -8H -9H -10M -AM -HM-JFeat. #17Feat. #48BMolson Site Identifiable European GoodsTotal European GoodsVariety of European Goods domestic corporate groups between the two sites; nevertheless, it is still a small change that could be linked to some domestic corporate group variation from site to site. Household Sizes As above, next, I consider dwelling size to estimate the population size within each longhouse and the number of nuclear families composing each household. According to my descriptive model, a domestic corporate group must contain a minimum of two nuclear family units. For the Mantle Site, I used the house areas calculated by Andrew Clish and Jennifer Birch and presented in the site report (ASI 2012:21-22). For the Molson Site, since house areas were not presented in the site report, I estimated house areas by multiplying their lengths by their widths; though this method is not precise since longhouses are not exact rectangles, it is sufficient for a population estimate. As explained above, I estimated house populations by dividing the (estimated) house areas by six, and I estimated the number of nuclear families per house by dividing the estimated house populations by five. The data on the longhouse attributes for houses at the Mantle Site is located in Appendix J. The following two graphs display the house areas, estimated house populations, and estimated number of nuclear families per house for the Mantle Site. 241 Figure 6.15 Mantle Site—House Areas (m²) 242 271102201732061351241398115014311417312221844614230410923617040077199711992983631172861301421099224124432920821728130816411725832759171234237111165123921391041758887152.33042201821562021461123702022501091602197925311810518722235.653.5367192152120160148188121127232206.1270144250170127178174145147188195237115130.85103.20100200300400500600H-1H-2H-3H-4H-5H-6H-7H-8H-9H-10aH-10bH-11H-12H-13H-14H-15H-16aH-16bH-17H-18H-19H-20H-21H-22H-23H-24H-25H-26H-27aH-27bH-28H-29H-30H-31H-32H-33H-34H-35H-36H-37aH-37bH-38H-39H-40H-41H-42H-43H-44H-45H-46aH-46bH-47H-48aH-48bH-49H-50H-51H-52H-53H-54H-55H-56H-57H-58H-59H-60H-61H-62H-63H-64aH-64bH-64cH-65H-66H-67H-68H-69H-70aH-70bH-70cH-71H-72H-73H-74aH-74bH-75H-76H-77H-78H-79H-80aH-80bH-81H-82H-83H-84H-85H-86H-87H-88H-89H-90H-92H-93H-95H-96Mantle Site House Areas (in m²) Figure 6.15 (cont’d) 243 271102201732061351241398115014311417312221844614230410923617040077199711992983631172861301421099224124432920821728130816411725832759171234237111165123921391041758887152.33042201821562021461123702022501091602197925311810518722235.653.5367192152120160148188121127232206.1270144250170127178174145147188195237115130.85103.20100200300400500600H-1H-2H-3H-4H-5H-6H-7H-8H-9H-10aH-10bH-11H-12H-13H-14H-15H-16aH-16bH-17H-18H-19H-20H-21H-22H-23H-24H-25H-26H-27aH-27bH-28H-29H-30H-31H-32H-33H-34H-35H-36H-37aH-37bH-38H-39H-40H-41H-42H-43H-44H-45H-46aH-46bH-47H-48aH-48bH-49H-50H-51H-52H-53H-54H-55H-56H-57H-58H-59H-60H-61H-62H-63H-64aH-64bH-64cH-65H-66H-67H-68H-69H-70aH-70bH-70cH-71H-72H-73H-74aH-74bH-75H-76H-77H-78H-79H-80aH-80bH-81H-82H-83H-84H-85H-86H-87H-88H-89H-90H-92H-93H-95H-96Mantle Site House Areas (in m²)271102201732061351241398115014311417312221844614230410923617040077199711992983631172861301421099224124432920821728130816411725832759171234237111165123921391041758887152.33042201821562021461123702022501091602197925311810518722235.653.5367192152120160148188121127232206.1270144250170127178174145147188195237115130.85103.20100200300400500600H-1H-2H-3H-4H-5H-6H-7H-8H-9H-10aH-10bH-11H-12H-13H-14H-15H-16aH-16bH-17H-18H-19H-20H-21H-22H-23H-24H-25H-26H-27aH-27bH-28H-29H-30H-31H-32H-33H-34H-35H-36H-37aH-37bH-38H-39H-40H-41H-42H-43H-44H-45H-46aH-46bH-47H-48aH-48bH-49H-50H-51H-52H-53H-54H-55H-56H-57H-58H-59H-60H-61H-62H-63H-64aH-64bH-64cH-65H-66H-67H-68H-69H-70aH-70bH-70cH-71H-72H-73H-74aH-74bH-75H-76H-77H-78H-79H-80aH-80bH-81H-82H-83H-84H-85H-86H-87H-88H-89H-90H-92H-93H-95H-96Mantle Site House Areas (in m²) Figure 6.15 (cont’d) 244 271102201732061351241398115014311417312221844614230410923617040077199711992983631172861301421099224124432920821728130816411725832759171234237111165123921391041758887152.33042201821562021461123702022501091602197925311810518722235.653.5367192152120160148188121127232206.1270144250170127178174145147188195237115130.85103.20100200300400500600H-1H-2H-3H-4H-5H-6H-7H-8H-9H-10aH-10bH-11H-12H-13H-14H-15H-16aH-16bH-17H-18H-19H-20H-21H-22H-23H-24H-25H-26H-27aH-27bH-28H-29H-30H-31H-32H-33H-34H-35H-36H-37aH-37bH-38H-39H-40H-41H-42H-43H-44H-45H-46aH-46bH-47H-48aH-48bH-49H-50H-51H-52H-53H-54H-55H-56H-57H-58H-59H-60H-61H-62H-63H-64aH-64bH-64cH-65H-66H-67H-68H-69H-70aH-70bH-70cH-71H-72H-73H-74aH-74bH-75H-76H-77H-78H-79H-80aH-80bH-81H-82H-83H-84H-85H-86H-87H-88H-89H-90H-92H-93H-95H-96Mantle Site House Areas (in m²)271102201732061351241398115014311417312221844614230410923617040077199711992983631172861301421099224124432920821728130816411725832759171234237111165123921391041758887152.33042201821562021461123702022501091602197925311810518722235.653.5367192152120160148188121127232206.1270144250170127178174145147188195237115130.85103.20100200300400500600H-1H-2H-3H-4H-5H-6H-7H-8H-9H-10aH-10bH-11H-12H-13H-14H-15H-16aH-16bH-17H-18H-19H-20H-21H-22H-23H-24H-25H-26H-27aH-27bH-28H-29H-30H-31H-32H-33H-34H-35H-36H-37aH-37bH-38H-39H-40H-41H-42H-43H-44H-45H-46aH-46bH-47H-48aH-48bH-49H-50H-51H-52H-53H-54H-55H-56H-57H-58H-59H-60H-61H-62H-63H-64aH-64bH-64cH-65H-66H-67H-68H-69H-70aH-70bH-70cH-71H-72H-73H-74aH-74bH-75H-76H-77H-78H-79H-80aH-80bH-81H-82H-83H-84H-85H-86H-87H-88H-89H-90H-92H-93H-95H-96Mantle Site House Areas (in m²) Figure 6.16 Mantle Site—House Population Estimates 245 45.1717.0033.5012.1734.3322.5020.6723.1713.5025.0023.8319.0028.8320.3336.3374.3323.6750.6718.1739.3328.3366.6712.8333.1711.8333.1749.6760.5019.5047.6721.6723.6718.1715.3340.1740.6754.8334.6736.1746.8351.3327.3319.5043.0054.509.8328.5039.0039.5018.5027.5020.5015.3323.1717.3329.1714.6714.5025.3850.6736.6730.3326.0033.6724.3318.6761.6733.6741.6718.1726.6736.5013.1742.1719.6717.5031.1737.005.938.9261.1732.0025.3320.0026.6724.6731.3320.1721.1738.6734.3545.0024.0041.6728.3321.1729.6729.0024.1724.5031.3332.5039.5019.1721.8117.209.033.406.702.436.874.504.134.632.705.004.773.805.774.077.2714.874.7310.133.637.875.6713.332.576.632.376.639.9312.103.909.534.334.733.633.078.038.1310.976.937.239.3710.275.473.908.6010.901.975.707.807.903.705.504.103.074.633.475.832.932.905.0810.137.336.075.206.734.873.7312.336.738.333.635.337.302.638.433.933.506.237.401.191.7812.236.405.074.005.334.936.274.034.237.736.879.004.808.335.674.235.935.804.834.906.276.507.903.834.363.44020406080100H-1H-2H-3H-4H-5H-6H-7H-8H-9H-10aH-10bH-11H-12H-13H-14H-15H-16aH-16bH-17H-18H-19H-20H-21H-22H-23H-24H-25H-26H-27aH-27bH-28H-29H-30H-31H-32H-33H-34H-35H-36H-37aH-37bH-38H-39H-40H-41H-42H-43H-44H-45H-46aH-46bH-47H-48aH-48bH-49H-50H-51H-52H-53H-54H-55H-56H-57H-58H-59H-60H-61H-62H-63H-64aH-64bH-64cH-65H-66H-67H-68H-69H-70aH-70bH-70cH-71H-72H-73H-74aH-74bH-75H-76H-77H-78H-79H-80aH-80bH-81H-82H-83H-84H-85H-86H-87H-88H-89H-90H-92H-93H-95H-96Mantle Site House Population EstimatesIndividualsNuclear Families Figure 6.16 (cont’d) 246 45.1717.0033.5012.1734.3322.5020.6723.1713.5025.0023.8319.0028.8320.3336.3374.3323.6750.6718.1739.3328.3366.6712.8333.1711.8333.1749.6760.5019.5047.6721.6723.6718.1715.3340.1740.6754.8334.6736.1746.8351.3327.3319.5043.0054.509.8328.5039.0039.5018.5027.5020.5015.3323.1717.3329.1714.6714.5025.3850.6736.6730.3326.0033.6724.3318.6761.6733.6741.6718.1726.6736.5013.1742.1719.6717.5031.1737.005.938.9261.1732.0025.3320.0026.6724.6731.3320.1721.1738.6734.3545.0024.0041.6728.3321.1729.6729.0024.1724.5031.3332.5039.5019.1721.8117.209.033.406.702.436.874.504.134.632.705.004.773.805.774.077.2714.874.7310.133.637.875.6713.332.576.632.376.639.9312.103.909.534.334.733.633.078.038.1310.976.937.239.3710.275.473.908.6010.901.975.707.807.903.705.504.103.074.633.475.832.932.905.0810.137.336.075.206.734.873.7312.336.738.333.635.337.302.638.433.933.506.237.401.191.7812.236.405.074.005.334.936.274.034.237.736.879.004.808.335.674.235.935.804.834.906.276.507.903.834.363.44020406080100H-1H-2H-3H-4H-5H-6H-7H-8H-9H-10aH-10bH-11H-12H-13H-14H-15H-16aH-16bH-17H-18H-19H-20H-21H-22H-23H-24H-25H-26H-27aH-27bH-28H-29H-30H-31H-32H-33H-34H-35H-36H-37aH-37bH-38H-39H-40H-41H-42H-43H-44H-45H-46aH-46bH-47H-48aH-48bH-49H-50H-51H-52H-53H-54H-55H-56H-57H-58H-59H-60H-61H-62H-63H-64aH-64bH-64cH-65H-66H-67H-68H-69H-70aH-70bH-70cH-71H-72H-73H-74aH-74bH-75H-76H-77H-78H-79H-80aH-80bH-81H-82H-83H-84H-85H-86H-87H-88H-89H-90H-92H-93H-95H-96Mantle Site House Population EstimatesIndividualsNuclear Families45.1717.0033.5012.1734.3322.5020.6723.1713.5025.0023.8319.0028.8320.3336.3374.3323.6750.6718.1739.3328.3366.6712.8333.1711.8333.1749.6760.5019.5047.6721.6723.6718.1715.3340.1740.6754.8334.6736.1746.8351.3327.3319.5043.0054.509.8328.5039.0039.5018.5027.5020.5015.3323.1717.3329.1714.6714.5025.3850.6736.6730.3326.0033.6724.3318.6761.6733.6741.6718.1726.6736.5013.1742.1719.6717.5031.1737.005.938.9261.1732.0025.3320.0026.6724.6731.3320.1721.1738.6734.3545.0024.0041.6728.3321.1729.6729.0024.1724.5031.3332.5039.5019.1721.8117.209.033.406.702.436.874.504.134.632.705.004.773.805.774.077.2714.874.7310.133.637.875.6713.332.576.632.376.639.9312.103.909.534.334.733.633.078.038.1310.976.937.239.3710.275.473.908.6010.901.975.707.807.903.705.504.103.074.633.475.832.932.905.0810.137.336.075.206.734.873.7312.336.738.333.635.337.302.638.433.933.506.237.401.191.7812.236.405.074.005.334.936.274.034.237.736.879.004.808.335.674.235.935.804.834.906.276.507.903.834.363.44020406080100H-1H-2H-3H-4H-5H-6H-7H-8H-9H-10aH-10bH-11H-12H-13H-14H-15H-16aH-16bH-17H-18H-19H-20H-21H-22H-23H-24H-25H-26H-27aH-27bH-28H-29H-30H-31H-32H-33H-34H-35H-36H-37aH-37bH-38H-39H-40H-41H-42H-43H-44H-45H-46aH-46bH-47H-48aH-48bH-49H-50H-51H-52H-53H-54H-55H-56H-57H-58H-59H-60H-61H-62H-63H-64aH-64bH-64cH-65H-66H-67H-68H-69H-70aH-70bH-70cH-71H-72H-73H-74aH-74bH-75H-76H-77H-78H-79H-80aH-80bH-81H-82H-83H-84H-85H-86H-87H-88H-89H-90H-92H-93H-95H-96Mantle Site House Population EstimatesIndividualsNuclear Families Figure 6.16 (cont’d) The following table displays the descriptive statistics for longhouse areas and population estimates at the Mantle Site. Table 6.10 Mantle Site—Longhouse Areas and Population Estimates Maximum Minimum Mean Median Mode Individuals 74.33 5.93 29.95 Longhouse Areas 446 square meters 35.6 square meters 179.68 square meters 164.5 square meters 27.42 120-125 square meters; 170-175 square meters 24 247 Nuclear Families 14.87 1.19 5.99 5.48 4 45.1717.0033.5012.1734.3322.5020.6723.1713.5025.0023.8319.0028.8320.3336.3374.3323.6750.6718.1739.3328.3366.6712.8333.1711.8333.1749.6760.5019.5047.6721.6723.6718.1715.3340.1740.6754.8334.6736.1746.8351.3327.3319.5043.0054.509.8328.5039.0039.5018.5027.5020.5015.3323.1717.3329.1714.6714.5025.3850.6736.6730.3326.0033.6724.3318.6761.6733.6741.6718.1726.6736.5013.1742.1719.6717.5031.1737.005.938.9261.1732.0025.3320.0026.6724.6731.3320.1721.1738.6734.3545.0024.0041.6728.3321.1729.6729.0024.1724.5031.3332.5039.5019.1721.8117.209.033.406.702.436.874.504.134.632.705.004.773.805.774.077.2714.874.7310.133.637.875.6713.332.576.632.376.639.9312.103.909.534.334.733.633.078.038.1310.976.937.239.3710.275.473.908.6010.901.975.707.807.903.705.504.103.074.633.475.832.932.905.0810.137.336.075.206.734.873.7312.336.738.333.635.337.302.638.433.933.506.237.401.191.7812.236.405.074.005.334.936.274.034.237.736.879.004.808.335.674.235.935.804.834.906.276.507.903.834.363.44020406080100H-1H-2H-3H-4H-5H-6H-7H-8H-9H-10aH-10bH-11H-12H-13H-14H-15H-16aH-16bH-17H-18H-19H-20H-21H-22H-23H-24H-25H-26H-27aH-27bH-28H-29H-30H-31H-32H-33H-34H-35H-36H-37aH-37bH-38H-39H-40H-41H-42H-43H-44H-45H-46aH-46bH-47H-48aH-48bH-49H-50H-51H-52H-53H-54H-55H-56H-57H-58H-59H-60H-61H-62H-63H-64aH-64bH-64cH-65H-66H-67H-68H-69H-70aH-70bH-70cH-71H-72H-73H-74aH-74bH-75H-76H-77H-78H-79H-80aH-80bH-81H-82H-83H-84H-85H-86H-87H-88H-89H-90H-92H-93H-95H-96Mantle Site House Population EstimatesIndividualsNuclear Families45.1717.0033.5012.1734.3322.5020.6723.1713.5025.0023.8319.0028.8320.3336.3374.3323.6750.6718.1739.3328.3366.6712.8333.1711.8333.1749.6760.5019.5047.6721.6723.6718.1715.3340.1740.6754.8334.6736.1746.8351.3327.3319.5043.0054.509.8328.5039.0039.5018.5027.5020.5015.3323.1717.3329.1714.6714.5025.3850.6736.6730.3326.0033.6724.3318.6761.6733.6741.6718.1726.6736.5013.1742.1719.6717.5031.1737.005.938.9261.1732.0025.3320.0026.6724.6731.3320.1721.1738.6734.3545.0024.0041.6728.3321.1729.6729.0024.1724.5031.3332.5039.5019.1721.8117.209.033.406.702.436.874.504.134.632.705.004.773.805.774.077.2714.874.7310.133.637.875.6713.332.576.632.376.639.9312.103.909.534.334.733.633.078.038.1310.976.937.239.3710.275.473.908.6010.901.975.707.807.903.705.504.103.074.633.475.832.932.905.0810.137.336.075.206.734.873.7312.336.738.333.635.337.302.638.433.933.506.237.401.191.7812.236.405.074.005.334.936.274.034.237.736.879.004.808.335.674.235.935.804.834.906.276.507.903.834.363.44020406080100H-1H-2H-3H-4H-5H-6H-7H-8H-9H-10aH-10bH-11H-12H-13H-14H-15H-16aH-16bH-17H-18H-19H-20H-21H-22H-23H-24H-25H-26H-27aH-27bH-28H-29H-30H-31H-32H-33H-34H-35H-36H-37aH-37bH-38H-39H-40H-41H-42H-43H-44H-45H-46aH-46bH-47H-48aH-48bH-49H-50H-51H-52H-53H-54H-55H-56H-57H-58H-59H-60H-61H-62H-63H-64aH-64bH-64cH-65H-66H-67H-68H-69H-70aH-70bH-70cH-71H-72H-73H-74aH-74bH-75H-76H-77H-78H-79H-80aH-80bH-81H-82H-83H-84H-85H-86H-87H-88H-89H-90H-92H-93H-95H-96Mantle Site House Population EstimatesIndividualsNuclear Families Table 6.10 (cont’d) Sample Standard Deviation Sample Variance Longhouse Areas 80.2963 Individuals 13.3827 Nuclear Families 2.6773 6447.4941 179.0971 7.1679 The data on the longhouse attributes for houses at the Molson Site is located in Appendix M. The following two graphs display the estimated house areas, estimated house populations, and estimated number of nuclear families per house for the Molson Site. Figure 6.17 Molson Site—House Areas (m²) 248 117.8187.558.5105217127.5225212.5109.5126.2984.558.510543.4105.840100200300400500600H-1aH-1bH-3H-4aH-4bH-5aH-5bH-6H-7aH-7bH-8aH-8bH-9H-10aH-10bMolson Site House Areas (in m2) Figure 6.18 Molson Site—House Population Estimates The following table displays the descriptive statistics for longhouse areas and population estimates at the Molson Site. Table 6.11 Molson Site—Longhouse Areas and Population Estimates Maximum Minimum Mean Median Mode Sample Standard Deviation Sample Variance Individuals 37.5 7.23 20.93 Longhouse Areas 225 square meters 43.4 square meters 125.59 square meters 109.5 square meters 18.25 105-106 square meters 58.9390 18 9.8230 3473.8084 96.4915 249 Nuclear Families 7.5 1.45 4.19 3.65 4 1.9646 3.8597 19.6331.259.7517.5036.1721.2537.5035.4218.2521.0514.089.7517.507.2317.643.936.251.953.507.234.257.507.083.654.212.821.953.501.453.53020406080100H-1aH-1bH-3H-4aH-4bH-5aH-5bH-6H-7aH-7bH-8aH-8bH-9H-10aH-10bMolson Site House Population EstimatesIndividualsNuclear Families The following boxplots compare the longhouse areas at the Mantle Site to the longhouse areas at the Molson Site. Figure 6.19 Longhouse Areas—Mantle Site vs. Molson Site I conducted an F-test to determine whether the difference between the two sample variances was significant, and the results follow. Table 6.12 Sample Variances—F-Test df (Molson) df (Mantle) F P 105 14 1.97 0.075882 Since P>0.05, the difference between the variances of the two samples is not statistically significant. Thus, assuming equal variances as just determined, I conducted a standard t-test, with the following results. 250 0100200300400500Longhouse Area in Square MetersLonghouse Areas -Mantle Site vs. Molson SiteMolson SiteMantle Site Table 6.13 Sample Variances—T-Test Mean(Mantle)-Mean(Molson) t df P (two-tailed) 54.0883 +2.51 119 0.013416 Therefore, the difference between the Mantle Site and the Molson Site in average longhouse area of 54.09 square meters is statistically significant (t = +2.51, p = 0.013416). Thus, it is with over 98% confidence that I conclude that on average, longhouses at the Mantle Site cover 54.09 more square meters of roofed space than longhouses at the Molson Site. Since the values for the number of individuals per house were calculated using the longhouse areas (number of individuals = longhouse area divided by 6), the results for both the F-test and the standard t-test were identical to the results shown above for longhouse areas. Therefore, the difference between the Mantle Site and the Molson Site in average number of individuals per house of 9.01 people is statistically significant (t = +2.51, p = 0.013416). Thus, it is with over 98% confidence that I conclude that on average, there were 9.01 more people living in each house at the Mantle Site than there were at the Molson Site. Likewise, since the values for the number of nuclear families per house were calculated using the number of individuals per house (number of nuclear families = number of individuals divided by 5), and since the values for the number of individuals per house were calculated using the longhouse areas (number of individuals = longhouse area divided by 6), the results for both the F-test and the standard t-test were identical to the results shown above for longhouse areas and individuals per house. Therefore, the difference between the Mantle Site and the Molson Site in average number of nuclear families per house of 1.80 nuclear families is statistically significant (t = +2.51, p = 0.013416). Thus, it is with over 98% confidence that I conclude that on average, there were 1.80 more nuclear families occupying each house at the Mantle Site than there were at the Molson Site. Establishing statistically significant differences in the estimates of 251 the number of nuclear families per household between the two sites is important because it suggests that there may also then be variation in the operation of the domestic corporate groups between these two sites, especially if the domestic corporate groups are corporate households. The three smallest houses at the Mantle Site (less than 3% of the total sample) are estimated at between one and two nuclear families each; these three houses all date to the later phase of the Mantle Site’s occupation. The three smallest houses at the Molson Site (20% of the total sample) are estimated at between one and two nuclear families each. The remaining houses at both sites held a minimum of two nuclear family units; these houses fit my descriptive model’s expectations for the number of nuclear families in a corporate household. Further, the statistically significant difference between the number of nuclear families per longhouse supports the possibility of identifying variation between the operation of the domestic corporate groups at the two sites. Village Organization As above, I consider two aspects of village organization that relate to my descriptive model’s organizational levels above the corporate household: nondomestic community buildings and identifiable clusters of houses. In my model, nondomestic community buildings are common in corporate communities and absent among corporate households; they can occur in corporate neighborhoods. In my model, identifiable clusters of less than nine houses are most prominent in corporate neighborhoods and absent among corporate households; they can occur in corporate communities. The Mantle Site had no buildings that were identified as nondomestic buildings in the site report; all structures were identified as domestic longhouses (ASI 2012). However, based on my 252 definition of nondomestic buildings, there is one structure, House 26, which may have been a community building; at 55.5 meters long, it is the longest structure at the Mantle Site and contained no evidence of interior bunklines, pit features, or hearths aside from one large hearth outside the south end of the building. Andrew Clish and Jennifer Birch, however, interpreted House 26 as the early temporary seasonal house for the people who first constructed the village. It seems that the evidence is insufficient to make conclusions about this structure with certainty. Similarly, at the Molson Site, all of the identified structures were interpreted in the site report as domestic houses; there were no identifiable nondomestic community buildings in this village (Lennox 2000). Based on my assessment of the site report, field notes, and artifacts, I agree that none of the buildings excavated at the Molson Site were being primarily used as nondomestic community buildings. Thus, there is no concrete evidence for nondomestic community buildings at either the Mantle Site or the Molson Site. These findings at both sites are most consistent with my descriptive model’s conditions for corporate households. However, this interpretation must be accepted cautiously due to the possibility of a single nondomestic community building during the early phase of the Mantle Site, as well as the possibility that not all structures of the Molson Site village were discovered during excavation. As a secondary line of evidence within village organization for the nature of the domestic corporate groups at these two sites, I determined whether there were identifiable clusters of houses at either site. In the site report for the Mantle Site, rather than clusters of houses, Andrew Clish and Jennifer Birch identify a division between the east-west oriented houses in the northern half of the village and the houses in the southern half of the village, which were organized radially around a small plaza in the southeastern corner of the site (ASI 2012). In contrast, they 253 report that houses were randomly arranged during the later phase occupation of the site (ASI 2012). I then took a preliminary look for identifiable clusters of houses within the spatial patterning of Mantle Site houses in the early phase and in the late phase, based on my descriptive model’s criteria of physical closeness, similar orientation, and entrances facing and/or close to one another. No readily apparent clusters of houses were identifiable during either phase using these criteria. I identified three potential clusters in the early phase: (1) House 18 and House 19; (2) House 25, House 27, (and possibly House 93); and (3) House 43, House 44, House 45, (and possibly Houses 36, 37, 40, 56, and 59-60-61). I identified six potential clusters in the late phase: (1) House 8, House 10b, House 14, (and possibly House 12); (2) House 18 and House 19; (3) House 39, House 42, (and possibly Houses 36 and 41); (4) House 45, House 57, and House 58; (5) House 66, House 67, House 70a, (and possibly House 65); and (6) House 77, House 86, (and possibly House 76). A map is included below. I would like to emphasize again that these potential clusters are based on a preliminary look at the available evidence. Since the evidence for house clusters at the Mantle Site is not strong, the potential clusters I identified may not be corporate neighborhoods, but the households may still have had closer relationships within these potential clusters than they did to households outside of them. It still appears, then, that my descriptive model’s corporate households are likely the best fit for the Mantle Site’s domestic corporate groups, especially when combining the cluster data with the earlier estimates of number of nuclear families per house. With those population estimates in mind, however, there is a stronger case for the late phase cluster of House 39 and House 42 forming a corporate neighborhood. Similarly, the mid-late Houses 70b and 70c may have formed a corporate neighborhood prior to combining into the late phase corporate household of 254 House 70a. The following two Mantle Site maps, the first of the early phase occupation and the second of the late phase occupation, show the locations of house entrances, as well as the potential corporate neighborhoods and house clusters I suggested. 255 Figure 6.20 Mantle Site—Early Phase—Household Clusters, map modified by A. Conell, from ASI 2012:17 256 Figure 6.21 Mantle Site—Late Phase—Household Clusters, map modified by A. Conell, from ASI 2012:18 257 In the site report for the Molson Site, while Lennox (2000) describes the village as having a diffuse layout, he also believes it is possible that the excavated houses are only a small sample of the total houses that were present when the Molson site was occupied. Lennox (2000) suggests that “the close proximity of some of the houses that were identified, as well as the fact that some structures had been destroyed by fire and were then reconstructed or replaced at the same locations, suggests that open space within the settlement may have been somewhat limited” (11); however, he also acknowledges that “alternatively, the arrangement of house structures and their proximity or distance from one another may reflect social relationships amongst the inhabitants of the structures” (11) that “may have been a strong influence on the maintenance of a house’s position within the settlement despite the presence of surplus space and the absence of a palisade” (11). I then looked for identifiable clusters of houses within the spatial patterning of Molson Site houses, based on my descriptive model’s criteria of physical closeness, similar orientation, and entrances facing and/or close to one another. I identified three potential clusters: (1) House 1, House 2, and House 3; (2) House 4, House 5, House 6, House 8, and House 9; and (3) House 7 and House 10. These clusters appear more clearly defined than those at the Mantle Site. However, without knowing whether the clusters were intentional or the result of unidentified spatial constraints, it is not possible to conclude whether or not they represent corporate neighborhoods. Therefore, it seems that my model’s corporate households are likely the best fit for the Molson Site’s domestic corporate groups. The following Molson Site map shows the locations of house entrances, as well as the potential corporate neighborhoods and house clusters I suggested. 258 Figure 6.22 Molson Site Household Clusters, map modified by A. Conell, from Lennox 2000:7 Corporate Households: Intra-Household Organization The preceding sections point to corporate households as the most applicable type of domestic corporate group at the Wendat Mantle and Molson Sites. Therefore, for the final component of this preliminary test of my descriptive model, I consider multiple aspects of intra- household organization, particularly as they relate to my model’s expectations for corporate households. I have selected a sample of houses from each site for this portion of the model 259 testing. First, I consider the storage facilities in each house; according to my model, all domestic corporate groups have communal storage facilities, sometimes in addition to small private storage facilities. Then, I consider the shape of the house and how it arranges the nuclear family units within the dwelling; in my model, the nuclear families in round/square houses are more integrated, while the nuclear families in longhouses are more independent. In my model, corporate longhouse households contain exclusively multiple individual nuclear family hearths (with associated rock-lined cooking basins and/or concentrations of FCR and faunal remains) for both food preparation and consumption, utilized by one or two nuclear families; thus, I finish by considering the hearths, cooking areas, and food consumption areas within each house. I selected a total of 12 houses between the two archaeological sites for this intra- household analysis. To select houses for analysis, I first narrowed my sample at each site by both completeness of excavation and houses with minimal overlap with other houses or structures, including vastly different versions of itself. Then I considered the timing of the houses in my selection process. While all of the houses at the Molson Site appear contemporary, as discussed above, the Mantle Site has an early phase and a later phase, so I selected houses that dated exclusively to the early phase, as well as to the entire duration of the site. Finally, I considered the variety of ceramic types per house as my final criteria by which to narrow my sample; I selected houses with either the greatest or the least variety in ceramic types since intra- group cohesion is at core of my model of variation and change in domestic corporate groups, and Birch and Hart (2018) argue that the prevalence of fewer distinct ceramic collar motifs reflects greater group cohesion. The ceramic types used in this research were established by Richard MacNeish in 1952 based on combinations of identified attributes and “the assumption that sets of combined 260 attributes (types) represent a style in the mind of the potter” (ASI 2012:135), and the types were assigned by the ceramics analysts for each site (Robert B. Wojtowicz and Aleksandra Pradzynski for the Mantle Site and Paul Lennox for the Molson Site). The data on the ceramic types for houses at the Mantle Site is located in Appendix L. The data on the ceramic types for houses at the Molson Site is located in Appendix O. The following two graphs display the number of different ceramic types per house, first for the Mantle Site houses and then for the Molson Site houses. 261 Figure 6.23 Mantle Site—Number of Different Ceramic Types per House 262 0246810H -3H -5H -7/8H -11H -12H -13H -14H -15H -16H -18H -19H -20H -21/22H -24/25H -27H -28H -29H -33/34H -35H -36/37H -39H -40H -41H -42/43H -45H -46H -48/49H -53/54H -55H -56/57H -60/61H -62/63H -64H -66H -70H -71H -72H -74H -76H -77/78H -79H -80H -83H -84H -85H -86H -88H -90H -93Number of Different Ceramic Types Per House Figure 6.23 (cont’d) 263 0246810H -3H -5H -7/8H -11H -12H -13H -14H -15H -16H -18H -19H -20H -21/22H -24/25H -27H -28H -29H -33/34H -35H -36/37H -39H -40H -41H -42/43H -45H -46H -48/49H -53/54H -55H -56/57H -60/61H -62/63H -64H -66H -70H -71H -72H -74H -76H -77/78H -79H -80H -83H -84H -85H -86H -88H -90H -93Number of Different Ceramic Types Per House0246810H -3H -5H -7/8H -11H -12H -13H -14H -15H -16H -18H -19H -20H -21/22H -24/25H -27H -28H -29H -33/34H -35H -36/37H -39H -40H -41H -42/43H -45H -46H -48/49H -53/54H -55H -56/57H -60/61H -62/63H -64H -66H -70H -71H -72H -74H -76H -77/78H -79H -80H -83H -84H -85H -86H -88H -90H -93Number of Different Ceramic Types Per House Figure 6.23 (cont’d) 264 0246810H -3H -5H -7/8H -11H -12H -13H -14H -15H -16H -18H -19H -20H -21/22H -24/25H -27H -28H -29H -33/34H -35H -36/37H -39H -40H -41H -42/43H -45H -46H -48/49H -53/54H -55H -56/57H -60/61H -62/63H -64H -66H -70H -71H -72H -74H -76H -77/78H -79H -80H -83H -84H -85H -86H -88H -90H -93Number of Different Ceramic Types Per House0246810H -3H -5H -7/8H -11H -12H -13H -14H -15H -16H -18H -19H -20H -21/22H -24/25H -27H -28H -29H -33/34H -35H -36/37H -39H -40H -41H -42/43H -45H -46H -48/49H -53/54H -55H -56/57H -60/61H -62/63H -64H -66H -70H -71H -72H -74H -76H -77/78H -79H -80H -83H -84H -85H -86H -88H -90H -93Number of Different Ceramic Types Per House Figure 6.24 Molson Site—Number of Different Ceramic Types per House The following table displays the descriptive statistics for the number of different ceramic types per house. Table 6.14 Different Ceramic Types per House Maximum Minimum Mean Mode Sample Standard Deviation 1.77 3.13 Sample Variance Mantle Site 8 1 2.49 1 Molson Site 9 1 4.44 4 2.51 6.28 265 0246810H -1H -3H -4H -5H -6H -7H -8H -9H -10Number of Different Ceramic Types Per House The following boxplots compare the variety of ceramic types per house at the Mantle Site to the variety of ceramic types per house at the Molson Site. Figure 6.25 Ceramic Types per House—Mantle Site vs. Molson Site I conducted an F-test to determine whether the difference between the two sample variances was significant, and the results follow. Table 6.15 Sample Variances—F-Test df (Molson) df (Mantle) F P 8 48 1.82 0.096347 Since P>0.05, the difference between the variances of the two samples is not statistically significant. Thus, assuming equal variances as just determined, I conducted a standard t-test, with the following results. 266 0246810Types Per HouseCeramic Types Per House -Mantle Site vs. Molson SiteMolson SiteMantle Site Table 6.16 Sample Variances—T-Test Mean(Mantle)-Mean(Molson) t df P (two-tailed) -1.9546 -2.85 56 0.006108 Therefore, the difference between the Mantle Site and the Molson Site in average number of distinct ceramic types per household of 1.95 types is statistically significant (t = -2.85, p = 0.006108). Thus, it is with over 99% confidence that I conclude that on average, there are 1.95 more ceramic types per house at the Molson Site than there are at the Mantle Site. Based on Birch and Hart (2018), then, the households at the Mantle Site generally maintained greater intra- group cohesion than the households at the Molson Site. This is another line of evidence that suggests that there will be visible variation between the domestic corporate groups of the Mantle Site and those of the Molson Site. Using the preceding criteria, I selected the following houses for analysis of intra- household organization: Table 6.17 Houses Selected for Intra-Household Organization Mantle Site early phase Mantle Site entire occupation House 12, House 14, House 18, House 20 Molson Site House 13, House 3, House 45, House 80 House 5, House 6, House 7, House 9 The data on the longhouse contents for houses at the Mantle Site is located in Appendix K. The data on the longhouse contents for houses at the Molson Site is located in Appendix N. Each house will now be individually assessed for how well it fits the expectations for corporate households proposed in my descriptive model. Mantle Site House 13 House 13 dates to the earliest occupation of the Mantle Site. 267 Table 6.18 House 13 Model Component and Archaeological Evidence Model Component minimum two nuclear families high internal cohesion longhouse configuration food preparation food consumption storage facilities Archaeological Evidence area of 122 square meters; estimated population of 4 nuclear family units low variation in ceramic types (3 different types) bunkline along the southeastern wall; house dimensions of 18.7 meters by 7.3 meters 3 concentrations of FCR, one in the southwestern corner and two at the northeastern end of the house 3 separate concentrations of faunal and floral remains throughout the house (outside of the faunal and floral remains associated with the FCR concentrations) 10 storage pits (Features 839, 843, 859, 860, 862, 867, 870, 871, 878, and 901); possible clean-floored storage spaces at one or both ends of the longhouse, particularly the southwestern end My descriptive model proposes that corporate longhouse households were less internally cohesive than round/square corporate households. Accordingly, corporate longhouse households should contain facilities for food preparation and food consumption for each set of one or two nuclear family units. The evidence suggests that food may have been prepared separately by each nuclear family, which would be consistent with my model’s expectations for the independent nature of food preparation activities in corporate longhouse households. The evidence suggests that food may have also been consumed separately by each of the nuclear families of this household, which would again be consistent with my model’s expectations for the independent nature of food consumption in corporate longhouse households. My model also expects that all domestic corporate groups maintain communal storage facilities, sometimes in addition to smaller private storage facilities. Based on the evidence for storage facilities, it seems likely that this house fulfills my model’s conditions of a combination of communal and private storage for domestic corporate groups. 268 The following map displays the locations of different artifact types in House 13, as well as in House 12. Figure 6.26 Mantle Site Houses 12 and 13 artifact distribution, map modified by A. Conell, from ASI 2012:33 Mantle Site House 3 House 3 dates to the early phase of the Mantle Site. A trench midden associated with the final village palisade bisects House 3 lengthwise down its center, likely obscuring features in use during the house’s occupation; however, several features in the house remained undisturbed by the trench midden. Table 6.19 House 3 Model Component and Archaeological Evidence Model Component minimum two nuclear families Archaeological Evidence area of 201 square meters; estimated population of 7 nuclear family units 269 Table 6.19 (cont’d) Model Component medium internal cohesion longhouse configuration food preparation food consumption storage facilities Archaeological Evidence medium variation in ceramic types (5 different types) no bunklines identified; house dimensions of 37.6 meters by 5.5 meters 2 concentrations of FCR, one at each end of the longhouse 3 separate concentrations of faunal remains throughout the house, all in the western half of the house (outside of the faunal remains associated with the FCR concentrations) 7 storage pits (Features 716, 729, 734, 747, 752, 754, and 757); possible clean-floored storage spaces at both ends of the longhouse My descriptive model proposes that corporate longhouse households were less internally cohesive than round/square corporate households. Accordingly, corporate longhouse households should contain facilities for food preparation and food consumption for each set of one or two nuclear family units. Unfortunately, any hearths were likely destroyed by the later trench midden. Though this makes food preparation practices difficult to interpret with certainty, the locations of the FCR concentrations suggests that food may have been prepared separately, perhaps by each nuclear family or in pairs of nuclear family units, which would be fairly consistent with my model’s expectations for the independent nature of food preparation activities in corporate longhouse households. The evidence for the locations of faunal concentrations suggests that food may have been consumed separately by each of the nuclear families of this household, which would be consistent with my model’s expectations for the independent nature of food consumption in corporate longhouse households. My model also expects that all domestic corporate groups maintain communal storage facilities, sometimes in addition to smaller private storage facilities. The evidence for patterns of storage facilities seems to fulfill my model’s conditions of a combination of communal and private storage for domestic corporate groups. 270 The following map displays the locations of different artifact types in House 3. Figure 6.27 Mantle Site House 3 artifact distribution, map modified by A. Conell, from ASI 2012:24 Mantle Site House 45 House 45 dates to the early phase of the Mantle Site. Table 6.20 House 45 Model Component and Archaeological Evidence Model Component minimum two nuclear families high internal cohesion longhouse configuration food preparation food consumption storage facilities Archaeological Evidence area of 237 square meters; estimated population of 8 nuclear family units low variation in ceramic types (only 1 type) bunklines along the northern and southern walls; house dimensions of 35.6 meters by 6.8 meters a single circular set of posts for a raised cooking structure in the center of the house 3 separate concentrations of faunal and floral remains throughout the house, all in the western half of the house (2 of these areas are small, while the central one is much larger) 9 storage pits (Features 441, 448, 452, 454, 637, 638, 639, 640, and 646); at least one possible clean-floored storage space at the western end of the longhouse 271 My descriptive model proposes that corporate longhouse households were less internally cohesive than round/square corporate households. Accordingly, corporate longhouse households should contain facilities for food preparation and food consumption for each set of one or two nuclear family units. The evidence suggests that food may have been prepared by only one or two nuclear families for the entire household, which would be more consistent with my model’s expectations for the coordinated nature of food preparation activities in a round/square corporate household or in a corporate neighborhood. The evidence for patterns of faunal and floral remains suggests that food may have been consumed more communally by the nuclear families of this household, which would be more consistent with my model’s expectations for food consumption practices in round/square corporate households. My model also expects that all domestic corporate groups maintain communal storage facilities, sometimes in addition to smaller private storage facilities. The evidence for storage facility patterns appears to be consistent with my model’s conditions of a combination of communal and private storage for domestic corporate groups. The following map displays the locations of different artifact types in House 45. 272 Figure 6.28 Mantle Site House 45 artifact distribution, map modified by A. Conell, from ASI 2012:61 Mantle Site House 80 House 80 dates to the early phase of the Mantle Site; unfortunately, the south end was destroyed by a modern barn. Table 6.21 House 80 Model Component and Archaeological Evidence Model Component minimum two nuclear families high internal cohesion longhouse configuration food preparation food consumption storage facilities Archaeological Evidence estimated area of 270 square meters; estimated population of 9 nuclear family units low variation in ceramic types (only 1 type) bunklines along the eastern and western walls; house dimensions of 39 meters (estimated) by 7.3 meters no evidence 5 separate concentrations of faunal remains throughout the house 3 storage pits (Features 408, 421, and 422); at least one clean-floored storage space at the northern end of the longhouse My descriptive model proposes that corporate longhouse households were less internally cohesive than round/square corporate households. Accordingly, corporate longhouse households 273 should contain facilities for food preparation and food consumption for each set of one or two nuclear family units. Since there was no evidence of food preparation activities within House 80, it is possible that food preparation activities may have been conducted in the southern part of the house that was destroyed or that food for this household may have been prepared in another house. If the food were prepared in another house, this might point to a corporate neighborhood organization, but there is insufficient evidence to evaluate House 80’s food preparation practices against my model. The evidence for food consumption patterns suggests that food may have been consumed separately by individual or pairs of nuclear families within this household, which would be consistent with my model’s expectations for food consumption practices in corporate longhouse households. My model also expects that all domestic corporate groups maintain communal storage facilities, sometimes in addition to smaller private storage facilities. The evidence for storage facility patterns appears to be consistent with my model’s conditions of a combination of communal and private storage for domestic corporate groups. The following map displays the locations of different artifact types in House 80. 274 Figure 6.29 Mantle Site House 80 artifact distribution, map modified by A. Conell, from ASI 2012:85 Mantle Site House 12 House 12 dates to the entire occupation of the Mantle Site, and it may have abutted House 7 and/or House 8. Table 6.22 House 12 Model Component and Archaeological Evidence Model Component minimum two nuclear families medium internal cohesion longhouse configuration food preparation Archaeological Evidence area of 173 square meters; estimated population of 6 nuclear family units medium variation in ceramic types (4 different types) bunkline along the northern wall; house dimensions of 25.8 meters by 7.3 meters an ash pit (Feature 791) at the western end of the house; 2 hearths (Features 854 and 857a) with “a clustering of posts near the hearths that may indicate that there were racks or cooking structures over the hearths” (ASI 2012:32) 275 Table 6.22 (cont’d) Model Component food consumption storage facilities Archaeological Evidence upwards of 11 separate concentrations of faunal and floral remains throughout the house (outside of the floral and faunal remains associated with the hearths and ash pit) 20 storage pits (Features 790, 837, 840, 841, 844, 846, 849, 851, 852, 853, 855, 857b, 858, 863, 875, 903, 904, 906, 907, and 1051); possible clean-floored storage spaces at one or both ends of the longhouse, but it is not clear My descriptive model proposes that corporate longhouse households were less internally cohesive than round/square corporate households. Accordingly, corporate longhouse households should contain facilities for food preparation and food consumption for each set of one or two nuclear family units. The evidence suggests that food may have been prepared either separately by each nuclear family or in pairs of nuclear family units, which would be fairly consistent with my model’s expectations for the independent nature of food preparation activities in corporate longhouse households. The evidence suggests that food may have also been consumed separately by each of the nuclear families of this household, which would again be consistent with my model’s expectations for the independent nature of food consumption in corporate longhouse households. My model also expects that all domestic corporate groups maintain communal storage facilities, sometimes in addition to smaller private storage facilities. However, there is insufficient evidence to say with certainty whether this house fulfills my model’s conditions of a combination of communal and private storage for domestic corporate groups. The map above for House 13 also displays the locations of different artifact types in House 12. 276 Mantle Site House 14 House 14 dates to the entire occupation of the Mantle Site. Table 6.23 House 14 Model Component and Archaeological Evidence Model Component minimum two nuclear families high internal cohesion longhouse configuration food preparation food consumption storage facilities Archaeological Evidence area of 218 square meters; estimated population of 7 nuclear family units low variation in ceramic types (only 1 type) bunklines along northern and southern walls; house dimensions of 33.5 meters by 6.9 meters a single hearth (Feature 900) at the western end of the house upwards of 7 separate concentrations of faunal and floral remains throughout the house, all but one of which are in the eastern half of the house 8 storage pits (Features 879, 880, 881, 882, 883, 884, 899, and 977); probable clean-floored storage spaces at both ends of the longhouse My descriptive model proposes that corporate longhouse households were less internally cohesive than round/square corporate households. Accordingly, corporate longhouse households should contain facilities for food preparation and food consumption for each set of one or two nuclear family units. The evidence suggests that food may have been prepared by only one or two nuclear families for the entire household, which would be more consistent with my model’s expectations for the coordinated nature of food preparation activities in a round/square corporate household or in a corporate neighborhood. The evidence suggests that food may have been consumed separately by each of the nuclear families of this household, which would be consistent with my model’s expectations for the independent nature of food consumption in corporate longhouse households. My model also expects that all domestic corporate groups maintain communal storage facilities, sometimes in addition to smaller private storage facilities. The evidence appears to fulfill my model’s conditions of a combination of communal and private storage for domestic corporate groups. 277 The following map displays the locations of different artifact types in House 14. Figure 6.30 Mantle Site House 14 artifact distribution, map modified by A. Conell, from ASI 2012:29 Mantle Site House 18 House 18 dates to the entire occupation of the Mantle Site. Table 6.24 House 18 Model Component and Archaeological Evidence Model Component minimum two nuclear families high internal cohesion longhouse configuration food preparation food consumption Archaeological Evidence area of 236 square meters; estimated population of 8 nuclear family units low variation in ceramic types (3 different types) no bunklines identified; house dimensions of 32.4 meters by 7.6 meters a single hearth (Feature 1137) and a nearby ash pit (Feature 1115) at the eastern end of the house large quantities of faunal remains distributed across the house, roughly divided into a tight western cluster with two small offshoots and a more nebulous arc around the southeastern edges of the house 278 Table 6.24 (cont’d) Model Component storage facilities Archaeological Evidence 14 storage pits (Features 930, 1069, 1071, 1084, 1090, 1092, 1095, 1096, 1102, 1104, 1105, 1111, 1112, and 1113), only three (Features 930, 1090, and 1092) of which were located in the western half of the house; possible clean-floored storage space at the western end of the longhouse My descriptive model proposes that corporate longhouse households were less internally cohesive than round/square corporate households. Accordingly, corporate longhouse households should contain facilities for food preparation and food consumption for each set of one or two nuclear family units. The evidence suggests that food may have been prepared by only one, two, or a few nuclear families for the entire household, which would be more consistent with my model’s expectations for the coordinated nature of food preparation activities in a round/square corporate household or in a corporate neighborhood. Faunal patterns suggest that food may have perhaps been consumed separately by the eastern and western halves of the longhouse but communally within them, which would be most consistent with my model’s expectations for food consumption practices in a round/square corporate household. My model also expects that all domestic corporate groups maintain communal storage facilities, sometimes in addition to smaller private storage facilities. The evidence for storage facility patterns seems to fulfill my model’s conditions of a combination of communal and private storage for domestic corporate groups. The following map displays the locations of different artifact types in House 18, as well as in House 20. 279 Figure 6.31 Mantle Site Houses 18 and 20 artifact distribution, map modified by A. Conell, from ASI 2012:38 Mantle Site House 20 House 20 dates to the entire occupation of the Mantle Site; however, the west end of this house was unexcavated due to the modern development onsite. Table 6.25 House 20 Model Component and Archaeological Evidence Model Component minimum two nuclear families medium internal cohesion longhouse configuration Archaeological Evidence estimated area of 400 square meters; estimated population of 13 nuclear family units medium variation in ceramic types (4 different types) no bunklines identified; house dimensions of 54 meters (estimated) by 7.9 meters 280 Table 6.25 (cont’d) Model Component food preparation food consumption storage facilities Archaeological Evidence a single hearth (Feature 1046) with “associated posts from a cooking structure or rack” (ASI 2012:40); 1 FCR concentration (at the eastern end of the longhouse) large quantities of faunal remains distributed across the western half of the house; 6 separate concentrations of faunal remains in the eastern half of the house 33 storage pits (Features 989, 991, 992, 993, 994, 996, 998, 999, 1000, 1001, 1002, 1004, 1006, 1008, 1009, 1011, 1012, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1019, 1028, 1038, 1041, 1042, 1098, 1395, 1397, 1400, 1404, and 1406), only 6 of which (Features 1098, 1395, 1397, 1400, 1404, and 1406) were located in the eastern half of the house; possible clean-floored storage space at the eastern end of the longhouse; no way to know whether or not there was another such clean-floored storage space at the western end of this longhouse during its occupation My descriptive model proposes that corporate longhouse households were less internally cohesive than round/square corporate households. Accordingly, corporate longhouse households should contain facilities for food preparation and food consumption for each set of one or two nuclear family units. The evidence suggests that food may have been prepared by only a few nuclear families for the entire household, which would be more consistent with my model’s expectations for the coordinated nature of food preparation activities in a round/square corporate household or in a corporate neighborhood. Faunal patterns suggest that food may have perhaps beien consumed separately by the eastern and western halves of the longhouse but communally in the western half and separately in the eastern half, which appears to combine my model’s expectations for food consumption practices in a round/square corporate household and in a corporate longhouse household. My model also expects that all domestic corporate groups maintain communal storage facilities, sometimes in addition to smaller private storage facilities. The evidence for storage 281 facility patterns seems to fulfill my model’s conditions of a combination of communal and private storage for domestic corporate groups. The map above for House 18 also displays the locations of different artifact types in House 20. Molson Site House 5 Table 6.26 House 5 Model Component and Archaeological Evidence Model Component minimum two nuclear families low internal cohesion longhouse configuration food preparation food consumption storage facilities Archaeological Evidence estimated area of 225 square meters; estimated population of 8 nuclear family units high variation in ceramic types (7 different types) bunklines along the eastern and western walls; house dimensions of 30.5 meters by 7.5 meters 6 or 7 central hearths (Features 18, 25, 64, 72, 99, 116, and possibly 55); many ash pit features related to cooking corn (Features 20, 41, 44, 48, 49, 50, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 83, 84, 88, 93A, 95, 100, 110, and 117) located close to the hearths 8 FCR concentrations (associated with the hearths, ash pits, and both bunklines) large quantities of faunal and floral remains distributed throughout the entirety of the house, associated with both bunklines, all of the hearths and cooking ash pits, and in the storage spaces at the ends of the longhouse about 30 square meters of clean-floored storage space at each end of the longhouse; many large storage pits throughout the house:  1 large storage pit (Feature 129) located in the southeastern corner of the house in one of the clean-floored storage spaces;  2 mid-sized storage pits (Features 91 and 107) located near the northern hearths;  several large storage pits located along both the eastern bunkline (Features 2, 4, 7, 11, 12, 14, 40, 58, 67, and 68) and the western bunkline (Features 34, 36, 87, 110, 123, 124, and 125) 282 My descriptive model proposes that corporate longhouse households were less internally cohesive than round/square corporate households. Accordingly, corporate longhouse households should contain facilities for food preparation and food consumption for each set of one or two nuclear family units. The evidence suggests that food may have been prepared separately by each of the nuclear families composing this household, which would be consistent with my model’s expectations for the independent nature of food preparation activities in corporate longhouse households. While the spread of the floral and faunal remains across the house may suggest that food may have also been consumed separately by each of the nuclear families of this household, the difficult nature of separating those remains into discrete separate clusters may instead suggest that food consumption in House 5 may have had a communal element at least some of the time. My model also expects that all domestic corporate groups maintain communal storage facilities, sometimes in addition to smaller private storage facilities. While the private storage pits are the largest of the four Molson Site houses I analyze here, House 5 also has the greatest amount of communal storage (about 60 square meters of communal storage space) of these houses; thus, their storage practices appear to be consistent with my model’s expectations for a domestic corporate group’s storage facilities. The following map displays the locations of different artifact types in House 5. 283 Figure 6.32 Molson Site House 5 artifact distribution, map modified by A. Conell, from Lennox 2000:24 Molson Site House 6 Table 6.27 House 6 Model Component and Archaeological Evidence Model Component minimum two nuclear families medium internal cohesion longhouse configuration food preparation food consumption storage facilities Archaeological Evidence estimated area of 213 square meters; estimated population of 7 nuclear family units medium variation in ceramic types (4 different types) bunklines along the eastern and western walls; house dimensions of 25 meters by 8.5 meters 6 smaller central hearths (Features 1, 10, 23, 28, 29, and 40); 1 FCR concentrations (along the western bunkline) upwards of 7 separate concentrations of faunal and floral remains throughout the house (outside of the faunal and floral remains associated with the hearths) clean-floored storage space at each end of the longhouse; several smaller storage pits (Features 3, 5, 9, 26, 27, and 41), all along the eastern bunkline, except for Feature 41, which was along the western bunkline 284 My descriptive model proposes that corporate longhouse households were less internally cohesive than round/square corporate households. Accordingly, corporate longhouse households should contain facilities for food preparation and food consumption for each set of one or two nuclear family units. The evidence suggests that food may have been prepared separately by each of the nuclear families composing this household, which would be consistent with my model’s expectations for the independent nature of food preparation activities in corporate longhouse households. The evidence suggests that food may have also been consumed separately by each of the nuclear families of this household, which would again be consistent with my model’s expectations for the independent nature of food consumption in corporate longhouse households. My model also expects that all domestic corporate groups maintain communal storage facilities, sometimes in addition to smaller private storage facilities. The evidence appears to be consistent with my model’s expectations for a domestic corporate group’s storage facilities. The following map displays the locations of different artifact types in House 6. 285 Figure 6.33 Molson Site House 6 artifact distribution, map modified by A. Conell, from Lennox 2000:30 Molson Site House 7 Table 6.28 House 7 Model Component and Archaeological Evidence Model Component minimum two nuclear families high internal cohesion longhouse configuration food preparation Archaeological Evidence estimated area of 126 square meters; estimated population of 4 nuclear family units low variation in ceramic types (3 different types) bunklines along the eastern and western walls; house dimensions of 15 meters by 7.3 meters 3 central hearths (Features 8, 26, and 37); 2 FCR concentrations (both near the center of the house, between the hearths of Feature 8 and Feature 26) 286 Table 6.28 (cont’d) Model Component food consumption storage facilities Archaeological Evidence upwards of 7 separate concentrations of faunal and floral remains throughout the house (outside of the faunal and floral remains associated with the hearths) about 14.6 square meters of clean-floored storage space at each end of the longhouse; 2 smaller storage pits (Features 7 and 22) along the western bunkline My descriptive model proposes that corporate longhouse households were less internally cohesive than round/square corporate households. Accordingly, corporate longhouse households should contain facilities for food preparation and food consumption for each set of one or two nuclear family units. The evidence suggests that food may have been prepared separately by each of the nuclear families composing this household, which would be consistent with my model’s expectations for the independent nature of food preparation activities in corporate longhouse households. The evidence suggests that food may have also been consumed separately by each of the nuclear families of this household, which would again be consistent with my model’s expectations for the independent nature of food consumption in corporate longhouse households. My model also expects that all domestic corporate groups maintain communal storage facilities, sometimes in addition to smaller private storage facilities. The evidence appears to be consistent with my model’s expectations for a domestic corporate group’s storage facilities. The following map displays the locations of different artifact types in House 7. 287 Figure 6.34 Molson Site House 7 artifact distribution, map modified by A. Conell, from Lennox 2000:33 Molson Site House 9 Table 6.29 House 9 Model Component and Archaeological Evidence Model Component minimum two nuclear families low internal cohesion longhouse configuration food preparation Archaeological Evidence estimated area of 105 square meters; estimated population of 4 nuclear family units very high variation in ceramic types (9 different types) bunklines along the eastern and western walls; house dimensions of 15 meters by 7 meters 3 or 4 central hearths (Features 5, 7, 11, and possibly 9); 2 FCR concentrations (one at the north end of the eastern bunkline, one at the north end of the western bunkline) 288 Table 6.29 (cont’d) Model Component food consumption storage facilities Archaeological Evidence 5 separate concentrations of faunal and floral remains throughout the house (outside of the faunal and floral remains associated with the hearths) about 17.5 square meters of clean-floored storage space at each end of the longhouse; several smaller storage pits spread along the bunklines on both sides of the house My descriptive model proposes that corporate longhouse households were less internally cohesive than round/square corporate households. Accordingly, corporate longhouse households should contain facilities for food preparation and food consumption for each set of one or two nuclear family units. The evidence suggests that food may have been prepared separately by each of the nuclear families composing this household, which would be consistent with my model’s expectations for the independent nature of food preparation activities in corporate longhouse households. The evidence suggests that food may have also been consumed separately by each of the nuclear families of this household, which would again be consistent with my model’s expectations for the independent nature of food consumption in corporate longhouse households. My model also expects that all domestic corporate groups maintain communal storage facilities, sometimes in addition to smaller private storage facilities. The evidence appears to be consistent with my model’s expectations for a domestic corporate group’s storage facilities. The following map displays the locations of different artifact types in House 9. 289 Figure 6.35 Molson Site House 9 artifact distribution, map modified by A. Conell, from Lennox 2000:39 Conclusion These preliminary tests of goodness of fit using the Wendat Alexandra Site, Mantle Site, and Molson Site have illuminated several aspects of my descriptive model of variation and change in domestic corporate groups. These preliminary tests support my model and suggest the potential for successfully applying it to other archaeological sites from other times and in other cultures. In this section, I will first address variation in the operation of contemporary domestic corporate groups, and then I will address change over time in the nature of domestic corporate groups. 290 First, I potentially observed variation in corporate group operation between contemporary corporate households at the Molson Site and the Mantle Site, and even between contemporary corporate households within the Mantle Site. At the Mantle Site, all of the households appeared to be physically identifiable as longhouse households based on their dimensions or the configuration of their bunklines, and frequently a combination of both of these variables. However, there seemed to be more variation between the operation of these eight corporate households than among those at the Molson Site. Corporate households at the Mantle Site appeared to have combined aspects of my model’s expectations for round/square corporate households and corporate longhouse households in a variety of different ways. The following table summarizes the characteristics of the eight Mantle Site houses, including my interpretation of the best fit for those characteristics within my model. Table 6.30 Characteristics of the Eight Mantle Site Houses—Summary Occupation Phase House # Number of Nuclear Families Ceramic Variety Food Food Preparation Consumption early 13 4 low early 3 7 medium individual individual nuclear families individual (or pairs of) nuclear families individual (or pairs of) nuclear families nuclear families early 45 early 80 entire 12 8 9 6 low cooperative communal low none medium individual nuclear families individual nuclear families individual nuclear families Interpretation Based on Model corporate longhouse household corporate longhouse household round/square corporate household corporate neighborhood corporate longhouse household 291 Table 6.30 (cont’d) Occupation Phase House # Number of Nuclear Families Ceramic Variety Food Food Preparation Consumption entire 14 7 low cooperative entire 18 8 low cooperative entire 20 13 medium cooperative individual nuclear families separated into east and west halves, communal within each half separated into east and west halves, communal in the east half, individual nuclear families in the west half Interpretation Based on Model corporate neighborhood round/square corporate household round/square corporate household - corporate longhouse household hybrid These results suggest a possible range of variation between the corporate households at the Mantle Site, from high internal cohesion (Houses 45 and 18) to fairly low internal cohesion (Houses 80 and 14). In contrast, the corporate households at the Molson Site appear more similar to one another. The houses at the Molson Site seem to fit my descriptive model’s expectations for corporate longhouse households. These houses predominantly suggested evidence of nuclear family independence in both food preparation and food consumption practices, regardless of how many or few different ceramic types they contained. However, House 5 at the Molson Site appeared to vary somewhat from the others; for the approximately eight nuclear families of House 5, ceramic variation suggested low intra-group cohesion and evidence for food preparation supported the likely independence of these nuclear families, but 292 there was also evidence that food consumption may have possibly been more communal in nature. Several differences between the Mantle and Molson Sites correlated with the potential variation in their corporate households, including the differential occurrence of trade goods and ceramic style variation and the differences in house sizes and percentages of houses with less than two nuclear families. The greater ceramic variety in the Molson Site’s houses can possibly be interpreted as an indication that those houses may have been overall less internally cohesive than those of the Mantle Site, which seems to be supported by my intra-household analysis. Further, the possible variety of internal operation between corporate households within the Mantle Site appears to contrast with the potentially more consistently corporate longhouse households at the Molson Site. My descriptive model suggests that the independence of nuclear family units in domestic corporate groups may increase as their access to resources, such as trade routes, partners, and goods, increases; it may therefore be possible that the conditions of regional interaction for the Protohistoric Wendat in southern Ontario could be linked to archaeologically visible variation in the operation of their corporate households. However, the results of my analysis suggest that the domestic corporate groups at these sites were still likely more internally cohesive than my model expects for corporate neighborhoods. Second, I observed change over time in the nature of domestic corporate groups between the possible corporate neighborhoods of the Alexandra Site preceding regional processes of coalescence and the possible corporate households of the Molson Site and the Mantle Site following coalescence. My model predicts that change in domestic corporate groups may predominantly be fueled by external pressures, such as village coalescences, disintegrations, or recombinations, among others. While my ethnographic data emphasized factors that led to 293 decreasing internal cohesion of domestic corporate groups, this archaeological case study potentially illuminates an example of an opposite process of change. In this case study, fifteenth century processes of coalescence seem associated with an increase in the internal cohesion of Wendat domestic corporate groups and a decrease in the independence of the nuclear families of which they are composed. This case study appears to fit my descriptive model’s expectations for processes of change in domestic corporate groups over time. In conclusion, there was essentially no evidence at the Alexandra Site, the Molson Site, or the Mantle Site that any of these villages were organized as corporate communities as defined in my model. Archaeological evidence from the Alexandra Site has suggested that prior to the period of coalescence in the fifteenth century, members of this Wendat village may have organized themselves into corporate neighborhoods. However, Wendat domestic corporate groups following coalescence, like those found at the Molson Site and the Mantle Site, may have organized themselves into more internally cohesive corporate households. Yet even these corporate households appear to have varied in their daily operation both between the contemporary sites and even within the Mantle Site. These findings support the value of my descriptive model in understanding domestic corporate groups, particularly from an archaeological perspective, and the importance of continuing to refine it through future research. 294 CHAPTER 7: Conclusions and Future Research Introduction To conclude this dissertation, in this chapter, I synthesize the results of my research, making interpretations and drawing conclusions about what this research has illuminated regarding variation in the nature and operation of domestic corporate groups and how those groups can change over time. I discuss the significance of this research and its methodological, theoretical, and topical contributions to the field of anthropology. I also consider strengths and challenges of the process of the creation and evaluation of my descriptive model of organizational levels of domestic corporate groups and change in them over time, particularly emphasizing the integration of the ethnographic and archaeological data. I then suggest potential avenues for future research that may continue to develop our understanding of the internal dynamics of domestic corporate groups and their associated material correlates, as well as address some of the challenges encountered in this research. Interpretations and Discussion The goal of this research was to achieve a deeper understanding of the spectrum of variability in domestic corporate groups formed within indigenous North American communities and to begin to assess how that variability may be visible in the archaeological record. Particularly in the existing archaeological literature, groups are identified as either corporate groups or not corporate. This distinction provides an important starting point, and it may indeed be the most that is achievable for some cases, depending on the particular circumstances surrounding a site’s occupational history or excavation constraints. However, my research is 295 premised on the idea that there is much more to corporateness than simply presence or absence. Corporateness may be conceived and practiced in different ways by different groups, based on the particular needs, goals, and circumstances of each corporate group and the community and culture in which it is found. My research takes a step toward better understandings of how and why corporateness changes over time as well as why some groups choose to operate corporately and others do not. Understanding the scope of variability and developing a more nuanced archaeological approach to that variation in domestic corporate groups will afford us more complete interpretations of the people we study. The ability to use archaeological data to achieve more thorough understandings of the variation in past people’s corporate practices can also help us access other aspects of their cultures that may be more difficult to address using archaeological evidence, such as labor practices or community integration. To examine the spectrum of variability in domestic corporate groups, I developed the following research questions: 1) What variation exists cross-culturally in the nature and operation of domestic corporate groups? 2) Over time, what changes have been observed ethnographically in domestic corporate groups? 3) How can a more explicit examination of variation in domestic corporate groups inform the investigation of such groups archaeologically? 4) How might changes in domestic corporate groups over time be evident in the archaeological record? 296 Research Question #1: What variation exists cross-culturally in the nature and operation of domestic corporate groups? To answer the first research question, I began by surveying theoretical literature and global examples of corporate groups; the goal of this step was to determine the relevant cultural characteristics that should be examined to understand the variation in the nature and operation of domestic corporate groups. For my global survey, I considered corporate groups of the cultures of North America’s Northwest Coast, the Kalapalo of Brazil, the Northern Tagalog and Ifugao cultures of the Philippines, the Iban and Kelabit Dayak of Borneo, the Ta Oi of Vietnam, Nakagiri in Japan, and the Nayar of India. For each culture, I determined the presence or absence of different traits that the theoretical literature suggested might be present in corporate groups. From that survey, I identified thirteen relevant variables for analysis, with multiple components, in which variation might occur in domestic corporate groups. These thirteen variables included: community, village, descent and residence, house/residential dwelling, household, access to resources, trade, property, storage, labor, subsistence production, non- subsistence production, and consumption. For each variable, then, I collected ethnographic data from historic ethnographies in five different North American culture areas: members of the multi-tribal affiliation of the Haudenosaunee in the Eastern Woodland Area; several tribal groupings within the North Pacific Coast Area; the exemplar cultures of the Pawnee and the Mandan in the Plains Area; the exemplar culture of the Navajo in the Southwestern Area; and the village residential unit of Tzintzuntzan in the Nahua Area. In comparing the cross-cultural ethnographic data for each variable, it became clear that some cultural characteristics were present in every domestic corporate group. Property, such as agricultural fields or resource-gathering territories, was collectively owned, accessed, and 297 inherited within the corporate group; access by outsiders was restricted, although sometimes it could be gained through a payment, depending on the culture and the resource. Domestic corporate groups involved cooperative labor, often related to subsistence production. Finally, domestic corporate groups maintained communal storage facilities of some kind; sometimes, individual nuclear families also maintained smaller private storage facilities. In contrast, other cultural characteristics differed greatly between villages in the different culture areas examined in this research. There was variation in the power held by the head of the domestic corporate group, or the leader who organized the group’s cooperative labor; these leaders ranged from having significant control to only minimal control over the activities of their group members. Household sizes varied between single nuclear families and multiple nuclear families. Houses and residential structures varied in their layout; nuclear family houses had single or multiple rooms. On the other hand, a multi-family house was either a longhouse or a round or square house with a central activity area. Villages also varied in the presence or absence of nondomestic community buildings, as well as in their overall organization; some villages organized houses into neighborhoods, while others did not. Trade also held differing significance in different cases; it was most essential to the corporate nature of Tzintzuntzan. Finally, I found substantial differences that I had not originally anticipated between food preparation and consumption practices in different domestic corporate groups. At Tzintzuntzan, these activities occurred entirely in nuclear family households. Among the multi-family households of the Haudenosaunee, Pawnee and Mandan, and cultures of the Northwest Coast, there were two predominant practices. In some cases, the nuclear families of the household divided food preparation and used food stores belonging to the entire household; prepared food was subsequently consumed by members of the nuclear family who had prepared it. In other 298 cases, food prepared by a subset of the corporate household members was consumed collectively by the entire household. Among the Navajo, however, food was usually prepared in a single household, distributed among all of the households, and then consumed separately in the individual households of the neighborhood. Addressing this first research question provided the foundation for answering the remaining three research questions. Research Question #2: Over time, what changes have been observed ethnographically in domestic corporate groups? I answered the second research question in tandem with the first research question. My ethnographic data was dominated by ethnographies completed in the early twentieth century by Franz Boas and his students. There were many reasons that these ethnographies were particularly well-suited for the cross-cultural comparisons upon which I built my descriptive model of variation in domestic corporate groups. However, because the ethnographies were written in a normative fashion not intended to portray the variation within cultures, each ethnography presented a relatively static description of a culture at a particular time. Some of the ethnographers presented data from the time period during which they conducted the ethnographic research, while other ethnographers presented data from a past time contained in the memories of their participants. I was still able to address this limitation and examine change over time by supplementing the Boasian ethnographies with additional ethnographies conducted by other anthropologists at different times. Through this combination of ethnographic data, I found examples of change over time in different aspects of each culture. I also found a few more substantial examples of domestic 299 corporate groups shifting from large extended family households (with communally owned and worked agricultural fields) to smaller nuclear family households (with individually owned fields). This occurred over four centuries at Tzintzuntzan; however, I only had evidence for the beginning and ending stages of this process. Better evidence for the process was available for the Haudenosaunee in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Household size and composition changed first; matrilineages headed by women shifted to clusters of nuclear families of a matrilineage and then to nuclear families headed by men. The nature of Haudenosaunee property ownership and inheritance changed next; communal land ownership by matrilineages shifted to individual land owned by nuclear families and inherited patrilineally. While these changes impacted the operation of their groups, a final change in labor practices, which shifted agricultural labor to wage and household labor, changed the nature of Haudenosaunee domestic corporate groups. Similar processes of change, spurred by reservation conditions in the twentieth century, occurred among the Pawnee and Mandan. The more fragmentary evidence for change that I found in the other cultures was also consistent with these examples. My ethnographic data showed domestic corporate groups becoming less internally cohesive over time as a result of external pressures that afforded their nuclear families increasing independence, such as increasing opportunities to acquire resources like land or money, increasing connections between group members and outsiders, or significant population growth. Different external pressures, such as village coalescences or increasing social stratification, could instead work to increase the dependence of nuclear families on one another and the internal cohesion of their domestic corporate groups, but this is a focus for future research. 300 Research Question #3: How can a more explicit examination of variation in domestic corporate groups inform the investigation of such groups archaeologically? To answer the third research question, following the cross-cultural ethnographic survey I conducted for the first research question, I created a descriptive model to condense and characterize the variation in domestic corporate groups. In identifying associations between varying cultural characteristics associated with corporateness, I based the types of domestic corporate groups on intra-group cohesion (and the amount of control of the domestic corporate group leader) and organizational differences. Figure 7.1 Descriptive Model of Domestic Corporate Groups Domestic Corporate Groups Corporate Households Corporate Neighborhoods Corporate Communities Round/Square Houses Greatest Intra- Group Cohesion Longhouses Least Intra- Group Cohesion The nuclear families in corporate households live communally and maintain the greatest intra-group cohesion. However, my ethnographic survey also suggested differences between round/square corporate households and corporate longhouses. In corporate neighborhoods, nuclear families live separately in sets of nuclear households either connected to one another or clustered together; the nuclear units operate independently for some aspects of daily life and 301 organized under the leader of the corporate group for other activities. In corporate communities, nuclear family units live and work separately from one another and maintain the greatest independence; my ethnographic survey suggested that the most prominent characteristic of their corporateness is the communal access to property and resources. I used the existing archaeological literature on corporate groups to develop the archaeological correlates for each of the types illustrated in my descriptive model of variation in domestic corporate groups. My goal was to test the appropriateness and sufficiency of these archaeological correlates for distinguishing the different types in my model using archaeological evidence. To do this, I chose Wendat sites because the earliest written descriptions of the Wendat date to the early seventeenth century, and yet, it is widely accepted by scholars of Iroquoian cultures of the Northeast that Wendat longhouses were corporate households beginning in the thirteenth century. I chose two Protohistoric Wendat archaeological sites in Ontario, the Molson Site (BcGw-27; A.D. 1580-1600) and the Mantle Site (AlGt-334; A.D. 1596-1618), to examine variation in contemporary domestic corporate groups. In Chapter Six, I conducted preliminary tests for the presence of nondomestic community buildings and household clusters at these two archaeological sites. Based on the goodness of fit between the archaeological correlates identified and my descriptive model, I would suggest that the sixteenth century Wendat were not living in corporate neighborhoods or communities. Then, using twelve total houses from the sites, I explored each house’s layout, internal storage, food preparation, and food consumption areas. Statistically significant differences were evident between the two archaeological sites for variables like longhouse lengths, roofed space per longhouse, individuals and nuclear families 302 per house, and variety of ceramic types per house. By focusing on food preparation and consumption activities in the houses at the two sites, I was able to begin to identify more subtle differences in the operation of the corporate longhouses at the Mantle Site and Molson Site. The archaeological evidence I examined for the Molson Site seemed to fit my descriptive model’s expectations for corporate longhouses well. These corporate longhouses were consistent with each another in having several activity areas for food production and consumption, allowing nuclear families to conduct these activities separately. In contrast, there was much greater variation between corporate longhouses at the Mantle Site; the archaeological evidence I examined seemed to reveal houses with higher, lower, and comparable levels of internal cohesion to those of the Molson Site’s corporate longhouses. This preliminary examination thus far appears to support the appropriateness of my descriptive model for identifying variation in domestic corporate groups archaeologically. It has also suggested the potential for successfully applying the model to other archaeological sites from other times and in other cultures. Further, houses at the Mantle Site appear to have exhibited more variation in the operation of their domestic corporate groups than was described in my model; this variation suggests the possibility of further refining the operational characteristics of each of the types of corporate groups in my model with additional data in the future. Research Question #4: How might changes in domestic corporate groups over time be evident in the archaeological record? I answered the fourth research question in tandem with the third research question. To answer the fourth research question, I used the outcomes from the cross-cultural ethnographic 303 analysis I conducted for the first and second research questions to propose a secondary descriptive model of how domestic corporate groups might change over time. Figure 7.2 Descriptive Model of Change over Time in Domestic Corporate Groups Corporate Household Corporate Neighborhood Corporate Community Noncorporate Group • Multi-family households shift to nuclear family households • Cooperative labor • Communal property responsibilities/benefits shift to individuals/nuclear families ownership/access shifts to individuals/nuclear families Nuclear families dependent on one another Nuclear families independent of one another For this portion of the descriptive model, I focused on only shifts between corporate households and corporate neighborhoods when considering how well the archaeological data fit the model. To this end, I built upon the archaeological analysis I conducted to answer the third research question by adding a third, much earlier, Wendat archaeological site, the Alexandra Site (AkGt-53; A.D. 1390-1420). I chose this site as a point of comparison to the two sixteenth- century Protohistoric sites in part because it was occupied over a century and a half earlier, which provides quite a bit of time for cultural change to occur. Further, however, I expected to see cultural change over this period since the Alexandra Site was occupied prior to regional processes of village coalescences that occurred during the fifteenth century, and the Molson Site and Mantle Site were both occupied after this period of significant regional reorganization. I explored the same variables for the Alexandra Site as for the other two sites, including storage facilities, nondomestic community buildings, household clusters, and areas of food 304 preparation and consumption. At the Alexandra Site, the archaeological data was consistent with my expectations for corporate neighborhoods, including the physical closeness of the dwellings, shared common features, communal spaces between the dwellings, similar orientations, and entrances facing and/or close to one another. I discovered what appear to be greater differences in the archaeological evidence for corporateness between the pre-coalescent village and the post-coalescent villages than between the two sites that followed coalescence. It appears that prior to coalescence, Wendat domestic corporate groups may have been organized into corporate neighborhoods of longhouses; however, it appears that after coalescence, they may have preferred to organize themselves into corporate longhouses that varied in their daily operations. This comparison through time appears to fit my descriptive model’s expectations for the processes of change in domestic corporate groups, such as village coalescences, that would lead to increasing internal cohesion of domestic corporate groups and decreasing independence of the nuclear families of which they are composed. Significance As discussed in Chapter One, this research makes several important contributions to the field of anthropology, including methodological, theoretical, topical, and practical contributions. My most important contribution is methodological in nature. My approach to the creation and evaluation of the descriptive model was a methodologically novel way to unite the historical ethnographic data with the archaeological data. I was able to address new research questions and gain new insights into the variability of domestic corporate groups and their archaeological signatures because of the way I framed my archaeological data through the lens of the historic 305 ethnographies. By reading these historical ethnographies with an eye towards making connections between their insights on kinship, households, and economies, I was able to tease out subtle relationships between their contents related to corporateness in order to illuminate archaeological patterns. My model, and its systematic development, thereby contributes to our theoretical understanding of domestic corporate groups. No other studies have systematically attempted to model the variation within domestic corporate groups or how they might change over time. My research contributes to our understanding of past aspects of indigenous cultures in North America. The ethnographies from which I collected data were predominantly previously published and relatively accessible. However, my research combined their information and compared their characteristics in ways not previously attempted, thereby achieving new insights into these cultures over the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. My research supports current interpretations of the precontact Wendat using a different vantage point than any of the lenses being used in ongoing research (Birch 2015; Birch and Hart 2018; Dermarkar 2019; Pfeiffer et al. 2020; Striker 2018). This research has also contributed new insights to our understanding of Wendat social organization from the late fourteenth century through the early seventeenth century, shortly before contact with Europeans, which was followed by a series of epidemics and then the forced dispersal of the Wendat from Ontario that began in 1650. My research’s use of both existing ethnographic and archaeological data in new and innovative ways adds new facets to their existing contributions to knowledge in the field. 306 Strengths and Challenges A strength of this research is found in the nature of the historic ethnographies from which I was able to collect data with which to build my descriptive model. As discussed in Chapter Three, several aspects of Boasian ethnographies afforded me particular advantages in answering my research questions and developing my model, including their breadth of coverage, their comparability, the nature of their data, and the presentation of their observations. The fear in the early twentieth century that indigenous cultures were disappearing from North America resulted in ethnographies intended to describe all aspects of cultures in their cultural contexts and in great detail; their work spanned many different cultures across the continent. Much of the ethnographic data used in my research was originally recorded for the sole purpose of thoroughly recording every aspect of culture; my specific data may therefore have been more objectively reported than other data within these ethnographies that was collected with a particular (now outdated) theory or idea in mind. Coupled with these advantages is the high comparability of the ethnographies of the students of Boas. The consistency in these anthropologists’ concepts of culture, research emphases, and historical approaches provides a level of comparability in my cross-cultural data that allowed for the robust cross-cultural comparisons upon which I was able to build my model in Chapter Four. Another contributing factor to the strength of this research that I would like to acknowledge is that several conditions of the Alexandra Site, the Mantle Site, and the Molson Site made them particularly well suited to use for the preliminary assessment of my descriptive model. All three archaeological sites were thoroughly excavated and recorded. All three sites were only minimally disturbed by activities that occurred after these villages were occupied by the Wendat before European contact. Further, house structures at each site were well-defined by 307 their post mold patterns, and there were sufficient examples at each site that did not overlap with other houses or other archaeological features like middens. Important features related to the evaluation of the model, including storage areas and pits, bunklines, and hearths, were also both visible and identifiable. If the archaeological sites had been lacking any of these characteristics, I would not have been able to as effectively apply the archaeological data to my model. Finally, as I mentioned earlier, the greatest strength of this research was its innovative combination of existing ethnographic and archaeological data. Systematically answering new questions about variation and change in domestic corporate groups with older data sets gives new meaning to the data and greater significance to the research completed by the original ethnographers and archaeologists. Viewing the archaeological data through the lens of the historical ethnographies provided a unique way to combine the anthropological subfields to answer my research question. Using existing ethnographic and archaeological data allowed me to synthesize larger data sets to create the descriptive model, thereby increasing the model’s cross-cultural applicability. The strengths of the specific ethnographic and archaeological data just discussed also contributed to the success of this strategy. I also encountered a challenge in using the historic ethnographies to develop my descriptive model. Obviously, the original ethnographic research was not conducted with the goal of addressing my research questions. Therefore, some data that might have been particularly important for my analysis of domestic corporate groups may not have been recorded by the original ethnographers. As discussed in Chapter Three, the greatest limitation of the ethnographies was the normative nature of their cultural descriptions. I was able to address this limitation by supplementing my core Boasian ethnographies with additional ethnographies dating to different time periods, in order to access variation through space and time. However, my 308 application of the model revealed that even within a single village, variation in domestic corporate groups may occur in a way that I did not expect based on my ethnographic data but which could be illuminated with targeted ethnographic research on contemporary cultures. Another challenge that arose in the course of my descriptive modeling process was the difficulty of distinguishing corporate communities archaeologically from other communities. Of different types of domestic corporate groups, corporate communities maintain the least internal cohesion, primarily retaining communal property ownership and access to resources as the defining aspect of their corporateness. However, it is difficult to use exclusively archaeological data to establish this type of communal property ownership and access to agricultural fields, trade routes, or fishing, gathering, and hunting territories. Therefore, the archaeological correlates I modeled for corporate communities distinguished them from corporate households and corporate neighborhoods; however, these archaeological correlates are less useful for distinguishing corporate communities from noncorporate communities. Future Research My research in this dissertation has only begun to systematically explore the variation in domestic corporate groups. There are several avenues for future research that would complement the work I have done in this dissertation and build upon it. For example, further ethnographic research on corporate communities could provide an important means to address the challenge I identified above; this research should be designed specifically to assess how corporate communities can be distinguished from noncorporate communities, specifically using archaeological evidence. Similarly, ethnographic research on noncorporate households or 309 noncorporate neighborhoods could clarify some of the distinctions, particularly archaeologically, between the corporate and noncorporate versions of these types of groups. Additional ethnographic research would be beneficial for exploring the components of my descriptive model more deeply and building upon its foundation. Expanding the ethnographic data collection to include global cases could provide an important supplement to the ethnographic data from the five culture areas examined in this dissertation, since they exclusively cover cultures in North America. Additional ethnographic research has the potential to support the model as it exists. It also has the potential to illuminate additional variation between or within the types I identified, as well as additional characteristics, and potentially their material correlates, for the different types of domestic corporate groups. For example, ethnographic research on other cultures containing corporate neighborhoods or communities could supplement my ethnographic data from the Navajo and the Tzintzuntzeños and further develop these aspects of my model. Additional ethnographic research could take the form of data collection from historical ethnographies using similar methods to those I employed in this dissertation. Using historical ethnographies would provide opportunities to record practices of domestic groups that no longer occur and thereby further explore change in domestic corporate groups over time. On the other hand, there would also be benefits to conducting new ethnographic research on modern domestic corporate groups. This strategy allows the researcher to develop an ethnographic project with methodology specifically designed to answer research questions about variation and change in domestic corporate groups; for example, observations and interviews could be targeted specifically at certain behaviors related to the descriptive model, and material correlates of these 310 behaviors could be photographed or mapped. While Hayden (2011) provides one example of such research, there is significant potential for future work of this type. Finally, it is important to continue assessing the goodness of fit between my descriptive model and additional archaeological data, both more thoroughly and using a greater variety of sites. The goal of the archaeological case study in this dissertation, a comparison of the Alexandra Site to the Mantle Site and the Molson Site, was intended to be a preliminary assessment rather than a comprehensive test of every facet of the model. Therefore, future research could investigate additional aspects of the model and the archaeological data from these three sites, as well as other Wendat sites in the region from other time periods. Some Wendat sites that fit the selection criteria identified in the previous section include: the Uren Site (AfHd- 3) (ca. A.D. 1250-1300); the Barrie Site (BcGw-18) (ca. A.D. 1280-1330); the Hubbert Site (BbGw-9) (mid-late A.D. 1400s); and the Fonger Site (AhHb-8) (ca. A.D. 1590-1630). Of course, applying archaeological data from sites in other cultures in a variety of times and places to the model would also be an important way to further our understanding of variation and change, and their material correlates, in domestic corporate groups. Summary of Contributions In conclusion, in this dissertation, I have addressed the overarching topic of expressions of corporateness in domestic contexts. Too often in existing research, corporate groups have been treated in terms of presence or absence, without acknowledging that not all corporate groups will be organized or operate identically in space or over time. The individuals and nuclear families who compose each corporate group have a role, both consciously and unconsciously, in shaping that group. So, I set out to identify the patterns created by these 311 actions through the following research questions: (1) What variation exists cross-culturally in the nature and operation of domestic corporate groups? (2) Over time, what changes have been observed ethnographically in domestic corporate groups? (3) How can a more explicit examination of variation in domestic corporate groups inform the investigation of such groups archaeologically? (4) How might changes in domestic corporate groups over time be evident in the archaeological record? To examine variation and change in domestic corporate groups, I have combined data from existing ethnographic and archaeological sources in innovative ways. In doing so, the ethnographic data filled gaps in the archaeological data, such as how corporate group membership may be determined and how property ownership may be assigned. More importantly for my research the ethnographic data provided insight into behaviors and decisions regarding food preparation and consumption. Likewise, the archaeological data simultaneously filled gaps in the ethnographic data, particularly around the spatial components of storage and food preparation and consumption. I used the rich resources contained in historic North American ethnographies to develop a descriptive model of distinct types of domestic corporate groups, including corporate households, corporate neighborhoods, and corporate communities; my model also addressed how groups might shift between those types over time. Ultimately, the essential difference between the types was the level of intra-group cohesion. I then identified suitable archaeological correlates for each type and conducted a preliminary test of the appropriateness of those correlates using three previously excavated Wendat archaeological sites: the Late Middleport Alexandra Site (AkGt-53; Toronto, Ontario; A.D. 1390-1420), the Late Protohistoric Molson Site (BcGw-27; Barrie, Ontario; A.D. 1580-1600), and the Late Protohistoric to Early Historic Mantle Site (AlGt-334; Whitchurch-Stouffville, Ontario; A.D. 312 1596-1618). The archaeological test supported the validity of my model and suggested that it has room for further refinement within each of the types that may be achieved through future research. Through my research, I have contributed to our understanding of how different types of domestic corporate groups practiced different daily activities, from both an ethnographic perspective and an archaeological perspective. My combination of ethnographic and archaeological data to construct my descriptive model has introduced the idea of variability in the dynamic properties of different types of domestic corporate groups. It has also established the potential for ambiguity in our understanding of the archaeological evidence for domestic corporate groups. While corporate group variability has previously been un-developed in archaeology, my research emphasizes that we do need to consider potentially subtle variability when we study contexts in which corporate groups existed. My descriptive model is important because it acknowledges that this variability exists, that it can be used to distinguish different types of domestic corporate groups, and that it can be identified in the archaeological record. Demonstrating domestic corporate group variability is the first step toward explaining its causes and its impacts. While my research was largely exploratory in nature, it has demonstrated that we need to begin considering aspects of variation and change in our investigations of domestic corporate groups. It is my hope that my research will form a foundation for future studies of the nature and operation of domestic corporate groups both in the past and in the present, through a combination of multiple lines of archaeological and ethnographic evidence. I hope that my research will enhance the way archaeologists conceive of the domestic corporate groups that may have lived at the sites we excavate and how we interpret the evidence they have left behind. 313 APPENDICES 314 APPENDIX A: Eastern Woodland Area [Haudenosaunee] 315 Data - (1) Haudenosaunee [Eastern Woodland Area] Community “Central to the Iroquois stratification system was kinship terminology that classificatorily established inequality, relative age, generation and sex. These three principles were emphasized in making distinction within the Iroquois classificatory system” (Foley [1600s-1870] 1975:18, par. 1) “As family groups, as hunting parties whose camps eventually became small, year-round hamlets, and as individuals who married members of other nations, Iroquois from each of the original Five Nations mingled with the various allies and ‘Props of the Longhouse’ in a vast resettling of Indian populations that followed the end of the Beaver Wars in the Northeast and accelerated in the late 1720s and 1730s” (Richter 1992:256, par. 1) [Six Nations of the Grand River, Ontario] “The Confederacy councils of the 1840s and 1850s were preoccupied with the corporate interests of the band: road construction and maintenance, ownership and use of natural resources, land surrenders, census taking, band membership, and the semiannual disbursements of interest money to the band members” (Weaver 1978:528, par. 3) “The several nations of the Iroquois, united, constituted one Family, dwelling together I in one Long House; and these ties of family relationships were carried throughout their civil and social system, from individuals to tribes, from tribes to nations, and from the nations to the League itself, and bound them together in one common, indissoluble brotherhood” (Morgan [1851] 1954:56, par. 2) “For all purposes of a local and domestic, and many of a political character, the nations were entirely independent of each other. The nine Mohawk sachems administered the affairs of that nation with joint authority ... With similar powers, the ten Cayuga sachems regulated the domestic affairs of their nation” (Morgan [1851] 1954:65, par. 1) “The congress of sachems took the charge of all those matters which pertained to the public welfare. With them resided the executive, legislative and judicial authority, so far as they were not possessed by the people; although their powers in many things appear to have been rather advisory than executive. The chiefs, from counsellors and intermediaries between the sachems and the people, increased in influence, until they became rulers with the sachems themselves, thus widening and liberalizing the oligarchy. In all matters of war, the power appears to have resided chiefly with the people, and its prosecution to have been left to private adventure. If several bands united, they had as many generals as bands, who governed their proceedings by a council, in which, as in civil affairs, unanimity was a fundamental law. The two high military chieftains had rather the planning and general management of the campaign, than the actual conduct of the forces. Running through their whole system of administration, 316 was a public sentiment, which gave its own tendency to affairs, and illustrated to a remarkable degree, that the government rested upon the popular will, and not upon the arbitrary sway of chiefs” (Morgan [1851] 1954:70, par. 3) “Many years after the formation of the league a new office was created, the office or title of chief. It was of lower rank than that of sachem, and was not hereditary. It was in the strict sense elective, and the reward of merit, and ceased with the life of the individual. To this class the most distinguished of the war captains and orators of the Iroquois belonged ...” (Morgan 1858:138, par. 3) “By 1870 the Iroquois descendants were settled on reservations which were relatively isolated Iroquois communities surrounded by a rural white society. The Six Nations Reserve was one such community, made up of scattered remnants of the Mohawks, Cayugas, Senecas, Tutelo, Oneidas, Onondagas, Delaware and Tuscarora tribes. A few whites had married in. The actual reserve was roughly 45,000 acres in Tuscarora and Oneida townships and included a two mile strip near Onondaga village” (Foley [1870-1914] 1975:48, par. 1) “During the rural period the population of the reservation increased steadily. An 1855 census gave the population at 2,330. By 1874 the reserve population had increased to 2,992, an increase of over 600 in twenty years ... An 1891 census estimated that the reserve population was 3,228 ... By 1911 Knowles (1937) estimated the population at 4,446. The population increase was due to a higher birth rate” (Foley [1870-1914] 1975:52, par. 1) “The two economic strategies the rational businessman and the operator subsistence farmer resulted in an economic stratification based on accumulated capital. The rational businessman class had three subsections: educated professionals, store keepers and rational farmers. ... Together the professionals, storekeepers and successful farmers made up an elite class. ... the characteristics of the elite were: wealth, a rural white consumptive life style and in many cases membership in prestigious horticultural associations or professional societies. In contrast to the wealthy elite, many reserve residents especially among the Longhouse sect, lived a marginal existence despite their hard labors ... They characteristically lived in log cabins. These log cabins replaced earlier traditional bark houses. ... A former provincial agricultural representative who was a boy during the rural period outlined the economic stratification: High Prestige. 1. Professional people. 2. Storekeepers. 3. Commercially successful farmers. 4. Subsistence oriented farmers. 5. Jobbers. Low Prestige” (Foley [1870-1914] 1975:70, par. 1-2; 71, par. 1-2; 72, par. 1) “Social stratification developed based on kinship roles, religion and hierarchial office. ... Degrees of inequality were perpetuated through offices on the basis of sex and membership in a matrilineage. Women controlled the offices of matron and they nominated men of a select number of lineages to become a deputy chief, runner, pine tree chief, council interpreter, 317 magistrate, gamewarden, school trustee, pathmaster or public works superintendent” (Foley [1870-1914] 1975:73, par. 2-3) “The Iroquois utilized an Iroquois-type kinship classificatory system to establish unequal status. Goldenweiser (1913) described the Iroquois type kinship system of the rural period; his account was similar to Lafitau’s brief description almost two centuries previous” (Foley [1870- 1914] 1975:75, par. 2) “The tribal bands ceased to function as corporate groups prior to the rural period. Circa 1850 intermarriage had reduced the Seneca and Oneida to minimal numbers. As an administrative unit the tribal bands’ council of elders ceased to function. The Hereditary Council became the only native institution with authority over all tribal members. The reserve band as a whole was the most inclusive corporate group. Individuals had to register for membership using their father’s tribal status. They had to be children of a registered male” (Foley [1870-1914] 1975:81, par. 1-2) “The fifty chiefs were each chosen by a clan matron and sanctioned by the council as a whole. Each chief was assisted by a deputy chief and runner who was also appointed by the clan mother ... In addition to the Hereditary Chiefs the council had a limited number of appointed life chiefs, termed Pine Tree Chiefs. A Pine Tree Chief was nominated by a chief of his tribe, and this appointment had to be sanctioned by the council as a whole” (Foley [1870-1914] 1975:82, par. 2) “The judicial and executive powers of the Iroquois Confederacy were vested in a body of fifty chiefs. Of these nine came from the Mohawk, nine from the Oneida, fourteen from the Onondaga, ten from the Cayuga, and eight from the Seneca. These chiefs must be strictly distinguished from the warrior chiefs who were elected whenever occasion required, whose office was not hereditary, and whose powers expired with the termination of the raid or other military undertaking which had brought them into being. In the case of the fifty civil chiefs the elective and hereditary principles were curiously combined. Every chief was associated with a clan—although not every clan was represented by a chief; but the hereditary right to elect a chief belonged to a smaller unit, the maternal family ..., or a body of persons united by the ties of consanguinity” (Goldenweiser [1911-1912] 1913:468, par. 1) “Within the League council authority is equal although certain offices carry specific responsibilities. In rank and prerogatives the federal chiefs of the League, both male incumbents and female trustees, were in all respects coequal; special functions in the council chamber did not add to their rank, authority, or to their jurisdiction” (Hewitt (and Fenton) [1916] 1944:83, par. 6) “Every male Federal Chief (yaaʹnehr) represented a maternal family (Ohwachira) which was presided over by a matron or woman Federal Chief (Goyanehrgooʹnah) who had the right, and the imposed duty to exercise this right in the event of an emergency, to occupy a seat in the Federal Council. Moreover, the woman Federal Chief with the advice and consent of the Federal 318 Chief locally administers the affairs of the maternal family she heads” (Hewitt (and Fenton) [1916] 1944:84, par. 7) “Status in an Iroquoian tribe was secured only by being born into it, by virtue of birth in one of its uterine families or by adoption into it” (Hewitt 1918:532, par. 4) [Seneca] “The unit of Iroquois culture is the local group. Save when the great confederate councils were in session at Onondaga, there was a great deal of tribal and local political autonomy” (Fenton 1936:4, par. 1) “The League was in theory a kinship state, but it allowed for considerable local autonomy. The League arose as a confederation of villages, and the chiefs who became its founders were the then heads of settlements who in common had been installed in office by the matrons of their respective maternal families, households, and—by extension—their clans. No attempt was made to level local differences, and the tribes were consequently unequally represented in the League council. Although the Mohawk and Oneida each had 9 chiefs (3 in each clan), the Onondaga were 14, the Cayuga 10, and the Seneca 8. But each tribe had one vote, and unanimity was the rule” (Fenton 1951:51, par. 2) [Tuscarora] “The chiefs’ council putatively governs the political affairs of the community, but its resolutions carry only moral force, and at times they are ignored ...” (Landy [1950s] 1978:523, par. 2) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “The reservation is divided into six electoral districts, which elect twelve councilors, two from each district; and a ‘chief’ councilman is elected from the reserve at large to preside over the council thus formed. All are elected by secret ballot for a term of two years. ... The activities of the council are related to its capacity to make bylaws (Indian Act, sec. 80), and the most important matters, pertaining to which bylaws may be made, are as follows: providing for health and welfare, including the right to quarantine; regulation of traffic; maintaining law and order; construction of roads and bridges; the survey and allotment of reserve lands; regulation of hawking, peddling, and selling activities; impounding of stray cattle; and the removal of persons trespassing on the reserve” (Myers [1956- 1958] 2006:12, par. 2) “The population of the reserve hand has increased markedly since the rural era because of the efficiency of penicillin in combating congenital syphilis and the present practice by reserve residents of utilizing hospitals for newborn deliveries” (Foley [1950-1975] 1975:194, par. 1) “The Christian community can be divided into two strata: the acculturated elite, - a higher status and the non-elite, a lower status category. Weaver defines the acculturated elite by four class criteria: (1) regular employment of males, with many females also permanently employed; (2) occupations of the males and females ranged from unskilled to professional; (3) 319 education ranged from grade eight to university training; (4) occupancy of houses that are owned. (1972:101)” (Foley [1950-1975] 1975:212, par. 2) Village “Towns were bustling places of as many as two thousand people; with an average population of about two hundred per acre ...” (Richter [late 1500s] 1992:17, par. 1) “The village represented a corporate group in which membership was based on residence. A council membership included chief, elders, and occasionally a warrior spokesman. The council’s duties included the selection of a new village site, procurring warrior labor for constructing villages and clearing fields ..., and the dispensing of justice, which was not deemed a matrilineage affair” (Foley [1600s-1870] 1975:24, par. 2) “The Iroquois resided in permanent villages. ... About the period of the formation of the League, when they were exposed to the inroads of hostile nations, and the warfare of migratory bands, their villages were compact and stockaded. Having run a trench several feet deep, around five or ten acres of land, and thrown up the ground upon the inside, they set a continuous row of stakes or palisades in this bank of earth, fixing them at such an angle they inclined over the trench. Sometimes a village was surrounded by a double, or even triple row of palisades. Within this enclosure they constructed their bark-houses, and secured their stores. Around it was the village field, consisting, oftentimes, of several hundred acres of cultivated land, which was subdivided into planting lots; those belonging to different families being bounded by uncultivated ridges” (Morgan [1851] 1954:305, par. 2) “While town and hamlet communities with their lineages and clans endured for generations ..., their locations shifted at intervals of approximately twelve to twenty years” (Richter [1600s] 1992:23, par. 2) “The League of the Iroquois was numerically small, comprising a dozen villages averaging five hundred individuals, few having more than one thousand persons ...” (Foley [1600s-1870] 1975:6, par. 1) “Each principal village ... would be abandoned every ten years or so and be replaced by a ‘new town’ ...” (Foley [1600s-1870] 1975:7, par. 1) [Oneida] “... a Dutch journalist, probably Harmen Meyndertsz van den Bogaert, who visited the Oneidas in 1634. ... said this village, which was probably located near Munnsville in Madison County ..., was strongly palisaded, 767 paces in circumference, and had 66 houses ... The next recorded description of the village is by Wentworth Greenhalgh who visited it in 1677. He reported that the stockaded village had about 100 houses ...” (Campisi 1978:481, par. 2) “But at the commencement of the seventeenth century, ... when their power had become consolidated, and most of the adjacent nations had been brought under subjection, the necessity 320 of stockading their villages in a measure ceased, and with it the practice. ... about the year 1640, few, if any, of the villages of the Senecas, Cayugas, or Onondagas were surrounded with palisades; but the Oneidas and Mohawks continued to stockade their villages for many years afterwards, in consequence of the inroads of the French. At this period, also, their villages were compactly built” (Morgan [1851] 1954:306, par. 1) “... each village is composed of many families, some more and others less” (poss. René Cuillerier (trans. by Brandão) [1661-1664] 2003:61, par. 1) “... Kentaké on the south shore of the St. Lawrence River, which had grown from five ‘cabins’ in 1669 to a settlement of eighteen to twenty families two years later” (Parmenter 2010:141, par. 1) “... the Laurentian Iroquois towns in 1683 ... Kahnawake, the most populous of these settlements, was by then an established Iroquois town of sixty multifamily longhouses situated ‘in a very high and beautiful location, with a fine view.’ The community was home to as many as 150 families, predominantly Mohawks but including people from all five nations of the League. Contemporary observers estimated that Kahnawake could put 200 ‘good Iroquois soldiers’ into the field, indicating a population of 800 to 1000 people” (Parmenter 2010:168, par. 1) “Before 1687, the League Iroquois were 12 or 13 villages, ranging between 300 and 600 persons per town: Mohawk (3), Oneida (1), Onondaga (2), Cayuga (3), Seneca (4). Two Seneca towns comprised upward of 100 houses, of which a good proportion were extended bark houses sheltering composite families. During the next century settlements dispersed and were smaller, the bark house giving way to log houses of smaller dimensions. By 1800 the bark longhouse was a thing of the past. With it went old patterns of coresidence” (Fenton 1951:41, par. 1) [Onondaga] “The Onondaga village at Buffalo Creek, which in 1791 was said to consist of 28 good houses ...” (Blau, Campisi, and Tooker 1978:496, par. 1) “Between the Hudson and Lake Erie, our broad territory was occupied by the Ho-dé-no- sau-nee, or Iroquois, scattered far and wide, in small encampments, or in disconnected villages. ... The villages of the Mohawks were chiefly located in the valley of the Mohawk, upon the south side of the river. Around and near the Oneida lake were the principal villages of the Oneidas. The Onondagas were established in the valley of the river of that name, and upon the hills adjacent. On the east shore of the Cayuga lake, and upon the ridge to the eastward, were the settlements of the Cayugas. In the counties of Ontario and Monroe were found the principal villages of the Senecas, the most populous nation of the League. These were their chief localities at the era of their discovery. At a later period, in the progress of their intercourse and warfare with the whites, many of their ancient settlements were abandoned, and new ones established” (Morgan [1851] 1954:37, par. 2-3) 321 [Six Nations of the Grand River, Ontario] “By the late 1830s less than a quarter of the population of 2,223 lived in the two remaining villages. Of the 397 log houses, only 30 existed in the Tuscarora village and 24 in the Mohawk village ...” (Weaver 1978:525, par. 5) “The modern village was a cluster of houses, planted like the trees of the forest, at irregular intervals, and over a large area. No attempt was made at a street, or at an arrangement of their houses in a row; two houses seldom fronting the same line. They were merely grouped together sufficiently near for a neighborhood” (Morgan [1851] 1954:306, par. 2) Figure A.1 “Six Nations Neighborhoods circa 1900,” from Foley 1975:55 (Foley [1870-1914] 1975:55) 322 “Neighborhood boundaries were flexible and overlapped. The characteristics of a neighborhood were as follows: participation in work bees with neighbors, neighbor participation in a localized information network and visiting arrangements. Neighbors had teas and gatherings in each others houses often accompanied by fiddle music” (Foley [1870-1914] 1975:56, par. 1) [Seneca] “The third Seneca group lives thirty miles southeast of Newtown at Coldspring, on the Allegheny River, and their following embraces seventy odd households, scattered along the river from Quaker Bridge on the south to Red House on the east” (Fenton 1936:3, par. 4) “Eight reservations comprise communities of between 600 and several thousand population ... In western New York, 3 reservations of the Seneca—Allegany (900), Cattaraugus (1,500), which form the Seneca Nation, and Tonawanda (600) ... Tuscarora (600), near Niagara Falls; St. Regis Mohawk (2,000) astride the International Boundary on the St. Lawrence ... Six Nations Reserve on Grand River, Ontario, by far the largest in area and population (6,000) ...” (Fenton 1951:39, par. 2) 323 Figure A.2 “Six Nations Reserve,” Ontario, Canada, from Myers 2006:10 (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:10) 324 [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “The population had risen to 2,509 by 1880 ..., and according to the census on file in the Indian Office in Brantford it was 6,385 in 1954. Taking into account the fact that a considerable number of members (estimated by the council secretary, Mr. Leslie Smith, to be about 2,500 in 1956) reside away from the reserve for extended periods, there is an approximate density for the reserve of fifty-five persons per square mile” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:11, par. 2) “The neighborhood, as an enduring entity with definable boundaries, has disappeared” (Foley [1950-1975] 1975:197, par. 2) Descent and Residence “Iroquois marriage was apparently ideally matrilocal—that is, a new husband went to live with his wife’s family—but evidence on this point is contradictory ... It seems likely that many marriages were not matrilocal in practice. Instead, as sometimes happens in matrilineal societies where matrilocality is the ideal, many a husband probably brought his wife home to the house of his mother’s brother. Much may have depended on the status of the marriage partners. A young husband being groomed for leadership in his ohwachira may have remained in the longhouse in which he was born, but one of lesser stature went to live with a wife more prominently placed in her own lineage” (Richter [1600s] 1992:20, par. 1) “Even if a father remained married, he apparently often spent most of his time in another longhouse than his wife and children’s” (Richter [1600s] 1992:20, par. 2) “... the matrilineal household, not the conjugal couple, was the basic social unit ...” (Richter [1600s] 1992:110, par. 2) “The Iroquois traced descent through the female line of lineage ‘Ohwatjira’. A man’s children belonged to his wife’s lodge not his own. However, the wife and her lineage had affinal obligations to her husband and his lineage. First, the son had to supply his ‘akatoni’, i.e., father’s maternal kinsmen’s lineage, with suitable captives to replace their dead members. Second, the son had to support his akatoni in blood vendettas. Third, the matron of one’s akatoni lineage could control the war activities of the ‘brothers sons’ by either demanding that a raid take place or by prohibiting one. The akatoni lineage had reciprocal obligations to the ‘Ohwatjira’, mother’s kinsmen. Fourth, the akatoni had to perform the burial service and prepare the body of the ‘wives’, ‘sons’ or ‘daughters’ of other lineages at the common burial, Feast of the Dead and General Feast of the Dead. Fifth, limited rules of exogamy applied to one’s closest akatoni ... Sixth, the husband had reciprocal duties in the alliance as he supplied his wife’s lineage with produce. Lafitau (1724, 1:580) observed that during the first year of marriage all the husband’s hunt went to his wife’s household” (Foley [1600s-1870] 1975:17, par. 3) “Iroquois residence was shifting matrilocal to patrilocal type, the spouse making periodic visits to the different households” (Foley [1600s-1870] 1975:21, par. 2) 325 “The matrilineage was the smallest corporate group in Iroquois society. ... The matrilineage procured members through a criterion of descent. The internal organization centered around the authority vested in various offices. The lineage matron was an elder woman elected by the other females of the lineage. She controlled the distribution of food, the domestic activities of her fellow lineage members and exerted control over all members of her lineage, male or female. She arranged marriages, and, if hers was an elite lineage could appoint one of the fifty civil chiefs. Lastly, the matron could stop the war activities of those who were ‘akatoni’ to lineage women ... The lineage contracted ceremonial, economic, and political alliances with other lineages through marriage. It engaged in blood vendettas, chose a male chief, put up feasts, was a main distributive mechanism, and had a set of individual names” (Foley [1600s-1870] 1975:22, par. 3) “Residents of these communities practiced matrilocal residency, maintained matrilineal forms of social organization, built longhouses, planted traditional crops, attended League meetings at Onondaga, and enjoyed many other linkages with existing League national towns based on ties of kinship and economic reciprocity” (Parmenter [1667-1684] 2010:128, par. 3) “... of the grandparents one only, the maternal grandmother, necessarily was, and of the parents only the mother, and, in the descending line, only the sisters’ children could be of the same tribe with the propositus, or individual from whom the degrees of relationship were reckoned” (Morgan [1851] 1954:81, par. 1) “A lineage was composed of the male and female descendants of a woman, the descendants of her female descendants and so on ... Lineage offices such as chiefs, deputy chiefs, runners and keepers of secret medicine were invested matrilineally, as were the six ceremonial clan officers” (Foley [1870-1914] 1975:76, par. 1) “Although the aboriginal classificatory kinship system remained intact during the rural period the underlying principle of matrilineal descent began to erode” (Foley [1870-1914] 1975:76, par. 2) “The son’s wife moved into the husband’s household prior to neo-local residence, where household activities were supervised by the husband’s mother. In Mary Gibson’s case the patrilocal stay was five years, although the marriage contract established a one year stay” (Foley [1870-1914] 1975:78, par. 1) “Descent through the female line united traditionalists above the neighborhood level. The lineages were corporate groups headed by matrons. Elite lineage matrons appointed and deposed chiefs” (Foley [1870-1914] 1975:79, par. 1) “Patrilineal descent was a criterion for reserve membership instituted by the Indian Department in 1869 and sanctioned by the Hereditary Council” (Foley [1870-1914] 1975:81, par. 2) 326 “The matrilineal principle of organization primarily survived among those Christians who had chiefly titles” (Foley [1870-1914] 1975:134, par. 2) “A maternal family embraces all the male and female descendants of a woman, the descendants of her female descendents, and so on” (Goldenweiser [1913] 1914:368, par. 2) “Iroquoian society is ... held together by the bonds of affinity, while the tracing of the descent of blood through the women preserved its purity and insured its continuity” (Hewitt 1918:532, par. 2) “On marriage the young couple moves in with whichever set of parents has room and seeks a separate, or neolocal residence as soon as they are able to build a house on adjacent land. Data from Allegany and Tonawanda, checked by field work at Six Nations, show a tendency for nuclear families to aggregate into clusters of two or three related families. Sons or daughters occupy adjacent land. Within the community there is no consistent pattern of either matrilocal or patrilocal residence. If anything, the latter prevails in the accounts of marriages participated in by older informants whose mothers made the matches” (Fenton 1951:43, par. 2) “The clan ... is the permanent social unit in the community, and in theory it is the exogamic unit” (Fenton 1951:45, par. 2) “The Mohawk matrilocal household ...; enough men were attached to the household as husbands or unmarried brothers to insure cooperation in the clearing of fields and erection of houses and palisades” (Randle 1951:170, par. 2) “... matrilineal clans ...” (Randle 1951:173, par. 1) “... maternal descent is ... not important except to the Longhouse people, where the mother still confers membership and position through her clan. However, the situation as to affiliation has become quite confused, and at present there is a certain leniency and freedom to choose either the mother’s or the father’s Longhouse affiliation. Very few people outside of the Longhouse know their clan or moiety affiliation” (Randle 1951:177, par. 2) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “The rule of matrilineal descent is the foundation of Longhouse social organization. Although this rule has ... lost much of its former vigor, as, for example, in the passing of economic activities from the direct control of the lineage system, a considerable amount of corporate politico-jural and ritual activity attaches to it ...” (Myers [1956- 1958] 2006:16, par. 3) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “When this couple first got together, Richard came to live with Mattie in her mother’s house. A son was born in the same year; and two years later, when their second child was to be born, Richard borrowed five hundred dollars each from his parents and his mother’s sister with which to purchase fifty acres of land and a two-room 327 house only a few hundred yards from that of Mattie’s mother” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:132, par. 4) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “When Dave and Nadine were married by the hereditary chiefs, they began living with his widowed mother, and upon her death about fourteen years later, they stayed on to inherit the family homestead of thirteen acres and a sturdy, four- room log house” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:136, par. 3) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “The social organization of Longhouse society is founded upon the rule of matrilineal descent ...” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:143, par. 2) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “Among the Longhouse people, the whole range of cognatic kinship is recognized. Kinship is traced through females only, through males only, and by alternate steps, through males and females. ... Uterine kinship, or kinship through females only, is used as a basis for forming corporate groups for political, jural, and ritual purposes. Males form the genealogical boundaries of these groups and mediate ties between them through marriage” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:143, par. 3) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “... the ideal of establishing co-residence in their own house is seldom obtainable at first for a newly married couple, and this means a period of living with parents-in-law, either for the husband or the wife. A preference for uxorilocal residence during this period was also noted on the grounds that it requires less of an adjustment to take in a son-in-law, since his work keeps him out of the house. Of living in the husband’s parents’ household, it is said that the new wife is ‘living in another woman’s house,’ or ‘it is like there are two wives in the same household’” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:194, par. 3) “Two types of lineages and sub-lineages exist; the maternal lineage, Ohwatjira and sub- lineage, and the father’s matrilineage, Akatoni and sub-lineage ...” (Foley [1950-1975] 1975:206, par. 2) “Complementing the matrilineage is the akatoni or father’s maternal kin. Disputes exist as to the nature of this unit. Shimony (1961) claims it refers to the bi-lateral kindred of one’s father; Fenton (p.c.) maintains that it refers only to one’s father’s matrilineage. My research indicates, as Myers (1962) has contended, that it is the matrilineal aspects of the akatoni that define behavior within corporate boundaries” (Foley [1950-1975] 1975:215, par. 2) “... Iroquois children still belong to the clan of their mother ...” (Tooker 1978:462, par. 1) House/Residential Structure “Packed within the two to sixteen acres encompassed by the palisade were anywhere from 30 to 150 structures, the majority of which were longhouses. Standing side by side in parallel rows, they were a little more than 20 feet in width and varied in length from 40 to 200 feet; the average was about 100. Saplings twisted into the ground at close intervals provided the 328 basic framework for their exterior walls and arched to frame a roof 15-20 feet tall. Large sheets of elm bark secured by tree fibers and small saplings enclosed the framework’s sides and most of the rafters; movable panels covered doorways at each end and rooftop openings that let smoke out and daylight in. A central corridor, punctuated at roughly 20-foot intervals by fireplaces, dominated the interior. Against the walls on either side of the hearths stood platforms raised a foot or so off the ground that floored bark-enclosed sleeping compartments roughly 12 feet long, 6 deep, and 5 high. ... The length of the structure depended on the number of fires it contained, which in turn reflected the number of residents it sheltered. An existing house could be extended with additional sets of apartments and fires to accommodate growing families” (Richter [1600s] 1992:18, par. 2) “Each compartment was home to a nuclear family, which shared its fire, and thus its heating and cooking facilities, with the family on the opposite side” (Richter [1600s] 1992:18, par. 3) Figure A.3 “Plate I. An Iroquoian Longhouse,” from Richter 1992:19 (Richter 1992:19) “By the 1730s many—perhaps most—Iroquois no longer lived with their matrilineages in communal longhouses. Bartram stayed in a longhouse at Onondaga in 1743 and produced 329 perhaps the best surviving sketch and description of that traditional and socially symbolic form of architecture ever made by a European visitor to Iroquoia. Apart from a few innovations reflecting European technology (hewn joists rather than saplings supported the side platforms, and sawn boards rather than bark formed many of the partitions), the construction of this eighty- foot structure would have seemed familiar to any Iroquois of a century and a half earlier. Important details, however, set the building apart from its predecessors. While at least two headmen apparently lived in it, its primary function seems to have been to serve as a council house rather than as a residence. Most of its many apartments apparently stood empty to lodge diplomatic visitors ... Further evidence that the longhouse was not designed to shelter families permanently was its cramped dimensions. The central aisle, Bartram said, was only six feet wide, and the sleeping compartments, having no storage spaces between them, were apparently a mere five to six feet square; turn-of-the-seventeenth-century longhouses, by contrast, had more than three feet of additional overall width and apartments nearly twice as broad as they were deep” (Richter 1992:260, par. 2) Figure A.4 “Plate 22. Floor Plan of an Onondaga Longhouse, 1743,” from Richter 1992:261 (Richter 1992:261) “A similar general abandonment of communal longhouse living was occurring throughout Iroquoia in the middle decades of the eighteenth century. By 1750 most Senecas seem to have been living in single-family cabins built in a European style that often included such features as roughly finished attics. The only major structural characteristic that set them apart from the homes of many contemporary Euro-Americans was their preference for a central open hearth and smoke hole in the roof rather than a fireplace and chimney. The same trend toward single-family cabins made of hewn boards applied to the Oneidas and Mohawks, whose midcentury houses also typically had central hearths. More conservative were the Cayugas, who in 1750 still had at least one town in which many longhouses contained three or four firepits. 330 For the most part, compared to earlier Iroquois standards, the construction of all of these types of dwellings seems to have been dramatically simplified, even crude” (Richter 1992:261, par. 1) “Neither archaeological nor documentary sources reveal precisely what kinds of living arrangements characterized the new, smaller houses. Certainly a single-family home did not mean the same thing in matrilineal Iroquois society that it did in patriarchal Euro-American communities. It is probable that the clusters of compact structures that visitors like Bartram described sheltered members of the same matrilineage; moreover, the persistence of central open hearths bespeaks a persistence of traditional arrangements of social space. But whatever the case, it seems clear that the intense communal interaction among members of an ohwachira characteristic of earlier generations had loosened in fundamental experiential ways” (Richter [1700s] 1992:261, par. 2) 331 Figure A.5 “Bark House” Exterior and Interior View, from Morgan 1954:2 (Morgan [1851] 1954:2) 332 “When the village was scattered over a large area, the houses were single, and usually designed for one family; but when compact, as in ancient times, they were very long, and subdivided, so as to accommodate a number of families. The long house was generally from fifty to a hundred and thirty feet in length, by about sixteen in width, with partitions at intervals of about ten or twelve feet, or two lengths of the body. Each apartment was, in fact, a separate house, having a fire in the centre, and accommodating two families, one upon each side of the fire. Thus a house one hundred and twenty feet long would contain ten fires and twenty families” (Morgan [1851] 1954:307, par. 1) “The Gä-nó-sote, or Bark-house ..., was a simple structure. When single, it was about twenty feet by fifteen upon the ground, and from fifteen to twenty feet high. The frame consisted of upright poles firmly set in the ground, usually five upon the sides, and four at the ends, including those at the corners. Upon the forks of these poles, about ten feet from the ground, cross-poles were secured horizontally, to which the rafters, also poles, but more numerous and slender, were adjusted. The rafters were strengthened with transverse poles, and the whole were usually so arranged as to form an arching roof. After the frame was thus completed, it was sided up, and shingled with red elm or ash bark, the rough side out. The bark was flattened and dried, and then cut in the form of boards. To hold these bark boards firmly in their places, another set of poles, corresponding with those in the frame, were placed on the outside; and by means of splints and bark rope fastenings, the boards were secured horizontally between them. It usually required four lengths of boards, and four courses from the ground to the rafters to cover a side, as they were lapped at the ends, as well as clapboarded; and also in the same proportion for the ends. In like manner, the roof was covered with bark boards, smaller in size, with the rough side out, and the grain running up and down; the boards being stitched through and through with fastenings, and thus held between the frames of poles, as on the sides. In the centre of the roof was an opening for the smoke, the fire being upon the ground in the centre of the house, and the smoke ascending without the guidance of a chimney. At the two ends of the house were doors, either of bark hung upon hinges of wood, or of deer or bear skins suspended before the opening, and however long the house, or whatever the number of fires, these were the only entrances. Over one of these doors was cut the tribal device of the head of the family. Within, upon the two sides, were arranged wide seats, also of bark boards, about two feet from the ground, well supported underneath, and reaching the entire length of the house. Upon these they spread their mats of skins, and also their blankets, using them as seats by day and couches at night. Similar berths were constructed on each side, about five feet above these, and secured to the frame of the house, thus furnishing accommodations for the family” (Morgan [1851] 1954:308, par. 1) “There was another species of house occasionally constructed, either for temporary use or for a small family. It was triangular at the base, the frame consisting of three poles on a side, gathered at the top, but with space sufficient between them for a chimney opening. They were 333 sided up in the same manner as the rectangular Gä-nó-sote. During the hunt, barkhouses of this description were often erected as a shelter” (Morgan [1851] 1954:310, par. 1) “A characteristic feature of early Iroquois architecture was the long communal cabin, constructed usually of elm bark and accomodating a number of families. ... Very few aboriginal features are seen in present-day houses (Plate XI), though poles are still suspended above the fire for drying clothing and various articles of food” (Waugh [1912-1915] 1916/1973:48, par. 3) 334 Figure A.6 “Plate XI” Log House, from Waugh 1916/1973:179/169 (Waugh [1912-1915] 1916/1973:179/169) 335 “... the ohwachira [uterine family] had as many firesides as it had women who were married. Each married woman of an ohwachira used one side of one of the fires at the center of the lodge. The Iroquoian lodge was extended lengthwise to accommodate those who dwelt in it, and the fires were kindled along the center from place to place” (Hewitt 1918:530, par. 4) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “The Longhouse people of Six Nations Reserve live in detached houses that line the grid-patterned roads of the reservation on both sides, at an average distance apart of twelve-hundredths of a mile” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:40, par. 2) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “Log houses were the oldest and most prevalent type in use at the time of fieldwork, comprising about 54.7 percent of the sample ...” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:40, par. 3) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “These houses are of simple rectangular design built of pine logs from eight to ten inches in diameter, larger ones being used for a sill. The logs are hewn flat on two opposing sides and notched at the corner ends to effect proper seating and to provide a tie at the corners of the building. Each successive course of logs is dowelled or spiked to the previous one, and the walls are built up in this manner, leaving appropriate openings for doors and windows, until the desired height is reached, this being generally high enough to accommodate two stories. Roofs are gabled and are of rather steep pitch. They are built of flat boards over rafters, which in turn are covered with red cedar shingles or with asphalt composition roofing material. The first floor is usually raised a foot or two from the ground. Both floors are built over joists which are fitted into, and bear on, the walls as they are erected, thus providing a tie between opposite walls. The floor joists are covered with planed or grooved flooring, which is often covered with linoleum. The underside of the upper floor, with its exposed joists, provides the ceiling for the ground floor rooms. Interior log walls are seldom left exposed; rather, they are, as a rule, painted, calcimined, or covered with wallpaper. In some instances, they have been lined with pressed paper or gypsum wallboard; and exterior walls, in a number of cases, have been insulated with imitation brick, shingles, or milled lumber siding. Basically, this type of house consists of two large rectangular rooms, one upstairs and one down, with a very steep stairway connecting them. Lean-tos are added to modify the basic structure and are used for kitchens and for storage. In some instances, upstairs rooms have been partitioned to make two or three separate bedrooms where initially there was but one” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:41, par. 1) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “While there is some variation in size, variation in design is usually minor. One log house is twenty-two feet wide and thirty feet long in outside dimension. This house has one room upstairs and one on the ground floor, which together have an interior floor area of slightly less than twelve hundred square feet. Another log house has had a lean-to added, which is used for storage and cooking, making the total number of rooms three, the other rooms being a kitchen and a common second-floor bedroom. This house has a total 336 floor area of less than six hundred square feet. All log houses fit this general description to a greater or lesser degree” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:41, par. 2) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “Shanty-type frame dwellings built of salvage lumber are usually smaller than the log houses and are of a single story. All walls are built of two-by-four lumber studding and planed board siding, which is often covered with tarred building felt as insulation. One such house, the construction of which was witnessed during the period of fieldwork, was eighteen feet wide and twenty feet long, having an interior floor space of near three hundred and thirty square feet. This space was partitioned to make a kitchen and a common bedroom. ... In the sample there are twenty-one examples of this type, making 14 percent of the total” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:42, par. 2) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “Frame houses of more recent design make up 12 percent of the sample. They are in every case built of new materials, have from four to five rooms, all on the ground floor, and have a total floor area of from five hundred to seven hundred and fifty square feet. The rooms are most often used as a kitchen, living room, two to three bedrooms, and a storage room” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:42, par. 3) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “About 8 percent of the houses in the sample have only a single room, 33 percent have two rooms, 29 percent have three rooms, 22 percent have four rooms, and 8 percent have five rooms or more. There seems to be no direct relationship between the size of a house and the number of its occupants. ... Some younger men, without exception household heads whose families are expanding, have added rooms to their houses, when means were available, as the number of members has increased” (Myers [1956- 1958] 2006:42, par. 5) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “Every house has a kitchen, or kitchen facilities, about which a considerable part of household life is centered. As a general rule, all kitchens have a large wood-burning range that, in most instances, is the sole source of heat both for cooking and for warming the house. For this reason, a good deal of activity other than culinary is drawn to this room. Not only are meals prepared and eaten here, but here also visitors are received. On long winter nights family and friends gather, sit around the warmth of the kitchen stove and talk, tell stories, carry out medicine rites, play a game of cards or, in a few instances, watch television” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:43, par. 1) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “Thirty-nine percent of the households have separate living rooms. ... Nine households, or 6 percent, of the sample possess television sets, and an equal number have radios. These are most often kept in living rooms; otherwise, these rooms are probably the least used of any in the house” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:44, par. 1) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “All houses, except those having only one room, have separate spaces for sleeping. Approximately 59 percent of the houses have one bedroom 337 used in common by all household members and overnight visitors, when these are present; 25 percent have two bedrooms; and 8 percent have three” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:44, par. 2) “Basically two types of dwellings exist on the Six Nations reserve, frame houses and log cabins” (Foley [1950-1975] 1975:197, par. 1) [Onondaga] “In general, the Indians at Onondaga live in one-family residences that are strung out along the roads of the reservation” (Blau, Campisi, and Tooker 1978:498, par. 3) Household “... kinship bound all the residents of a longhouse. Each nuclear family belonged to the same ohwachira, a lineage traced through the female line. Dominant figures morally, economically, and to some degree politically within the longhouse were the women of the lineage’s eldest living generation, the ‘matrons’” (Richter [1600s] 1992:20, par. 1) “... households belonged to females quite apart from their husbands ...” (Richter [1600s] 1992:20, par. 2) “... when the wife was in her husband’s lodge she was subservient to his mother. The husband was subservient to his mother-in-law when in her household” (Foley [1600s-1870] 1975:6, par. 1) [Oneida] “The Dutch journalist of 1634 described a longhouse or multiple-family pattern, but by the middle of the eighteenth century the palisaded village had disappeared and the household pattern had shifted to nuclear-family cabins” (Campisi 1978:481, par. 5) “By January 1677, Kahnawake consisted of twenty-two longhouses organized on matrilineal residency patterns. Jesuit Pierre Cholenec described a typical Kahnawake household as consisting of ‘a good old woman and three of her daughters, all married and living in the same cabin as her,’ a clear indication of continued adherence to matrilocal residency and the bonds of matrilineal kinship” (Parmenter 2010:154, par. 3) [Six Nations of the Grand River, Ontario] “The nuclear family had become both the residential and the economic unit” (Weaver [1840s-1860s] 1978:527, par. 3) “During the rural period, the household unit was the primary productive group. Men headed the household unit ...” (Foley [1870-1914] 1975:62, par. 2) “Fathers, as heads of the households ...” (Foley [1870-1914] 1975:66, par. 2) “... the household unit of nuclear or extended families was the primary productive unit ...” (Foley [1870-1914] 1975:77, par. 1) 338 “... the household ... Membership was traced bilaterally. The household exercised the key role in maintaining the homestead farm. Various households were united by residence in the category of neighborhoods. Neighborhoods had perpetuity but no internal organization that maintained order” (Foley [1870-1914] 1975:79, par. 1) “John Echo (On.) ... described the man as the head of the family” (Waugh [1912-1915] 1916/1973:2, par. 3) “The simplest unit of Iroquois society is the ‘fireside,’ or the primary family of husband and wife and their children who live with them” (Hewitt (and Fenton) [1916] 1944:82, par. 2) “Stemming from the fireside family by virtue of common residence in the longhouse of the matriarch is the household of fact and legal fiction composed of a lineage of persons tracing descent from a common mother and forming an exogamic incest group called the Ohwachira, the maternal or uterine family. This is the primary unit of Iroquois government. In time it might occupy several longhouses in several villages” (Hewitt (and Fenton) [1916] 1944:82, par. 3) “Contemporary Iroquois society has been characterized by single residences of nuclear families” (Fenton 1951:43, par. 2) “In the old days the extended household, matrilocal among the Mohawks ...” (Randle 1951:170, par. 1) “The head of the household was not always the oldest woman of the line, but the one with most leadership and diplomacy” (Randle 1951:170, par. 2) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “Household membership is frequently extended to include dead as well as living members” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:39, par. 2) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “The average number of persons per household for all types of houses is 5.36” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:42, par. 5) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “Present-day Longhouse households are not corporate groups having perpetuity in time, nor does the head direct the work of the members of the household on a corporate estate, or otherwise exercise any stringent rights over the persons and property of the group. However, there is in every household one person who has ultimate say in decisions that relate to the domestic affairs ... of the group as a whole. It is recognized that both men and women may be heads of households, ... It often happens that where a man is nominal head of the household, his wife is the practical coordinator of household affairs” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:49, par. 2) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “Seventy-two percent of all the households of the sample have male heads, and 63.5 percent of all males twenty-one years of age and over are heads of the households in which they live ... Men tend to become heads of households as they 339 approach thirty years of age, and the average age of all male heads is fifty years ... A man in this position is expected to provide the main economic support for his household, especially food and clothing for his minor children. It is also his duty to keep the house in repair, whether it is his own or his wife’s. He is responsible for the provision of wood fuel for cooking and heating purposes, and this he usually obtains with the help of his sons when they are old enough. The male head of the household is entitled to the domestic services of his wife, and for this reason, she will usually consult him before taking a job outside the house that would upset the routine of these services. He will also expect other members of the household to contribute to its economy and to show him respect and deference. If he owns or otherwise holds possessory rights over the house in which the group lives, he likewise has the right to grant or deny house room to whomever he will. He may act as disciplinarian over his children or may take over any earnings they might have; however, in practice he seldom does either of these. A male head may drive his family to Longhouse ceremonies in his car, but once they enter the ceremony, he sits apart from them; and he is seldom identified with other members of his household in recreational activities off the reserve. Individual personality factors play a considerable part in the nature of male headship as it is expressed in the separate households, and the personal qualities of leadership and industry may have a good deal to say as to how long a man will be able to hold his household together” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:50, par. 1-2) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “Twenty-eight percent of the 150 households have female heads, and 24.6 percent of all women twenty-one years of age and over are heads of households ... The average age of all female heads is sixty-five years ... Female heads are mostly women who have passed their childbearing years, and sixteen became heads coincident with becoming widows; however, women often become heads by separating themselves from their husbands and setting up their own households, and twenty-three of the forty-two female heads became heads in this way. There are also a few women who have set up households by their own efforts, never entering a permanent conjugal union. Female heads are nearly always mothers and grandmothers to the other members of their households, and this reflects the strength of the mother-child bond. Even where a female head is living in her house alone (of which there are five instances ...), her married children often locate their own houses near her, and the two households overlap with constant visiting and the performance of reciprocal services” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:52, par. 1) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “A female head has full right to determine who is to have room in her house and has ultimate say in the regulation of household affairs. She has fewer limitations in this respect than does her male counterpart. The spouses and common-law spouses of her sons and daughters living with her are subordinate to her authority. They control their own earnings but may be censured by her if she feels they are negligent of the needs of their children, or if they are slow to perform certain duties connected with the household such as providing firewood or repairing the house. A common-law husband of the head also has a subservient position in these households” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:53, par. 1) 340 [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “The figures show that men become heads of households about two and one-half times more readily than do women, of whom approximately 75.3 percent are living as subordinate members of households: 53.6 percent with their husbands, 17.6 percent with parents or other near kin (spouses present in about 5 percent of the cases), and 4.1 percent with husband’s parents or his near kin. On the other hand, about 36 percent of all males twenty-one years of age and over are subordinate members of households; about 24 percent having never achieved headship and about 12 percent having lost headship, either upon entering a common-law union in their later years with a woman in her house or upon becoming a subordinate member of the household of a parent, child, or other near kin subsequent to their being separated or left widowers” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:53, par. 3) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “... there are very few instances where two or more married male siblings or married males of the same generation live in the same household” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:82, par. 3) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “In nearly every household it is a woman acting in the role of wife-mother who stands as coordinator between the individual wage earners and the needs and desires of the group, especially those of her minor children” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:84, par. 3) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “... the members of a four-generation household, who shared the facilities of a two-room log house situated on a sixty-seven-acre plot of land. The household consisted of a sixty-nine-year-old widower, Simeon, who owned both land and house; his thirty-five-year-old, separated daughter, Cloris, and her seven children, ranging from two to fourteen years of age; and a twenty-one-year-old granddaughter (the child of another of Simeon’s daughters), Janeen, with her two children, ages eighteen months and two months; making twelve members in all” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:95, par. 1) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “... the members of a two-generation household, consisting of the head, Marvin, who was forty-seven years of age; his wife, Ramona, who was forty-four; Ramona’s twenty-five-year-old son, whom she had as a single mother; and Marvin and Ramona’s own children, a twenty-three-year-old son, an eighteen-year-old daughter, two sons aged fourteen and twelve, and an adopted girl age four. They lived together in a three-room log dwelling that has a lean-to built on for a kitchen. The house was situated on a six-acre plot, and both house and land belonged to the head’s wife. ... In addition to managing the internal affairs of the household, Ramona cultivated a small garden, in which she grew tomatoes, green beans, radishes, carrots, and a few other vegetables. She also kept twenty-five or thirty hens for a supply of eggs and an occasional chicken dinner. ... Besides owning the house and the plot upon which it stands, she owned an additional fifty-eight acres of land, which she rented to a Christian Iroquois man for twenty-five dollars per season” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:98, par. 1; 99, par. 2) 341 [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “... a forty-two-year-old man, Harry, who was the head of his household, and his thirty-two-year-old wife, Dora. Besides themselves, their household consisted of a nineteen-year-old daughter of the head only, who was a single mother; a son and daughter of the present marriage, who were twelve and ten years of age respectively; and a two-year-old girl, child of the single mother. They lived in a seven-room, two-story frame house, the construction of which had not been entirely completed. The house was situated on a two-acre plot of land, the title to which was held by the head and his wife” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:102, par. 1) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “... the head, Ralph, who was twenty-nine years of age; his twenty-five-year-old wife, Sally; and their three children, who ranged in age from two to five years. Ralph bought his present house soon after his marriage and had it moved to its present location on a half-acre plot, which he purchased from his mother’s brother. The house itself is of a modified-log type, having the exterior walls covered with imitation brick siding and having the ground floor partitioned into three and the upstairs partitioned into two rooms” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:105, par. 1) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “The average number of members of household groups among the Longhouse people is 5.36. There is a mean deviation from this average of 2.7. The modal number per household is 2, and there are twenty-six households having this number of members. There are also fifteen households having only one member; and together, the one- and two-member households comprise about one-fourth of the sample” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:112, par. 2) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “Thirty-two, or 21.3 percent, are households whose members belong to a single generation. ... Among them are six childless couples; ten single, separated, or widowed males living alone; five separated or widowed females living alone; five couples having no children of their own, but one of whom has children by a previous union; four couples living alone with married children living in separate houses on the same plot; and two households having a brother and sister sharing the same house. The greater part of all these people are over sixty-five years of age. There are sixty-five two-generation households, which comprise 43.4 per-cent of the total. Fifty-two of these consist of a conjugal pair and their single children; eight are widowed or separated women with a single or separated son or daughter; two are elderly widowers, each having a single son living with him; two are conjugal pairs with a sister’s child of either; and one is a childless couple with the wife’s mother present. Households with three generations make up 32 percent of the total. The basic two-generational structure has been augmented in the following ways to create a three-generational structure: fourteen households have married daughters or sister’s daughters; eight have single mothers with their children; seven are married sons with spouses and children; one has the child only of a married son; eight are separated or widowed daughters and their children; two are separated sons and their children; and there are two with adopted children of the second descending generation, making forty-eight in all. There are five households having a depth of four generations, which 342 make up only 3.3 percent of the total. These resemble the three-generation households, with the addition, in one instance each, of the father, spouse’s father, mother’s brother, son’s daughter’s child, and daughter’s daughter’s children of the head” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:112, par. 3; 113, par. 1-3) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “Sixteen of the forty-two female heads have attained headship coincident with becoming widows” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:127, par. 3) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “Richard and Mattie, aged thirty-three and twenty-five years respectively, lived together in a common-law union. Besides themselves, their household included Mattie’s six-year-old daughter by another man and a two-year-old son and two-month-old daughter of the present union” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:132, par. 2) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “At the time of fieldwork, their household consisted of forty-two-year-old James, thirty-nine-year-old Nelda, their eight single children, ranging in age from seventeen years to six months, and their married nineteen-year-old daughter, with her twenty-four-year-old husband. An eighteen-year-old son, Charlie, asserting his independence from his natal household, had gone to live with his maternal grandparents” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:134, par. 2) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “Dan was forty-five years old, and his wife, Lottie, was forty-two. They lived in a four-room, modified-log house faced with imitation brick siding, which Dan inherited from his mother, along with eighteen acres of land and two storage sheds. The other members of the household included Lottie’s twenty-five-year-old son, Andy, whom she had as a single mother; their sixteen-year-old daughter, Liz, who was a single mother; a fourteen-year-old son; seven-year-old twins; a five-year-old daughter; and Liz’s two daughters, aged eighteen months and two months respectively” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:135, par. 1) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “Dave and his wife, Nadine, were sixty-four and sixty-one years of age, respectively. Their household consisted of themselves, their eighteen- year-old son, Bill, their thirty-four-year-old separated daughter, Reba, and her four children, ranging in age from four to twelve years. They also had a thirty-five-year-old married daughter, who lived nearby with her husband and four children, and a thirty-year-old separated daughter, who was rearing her two children in her own household on the reserve” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:136, par. 1-2) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “Madge, aged seventy-one, was head of her household. Living with her were her sixty-five-year-old common-law husband, Orville, and her separated son’s twelve-year-old son, whom she was raising as her own child” (Myers [1956- 1958] 2006:137, par. 1) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “... Lavina, a sixty-seven-year-old widow, who was head of her own household. ... she had married Les about forty-six years previously ... 343 Upon Les’s recent death, he left Lavina just over thirteen acres of land and a small two-room log house, the title to which continued to be disputed by his sister. Lavina and Les had a son who died in his early teens, and they later adopted a ten-month-old girl, Darla, whom they reared as their own child. When Darla married, she and her husband took up residence with Lavina, and in 1957 the household had expanded to include their infant daughter. As members of her household, the twenty-one-year-old, Darla, and her husband, Gary, submitted themselves fully to Lavina’s authority and advice, and when they left the reserve periodically to work, their daughter was left with its grandmother to be reared by her” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:137, par. 3-4) “The household is the main redistributive unit. Households are one, two or three generational units. Two generational units predominate. Men are usually the heads of the households and supply the food, clothing and basic necessities. ... The household has taken over some of the lineage’s functions among the Longhouse people. Funerals are paid for by one’s household members, usually siblings ..., although the lineage matron still oversees funeral arrangements” (Foley [1950-1975] 1975:205, par. 1) Access to Resources “... while access to trade goods was no doubt unequal, redistribution and a multiheaded political system narrowed the gap between the haves and have-nots” (Richter [1700s] 1992:263, par. 2) [Oneida] “The individual’s right to claim all the land he could clear gave advantage to large and ambitious family units, but sufficient land was available to all settlers” (Campisi [1800s] 1978:488, par. 5) “In their hunting excursions they were accustomed to confine themselves to their own domains ... Upon their foreign hunting grounds, which were numerous and boundless, either nation was at liberty to encamp. ... territorial limits between the nations of the League ...” (Morgan [1851] 1954:44, par. 1) “Cornfields were not always owned by the tribe or clan. Individuals might freely cultivate their own fields if they were willing to do their share in the tribal fields. If they did not do this they could not claim their share of the communal harvest. Individual fields were designated by a post on which was painted the clan totem and individual name sign. Any distressed clansman, however, might claim a right in the individual field and take enough to relieve his wants, provided he notified the owner” (Parker [c. 1900-1910] 1910:29, par. 3) “Those who planted melons in cleared woodland tracts set up poles upon which were painted the clan totems and the name signs of the owners. The totem sign signified that while, according to the communistic laws, the patch belonged, nominally, to the clan, and that any clansman might take the fruit if necessary, yet by virtue of the fact that the garden was cleared, planted and cultivated by the individual whose name was indicated, the individual claim and 344 right should be recognized as actually prior, though not nominally” (Parker [c. 1900-1910] 1910:92, par. 4) “The members of an ohwachira [uterine family] have (1) the right to the name of the clan of which that ohwachira is a constituent unit; (2) the right of inheriting property from deceased members of it; (3) the right to take a part in the councils of the ohwachira; (4) the right to adopt an alien through the advice of the presiding matron of it” (Hewitt 1918:530, par. 5) “... claims to land could be based on the inheritance from distant ancestors” (Snyderman 1951:17, par. 4) “... the land belonged to all the people who inhabited it. No individual could enforce a personal claim to a specific piece of land. Neither could any individual by his own right and desire legally ‘sell’ lands” (Snyderman 1951:18, par. 4) “... land was given or loaned by the League or its members to alien people for their use during good behavior. Individuals or groups violating the peace were first reprimanded, but chronic offenders might be expelled from the territory of the Six Nations” (Snyderman 1951:22, par. 2) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “... it is necessary to guard against the impression that all the wages of the various members of the household flow into a unitary fund from which the daily wants and exigencies of the household as a whole are met, for such is seldom if ever the case. A concomitant of the high degree of individuality in wage-earning activities is seen in the fact that the earnings of adults are managed and spent by those who earn them” (Myers [1956- 1958] 2006:84, par. 2) Trade “Many of the burial offerings were acquired in long-distance trade—shell beads from the Atlantic coast, soapstone pots and pipes from Pennsylvania, copper from the Great Lakes, ritual items from the Adena ‘Moundbuilder’ culture of the Ohio Valley—and trade seems to have been a communal activity carried on almost exclusively to acquire goods to be interred in funeral ceremonies” (Richter [c. 1200 BC] 1992:13, par. 3) “Regional trade festered distribution among the various villages and their neighbors. Lafitau described the trade as consisting of ‘beads, wampum, robes, tobacco, braided mats, canoes, things of moose hide, porcupine or buffalo hair, cotton beads, household utensils, calumets, in a word, all the commodities which they use in daily life’ (1724, 2:332). Lafitau also stated that the herbal remedies of certain tribes were thought to be superior and that there was an extensive trade in herbs” (Foley [1600s-1870] 1975:15, par. 1) “The practice of having general feasts of the dead figured in the distributive process, since different villages and tribes exchanged gifts” (Foley [1600s-1870] 1975:15, par. 2) 345 [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “... the circulation of money among the Longhouse people themselves is very limited. On the other hand, goods such as food and cloth are transferred; and though the amounts involved are not vast, they have some economic and a good deal of social significance” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:78, par. 1) Property “The Iroquois held most of their lands in common under the direction of the village council of elders, with specific matrilineages having usufructuary rights ... A small area was fanned communally and it provided for village-wide feasts ... The matrilineage owned the natural resources: the land, the raw materials, and the seeds. The women possessed the agricultural implements, such as rakes, hoes, digging sticks and carrying baskets, in common. Men individually owned their weapons and fishing and hunting tools ...” (Foley [1600s-1870] 1975:7, par. 2) “At the funeral of Laurentian pioneer Gandeakteua in the early months of 1674, her surviving kin distributed her personal effects (goods valued at 300 livres, which the Jesuits considered ‘a good deal for a savage’) to the ‘recipients of charity’ among the Iroquois population at Kentaké” (Parmenter 2010:147, par. 1) “Many, but apparently not all, ohwachiras owned titles of office—those of League Sachems and others—which, while they descended in particular lineages, were not bestowed strictly in accordance with heredity” (Richter [1700s] 1992:42, par. 3) “Traditional concepts of property based on use rather than possession also still thrived” (Richter [1700s] 1992:263, par. 1) “Among early eighteenth-century Iroquois, kin groups rather than individuals apparently still claimed most property” (Richter 1992:263, par. 2) “... the transmission of all titles, rights and property in the female line to the exclusion of the male” (Morgan [1851] 1954:79, par. 2) “Property, both in amount and variety, was exceedingly limited ... their property consisted ... of planting lots, orchards, houses, implements of the chase, weapons, articles of apparel, domestic utensils, personal ornaments, stores of grain, skins of animals, and those miscellaneous fabrics which the necessities of life led them to invent. The rights of property, of both husband and wife, were continued distinct during the existence of the marriage relation; the wife holding, and controlling her own, the same as her husband, and in case of separation, taking it with her. No individual could obtain the absolute title to land, as that was vested by the laws of the Iroquois in all the people; but he could reduce unoccupied lands to cultivation, to any extent he pleased; and so long as he continued to use them, his right to their enjoyment was protected and secure. He could also sell his improvements, or bequeath them to his wife or 346 children. If the wife, either before or after marriage, inherited orchards, or planting lots, or reduced land to cultivation, she could dispose of them at her pleasure, and in case of her death they were inherited, together with her other effects, by her children. The rule of descent, on the death of the father, was different. His children, not being of his tribe, were out of the line of inheritance; for by their laws, property could not, by descent, pass out of the tribe. If he gave his planting lots, or any articles of property to his wife or children, in the presence of a witness, they were handed over upon his decease, to the near relatives in his own tribe, who usually assigned to the family the house, and such other articles as they deemed advisable, and distributed the residue among themselves, as personal mementos of the deceased” (Morgan [1851] 1954:317, par. 1) “Such property as they possessed, as planting lots, orchards, articles of apparel, etc., descended in the female line; that is to say, the wife and children took nothing from the father and husband, as they were of another tribe, except it was given to them by the deceased before his death, in the presence of witnesses. The property went to the brothers and sisters of the deceased, or to the children of the sisters. The property of husband and wife was kept distinct during the marriage, and held by separate ownership; and upon the death of the mother, her property was inherited by her children. Usually, planting lots, orchards, etc., belonged to the female. In case of divorce, each took their separate effects” (Morgan 1858:135, par. 1) “Fathers ... received part of the labor wages of their younger sons and daughters. For instance, David Thomas, a young boy in the rural period, gave 1/3 of the sale of cordwood to his father. The children received food and shelter and usually sons, at their marriage, frequently were given sections of the family’s farm to homestead. The section could be less than ten acres ... Also parents were frequently supplied by children with the necessities after marriage. Peter Hill’s diary of 1891-1894 was filled with references of his wife’s receiving needed corn seed from her father” (Foley [1870-1914] 1975:66, par. 2) “When women’s labor bees were formed women received cloth or dresses ...” (Foley [1870-1914] 1975:67, par. 1) “The women of a community who own individual fields ...” (Parker [c. 1900-1910] 1910:29, par. 5) “As a rule, each individual had his own spoon which he recognized by the animal or bird carved on the handle” (Parker [c. 1900-1910] 1910:55, par. 3) “A clan owned it burial-ground; it claimed a set of individual names ...” (Goldenweiser [1913] 1914:368, par. 1) “Whatever land was held by the ohwachira for cultivation and on which fuel and berries and nuts and roots and bark and medicines and poisons procured, belonged exclusively to the women of the ohwachira” (Hewitt 1918:533, par. 1) 347 “The lineal descent of blood, the inheritance of property, both personal and common, and the hereditary right of eligibility to public office and trust are traced in the clan through the female line attained through the action and interaction of its constitutive units—the ohwachira (the uterine families)” (Hewitt 1918:533, par. 5) [Seneca] “The body of Faith-keepers is governed by four officers, a man and a woman in each moiety. These offices are ... passed down within certain maternal families of particular clans. It is incumbent on the headwoman of that family to appoint a candidate to be approved by the clan. Failing to do so, the office may pass to another clan within the same moiety. The other clans must approve of the candidate” (Fenton 1936:7, par. 2) [Seneca] “... many songs ... are to some extent the property of one’s family and possibly of the clan” (Fenton 1936:16, par. 3) “It appears that some of the Iroquois land was actually owned by the village, and not necessarily by the entire tribe, let alone the Confederacy” (Snyderman 1951:20, par. 4) “Farms at first were transmitted matrilineally, but as holdings increased and White business methods were adopted, inheritance, like English names, went from father to sons” (Fenton 1951:43, par. 2) [Seneca] “On days when the Great Feather Dance occurs, one of the faithkeepers puts two rattles ... The rattles may belong to the longhouse, or to any individual in the community. Usually arrangement for procuring the two required rattles is made beforehand, so that the owners or keeps will bring them when needed” (Conklin and Sturtevant [1952] 1953:270, par. 1) [Seneca] “Although this instrument [box turtle rattle] is owned only by women, or by the longhouse as a group, only men make them ...” (Conklin and Sturtevant [1952] 1953:283, par. 7) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “Members of the Six Nations Reserve have only possessory rights in real property. A person may transfer property by sale, gift, barter, or will; but when such transfer pertains to real property, it must be to another member of the reserve only. ... Certificates of possession are issued in the name of the minister and registered in the Indian Office at nearby Brantford. These certificates may be held by both men and women, or they may be held jointly by a man and his wife. Real property held by a man solely in his own name may be disposed of without reference to his wife, and vice versa. If a person dies intestate, his or her estate is inherited by the next of kin; namely, his widow, issue, parents, siblings, and siblings’ children. Failing these, the property reverts to the band (Indian Act, secs. 20 and 48)” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:47, par. 2) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “Of the 108 male heads of households of the sample ..., 71.3 percent own the houses in which they live; 11.1 percent live in houses that are either owned by their wives or have been lent to the latter by their near kin; 3.7 percent have 348 joint house ownership with their wives; 3.7 percent rent houses; and 5.6 percent have borrowed houses, in four instances from their mothers and in one instance each from a maternal grandfather and a father. The data are insufficient for five of the households with male heads” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:47, par. 4) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “In the forty-two households with female heads ..., there is only a single instance where the head does not own the house in which she lives. In this one case, the head is living in a house that her mother has loaned her” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:48, par. 2) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “Houses, and the land upon which they are situated, are owned by the same person in all but two of the 150 households. In both of these instances, men have built houses on land owned by their wives” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:48, par. 3) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “Although a woman may be given money by her adult sons and daughters, or occasionally by her husband, to be used in the group’s interest, the unification of the cash income of the various members of the group generally does not occur until money has been exchanged for consumer goods. These are either turned over to the wife- mother or put into a common store under her supervision and thus become the common property of the group. In this position a woman becomes a kind of focus for the unity of the group. She assigns articles of clothing to junior members and prepares or directs the preparation of food” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:86, par. 3) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “After thirty years of marriage, she left her first husband and set up her own household in the three-room log house that she had inherited, along with twenty-five acres of land, from her mother” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:137, par. 2) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “Each lineage has a set of names (gawhadjiadogę godisąna) from which all the children born to its female members are named. These names are kept by the female head of the group as an exclusive part of its corporate estate and may not be used without her permission” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:149, par. 1) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “... the lineage maintains an element of control over the personal belongings (sęhodę hoyądᴧk—lit. whatever he possessed; orgayędefra— belongings) of its deceased members. Articles of clothing; Indian costumes; ritual equipment, such as rattles, drums, and lacrosse racquets; blankets and other personal effects are the items usually distributed (dewadogwadǫ) in this manner. While the actual distribution is not confined to the lineage group, it is supervised by the lineage in the person of its female head; and it is significant, in this connection, that some of the personal belongings may be given to the help (cooks, seamstresses, and choreman) engaged by the lineage in return for their services. It is stressed that all of the personal belongings of the deceased should be turned over to the lineage for distribution in this way lest the spirit of the deceased be displeased and return to bring 349 sickness and ill fortune to those responsible for withholding them, and there are cases where a second distribution has been held to relieve a person of maladies thought to have been caused by withholding items at the time of the original one” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:157, par. 2) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “At least some, if not all, lineages possess charms (otsinnagęda’h), which are said to have been handed down for many generations and which are kept in secret by one or more of its most trusted men or women” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:159, par. 3) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “Lineages may also ‘own’ (gonatgaawę) certain dances, which are carried out publicly on their behalf” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:160, par. 1) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “Some items of a deceased person’s personal effects are always given to his or her age mates (ǫgyase) within his father’s lineage group” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:170, par. 1) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “A father’s brother’s son or daughter (dęgaǫdęhnǫde—siblings; now also ǫgyase—cousins) of a deceased person is given an item or two of his personal belongings in the distribution” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:170, par. 3) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “A person does not inherit land or income property from his mother’s brother, although he may inherit some of his personal belongings” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:177, par. 4) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “Some items of a woman’s personal belongings are always given to her brother’s children (goyadawęsǫ) upon her death” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:179, par. 1) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “A person’s legal spouse is his or her first heir in cases of intestacy, although both men and women may dispose of real property held in their own name independently without reference to his or her spouse” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:184, par. 2) “Redistribution within the lineage is limited to the allocation of a deceased individual’s personal belongings by the lineage matron. At the tenth day after the death ceremony these belongings are distributed within the lineage ... The personal property usually consists of articles of clothing, Indian costumes, ritual equipment such as water drums, rattles and lacrosse sticks and watches. The lineage has no authority to distribute real property such as land, farm implements, livestock, automobiles, home appliances, etc. ...” (Foley [1950-1975] 1975:206, par. 2) 350 Storage “... means for storing significant amounts of food in storage pits and ceramic pots ...” (Richter [c. 1200 BC] 1992:13, par. 2) “Storage space for food, firewood, and personal belongings was available in vestibules at either end of the longhouse, along the exterior walls in the intervals between compartments and above their ceilings, and (where local conditions permitted) in pits dug under the platforms and lined with bark. When no longer suitable for holding food, the pits became receptacles for household wastes” (Richter [1600s] 1992:18, par. 2) [Oneida] “A variety of crops was grown and stored for winter use in barns, nearby grain elevators, or ground pits. Meats were salted or dried and stored in barrels” (Campisi [1800s] 1978:488, par. 5) “Upon cross-poles, near the roof, was hung, in bunches, braided together by the husks, their winter supply of corn. Charred and dried corn, and beans were generally stored in bark barrels, and laid away in corners. Their implements for the chase, domestic utensils, weapons, articles of apparel, and miscellaneous notions, were stowed away, and hung up, whenever an unoccupied place was discovered” (Morgan [1851] 1954:308, par. 1) “The Iroquois were accustomed to bury their surplus corn, and also their charred green corn, in caches, in which the former would preserve uninjured through the year, and the latter for a much longer period. They excavated a pit, made a bark bottom and sides, and having deposited their corn within it, a bark roof, water tight, was constructed over it, and the whole covered up with earth. ... Cured venison and other meats were buried in the same manner, except that the bark repository was lined with deer-skins” (Morgan [1851] 1954:311, par. 1) “The braided bunches of corn were hung on poles in the house or in a protected outbuilding. The shelled corn was preserved in bark barrels and might either be natural kernels or charred. When the braided strings of corn were stored in the house the pole hung from the ridge pole or from the cross beams” (Parker [c. 1900-1910] 1910:34, par. 1) “Apples were stored in bark barrels and buried in winter pits with other vegetables” (Parker [c. 1900-1910] 1910:95, par. 2) “The corn crib, gaʼⁿhe·ʹdaʼ is a favourite storage device among the Iroquois, although the strings of corn are sometimes suspended in the garret or other parts of the house. Poles are placed across, about 21/2 feet apart, and the strings thrown over these. The cribs at present are usually constructed of boards, with shingled roofs (Plates VII, VIII). In many cases a tin pan is inverted over each of the corner posts upon which the building is placed, to prevent the mice and squirrels from ascending. A few are made of poles, usually with a simple ‘lean-to’ roof (Plate 351 IX). The cobs are either thrown loosely into these, or the braids thrown over poles which are arranged inside” (Waugh [1912-1915] 1916/1973:41, par. 1) Figure A.7 “Plate VII Corn Crib, Grand River reserve, Ontario,” from Waugh 1916/1973:171/165 (Waugh [1912-1915] 1916/1973:171/165) 352 Figure A.8 “Plate VIII Corn Crib, farm of Daniel Winnie, Grand River reserve,” from Waugh 1916/1973:173/166 (Waugh [1912-1915] 1916/1973:173/166) 353 Figure A.9 “Plate IX Corn Crib of poles, farm of Jacob Schuyler, Oneidatown, Ontario,” from Waugh 1916/1973:175/167 (Waugh [1912-1915] 1916/1973:175/167) 354 “A quite different style of crib or storage receptacle from those described was stated by Chief Gibson to have been used within his recollection. This was round and was sometimes made higher than the ordinary crib. A suggestion of the shape is contained in the name, gaʼnaʻguʹudaʼ, which signifies ‘barrel set.’ It was made by taking small posts, up to 6 inches in diameter, for the wall. A hole was next dug about 11/2 feet deep and as large around as required. The posts were set closely around the circumference of the hold, the dirt thrown in up to the level of the ground and packed down solidly. This barrel-shaped receptacle was filled with the corn in the cob and poles were laid straight across the top. Over these were placed flat pieces of elm bark, which were removed from the tree in the spring and seasoned during the summer. Another pole was placed on top of the bark and the ends tied down with strips of basswood inner bark” (Waugh [1912-1915] 1916/1973:41, par. 3) “The construction of storage pits was evidently quite common among the Iroquois, for caches while travelling, to guard against the capture of their supplies by enemies, and for the preservation of such garden products as squashes, pumpkins, etc.” (Waugh [1912-1915] 1916/1973:42, par. 3) “The storage of corn in pits is no longer practised, though potatoes, carrots, and other vegetables, also squashes and pumpkins, are frequently stored in this way (Plate X). The pits are made by digging rather large holes, lining these with various materials, such as straw or boards, and finally covering them over with earth to a depth which will exclude the frost” (Waugh [1912-1915] 1916/1973:43, par. 3) 355 Figure A.10 “Plate X Winter caches or pits for vegetables, Grand River reserve,” from Waugh 1916/1973:177/168 (Waugh [1912-1915] 1916/1973:177/168) [Seneca] “A musician keeps his horn rattles in a bag with his water drum and drumsticks (if he has a drum), hanging from a nail on the wall. ... Horn rattles are never hung up by a string (as are great turtle rattles and gourd rattles)—a man usually owns so many that a bag is the most convenient method of storage” (Conklin and Sturtevant [1952] 1953:281, par. 6) [Seneca] “A woman may keep her [box turtle] rattle in a paper bag in a drawer, in a basket on a shelf, or in any similar convenient place” (Conklin and Sturtevant [1952] 1953:284, par. 4) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “Some bedrooms are equipped with a chest of drawers or a dresser for storing clothing; others have only a large trunk or two for this purpose” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:44, par. 3) 356 [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “There is a kind of special regard for, if not sanctity about, bedrooms. ... The most sacred possessions of all members of the family are stored here. Indian costumes, clothing intended for burial use, rattles, false-face medicine masks, lacrosse racquets, and other sacred articles used in connection with various medicine rites for all members of the family are kept in this room. Powerful charms, upon which depends the well- being of individuals, and in some instances whole lineages, may be kept in a bedroom. Money and other valuables may be placed in a bedroom for safekeeping, as was the case with one elderly woman who lamentingly made known that her savings of eight hundred dollars were in a bedroom trunk when her log house burned to the ground” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:44, par. 4) Labor “... males were responsible for procuring animal protein and females for vegetables. Thus, while younger men hunted and older ones fished, women retrieved and processed the game, tended the fields of corn, beans, and squash that stretched more than a mile outside the town palisades, gathered berries, nuts, and other wild food from the surrounding countryside, and provided pottery, baskets, and firewood with which to prepare and store the bounty. Together men and women filled family cooking pots and stuffed the storage pits and baskets that lined the longhouse walls” (Richter [1600s] 1992:19, par. 1) “... a sexual division of labor made men and women economically interdependent yet also required them to separate for long periods ...” (Richter [1600s] 1992:20, par. 2) “In early spring as the weather warmed the men in a group hunted passenger pigeons on their yearly flight ... This foray was interrupted by periodic removals to fishing stations. The women gathered the newly sprouted greens, milkweed and leeks ... When the soil dried from the spring rains the women’s mutual aid society began planting. During the growing season the women tended their gardens. ... Before the first frost the women’s mutual aid society harvested and stored the crops” (Foley [1600s-1870] 1975:10, par. 1) “... a village-wide warrior group cleared the fields and built the palisades ... the males had a communal hunt previous to the major festivals. ... a women’s mutual aid society gathered in village-wide groups in order to prepare the ground, sow the soil, harvest the produce and gather the wood. Internal order was maintained by older females who supervised the activities of the younger women ... Mary Jemison described some of the activities of the women’s aid society: ‘In order to expedite their business and at the same time enjoy each other’s company, they all work together in one field or at whatever job they may have at hand. In the spring they chose an old active squaw to be their driver and overseer when at labor, and they consider themselves bound to obey her. When the time for planting arrives and the soil is prepared, the squaws are assembled in the morning and conducted into a field where each plants one row. They then go into the next and plant one across, and so on until they have gone through the tribe. If any remains to be planted they again commence where they did at first (in the same field) and so 357 keep on until the whole is completed. By this rule they perform their labor of every kind and every jealousy of one having done more or less than another is effectively avoided.’ (Seaver, 1918, 175). At harvest time the men did not join the women of the mutual aid society in the village-wide effort to harvest the crop. However, men participated in husking ...” (Foley [1600s- 1870] 1975:11, par. 1) “... different lineage’s households organized under one matron to cultivate a specific lineage plot. In return the female workers received a feast from the lineage which owned the plot. ... the smaller hunt group existed. It was composed of four or five house-hold members; thus this group had bilateral characteristics. However Lafitau (1724, 2:496-497) also describes a hunting party composed of brothers and one sister and another of age mates” (Foley [1600s- 1870] 1975:11, par. 2) “... the matrilineage exercised direct control over the labor force [the women’s mutual aid society] as well as the land, the seeds and the implements” (Foley [1600s-1870] 1975:12, par. 2) “Iroquois society distinguished between male and female productive roles. The women’s role was agricultural. ... The male role centered around hunting and warfare” (Foley [1600s- 1870] 1975:13, par. 2) “Various households were grouped in the neighborhoods along the roads and corners on which they were situated. These groupings formed the basis for labor exchange between specific households” (Foley [1870-1914] 1975:54, par. 2) “Voget maintained: ‘Bees’ are most common for cutting wood and fixing fences where rails have to be drawn, but of course when building a home or barn as P. H. did in 1893, he had a bee to raise the barn. Bees are usually held in March and April and occasionally in May or during the fall and winter months beginning in November.’ (1969:346)” (Foley [1870-1914] 1975:61, par. 3) “In autumn the fields were harvested by individual households; few bees were held for harvesting ...; plowing began for Spring seeding and winter wheat was sown. ... Men chopped wood for sale to maintain themselves for the winter. As the snow fell men trapped along the MacKenzie Creek and went on short hunts in the brush. They engaged in cottage industry making ax and hammer handles, and lacrosse sticks ... Men cut ice from the ponds to supply Hagersville, Hartford, Boston and Beelten. Women made rag rugs, mats and splint baskets to sell among the whites” (Foley [1870-1914] 1975:62, par. 1) “[Men] plowed as women and children sowed; both sexes did the herding and harvesting. The household was supplemented by a larger labor force - the neighborhood bees. The bees did husking, planting, cultivating and performed other labor extensive farm related activities. For example, in the Victoria Mills neighborhood in June of 1895, Chief William Smith and his wife held bees simultaneously. The Indian Magazine reported: ‘He is putting up a banked barn 30 by 358 40 ft. and had a raising bee Wednesday and Thursday, the 5th and 6th inst., each day he had 100 men to help. Mrs. Smith had a quilting bee at the same time, she had 20 ladies the first day and 8 the next, and if space would permit, we would like to mention a few persons who turned out to assist: Mr. John Duncan, Mr. and Mrs. W. Ferris, Mr. and Mrs. Jas. Ferris, Mr. and Mrs. C. Blakely, Mr. A. Westbrook, Mr. J. F. Martin, Mrs. Jas. Duncan, Mr. and Mrs. John Russell, Mrs. Jos. Russell, Mrs. W. Martin, Mr. and Mrs. A. Miller, Mr. and Mrs. P. Eadie, Mr. and Mrs. Styers, Mr. and Mrs. E. Powless, Mr. and Mrs. J. Weatherell, Miss S. Russell, Miss F. David, and many others. We might say, when the barn is completed it will be the largest and finest barn on the reserve.’ (1895, 2, 8.3). At the same time as Smith’s bee, two other neighborhoods had bam bees ... Significantly, only 1/5 of the households on the reserve had barns ... Thus barn bees were typical of the elite rational type farmer. The majority of operator type farmers, not having machine cultivators, primarily had neighborhood hoeing bees” (Foley [1870-1914] 1975:62, par. 2) “The Christians developed church bees based on membership in a specific denomination. Montour noted: ‘Bees’ were to be held regularly with everyone finding a task equal to his strength and skill. After general singing of the old hymn ‘O For a Thousand Tongues to Sing’, the Minister gave blessing and benediction. All joined in eating the liberal supplies of corn soup.’ (1973:22). The traditionalist Iroquois also had congregation bees. Chief Gibson reported: ‘The Onondaga name of the society is Adanidaa’saa’ (charity society). Help may in this manner be furnished throughout the season. The members of the society are next notified. The membership may consist of both old and young, and each must take his own hoe or other implement along. A man and woman are appointed leaders. When the members arrive they start work. The person inviting them must furnish corn soup. Anyone whether rich or poor may invite the society and ‘bees’ may be called for husking and braiding as well as for hoeing and planting.’ (Waugh, 1916,11). The charity society was a corporate group. Membership was limited to Longhouse Iroquois. ... Their sphere of autonomy was in work bees. They were internally regulated by a leader whom those in need contacted. Waugh (1916:11) documented the charity societies existence from the beginning of the rural period 1870 till 1910; thus they had perpetuity. ... The ‘neighborhood bee’ membership criteria was, as in aboriginal times, based on locality and was a modification of the aboriginal womens mutual aid society. During the rural period new communal labor adaptations developed among Christian and Longhouse adherents based on religious affiliation” (Foley [1870-1914] 1975:63, par. 1; 64, par. 1) “Divisions of labor were marked along the criteria of age, sex and marital status. Married males with neo-local residences directed and engaged in agricultural activity along with unmarried boys and married men living with their parents; they plowed the fields, harvested the crops, cut timber, built homes and barns and mended fences. Teenage boys and men participated in the seasonal wage labor cycle, leaving the reserve from April until November to pick berries fruit and to harvest grains and flax. Older men, unable to do farm chores, engaged in year round cottage industries of making baskets, masks, ax and hammer handles, wicker chairs and lacrosse 359 sticks ... The men butchered pigs and beef for home consumption and sale and transported grains, peas and lumber to the local white markets at Brantford, Hagarsville and Hamilton” (Foley [1870-1914] 1975:64, par. 2) “Women participated in the cultivation of crops by hoeing, and sewing along with the men. They also tended garden patches of Indian corn ... However, the primary productive role of women was in indoor household activities such as preparing corn soup for labor bees, making head cheese, pounding corn in order to make meal, making lard, and butter for sale and home consumption, sewing rag rugs, pillows and most clothing items, canning vegetables and drying apples, corn, berries and cabbage. As with the men, the women make splint baskets and corn husk dolls. Young boys, sometimes clothed in dresses, aided the women in their chores. They shed their women’s garb when they became old enough to tag along with the men in outdoor activities. In summary, men were primarily outdoor agriculturists reversing the aboriginal pattern. Women maintained a role in agriculture since they had corn gardens and participated in corn husking bees ... Women also maintained a separate source of income from sales of special cottage industry goods and various home prepared foodstuffs” (Foley [1870-1914] 1975:65, par. 1) “The women of each settlement each year elected a chief matron, onäⁿʹo gäinʹdagoⁿ etʼigowānĕ to direct their work in the communal fields. She ordered all the details of planting, cultivation and harvesting. She also had the right to choose one or two lieutenants who could give out her orders” (Parker [c. 1900-1910] 1910:24, par. 2) “The gathering of wood is still very often done by the women, and by the older men ...” (Waugh [1912-1915] 1916/1973:54, par. 2) “The gathering of nuts was usually left to the women and children, who gathered the harvest after the frosts had brought it down” (Waugh [1912-1915] 1916/1973:122, par. 4) “Women’s chief occupation was horticulture ... Older women were useful in the easier garden work and household tasks such as mat weaving, shaping of bark utensils, and beading of garments” (Randle 1951:170, par. 2) “Economically, the maintenance of the household was a joint undertaking, but the women had the chief responsibility in the care of the fields and the raising of the staple foods. Men and women cooperated in the clearing of new fields, after that the women’s group took over” (Randle 1951:172, par. 3) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “It is generally expressed that ‘a man’s work has to do with the out-of-doors.’ Duties immediately connected with the household consist of the providing of wood fuel from the bush, the building and repair of houses, and well-digging. If the household depends on farming for all or part of its livelihood, this is generally the work of men, although both wives and daughters may assist them. ... In addition to these duties, men are 360 expected to earn money with which to support the household” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:60, par. 2-3) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “While the economic activities of men pertain largely to wage earning, those of women lie in two realms, for in addition to their duties immediately connected with the household, they are often important wage earners as well. A woman’s primary duties, however, especially when her children are young, lie within the household. It is stated in speeches in the longhouse that a ‘woman’s duty is’ to bear children and ‘to hang the pot’ (negodriwhade ąyenadjaniyǫtak), referring to her primary duties within the domestic sphere”(Myers [1956-1958] 2006:66, par. 3) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “A woman’s day begins early, usually at about six to six thirty in the morning, or perhaps earlier in summertime when nearly all adult members of the house-hold are working out. Breakfast is prepared, lunches are made, and workers are sent off. After their departure, or perhaps while they are getting ready to leave, children are awakened, washed, and dressed, given their breakfast and a lunch of sandwiches, and sent off to school. When the woman remains at home, her morning is spent washing up dishes, making beds, and cleaning the house generally. Some women have a set day for the washing of clothes, while others appear to do their washing whenever it is required. When these morning tasks are completed, and if there is time, a woman may do some outside work, such as gardening, or in season gather berries or nuts in the bush” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:66, par. 4) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “It should not be assumed that women in all households adhere to a rigid routine. Certain of the above details are, of course, a daily necessity, but many of them can be postponed or their order of performance altered as suits personal inclination or the circumstances of each day. If the woman herself is working outside the home, which is most likely during summer and autumn, after the morning details of dressing and eating, the children may be left to themselves, the younger ones in the care of older siblings or perhaps a grandmother. Older girls are capable of performing most household tasks, including the preparation of the evening meal, and other details are just left to the weekend or to convenience. There is close cooperation among all the adult women and girls of the household in the performance of these tasks” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:67, par. 3) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] "Besides the indoor duties, women cultivate gardens and gather fruit and nuts from the bush. Where cows and poultry are kept, they are often cared for by women” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:67, par. 4) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “Domestic activities are said to be the domain of women, and there is, in nearly every case, a woman who is the organizer and manager around whom domestic life is centered” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:115, par. 1) 361 [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “As a general rule, siblings tend to live together in the same household from birth until young adulthood. There is early differentiation of tasks based on gender ...” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:173, par. 1) “Since farming has for all purposes disappeared, with it has gone the neighborhood labor bee which formerly was a key productive unit” (Foley [1950-1975] 1975:197, par. 3) [Oneida] “The nuclear family was the primary economic unit, and the ties between husband and wife were emphasized. Descent was bilateral with third and often fourth cousins considered as close kin. Between these kin, reciprocal gift giving and assistance in various communal activities such as building bees were expected. These obligations applied equally to both sides of the family and reflected the adjustment of the older kinship system to a newer emphasis on the nuclear family unit” (Campisi 1978:485, par. 8) Subsistence Production “The Iroquois practiced swidden (slash-and-burn) horticulture, which involved putting new plots into cultivation each spring as older fields declined; this clearing was the only horticultural chore in which men took a major role. After a number of years, women might have to travel well more than a mile from their towns or hamlets to tend some of their crops” (Richter [1600s] 1992:23, par. 2) “Much of the work of clearing, planting, and harvesting was done by work bees” (Campisi [1800s] 1978:488, par. 5) [Six Nations of the Grand River, Ontario] “On the small farms women cultivated primarily Indian corn and potatoes with a hoe, but on the larger farms (50-200 acres) men grew wheat, oats, timothy, and peas and prepared the land with plows pulled by oxen” (Weaver [1830s-1840s] 1978:525, par. 5) “Their principles articles of food were cracked corn, and skinned corn hommony, two or three varieties of corn bread, venison and other game, soups, succotash, charred and dried green corn prepared in different ways, wild fruit, ground nuts (apios tuberosa), resembling wild potatoes, beans and squashes” (Morgan [1851] 1954:321, par. 1) “Grains replaced corn as the main crop ...” (Foley [1870-1914] 1975:56, par. 2) “A turn of the century reserve resident, Chauncy John, typified the jobber type who had limited crop acreage and hired out. Chauncy owned about fifty acres that was rarely extensively cropped. He had a vegetable garden in which corn and potatoes predominated. He kept a few swine, chickens and cows. Such agriculture was not enough for subsistence. Consequently farmers needed cash to procure meat, flour and various sundries. John engaged in lumbering in the late fall and early winter. From May until September he and his family would work at the neighboring fruit farm in the Niagara Region. Periodically John would rent out a few acres to a 362 rational farmer. John’s adaptation was typical of most reserve residents in which agriculture was of the subsistence type and wage labor was mainly agricultural ...” (Foley [1870-1914] 1975:58, par. 1) “... the early spring as the households tapped maple trees, gathered the sap and boiled it. In April the fields were plowed, cultivated, and sown” (Foley [1870-1914] 1975:61, par. 3) “The work of girdling the trees and of burning the underbrush was that of the men” (Parker [c. 1900-1910] 1910:21, par. 3) “The work of berrying was left ... to the women and girls. They would go in groups to the places where patches of the vines and bushes grew and sing their folksongs as they gathered the fruit” (Parker [c. 1900-1910] 1910:98, par. 3) “The fields were evidently grouped more or less closely about the villages, and varied from ten or twenty to several hundred acres, according to the size of the community” (Waugh [1912-1915] 1916/1973:6, par. 3) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “Well over half of the households are known to cultivate gardens, which yield an important supply chiefly of potatoes, corn, and beans” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:58, par. 3) “Today there are but five full time farmers on the reserve” (Foley [1950-1975] 1975:198, par. 1) “Farm laboring has declined in the modern period. Today most farm laborers are women or youths who supplement their families’ incomes in the summer months working as pickers in the fruit orchards of Niagara or on local tobacco, tomato or strawberry farms. Women and children and older folks work the vegetable or fruit fields while youth gangs prime and pick in the tobacco fields. The average fruit or vegetable picker is paid by the box or basket. Most agricultural laborers average $20 a day and a family of six individuals can make upwards of $100 per day. ‘Gangs’ of youths from 17-25 years of age frequently contract out to a local tobacco farmer to prime and pick tobacco” (Foley [1950-1975] 1975:201, par. 1) Non-subsistence Production [Seneca] “Any man at Allegany can make a water drum if he wishes, although in practice very few do so. Avery Jimmerson, Ed Curry, and Arthur Johnny John are among the locally known craftsmen who make drums. They possess the needed tools, such as ‘curved knives’ (crooked knives), chisels, braces and bits, and adzes. They are not craftsmen in a commercial sense, however, since they make drums only for their own use, or when one is needed in the community” (Conklin and Sturtevant [1952] 1953:274, par. 7) 363 “Old men no longer travel to a neighbor’s house for a ‘gathering’ and tell folktales by a wood stove surrounded by enthralled youngsters. Today youngsters surround the television set and absorb the values of the mass media which stresses consumption and immediate gratification” (Foley [1950-1975] 1975:197, par. 3) “Individuals involved in crafts represent the native oriented class. Today Ohsweken has five craft shops, one of which specializes in silver smithing. Longhouse adherents opened three shops in the lower end. An ex-schoolteacher started the flourishing Mohawk Pottery Shop in the Sour Springs area. In addition to these craft-oriented businesses there are two lacrosse stick manufacturers; a Mohawk Chief, also operates the Iroquois Village, a local museum and craft shop” (Foley [1950-1975] 1975:199, par. 1) Consumption “In return for the daughter-in-law’s agricultural and weed gathering services, the husband contributed to his wife’s lineage his entire first year’s hunt, and in subsequent years, a fair share of his hunt ...” (Foley [1600s-1870] 1975:12, par. 3) “The procedure of the Feast of the Dead illustrated its function as a distributive mechanism. Before leaving for the general feast at the new village site, the individual matrilineages held a feast in which the guests took anything they desired. During this time a distribution was made to young warriors and youths who represented a potentially disruptive segment. Once the guests and hosts reached the new village site the guests made a heap of the presents in order to cover the dead ... In recapitulation, at the inter-village level, the Feast of the Dead entailed a distribution of goods in which chiefs distributed goods to the village youth, and other village members” (Foley [1600s-1870] 1975:16, par. 1-2) “The ethic of hospitality dominated the village distributive process. Concerning the ethic, Lafitau remarked: ‘An individual however important he may be if he had been lucky at hunting or fishing should according to the occasion make distributions to the old people, his kin and his friends. Largess of this type exhalts everything but they would not dare to fail in it and would not do without rendering themselves infamous.’ (1724, 2:89)” (Foley [1600s-1870] 1975:16, par. 3) “At the neighborhood level, bee members participating in bees for successful rational farmers, frequently received flour and pork if no reciprocal labor was involved. ... For the most part the exchange of labor was the payment for a bee supplemented by a feast of corn soup. Consequently, along with their hoe other neighbors brought pails to bring soup home. For marginal farmers bees provided a means of obtaining needed foodstuffs such as corn soup and more rarely flour and pork” (Foley [1870-1914] 1975:67, par. 1) “Longhouse members, especially the rational farmers, were obliged to supply food for the feasts. Those who could not contribute as much as most still received an equal share in the feast. 364 Consequently, feasting was a distributive mechanism that functioned to siphon off some of the surplus of the more successful for the good of the Longhouse sect as a whole” (Foley [1870- 1914] 1975:69, par. 1) “The food for the day was usually cooked in the morning and kept warm all day. For special occasions, however, a meal could be cooked at any time, but as a rule an Iroquois household did not expect a family meal except in the morning. ... Large eaters were not looked upon with favor, but every one was supposed to satisfy his hunger” (Parker [c. 1900-1910] 1910:61, par. 2) “In apportioning a meal the housewife dipped the food from the kettle or took it from its receptacle and placed it in bark and wooden dishes, which she handed the men. They either sat on the floor or ground or stood along the wall as was most convenient. The women and children were then served” (Parker [c. 1900-1910] 1910:62, par. 2) “Any one from anywhere could enter any house at any time if occupants were within, and be served with food. Indeed it was the duty of the housewife to offer food to every one that entered her door” (Parker [c. 1900-1910] 1910:62, par. 5) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “Lunch is prepared and eaten between noon and one o’clock by members of the household remaining at home and by schoolchildren when their school is near enough to facilitate their return during their noon hour” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:67, par. 1) [Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada] “At mealtime the food is placed on the table in large serving bowls, pitchers, or on platters. The entire household gathers round, each in his own place, with younger children near their mother, to share the meal together. Each member of the group is, for the most part, allowed to serve himself under the supervision primarily of the mother” (Myers [1956-1958] 2006:86, par. 3) “The sub-lineage becomes the focus for food redistribution at curing rituals of the various healing societies and at feasts for supplication of a deceased member of the sub-lineage who is seeking to possess a living being” (Foley [1950-1975] 1975:207, par. 2) 365 APPENDIX B: North Pacific Coast Area [Northwest Coast] 366 Data - (2) Northwest Coast [North Pacific Coast Area] Community [Klamath] “Chiefs are of but minor significance in Klamath life” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:35, par. 3) [Klamath] “Some settlements have chiefs, others do not. ... Such is the separatism among the subdivisions that there can hardly be a tribal chief” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:36, par. 3-4) [Klamath] “A chief is one who has acquired his position in war, with some background of spirit experiences, wealth, ability to talk, and a suggestion of hereditary interest; this beyond natural ability for leadership. As one informant summed up his qualifications: he must be brave and have property; he must have presence to meet and talk with anyone, must be competent to arrange matters without dispute, and must have the interest of all his people at heart” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:37, par. 1) [Klamath] “Chiefs are wealthy. ... They own many slaves; other people may have slaves, but many have none. Some chiefs have a number of wives” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925- 1926] 1930:38, par. 2) [Klamath] “A chief becomes such primarily by his leadership in war. ... Under the circumstances there can hardly be inheritance of chieftainship, largely because it is not an office to be regulated by definite succession. A chief’s relative may be chosen as war leader, but not of necessity. Since wealth figures, it may be that at least the possibility of succession is heritable, but a man who is personally disqualified will not be considered. Pat Kane’s paternal grandfather was a chief at duʹkwa ... But his son did not succeed because he was not competent and, in addition poor ...” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:38, par. 3-4) [Klamath] “The Klamath have no feeling of class stratification as on the Columbia river and northward. A chief is a leader and nothing more. His wife and children are commoners and not known by distinctive terms” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:38, par. 5) 367 [Tsimshian] Table B.1 “Table 1. Registered Indian Population, 1983,” from Inglis et al. 1990:287 (Inglis et al. [1983] 1990:287) 368 [Haida] “Chieftainships were handed down within a lineage in accordance with matrilineal principles of inheritance. Normally a title would be passed on to the next oldest brother, any younger brother, and the oldest sister’s oldest son (Stearns 1984:195). Success in the acquisition of wealth was an important chiefly criterion, and an unproductive sister’s son might be passed over for a more remote but successful ‘nephew.’ Occasionally a chieftainship was transferred to an individual of another sublineage or lineage of the moiety, though public pressure militated against this practice. Rarely, it would appear, a chieftainship might be given to an individual of the opposite moiety, the title passing from father to son. The Masset town chieftainship, held by the sgida·qaw Raven lineage and passed to the sˁaǯu·gà·ł ľa·na·s Eagle lineage about 1840 from a father to his son, is an example ...” (Blackman 1990:252, par. 2) [Haida] “The most dramatic changes in Haida culture were effected during 1875-1910. The Haida were increasingly acculturated, as White-style housing appeared among the cedar plank dwellings. The last traditional house building and frontal totem-pole raising occurred in the winter of 1881. By 1905 the last traditional house had disappeared from Masset. The population decline, which reached its nadir in 1915, led to rearrangements in settlement pattern, the extinction of some lineages, and severe constraints upon ceremonial organization. Missionaries wrought specific changes in mortuary practices, traditional ceremonies, and marriage patterns. When the potlatch was outlawed in Canada in 1884, missionaries to the Haida assisted in enforcing the ban. Wage labor, available in the burgeoning fishing and canning industries, enhanced the economic resources of the people, while the Canadian government’s allotment of reserves without regard to lineage landholdings undercut the economic base of the lineages. Lineage organization was further diminished by the adoption of nuclear family dwellings and the subsequent disappearance of the house-building potlatch ... However, the mortuary potlatch, temporarily truncated and altered in content but not form, continued to be a feature of twentieth-century Haida culture ... Feasting, a traditional custom given missionary approval, continued unabated and may even have gained momentum as nontraditional events become occasions for celebration by feasting. Matrilineal organization continued to function in a restricted ceremonial context” (Blackman 1990:257, par. 1-2) [Haida] “Each lineage was headed by a hereditary chief who was the trustee of the lineage properties. His permission had to be secured before others of different lineages could have access to those properties and their resources. He was consulted on lineage matters and could call together the lineage for counsel or to declare war. If a lineage were divided into sublineages, chiefs of these divisions were also recognized. ... In single lineage towns, the lineage chief was the highest authority in the village. In multilineage settlements the highest authority was called the ‘town master’ or ‘town mother’ ... This title was held by the highest- ranking, wealthiest house chief of the lineage that owned the village site. In actuality, the position was occasionally held by a lineage chief whose ancestral properties lay elsewhere” (Blackman [1900s] 1990:251, par. 5) 369 [Haida] “Swanton (1905:106) estimated 900 in 1901, ‘largely mixed-bloods.’ Haida population continued to decline, reaching the nadir of 588 in 1915 ... However, the 1920s and 1930s were marked by a steady recovery. In 1963 the Queen Charlotte Agency, British Columbia, reported 903 Masset and 321 Skidegate for a total Canadian Haida population of 1,224 ... In 1970 Alaska Haida (Kaigani) population was estimated at around 240 concentrated mostly in Hydaburg ...” (Blackman 1990:258, par. 1) [Haida] “The clan chief is always also a house chief, usually the richest and most influential in the village. He exercises authority over all the house chiefs of his own clan who reside in the village. He can normally count on their support in war and other enterprises, even though he has no recognized power to force obedience or punish insubordination. His authority ... resides mainly in the prestige of his position and in his wealth and personal qualities. He acts as trustee of the lands and prerogatives of the clan” (Murdock 1936:16, par. 1) [Haida] “The chief of one clan may, through superior wealth or status or because his group is larger or possesses more privileges, come to enjoy greater prestige than the others, but he wields no actual authority outside of his own clan” (Murdock 1936:16, par. 3) [Haida] “Fundamentally, ... the so-called ‘nobles’ and ‘commoners’ of the Haida are, respectively, merely those who possess status and those who lack it, those whose parents have potlatched and those whose parents have not. There are, however, numerous gradations of status, depending in every case upon the number and type of the potlatches given by the parents” (Murdock 1936:18, par. 1) [Haida] “Informants at both Massett and Hydaburg insisted strongly that persons lacking in status never constituted more than ten per cent of the total adult population. ‘Nobles’ have always greatly outnumbered ‘commoners’” (Murdock 1936:19, par. 2) [Haida] “In addition to a rank order the Haida recognized a class system. High-ranking people (yahˁi·d) were those who, as children, had had potlatches given in their honor by their parents and thus bore one or more potlatch names. Both sexes wore the markers of their status in the form of tattoos. These ‘nobles’ were the house owners and heirs to lineage and sublineage chieftainships and high names. People who were not high-ranking had not had potlatches given for their benefit. They did not own houses, were not heirs to high-ranking names, and through either improvidence or ‘unluckiness’ were not so successful in their economic endeavors as the high-ranking. They did not display the visible symbols of rank and did not host potlatches or feasts ... Slaves (ḥalda·ŋ) were war captives and the offspring of war captives. They were regarded as chattels and their position was hereditary” (Blackman [1930s] 1990:252, par. 4) [Haida] “Swanton (1905:69) noted that most questions regarding the interests of the townspeople as a whole were decided by the town chief. Curtis (1907-1930, 11:119) concurs, while Murdock (1934a:238) states that no chief wielded any authority outside his own lineage. In the 1970s Masset people indicated that while the town chief needed the support of the house 370 chiefs and lineage chiefs of his village, he did wield a considerable amount of authority in respect to matters affecting the village as a whole” (Blackman 1990:252, par. 1) [Haida] “Some Massett Haida, commenting in the 1970s on the existence of lineage rank, asserted that one lineage was inferior to all the rest because that group owned very little land” (Blackman 1990:251, par. 4) [Haida] “The internal ranking of Haida society was evident at feasts and potlatches when guests were seated in accordance with their rank” (Blackman 1990:252, par. 3) [Haida] “In order to maintain prestige in the eyes of the people, a chief was expected to give frequent feasts; to succeed to a chiefly title, to guarantee the noble standing of his children, or to build a house, he was constrained to give a potlatch” (Blackman 1990:252, par. 5) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] Table B.2 “Table 1. Kwakiutl Population, 1835-1954,” from Codere 1990:367 (Codere [1835-1954] 1990:367) 371 [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] Table B.3 “Table 1. Kwakiutl Band Population, 1983,” from Webster 1990:387 (Webster [1983] 1990:387) 372 [Nuu-chah-nulth (Nootka)] Table B.4 “Table 1. Nootkan Population, 1835-1984,” from Arima and Dewhirst 1990:408 (Arima and Dewhirst [1835-1984] 1990:408) 373 [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “Even on the Northwest Coast where the concept of hereditary class distinctions characteristically bulked so large in social consciousness, the Nootkans were noteworthy for the emphasis they placed on rank. Early sources and contemporary accounts alike show that Nootkan chiefs constituted a true nobility, with authority and prestige equaled by few other native Americans ... A cursory viewing of the social structure indicates that there were two main figures in the social scene, the chief (haʼwił) and the commoner (mȧstcum). Which part a man played depended solely on his birth. The accident of being born aristocratic or common parents outlined the normal course of one’s life: it restricted his choice of occupations and mates, defined the role he would take in ceremonies, and limited the honors he might gain among his fellows. Not only on formal occasions, but in the commonplaces of everyday life, the Nootkans were ever conscious of distinctions of rank” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:243, par. 2-3) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “The descendants of younger sons formed a sort of middle class. ... In real life, there was no sharp break separating the two strata, noble and common. Not only were the relatives of the royal lines graduated in rank in proportion to their distance from the eldest families, but certain families of commoners might be raised slightly above the common level by grants of minor rights” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:245, par. 2) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “As the members of each family were ranked according to their nearness to the direct line of descent from the family ancestor, so the chiefs of each extended lineage or local group were ranked from high to low” (Drucker [(1870- 1900) 1935-1936] 1951:245, par. 3) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “Low-rank people and commoners were ... dependent on their chiefs for necessities of life, and in return gave their services as fishermen, hunters, and craftsmen to their lords” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:271, par. 3) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “A slave was socially at the foot of the scale. Slaves were obtained in war, then might be sold from one tribe to another, up and down the coast. If a captive’s kin were able, they would attempt to ransom him as soon as possible, for slavery was regarded as a disgrace. ... The treatment accorded slaves varied according to the temper of their masters. A slave was a chattel in a very real sense; he could be bought and sold, maltreated or slain at his owner’s whim. Actually, the lot of most of them was little different than that of commoners. Both classes labored for their overlords, and both were allowed to attend or even participate in festivities” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:272, par. 1-2) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “There was a nice balance maintained between the chiefs of highest rank, and their lower-rank kinsmen and helpers. It was commonly recognized that the individual chief’s ability to ‘keep up his name,’ that is, to live up to the 374 reputation of his forebears in potlatching and feast-giving depended on the people (middle class and commoners) living in his house” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:273, par. 3) [Tlingit] Table B.5 “Table 1. Tlingit Population, 1740-1930,” from de Laguna 1990:205 (de Laguna [1741-1930] 1990b:205) [Yakutat Tlingit] “The terrible smallpox epidemic of 1837-39 spread from California to the Arctic Ocean, first appearing at Sitka in November 1836. In the village near the Russian fort, 400 natives died within 3 months, representing half the population, for the Tlingit had refused vaccination. The epidemic was not of equal severity everywhere, being relatively light among the Stikine, but devastating at Angoon. According to native tradition, it wiped out many villages between Yakutat and Dry Bay. The epidemic finally died out in 1840. Veniaminov (1840, vol. 3, p. 29) estimates that in that year there were less than 6,000 living ‘Kolosh’ in Russian America, ‘from Kaigan to Yakutat,’ whereas in 1833, before the smallpox, there had been 10,000” (de Laguna 1972:177, par. 5) 375 [Yakutat Tlingit] “A severe measles epidemic in 1848 raged from the Aleutians to southeastern Alaska, and again in 1862 smallpox spread from south to north among the Tlingit, sparing only those at Sitka where the majority had been vaccinated. Presumably the Gulf Coast tribes suffered from these also, although we have no records” (de Laguna 1972:178, par. 1) [Yakutat Tlingit] “Veniaminov gives a census of the Tlingit tribes as of 1840, in which 150 persons are listed for Yakutat, and 250 for Lituya or ‘Avetzk’ (1840, vol. 3, p. 29), but we do not know upon what data this count is based” (de Laguna 1972:178, par. 2) [Yakutat Tlingit] “Tikhmenev (1863, vol. 2, p. 341) observes: ‘The exact number of the Kolosh is not known, some suppose that including the tribes in the interior [‘Swamp Kolosh,’ possibly Inland Tlingit], it would come to 40,000; others, and among them Veniaminoff [who included only the Tsimshian and Haida, not interior tribes], estimate them at 25,000. For our part we will only give the numbers of Kolosh in the well-known villages as we find it in the writings of Mr. Wehrmann [1861].’ These are for Yakutat Bay: 163 free men, 168 free women, 25 male slaves and 24 female slaves; for Lituya Bay: 265 free men, 267 free women, with 29 male and 29 female slaves. (Tikhmenev, 1863, vol. 2, p. 341)” (de Laguna 1972:178, par. 3) [Tlingit] “In numbers the Tlingit dropped from a possible 10,000 in the eighteenth century to a low of less than 4,000 in 1920 ..., to increase again to nearly 10,000 in 1985 ... largely because of greatly improved health services” (de Laguna 1990:226, par. 1) [Tlingit] “By this time [1881] the barter in slaves had long since ceased, and, while a number of slaves were to be found in each tribe, these were older people whose servitude was voluntary, and who lived as poor members of the family [as clan-mates of their owners], and so remained until they died. I saw several of these among the Chilkat as late as 1885, and they went as they pleased and seemed perfectly contented with their lot” (Emmons (and de Laguna) 1991:43, par. 3) [Tlingit] “The Tlingit are geographically divided into seventeen tribes. ... Socially, they are separated into two exogamous parties, matriarchal in descent [matrilineal], which might be termed phratries [matri-moieties]. These consist of an indeterminate number of consanguineal families or clans [matri-sibs], made up of households [matrilineages, or house lines]. ... Two classes were recognized: an aristocracy at the head of which were the chiefs, and the [common] people. Slaves were property without standing [in Tlingit society]. ... [It could probably be argued now that the Tlingit recognized rank but not class ...”(Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882- 1904] 1991:21, par. 1, 3-4) [Tlingit] “The aristocracy consists of the subchiefs [hít sa·tí] and their families [i.e., the house or lineage chiefs and their immediate biological relatives]. But standing almost in a class by themselves are the principal clan chief [word, ‘big man,’ or words, ‘clan head’] and his family. Succession to the chieftainship is hereditary within his lineage. Through generations of authority, greater wealth, and a strict observance of established etiquette, these aristocrats have 376 become distinguished by their dignity, intelligence, and address. Their social position is inherited but must be maintained by the giving of elaborate feasts, distributions of property, and by marriage only with their equals” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:37, par. 3) [Tlingit] “The second social class, constituting the majority of the people, might really be subdivided into a middle and a lower class. From time to time, men of exceptional personality, through prowess in war, the accumulation of means, the giving of feasts, and marrying with those above them in social rank, might compel or be accorded such recognition as would advance them socially. Once they had been accepted into the aristocracy, their position and that of their descendants was fixed forever, although for generations such humble origins would be remembered, and the women might be reminded of it in their quarrels. Those who through want of ambition, misfortune, or extreme poverty became dependent upon others really constituted the lowest class” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:38, par. 1) [Tlingit] “Although the office of chief was the most honorable among the Tlingit, the holder was possessed of limited authority. His power was more moral than real, for the people constituted the governing body. He presided over them in council and represented them in dealing with outsiders, but he governed only through their consent” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:39, par. 1) [Tlingit] “The duties of the chief were to lead his clan in war, to represent the clan at all functions, to preside over its councils, to entertain strangers, to assist the needy and provide the death feast for those clansmen who had nothing, to arbitrate disputes and settle differences within the clan. The authority of a chief did not extend beyond his village or tribe, although precedence might be accorded to a very prominent chief of the same clan who lived in another tribe, if it were a question concerning the clan as a whole” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882- 1904] 1991:39, par. 4-5) [Tlingit] “Most slaves were captives taken in war ...” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882- 1904] 1991:40, par. 6) [Tlingit] “Under certain conditions the Tlingit also enslaved their own people. These were women and children of other Tlingit kwans [qʷá·n] or tribes, taken in war, or members of their own families [lineages]. Their social system could never permit the shame of leaving a member of one’s own family [lineage or clan] to be held captive by another family [without attempting ransom or revenge]. Orphans with no near relatives were often taken as slaves by members of their own family [lineage], but they were not actually slaves, for upon reaching manhood they could assert themselves and could no longer be held except by force” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:41, par. 1) [Tlingit] “The children of slaves were likewise slaves. Even if a freeman married a slave woman, their children were free only during his life, for they might be claimed as slaves or sold by his successor” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:41, par. 6) 377 [Tlingit] “The life of a slave depended entirely upon the character of the master. Under ordinary circumstances, aside from the uncertainty of life, their condition differed little from that of the poorer class” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:41, par. 7) [Tlingit] “... slaves were often freed at potlatch ceremonies. Upon such occasions, those who had dressed the chief and his children were called before the assemblage, and the chief, giving them the end of his dance wand, would proclaim their freedom. Then they could return to their own people or remain with the tribe and marry a free person. In such an event, however, although their children would be free, the latter would always be despised, as would the one who had married a former slave. Again, slaves or their friends [relatives?] could purchase their freedom at the option of their masters” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:42, par. 1) [Yakutat Tlingit] “... there was never one chief at the head of any Tlingit tribe. At any given time, however, a particular sib or lineage chief in the community might have the most prestige ...” (de Laguna [1949-1954] 1972:186, par. 8) [Tlingit] “There are three types of division of Tlingit social organization which intersect to give the structure of each community and which constitute the coördinates by which the individual orients himself. These three types of division are: first, territorial, creating the thirteen or fourteen local groups or tribes ...; second, kinship, which divides the Tlingit into two exogamous matrilineal moieties, Ravens and Eagles (or Wolves), and is further expressed in the matrilineal sibs and lineages (or houses); third, class, which ranks aristocracy and commoners in a somewhat fluid, hierarchical continuum” (de Laguna [1950] 1952:1, par. 2) [Tlingit] “The nobility consists of the titled heads of houses, together with their immediate biological families. ... A man or woman may through personal conduct and potlatching record raise or lower his personal status, and thus eventually the value of the name or title held. ... the chiefs of the most important houses of the most respected sibs are the recognized social and ceremonial leaders, whereas other house heads hold titles of lesser esteem and their lineages are socially inferior. Often there may be one sib in the community outstanding in size, wealth, and the rank of its leading chief. ... this sib would be the most influential political faction in the community ...” (de Laguna [1950] 1952:6, par. 1) [Tlingit] “Kinship ... seems to provide the fundamental framework of Tlingit society, and to draw the lines along which both discord and solidarity are expressed” (de Laguna [1950] 1952:7, par. 1) [Eyak] “Three classes were distinguished: chiefs and their families, commoners, and slaves. There was no tribal or village government; the moiety (or clan) chief in any village was leader only of his own people, although one chief was likely to be preeminent. Chiefs owned slaves, led war and hunting expeditions, and dressed themselves and their close kin in dentalia and fine clothing. Succession went to a younger brother or maternal nephew. Slaves (war 378 captives and their children) might be killed at the funeral of a chief or his relative” (de Laguna 1990b:192, par. 3) [Eyak] “The clans were the political and legal units” (de Laguna 1990b:193, par. 2) Village [Klamath] “The fixed villages are the winter residences to which people return year after year. Each spring finds them leaving for favorable fishing stations where there are successive fish runs. Through the summer they move to the prairies to gather edible roots and berries or to the mountain and desert to hunt. During most of this time families are widely scattered and the winter villages quite deserted, but with the ripening of pond lily seeds in the marshes during August and September they again congregate. ... Summer is also the time of travel and trade, taking people as far as the Dalles where they may elect to spend the winter” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:10, par. 4) [Klamath] “6, duʹ‛ǐḳŭt, a very large town, perhaps a hundred house pits in an area three hundred yards by one hundred. ... 7, awaʹlwask̇ ăn, at least five earth-lodges here. ... 21, ḳ !oʹltawas, a town of ten or fifteen earth-lodges on the left bank, with houses on the right bank extending to the next settlement downstream. ... 22, atʼawǐkc, ‘to catch fish in still water,’ six to a dozen houses on the right bank; a few on the left. ... 23, yaʹak (yaʹac, willows), two dozen or more houses on the right bank. ... Of three house pits together, with their margins nearly in contact, two are twenty-five or thirty feet in diameter, the other fully five feet more. ... 26, goyᴇmsḳeʹᴇgǐs, crawfish crawl out, or k̇ iᴇk̇ eʹtrŭs, small lizard, a town half a mile long beginning a quarter-mile above the highway bridge. ... There are pits of perhaps forty or more houses here, but at least half are dome-shaped cooking houses, for they are for the most part only six to ten feet in diameter, with few as much as fifteen feet. One of eighteen feet has its dome-shaped kitchen lodge clearly indicated on the north side. 27, wᴇlaʹlksi, named for a big quaking-aspen (wᴇlaʹl) there, is on the eastern shore of Agency lake. A few ăʹukckni live here in winter, in five or six small houses. 28, loḳʼoʹgŭt, warm, a little warm spring near which are two houses on the higher land near Agency lake. 29, tcŏʹklalŭmps, service berry, which grows here abundantly, is a town of one or two small houses overlooking the lake where the Chiloquin road meets the lake highway. ... 44, kowaʹcdi is close to the mouth of Wood river. The site is a quarter-mile long. One informant stated that it contained twenty houses, another two earth-lodges (one a shaman’s), not incompatible statements. ... 30, moʹaḳsda, five or seven earth-lodges on the left bank nearly a mile above the mouth. Five more houses stood on the opposite bank with numerous springs behind them and the duʹkwakni cremation pile a half-mile above. 31, wǐck̇ ămdi, four or five houses on the right bank below this, one or two a little below, then a cluster of four and another of two farther downstream. 32, la ʼwaʹlstŏt, three houses on the point forming the right side of the river mouth. 33, moʹgiηkŭnks, the largest settlement in this district with five or six earth- lodges and as usual a number of small structures. This is on the left bank a quarter-mile above the mouth. One or two houses are on this side immediately at the river mouth. 34, djǐηgŭs, four 379 or five houses at a spring on the lake front to the east of the mouth, with one or two more farther in the marsh. ... 35, sleʹtsksi, a group of two or three earth-lodges on the west side of Seven Mile creek near its mouth. ... 37, iwŭnauʹts, two earth-lodges on the western side of a little creek emptying into the lake two miles east of Recreation P. O. Houses are scattered along the marsh shore to the northern side of Pelican bay. ... 39, eʹoʼḳai, four or five earth-lodges a few hundred yards up Four Mile creek on the left bank. 40, wa‛lŏʹkdi, four to eight earth-lodges, one a shaman’s, somewhat farther up the creek on the opposite side” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:13, par. 7; 14, par. 1; 15, par. 1-3, 6-9; 16, par. 2, 4-8; 18, par. 2, 4, 6-7) [Klamath] “The majority of the inmates of a house can usually trace some relationship. This is also true of most of the inhabitants of a settlement. For example, the village moʹgiηkŭnks had half a dozen earth-lodges, of which three held the families of two brothers and their father’s male cousin” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:53, par. 4) [Nuxalk (Bella Coola)] Figure B.1 “Fig 4. Bella Coola, B.C.,” from Kennedy and Bouchard 1990:327 (Kennedy and Bouchard [1873] 1990:327) are organized on an endogamic basis” (Boas [1898-1900] 1900:121, par. 1) [Nuxalk (Bella Coola)] “... the Bella Coola are divided into village communities, which 380 [Haida] “At the time of the first recorded contact with Europeans, in the late eighteenth century, the Haida lived in a number of ‘towns,’ each composed of houses of one or more matrilineal lineages” (Blackman 1990:240, par. 4) [Haida] “A number of factors appeared to enter into the selection of winter village sites: natural protection from storms and enemies, proximity to halibut banks and shellfish resources, availability of drinking water, and adequate beachfront for landing canoes. Houses, built close together, nestled against the treeline and faced the beach in a long, even row. Several villages contained two rows of houses (Ninstints, Kloo, Cumshewa, Chaatl, Kasaan). Houses of the most important individual (‘town’ chief) tended to be located either in the center of the village (Masset, Kiusta, Kayung, Cumshewa) or at one end of the village (Kloo, Skedans, Chaatl, Kung, Klinkwan, Kasaan). Above the storm tide mark along the beachfront were erected the ‘forest’ of totem poles so frequently remarked upon by nineteenth-century visitors to Haida villages ... Among the carved posts were those (sometimes plain, sometimes carved) containing the remains of the dead. Small gravehouses architecturally similar to the dwellings stood behind the habitations or at one end of the village” (Blackman [mid 1800s-early 1900s] 1990:241, par. 2) 381 [Haida] Table B.6 “Table 1. Size of Haida Towns,” from Blackman 1990:257 (Blackman 1990:257) 382 [Haida] “At the present time we find each town inhabited by several families, generally belonging to both clans. This does not seem to have been the original condition, but it would seem that in olden times each town was inhabited by one family only. The women in such a town would all have belonged to outside towns; but since it is customary for the children to settle and to build houses in the town of their mother’s brothers, whose successors they are, the unity of the population was preserved, and the continuity of population was secured through the return of the sister’s children to the male side of the family” (Swanton [1900-1901] 1909:66, par. 2) [Haida] “Generally there was only one row of houses to a town. They faced the beach. Very large towns might have more, one behind the other, and five is always the favorite number for ‘story’ towns. It is scarcely likely that the number was ever reached” (Swanton [1900-1901] 1909:70, par. 3) [Haida] “Contact with the Tlingit modified the social organization of these families in such a way that all [the Middle-Town-People ..., Sand-Town-People ..., Earth Eaters ..., and Inlet-born ...] except the Sand-Town-People ... became divided into ‘house-groups.’ This does not mean that each group lived in one house, —it often had several houses, and in one case occupied the larger part of a town, —but each received its name from some house, or as if from some house” (Swanton [1900-1901] 1909:90, par. 3) [Haida] “Under aboriginal conditions it was apparently quite exceptional for a village to be inhabited by more than one clan. Even since white contact, which has resulted in a marked decrease in the number of settlements, the several clans of a village have been quite independent” (Murdock 1936:16, par. 2) [Haida] “Swanton (1905:66) noted that ‘it would seem that in olden times each town was inhabited by one family [lineage] only. The women in such a town would all have belonged to outside towns.’ By 1840-1850, however, virtually, all winter villages were comprised of house owners of several lineages, and in most villages house owners belonged to both moieties ...” (Blackman 1990:249, par. 3) [Haida] “In 1983 the village population of about 400 persons comprised one-third of the total U.S. population of Haidas. ... The town occupies 189 acres extending along the waterfront in a strip a mile long and 600 feet wide. Of the surrounding land, ... south of town is the 23,040- acre tract of less choice timber held by the village-owned Haida Corporation ...” (Stearns 1990:262, par. 1) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “Among the southern Kwakiutl tribes the families constituting a village community are subdivided into a number of clans, but each clan is confined to one village. We do not find a limited number of clans pervading the whole tribe, as we do among the northern tribes. ... the present organization has evidently developed from a previous simpler state, in which the tribe was divided into single village communities. The present more 383 complex organization resulted from the amalgamation of various villages” (Boas [1898-1900] 1900:121, par. 2) [Tlingit] “The clan houses were grouped about that of the chief and were sometimes enclosed within a stockade” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:27, par. 4) [Tlingit of Angoon] “The many small villages and camps of former times are now concentrated in the one town with a winter population of about three hundred and fifty” (Garfield [1945] 1947:438, par. 1) [Yakutat Tlingit] “Mrs. Emma Joseph, at one time the oldest living native in Yakutat and reported to have been born in 1867, gave the following confused statement to Goldschmidt and Haas (1946, p. 77a). Apparently she was thinking about both the old village and a later camp at or near the site, as I have tried to indicate by my own explanatory additions in brackets. ‘Lost River was owned by the Teoquedi people who [once] had a large village which was used the year around. In my time there were four [temporary?] houses there. They trap salmon and got all kinds of berries. They [the inhabitants of the old village] move away when smallpox killed the people. This was before I was born. They moved to a little place called Nastudat, which was also on Lost River. By the time I [was old enough to] remember they had moved to Situk and would go out there for a month or so at a time’” (de Laguna [late 1800s-early 1900s] 1972:77, par. 2) [Yakutat Tlingit] “During the Teqwedi occupation there were several houses inside a fort: Shark House, Bear House, Bear Paw House, Golden Eagle House, Coward House, and Valley House were all mentioned but it must be remembered that one house might have several names. Sidewise House of the TłʼᴜknaXᴀdi was also here, but its site is now believed to be in the muskeg, while the stream has washed away some of the high ground where the others stood. Emmons (MS.) reports that ‘De-ah-gun-ah-ate (where the salt water comes up and the people moan for fresh water)’ was the earliest Teqwedi village in the Yakutat area, and had eight houses inside a stockade. The doorway to the chief’s was cut through a totem pole on which the Bear crest was carved. My informants mentioned this, as well as the carved house posts that were later taken to the village on Khantaak Island. The last known occupants of the village, who later moved to Situk River and Khantaak Island, were the parents and grandparents of persons born in 1880-84. Our explorations at the site indicated a long period of occupation (de Laguna et al., 1964, pp. 25-26, pl.1, b). There is some suggestion that the Teqwedi moved away because a shaman had been killed in a quarrel up the Situk River ...” (de Laguna [1800s] 1972:77, par. 3) [Yakutat Tlingit] “‘The number of inhabitants contained in the whole sound, as near as I could calculate, amounted to about seventy, including women and children’ (Beresford, 1789, p. 171), or ‘did not, perhaps, exceed seventy or eighty’ (Dixon, 1789, p. 87), and their dwellings were judged to be merely temporary structures, the planks of which could be taken away in a canoe and erected in a different spot” (de Laguna [1789] 1972:126, par. 6) 384 [Yakutat Tlingit] “The settlement seemed to be inhabited by about 80 persons, the rest of the tribe being scattered about on the surrounding islands” (de Laguna [1840s-1880s] 1972:143, par. 2) [Tlingit] “Villages were more often situated in shallow bights, easy of access, than at the head of deep bays. The houses faced the beach in one or two parallel rows following the trend of the shore, and were far enough above the reach of the tide to allow for a roadway [path] in front and for the hauling up of canoes. Where space permitted, the old village consisted of a single row of houses, for in these large communal dwellings there were fifty or more inmates, and the house frontage was, in consequence, crowded with canoes, fish-drying frames, etc., and this space became too restricted if it had to be shared with other houses in the rear. So far as I have observed, the addition of a second or even a third row has only come about in recent years with the breaking up of the old communal system and the building of separate family houses. In every village there were two or more totemic families [clans], each occupying a number of houses that originally were grouped about that of their [own clan] chief. With the increase in village population, this plan could not always be followed, as the houses stood fairly close to each other, and new houses had to take their places at either end of the village or in the rear of the others. Sometimes whole villages were protected by stockades or other defenses, as was done by the Sitka people after they destroyed the Russian post and feared the retaliation of the Russians ... Again, the houses of one particular family in a village might be enclosed within a stockade [as at Wrangell in 1878], or even a single house might be so guarded. Generally, however, the villages were unprotected, while natural defensive positions on nearby bluff headlands or rocky islands were fortified, to which the villagers might flee in time of danger” (Emmons (and de Laguna) 1991:59, par. 2) [Tlingit] “Each Tlingit tribe had at least one permanent settlement that might more aptly be termed the winter village, since it was largely deserted throughout the remainder of the year when its semi-nomadic inhabitants were scattered over their country in families and larger groups, gathering and preparing their subsistence for the winter” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:58, par. 1) [Tlingit] “Each tribe usually had one permanent village, but when two or more villages are found within the same tribal territory, one is the main village, and the others were usually established because of internal differences [or because of other misfortunes]. The Tlingit are naturally wanderers, as their history proves” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:58, par. 3) [Tlingit] “[On the beach in front of the houses, there might be ditches into which the large canoes could be drawn and where they were protected from the sun by shelters of bark or brush. ... Behind or at one end of the village, occasionally on an island opposite, was the graveyard, with small houses or mortuary columns to hold the ashes of the dead. Other mortuary columns, or totem poles in towns where Haida or Tsimshian influences were strong, stood in 385 front of the houses. Other structures in the village might be smokehouses for curing fish, cache houses for storing provisions, and shelters behind the houses to which women retired during menstruation or child-bearing. According to Emmons, these shelters were temporary, and the other structures were not necessarily found in every village” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882- 1904] 1991:59, par. 3) 386 [Yakutat Tlingit] Figure B.2 “Plate 69 Khantaak Island and Martin Point, 1886,” from de Laguna 1972:986 (de Laguna 1972:986) 387 [Yakutat Tlingit] Figure B.3 “Fig 2. Yakutat winter village where Chief Yanatchoo lived, Khantaak I., Alaska,” from de Laguna 1990b:207 (de Laguna [1888] 1990b:207) 388 [Yakutat Tlingit] Figure B.4 “Plate 71, Village on Khantaak Island, Yakutat, 1889,” from de Laguna 1972:988 (de Laguna 1972:988) 389 [Yakutat Tlingit] Figure B.5 “Plate 82 The Old Village, Yakutat, 1915,” from de Laguna 1972:999 (de Laguna 1972:999) 390 [Tlingit] Figure B.6 “Map 1. Plan of Klukwan village,” from Oberg 1973:58 (Oberg [1931-1933] 1973:58) 391 [Yakutat Tlingit] Figure B.7 “Plate 83 the Old Village, 1915 or 1916, seen from the north,” from de Laguna 1972:1000 (de Laguna 1972:1000) 392 [Yakutat Tlingit] Figure B.8 “Plate 26 The Old Village, Yakutat, from the road to the Lagoon, June 1952,” from de Laguna 1972:943 (de Laguna 1972:943) [Eyak] “Each village had a fort or palisaded enclosure around some or all the houses” (de Laguna 1990b:191, par. 3) [Eyak] “Villages might be said to ‘belong’ to a certain clan, probably because its chief was the most prominent or his clansmen most numerous, although both moieties were represented in each settlement” (de Laguna 1990b:193, par. 2) Descent and Residence [Klamath] “Marriage is normally patrilocal, but if a man is poor, or has no close relatives, he may take up residence with his wife’s people. When a young wife is about to have her first child the couple return to her mother to stay until she is strong again” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925- 1926] 1930:48, par. 1) 393 par. 4) [Klamath] “Residence is normally patrilocal” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:53, [Haida] “... the whole people is divided into two strictly exogamic clans, —the Raven and the Eagle, —with descent in the female line” (Swanton [1900-1901] 1909:62, par. 1) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “The Kwakiutl have a peculiar organization, which may be considered a transitional stage between maternal and paternal institutions. Descent is in the paternal line ... The clans are exogamic” (Boas [1898-1900] 1900:121, par. 2) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “Residence was nominally supposed to be patrilocal. ... a man was considered to ‘belong’ to his father’s house group, and to live with them. Actually there was no fixed rule. Chiefs tended to stay most of the time with the group in which they owned property (a corner of the house, seats, fishing places, etc.), whether this came from the paternal or maternal line. But even they moved about, and might spend a fishing season, a year, or even 2 years, with another group to whom they were related” (Drucker [(1870- 1900) 1935-1936] 1951:278, par. 2) [Tlingit] “... the traditional pattern of residence was avunculocal ... It is possible that [the] practice of living in the wife’s village is fairly recent, or has become more common than formerly” (de Laguna [1950] 1952:3, par. 2) [Tlingit] “Membership in moiety, clan, and lineage was matrilineal” (de Laguna 1990:212, par. 7) [Eyak] “The Eyak were divided into exogamous matrilineal moieties ...” (de Laguna 1990b:193, par. 1) [Eyak] “Eyak clans were semi-localized, while local groups tended to be identified as clans” (de Laguna 1990b:193, par. 2) [Eyak] “Ambilateral cross-cousin marriage was preferred, with bride-service, and avunculocal residence” (de Laguna 1990b:193, par. 8) House/Residential Structure [Klamath] “Houses vary in size, to judge by the existing pits, from twelve feet in diameter to as much as thirty-five feet” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:53, par. 3) [Klamath] “An earth-lodge on the lower Williamson river built about 1870, and measuring thirty feet in diameter, contained five men, their wives and children ... This was known as the home of the shaman Bok̇ eʹs; the others were related to his wife. 1. Bok̇ eʹs wife, and two children. 2. Leḳ!oʹc, wife and two children. 3. Woḳauʹḳ!alǐs, a widower, whose two wives had been Molala sisters. 4. Loʹlŏklǐs, wife, and seven children. 5. Tc!ŏntc !ŏn and his wife (childless). The wives of Bok̇ eʹs (1) and Loʹlŏklǐs (4) were sisters; Tc!ŏntc!ŏn (5) was their 394 brother. Leḳ!oʹc and Woḳauʹḳ!alǐs were distant cousins of this trio. In front of this lodge stood another a mat-covered house (wuʼkĕʹplŏḳs), housing the mother and three sisters of Woḳauʹḳ !alǐs. This was only ten feet distant, measured about fifteen feet in diameter, and also had its entrance, this time at ground level, on the southeastern side facing the river” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:53, par. 5-8; 54, par. 1-4) [Klamath] Figure B.9 “Fig. 4. Plan of an earth-lodge, showing the areas assigned to the beds of five families,” from Spier 1930:54 (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:54) [Klamath] “One earth-lodge in the same district was known as wĕwalăĕḳsumloʹltmalŏḳs, old woman’s earth-lodge. Its inmates were an old woman, her two daughters each in early life, the younger with three children, and an elderly woman, first cousin to the daughters, hence called older sister by them. The house was built especially for them” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:54, par. 5) [Klamath] “Earth-lodges are frequently torn down in the spring to be rebuilt when snow flies in the autumn. In the second month, September, everyone is busied with house-building, commencing with the preparation of the tule mats that cover all the lodges. The houses are all 395 completed in the fourth month (December) by the time full winter arrives ... The mat-covered summer houses are built anew in the spring” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:197, par. 2) [Klamath] “The characteristic house is a circular, conical-roofed affair. It is essentially of the same shape and construction whether merely mat-covered or set over a pit and roofed with planks and earth. The Klamath definitely distinguish the two types however, the earth-lodge, luʹ‛ ltᴇmalŏks, and the mat-covered summer house, wuʼkĕʹplŏḳs. In addition a small dome-shaped mat-lodge (stiʼnăʹc) is used in summer, when traveling, or for cooking. Poor families who cannot afford the larger earth-lodge, build dome-shaped lodges for winter use, setting them over pits for the sake of the added warmth” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:197, par. 3) [Klamath] “Earth-lodges range in diameter from twelve to thirty feet or more, the larger accommodating several families. The largest pit I saw measured thirty-five feet in diameter. the largest earth-lodges are invariably those of shamans, larger even that those of chiefs. ... Winter houses are commonly larger than the corresponding summer mat-covered forms” (Spier [(mid- 1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:198, par. 1) [Klamath] “The semi-subterranean earth-lodge is erected over a shallow pit (slokoʹps). This is commonly but knee deep, but the thirty-five-foot pit mentioned above had been excavated waist deep or even more” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:198, par. 2) [Klamath] “The roof has the form of a truncated, wedge-shaped cone, resting as it does on the circular periphery of the pit but with its upper truncated surface an elongated rectangle. The main frame is formed by four central posts, set to form the corners of this rectangle. The tops of these are connected by stringers. Poles extending obliquely from this rectangular frame to the edge of the pit throughout its whole circumference form the conical roof. The whole is then covered with mats, grass, and dirt, leaving only a hatchway open in the center of the rectangle. The lodge is entered by walking up the sloping roof to the hatchway, through which a ladder from the interior protrudes” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:198, par. 3) 396 [Klamath] Figure B.10 “Fig. 18. Plan and section of earth-lodge showing construction,” from Spier 1930:199 (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:199) [Klamath] “The rectangle formed by the central posts (A, fig. 18) measures about fifteen feet from front to rear in a large house, with a width of five feet. These posts (studiʹls) are tree trunks, twelve inches in diameter, bearing forks nine or ten feet above the floor level. Stringers connect these in pairs; the first set (B) across the short ends with longer stringers (C) resting on these in the same forks. These are poles of ten inch diameter ... On this frame rest four oblique rafters (D, stcʼauʹns) let into holes at the brink of the pit. These are split logs. A supplementary rafter (E, swǐkk̇ eʹnis) is laid across each pair of these near its upper end. Planks or poles (F, ctcauʹŭs) are then laid close together along these supplementary rafters, with their lower ends resting on the brink, but not in holes. Similar poles are set obliquely around the corners and along each end, where they rest on B. The hatchway is formed within the rectangular roof frame by a series of long poles or planks (G, also called sᴇŏʹnhǐs) laid close together and resting on B. Its ends are blocked in by similar, shorter crosspieces (H) resting on these in turn. The hatchway is nearly as wide as the spacing of the long stringers (C), three to four feet; its forward end is quite close to the cross-member (B) at the front of the house, but the roof is decked over for several feet at the rear, leaving an opening some ten feet in length. Short sticks and bark are placed over any crevices still remaining in the superstructure” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:199, par. 1) 397 [Klamath] “Houses face the southeastern quarter, because the prevailing winds are from the west. The front of the house is the side having a set of steps leading up the sloping roof to the hatchway” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:200, par. 3) [Klamath] Figure B.11 “Fig. 19. Named parts of the house,” from Spier 1930:201 (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:201) [Klamath] “The several parts of the house interior as set off by the central posts are named. That portion at the front of the house directly under the outside steps is called stĕʹk̇ is (M, fig. 19); the opposite end, tkaʹlŭm (N). These spaces are used for storage. The sides of the interior (O) are laʹlᴇstal and the corner sections (P) are stc!okaʹctal. These, the living quarters, are preferable to the end spaces presumably because the narrowness of the hatchway yields a greater extent of roof cover on each side, thus affording greater protection. The sleeping quarters 398 of shamans are on the northern side of the lodges, hence I assume that this segment is always occupied by the head of the household” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:201, par. 2) [Klamath] “The summer house (wu ʼkĕʹplŏḳs) differs from the earth-lodge only in the absence of the pit and of the dirt covering on the roof. It is circular and built on the same four- post frame” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:202, par. 1) [Klamath] “The dome-shaped lodge (stiʼnăʹc) is in use the year round, standing beside the earth-lodge as a cook house. When the people are traveling, it may be hastily constructed of mats carried for the purpose. The more permanent structures are ten feet in diameter and eight or nine feet high ...” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:202, par. 2) [Klamath] “The fireplace (sneʹlŭḳs) in the earth-lodge is in the middle of the floor, between the four center posts and under the open hatchway. Neither a pit nor stones are used to confine the fire” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:203, par. 3) [Haida] Figure B.12 “Fig 3. Houses and Wealth Display, left. right, Interior of Chief Wiah’s house,” from Blackman 1990:243 (Blackman [1884; 1888] 1990:243) 399 [Haida] “The raising of the totem pole comes as the final act and climax in the actual construction of the new house. Everybody participates—hosts as well as guests, women as well as men” (Murdock 1936:7, par. 2) [Haida] “Haida houses were constructed of red cedar timbers and planks. Though similar in finished form, two basic types of Haida house can be distinguished. House type A has seven roof beams, six running full length and projecting several feet beyond the front and rear facades, and one, the central or ridge beam, broken in the middle for the smoke hole. These beams are supported by the front and rear plates, which are borne by pairs of posts near the center, front and rear, and by being mortised into four corner posts. Upper and lower plates in the front and rear of the house are grooved for reception of the wall planks and the outermost timber on each side of the house is likewise grooved. House type A was most common in the villages of the central Queen Charlottes where, at Skedans for example, it was the exclusive type of house in the mid- nineteenth century. It was not found in Kaigani villages. House type B has only four beams, which do not project, the two central ones supported by four internal posts. Front and rear plates are similarly mortised into corner posts and grooved for wall planks. House type B occurred throughout the Queen Charlotte Islands and in the Kaigani villages. A variation of this type of house, B´, is distinguished by the long horizontal beam running the width of the front and rear facades. House type B´ was infrequently found, in the late nineteenth century in Yan, Kasaan, and Howkwan villages. Archeological features also reveal its presence at Koianglas. Both types of Haida house were roofed with sheets of heavy cedar bark, and all houses had a centrally located square hole framed by a plank shield, for the emission of smoke from the house fire. The house of the Masset town chief, built around 1840, was reputed to be one of the largest Haida houses ... measuring 54 by 55 feet ... Chief Gitkun’s house at Kloo and Chief Skowals house at Kasaan were similarly large” (Blackman 1990:242, par. 1-2) [Haida] “The more opulent Haida houses boasted a centrally excavated pit, often terraced with several tiers leading to the base of the excavation. In the center of the housepit burned the house fire, which served for cooking, drying clothing (and fish, in inclement weather) and heating. Meals were prepared in the housepit, and there the household slaves slept. Living and sleeping places within the house were apportioned according to rank, those of highest position occupying the perimeter of the ground level tier, those of lower rank occupying intermediate tiers. The highest ranking member of the household, the house chief, had reserved as his sleeping quarters the rear central portion of the upper tier” (Blackman 1990:243, par. 1) [Haida] “A carved totem pole, up to 50 feet in height, normally stood against the house facade. The bottom figure of this centrally positioned pole occasionally provided the entryway to the house through a hole placed in its stomach or mouth” (Blackman 1990:243, par. 2) [Haida] “Houses without entryways through the frontal pole were entered through elliptical doorways cut into the front facade of the house. These doorways were often covered with painted plank doors” (Blackman 1990:243, par. 3) 400 [Haida] “House names were considered personal property and were often transferred to a new house in a new village when the house owner moved” (Blackman 1990:244, par. 1) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “Here may be mentioned also the old method of erecting plank walls. These were held in place between pairs of poles, one set of poles being erected in front of the wall, another set behind it. These pairs of poles were connected with loops of cedar- withes that were twined around pairs of poles. The lowest plank was set down horizontally on the ground. The loop of cedar-withes was attached just over this plank, and the second plank was put up so that it rested on these cedar-withes overlapping the lower plank. Walls of this kind were used particularly in house-building. They were protected against the pressure of the wind by the heavy framework of the house” (Boas [1885-1900] 1909:340, par. 4) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “In the modern house the method of wall-building has changed entirely. The planks are not put up horizontally, but vertically. A very heavy plank is put down edgewise, and is provided with a groove on its upper narrow face. The boards are cut off square, and are put up in this groove; while on top they are held together by a long cross- plank, against which they are nailed. The sides of the houses are also built of planks standing on end. These are put up below in a ditch, while above they fit into a groove in the lower side of the side-beam. Then the ditch is filled up again” (Boas [1885-1900] 1909:341, par. 1) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “The houses of the Kwakiutl Indians are square ...” (Boas [1885-1900] 1909:412, par. 1) 401 [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] Figure B.13 “Fig. 95, Plan of House,” from Boas 1909:415 (Boas [1885-1900] 1909:415) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “The parts of the house are named right and left ... according to the positions they have in relation to a person looking in at the door. The rear of the house is called its ‘forehead.’ Thus we have the terms ᵋnᴇqēʹwalīł (‘middle fore-head of house’) for the middle of the rear part (a); hëłk·!ōtēʹwalīł and g ̣ᴇmxōtēʹwalīł respectively for the right (b) and left (c) of the rear part; hëłk·!ōdᴇnēʹg ̣wīł and g ̣ᴇmxōdᴇnēʹg ̣wīł for right (d) and left (e) rear corners. The rear part of the sides (f) is called ‘up river;’ the front part (g) of the sides, ‘down 402 river;’ and we have ᵋnᴇlk·!ōdōʹyâlīł and gwak·!ōdōʹyâlīł, ‘up-river and down-river middle of house,’ and more specifically these terms combined with hëłk·!ōdōʹyâlīł and g ̣ᴇʹmxōdōʹyâlīł (‘right and left sides’). Right and left sides of the door (h, i) are hëłk·!ōtsâʹlīł and g ̣ᴇmxōtsâʹlīł respectively. The four fires (j) are called accordingly right and left, front and rear, house fires (for instance, g ̣ᴇmxōtēʹwalīł lᴇg ̣wīʹł, ‘left-hand rear fire’). The fire in the middle of the house, which is used at feasts, is called lᴇqāʹwalīł” (Boas [1885-1900] 1909:415, par. 4) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “The place of honor is the middle rear of the house, then the right side, next the left, and finally the door-side. The bedrooms (k) which stand on the embankments are arranged accordingly, the owner having the middle room in the rear. It is said that in former times there were no rooms in the rear, which tends to be smoky, but the owner lived on the right-hand side. In former times the doorway of the bedrooms were as low as a box. They had sliding-doors attached to a rope which passed along the walls of the house to the bedroom, in which the house-owner lived. When the rooms were closed, the door was tied to a post in this room” (Boas [1885-1900] 1909:416, par. 1) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “For novices, hunters, and others who had to be guarded against defilement by chance contact with impure persons, or against any one stepping over their belongings, rooms were erected on a staging in the rear of the house, which were reached by a ladder that was pulled up by the occupant when he was in his room” (Boas [1885-1900] 1909:416, par. 2) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “Fire-wood is kept between the bedrooms (1) and at the sides of the door. Boxes containing provisions are kept on the side and rear embankments (m). There are also separate sheds (g·ōʹyat·s!ē) on the embankment, in which personal poperty is kept. Provisions that must be protected against dampness are kept on platforms of poles which are suspended from the rafters (dāʹg·ilīł or q!aᵋlīʹł). Clover-root and cinquefoil-root are kept in a deep hole made under the settee near the fire. This hole is about one metre wide and two metres long, and is lined with fern-leaves, on which the basket containing the clover and cinquefoil- roots are placed. In the house are kept also the long frames on which berries, salmon-roe, etc. are dried” (Boas [1885-1900] 1909:416, par. 3-4) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “There are seats on three sides of the fire. The seat of the housewife is generally in the rear of the front fires (n) and on the medial sides of the rear fires (o). Her cooking-utensils (p) stand on the left-hand side of her seat. The other seats (q) are generally so arranged that the medial side of the front fires is open, while the front side of the rear fires is open. The seat for guests is opposite that of the housewife. The seats are either settees ... or planks supported by posts driven into the ground so that they slant slightly backward, and mat-covered planks placed in front of these. The divisions of the house are sometimes shut off by mats hung from horizontal poles which are tied to rough posts that are driven into the floor of the house. During the celebration of festivals all these divisions, the family fires and the family seats are removed” (Boas [1885-1900] 1909:416, par. 5) 403 [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “In olden times houses with many embankments (tsōʹyagik) were also built. The platforms were covered with planks, and only the fireplace in the middle of the house remained free. These houses must have been quite similar to those of the Haida and other northern tribes” (Boas [1885-1900] 1909:417, par. 1) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “The houses in Knight Inlet, which are occupied only during the olachen-fishing seasons, are built like winter houses, but they are only about two fathoms square and a fathom and a half high. The roof-boards for these houses are brought along in the canoes of the fishermen. Often they travel on rafts made of two canoes tied together. Then these boards form the platform of the raft. The sides of the houses are made of old mats. The beds, which are made of grass spread over boards, are at the sides. The man sleeps on one side of the door, his wife on the other side. Houses of similar kind are used by clam-diggers” (Boas [1885-1900] 1909:417, par. 2) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “In bad weather, hunters will sometimes build small houses for their protection. A framework is put up similar to that of the permanent house; the side-posts being about one metre high, the middle post about a metre and a half high, and the beams about three metres long. The width of the house is about the same. Then pieces of cedar- bark are placed on the roof, the under row with the sap-side up. The joints of this row are covered with pieces with the sap-side down. Then a fire is built under this shelter; and as soon as the cedar-bark becomes hot, it begins to curl, and the upper piece hooks firmly into the turned-up rim of the lower piece. The sides are left open” (Boas [1885-1900] 1909:417, par. 3) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “That is what the ancestors of the Kwakiutl do when a child belonging to the nobility dies; and the roof-boards of his father’s house are at once pulled down. And all the men only stop when all the roof-boards have been pulled down; and that is called ‘craziness strikes [on the end] on account of the beloved one who died’” (Boas (and Hunt) [1893-1901] 1921:709, par. 2) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “The framework of a house, which was the permanent part of the structure, consisted of the center posts supporting the ridge pole, and side posts which supported the plates. Roofs were invariably of the gabled, or two-pitch, type. The number of center posts depended on the length of the span to be supported, as did the number of side posts. Two posts in each row sufficed for smaller houses; rows of three served for the very long ones. There were two variant types of supports for the peak of the roof. One consisted of using two ‘ridge poles’ 6 to 10 feet apart, each supported on a set of posts; the other made use of paired posts at the door end of the house across which a short cross-timber was laid. The ridge pole rested on this cross-member. At the rear of the house the ridge pole was supported by a single post. Which of these two variant forms of supports was used depended on the hereditary right of the chiefs. ... The ridge pole supports were ordinarily about 10 to 12 feet high and usually carved into rather rudely done human figures, which were not idols in the usual sense, but were special ‘privileges’ said to have been bestowed on a lineage ancestor by 404 supernatural beings for use by him and his direct descendants. The side posts were 9 or 10 feet high, ordinarily. All posts had a slightly concave bed cut in their upper end, to retain the beam securely. The ridge pole itself, invariably a single stick of timber, was adzed down to a diameter of 3 or 4 feet for its entire length” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:69, par. 2) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “The doorway was in one of the narrow ends of the house. Recent houses built end-on to the beach had their doors facing the beach; the older houses did not. There were no real doors to cover the doorways, formerly. A mat was hung over the aperture, and, in bad weather, a plank might be leaned against the mat to keep it from whipping about. A siding of planks was set up on either side of the doorway to prevent the wind from blowing directly on the fires in the corner places” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:70, par. 2) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “In addition to main entryways, small openings were left between planks here and there, especially along the back of the house. These served as informal entryways, and during time of war, as escape exits. In fine weather space might be left between planks in lieu of windows, to let in light” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935- 1936] 1951:70, par. 3) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “Within the house the floor was on a single level. ... Near the center of the house was a large shallow circular depression that served as the fireplace on ceremonial occasions, and near the corners and along the sides were smaller hearths used by the families occupying the house for daily cookery” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:71, par. 1) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “The nominal owner of the house, that is, the chief of the lineage, occupied the right rear corner (‘right’ being used according to native concept of the speaker standing inside the house facing the door), a place referred to as hiłsaʼaʟ. The chief next in rank, usually a brother or other close kinsman occupied the opposite corner (hiłsōkwas). The corners to the right and left of the door were similarly places of honor, and occupied by other important branches of the lineage, and if the group was a large one, the two central places along each side, called simply ‘middle places’ (ȧpwinił) were assigned to other branches of the family. These four (or six, as the case may be) areas were considered to have been owned by their occupants, who consequently did not move about from one house group to another nearly as much as did the other people. The places in between—any number that the size of the house allowed—were occupied by kin of low rank, who usually recognized equally strong ties with other lineages and shifted frequently from one house to another. Each individual family, whether of high rank or low, had its own fireplace, a plank or two along the wall for a bed, and stacked its possessions, wooden boxes, dishes, baskets, and the like around the sleeping place. The plank ‘beds’ (hiʼtsak) were carefully selected boards, the wider the better; often they were considerably shorter than the wall and roof planks. They were laid level on low frames of poles supported on notched stakes driven into the ground, and were covered with mats. ... the 405 beds were normally only six or eight inches off the ground. High storage platforms were built only by the Alberni Canal groups in their Salish-type shed-roof houses; the other tribes did not make them. Sometimes planks were set on edge between the family spaces, or at least, around the areas occupied by the ranking families who owned their places, but more often the wooden storage chests piled across the ends of the family space served to set it off. ... The chief often stacked his boxes of food and possessions clear across the end of the house. In the vicinity of the fire, the housewife often slung withes from the rafters, on which dried fish or meat was hung, so that the smoke would keep the food from spoiling so quickly” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935- 1936] 1951:71, par. 2) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “The old houses are said to have lasted almost indefinitely” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:72, par. 3) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “On ceremonial occasions the family fires were put out after a huge fire in the center of the house had been lit” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:107, par. 3) [Tlingit] “To present intelligibly the methods of house construction, I will describe in detail one of the principal old family houses of the Chilkat at Klukwan. This was Yough-hit [Yá·ỵ hít], ‘Whale House,’ of the hereditary chief of the Con-nuh-ta-di [Ga·naxte·dí, Raven 3]. [See Emmons 1916a.] The Whale House was built about 1835 and was torn down in 1899 to make way for a half-modern structure which was never finished. It represented the best type of Tlingit architecture: a broad, low building, of heavy hewn spruce timbers, carefully united through groove, tenon, and mortise, to support each other without extraneous fastening. It has a frontage of 49 feet 10 inches, and a depth of 53 feet. At each corner, set firmly in the ground, was a broad, neatly adzed post [shaped like a heavy plank], grooved along the edges to receive the reduced ends of the heavy bed pieces and wall planks. [The tops of the corner posts rose a foot or more above the height of the eaves.] Midway along each of the two sides and in the middle of the back wall was an intermediate upright, correspondingly grooved along both edges to take the other ends of the horizontal wall planks. Across the front, two heavy timbers or planks, one resting on the other, extended from corner post to corner post and built up the front wall to the height of the door sill. The upper member of this pair was grooved along its upper edge to hold the lower ends of the vertical planks that formed the house front. [The rear of the house had horizontal planking up to the eaves; above this, the wall in the gable end was of vertical planks.] The cornice capping [that formed the gable at each end] fitted over the upper ends of the vertical planks, and was notched to fit over a groove or shoulder on the inside of the corner posts. The doorway, some three feet above the ground, was reached by two steps. [It was cut through a very wide plank in the house front.] The roof structure, wholly independent of the walls, was supported by four heavy interior posts, gars [gá·s]. These were firmly planted in the ground, in pairs equidistant from the side walls, but nearer to the front wall than the back. Resting in shallow grooves on top of these were the two great roof beams, made from neatly adzed tree trunks, two feet in diameter, that ran the length of the house. On these were placed a 406 series of cross beams that, in turn, supported two similar, but smaller, longitudinal beams, set closer to the center of the house than the larger beams below. These smaller timbers likewise carried cross beams, upon which rested the ridgepole. The last was in two sections, to make space for the central smokehole. On this cribwork that gave the desired pitch to the roof rested the smaller rafters and cross beams on which split boards were overlapped, as shingles are laid, and these were kept in place by small tree trunks that extended the length of the roof and were weighted with heavy boulders at either end. [Krause ([1885] 1956:87) reported that the house roof usually rested on four longitudinal beams, and consisted of two to three courses of planks, overlapped like shingles.] The smokehole in the center of the roof both lighted and ventilated the interior. It had a movable shutter, working on a crossbar that rested in the notch of cross sticks at either end. It was so nicely balanced that it could be tilted to either side, depending on the direction of the wind. The roof could be reached by a ladder consisting of a small tree trunk notched to make steps. In the interior of the house was an excavation five feet below ground level, that was reached by descending two steplike platforms that enclosed an open space about twenty-six feet square. This served as the living and work room of the household during the day. The portion in the rear of the fireplace, directly opposite the entrance, was, however, reserved for the head of the house, his immediate family, and guests. A flooring of heavy smoothed planks of varying widths was laid directly on the earth around the six-foot square fireplace. In the floor on one side was a trapdoor leading to a small cellar that was used as a steambath, the vapor being generated by pouring water on boulders that had been heated in the nearby fire. The lower platform, that extended around the main floor at an elevation of 23/4 feet, was comparatively narrow. It was about 21/2 feet wide along the sides and about 3 feet wide at the front and back. It served both as a lounging place and as a step to the platform or bench above. The retaining walls of the lower platform consisted of four heavy hewn spruce planks, approximately 27 feet long, 3 feet wide, and 5 inches thick. They were so mortised together that they supported each other. The faces of these lower walls were beautifully finished in the finest adzing. Those forming the sides and back were carved in low relief to represent a remarkable figure [painted red] that was neither wholly human nor animal, with widely extended arms and legs. ... The upper, broader platform, rising two feet above the lower, was at the level of the ground, and was also floored with heavy planks. On the sides it had a width of ten feet, which was greatly increased at the back and correspondingly diminished at the front of the house. The four heavy retaining timbers forming the walls and supporting the platform were 33 feet long at the sides, 31 feet long at the front and rear, 2 feet wide, and 5 inches thick. They were interlocked at the ends. On the carefully adzed faces, carved in low relief and arranged in echelon, were represented three ceremonial ‘coppers,’ or tinneh [tiná·]. One of the names or titles of the house chief was Tinneh Sarta, ‘Keeper of the Copper’ [Tiná· Sa·ti, ‘master of the copper.’ (See Emmons 1916a, pl. 1.)] The upper platform provided the sleeping places, or bedrooms, of the different families, for while these were not partitioned off, they were separated from each other by old canoe sails, mats, or piles of boxes. Each family owned and occupied such a space, according to their relative importance, the poorer members and slaves being along the front. [Krause ([1885] 407 1956:88, fig. on p. 92) indicated that the partitioning of boards or blankets on the upper platform might make a vestibule just inside the front door. This entrance was sometimes flanked by carved posts, facing the center of the house, the posts having evidently been taken from an older house.] At the level of this upper platform were the posts that supported the roof structure. They stood 9¼ feet high and were 21/2 feet wide. They were elaborately carved in high relief on the sides facing the interior of the house, with a mixture of animal and human forms, and were painted in red, black, and blue-green. Each post illustrated a legend of the clan or a story of the early wanderings of Raven, a family [lineage, clan] crest. Between the two rear posts was a partition, twenty feet long by ten feet high, made of thin split red cedar boards, of varying widths, neatly fitted vertically and sewn together with finely twisted spruce root. The latter was countersunk to make the whole appear like a single board. The smooth front surface was intricately carved in low relief and painted to represent the Spirit of Rain, Su [Sú·w/Sí·w], which was symbolized by a great crouching figure with outstretched arms; the elaborate border of miniature figures represented the splashing of the heavy drops as they struck the ground. This screen was known as ‘Rain Screen,’ Su kheen [Sú·w xí·n], and formed the front wall of the sleeping chamber of the master of the house, and was entered by a round hole in the body of the central figure. There seems to be a difference of opinion as to who executed this work. Yehlh- kok [Yé·ɫ xá·ɫ, ‘Raven’s Odor’], its ‘owner,’ said that it was done by Kate-tsu [?], the chief who built the house, and that the painting was the work of Skeet-lah-ka [Ški·λiqá·?], a later chief, artist, the father of Chartrich, and one who accompanied the Russians up the Chilkat River in 1834. [If so, he would have been himself Raven 3, so his wife (as the official ‘opposite’) would have been paid for his work.] Others claim that the carving was designed and executed by a Tsimshian, while the conventionalized design, and particularly the multiplicity of small figures around the principal one, is essentially Tsimshian in character and entirely different from the realism of Tlingit art. ... [Jonaitis (1986:113-15) has suggested that the central figure in the screen may not be the Spirit of Rain, but Raven who stole fresh water from Petrel for the benefit of mankind. Despite Keithahn’s denial (1963:113) that Rain was a crest, I think it more likely that it was a crest of the Ga·naxte·dí; for this Chilkat clan was probably, like the Wolf 18 of Wrangell, ‘so rich that they could use anything’ (Swanton 1908:415).] The house posts were carved in high relief and also painted with red and the [expensive] blue-green pigment. Each illustrates an adventure of Raven or of some ancestor of the clan. [I believe they are the work of a different artist from the maker of the screen, because they are different in style.] Flanking the Rain Screen were the Woodworm Post, Thluke-ass-a-Gars [úkʷxʷ gá·s] on the left, and the Raven Post, Yehl-Gars [Yé·ɫ gá·s] on the right, both representing crests of the Ga·naxte·dí [Raven 3] owners. The first shows their ancestress holding the Woodworm in front of her body, while two worms crawl on her head. The lower figures are a Crane holding a Frog in its bill. Raven is represented on the other post by the main [anthropomorphic] figure holding a head, the jade adz, Tsu-hootar [Sú·w xúťa·] with which Raven tricked the King Salmon into coming ashore. Raven stands on the fish, and the small raven issuing from his mouth represents his lies. [This is a pun, since the root for ‘to lie, deceive’ and ‘raven’ are the same: yé·ɫ. And the carver, 408 therefore, a Tlingit. (See Emmons 1916a, pl. 4.)] The post to the right of the door is the Gonakatate-Gars [Guna·kade·t gá·s]. This wealth-bringing water monster is represented by the central [anthropomorphic] figure, biting the tail of the Whale, the head of which is at the bottom of the post. On top is ‘Gonakatate’s child’ [Guna·kade·t ỵádi], holding a Hawk, a Raven 3 crest. [Since Guna·kade·t is a crest of the Wolf moiety, his child could also be a Raven crest.] The Whale is the one entered and killed by Raven, for his head is peeping from the blowhole. On the back is the figure of a woman, Stah-ka-dee-Shawut [Stax?adi ša·wát, ‘woman of the ––––,’ using an older name for a branch of the Raven 19 clan that lived east of Yakutat, to indicate the locale of Raven’s adventure. (See Emmons 1916a:25, pl. 3a).] The post to the left [pl. 3b], Duck- Toolh-Gars [Dukʷ u·, ‘Black Skin’], represents the legendary [Raven 3] hero, tearing in two a Sea Lion. The head on which he stands is the island. [The figures at the top of these two posts are decorated with (human?) hair.] This description of the Whale House can be applied in general to any of the larger old community houses, except for the few that were elaborately ornamented inside, and no fixed rule was followed in the arrangement of the wall planks. Sometimes those on the sides were perpendicular, or those forming the front wall might be horizontal, and in a very old house at Klukwan the front was built of two immense hewn timbers, 40 feet long, 3 feet 41/2 inches wide, and 6 inches thick, and the corner posts were correspondingly thick” (Emmons (and de Laguna) 1991:60, par. 1-3; 61, par. 1-6; 62, par. 1-5; 63, par. 1-3; 64, par. 1-2) [Tlingit] “The old type of house was rectangular in plan, with a depth greater than the frontage. For example, an old Chilkat house had a frontage of fifty feet, and was fifty-five feet in depth. [The house had a low-pitched gable roof; the gable end with doorway faced the water.] The house front was often painted with animal figures [crests], or was ornamented with carved figures on either side of the entrance [sometimes above it]. The doorway was oval and low, and was reached by several steps. It was itself a means of defense, since one stooping to enter was in no position to attack [the inmates] or to defend himself. The door was heavily built and could be barred from the inside. [Krause ([1885] 1956:87) confirms this description, but indicates that in 1880-81 most doorways were small square openings, not oval; this is, in fact, shown by most of the photographs taken by Emmons a few years later.] Windows that are seen on modern Tlingit houses [1900?] had no place in the past; the doorway and smokehole in the roof were the only openings” (Emmons (and de Laguna) 1991:60, par. 1) [Tlingit] “Tlingit houses, large and small, were structurally alike but differed materially in interior arrangements. The larger and more important houses were partly subterranean, with one or two steplike platforms descending to a central square enclosure, from four to six feet below the surface of the ground. Such houses were ornamented with carved posts and screens, heraldic in character and illustrating important events in the life of the clan, while the small houses stood directly on the ground [lacking the excavated floor], and were crude and plain. Spruce was uniformly used by the Northern Tlingit, while red cedar was sometimes used by the southern tribes. The carvings were of cedar. Hemlock, the most abundant wood, was sometimes 409 used, especially for the outer planks, but only when other woods were not to be had. The primitive house rested on the ground, but later houses copied from the whites have been built on piles” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:59, par. 5) [Tlingit] “[During the prosperous last decade of the nineteenth century and the first decade of the twentieth, relatively large, multifamily houses were built of commercial lumber, replacing the old style lineage houses. These were rather tall, gaunt structures, with high-pitched gable roofs. Often carvings or crest paintings made with commercial paints adorned the facades, and the old house posts and decorated screens, taken from earlier houses of the lineage, were placed inside. Thus the carved posts shown in Krause ([1885] 1956, figs. on pp. 89 and 92) were preserved in modern houses in Klukwan. Sometimes the shape and arrangement of the windows were supposed to suggest the lineage crest, as, for example, the eyes of the whale on the present Whale House of the Raven 6 at Sitka. Or the windows might give the name to the building, as in the case of Looking Out House (Raven 1 at Tongass, Raven 3 at Klukwan, and Raven 28 at Kake). There was always one large room at the front, and sometimes two or more bedrooms at the back, or even on a second floor, but some houses consisted simply of one large room. In any case, one or two stoves (one for heating, the other for cooking) were placed in the main room, while the bedrooms were unheated. Elderly natives who have lived in the old style houses complain of the cold in the newer, drafty frame structures. After World War I, a number of the latter were abandoned, torn down, or remodeled to make more comfortable, single-family dwellings. Most of the old carvings and screens were sold to museums, or were discarded or painted over when the Alaska Native Brotherhood was founded and there was a movement to abolish clans and their symbolism. In some cases the interior decorations were simply covered with sheets. Sooty stove pipes and faulty oil heaters have been responsible for fires that destroyed many of the early twentieth-century multifamily houses and the native heirlooms they contained.]” (Emmons (and de Laguna) 1991:65, par. 5) 410 [Yakutat Tlingit] Figure B.14 “Plate 68 Kayak, Wingham Island, Controller Bay, 1886,” from de Laguna 1972:985 (de Laguna 1972:985) 411 [Yakutat Tlingit] “A short distance below this abandoned village, Glave and Dalton came to ‘the remains of a once important settlement. There was still standing an old plank house, very strongly built. The timber had been scored and hewn by some well-instructed mechanic who had gained his experience, undoubtedly from the early Russians. [The heavy planks and timbers had been squared and dovetailed with an ax and fastened with iron spikes, while the stout door was put together with copper nails. The smokehole was circular, as if in imitation of the hole for a stovepipe.] The old houses at Sitka much resemble this one. There was a large square, formerly used for a council hall, composed of heavy planks jutting out from the main building, the whole edifice being roofed with rough shingles. [This was evidently a fort or a fortified settlement.]’” (de Laguna [1890] 1972:89, par. 7) [Yakutat Tlingit] “He found the ‘Yukutat’ living in two villages, probably on Khantaak Island and Situk River; the population comprising about 100 able-bodied males, not counting a few slaves, which their masters said they had owned for a long time. They had been apparently traded from the Kaigani, who until 20 years before used to raid the ‘Flathead villages’ (ibid., p. 395). ‘The village of Yukutat proper consists of six large houses built above ground in the form common to this part of the coast. ...They are square structures of logs and slabs or roughly hewn planks, with a bark or thatched [sic] roof, leaving an opening in the center for the escape of smoke, and each will accomodate several families. Around the sides within are closet-like divisions used ordinarily for storage, but convertable to sleeping apartments, although too low to admit of standing up, and too short to admit of lying at full length. The floor is of hardened earth and, as may be expected, cleanliness is not an object of solicitude. A few miles below Yukutat are three similar houses” (de Laguna [1900] 1972:185, par. 2-3) 412 [Yakutat Tlingit] Figure B.15 “Plate 84 Houses in the Old Village, Yakutat, 1912,” from de Laguna 1972:1001 (de Laguna 1972:1001) 413 [Yakutat Tlingit] Figure B.16 “Plate 25 Yakutat homes, June 1952,” from de Laguna 1972:942 (de Laguna 1972:942) [Tlingit] “The aboriginal house ... was rectangular, with a low-pitched gable roof. It accommodated perhaps six families, plus a few unmarried adults and slaves, totaling 40-50 persons. The house was excavated in the center and planked to form a working and eating place around the central fire. Around this were one or more wide wooden platforms, the uppermost partitioned off with wooden screens, mats, or piles of boxes into family sleeping places. ... The rooms at the back, reserved for the owner and his close kin, were often behind a wooden screen, carved and painted with the lineage (house) or clan crests ... The platform in front of these rooms, ‘the head of the house,’ formed the place of honor where the house owner and his family sat, where guests were entertained, or where a corpse might lie in state. Ordinary persons occupied the side benches. Firewood, buckets of fresh water, urinals, fresh game, and other things were placed on the platforms just inside the front door. Here was where the slaves slept, and where the house chief received his guests” (de Laguna 1990:207, par. 1) 414 [Eyak] “The dwelling was a rectangular house of vertical planks, with a gable roof. A movable windscreen was hinged on the single ridgepole that crossed the smokehole. Sleeping rooms across the back and sides were roofed and floored with planks, entered by sliding doors, and illuminated by shell or cobblestone lamps. Bedding consisted of grass mats, pelts, twined goat wool blankets, and a sloping plank as the family pillow. Some Controller Bay houses in the nineteenth century had shedlike additions. There were also houses for single families, smokehouses for fish and meat in the villages and camps, and boxlike caches on tall posts” (de Laguna 1990b:191, par. 2) [Eyak] “Every important village also had a potlatch house for each moiety, with carved post(of Eagle or Raven moiety) in front. High benches around the walls served for sitting and sleeping; below were lockers with crest designs on the doors. These houses were equivalent to the Tlingit lineage or chiefs’ houses, and like those were named; for example, Raven House, Goose House, and Bark House of the Raven moiety; Eagle House, (Eagle?) Skeleton House, Bed (Platform?) House, Beaver House, Beaver Dam House, Wolf House, Wolf Den House, and Wolf Bath House of the Eagle moiety. One built at Katalla about 1870 had two posts inside, carved with the Eagle, Beaver, and Beaver Dam crests ...” (de Laguna 1990b:191, par. 3) Household [Klamath] “[Slaves] commonly live in dome-shaped mat-lodges set up beside the family’s earth-lodge, and there the women are visited by their masters” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:40, par. 3) [Klamath] “Data on the arrangement of polygynous households are of the slightest. It is clear that all the wives occupy one house with their husband. Their beds are separate. This is true where their number is few, but in the case of Lᴇleʹksʼ seven wives, these were housed in two lodges. In one family of a man and three childless wives only one earth-lodge was used” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:54, par. 6) [Haida] “The owner of a cedar plank dwelling was a house chief whose authority extended over all those resident in his household. He decided when the household members left the winter village for the fish camps, and he could call together his sisters’ sons for warfare” (Blackman [1900s] 1990:251, par. 5) [Haida] “For each household into which a family was subdivided was a family in miniature, over which the house chief’s power was almost absolute. Once having obtained his position, he was only limited by the other chiefs and the barriers raised by custom. He could call his nephews together to make war on his own account; and, since he outfitted the expedition, nearly all of the slaves and other property obtained in it went to him. His actual influence among the house chiefs varied with the amount of his property ...” (Swanton [1900-1901] 1909:69, par. 1) 415 [Haida] “Success in amassing property generally governed the selection of a new chief of the town, the family, or the house. It might be the own brother, own nephew, or a more distant relation, of the predecessor. ... the sentiment of a household probably had weight in deciding between claimants to a doubtful position in a single house. ... A chief’s household was made up of those of his own immediate family who had no places for themselves, his nephews, his retainers or servants, and the slaves. A man’s sisters’ sons were his right-hand men. They, or at least one of them, came to live with him when quite young, were trained by him, and spoke or acted for him in all social matters” (Swanton [1900-1901] 1909:69, par. 3) [Haida] “Any one who owns a dwelling is a house chief (ʼna ʼle·ʹ). Such a position can be acquired only by giving a potlatch—either a house-building potlatch to get a new dwelling erected and thereby establish oneself as its chief, or a funeral potlatch to validate the inheritance of a house and its chiefship. A house chief exercises a mild paternal authority over the members of his household, who normally include his wife or wives, his unmarried daughters, his sons under ten years of age, his married daughters with their husbands and children, his younger brothers with their wives and children, a sister’s adolescent son or two, one or more married nephews (who may or may not be sons-in-law as well) with their families, and perhaps some other poor relative and a slave or two. He directs the economic activities of the household, protects and cares for its members, and is treated with respect and a measure of reserve. His nephews (including his sons-in-law) are his right-hand men, obeying his orders, assisting him in his economic activities, and manning his canoe on military and trading expeditions” (Murdock 1936:15, par. 3) [Haida] “Chiefship, in both the household and the clan, is hereditary in the female line. The old chief’s property, his widow, and his position with its prerogatives and authority, descend in a body to the heir, who must validate his inheritance by giving a funeral potlatch. Normally, the succession falls to the eldest surviving brother of the deceased chief; in default of brothers, to the eldest son of the eldest sister ... If there are no male heirs, a woman may succeed—a sister, niece, or granddaughter” (Murdock 1936:17, par. 1) [Haida] “A person who lacks status entirely, whose parents have never given a potlatch, ... lives in the rear corner of the dwelling of some maternal relative ...” (Murdock 1936:18, par. 2) [Haida] “In each community the coresidential family group, based on the conjugal bond and paternal authority and comprising one, two, or three generations, was the basic social and economic unit. Of Masset’s 99 households in 1966, for example, 37 percent consisted of parents and children while 40 percent were three generations in depth ... The labor force provided by adult dependents allowed heads of three-generation households to undertake more extensive economic, social, and ceremonial activities than could be carried out by nuclear families ...” (Stearns 1990:264, par. 2) 416 [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “Each local group [lineage] was normally represented by at least one permanent house in the tribal and confederacy villages. Each house had four chiefs, more often than not brothers or close paternal kin, one of who lives in each corner. The chief of highest rank always resided in the rear right-hand corner (right was reckoned facing the door), the next highest in the rear left, the third in the front left, and fourth to the right of the door. Although the first chief was the real owner of the house the others hereditarily owned the right to their respective places. Other places were not owned: lower-rank people and commoners affiliated with the group lived where they pleased between the corner places. Such people were termed collectively ‘maiyustsa,’ perhaps best translated by the word ‘tenants.’ A numerous local group might have two or even more houses at the winter and summer quarters, each with its chiefs and tenants, as above. Ordinarily the whole local group [lineage] acted in concert on ceremonial occasions, though sometimes a single house, when there were more than one from the same place, gave a feast or potlatch alone” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:221, par. 2) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “With whatever group a man happened to be living, he identified himself completely. For the time being, he centered all his interests and loyalties in that group, and participated in all its activities. He tended the chief’s fish traps, contributed food and property for feasts and potlatches, danced and enjoyed himself at the festivities” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:279, par. 2) 417 [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] Figure B.17 “Figure 27. —Residence in the icsaȧth house at Ehetisat in the late 1880’s,” from Drucker 1951:281 (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:281) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “Figure 27 shows the occupants of the icsaȧth house at Ehetisat and their relationship to each other ... The time to which this residence plan refers is that of the few years following the informant’s marriage to the chief of the house, in the late 1880’s. ... the house chiefs were even more closely related than was commonly the case, and ... at this time some close kin of theirs who had formerly lived in the house had begun to build themselves individual family houses, ‘white-man style,’ and had moved out. ... (1) tsaxhwɔsip, the house chief, lived in the right-hand rear corner of the house with his wife (the informant), his father (No. 2 in the chart), who was the former chief, and the latter’s two wives. (3) wītaphi, half brother of No 2, lived in the rear left-hand corner with his wife, his son, and the latter’s Kyuquot wife (he died after a time and she returned to Kyuquot), and his younger full brother ʟɔhhaiʼis (No. 4) and his wife, another Kyuquot woman. wītaphi was considered a chief and so addressed. (5) yaqϵna, father’s younger brother’s son of No. 2, lived in the front right- hand corner with his wife, a Nuchatlet woman. His mother lived with them. His wife’s brother, 418 a low-rank chief at Nuchatlet, lived here too with his wife, who was from another Ehetisat house. They had four children, of whom only one grew to adulthood. yaqϵna was addressed as a chief. (6) ʟakicsimōʼis, younger half brother of yaqϵna, lived in the front left-hand corner with his wife, a Moachat woman, and her father’s brother, an aged blind man. ʟakiscsimōʼis later built and moved into an individual family house. He was considered a chief. (7) qanaqȧm lived on the right-hand side of the house with his wife, an ȧtcinȧth woman, and their two sons. He was of the middle class, but considered ‘good people.’ He was related somehow through his mother to the house chief; the relationship may have been more distant than indicated in the genealogy. He always stayed in this house, and had been given various rights, including a tidewater trap, and the right to accompany the chief for the first coho harpooning, and the like. He acted as the chief’s speaker, and his elder son continued in this office, having learned the intricacies of relationship and rights from him. (a) matatsawił was a commoner who spent most of his time in this house. The informant was not sure, but thought it may have been his wife who was related to the chiefly lineage. They had several children who were taken in Shamans’ Dances by the house chief (tsaxhwɔsip, or his father, I do not know which). matatsawił was said to have been lazy and a ne’er-do-well. (b) eqaph was a commoner, but industrious and liked by the chiefs. The house chief gave him several minor fishing rights, etc., so he spent most of his time in this house. He lived here with his wife and five children. His precise relationship to the house chief was not known, although it was presumed that either he or his wife were related to the lineage. (x) Places at which various people stayed for a year or so, then moved somewhere else. Some of these were low-rank chiefs, some were commoners. There were formerly more people who tended to live for a long period in the house, but many of them had built individual houses” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:281, par. 2; 282, par. 1-7; 283, par. 1) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] Figure B.18 “Figure 28.—Residence in the tacīsȧth house at Kyuquot (1890-1900), and relationships of residents,” from Drucker 1951:284 (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:284) 419 [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “The composition of the tacīsȧth house (nanīqs) at Kyuquot at the end of the last century is shown in figure 28 ... The families indicated by numbers are those that ‘belonged’ in the house, either owning places there or living there frequently. In addition, there were numerous temporary and casual visitors, mostly of low rank, who stayed in the house for short periods at various times. (1) naswinis, the house chief, with his Nuchatlet wife and their three children. His father had had many wives, but had children by only one of them, a women of low rank. His (the father of naswinis) mother had been a Kwakiutl woman. (2) ʟaniniʟ, a chief, was the younger brother of No. 1. The place should have been inherited by their father’s younger brother, but he had no heirs when he was killed by the Clayoquot. (3) yūmōtqw ranked as the third chief of the house. He was distantly related, paternally, to the chief, who addressed him as ‘uncle.’ yūmōtqw was also a war chief, holding for this office the hereditary name of tcϵsiqpim, and served as speaker for the house chief. His wife, son, and son’s wife lived in this place. (4) nahwinic was fourth in rank in the house. He likewise was related to No. 1, being a cousin of some sort of the latter’s predecessor (the informant could not recall the precise relationship). He had died at the time to which these data refer. His only child, a daughter, was married to a tīłȧth chief; they had four children, all of whom died in infancy. The daughter and her husband ‘put away’ their rights in both houses, and went to live in a hut on the beach, in mourning. Finally naswinis gave a Shamans’ Dance in their honor, ‘to bring them back,’ as it is said, and the couple came to live in the tacīs house. (5) wɔwɔʼϵh was of low rank, and traced kinship to No. 4, and thus eventually to the house chief. (As well as could be recalled, he was a distant paternal cousin of No. 4.) He also served as a speaker for the chief. His younger brother stayed most of the time in the qaʼōʼqȧth house, but sometimes stayed a few months with him. His second wife, with whom he was living at this time, was a tīłȧth woman whose daughter was married to an amiaȧth man. (6) This place was occupied by the family of commoners ... The head of the family was related distantly to No. 4 (to whom he was mamutswiniłim), and also, distantly, to the house chief (No. 1) through kinship with the chief’s mother. He was a war chief, (his father also had been a war chief), and held various fishing rights given him for his services to the chief. He gave wealth to Chief naswinis and also to nayisim to aid them in their potlatches. He lived here with his wife and two sons; a daughter was married to an aʼʟic man and her children inherited important rights from that house (in the lack of direct lineal heirs). (7) wɔckwitya, the younger brother of No. 6 lived in this place with yūmōtqw’s family (mamutswiniłim to yūmōtqw). He was married to an aʼʟicȧth woman, and they had two daughters. (These two brothers had an elder brother, a shaman and war chief, who lived most of the time in the aʼʟicȧth house ...). (8) wiʼpaxcaʼat was a man of low rank, a commoner, who lived with his wife and son in this house. He was also a war chief (there were said to have been more war chiefs in this house than in any other at Kyuquot). His son had an affair with a woman of high rank of the natcasȧth, and it was arranged for him to go there to live (the affair was patched up by this matrilocal residence). When he moved to his wife’s house, his parents moved there also, and subsequently spent most of the time there. They were always regarded, however, as belonging to the tacīs house. (9) ʟanϵhanł was of intermediate rank. His 420 kinship to the chief’s family could not be traced, but his father before him had lived in this same house. He was more closely, though deviously, related to the chief’s mother, and called naswinis ‘nephew’ on that account. He was a shaman and a trapper; he accumulated considerable wealth at times, which he gave to the chief. His wife was an aʼʟic woman, and their children, a boy and a girl, both eventually married into the house aʼʟic. He had some minor privileges, among them a salmon trap in tacīs River, that had been given to his father by the former chief of the house. He lived at times in the ʟatcwɔʼstakȧmł house, instead of here. (10) nakwiʼtinł, a commoner, had lived here, but had died by the time of these data. He had held a war chief’s name given by the chief’s predecessor. His two daughters married white men; the elder eventually came back to live in the house. Both women brought their children to the house so they could be taken in the chief’s Shamans’ Dance and given names by him. (11) ōwitchamis was addressed as a chief, although he was of rather low rank. He also was a war chief. He claimed kinship with the chief’s family, although the relationship was remote. His paternal ancestors, so far back as they could be traced, had always lived in this house. One of them, his great-grandfather, had been renowned as a war chief and as a great eater; people used to tease ōwitchamis telling him he should try to beat the exploits of his ancestor. ōwitchamis was a noted sea otter hunter. Sometimes he gave small potlatches (supplementary ones during major affairs) in the name of his sister’s sons; sometimes he gave the proceeds of his hunting to the chief. He held various minor economic and ritual rights, given to him or to various of his paternal ancestors by the chiefs of this house. He and his wife had five children, but all died. His sister was married to a cawis chief of intermediate rank (but higher than hers), and her two sons visited their uncle but seldom stayed with him. Sometimes he lived in the cawis house for short periods, or in the ciʟsyaʼphȧth house to which he was related on the maternal side. (12) qwawin was considered an aʼʟic man, but sometimes visited in this house, spending a winter there. He was a noted carver, among other things, and was, therefore, popular with all the chiefs. He had inherited various rights, mostly in the aʼʟic house, and was regarded as a chief of the middle class. (13) ūstatkw was a commoner who often lived in the tacīs house. He had no rights, and was commonly regarded as rather shiftless. But he helped the chiefs with their traps, and so on, and was well liked. (x) Places occupied by less permanent occupants” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935- 1936] 1951:283, par. 2-7; 285, par. 1-5; 286, par. 1-4) [Tlingit] “The clan is made up of households, consisting of closely related families living together under one roof, numbering sometimes over fifty and presided over by a house chief [hít sa·tí, ‘master of the house’] whose position and authority within the body was relatively the same as that of the chief toward the clan. [Emmons here is using ‘household’ in two senses. First, as the ‘house’ (hít), which in Tlingit thought, is the matrilineage (hít-ta·n) as well as the building it occupies. This group of consanguineal relatives may grow so large that a new building may have to be built to accommodate their resident members, but the ‘house’ endures, until, perhaps, the new ‘daughter houses’ become lineages in their own right, and the parent ‘house’ becomes a clan. For Emmons, ‘household’ also means the persons who actually reside in a lineage-owned house, a group that includes the married-in wives and children of the male ‘owners,’ but 421 excludes their sisters—lineage members who live in the houses of their fathers or of their husbands]” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:27, par. 1-2) [Tlingit] “The men of the house constitute the governing power, and, together with married female relatives, were of the same lineage and clan, but the wives and their children were necessarily opposites” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:27, par. 3) [Tlingit] “Each [biological] family within the household was a self-supporting unit in the economy of ordinary life, while the younger single men were expected to contribute to the support of the house chief. [The latter was usually their ‘maternal uncle.’] At feasts and ceremonial occasions all would assist the household and the clan. [Even the women of the lineage who had married into other households in the village would assist their own lineage chief; all the men and women of the clan would assist their clan chief in preparation for a potlatch. And the married-in wives also made important but informal contributions to their husbands’ feasts]” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:27, par. 5) [Tlingit] “While the house chief was accorded much respect and represented the communal body at all [public] functions, his authority was very limited. His power depended more upon his personality and strength of character than on his own [official] position” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:27, par. 6) [Tlingit] “[We should also remember that slaves, although legally chattels, were members of wealthy Tlingit households]” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:27, par. 7) [Tlingit] “Each clan recognized a head chief, hereditary in the principal family [lineage], but elected or approved in council by all the adult males of the clan. In every clan there might be one or more subchiefs who were the heads of other important households [lineages]. All the other house heads were similarly selected, and had the same authority and duties relative to their households, as the head chief had to the clan. [Conversely, the clan chief was the house chief of his own lineage]” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:38, par. 3) [Tlingit] “When there were only a few slaves they lived in the house with the family, occupying the front platform near the door, but if a chief had many slaves he housed them together and took precautions to prevent their escape. In 1882 the slaves that still remained among the Tlingit were treated like members of the family” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882- 1904] 1991:41, par. 7) [Tlingit of Angoon] “One-third of the fifty houses are communally owned by house groups, each with a house head or custodian for the property, although not all of the houses are occupied. Two are kept more or less in repair and used occasionally as headquarters for visitors and for special ceremonies” (Garfield [1945] 1947:438, par. 2) 422 [Tlingit of Angoon] “Members of related houses help each other with the expense of keeping the communal houses in repair and with funeral expenses” (Garfield [1945] 1947:438, par. 3) [Tlingit of Angoon] “New clans developed from the descendents of builders of a single house, usually as a result of migration of clan members” (Garfield [1945] 1947:450, par. 5) [Tlingit of Angoon] “While quarrels, murders and other disruptive occurrences were responsible for migrations and the building of new houses which eventually developed into new clans, others grew out of the natural increase of member” (Garfield [1945] 1947:451, par. 1) [Yakutat Tlingit] “The most famous chief of the Teqwedi was Xatgawet. Despite the popular association of his name with Knight Island, my most careful native historian said that he lived alone in a single house in a clearing on the ocean side of the stream from Summit Lake, i.e. the west branch of Lost River” (de Laguna [1949-1954] 1972:76, par. 10) [Yakutat Tlingit] “Emmons (MS.) ... includes the Italio River with the western territory, reporting that in 1886 there was one Tł’ᴜknaxᴀdi house with 12 occupants, all that remained of an old village” (de Laguna 1972:81, par. 1) Access to Resources [Klamath] “There is no individual ownership of fishing places, as with dams. Nor ... are there proprietary rights to hunting territories, berry or seed patches. A chief has no control, no ownership of fishing rights. Even those whose permanent dwellings are near the dams have no particular claim to them” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:149, par. 2) [Haida] “Each lineage was headed by a hereditary chief who was the trustee of the lineage properties. His permission had to be secured before others of different lineages could have access to those properties and their resources” (Blackman [1900s] 1990:251, par. 5) [Haida] “Each Haida family had its own creek, creeks, or portion of a creek, where its smoke-houses stood. Some of the smaller creeks are said to have no owners; and, on the other hand, some families are said to have had no land. In the latter case they were obliged to wait until another family was through before picking berries, and had to pay for the privilege. Any family might pick berries on the land belonging to another after the owners had finished picking, if it obtained the consent of the latter and paid a certain price” (Swanton [1900-1901] 1909:71, par. 3) [Haida] “Whatever drifted ashore belonged to the family owning that stretch of coast. In the case of a whale, the family chief received the best portion, and those lowest in rank the cuts nearest its tail. Rights to a part of the whales found on a man’s section of coast could be sold to another family, at least by the chief. Land could also be parted with at any time by the family in 423 possession. ... land, as well as the ownership of a town, might be exacted in payment for injuries” (Swanton [1900-1901] 1909:71, par. 5) [Haida] “Lineages controlled both real and incorporeal property. Vested in the lineage were rights to certain salmon spawning streams, lakes, trapping sites, patches of edible plants (cinquefoil, fireweed, high-bush and bog cranberry, and crabapple), stands of cedar trees, bird rookeries, and stretches of coastline. Swanton (1905a:31) and Niblack (1890:335) wrote that lineages owned halibut banks, but in the 1970s Masset Haida stated that while Halibut banks were named, neither they nor the sea were aboriginal lineage properties” (Blackman 1990:249, par. 2) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “Codfish grounds ... were not privately owned, but most men were secretive about their method of locating the better places. A man usually went out alone or sometimes with his wife; parties of men did not go out together” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:38, par. 1) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “Whenever a stranded whale was found, the finders made all haste to the village to inform the chief who owned the beach on which it had lodged, or the one who held the principal whale rights there” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:39, par. 4) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “Since the fish do not spawn simultaneously everywhere, but first in one cove, then the next, then another, the herring-egg season lasted for some time, and fences were built in a number of places. Each man did not own a special area in each cove for his fence. The entire coves belonged to certain chiefs. Common men were given permission to use the spawning grounds, and were expected in return to give the owner a part of their catch as tribute” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:42, par. 3) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “Salmon streams constituted the most important economic properties of the Nootkan chiefs. Though they gave rights to set salmon traps in certain places to kin and henchman, the chiefs exercised their right to claim the entire first catch of the traps made in their individual rivers” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:251, par. 1) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “The conditions under which a group member was permitted to exploit a chief’s territory expressed public acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the ownership. They were as follows: No one might fish on any important fishing ground until the owner formally opened the season either by ordering some men to go out to procure the first catch or the first two catches for him, or by calling on all to accompany him on the first expedition of the season. After this, men could go when they pleased. Sometimes during the season, or afterward when the product had been dried, the chief sent men to collect ‘tribute’ (oʼūmas) for him. This was nothing more or less than a tax exacted in kind for the use of his domain. No definite amount was specified: it was left to each man to give what he would. 424 Informants say, ‘The fishermen gave all they could spare. They didn’t mind giving, for they knew the chief would give a feast with his tribute.’ The foodstuff collected in this fashion was always used to give a great feast, at which the giver announced it had been obtained as tribute, and explained his hereditary right to demand tribute from that place. He invariably concluded by requesting the people to remember that the place belonged to him, ‘ to take care of it for him,’ though they might use it when they wished after the formal seasonal opening. ... Each chief collected this tribute from whatever fishing grounds he owned, river, inlet, or fishing banks” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:251, par. 3) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “A chief owned also the important root and berry patches along his river. When the berries or roots ripened, he sent some women from his house to gather the first crop for him. With this harvest he gave a feast to his people. The crew of berry pickers or root diggers were ‘paid’ in kind” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:252, par. 2) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “The ownership of a territory included rights not only to foodstuffs procured from it by human labor, but also to salvage. Whatever was found derelict in a chief’s ocean territory stranded on his beach or lost on his land, was salvage (hōnī) and belonged to the chief owning the place. The finder of such property was obliged to bring it to the chief, or at least notify him, and was in return given payment. This right of salvage applied to anything from a whale, a canoe, a good log, or a runaway slave to a dentalia shell or a canoe bailer” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:254, par. 1) [Tlingit] “[Territorial rights were among those which the Tlingit zealously defended, and which they were ready to respect. Such rights included control over the trade routes into the interior, monopolies that were originally linked with exclusive rights to trade with the Athabaskans, but which later came to include the sole right to earn money by packing over the passes for the miners. Thus, when Commander Beardslee in 1879-80 succeeded in persuading the Chilkat and Chilkoot to permit a group of miners to go into the interior, the latter had to promise that they would not trade with the Athabaskans. When two other men who had not made this pledge joined the party and did trade, the Chilkat and Chilkoot were incensed at what they interpreted as a breach of faith. ... Later, when the Chilkoot refused to pack for Ogilvie’s survey party in 1887 and would have caused trouble if he had hired Athabaskans to do so on the Tlingit side of the Chilkoot Pass, the Chilkoot themselves, when they finally agreed to do the job, carried the packs only to the summit, for beyond was Athabaskan country where the owners had the exclusive right to pack for the whites. [Whites and Indians clashed over fishing rights, because the former did not recognize the Indians’ exclusive rights to fish in waters claimed by clans. Ensign J. 0. Nicholson (in Glass 1882:44-45) reported on what was evidently an invasion of Indian fishing grounds near the cannery town of Klawock in 1881, when the Indians (Klawak and Henya?) drove off the cannery seiners who were taking fish too near their summer village. One drunken Indian organized a strike among the native cannery workers and threatened the cannery cook. When the frightened whites appealed to Commander Glass in Sitka for protection, 425 he sent Ensign Nicholson with twenty men. The latter persuaded the assembled leaders to destroy the Indians’ stills, for drunkenness had aggravated the trouble, and at their request gave the chiefs official ‘papers’ recognizing their status. In 1890, the Hutsnuwu were protesting fishing by the whites in Sitkoh Bay, claimed by the De-sitan, Raven 13, as their exclusive territory. Again an appeal was made by the cannery personnel to the naval authorities in Sitka, and Ensign Robert Coontz (1930:152-55) was sent with six marines and an interpreter to explain the whites’ view of their rights and to arrest any Indians who might interfere with them. Coontz was able to secure the surrender of 125 Indians, and took 20 of their leaders to Sitka. In both of these cases, even when the Indians felt that they were in the right, and bitterly resented the intrusion of the whites, they were anxious to keep the peace” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882- 1904] 1991:49, par. 1-2) [Tlingit] “Each tribe has one or more permanent winter villages and well defined territorial limits. The open waterways and certain less productive hunting and fishing grounds, together with sufficient area around the village for the gathering of daily foods and wood, are free to all. But the country as a whole is divided among the clans, and subdivided by each clan among the house groups and families [lineages]. Salmon streams, hunting and berrying grounds are inalienable family [clan] possessions. Traveler’s through another [clan’s] territory could kill for food, but not for pelt or profit. Otherwise, the rights of territory were duly respected and strictly enforced. This was clearly illustrated when the first salmon canneries were established here, as payment was [had to be] made to the separate families [clans] owning the streams, for the privilege of fishing thereabouts. [Since territories were owned by clans (or lineages), and the same clan might have branches in neighboring tribes, exact tribal boundaries are often difficult to draw ... Territories were, furthermore, alienable, through sale or surrender after warfare ... Territorial rights usually included even fresh drinking water and firewood ...” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:22, par. 2-3) [Tlingit] “Each household had its own salmon streams, or fishing and hunting grounds, and berrying grounds. [The larger territorial rights seem to have been owned by the clan, while specific fishing places were owned by houses ...” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:27, par. 4) [Tlingit] “Property rights were strictly observed, and compensations were made for injuries or killings according to the rank of the victim. The clan was the unit of social organization, and its property was held in common. Its territory, however, was to a large degree divided among the individual families or households [lineages], as an inalienable right, which they could not dispose of and which was inherited in the direct maternal line. These possessions consisted particularly of the fishing streams, since salmon constituted their main food. Camping grounds and spheres of activity on the larger rivers were recognized as family [clan or lineage?] rights, as were seal and sea otter camp sites, together with the contiguous waters, and hunting and trapping grounds. The house site was likewise a distinct family [lineage] possession, and even if unoccupied would remain inviolate. The privilege of taking food when traveling through 426 the country was free to all, but pelts belonged to its occupants [the owners of the territory]. Children inherited nothing from their father. While they were young and remained with him, they assisted him and had the right of hunting and fishing in his country, but when they married, these rights would be exercised in their mother’s or wife’s territory [i.e., in the territory belonging to the maternal uncle or to the father-in-law of the man]” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:46, par. 8-9) [Tlingit of Angoon] “In 1902 there were two occupied houses at Basket Bay presided over by a house head known as Basket Bay Chief, who exacted a toll of a dollar each from hunters and fishermen entering his area” (Garfield 1947:440, par. 3) [Tlingit of Angoon] “As a result of internal trouble the Ganaxe·’dι moved out of the Angoon area leaving their rights of use and occupation to the De·’cιta·n, exclusive of the Basket Bay group” (Garfield [1945] 1947:441, par. 2) [Tlingit of Angoon] “There are some areas which are said to be used and held jointly by the two clans of the Raven phratry and are not regarded as the exclusive property of a single house or of related houses” (Garfield [1945] 1947:442, par. 5) [Tlingit of Angoon] “The Daqt’ławe·dι claim only Eliza Harbor, Hood Bay and Angoon as places where they have a right to live and to get food” (Garfield [1945] 1947:448, par. 2) [Tlingit of Angoon] “From their Pavlof Harbor winter village Wuckιta·’n explored and fished in Tenekee Inlet, thereby establishing their right to it. The Inlet has since been surrendered to the Raven phratry ‘because of an accident to a Raven man not long ago’” (Garfield [1945] 1947:450, par. 3) [Tlingit of Angoon] “According to Tlingit legal theory, bays, streams and other productive areas are the private property of certain house groups or local divisions of clans. Once use and occupancy are established, these properties are inalienable” (Garfield [1945] 1947:451, par. 2) [Tlingit of Angoon] “... territories have changed hands. Migrations have accounted for the abandonment of former territories and acquisition of new ones. While the Angoon Wuckιta·’n know that their name originated from a house built in Excursion Inlet they do not now claim it as their territory. Their ancestors departed long ago and forfeited their rights. They settled new sites and, through use and occupancy, established title to otherwise unclaimed or unused areas. The Wuckιta·’n house groups of Angoon and Hoonah own separate areas and do not encroach on each other’s territorial claims” (Garfield [1945] 1947:452, par. 1) [Tlingit of Angoon] “In many cases migrants were extended fishing, hunting and home- site rights by the people among whom they settled. The Ganaxe·’dι extended such courtesy to the various groups who joined them on Admiralty Island and Chatham Strait. The migrants built 427 homes, camps and smoke-houses and established property rights to the available resources” (Garfield [1945] 1947:452, par. 2) [Tlingit of Angoon] “Several instances of transfer of title of property in order to satisfy a debt were related. The Ganaxe·’dι gave their house and home-site in Angoon and Sitkoh Bay to the De·’cιta·n to compensate for a murder, and the Wuckιta·’n surrendered Tenekee Inlet to the Anqʼaʹkιta·n under similar circumstances” (Garfield [1945] 1947:452, par. 3) [Tlingit of Angoon] “The extinction of a local house or clan group has also resulted in the taking over of their property by other groups. The only instance related in Angoon was the Tʼłϵne·ʹdι absorption of the Kelp people at Tyee where they also acquired the resources formerly belonging to them” (Garfield [1945] 1947:452, par. 4) [Yakutat Tlingit] “... land belonged to sibs (or their segments) for whom the chief acted as administrator; ... with the consent of the group he could give away territorial rights, as at Angoon (Garfield, 1947, p. 441; de Laguna, 1960, pp. 133-134) and on the Gulf of Alaska ..., or sell them. Indeed, it was through purchase that the Kʷackqwan and the Drum House Teqwedi acquired their lands in the Yakutat area (see also the version recorded by Swanton, 1909, Tale 105, p. 356; and pp. 232, 252). ‘Land’ for the Tlingit included, of course, not simply the actual land, but offshore waters, and the rights to gather wild products (cf. Niblack, 1890, p. 335). What is significant about the Angoon and Yakutat transactions is that these transfers of territorial rights were made in order to resolve conflicts. This is particularly clear in the purchases of Knight Island and Humpback Creek in Yakutat Bay, which were undertaken expressly to prevent further trouble between the owners and the Kʷackqwan who had been picking strawberries and catching fish in places where they were tresspassing without invitation. According to the Tlingit, rights to exclusive use extended over many resources that the European would consider free: fresh water, driftwood, marine mammals and fish, land game, and wild plants, all of which LaPérouse’s men were taking (LaPérouse, 1799, vol. 1, pp. 371, 376, 394-395). We should also note how the Sitka Tlingit of “Puerto de los Remedios” bitterly resented the Spanish helping themselves to fresh water, wood, and fish; at first insisting on payment for this, then retiring when they could not frighten the Spaniards (Maurelle, 1920, pp. 45-46)” (de Laguna [1700s- 1900s] 1972:119, par. 4-5) [Tlingit] “Leaders of clans that ‘owned’ the ‘grease trails’ into the interior and thereby held monopolies in dealing with the Athapascans organized trading expeditions to them ...” (de Laguna 1990:208, par. 9) [Tlingit] “It was the clan, and under it the house, that possessed territories, including rights to all game, fish, berries, timber, drinking water, and trade routes (for Chilkat and Chilkoot); house sites in the winter village; and the prerogatives associated with the totemic crests, represented in the decorations of houses, heirloom objects, and personal names. The chiefs or ‘big men’ of the clans and ‘house owners’ of the lineages were trustees and 428 administrators of their group’s property. They could assign fishing spots, open or close the hunting season, set a limit on the number of sea otters that a man might take, order the death of a trespasser ...” (de Laguna 1990:213, par. 2) [Eyak] “While Cordova Eyak denied that hunting areas were controlled by clans, this was the case from Controller Bay southward ..., although any relatives of the owners might utilize their resources” (de Laguna 1990b:193, par. 2) Trade [Klamath] “Trade is probably of no great consequence within the tribe although it figures intertribally” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:41, par. 1) [Haida] “Conducting their trade from shipboard, European and American mariners exchanged manufactured goods with the Haida for sea otter pelts. These traders introduced a great variety of goods to the Haida, some in substantial quantities. Among the most significant items were iron pieces (called ‘toes’ in mariners’ records) that were worked into adz blades by the natives, chisels and knives, sheet copper, muskets, tin wash basins, kettles, liquor, cloth, and items of clothing. Potato cultivation was introduced by traders, and by 1825 the Haida were growing large quantities of potatoes that they exchanged with the Coast Tsimshian and, later, with the Hudson’s Bay Company. ... The Haida often refused to trade pelts with one ship either because they were not interested in the goods offered or because they knew another ship whose captain offered better bargains would soon arrive” (Blackman [late 1700s-early 1800s] 1990:255, par. 3-5) [Haida] “Four years later, the sea trade was superseded by the Hudson’s Bay Company, which established Fort Simpson in Coast Tsimshian territory. This post became a meeting ground for Tsimshian, Southern Tlingit, and Haida who were there to trade for the next 40 or so years, not only with the White traders but also with one another. The Hudson’s Bay Company disbursed its famed blankets, rice, flour, and other staples, cloth, and clothing to the Haida in exchange for furs (mostly land furbearers), dried halibut, potatoes, and died herring spawn. After the Fraser gold rush in 1858 the Haida also regularly journeyed to the burgeoning town of Victoria to trade, and they traveled at least as far north as Sitka on trading expeditions. A small Hudson’s Bay Company post founded at Masset on the Queen Charlottes in 1869 attracted Haida from outlying villages, but it does not appear to have curtailed Haida trading ventures to the mainland” (Blackman [1830s-1870s] 1990:255, par. 7) [Haida] “Many necessary items were acquired by the Haida through trade with neighboring groups, particularly the Coast Tsimshian and the Tlingit. To the Tlingit the Haida traded canoes, seaweed, and dried halibut for eulachon grease, dried eulachons, and soapberries ... The Haida acquired slaves in trade from the Kwakiutl ... Occasionally some items were traded internally, between Haida village groups. The Skidegate people, for example, traded ‘winter seaweed’ and herring spawn to those at Masset who lacked these resources in their own 429 territory. Trade with non-Haida was conducted sometimes under the protective auspices of a formal relationship established between two chiefs of equivalent moieties (Tlingit) or phratries (Tsimshian), which established a bond of brotherhood between the two individuals, their lineages or clans and heirs, and prohibited warfare between them ...” (Blackman 1990:246, par. 4-5) [Yakutat Tlingit] “The important role played by Tlingit women in trading had already been noted in 1788 by Captain Douglas (Meares, 1790, p. 323). The high prices charged by Mrs. Tom at Yakutat are not to be equated with the extortionate demands made by Tlingit who enjoyed the monopoly of middle men between the White man and some more remote interior people, although no doubt she charged extra to compensate for the risks and expense of the voyage. Mrs. Tom was a Yakutat woman, trading with her relatives, and as will be seen, the ties of kinship among the Tlingit necessitate the ‘payment’ of especially handsome reciprocal gifts in exchange for initial presents ...” (de Laguna [1780s-1880s] 1972:191, par. 4) [Tlingit] “While the Chilkat, like all other Tlingit, looked to the water for their staple food supply, their wealth was derived from the land in their trade with the interior peoples, the products of which they both used and exchanged with more southern coast tribes. Before the advent of Europeans, they procured caribou and moose skins and the pelts of smaller mammals for clothing from the Yukon and Alsek basins, and float copper from the White River valley. Upon the coming of trading vessels, the value of furs greatly increased, and this trade was proportionately augmented while the acquisition of iron and steel made copper valuable only for ornamental purposes. Their first foreign market was Sitka. After the lease of the littoral to the Hudson’s Bay Company [in 1840], the exchange was carried on both with the Company’s vessels at ‘Labouchere’ or Pyramid Harbor [near the mouth of the Chilkat River], and at Port Simpson. With the American acquisition of Alaska [1867], Wrangell became the center of trade, and later Juneau [about 1883]. The chief industry of the Chilkat-Chilkoot was trading. They made from two to three trips annually over their mountain trails to the interior, each of which consumed from ten to thirty-odd days. The first journey was made in mid-winter when the snow was hard and travel was more certain. This was a preliminary trip to make arrangements for the most important spring trade when the winter catch of furs had been taken. This trip was made in April, before the arrival of the eulachon; the trying out of its oil was of supreme importance, for the grease was the greatest dietetic luxury known to the coast people. The trading journeys were made by family [clan, or lineage] parties and included most or all of the able bodied men of the village. They paddled, poled, and tracked by canoe for days along the rivers to the great glacier which they crossed, and then inland, along rivers, over lakes, and by trail for some two hundred miles, to the native village of Hootchyee [Hutshi, on the Yukon headwaters, Southern Tutchone], where, by appointment or through smoke signals, they met the interior people. Another trip, taken in August when the salmon catch had been made, was by way of the Klaheen [Klehini River, the large eastern tributary to the Chilkat, which enters the latter a short distance above Klukwan], to Kluck shu [Klukshu], where they traded with the Alsek people [i.e., with the Southern Tutchone of the Alsek headwaters]” (Emmons (and de Laguna) 1991:56, par. 6) 430 [Yakutat Tlingit] “We are also given considerable insight into trading customs at Yakutat, and in particular in the ties linking Yakutat with Sitka. As had been the experience of every navigator to Port Mulgrave, they found the Indians ‘anxious to prolong the stay of the vessel [the Pinta, while waiting the return of the messenger from up the bay], for money soon began to be in brisk circulation. Many curios were brought to the ship’s side and at once bought up by the officers who were making collections of native objects. The Indians too were now all the more desirous of money, as a disreputable Indian woman, known as Mrs. Toms, had made her way up from Sitka in a large hydah or war-canoe, and was busy trading, and supposed to be possessed of a large fortune amassed by doubtful methods. The greater part of the articles of native manufacture brought for sale consisted in baskets of a variety of shapes, neatly plaited out of roots, dyed different colours and designed in different patterns; charms, carved walrus tusks, bows and arrows, and horn spoons.’ [Ibid., p. 59.] [The walrus tusks are puzzling; they must have been procured in trade from the north, if, indeed, identification of the specimens is correct.]” (de Laguna [1880s] 1972:190, par. 14) [Tlingit] “... the slaves held by the Tlingit were principally Vancouver Islanders purchased from the Haida. Their value depended upon their age and sex. A man was worth more than a woman, and a woman with child or capable of bearing children was proportionately more valuable [than a little girl or a woman past menopause?]. Values seem to have been generally standardized. The following were quoted to me by old people who remembered an earlier period when the traffic in slaves was carried on: At Yakutat a man was worth 20 pounds of copper, or 6 prime sea otter pelts. A woman was worth 10 pounds of copper, or 5 ordinary sea otter skins. At Angoon, among the Hootz-ah-ta [Hutsnuwu, Tribe XII], a man was worth 30 fox skins, or 10 moose skins, or 2 martin skin blankets, or 1 Chilkat blanket. A woman was worth the same, less 10 fox skins. At Sitka, a man was worth 15 moose skins, and a woman 10 moose skins (Dick Sat-in). Among the Stikine in 1860, a manwas worth 40 blankets or $200. A woman was worth 20 blankets or $100. A jade adz was worth from one to three slaves. A ‘copper,’ tinneh [tiná·], that in length reached from the tip of the finger to the elbow, glee-shu- kh-ye kat-tin [possibly ťi·y-šúx ye-kati·n, ‘at-the-elbow measure’?], was worth 20 slaves; one that reached from the tip of the finger to the hollow of the neck, kar-thla-outh ka-tin [probably qá· ɫawu·ɫ kati·n, ‘someone’s hold-in-neck measure’?], was valued at 40 slaves. (Dick Sa-tin)” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:42, par. 2-7) [Tlingit] “In very early days, the Tlingit procured copper, moose and caribou skins, and smaller furs from the interior, which he traded to the Haida for great red cedar canoes and to the Tsimshian for carved wooden dishes, boxes, and woven fabrics. After the advent of Europeans, the increased demand for furs made the interior trade so much more profitable that the Tlingit discouraged and threatened any white competition, and absolutely prohibited the interior people from coming to the coast, except under Tlingit escort. It is told that during the Hudson’s Bay Company’s lease of the coast, a Tahltan chief wished to come down the Stikine River to see a trading vessel, then at its mouth, but his passage was permitted only upon payment to a Stikine 431 chief of Wrangell of five hundred beaver skins, and even then, he was kept under surveillance” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:54, par. 6) [Tlingit] “Trade with other Tlingit or with the neighboring coastal peoples was on an individual basis, but with the interior tribes it was a hereditary right in the hands of certain Tlingit chiefs and headmen who traded for themselves and their followers. Their privileges were respected by all parties. This arrangement, based on mutual consent and the dominance of the more powerful Tlingit, seems to have originated from the continued advantages derived by the Tlingit in marrying interior (Athabaskan) women. The Chilkat went on these trading expeditions in the spring (about May) before the salmon fishing season, in midwinter [end of January and February, according to Emmons’s notes in BCPA], and sometimes also in the fall [October]. They signaled their approach by firing a large tree, and they met the Athabaskans at some appointed place. The ordinary trip consumed a month. Only the men went on the longest journeys” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:55, par. 1) [Tlingit] “The only trade routes into the interior were up the Stikine and Taku rivers, and over the Chilkoot and Chilkat passes. [There was also a route via the Alsek River which empties into Dry Bay on the Gulf Coast of Alaska.] On the rivers they employed canoes, but over the mountains they trailed with back packs and used dogs as pack animals. Both men and women carried packs. The average pack of the man weighed one hundred pounds, although some carried over two hundred pounds, in addition to snowshoes and food. All this they carried over three thousand feet of steep mountain trail, and then several hundred miles beyond, taking advantage of all available water. The woman’s pack weighed from fifty to eighty pounds, and dogs carried as much as twenty-five pounds in each saddle bag. The Chilkat were trained to this work from early childhood. I have seen a boy of five playing with a single dried salmon trapped on his back, which he carried throughout the day, and I have met boys a few years older with regular packs containing their own outfits” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:55, par. 2) [Tlingit] “Domestic barter was carried on in such products as might be in excess of the needs of the particular tribes involved. The Yakutat were the hair seal hunters and made quantities of oil which they traded, together with pressed strawberry cakes, spruce root baskets (of their own manufacture), and native copper which they procured in trade from the interior natives of the White and Copper rivers. [Commander Beardslee (1882:57) reported the arrival at Sitka of a trading party of Hoonah, bringing skins of sea otters, seals, bears, minks, and also oil from stranded whales. Whale and seal oil, put up in bladders of one to five gallons, or in ‘oil- tight tubs which they carve out of solid blocks of wood,’ was worth twenty-five cents a gallon.] The Hootz-ah-tas [Hutsnuwu] were the herring grease makers. The Chilkats, Stickines, and Takus, with their trails and river routes to the interior, were the fur traders. The island tribes put up herring spawn and seaweed and had the monopoly of the sea otter grounds. [To protest the intrusion of Tsimshian Indians on their sea otter hunting grounds was the principal reason for the visit of the Hoonah men to Commander Beardslee at Sitka. The Yakutat also came to resent 432 Tsimshian encroachment on theirs (see de Laguna 1972:284- 86).] The Tongass and Sanya traded on the Nass for eulachon grease which they exchanged with the more northern people” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:55, par. 3) [Tlingit] “Standards of value changed from time to time and increased with each exchange [as products were traded farther and farther from their point of origin]” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:55, par. 4) [Tlingit] “In exchange and sale, the husband depended upon his wife’s judgment, and she had an equal voice. Indeed, if a sale had been consummated in her absence, she might repudiate the transaction and demand the money back. I personally know of an instance when a man purchased a pair of trousers, which, not meeting the approval of his wife, they were taken back and the money had to be refunded. If a surplus of any kind of food were found in the spring, the period of food shortage, the wife selected it and placed it on the outer platform [front porch] in front of the owner, for the attention of passers-by [and traded it]” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:56, par. 3) [Tlingit] “[A great deal of domestic and foreign trade was carried on ceremonially by the Tlingit, as a form of gift exchange” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:56, par. 5) [Tlingit] “In early days they followed down the Alsek in winter to the coast and traded with the Gu nah ho [Guna·xu· qʷá·n, Dry Bay tribe] and Yakutat. Trading was not an individual affair in which each person could follow his own wishes; it was systematized and was carried on by the chiefs and principal men for themselves and their followers, and the right to trade with certain families was the exclusive privilege of some Chilkats. The Chilkat made the prices and dominated these more helpless interior people who were absolutely dependent on them for arms, ammunition, and all European products, as they were excluded from the coast except under escort and surveillance” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:57, par. 1) [Tlingit] “[Trade partners, wu·š ỵaqáwu, ‘mutually joined-together,’ should belong to the same moiety, but to different clans, according to the Yakutat (de Laguna 1972:355); to the same clan, or its equivalent (Olson 1936:212); ‘Ideally the two men were always of the same sib and were ‘best friends’ (McClellan 1975, 2:506)” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:57, par. 11) [Yakutat Tlingit] “Seton-Karr (1887, p. 125) reports that on the return of the expedition from ‘Icy Bay’ to Khantaak Island: ‘The last two days [August 3-4] have been consumed in bargaining with the Indians in trading material for curios (such as masks and arrows, spoons of wild sheep and goat horns, charms, carved bones, and baskets woven out of roots and grass), but in a manner tedious and trying to the patience. Besides salmon, and occasionally a small halibut, the Indian squaws have been daily bringing clams, cockles, crabs, and baskets of strawberries, salmon-berries, and blueberries’” (de Laguna 1972:192, par. 1) 433 [Tlingit] “Among themselves, Tlingits traded largely as gift exchanges between ‘partners’ (ẏaqá · wu, members of different clans in the same moiety), or between ‘brothers-in- law’ (members of opposite moieties), or ‘fathers- and sons-in-law’” (de Laguna 1990:208, par. 9) Property [Klamath] “Property of the dead, such as his beads, arms, and skins, is piled on the body as it lies on the pyre” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:72, par. 3) [Nuxalk (Bella Coola)] “... the tribe is divided into village communities, which possess crests and traditions” (Boas [1898-1900] 1900:122, par. 3) [Nuxalk (Bella Coola)] “... the clan legend ... is considered one of the most valuable properties of each clan or family. It is carefully guarded in the same way as material property, and an attempt on the part of a person not a member of the clan to tell the tradition as his own is considered one of the gravest offences against property rights” (Boas [1898-1900] 1900:123, par. 3) [Haida] “Each family had certain prerogatives which it guarded jealously. Such were the right to use certain personal, house, and canoe names, and the right to wear certain objects or representations of objects upon their persons or clothing, especially at the great winter potlatches, and to carve them upon their houses and other property. These latter I have called ‘crests.’ ... They were originally obtained from some supernatural being or by purchase from another family” (Swanton [1900-1901] 1909:11, par. 4) [Haida] “If a man were unfaithful after marriage, his mother-in-law exacted a large amount of property from him ...” (Swanton [1900-1901] 1909:51, par. 1) [Haida] “Each family had the right to use a certain number of crests — i.e., figures of animals, certain other natural objects, and occasionally articles of human manufacture — during a potlatch; or they might represent them upon their houses or any of their property, and tattoo them upon their bodies. ... Evidently a crest was sometimes acquired by one family in ignorance of the fact that it was already used by the opposite clan elsewhere” (Swanton [1900-1901] 1909:107, par. 1) [Haida] “If a man were very fond of his children, he might give them the right to use some of his own crests; but these must be surrendered as soon as the children married. Occasionally a crest of this kind was kept through life; and, according to tradition, one or two crests were given by the man who first obtained them to his children, and thus to the other clan” (Swanton [1900-1901] 1909:107, par. 2) [Haida] “Possession of a crest was jealously guarded; and if any chief learned that one of his crests had been adopted by a chief of a family that was considered of lower rank; he would put the latter to shame, and, by giving away or destroying more property than the other chief 434 could muster, force him to abandon it. Thus a chief of the family of Those-born-at-Skidegate ... once adopted the mountain-goat; but when the chief of Skedans heard of it, he gave away a great many blankets, and compelled him to relinquish it” (Swanton [1900-1901] 1909:107, par. 4) [Haida] “Another prerogative of each family was the use of certain names, —personal names, house-names, canoe-names, even names of salmon-traps and spoons” (Swanton [1900- 1901] 1909:117, par. 3) [Haida] “The house-building potlatch ..., given to build or repair a house, is by far the most important type. For years in advance a man accumulates the products of his industry, the profits of trade, and the plunder of war, to which his wife adds all the property she can assemble through gift, inheritance, or her own labor, often amounting to as much as that amassed by her husband” (Murdock 1936:3, par. 4) [Haida] “One year before the actual ceremony, when the goal of the accumulation is clearly in sight, comes ‘lending day’ ..., the first act in the potlatch. From the common store of property–consisting principally of trade blankets, in former times probably of sea otter furs—the wife, not the husband, lends to the various members of her clan and moiety from one to ten or more blankets each. The recipients may use the blankets to repay a debt, to give a funeral potlatch, or for any other purpose, but they assume the obligation to return one year hence double the number borrowed, i.e., to replay the loan with 100 per cent interest” (Murdock 1936:4, par. 1) [Haida] “The actual distribution of the property followed. The hostess supervised the distribution, aided by her husband, who stood by her side and called her attention to any mistakes. Naʹkαdjut, the son of her elder sister, stood beside the pile, took each time the number of blankets she indicated, threw them upon the floor, and called aloud the ceremonial or potlatch name of the recipient, who answered: ‘Xade!’ Four Eagle boys acted as pages, picking up the blankets, carrying them on their shoulders, and depositing them in front of the proper persons. ... After the outstanding chiefs had been provided for, donations were made to other guests for their various services, beginning with those responsible for carving the totem pole. Persons who had themselves given house-building potlatches received larger gifts than did others who had rendered similar services—on the principle, so often reiterated by my informants, of ‘making it even.’ Additional blankets were also given to the women who had assisted the hostess as midwives at the birth of her children. A number of blankets still remained, reserved for a special distribution called ĝäʹdjuksau. The hostess presented one or two of them to each Raven guest who had distinguished himself by exceptionally hard work or good dancing, and then asked any one whom she had overlooked to speak up. If a volunteer had really done well, she gave him a blanket ... She added another touch of comedy by presenting the last ragged blanket with mock solemnity to her husband, who belonged, ... to the moiety of the recipients ... In all, approximately nine hundred blankets were distributed, although a scant hundred had sufficed at 435 another remembered potlatch given a generation earlier, at a time when two blankets constituted an adequate reward to a young man for a whole season’s work” (Murdock 1936:11, par. 1) [Haida] “After the presentation of the blankets, the host gave away two ‘coppers’ ... ‘coppers’ are not ‘sold’ at a potlatch, but are given away—usually to a man, or the heir of a man, who on some previous occasion has given a ‘copper’ to the chief whom the donor has succeeded. Following the presentation of the ‘coppers,’ the hostess, aided by a female relative and four girls as assistants, distributed a great quantity of clothing, dishes, horn spoons, mats, and other feminine articles in much the same manner as the blankets had been given away. Any chief who wanted one of the boxes in which the blankets and other property had been stored, ask for it, and it was given him” (Murdock 1936:11, par. 2) [Haida] “Numerous facts suggest that, although a man is commonly spoken of as having given a house-building potlatch, the actual donor is not he but his wife. It is she who makes the loan the previous year, and she who superintends the actual distribution. ... he presents the ‘coppers,’ but he merely stands by while she gives away the blankets, dishes, and other articles. In Skidegate and Hydaburg, the husband presides over the distribution of blankets, but in the latter place it is specifically stated that the wife alone has the power to decide how many each recipient is to get and to correct her spouse if he makes a mistake. In Hydaburg, ... it is the wife, not the husband, who distributes the slaves and ‘coppers.’ The songs, dances, and ceremonies performed at the potlatch ... belong to the wife’s clan or related clans, not to the husband’s” (Murdock 1936:12, par. 1) [Haida] “... men whose fathers belonged to the same lineage could ask for each other’s property ...” (Blackman [1930s] 1990:251, par. 3) [Haida] “Lineages ... owned house sites in the winter villages. ... House sites as well as economic properties could be transferred from one lineage to another. Occasionally a man would give his son a house site from his lineage properties, thus passing it to an individual of the opposite moiety. Dawson (1880:165B) cites an instance in which Chief Skidegate received the area of land known as Tlell (on the east coast of the Queen Charlottes) in marriage and later divested himself of it by presenting the land to Chief Skedans as blood payment” (Blackman 1990:249, par. 3) [Haida] “Incorporeal properties included a repository of names (personal, canoe, fish- trap, house, spoon names), dances, songs, and stories. The most important incorporeal lineage properties were the crest figures. ... A few crests, such as eagle and killerwhale, were common to all lineages in a moiety; other crests were unique to particular lineages. Crests were the identifying symbols of the lineages and, in cases where an individual claimed exclusive right to a crest, it was indicative of individual rank within the lineage. Crests were carved on totem poles, tattooed on the body ..., painted on the face, carved or painted on household utensils, boxes, and feast dishes. Crests were also displayed on ceremonial garments, headdresses, helmets, basketry 436 hats ..., drums, weapons, and canoes. Crests were acquired occasionally in ceremonial exchange with the Tsimshian, and, according to Swanton (1905:107), a man might allow his children to use his crests. This practice may have existed only among the Southern Haida” (Blackman 1990:249, par. 4) [Haida] “The largest and most elaborate wealth distribution was the ˀwa·ła·l, a potlatch given upon completion of a cedar-plank dwelling and its frontal pole. The several wealth distributions of the ˀwa·ła·l acknowledged the new house owner’s accession to the position of house chief and served to reimburse those who had performed important functions in the actual construction of the house” (Blackman 1990:252, par. 6) [Haida] “Minor property distributions were given to mark female puberty; to respond to a high-ranking member of the opposite moiety who had impugned one’s status (referred to as ga da·ŋ ‘to throw things away’ to him); and to erase the memory of a mishap causing loss of composure (usually falling or slipping), in which a member of the opposite moiety came to one’s assistance (referred to as ˀagaŋ saŋa·da ‘to fix one’s high rank’). With the exception of the ˀwa·ła·l distribution of property was to members of the moiety opposite the host. In the case of the puberty potlatch, the mortuary potlatch, and the ˀwa·ła·l the primary recipients of wealth were members of the father’s lineage (of the girl, the deceased, and the children receiving names, respectively)” (Blackman 1990:252, par. 8) [Haida] “At death a man’s property would be taken by his younger brothers and nephews. Often the deceased’s house would be literally cleaned out by his heirs, leaving the widow with only her cooking utensils and personal property. A woman’s property devolved upon her daughter at death” (Blackman 1990:255, par. 1) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “... a man, at the time of his marriage, receives his father- in-law’s crest as a dowry, which he holds in trust for his son, so that actually each individual inherits the crest of his maternal grandfather” (Boas [1898-1900] 1900:121, par. 2) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “The ownership of the hair ornaments was a special privilege belonging to certain chiefs. Anyone who had occasion to use one for his daugher had to pay one of these chiefs for it. Some people actually borrowed the objects— perhaps rented would be a better term—from him; others made up their own, but in any case had to give him a payment for the use of the ornaments. If a man had several daughters (or nieces) approaching puberty, he might retain the same set of ornaments for all of them, giving the chief a present, however, each time the articles were used. A chief who made up his own set for his daughter, would perhaps give the completed ornament to the chief having this special ornament- ownership privilege as an especially splendid gesture, in addition to the payment. The amount of the payment varied according to the status of the user. One informant suggested that from one to five blankets would be an average payment, although, of course, a chief would pay more” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:139, par. 4) 437 [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “Some home remedies were known to almost everyone, others were secret prescriptions known only to those of a certain family and jealously guarded by them. The herbs and other simples were ordinarily mashed beyond recognition when the owner of one of these secret ‘medicines’ was hired to treat someone outside his immediate family. He would be paid ‘a dollar or two’ for the treatment” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:146, par. 1) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “Whatever authority a chief had derived in final analysis from the various rights he had inherited. The head chiefs, the ‘real chiefs,’ were those who held the most, the lower chiefs, those who owned less, and commoners were simply people who possessed none at all. The Nootkans carried the concept of ownership to an incredible extreme. Not only rivers and fishing places close at hand, but the waters of the sea for miles offshore, the land, houses, carvings on a house post, the right to marry in a certain way or the right to omit part of an ordinary marriage ceremony, names, songs, dances, medicines, and rituals, all were privately owned property” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:247, par. 1) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “Not only were houses themselves owned, but the entire village sites as well were the property of the chief of the local group or tribe residing there. If others built houses at the place, it was with the owner’s express permission. Similarly, the sites of the tribal and confederacy villages were private property, as were the fishing places in the rivers and the sea, and hunting and gathering locales. In fact all the territory, except for remote inland areas, was regarded as the property of certain chiefs” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:248, par. 1) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “The rule was for a man’s heirs to ‘inherit’ his possessions long before his death. ... from the first potlatch a man gave for his child (which might be while it was yet unborn) he began to invest it with various of the hereditary rights. That was really what the display privileges were shown for. The giver announced that his child (the one in whose honor the affair was being given), had the right to use thus-and-so, recounted how it had come to the child, and then ‘showed’ it. The new name the child received was just another privilege he was assuming. So it came about that by the time a child reached maturity, he or she had assumed nearly all the family rights: display privileges, seat, songs, dances, etc. His predecessor retired from the limelight, but until the young chief was experienced enough to assume full command the ‘retired chief’ continued to direct rituals and affairs of state” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:266, par. 1) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “A given privilege could be inherited by the eldest son, or shared by several children (all having the right to use it); it could be given to a daughter until her marriage and then bestowed on her brother; it could be given to a son-in-law, who might, as the giver specified, have sole right to it or share it with his wife’s brother. The nature of the privilege in question had some bearing; a name, song, or dance might feasibly be shared by a number of people, while a seat or a fish-trap was ordinarily held by but one person at 438 a time. Cases are not lacking ... in which serveral persons shared rights to a fishing place. Ordinarily, a daughter would keep (or a son-in-law be given), only such rights as were transportable (names, songs, dances, etc.), and not such things as seats and fishing rights, unless her husband affiliated himself with her group. It sometimes happened, however, and in recent times with the decrease of population, has become more common, that a woman might retain even such unportables. If a woman has no brothers her eldest child will inherit his father’s rank and rights (if as high or higher than the mother’s), and the next will be ‘put in his mother’s place’—taking her seat and all other rights. If the mother were higher rank, the eldest took her rights. If a man had no children of his own, he might put a brother’s or sister’s child in his own place. If he had choice, he would likely take one who otherwise would not have so many rights” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:267, par. 1) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “Two transfers involving inheritance formed part of the marriage rites. One was the endowing of the bride with her husband’s privileges when she was taken to his house. Everything he owned he had to give her. This was a formal acknowledgement that her children were to inherit the property, and made only on condition that she bear children. The privileges given by her father as part of the dowry were given under the identical condition and also represented a sort of inheritance” (Drucker [(1870- 1900) 1935-1936] 1951:267, par. 2) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “The middle class owned various rights, fewer and less important ones, ... which were inherited in the same way as those of the head chiefs” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:269, par. 2) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “Potlatches were given on numerous occasions. Their prime overt purpose was to transfer a chief’s privileges to his children. At various periods of their lives he gave a potlatch in a child’s honor to announce that he or she was assuming a new name and new rights (seats, dances, properties). The potlatch thus served as a device for transferring hereditary property” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:377, par. 1) [Tlingit] “Almost as important as a clan emblem, although more a personal possession, was the war knife which was a part of the equipment of every man” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:35, par. 2) [Tlingit] “Personal names are the property of the clan ...” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:35, par. 5) [Tlingit] “A slave was the absolute property of the owner, and it was the custom to sacrifice slaves upon the building of a new house, to wipe out an insult, to enhance one’s position by the destruction of such valuable property, and upon the death of the master to provide him with spirit servants in the world beyond” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:41, par. 8) 439 [Yakutat Tlingit] “This homeland always belongs to some sib; the actual settlements within it are shared by the owners, their spouses and affinal kin, and any others who may choose to live or visit there” (de Laguna [1949-1954] 1972:58, par. 1) [Yakutat Tlingit] “All of Yakutat Bay and the adjacent lands are claimed by the Kʷackqwan, who trace their origin to the Copper River. The west side of the bay, and indeed all of the shores as far west as to include Icy Bay ..., was theirs apparently by right of settlement. The eastern shores were purchased from the original owners. However, the Kʷackqwan Ravens were accompanied to Yakutat by the Wolf Gałyɪx-Kagwantan, with whom they had intermarried at Icy Bay. These latter (or a closely related Yakutat branch of the same sib) were known as the Tłaxayɪk-Teqwedi (perhaps after they had settled on Yakutat Bay). While some settlements seem to have belonged predominently to the last sib, or at least to have had a man of that sib as their most distinguished house chief, control of Yakutat Bay for hunting, fishing, and gathering was in the hands of the leading Kʷackqwan chief. According to reports about this sib chief during Russian days, his domination extended up into Disenchantment Bay, at least as far as Haenke Island” (de Laguna [1949-1954] 1972:59, par. 2) [Yakutat Tlingit] “Presumably Russell Fiord north of Cape Stoss, Nunatak Fiord, and Disenchantment Bay above Haenke Island were not claimed by any sib, because they had been until so recently blocked by ice. Thus, while several well-informed Yakutat natives reported going into these areas to hunt and to gather eggs, they added, ‘There is no special ownership up there’ (Jack Ellis, Sam George, etc., to Goldschmidt and Hass, 1946, p.75)” (de Laguna [1940s] 1972:70, par. 11) [Yakutat Tlingit] “Between Yakutat and Dry Bay, a distance of 52 statute miles (45 nautical miles), the coastal plain is divided into sections from the mountains to the sea. These belong to the different sibs. Thus, the Ankau lagoon system within Phipps Peninsula and the lakes to the southeast that drain into it belong to the Kʷackqwan. The eastern boundary of their territory actually runs from the Number Two Runway of the airfield northeast to Cape Stoss, and includes the northernmost tributary to the Situk River and a small bit along the western edge of Mud Bay. Lost River and Situk River, 11 and 14 miles east of Ocean Cape, belong to the Bear House branch of the Teqwedi; Ahrnklin, Dangerous, and Italio Rivers, 17, 24, and 27 miles east of Ocean Cape, belong to the Drum House branch of that sib. The Akwe-Ustay River, some miles from Ocean Cape, as well as the Dry Bay area, belong to the Tłʼᴜknaxᴀdi and the allied Tłukʷaxᴀdi” (de Laguna [1949-1954] 1972:71, par. 3) [Yakutat Tlingit] “The original inhabitants of Lost and Situk Rivers at the western edge of the coastal plain, were the Łuxedi or Tłaxayɪk-Teqwedi; the present owners are the Bear House branch of the Teqwedi who came originally from southeastern Alaska, via the Dry Bay area. Present-day claims are confused by attempts to will the land to sons and daughters, who are, of course, Ravens and not members of the original owning sib (Goldschmidt and Haas, 1946, p. 78). My informants spoke about the ill-feeling thus created between the nephews and 440 the children of the owners, aggravated by the hope that oil would be found in the region” (de Laguna [1940s-1950s] 1972:76, par. 9) [Yakutat Tlingit] “According to Goldschmidt and Haas (1946, p.83): ‘The dakestina clan own the Italio River.’ This is simply another name for the Cᴀnkuqedi, and the two men belonging to this sib, who were mentioned by these authors as having trapping rights here in 1946, were Frank Italio and Sam George, both sons of the Tł’uknaxᴀdi chief, Dry Bay Chief George. ‘Like other areas in the Yakutat territory, the Italio river area was transferred contrary to the native rules of inheritance, with the result that clan ownership has been confused’ (Goldschmidt and Haas, 1946, p. 82). ... Teqwedi tradition recounts that they were living on the Italio River, as well as at Dry Bay, before they purchased the Ahrnklin area. Possibly exclusive title to the Italio was never clearly established by any of the sibs” (de Laguna [early-mid 1900s] 1972:81, par. 1) [Yakutat Tlingit] “... with the present breakdown of strict matrilineal inheritance a number of songs belonging to dead men were recorded by their children. Although the latter were members of the opposite moiety, they nevertheless felt close enough to the deceased to sing his songs, and besides, they argued, there was no one else left who knew them, and they wanted to have these recorded as permanent memorials to their beloved fathers” (de Laguna [1949-1954] 1972:564, par. 3) [Yakutat Tlingit] “Songs in foreign languages or those belonging to other Tlingit tribes have been obtained as gifts. A Tsimshian song was part of the dowry of Sʼełtin when she married a Kagwantan man ...; the Kagwantan of Chilkat gave one of their ‘tribal’ mourning songs to the Kʷackʼqwan of Yakutat along with a wife for Cada of Moon House ... Some Athabaskan dancing songs were obtained by the Dry Bay people (Tłukʷax ̣ᴀdi or Cᴀnkuqedi?) when their men married a woman from Nuqʷayík ..., who was named Duhan ... Songs may also be given away by potlatch guests from other towns, just as the G̣ałyɪx-Kagwantan Steam Boat Song was brought from Katalla to Yakutat ... Some Athabaskan ‘drinking songs’ ..., sung at Dry Bay, had been given to the Cᴀnkuqedi by their trade partners at Klukshu on the headwaters of the Alsek ... My informant who recorded two of these said she had first heard them in 1914, although they are undoubtedly older. The gift of songs, especially of valuable potlatch songs, may serve as indemnity to reestablish friendly relations. The Aiyan chief at Fort Selkirk on the Yukon would, according to Tlingit belief, have been responsible for the drownings of those who were going to his potlatch. Therefore, he gave the Cᴀnkuqedi ‘four of his precious potlatch songs’ in compensation ... In a somewhat similar spirit of good will and contrition, the Tsimshian who had insulted Yakutat Chief George by seizing his sea otter, thereby nearly starting a fight, gave the Yakutat people a number of their songs ‘for forgivenness,’ to settle all hard feelings ... The Haida love song ... was purchased at Kasaan” (de Laguna [1949-1954] 1972:575, par. 2) 441 [Yakutat Tlingit] “... the son inherited the bone after his father’s death ...” (de Laguna [1949-1954] 1972:577, par. 9) [Yakutat Tlingit] “My father inherited his grandfather’s yek blanket” (de Laguna [1949- 1954] 1972:714, par. 6) [Yakutat Tlingit] “’Real names,’ as we have seen, indicate what spirit or spirits have been reincarnated in an individual. These names are given at birth and are normally inherited within the close maternal line. They can also pass from the father’s father (or his siblings) to his son’s children, since the latter are reckoned as close relatives, even though they may belong to another sib within the same moiety as the grandfather. It is rather doubtful, however, if such names would be further inherited within the grandchild’s sib, since they belong properly to that of his parental grandfather. My records do show that some names are actually owned by two sibs ...” (de Laguna [1949-1954] 1972:781, par. 6) [Yakutat Tlingit] “These honorable names include what might be called ‘titles,’ assumed by house chiefs in the different sibs and passed down from older to younger brother, maternal uncle to nephew, paternal grandfather to grandson in the same lineage. They were usually assumed by the heir at the funeral potlatch for his predecessor, validated by the distribution of gifts to the guests ...” (de Laguna [1949-1954] 1972:785, par. 8) 442 [Yakutat Tlingit] Figure B.19 “Plate 127 Inherited Family Possessions,” from de Laguna 1972:1044 (de Laguna 1972:1044) 443 [Yakutat Tlingit] Figure B.20 “Plate 152 Harvey Milton wearing the Mount Saint Elias Blanket of the Kwackquan which he inherited from his uncle, Young George (1870-1915),” from de Laguna 1972:1069 (de Laguna 1972:1069) 444 [Tlingit] “The sib and its constituent houses ... are the units possessing totemic crests, songs, stories, a graded series of personal names and titles, and other ceremonial and social prerogatives. These rights are the most precious possessions of the Tlingit, and material wealth is sacrificed at potlatches to validate and enhance them. These rights are exercised by individuals, primarily by house chiefs, who act as trustees of the entailed lineage estates ...” (de Laguna [1950] 1952:4, par. 2) [Tlingit] “Rights may be transferred from one sib to another as gifts, as compensations for damages, or may simply be appropriated through force or threat by a stronger from a weaker one. ... in some cases the right may cross moiety lines. Rights may pass from sib to sib within the same moiety in the form of temporary or permanent bequests from a grandfather to his son’s son” (de Laguna [1950] 1952:4, par. 3) [Tlingit] “Titles are inherited by younger from older brother and then pass to sister’s son” (de Laguna [1950] 1952:6, par. 2) [Tlingit] “The most treasured possessions of clan or lineage were their crests” (de Laguna 1990:213, par. 5) [Tlingit] “All clan and lineage property, including territories, songs, crests, or heirlooms, are alienable: by sale, as potlatch or marriage gifts, as indemnity for injuries or as part of a peace settlement, or as booty taken in war” (de Laguna 1990:213, par. 9) [Eyak] “Most of the deceased’s property was burned or buried with him; some was saved to be burned or given away at his death potlatch” (de Laguna 1990b:193, par. 12) Storage [Klamath] “Food is stored in the ground. The only exception is fish placed to dry on scaffolds. The food is put into long tule sacks which are placed at the outer margin of the earth- lodge between the timbers, where they are buried in the earth covering of the roof. Large communal storage pits (pᴇnŏʹηks) are dug near the houses. Some of the Williamson river sites are surrounded by wide expanses of such pits. These are about fifteen feet in diameter, about three feet deep. A group of neighbors combine to dig and use such a pit. Tule mats are heaped over the sacks before the dirt covering. Caves are occasionally used, the entrance blocked with stones” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:167, par. 5) [Klamath] “Storage baskets (tlŭḳs) are used to hold plums and other edibles, or as containers for smaller twined baskets in which small articles are placed” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:187, par. 1) [Klamath] “Woven bags for storage purposes, such as holding wokas and other seeds, are called waʼklo and tʼaʹyis” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:190, par. 1) 445 [Haida] “Basketry, made by women from spruce root and the inner bark of red cedar, was used for the gathering, processing, and storage of foods as well as for ceremonial purposes. Openwork twined baskets were made for holding clams, seaweed, and potatoes, and later, for trade to Whites ... Closed twined baskets of various sizes and shapes were used for berries and treasures ranging from shamans’ charms to the eagle down used in dance performances” (Blackman 1990:247, par. 5) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “For keeping provisions, blankets, and other valuable property, large boxes are used, the sides of which are bent of cedar-wood ...” (Boas [1885-1900] 1909:417, par. 8) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “Large cedar-bark baskets also serve for keeping dried provisions and clothing in ...” (Boas [1885-1900] 1909:418, par. 2) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “Most kinds of winter provisions are kept in boxes, but sometimes dried salmon and other staple foods that are kept without difficulty are placed in cedar-bark baskets. Herringroe is always kept in large baskets. Olachen-oil (ʟ!ēʹᵋna), dogfish-oil (xuʹlq!wēs), and oil made of seal (mēʹgwat!ēs), porpoise (k·ōʹlōt!ēs), whale (g ̣wēʹg·īs), and bear (ʟᴇʹntsēs), are also kept in kelp bottles. Catfishoil (dzēʹk!wīs) is kept in small kelp bottles” (Boas [1885-1900] 1909:419, par. 1-2) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “I did not hear of pit storage of salmon, such as is reported for the Southern Kwakiutl ... I did not inquire about it specifically, but was told in another connection by a number of people that neither pits nor any other separate structures were used for storing any kind of food” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:65, par. 1) 446 [Tlingit] Figure B.21 “Figure 3. The relative amounts of time spent each month on the storage activities,” from Oberg 1973:76 (Oberg [1931-1933] 1973:76) Labor [Klamath] “Women fetch wood and gather food. Old men as well as women grind and pound seeds. Men lie about all the time, working but once in a while. They hunt, fish, and in the winter build houses” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:144, par. 2) [Klamath] “... Men, but women too, are the fishers. Inasmuch as their primary dependence is on fish, the men’s activities in this direction constitute well-nigh a year-round pursuit. Men are hunters, but hunting is desultory. Even here women participate, for it is noted that they occasionally lie in wait in canoes to kill floundering deer driven into the water. Root 447 and seed-gathering is woman’s work; I am not certain that men assist even in harvesting fruit. ... Preparation of food is wholly woman’s work, save as they are assisted by old men, perhaps only those who have no women members of their families to undertake the task. Storing food and drying it may be wholly feminine occupations as well” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:144, par. 4) [Klamath] “Housebuilding ... is a function of both sexes ... Timbers are prepared and erected by men, grass and dirt spread over the structure by women, and the house pit dug by both. Woodworking and the manufacture of weapons are masculine activities. Yet the most laborious woodworking task, the making of canoes, is sometimes undertaken by women. ... the manufacture of all garments and moccasins is done by women ... Mats and baskets are made by women and in considerable quantity. This is a sedentary pursuit which dovetails nicely into leisure moments of household duties. Mortars, metates, and their adjuncts are fashioned by women, though I suspect that men may lend a hand. Nets are manufactured by men, but by a few women also. Ropes and cords are made by women” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:144, par. 5) [Klamath] “Root and seed gathering is woman’s work” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:160, par. 6) [Haida] “When spring came, the people abandoned their towns and scattered to camp, where the men fished for halibut, salmon, and on the West Coast for black cod, and hunted black bear, marten, seals, sea-lions, etc.; while their wives picked berries, dug roots, and cultivated a patch of tobacco, their only agricultural labor” (Swanton [1900-1901] 1909:71, par. 3) 448 [Haida] Figure B.22 “Fig 2. Employees at crab factory at New Masset, Queen Charlotte Is., B.C.,” from Sterns 1990:263 (Sterns [1956] 1990:263) 449 [Haida] Figure B.23 “Fig 1. Building a wood frame house in a one-family Euro-American style, Hydaburg, Alaska,” from Sterns 1990:262 (Sterns [1968] 1990:262) 450 [Haida] “Women gathered roots, berries, and seaweed for food and cedar bark and spruce root for weaving. They processed and preserved all food items, prepared animals skins, and made all clothing and basketry” (Blackman [1970s] 1990:245, par. 2) [Haida] “Men fished, hunted sea and land mammals, constructed houses and canoes, and undertook carving and painting. They gathered the heavier spruce roots for making fish traps and snares and the bulky outer sheets of cedar bark for roofing. Both sexes collected shellfish. Men normally ‘hunted’ octopus and speared sea urchins and crabs, but both sexes collected chitons and dug clams. Both men and women also hunted birds. Men hunted waterfowl using snares and bows and arrows. Women and children brandished clubs and joined the men in hunting auklets and murrelets” (Blackman 1990:246, par. 1) [Haida] “Although slaves were exploited for their labor, high-ranking individuals were by no means idle. Concerned parents worked hard to garner the resources to potlatch for their children, and ambitiousness combined with success in hunting and fishing were qualities sought by the high-ranking in a man” (Blackman 1990:246, par. 3) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “... kelp is collected by women in the fall, after the berrying-season is over” (Boas [1885-1900] 1909:405, par. 6) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “The herring begin to run about the first week of March. When catching herring, the fisherman’s wife sits in the bow of the canoe, facing the stern; while the fisherman takes his position in the stern, also facing aft. The woman steers and paddles the canoe, which moves stern foremost. The man paddles on the left-hand side of the canoe until the herring are reached. Then he puts down the paddle, takes up the herring-rake, and draws it towards himself along the right-hand side of the canoe with the same motion which is used in paddling. Then the fish that are caught on the points of the rake are shaken off and dropped into the canoe” (Boas [1885-1900] 1909:505, par. 1) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “Only old women are allowed to dig fern roots” (Boas (and Hunt) [1893-1901] 1921:616, par. 1) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “The gathering of most marine invertebrates was considered to be women’s work, though frequently a man would assist his wife at the task” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:39, par. 1) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “Preparation of food was normally woman’s work, although for feasts young men often did the cooking, especially when there were huge quantities of food to be served. There were a few dishes whose preparation required a special knack that men never learned, such as boiled dried herring eggs (which had to be washed and cleaned of the fir and hemlock needles on which they were collected) and roast fern root (which had to be pounded to soften but not crush hard fibrous parts). Except for these few, cooking was rather simple” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:61, par. 2) 451 [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “Weaving was considered woman’s work. Actually, men did considerable weaving also, the magnitude of their products making up in part for their lack of neatness, for the sections of lattice of the various types of fish traps and weirs were made by men using one of the characteristic basket weaves. However, men did not weave the articles ordinarily considered textile products: robes, mats, and baskets” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:92, par. 4) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “Yellow cedar bark was obtained from trees growing back in the woods, and up on the sides of the mountains. While gathering this material was ordinarily thought of as women’s work, men often, if not usually, accompanied their wives, for the bark was heavy and had to be carried some distance” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:93, par. 2) [Tlingit] “[Slaves] hunted, fished, packed, handled the canoe, and did all kinds of manual labor, as did all others, and in turn were fed, clothed, and housed” (Emmons (and de Laguna) [1882-1904] 1991:41, par. 7) 452 Subsistence Production [Tsimshian] Figure B.24 “Fig 3. Fishing. top, Weir. bottom left, Gitksan youth with salmon trap made by lashing sticks together. bottom right, Fishing platform and salmon trap being set out by a Gitksan on the west side of Hagwelget canyon, Buckley River, B.C.,” from Halpin and Seguin 1990:272 (Halpin and Seguin [1918;1920] 1990:272) 453 [Nuxalk (Bella Coola)] Figure B.25 “Fig 2. Fishing for eulachon. top, Spoon canoe filled with its catch,” from Kennedy and Bouchard 1990:326 (Kennedy and Bouchard [1930; 1977] 1990:326) 454 [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] Figure B.26 “Fig 4. Ma-Ma Yockland, a Quatsino woman, picking salmonberries,” from Codere 1990:364 (Codere [1912] 1990:364) 455 [Tlingit] Figure B.27 “Figure 2. The relative amounts of time spent each month on the gathering of resources,” from Oberg 1973:77 (Oberg [1931-1933] 1973:77) 456 [Yakutat Tlingit] “Many old time subsistence activities are now carried out by small parties as recreation: gathering shellfish or seaweed at low tide, picking berries, going hunting” (de Laguna [1949-1954] 1972:552, par. 3) [Yakutat Tlingit] Figure B.28 “Plate 101 Minnie Johnson and her granddaughter gathering clams and cockles at the lagoon near the Old Village, Yakutat, in early September 1952,” from de Laguna 1972:1018 (de Laguna 1972:1018) 457 Non-subsistence Production [Haida] Figure B.29 “Fig 11. Basketry, left. right, Plain close-twined basket with brown-dyed bands on the natural buff background, a characteristic of Haida basketry decoration,” from Blackman 1990:249 (Blackman [1883; 1897] 1990:249) [Haida] “Basketry, made by women from spruce root and the inner bark of red cedar, was used for the gathering, processing, and storage of foods as well as for ceremonial purposes” (Blackman 1990:247, par. 5) [Haida] “Young boys learned from their fathers, but at an early age they went to reside with their mother’s brothers, whom they were expected to assist and from whom they received instruction in lineage matters and proper behavior” (Blackman 1990:254, par. 2) [Haida] “A girl was under the tutelage of her mother and might at a young age assist her in collecting spruce root, cedar bark, seaweed, and berries” (Blackman 1990:254, par. 3) 458 [Haida] “While some activities, such as trapping, seal hunting, gardening, basket making, and carving had waned by 1950, the skills of carpentry and boatbuilding flourished” (Stearns 1990:263, par. 4) [Haida] “Responsibility for instruction in traditional arts has been assigned to the school. The language program and classes in drawing and carving have been incorporated in the curriculum with elders helping to teach the children” (Stearns [1960s-1980s] 1990:262, par. 6) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “Training in technologic and economic arts was given by various persons, not only parents, but parents’ siblings (not only the mother’s brother), and especially by grandparents. ... Any of these people ... might make toys for children, and with the making, show them the way to use whatever the object might be. Older women made dolls of shredded cedar bark for little girls; fathers or older men made small bows, harpoons, and toy canoes for the boys. MP related how he and his playmates clustered about the Muchalat war chief, tuckaiʼilȧm, then an old man, who regaled them with tales of his hunting and trapping adventures and made small sets to illustrate his yarns. ... Some games, particularly those involving marksmanship with spears or bows, impressed the adults as forms of useful training, ... and they encouraged the boys to play at them, and praised those who did well” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:135, par. 1) [Tlingit] “From his uncle, [a boy] ... learned the traditions and prerogatives of their clan and lineage, especially important if his uncle were a house owner or chief and the nephew his selected heir” (de Laguna 1990:217, par. 1) [Tlingit] “... often [a girl’s] mother or maternal grandmother would ... teach her the traditions of their clan” (de Laguna 1990:217, par. 2) Consumption [Klamath] “Cooking ordinarily takes place outside the dwelling in a dome-shaped house (stiʼnăʹc) erected near-by. ... All the women of the household prepare their food together, even where several families have joint tenancy. It is carried to the earth-lodge and there passed about as in ‘one big family.’ This is inevitably a matter of personal preference; some dwellings have two cooking lodges attached, the families easting separately and sharing food only as friendship dictates” (Spier [(mid-1800s) 1925-1926] 1930:203, par. 4) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “Small dishes of this kind are used by a single person or by husband and wife, while large dishes are used by as many as three people at a time, all three sitting in front of the dish. For children very small dishes with thick walls are used” (Boas [1885-1900] 1909:421, par. 1) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “It has been stated that the housewife sits on one side of the fire, her cooking-utensils standing on her left. After the meal has been cooked, she spreads a 459 food-mat before her husband and guests who may be present, and the food is served. Dry food is simply put down on the food-mat, while liquid or mushy dishes and such as consist of small fragments are served in food-trays. When olachen-oil is served with the food, it is placed in small oil-dishes (dipping-dishes), which are placed in the inside of the food-trays, on the side away from the person eating. Then the housewife herself, or one of her children, draws fresh water, which is offered to the guests in small drinking-buckets, out of which they drink from one corner. At breakfast the guests first rinse their mouths. Then they drink. After drinking they eat. Then the housewife, or one of her children, draws fresh water, and the guests drink again” (Boas [1885-1900] 1909:427, par. 1) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “The housewife herself does not eat until her husband or her guests have nearly finished their meal. When the guests have finished, she takes the dishes back and cleans them. When guests have been invited, larger dishes are used. As long as there are not more than four men present, the procedure is about the same as at a family meal, and the woman passes the food-trays and the water about. When there are as many as six guests, the meal is more formal” (Boas [1885-1900] 1909:428, par. 2-3) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “When there are many roasted salmon-tails, the owner invites his friends early in the morning to come and eat breakfast in his house” (Boas (and Hunt) [1893-1901] 1921:328, par. 1) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “Sometimes they eat (the salmon-heads) at once when they are soft, for often the old people come to the owner of this kind (of food to ask to be invited). Then it is just put down on a food-mat and placed in front of those who ask to be invited” (Boas (and Hunt) [1893-1901] 1921:331, par. 1) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “When it is winter, the common people are invited to come to the house of the owner of the roasted salmon-heads. Then they do again the same thing that I told of before, when they spread out mats behind the fireplace of the house for the guests to sit down on when they come in. As soon as they are in, they are led by the woman to their seats on the spread mats” (Boas (and Hunt) [1893-1901] 1921:332, par. 1) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “Sometimes the woman boils the heads (of halibut) and invites the friends of her husband; and when the men are invited by the fisherman ...” (Boas (and Hunt) [1893-1901] 1921:357, par. 1) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “When there are four guests, then there is one dish into which two dried halibut are broken; and when there are six guests, then there are two dishes, in which there are three dried halibut, so that there is one and a half in each dish, and there are three guests to each dish; but they also use the food-mat, which is spread out in front of the guests ...” (Boas (and Hunt) [1893-1901] 1921:360, par. 1) 460 [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “When a man desires to eat herring-spawn, he just goes into the house of a man who owns some good dried spawn, and he sits down in the house. Then they tell the wife of the man that they want to eat spawn. At once the woman takes her food-mat and spreads it outside of the men. Then she takes her small basket and fills it with herring- spawn. Then she pours the herring-spawn on the food-mat, and she scatters the spawn over it” (Boas (and Hunt) [1893-1901] 1921:425, par. 1) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “As soon as he arrives on the beach of his house, he calls his tribe to come and break the sea-eggs and to eat them. Immediately all the men and women and children go down to the beach where the sea-egg spearing-canoe is, and all the men go into the sea and stand by the side of the canoe containing the sea-eggs. They take out the sea-eggs, and they go and give two each to their wives, and they also take two each for themselves; and all the others do the same” (Boas (and Hunt) [1893-1901] 1921:489, par. 1) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “When the woman comes home after picking ripe salal- berries, her husband goes and calls whomever he likes to come to eat ripe salal-berries. When the guests are all in, the woman takes a long narrow mat and spreads it in front of those who are to eat the ripe salal-berries. Her husband takes the basket containing the salal-berries and pours them all along the mat in front of his guests. He pours out all, so that it reaches to the end of the guests” (Boas (and Hunt) [1893-1901] 1921:571, par. 1) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “When the woman has picked many huckleberries, she asks her husband to go and invite many people of different tribes, and he sends out two young men to call for the first time. ... The house has already been cleaned, and mats have been spread out around it” (Boas (and Hunt) [1893-1901] 1921:581, par. 1) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “They do not invite many people to eat [viburnum-berries mixed with water and oil], for this is only the food for husband and wife and their children, when there are no more ripe viburnum-berries, and when the man wishes to invite his near relatives” (Boas (and Hunt) [1893-1901] 1921:583, par. 1) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “Gooseberries are also eaten raw (and unripe) by the Indians. They pick them off the gooseberry bushes, or they eat them in the house. They never call their friends for this” (Boas (and Hunt) [1893-1901] 1921:600, par. 1) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “Currants are also only eaten from the currant bushes. They do not give these at a feast to many people or to their relatives, for there are not very many of these. ... They only eat [Solomon’s seal] off the plant when they see them growing on a berry patch, for sometimes the plants have many edible berries. The tribes are also not invited for these, for there are not many berries of this kind” (Boas (and Hunt) [1893-1901] 1921:601, par. 1-2) 461 [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “The wife of the hunter always gives food to her husband’s sweetheart, and she always eats only a little” (Boas (and Hunt) [1893-1901] 1921:641, par. 1) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “The dorsal fin and the side-fins of the porpoise are given to chiefs at great feasts. To the head chief is given the chest of the porpoise. The body is given to the common people” (Boas (and Hunt) [1893-1901] 1921:750, par. 2) [Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl)] “The hair-seal also teaches the common people their place; for chiefs receive the chest, and the chiefs next in rank receive the limbs. They only give pieces of the body of the seal to common people of the tribes, and they give the tail of the seal to people lowest in rank” (Boas (and Hunt) [1893-1901] 1921:750, par. 3) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] “... whales, sea otter, sea lion, and porpoise—belonged to the hunter. The only rule was that a feast should be given with the fat and flesh: the giver could divide the portions as he liked” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:253, par. 1) [Nuu-chah-nulth (Northern & Central Nootka)] [during the ‘Shamans’ Dance’ (ʟōqwɔnȧ) ceremonial] “To eat alone, even a single mouthful of some delicacy, was strictly prohibited. All meals were eaten as feasts. It was not necessary to invite any given number of guests, but guests, many or few, there had to be. In mornings and evenings there would be dozens of feasts going on in the village. Chiefs, of course, gave them on a larger scale than men of lower rank” (Drucker [(1870-1900) 1935-1936] 1951:388, par. 462 APPENDIX C: The Plains Area [Pawnee and Mandan] 463 Data - (3) Pawnee and Mandan [The Plains Area] Community [Pawnee] “The earliest Pawnee population estimate is 2,000 ‘Panas’ families, cited for the opening of the eighteenth century ... It is unclear whether this number represents all Pawnee divisions, but it suggests a population in excess of 10,000, assuming a minimum of five individuals in a family. A 1758 estimate for the Skiri specifically is 600 warriors ... A 1796 estimate by Jean-Baptiste Truteau ... numbers the Panimaha (Skiri) at 600 lodges and the ‘Panis’ (South Bands) at 800 lodges. In his 1785 report Miró ... gives the following figures for ‘men capable of bearing arms’ in each of the Pawnee divisions: 350 for the Skiri; 400 for the ‘Panis,’ apparently the Chawi and Pitahawirata combined; and 220 for the Kitkahahki. A similar set of figures for men was given in 1804 by Pierre Chouteau: 400 Skiri, 500 ‘Panis,’ and 300 Kitkahahki ... In 1805, however, Lewis and Clark gave slightly higher figures for ‘warriors’: 280 Skiri, 400 Chawi, and 300 Kitkahahki ... In 1791 Pedro de Nava, writing from Santa Fé, gave figures for the ‘armed men’ of two Pawnee groups, 700 for the ‘Panana’ and 600 for the ‘Huitauyrata’ (Pitatahawirata), which, combined, approximate the preceding figures ... In 1798 Zenon Trudeau attributed 800 men to the ‘Panis’ on the Platte River ..., apparently an estimate for the South Bands only” (Parks 2001:543, par. 3) [Pawnee] “In 1840, the population distribution by band was 1,906 Skiri, 1,823 Kitkahahki, 1,683 Chawi, and 832 Pitahawirata ... In 1882 there was the same general distribution: 416 Skiri, 307 Kithahki, 271 Chawi, and 251 Pitahawirata ...” (Parks 2001:543, par. 5) [Pawnee] “The Pawnee had always been at war with most Plains tribes. Their only friends had been the Arikara, Mandan, and Wichita. They had also enjoyed intermittent peace with the Omaha, Ponca, and Otoe but only because they had inspired fear in those tribes. With all others there was a perpetual state of conflict” (Parks [1803-1875] 2001:520, par. 5) [Pawnee] “Incessant Sioux attacks forced the Pawnee to abandon their Loup River villages in 1846 and establish new ones farther east ... Pawnee life there ... continued to be plagued by adversity: their harvests were inconsistent, and their communal hunts were thwarted by the Sioux and Cheyenne. ... in 1854, Nebraska Territory was opened to settlers, who began to encroach on Pawnee territory ... That encroachment, combined with periodic starvation, triggered occasional thefts and other minor incidents between Pawnees and Whites ...” (Parks 2001:520, par. 6) [Pawnee] “In the decade after the Pawnee settled on their reservation, government efforts at acculturation remained largely ineffectual. Although some Pawnees were conscious of the gradual disappearance of the buffalo and became amenable to an agricultural way of life based on individual families and the acceptance of formal education, most continued their communal buffalo hunts, despite the strong opposition of their agents, while Pawnee women largely 464 maintained traditional horticulture, and young men continued to raid tribes to the south for horses” (Parks [1850s-1860s] 2001:521, par. 1) [Pawnee] “After 1870 ... the Union Pacific Railroad and the Homestead Act brought to the country surrounding the Pawnee Reservation an influx of settlers who by 1873 had taken all land with timber, water, and easily tilled soils and had cut down most of the riparian woodlands. Settlers trespassed on the reservation and cut down so much timber that they threatened the Pawnee subsistence base” (Parks 2001:521, par. 4) [Pawnee] “After the acquisition of the horse, the introduction of metal and other trade goods from Euro-Americans, and the concentration of their population in larger villages, the Pawnee encountered environmental problems that militated against year-round residence in their permanent villages. Those problems included an insufficient quantity of fuel and game as well as decreasing pasturage for their herds of horses. In response to those pressures of local resource depletion, the Pawnee made two annual communal hunts to the high prairie buffalo range lying to the west, northwest, and southwest of their villages that consumed up to seven months of the year” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:525, par. 3) [Pawnee] “At the time they left Nebraska, most Pawnees still clung to their traditional village life. After moving onto their new reservation, each of the four bands settled on large, separate tracts of land and, initially, farmed the band tract cooperatively after government farmers broke the land for cultivation. There the Pawnee settled into a pattern of life much like the one they had known in Nebraska and for a short time maintained an attenuated form of their old village life in which the chiefs, priests, and doctors continued to organize Pawnee social, economic, and religious activities” (Parks [late 1800s] 2001:538, par. 4) [Pawnee] “During the first 15 years after their move to Indian Territory, the Pawnee experienced a rapid loss of traditional culture that was driven by government efforts to transform their economic and material life and simultaneously to suppress tribal customs. The changes in Pawnee life undermined the power of traditional leaders ...” (Parks [1875-1890] 2001:540, par. 7) [Pawnee] “The village was the fundamental unit of Pawnee social organization. Membership in it was inherited through the mother” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:530, par. 2) [Pawnee] “When the [village] founder died, ... his chieftaincy [was] passed on to his son. That paternal inheritance continued, so that a village chief ... was considered to be a direct descendant of the founder ... Because all the people of a village were regarded as descendants of the founder and his wife, the village was conceived to be a large extended family ...” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:530, par. 4) 465 [Pawnee] “For matters of tribal concern there was a joint council composed of the hereditary chiefs of the villages and a number of elected chiefs whose offices, gained through meritorious deeds, were not inherited. Each village had one hereditary chief. The exception was Old Village, which had four chiefs ... Although in principle all the hereditary chiefs were equal in rank, the four of Old Village alternated the position of leader, who presided over the council, every six months over a two-year cycle” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:531, par. 2) [Pawnee] “... the primary function of the council was the planning and regulation of the semiannual tribal buffalo hunt. ... a chief was a regulator, not an authoritarian ruler. Even though chiefs had considerable authority, their decisions were generally based on consensus. ... the chief was supposed to be a guardian of the people who was concerned with their wishes and needs. Even though the office was hereditary, the man chosen to fill it had to demonstrate humility, generosity, and sagacity, because a jealous or aggressive temperament was considered unbefitting a chief” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:531, par. 4) [Pawnee] “Pawnee society was socially stratified into two groups, the upper classes and the commoners. The dichotomy was largely determined by hereditary rights, since members of leading families inherited their positions, which were sustained by religious sanctions and reinforced by economic position. Other individuals did not have that advantage and were socially insignificant unless they raised their position through their own efforts ... But that achieved status accrued to only the individual during his lifetime and could not be passed on to offspring ...” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:533, par. 3) [Pawnee] “Holding highest rank was the hereditary chief. Succession was always patrilineal, generally passing to the eldest son. ... Enjoying only slightly less prestige were subchiefs, who did not inherit their positions but were elected to them” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:533, par. 4) [Pawnee] “Commoners in Pawnee society were people without position, wealth, or influence. Constituting approximately half the population, they were people who had no social ambitions or were unsuccessful. Their lodges were small and poorly furnished, and they had few or no horses. They were ... objects of upper-class charity. Below them in status were people who had violated tribal custom or in some other way had become social outcasts and lived on the outskirts of the village” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:533, par. 9) [Pawnee] “The Pawnees had chiefs, but these were the focus of consensus, not the wielders of power. There was no over-all chief of all the Pawnees” (Weltfish [(mid-1800s) 1928-1936] 1965:6, par. 3) [Pawnee] “... all the people in the village were considered as a kindred, but their specific cosmic derivation gave them differing social ranks. According to their star affiliations, some were born as chiefs, some as braves, and some as commoners; their social functions in the 466 community were thus relatively preordained” (Weltfish [(mid-1800s) 1928-1936] 1965:18, par. 2) [Pawnee] “Although not organized politically during the first three decades of the twentieth century, the Pawnee tradition of hereditary chiefs was still a respected one, and the chiefs acted for the tribe in dealing with U.S. officials” (Parks 2001:540, par. 1) [Skidi Pawnee] “Politically the Skidi were a federation of villages, of which at least thirteen are known to have existed, though there were probably others which have been forgotten. The federation was held together by a governing council of chiefs and by a ceremonial organization involving the participation of the band in a round of ceremonies associated with sacred bundles” (Dorsey and Murie [1903-1907] 1940:75, par. 1) [Skidi Pawnee] “In the nobility were to be found the leaders in the material affairs of the band—the chiefs, braves, and warriors; those who looked out for the larger religious interests— the priests; and those who kept the band free from sickness and drove out disease—the medicine- men. The duties of these three groups were quite separate and distinct. Occasionally, however, one individual might at the same time be chief, priest, and medicine-man” (Dorsey and Murie [1903-1907] 1940:111, par. 2) [Skidi Pawnee] “The chiefs of the Skidi were thirty-one in number. Of these thirty-one the representative of each village, who was the owner of the sacred bundle of that village, was chief by heredity, and transmitted his authority along with his bundle to his eldest son. These hereditary chiefs, representing each of the villages, selected from among the leading warriors and those of high ranks a sufficient number to make up the thirty-one. [The manuscript also contains a note that the chiefs’ council could reject the son of a deceased chief if it did not consider him worthy. Also, if the dead chief left no offspring, the bundle was supposed to descend to the next oldest brother or nearest male kin; the brother married the chief’s widow]” (Dorsey and Murie [1903-1907] 1940:111, par. 3) [Skidi Pawnee] “The eldest son of a chief theoretically inherited his father’s position, and if he proved worthy was duly made chief on reaching the proper age” (Dorsey and Murie [1903- 1907] 1940:112, par. 1) [Skidi Pawnee] “Perhaps the most important characteristic of a chief was that he was a peace-maker and guardian of the village rather than a warrior...” (Dorsey and Murie [1903-1907] 1940:112, par. 5) [Skidi Pawnee] “In addition to the hereditary chief, each village had one or more nahikuts, or braves, whose number was usually four but varied according to the size of the village. The duty of these men was that of servants of the chiefs; they followed their directions, preserved order, helped in carrying out the laws of the band, and assisted in the preparation of the ceremonies. ... They held office for life” (Dorsey and Murie [1903-1907] 1940:113, par. 2) 467 [Skidi Pawnee] “Another high-ranking class were the narawiraris, or warriors. These men had reached this position by their own efforts. They had made a certain number of sacrifices and thus won a victory over the powers of the heavens. They were eligible to election as chiefs ...” (Dorsey and Murie [1903-1907] 1940:113, par. 3) [Skidi Pawnee] “As the chief gave the people instruction and advice in worldly matters, so the priest, who controlled the ritual attached to the sacred village bundle, kept the society en rapport with the supernatural. The priestly class among the Skidi comprised the most learned men of the tribe” (Dorsey and Murie [1903-1907] 1940:114, par. 1) [Skidi Pawnee] “[The common people] probably represented less than one-half the members of the band. They were distinguished by the fact that they were without influence or power, their lodges were smaller and not so completely furnished, they had few or no ponies, and were often the objects of charity” (Dorsey and Murie [1903-1907] 1940:115, par. 4) [Mandan] “... population in 1750 ... about 9,000 individuals. ... there was a reduction in the number of their villages ... between 1750 and 1780 and consequent decline in the population to about 4,400. The 1781 smallpox epidemic left only 1,000-1,500 individuals. Mandan were further reduced by smallpox in 1837, from which fewer than 150 survived” (Wood and Irwin 2001:352, par. 2) [Mandan and Hidatsa] “The combined population of the five Knife River towns was in the range of 2,850 to 2,946, with the Hidatsas predominating: 1,330 to 1,730 Hidatsas, and 1,216 to 1,520 Mandans” (Fenn [1797] 2014:195, par. 1) [Mandan] “The Europeans and European Americans who visited the villagers in the 1780s and 1790s found the Mandans to be lively, friendly, and prosperous, but still, they were refugees, and over the previous three centuries they had lost 75-90 percent of their population. They had preserved their rituals and their lifeway only through diplomacy, determination, and the inspirational guidance of leaders such as Good Boy” (Fenn 2014:195, par. 2) [Mandan and Hidatsa] “David Thompson calculated that there were roughly 2,900 Mandans and Hidatsas combined in 1798. William Clark put their numbers at 3,950 seven years later. In 1811, Henry Brackenridge reported a total of 4,800 villagers—2,000 Mandans and 2,800 Hidatsas. Jedediah Morse, who based his figures on the reports of the fur trader Daniel Harmon, proposed a population of 4,500-3,250 Hidatsas and 1,250 Mandans—in 1820. And the American general Henry Atkinson, who visited the upper Missouri in 1825, estimated the combined Mandan-Hidatsa population at ‘3,000 souls, of which 500 are warriors’” (Fenn 2014:278, par. 1) [Mandan] “By 1838, ... Their number had plummeted from twelve thousand or more to three hundred at most” (Fenn 2014:xiv, par. 3) 468 [Mandan] “Like-a-Fishhook was the last earth-lodge village on the upper Missouri River. Mandans, Hidatsas, and Arikaras stayed there until the Bureau of Indian Affairs forced them to take up individual allotments in the 1880s” (Fenn [1845-1880s] 2014:331, par. 4) [Mandan] “... they considered forty-three households with a population of three hundred and nineteen as Mandan” (Bowers [1870-1872] 1950:1, par. 1) [Mandan] “Mandan population for the rest of the nineteenth century has been estimated between 250 and 420” (Wood and Irwin 2001:352, par. 3) [Mandan] “... in 1910 numbered 197, according to the government census” (Bowers 1950:1, par. 1) [Mandan] “After reaching a low in 1910 with 209 individuals identifying themselves as Mandan ..., the Mandan population began to increase from 263 in 1921 ... to 351 in 1939 ..., and 387 in 1945 ... in the 1990 census 1,207 Indians identified themselves as Mandan ...” (Wood and Irwin 2001:352, par. 4) [Mandan] “All village leaders were part of a decision-making council of headmen who owned important bundles. Two of these were elected as leaders because of their success in hunting or warfare and because of their generosity to elders, as it was a responsibility of clan leaders to care for those who had no living blood relatives ... Peace chiefs were expected to give many feasts, maintain relations with other tribes, and settle village quarrels. A successful chief was a highly skilled orator whose authority rested on his ability to hold a consensus in decision making; a leader in one activity might have a subordinate role in other activities. Lodge groups could change villages at will if they disapproved of village leadership. Clan affiliations extended through all villages ...” (Wood and Irwin [1800s] 2001:360, par. 1) [Mandan] “Mandan village and tribal leadership was vested in the hierarchy of bundle owners or priests who constituted a group of head men whose number varied from time to time depending on the status of the various bundles. ... The one whose record in warfare was greatest was selected in council to be war chief. A second chief selected was one who had important ceremonial bundles, had given many feasts, and had performed many rites for the general welfare of the village. These were considered the leaders of the hierarchy of older men; they were expected to co-operate for the general welfare of the village” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:33, par. 2) [Mandan] “A chief had little or no authority apart from the council of which he was a member. His principal authority was derived from his ability as an orator to persuade the council of older men to sanction his opinions. A chief was, first of all, an orator who in council, after enumerating his various accomplishments to demonstrate the extent to which he had worked for the welfare of the entire village, then offered an opinion as to the wisdom of a certain act or policy. He was never demoted, the Mandan claimed; others younger who had been 469 distinguishing themselves merely replaced the older man in public esteem. A chief’s greatness was based on the length of time that his opinions were accepted to the exclusion of all others’ opinions. A chief was expected to conform strictly to village and tribal custom” (Bowers [1930- 1931] 1950:34, par. 3) [Mandan] “The responsibilities for leadership in various Mandan social and ceremonial activities were profusely scattered through the entire population. A person who would be the leader in one activity in which he was expected to follow the leader’s directions” (Bowers [1930- 1931] 1950:35, par. 2) [Mandan] “An essential function of a chief was to mold public opinion so that a village could act in unison. A chief was considered eminent if for a long time under his leadership there had been a minimum of dissension in the village. ... A chief could prevent intervillage or intravillage warfare only to the extent to which he could inculcate a concept of tribal unity. Neither a chief nor the council has authority to prevent a portion of a village from separating and establishing a separate village” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:36, par. 1-2) Village [Pawnee] “... occupied semipermanent earthlodge villages in a crescent-shaped area of Nebraska ...” (Parks [1500s-1876] 2001:515, par. 2) [Pawnee] “Set on a terrace above a river, a Pawnee village was a collection of earthlodges ... varying in number from 40 to as many as several hundred. Occasionally, villages were surrounded by a defensive sod embankment, but generally they lacked fortification. Although the density of lodge arrangement within the village was approximately four to an acre, there was no order in the placement of lodges, and the spaces between them were generally narrow, filled by paths for walking and pens made of stakes in which horses were kept during the night” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:523, par. 2) [Pawnee] “The Pawnees live in two villages at present, both on the South side of the Platte or Nebraska river. The lower village lies about 50 miles from Bellevue, and about 10 or 15 miles above the mouth of the Elkhorn river, the first important tributary of the Platte from the North; and the upper village is situated about 20 or 25 miles above the lower, nearly opposite the mouth of the Loup Fork of the Platte, the next branch of any consequence above the Elkhorn. Both villages are situated on eminences, so that the approach of an enemy can easily be observed, and a sharp lookout is constantly kept in order to guard against any sudden surprise from a hostile force. Sentinels are constantly posted on all the surrounding heights, who can immediately by signs ... transmit intelligence in case of impending danger” (Smith [1851] 1852:86, par. 2) [Pawnee] “The lower village consists of about 80 lodges, with a population of nearly 2,500; and in the upper village there are between 140 and 150 lodges, the population amounting 470 perhaps to 3,500. On approaching a village, the lodges have the appearance of so many small hillocks, of a conical form, huddled up together in the closest possible manner, with only narrow passages between for walking, and the rest of the space filled up by pens, formed of stakes, for confining their ponies during the night, to guard them from being suddenly taken off by a warlike party of another tribe” (Smith [1851] 1852:87, par. 3) [Pawnee] “The only stable and fixed unit of Pawnee life was the village with three hundred to five hundred people and from ten to twelve households” (Weltfish [(mid-1800s) 1928-1936] 1965:18, par. 2) [Pawnee] “According to Pawnee theory, all marriages should be made within one’s own village ... the village was in fact a large extended family, geographically organized” (Weltfish [(mid-1800s) 1928-1936] 1965:20, par. 1) [Pawnee] “In selecting their own tracts Pawnees had chosen the best land on their reservation, and as a result their allotments were scattered. ... when the ceded land was open to settlement there was an immediate influx of White settlers who lived among and on all sides of them ...” (Parks [1892-1893] 2001:539, par. 8) [Skidi Pawnee] “The village was a distinct local group consisting of a cluster of earth- lodges housing the component families. Each village possessed its own fields, whose ownership was allotted among the villagers by the chief, a supposed lineal descendant of the original owner of the sacred bundle of the village. [I am inclined to believe that the chief allotted the use of the fields rather than their ownership.] ... Each village also had its own burial ground in which were buried only those belonging to the village” (Dorsey and Murie (and Spoehr) [1903-1907] 1940:75, par. 2) [Skidi Pawnee] “In principle the village was endogamous. Since the Pawnee moved to Oklahoma the old restriction on marriage has been gradually disappearing. This is due to the fact that the population of certain villages has dwindled and it is no longer possible for the few remaining individuals of some villages to obtain mates within their own village” (Dorsey and Murie [1903-1907] 1940:75, par. 3) [Skidi Pawnee] “Skidi villages tended to be endogamous and a man married a woman of his own village, to whom he was not related by close ties of blood” (Dorsey and Murie [1903- 1907] 1940:97, par. 2) [Skidi Pawnee] “On the outskirts of the village were those who made up the lowest class of Skidi society and who were spoken of as ‘those who live in the woods.’ They were near outcasts, having violated tribal laws and customs” (Dorsey and Murie [1903-1907] 1940:115, par. 4) 471 [Mandan] “Though they fortified some of their new settlements, they built others in the open, unfortified pattern of old, with fourteen to forty-five lodges spread over as many as seventeen acres” (Fenn [1300] 2014:14, par. 3) [Mandan] “... South Cannonball village site ... The settlers dispersed their town over fifteen acres, with ample space between individual homes ... about forty in number ...” (Fenn [1300] 2014:15, par. 1) [Mandan] “Mandan population density after 1400 appears to have been ... exceeding one hundred people per acre ...” (Fenn 2014:27, par. 5) [Mandan] [Huff Village] “Inside the walls, meandering rows of homes ran more or less parallel to the Missouri River. These sturdy, semirectangular affairs, ... constructed by women, were positioned shotgun-style along well-worn footpaths” (Fenn [1450] 2014:16, par. 3) [Mandan] “A large settlement might contain one hundred and fifty or more [earth lodges]” (Fenn [1500-1750] 2014:24, par. 2) [Mandan] “The earliest cultural manifestations are of a people living in large rectangular semi-subterranean earthlodges which were built along the margins of wooded bottoms or grouped in small clusters. There were no fortifications and the limits of the villages were generally poorly defined. A regrouping of the native population occurred shortly after 1475 A.D. into a small number of strongly fortified sites which were roughly rectangular in outline. The rectangular lodge though somewhat smaller than in the previous period was retained and an open plaza for the performance of social and ceremonial functions was adopted” (Bowers [1300- 1785] 1948:102, par. 1) [Mandan] “The prehistoric Mandan sites on the Grand River seem not to have been as well organized for their was neither lodge arrangement around a central plaza, a ceremonial lodge, nor removal of refuse from the village. ... there was a definite lodge arrangement in the principal Mandan sites at and above the Heart River ...” (Bowers [1300-1785] 1948:133, par. 1) [Mandan] “... they lived in large fortified villages of permanent lodges overlooking the wooded bottomlands of the Missouri River where they planted their gardens” (Bowers [1700s] 1950:vii, par. 1) [Mandan] “In 1797 ... The west side Mandan from the Heart River had a village of one hundred and thirteen lodges; the east side or Nuptadi were on the east bank opposite Fort Clark in a village of forty lodges; the Painted Woods Mandan consisting of the Awigaxa and Those Who Tattoo Themselves, had a village of thirty-seven lodges on the west bank and were united temporarily with the Awaxawi group of Hidatsa who had fifteen lodges in the same village ...” (Bowers 1948:143, par. 2) 472 [Mandan] “Visiting each of the Mandan and Hidatsa towns during his ten days at the Knife River confluence, Thompson thought they looked ‘like so many large hives clustered together.’ As he saw it, there was ‘no order’ to the houses—no parallel streets, no ‘cross Streets at right angles.’ But one culture’s chaos is another’s defensive strategy. When he sketched the street plan of a European-style town for the Indians, they ‘shook their heads’ and wondered at the lack of common sense. How could such settlements be defended? ‘In these straight Streets,’ they said, ‘we see no advantage the inhabitants have over their enemies. The whole of their bodies are exposed’” (Fenn [1797] 2014:194, par. 5) [Mandan] “Village locations, chosen for defense, were protected by high palisades, sometimes reinforced by bastions or architectural strong points, and reportedly by a ditch on the inner side, though in prehistoric times the ditch was on the outside” (Wood and Irwin [1800s] 2001:352, par. 5) [Mandan] “The earthlodges were arranged around a plaza, some 150 feet in diameter, which was used for ceremonies and dances. This plaza might be located either at the edge of the village or in the center ...” (Wood and Irwin [1800s] 2001:352, par. 6) [Mandan] “Those earthlodges immediately surrounding the plaza were occupied by members of the Okipa religious society and by other important men who owned tribal bundles. ... Other lodges in the village were placed in no particular order, although kinsmen tended to build homes near one another” (Wood and Irwin [1800s] 2001:352, par. 8) [Mandan] “During the winter, the permanent villages were abandoned and the inhabitants built temporary villages of smaller earthlodges ... in heavily wooded bottomlands” (Wood and Irwin [1800s] 2001:353, par. 2) [Mandan] “Prior to 1781 each village consisted of 75 to 130 lodges, with an estimated 10 persons to the lodge, so that the larger villages contained more than 1,000 individuals ... In the period 1781-1837, the largest village had only 68 lodges. Each of these villages was economically, politically, and ceremonially independent, but they were integrated by social and ceremonial ties, and by their common language and customs ...” (Wood and Irwin [1800s] 2001:353, par. 3) [Mandan] “The villagers might walk several days before coming to their camping spot ... Long-standing protocol decreed the arrangement of tipis—not merely a circle but a circle perfectly spaced and laid out in the order of the march. The hunt leader’s family camped first, and the rest of the queue ... ‘swung around ... so that the last in line set up their tepee at the side of the leader’s tepee.’ If anyone placed a tent improperly, the Black Mouths ensured that it was moved” (Fenn [1800s] 2014:66, par. 2) [Mandan] “Mih-tutta-hang-kusch ... contained sixty-five lodges surrounded by an irregular palisade ...” (Fenn [1833] 2014:297, par. 3) 473 par. 4) [Mandan] “... the little Ruptare town with its thirty-eight lodges” (Fenn [1833] 2014:297, [Mandan] “... Mandan sites could be distinguished from those of other tribes by the peculiar arrangement of lodges around a central plaza or open circle” (Bowers [1908] 1950:13, par. 2) [Mandan] “A lodge group could leave one village and join another at will. Usually a number of related households moved at one time, but there are numerous references to groups transferring from one village to another. ... When a group left one village, it endeavored to affiliate with its own band in one of the villages. ... When a certain ceremony had been allowed to die out or become inactive, a household having rights in that ceremony could enhance its social status by moving out of a village in which there were a number having rights in the ceremony, to take up residence in another where there were few having those particular ceremonial rights. Other household groups moved into another village over the recognition of chiefs. When a small group was dissatisfied with the leadership of the village, rather than have trouble, they moved into another village. Scattercorn remembered that there was often dissatisfaction among the women over the selection of a village site. ... The Missouri River frequently changed its course and sometimes cut through the gardens, destroying the garden sites belonging to some households. When no potential corn ground was available near at hand, household groups were obliged to move to a village with an abundance of suitable corn ground in preference to walking great distances to their gardens” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:28, par. 1) [Mandan] “The protohistoric Mandan sites of the Heart River region have ruins of one hundred and twenty-five to one hundred and fifty lodges, while the later villages of historic times were much smaller, owing to the smaller population. Maximilian reported sixty-five lodges at Mitutanka and thirty-eight at Nuptadi. My informants listed forty-three lodges at Like-a- Fishhook” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:28, par. 2) [Mandan] “Although each permanent Mandan village was in a large measure a separate economic, social, and ceremonial unit, the villages were not entirely independent” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:36, par. 2) [Mandan] “Each village had an open circle some one hundred and fifty feet in diameter reserved for [the Okipa] ceremony, and lodges were not permitted in that section. A cedar post, surrounded by a plank wall, occupied the center of this open circle, and lodges were arranged around the circle with their entrances toward the cedar. The ceremonial lodge was to the north of the cedar and was a part of the row of lodges facing toward the open circle” (Bowers [1930- 1931] 1950:111, par. 2-3) 474 Descent and Residence [Pawnee] “... the village was endogamous, at least in principle prohibiting marriage outside it. Women rarely left the village into which they were born, but men sometimes married outside it and then went to the wife’s village to live ...” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:530, par. 5) [Pawnee] “Postmarital residence was ordinarily matrilocal, following a pattern in which a young man joined his wife’s parents’ household and performed various services for his in-laws, including hunting. Later, after a man had established himself as a good provider and protector of his family, he and his wife might establish a lodge of their own” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:534, par. 1) [Pawnee] “The kinship system was bilateral ...” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:534, par. 3) [Pawnee] “A man got his place in a village through his mother. The women never left the village in which they were born, but if a man married a woman from another village, he must go there to live. His children were always considered members of the mother’s village. ... the villages were in principle endogamous, for a man could not marry outside except with the consent of his village as represented by the governing officials, who usually opposed such unions on the ground that the strength of the village would be depleted” (Murie 1914:549, par. 2) [Skidi Pawnee] “No trace of clans was found” (Dorsey and Murie [1903-1907] 1940:86, par. 1) [Mandan] “According to the origin tradition of the Okipa, Mandan society consisted of 13 exogamous matrilineal clans grouped into east and west moieties ..., each clan composed of one or more lineages” (Wood and Irwin [1800s] 2001:359, par. 6) [Mandan] “Residence was matrilocal ...” (Wood and Irwin [1800s] 2001:359, par. 7) [Mandan] “The couple lived for a time with the husband’s family; then the wife’s father would present his son-in-law with a horse and invite the couple to live in his lodge” (Wood and Irwin [1800s] 2001:362, par. 1) [Mandan] “... kin based on matrilineal descent ...” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:41, par. 2) [Mandan] “Marrying a brother’s widow was considered the honorable way of providing for his children, in which case the man lived between two lodges. A woman having several brothers rarely married her deceased husband’s brother, as it frequently meant sharing a husband with women of a different clan and household” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:81, par. 2) [Mandan] “When the deceased was an old woman of a couple occupying a lodge by themselves, the man left the lodge to live with people of his own clan, and the lodge was either 475 abandoned or taken over by a group of females belonging to the deceased person’s clan. When an old woman having no children or younger females in the lodge became feeble, she usually moved into another lodge where the females were of her clan” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:99, par. 1) [Mandan] “When marriage was arranged on the initiative of the girl’s parents, who selected the husband, the girl and her husband lived with her parents” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:228, par. 1) House/Residential Structure [Pawnee] “A circular, dome-shaped structure, the earthlodge varied in diameter from 30 to 60 feet, with some small ones no more than 23 feet in diameter. The topsoil of its interior floor was removed to a depth of several inches to a foot. In the center of the floor was the fireplace, an unlined basin some eight inches deep and three to four feet in diameter. Set up midway between the fireplace and the exterior wall were 6, 8, or 10 weight-bearing posts that were 12 to 18 feet high, connected at the top by stringers. Standing three or four feet inside the perimeter of the lodge was a second series of smaller, shorter posts that numbered from eight to 20 and that were also connected with stringers. Set against those stringers were closely spaced poles, the lower ends of which were set into the ground at the base of the lodge wall; they comprised the foundation for the sloping wall that enclosed the dwelling area. Making up the foundation of the roof were pole rafters that ran from the top of the wall to the frame of the smokehole that formed the apex of the lodge directly over the fireplace. Both wall and roof rafters were covered by layers of willows and grass and, finally, a layer of sod or earth some 12 inches deep. An entry vestibule, approximately 12 feet in height, seven feet in width, and 13 feet in length, was similarly framed by foundation posts and wall poles and covered with earth. The lodge generally faced east, opening away from storms and winter winds ...” (Parks [late 1700s- mid 1800s] 2001:523, par. 3) [Pawnee] “Along the north and south sides of the interior of the lodge were sleeping platforms, about two feet above the floor, that were wide enough to accommodate two to four individuals. In an ordinary lodge there were 8-10 beds on each side, separated by willow mats ... At the west end of the lodge, opposite the doorway, was a sacred space, generally marked by a small raised platform of earth or wood that served as an altar, on which were places a buffalo skull and other sacred objects ... The places of honor, as well as the beds of honor, were those on either side of the altar” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:523, par. 4) [Pawnee] “Near the door on the north and south sides of the lodge interior, between the sleeping platforms and the central roof supports, was a mortar made from a hollowed-out log that the women who lived on that side used for grinding corn. In the same areas cache pits were dug into the ground to store food and personal possessions when the occupants were on communal hunts” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:523, par. 5) 476 [Pawnee] “Lodge construction was a cooperative endeavor undertaken by women, who were the owners of the house. Depending on quality of materials and construction, the life expectancy of the structure varied but generally did not exceed 10 to 15 years. ... The lodges of chiefs, priests, and doctors were exceptionally large since they were used for ceremonial gatherings as well as domiciles ...” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:523, par. 6) [Pawnee] “The Pawnee built two types of dwellings for use on their communal hunts. On the summer hunt they constructed a ‘side dwelling’ (aka·ririwis) ... that was a half-bowl-shaped framework of bent saplings, open in the front but otherwise covered with hides ... During the winter hunt they lived in conical hide teepees built on a three-pole framework that supported 12 to 20 poles each about 16 feet long. Like the earthlodge entrances, tepee doors usually faced east ...” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:525, par. 2) [Pawnee] “The Pawnee lodges are of a circular form, large and spacious in the interior; many of them being 50 feet in diameter. Three and sometimes four circular rows of forked trunks of trees are placed upright, at appropriate distances from each other. The row nearest the centre consists of only four such upright timbers, about 15 or 20 feet high, while the crotches in the more exterior rows are shorter and more numerous, in proportion as the circumference is greater. These forks or crotches support thick crossbeams, upon which a frame of long poles is laid, extending from the ground at the outer circumference of the lodge to the top, leaving only an opening at the apex, of about four feet in diameter, to answer the double purpose of letting in the light, and letting out the smoke. Upon the frame work of poles, willow osiers are laid, and the whole is then covered with prairie sod from 12 to 18 inches thick. Immediately below the opening above, a hole is sunk in the centre for the fire-place, common to all the residents of the lodge. From five to ten families, generally related together, have a common occupancy of one lodge, governed by a head man, who may be styled the lodge chief. Around the circumference of the lodge are recesses for sleeping, partitioned off for each family, ... many of which are screened in front and on the sides by willow-twigs laid above each other, tied fast to a frame, ... partly with the reddish bark on, and partly white from having the bark taken off ... When thus ornamented with twigs, a small opening about two by three feet is left in front to admit the occupants. The bottom of the berth is raised about two feet above the ground by means of large hewn sills, overlaid by thick willow twigs, which are then covered with buffalo-robes. The entrance of the lodge is always on the East side, protected by a passage, closed above and on the sides, of about 15 feet in length,—the door being a large buffalo robe, or several sewed together, hanging before the inner entrance. On the side opposite to the door of each lodge, a recess is reserved, for depositing the skull of a buffalo, surmounted by shields, quivers of arrows, spears, bows, skins, feathers, etc., used for hunting, for medicinal, or religious purposes, as the case may require. In the intermediate space between the recesses and the fireplace, mats, about three by five feet, made of rushes, are laid, at convenient distances, for seats; while an extra supply of them, rolled up, and set aside at different places in the lodge, are reserved for extraordinary occasions, as for instance councils or feasts” (Smith [1851] 1852:88, par. 1) 477 [Pawnee] “The most difficult labor ... that falls to [women] is the erecting of their lodges. ... the nearest timber to the site of the village was two or three miles off, and ... all the building material, much of which is very heavy, was carried so great a distance on the shoulders of the women ... We noticed even girls of 12 or 14 years bearing baskets on their backs, filled with wet turf, to cover or repair their lodges ...” (Smith [1851] 1852:92, par. 1) [Pawnee] Figure C.1 “Figure 5-1. Groundplan of the house where the boy, Otter, lived with his father, Victory Call, and his mother, White Woman,” from Weltfish 1965:62 (Weltfish [(1867) 1928-1936] 1965:62) 478 [Pawnee] “On both sides of the house along the low circular walls, the people were still asleep in their beds. There had been a long storytelling session the night before and Old-Man- That-Chief, who was one of the principal raconteurs, was too feeble to go home late at night, so a temporary bed was made for him near the fireplace where the fire was now burning brightly in the center of the room. High above the fireplace a shaft of light came in through the smokehole and, as the day broke, the long radial ribs of the slanting roof stood out clearly like the frame of a huge umbrella, reaching out from the central ring at the top to the edge of the low circular wall. About halfway between the fireplace and the walls stood a series of stout pillars made of whole tree trunks with the bark removed, forked at the top and connected together by crosspieces so that they gave support to the heavy slanting roof. The tall pillars made a convenient division between the sleeping quarters around the outer edge of the circle and the eating and living quarters around the central fireplace. Here near the fireplace the earthen floor was covered with large reed mats where they sat, using pillars as a backrest. Around the outside, each bed platform was divided from the other by a series of skin curtains that hung at the head and foot of each bed; a reed screen stood in front of the beds of the mature women to give them privacy. The series of beds was interrupted by an open platform at each side to store current food supplies and household articles. The long vestibule that gave entrance to the house projected outward from the eastern side of the circular walls. Inside, on both sides of the door to the house, was a working area in each of which a woodpile was braced against the walls. The rear or western wall of the house was the sacred area, the beds being ranged along the north and south walls. There were five platforms along each wall, the middle one for supplies and the four others fitted out as beds. The boy, Otter, and his grandmother were sleeping on the north side of the house in the easternmost bed nearest the entryway. The second bed next to theirs was occupied by another little boy, Yellow Calf, and his grandmother, Grieves-the-Enemy. Then came the supply platform for the north side and beyond that the bed of Horse Rider and his wife, No Corn. Horse Rider was an assistant to Otter’s father, Victory Call, a prominent chief and religious leader. Victory Call and White Woman had the bed that was in the place of honor near the west. Along the south wall of the house was another family. The head of that family was Old Bull, friend and associate of Victory Call and also a chief and religious leader. He occupied the west bed with his younger wife, Clear Day, and the next bed was occupied by the little girl, New Queen, their daughter. Then came the supply platform for the south side, and beyond that the bed of Queen Woman, Old Bull’s senior wife with her little boy of three, and finally the easternmost bed on the south side for the grandmother, Blue Calico, who was the mother of the younger wife, Clear Day, and had the youngest child sleeping with her. Everyone in the house knew his appointed place and where he could go and where he could not go. In the sacred area at the west was an earthen platform with a buffalo skull resting on it and above it hunt a long, skin-wrapped bundle containing their most sacred objects, including two specially bred ears of corn. Between the fireplace and the buffalo altar, there was a sacred spot that was invisible—the wi-haru, ‘the place where the wise words of those who have gone before us are resting.’ Rather than step over this place in order to pass from one side of the house to the other, everyone walked around the entire 479 house by way of the east. When the heads of the household sat down to rest or when they entertained important guests, it was near the west that they sat and no one would want to pass in front of them” (Weltfish [(1867) 1928-1936] 1965:61, par. 3; 62, par. 1-2; 63, par. 1-4) [Pawnee] “The average life of a house was twelve years ...” (Weltfish [(1867) 1928- 1936] 1965:86, par. 4) [Pawnee] [winter hunt campsite] “Victory Call’s family occupied the south side of the tipi, and Horse Rider and his wife, No Corn, the north side” (Weltfish [(1867) 1928-1936] 1965:427, par. 5) 480 [Pawnee] Figure C.2 “Fig. 1—Arrangement of the Interior of Pawnee Earth-Lodge,” from Lesser 1930:99 (Lesser [1929] 1930:99) 481 [Pawnee] “A ... situation might develop in which two brothers marry two sisters. In this case the wives were in common. If they wished, and particularly if the lodge was large enough to accommodate so many, both couples remained in the household of the wives’ parents. If they did not, they built a separate lodge for themselves. The arrangement of such two-family lodges was one of the typical forms of Pawnee household arrangement. In the usual one-family earth lodge, ... the children sleep at the west on both sides of the skull-altar, the parents sleep in the centre, on either side-usually the south, though a second or third wife of the father may have her separate bed on the north side-and finally the wife’s parents on either side nearest the entrance at the east. In a double household, one side (south or north) belongs to one family. Here sleep in order, from the altar around through either the south or the north toward the east, the children of one brother (including young married daughters and their husbands), the parents (viz., the brother and his wife), and, finally, the wife’s parents. In such a household it is understood that each of the two brothers is a second husband to each of the two sisters” (Lesser [1929] 1930:100, par. 1) [Skidi Pawnee] “The size of the Skidi lodge varied according to the number of families residing in it. ... The [lodge] might contain two beds for a small family or might be spacious enough to accommodate as many as eighteen beds for several families. ... chiefs’ lodges and those of priests and medicine-men were of exceptional size, for they were often required to accommodate a ceremonial gathering” (Dorsey and Murie [1903-1907] 1940:79, par. 1) [Skidi Pawnee] “At the west was the altar, around the north and south sides were the beds, and at the east, on either side of the doorway, were cache holes, corn mills, sweathouses, and piles of firewood. The beds were supported by two upright forked posts on the inner side; these were connected by a hewn timber placed in the forks and from this crosspiece short poles extended to the wall or banquette. Over this frame was placed a mattress of young willows netted together and covered by buffalo robes and pillows. Usually the children had their beds nearest the altar, and the grandparents those closest the door; the parents reserved those in the middle area. In case a man had more than one wife living in his lodge, each wife had a bed of her own” (Dorsey and Murie [1903-1907] 1940:79, par. 2) [Skidi Pawnee] “In the summer the people moved out of the lodge and slept under an arbor. Each individual family made its own arbor, or all the families together built a single large one for their joint use. [This was in addition to the tipi, and a grass-like structure sometimes used when on the march]” (Dorsey and Murie (and Spoehr) [1903-1907] 1940:79, par. 3) 482 [Skidi Pawnee] Figure C.3 “Fig. 26. Disposition of beds in two Skidi Pawnee earth lodges,” from Dorsey and Murie 1940:81 (Dorsey and Murie [1903-1907] 1940:81) [Mandan] “... South Cannonball village site ... The houses themselves ... were nearly rectangular log-and-earth structures, narrower at the rear and wider at the front” (Fenn [1300] 2014:15, par. 1) 483 [Mandan] [Huff Village] “... residential structures, with log frames and A-shaped roofs, had ... dimensions, perhaps fifty by thirty-five feet” (Fenn [1450] 2014:16, par. 3) [Mandan] “Earth lodges ... could have been rectangular or round, but fashion tended to the latter, ranging from twenty to sixty feet in diameter” (Fenn [1500-1750] 2014:24, par. 2) [Mandan] “Lodges were circular in outline and built on a four-post foundation. The majority of lodges were less than thirty feet in diameter and excavations were not ordinarily made for the floors” (Bowers [1300-1785] 1948:102, par. 1) [Mandan] “... the house was ... a post-and-beam construction covering a sunken floor roughly one and a half feet lower than the surrounding terrain. Four massive center posts supported hefty crossbeams and bore much of the building’s weight. They also demarked the central fire pit and the most important shared living space in the lodge” (Fenn [1600s-1800s] 2014:54, par. 2) [Mandan] “A ring of shorter uprights or wall posts provided additional support near the outer circumference of the dwelling. Typically there were twelve to eighteen of these pillars, but a large home could have twenty to thirty. The wall posts held up crossbeams of their own that formed a circle against which Mandan women leaned smaller logs from the outside. These timbers sat side by side and gave the lodge a wood-lined interior. Leaning roof rafters went above these, anchored to the wall-post crossbeams and resting against the higher center-post crossbeams. The rafters did not meet at the top but stopped short to provide an opening for light and ventilation above the fire pit” (Fenn [1600s-1800s] 2014:55, par. 1) [Mandan] “With the structural components of the lodge complete, the builders encased the outside in three layers of material. First they swathed it with tough, flexible willow twigs placed crosswise against the wooden frame. Atop this they laid a thick thatch of grass, which inevitably compressed over time. Finally, a layer of sod or earth, thicker at the base and thinner at the top, completed the cover” (Fenn [1600s-1800s] 2014:55, par. 2) [Mandan] “Mandan ... women added one more feature to the exterior: a sturdy railing of sticks about halfway up. It also functioned as a foot- or handhold for villagers who gathered on the rooftops to socialize and watch games and ceremonies. The nineteenth-century paintings by George Catlin and Karl Bodmer often show Mandan spectators watching events from on high. ... the exterior of the earth lodge was the Mandan equivalent of the front porch” (Fenn [1600s- 1800s] 2014:56, par. 1) [Mandan] “Each lodge had an entryway in the form of a wooden portico that protruded from the front. Inside was a windscreen, sometimes made of planks, sometimes made of willows and hide. ... Private sleeping quarters—raised platforms behind curtains—lined the outer circumference of the interior. The far side of the lodge, opposite the entryway, was sacred space. Here, mounted to a supporting post, was a shrine loaded with protective medicine: weapons, 484 shields, sacred bundles, personal bundles, ceremonial headdresses, and the skull and horns of a bison” (Fenn [1600s-1800s] 2014:56, par. 2) [Mandan] “Despite regular maintenance and careful construction, a cottonwood-timbered earth lodge lasted only ten to fifteen years. ... village women regularly rebuilt on their original site” (Fenn [1600s-1800s] 2014:57, par. 1) [Mandan] “The lodges were circular, earth-covered structures, averaging 30 feet in diameter and sunk into the earth, with a four-post central support and a covered entryway ... The lodge was constructed by clan members with help from a clan of the opposite moiety” (Wood and Irwin [1800s] 2001:352, par. 8) [Mandan] “The interior of the earthlodge was divided into sleeping quarters around the perimeter, a windbreak across the entrance, a central fire pit with seats and cooking arrangements ..., and a section for favorite horses to protect them from theft ... A rectangular altar was built of raised earth opposite the entrance upon which was placed the various sacred items of the household” (Wood and Irwin [1800s] 2001:352, par. 9) [Mandan] “The circular four-post earth lodge was the most common type used for summer residence, although semirectangular lodges did occasionally occur. These lodges were closely grouped within a limited area” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:24, par. 2) [Mandan] “When a village was first built on a new site, each household selected a site for its lodge, corn scaffolds, and caches. There was a tendency for related families to select adjacent quarters, while those intimately connected with the Okipa ceremony selected lodge sites adjacent to the open circle. These lodge sites within the village were held permanently within the female line, and, when returning to rebuild after a temporary abandonment of the village, female descendants of the original builders were entitled to their former sites” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:26, par. 2) [Mandan] “It was the duty of the clan to assist in the erection of a member’s lodge. Since these lodges were large, a considerable amount of work was entailed in erecting one and covering it with poles, willows, grass, and earth. As a rule, the clan prepared a feast and invited the opposite moiety to assist ...” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:27, par. 2) [Mandan] “After 1870, the Mandan began abandoning the circular four-post earth lodge for small rectangular log cabins, two of them housing the population formerly living in a single earth lodge. Frequently a log cabin was built with two rooms, one room being occupied by the older people, who preserved the sacred bundles in their quarters, and the other room being occupied by the younger married family” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:28, par. 2) 485 Household [Pawnee] “Usually two, but sometimes as many as 10, families lived in them, each one having its separate part of the lodge with its own furniture. The number of occupants ... varied, smaller lodges housing 12-18 individuals and larger ones accommodating up to 50 people” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:523, par. 6) [Pawnee] “... the basic kinship unit was the extended family living in an earthlodge. At its head was an older woman who had built the lodge and owned it, together with her husband. The woman’s younger sisters might live there as well, since sororal polygyny was common. Their unmarried sons and their daughters and daughters’ spouses comprised a second generation, while the daughters’ children made up the third generation. In addition, one or more other families, generally related, might live in the earthlodge, especially in one of a chief, priest, or doctor, which was of exceptional size and could accommodate large ceremonial gatherings” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:533, par. 10) [Pawnee] “During communal hunts, the lodge household often broke up into smaller units, each formed around a capable hunter, that lived in a tepee or summer arbor; and sometimes members of different households might re-form into new units that pooled resources, and later they might continue those household realignments when returning to the earthlodge village” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:534, par. 1) [Pawnee] “The oldest woman, a grandmother, coordinated the work of the younger women and cared for the children. ... Men ... were relatively loosely tied to the household, in part because they married out of it and in part because their lifestyle meant that they spent less time there. ... Boys, young men, and older men, in particular, were transient, frequently spending nights or longer periods in other households. Although the mature man spent more time in his wife’s lodge, he never considered it to be his true home, which was the lodge of his mother and sisters” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:534, par. 2) [Pawnee] “When a woman lost her husband, she was supposed to mourn for a year; and if he were a man of prominence she might mourn for as long as two years. During that period she would live with either her own family or her deceased husband’s parents. When she resided with her husband’s parents, it was understood that at the end of the mourning period she would become the wife of either her husband’s younger brother or his sister’s son. If the widow were childless, she invariably returned to her parents’ lodge, and once the mourning period was over she married again. Should she marry outside her husband’s family, she was considered not as desirable as at her first marriage, and the gifts to her family were considerably less” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:536, par. 2) [Pawnee] “Most earth lodges housed from thirty to fifty people” (Weltfish [(mid-1800s) 1928-1936] 1965:14, par. 1) 486 [Pawnee] “The household as a working group of coordinated members was precisely organized, and each household had the same general structure. However, twice a year when the tribe set out on its semiannual buffalo hunts, the household work group fragmented itself into many smaller groupings, which reassorted themselves so that an able hunter became the nucleus of each new composite grouping. When they returned to the village the households did not necessarily reassemble with the same personnel as before. ... The three duplicate stations on the north and south sides of the lodge with their full complement of the young, mature, and old women was a frame into which any individual woman could fit herself in whatever household she entered with little loss of efficiency, since her duties were so clearly defined once she selected the category to which she belonged. And a child with a grandmother to care for it could fit in anywhere. Young men led a more transient existence. They were likely to congregate at different times in one lodge or another, and a bed would be made for them by putting down a mat between the central pillars and providing it with the necessary skin bedding. Old men also moved about rather freely, staying overnight in various households whenever they were detained late of an evening telling stories or participating in a ceremony. As for the mature man, his married-in household was not considered his ‘true’ home. In his married-in household he was an outsider with formal obligations, which sometimes tended to weigh rather heavily on him. Then he would go where his home really was—that of his sisters and his mother, where they would gladly feed him and take care of him and where he could relax and feel like a child. When this happened, his wife understood, and she knew he would be back after a few days” (Weltfish [(mid-1800s) 1928-1936] 1965:18, par. 1) [Pawnee] “It was fairly usual form for two or more brothers to set up a joint household, sharing their wives and their property. The children addressed them all as fathers and mothers and they in turn addressed all the children as their own. A similar but not identical condition might exist among a group of sisters married to the same man, the children addressing all the sisters as mother” (Weltfish [(mid-1800s) 1928-1936] 1965:21, par. 1) [Pawnee] “Once on the winter hunt, Shot Arm was invited to bring his new family to live in the household of White Eagle. He had been formally invited by ‘his two old mothers’ who were the official owners of the house” (Weltfish [(mid-1800s) 1928-1936] 1965:445, par. 1) [Pawnee] “One of the provisions of the congressional act of 1876 that established the Pawnee Reservation was allotments in severalty. Each family head or single person over 21 years of age who so desired was to be allotted 160 acres of land, and a certificate of individual ownership was to be issues by the commissioner of Indian affairs. ... Many young and progressive Pawnees took individual farm lands as soon as they could be surveyed, and the agency carpenter assisted them in constructing frame houses. In 1882, ... there were only 55 families living on individual farms, and they often had to camp in tepees for long periods while waiting for the necessary surveying and assistance in house building” (Parks 2001:538, par. 7) 487 [Pawnee] “Gradually, the chief’s traditional role because less relevant as ownership of homes and farms enabled individual Pawnees to be materially independent of both chief and tribe” (Parks [1875-1890] 2001:540, par. 7) [Skidi Pawnee] “Although an individual family composed of a man, his wife or wives, and their children, might be the sole occupants, often more than one family lived in a single lodge and there apparently was no definite rule regarding the number of residents and consequently the size of the lodge itself” (Dorsey and Murie [1903-1907] 1940:79, par. 1) [Mandan] “Mandan earth lodges were in every way the dominion of women. Women built them, women maintained them, and women controlled the space they contained. Even the family inside was maternal in structure. When a Mandan man married, he moved into the home of his wife and her sisters. He counted all her sisters as wives. Children born to the marriage belonged to their mother’s clan. ... a Mandan child counted all its mother’s sisters as mothers. ... they lived together in the same earth lodge, which belonged to the maternal clan” (Fenn [1600s- 1800s] 2014:52, par. 3) [Mandan] “The household was the smallest economic unit and was composed of one or more biological families related through the females. Theoretically, the household was held together by females so long as their lineage was unbroken ...” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:26, par. 2) Access to Resources [Hidatsa] “A new field could be established by anyone willing to clear and plant it; thereafter it belonged to the family that worked it. Markers denoted boundaries, and disputes were rare” (Fenn [1906] 2014:60, par. 4) [Mandan] “Game pits were owned by individual lodge groups ... The corral was built by the village group and all of the earthlodge village groups of Mandan and Hidatsa divided the animals taken by moieties” (Bowers [1929-1931] 1948:163, par. 3) [Mandan] “Crows Heart stated that Hides-and-Eats, an old woman who lived in his lodge, told him that, when she was young, people of one clan were not permitted to raise corn belonging to the other clans without first securing the rights and that each clan claimed to be the preserver of its own corn” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:31, par. 2) [Mandan] “... a man or woman seeking information, however trivial, was expected to make a payment for the information acquired. Persons possessing unique information and techniques were highly regarded, and it would have been considered ill mannered to adopt another’s skills without at first paying for that right ...” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:91, par. 2) [Mandan] “Ownership of a [eagle-trapping] site was vested in the leader who had either purchased the lodge and adjacent pits from a man of his own clan or who had occupied 488 unclaimed territory, erected his own lodge, and marked the outlines of pits. Inheritance of trapping sites was through the clan, and one could not secure permanent ownership of a trapping site owned by a man of a different clan. The nearest clan relative took possession of the site upon the death of the owner if it had not been sold. One could pay for permission to use a particular site for a season from one of a different clan when the owner did not intend to make use of it himself, but he was obliged to use the pits already dug and could not prepare new ones. ... a man could rent a site from an owner of a different clan, but he could not buy. When a site had been abandoned so long that its owner was not known, another could claim the site. Evidently little trouble was experienced over claims to sites, since a violator would have been severely criticized” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:210, par. 2) [Mandan] “Purchase of catfish- and eagle-trapping rites could be made simultaneously, or the fish-trapping rights could be bought at a later date. Some men bought rights in only one of the ceremonies” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:255, par. 2) [Mandan] “In addition to these six bundle-owners, there were a number of men possessing fish-trap rights without securing a bundle. Such rights were acquired by payment of goods to a bundle-owner, who authorized the construction of a trap with instruction that the purchaser address his prayers to the seller’s bundle” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:256, par. 1) Trade “In 1738 the Mandans to the northeast of Pawnee territory, gave Assiniboine middlemen painted buffalo robes, clusters of feathers, headdresses, garters, and girdles in exchange for muskets, axes, kettles, powder, bullets, knives, and bodkins which they had gotten from the British at Hudson’s Bay. In 1812, the Comanches chewed pieces of checker-plaited dried pumpkin mat as they rode, which they had received from the Pawnees and paid for in buffalo robes and horses” (Weltfish [1928-1936] 1965:367, par. 2-3) [Pawnee] “There is clear evidence that [the buffalo robe] was a leading trade item before the Spaniards moved up into the Plains in 1540. Long before the advent of the European on the continent, the settled villages were centers of trade for the more nomadic peoples and there were seasonal trade fairs in recognized locations where peoples came to exchange their special products and materials. European goods were first spread by itinerant traders who carried their wares to the different villages and centers and finally set up their own trade stores” (Weltfish [(pre-1800s) 1928-1936] 1965:361, par. 3) [Mandan] “... Mandan villages ... were all important trade centers” (Wood and Irwin [1700s] 2001:349, par. 4) [Mandan] “Crows, Kiowas, Arapahos, and Cheyennes from the south and west sold the Mandans horses, which they in turn traded to Assiniboine, Cree, Lakota, and European visitors from the north and east” (Fenn [1700s] 2014:142, par. 2) 489 [Mandan] “During his journey of 1738, La Vérendrye witnessed the maize trade ... Corn was the first item listed when he described the barter between Mandans and Assiniboines. The traffic in feathers, craft items, and European goods paled in comparison with that in foodstuffs” (Fenn 2014:230, par. 1) [Mandan] “At the time of Mackay’s visit, the villagers still got most of their European- made goods from the ‘other nations’ who came to them, these ‘other nations’ having gotten ‘them from White People.’ But direct trade with whites increased when fur-company trading posts proliferated on the Canadian prairies and their employees came south to the villages” (Fenn [1787] 2014:180, par. 1) [Mandan and Hidatsa] “Mandans and Hidatsas had some access to beavers in the wooded riparian bottomlands where they lived and worked, but their commerce with white traders consisted mostly of corn, horses, bison robes, and wolf and fox skins. The items they obtained in return included firearms, arrow tips, awls, tobacco, mirrors, paints, and decorative beads” (Fenn [late 1700s] 2014:181, par. 1) [Mandan] “The schoolmaster Jean Baptiste Truteau heard about the commerce upriver when he visited the Arikaras in 1794-96, reporting on his return that the ‘Assiniboin, a wandering nation to the north of the Missouri,’ purchased ‘horses, corn, and tobacco’ at the Mandan and Hidatsa towns” (Fenn 2014:231, par. 2) [Mandan] “Theirs was a free-trade policy, embracing all comers. Even the Sioux sometimes bought and sold goods among them” (Fenn [1796] 2014:190, par. 1) [Mandan] “All this corn changed hands either by barter or by gift exchange” (Fenn [1804-1805] 2014:232, par. 2) [Mandan] “After Henry and his companions bought a few travel supplies on July 20, they ‘were plagued for some time after by Women and Girls, who continued to bring in bags and dishes full of their different kinds of produce, and would insist upon our trading’” (Fenn [1806] 2014:233, par. 2) Property [Pawnee] “After weaponry, pipes were the most significant possession of men ...” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:527, par. 3) [Pawnee] “Through the rule of primogeniture the oldest brother inherited all the family property and as senior member of the group was responsible for the well-being of all his younger brothers” (Weltfish [(mid-1800s) 1928-1936] 1965:21, par. 1) [Pawnee] “Some women surrounded their fields with a fence built of stakes connected with rawhide ropes. Disputes about the boundaries of their fields sometimes occurred among the 490 women. Some women would pile the earth further and further on the far side of the field and encroach on the field of a neighbor. Some women stole crops, whereupon arguments would ensue and they would curse one another and call one another names. The woman from whom the corn had been stolen would strike the other woman with her hands or with a stick” (Weltfish [(1867) 1928-1936] 1965:103, par. 3) [Pawnee] “In the household of Old Bull and Victory Call, each of the mature women had at least one field. Clear Day, the younger wife, and her mother, Blue Calico, worked one field together, as was customary with mother and daughter until the younger woman was considered responsible enough to manage her own. ... An individual field was from half an acre to one and a half acres in area” (Weltfish [(1867) 1928-1936] 1965:103, par. 5) [Pawnee] “The buffalo-hide tent cover was a major family possession. ... It took four days of steady work for the four women of Victory Call’s household to complete the sewing of the cover under [Old Lady Lucky Leader’s] direction” (Weltfish [(1867) 1928-1936] 1965:379, par. 1, 3) [Skidi Pawnee] “On the death of an individual, his land was re-allotted by the chief” (Dorsey and Murie [1903-1907] 1940:75, par. 2) [Skidi Pawnee] “In the inheritance of personal property, a woman theoretically had no rights. ... however, she was generally considered to be the owner of the lodge, the tipi, and her tools and utensils. Children did not inherit personal property such as robes, blankets, ponies, and saddle trappings, all of which were supposed to belong to the brother, though they were usually claimed by the sons of the deceased’s sister” (Dorsey and Murie [1903-1907] 1940:82, par. 1) [Skidi Pawnee] “Reference has been made to the fact that personal belongings were buried with the dead. However, there were certain exceptions to this practice. Personal war bundles containing meteorites or any objects supposed to have had their origin in the heavens were not buried” (Dorsey and Murie [1903-1907] 1940:106, par. 2) [Mandan] “Horses ... added to Mandan wealth, as individuals and villages accumulated mounts, and some surely became richer than others. A nineteenth-century tally, which may jibe with eighteenth-century numbers, showed that the Mandans averaged 2.9 horses per lodge” (Fenn 2014:142, par. 1) [Mandan] “Tribal bundles were inherited, some from the from the mother’s brother, others from the father ... The normal pattern was for the sons and daughters of a household to purchase their parents’ bundle, then designate one of their number to be its keeper. This was usually the eldest son but might be a daughter or a son-in-law” (Wood and Irwin [1800s] 2001:357, par. 5) 491 [Mandan] “... lineages were intimately tied to ‘lodge groups,’ matrilineally related families who owned the lodge and its associated goods” (Wood and Irwin [1800s] 2001:359, par. 7) [Mandan] “Marriages between members of less prominent families involved the exchange of horses ...” (Wood and Irwin [1800s] 2001:362, par. 1) [Mandan] “According to our system, when a family dies out the property all goes to the clan. The men would take the personal property and horses belonging to their clan members who had died. The women would own the earthlodges, corn fields, dogs, and personal things of a female clan member” (Bowers [1929] 1948:150, par. 1) [Mandan] “The sacred rituals were embodied in what were called medicine bundles. The Robe bundle, for example, conferred corn ceremony rights to its owner. It contained seventeen different objects, including ears of corn, a gourd rattle, a fox-skin headdress, and a robe and pipe that once belonged to Good Furred Robe, the ancient chief who had taught the Mandans how to plant maize. Someone who wanted all the rights associated with a bundle could approach the owner and arrange to buy it, so long as the transfer followed the appropriate rules of inheritance” (Fenn [1929-1931] 2014:105, par. 1-2) [Mandan] “The purchase of a bundle called for more than the assembly and transfer of sacred objects. It required the transfer of knowledge. Individuals buying bundles had to learn all the associated rites, privileges, songs, stories, obligations, and traditions. And they also, for the good of the people, had to perform the accompanying ceremonies regularly” (Fenn [1929-1931] 2014:105, par. 3) [Mandan] “Sellers ... did not lose rights when they passed them on to others. Each bundle owner could sell rights four times” (Fenn [1929-1931] 2014:105, par. 5) [Mandan] “... the lodge belonged to the clan of which the females were members. ... When a family died out, the lodge belonged to the clan of the females and could be occupied by another group of the same clan or could be sold to females of a different clan. My informants emphatically denied that abandoned lodges could be occupied until they had received permission either of the nearest relatives or of the clan to which the lodge belonged” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:26, par. 2) [Mandan] “The females of the lodge owned in common the domestic goods consisting of bedding, pots, household and gardening tools, the dogs, gardens, the wooden mortar and pestle, and the mares and colts. Clothing and personal effects were held individually. The men owned their weapons used in warfare and hunting as well as their own clothing and pipes. Men also owned the stallions and geldings. Sacred tribal bundles were held collectively by the man and his wives” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:27, par. 1) 492 [Mandan] “Mandan informants state that in earlier times each household had one or more game pits. These pits were dug by all the members of the household and were owned collectively. While the men would bring the poles for the cover and kill the game caught in them, the women frequently did most of the work of excavating and removing earth from the area of the pit” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:27, par. 3) [Mandan] “The clan was a property-holding group. The major bundles of the Okipa ceremony were held in the WaxikEna clan, which also owned the sacred cedar and controlled the Okipa lodge and sacred turtles. Traditionally, the Shell Robe bundle belonged in the Prairie Chicken clan. Eagle-trapping lodges belonged to the clan of the member building it and remained in the clan when the original owner died. There were two bundles for the Big Bird ceremonies which were known as Black Medicine bundle and Sweet Medicine bundle. The former was inherited in the Prairie Chicken clan and the latter in the Speckled Eagle clan of the same moiety. Each clan was the theoretical custodian of one variety of corn. The WaxikEna clan was custodian of the bluish-green flint corn; the Tamisik had the red corn; the Prairie Chicken had the yellow flint and dent; the Speckled Eagle had the rainbow corn” (Bowers [1930- 1931] 1950:31, par. 2) [Mandan] “The clan was the medium for the transfer of property when a family died out without leaving descendants. When an individual died, leaving no relatives, the clan took possession of the property. The lodge was occupied by females of the same clan or could be sold to women of a different clan. It was the duty of the clan to assist a female member in repairing or building her lodge and to put up property for one of its number who was inviting the opposite moiety to assist in building a new lodge. The clan owned certain names which belonged within the clan and were not sold outside the clan” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:32, par. 1) [Mandan] “The old people had privately owned game pits and were entitled to the animals found in them. According to tradition, before horses were acquired, pits were widely used and owned by households” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:96, par. 4) [Mandan] “The deceased person’s personal property was taken by the brothers and sisters, and, when there were none living, the people of the clan took possession of the goods and divided it among themselves. In return for this property, they were required to go to the scaffold to mourn and to pay the mourners of the father’s clan” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:99, par. 1) [Mandan] “Since the oldest son usually inherited his parents’ bundle or bundles through the mother’s lineage, younger sons and the daughters could, at most, hold partial rights through assistance in the transfer ceremonies and later became the titular bundle-owner should the older brother die. There are numerous instances of bundle transfers to a daughter and son-in-law in cases where there were no sons, providing the daughter and family were occupying her parents’ lodge and especially when tribal custom prescribed clan inheritance of the bundle” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:164, par. 1) 493 [Mandan] “The Mandan system of bundle inheritance shows evidence of change within the last century. Certain bundles and ceremonial rights traditionally inherited through the clan and more specifically from the mother’s brother, such as the Okipa belonging to the WaxiEna clan and the Shell Robe bundle of the Prairie Chicken clan, showed a tendency to change to a father-son inheritance ... The eagle-trapping lodges were still inherited through the clan as late as 1929, but the associated bundles had changed from clan inheritance to father-son inheritance after 1875. The system of inheritance was more flexible than for the Hidatsa ... The sons and daughters of a household usually purchased the parents’ bundle collectively and designated one of their number, generally the oldest son, to be the custodian. A family having only daughters sold to the son-in-law providing he had been successful in warfare and had removed the mother- in-law taboo” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:342, par. 2) [Mandan] “The personal bundles ... were individually owned and were rarely inherited. The bundle was assembled after receiving a vision from some supernatural being, instructing him to assemble a bundle which would bring certain benefits to the individual. ... An unusually successful individual would sometimes sell his bundle to a son about to leave on a war expedition. These bundles, however, were rarely sold and were usually put away when the original owner died” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:343, par. 2) Storage [Pawnee] “Large, bell-shaped cache pits, often 6-10 feet deep, for dried horticultural produce were ... located outside the lodge” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:523, par. 2) [Pawnee] “The main business of the women of the household that day was to give the food pit a good cleaning—to remove the large skin bags containing the dried corn and other supplies, examine all the seeds for bad ones and for worms, sweep the thatch-covered walls of the pit, clear off the mold, and take out three weeks’ supply of dried foods so that they could keep the pit closed for a while to reduce the danger of rain water leaking in; besides, they liked to let the ground settle down so that the location of the pit would be concealed from lurking enemies. The Pawnee name for food pit, tahaksu, means hidden, concealed, or covered up” (Weltfish [(1867) 1928-1936] 1965:68, par. 3) [Pawnee] “... they did go up to the villages and open up and inspect and clean their storage pits that they had left with considerable quantities of dried corn, vegetables, meat, and some skins and clothing, and they took out some of the dried corn and beans for current use, until the green corn would be ready” (Weltfish [(1867) 1928-1936] 1965:238, par. 3) [Pawnee] “The storage pit was built nearby when the earth lodge was constructed. It was an indispensable part of the earth-lodge economy. The usual size was about 10 feet deep. It was bell-shaped, with a narrow neck and a round bottom about 10 feet in diameter. The north side of the pit was for the use of the people who inhabited that side of the earth lodge, and the south side for the South Side families. In the case of an exceptionally important public figure, the 494 household might have two cache pits. The bottom was covered with clean sand and on top of this some sticks as a sort of grating and these covered with grass. The walls were lined with thatch grass fastened in place with sticks that were shored up against it” (Weltfish [(1867) 1928- 1936] 1965:268, par. 1) [Pawnee] “The new supplies were placed in the pit in a traditional order. Before the bags were put in, the grass lining of the pit was carefully checked and also the bottom which had a layer of clean sand and some sticks laid across to keep any moisture from reaching the skin bags. At the very bottom some sacks of the mature dry corn were placed. These sacks were laid so that they pointed radially inward from the wall. The layer above this consisted of sacks of roasted green corn which were placed crosswise upon the lower layer so that they were parallel to the wall. The third layer was sacks of beans again in radial order, pointing inward from the wall. Finally, they put in the oblong rawhide containers of dried buffalo meat crosswise on the beans lying parallel to the wall. An attempt was made to set the various layers steady one upon the other so that when the woman went down into the pit she could step down from one layer to the other. On top of the material laying all around the pit in packages and sacks they piled pumpkin mats and braids of corn on the cob. Sometimes instead of piling the corn braids in this fashion, they put a stick with stubs of branches in the pit leaning against the wall and hung the corn braids on it. Also leaning against the wall were rolled-up buffalo skins that they had not yet tanned, which they planned to process just before going on the winter hunt so that they could be taken to the trade store for the groceries and other equipment they might need for the expedition. Odds and ends were put in the space that was left in the middle—pumpkin rings that had not been braided, some dried meat that wouldn’t fit into the rawhide containers, some dried intestines folded up, and perhaps some clothing they wanted to store” (Weltfish [(1867) 1928-1936] 1965:2-3) [Pawnee] “The work of arranging the pit took a group of women in a household from about ten in the morning until about three in the afternoon, with a brief recess for lunch. There was no time in the household when the women were not fully aware of their capital in provisions and goods and the rate at which they were using them” (Weltfish [(1867) 1928-1936] 1965:271, par. 1) [Mandan] “... village cache pits could extend six or more feet below ground ... Desiccated ears of corn, stacked row upon row, lined the circumference of each pit. Dried squash and loose kernels filled the middle” (Fenn [1738] 2014:88, par. 2) [Mandan] “Lodges were built close together. The spaces between were occupied with scaffolds for drying corn, beans, and meat and were honeycombed with underground, bell- shaped storage pits” (Wood and Irwin [1800s] 2001:353, par. 1) [Mandan] “Seven years after the rat’s arrival, George Catlin reported that Mandan ‘caches, where they bury their corn and other provisions, were robbed and sacked.’ The maize in 495 many of these repositories, beneath the floors of native lodges, actually supported the earth that people walked on. But now, Catlin said, ‘the very pavements under their wigwams were so vaulted and sapped, that they were actually falling to the ground’” (Fenn [1841] 2014:292, par. 3) [Mandan] “The Ruptare Mandans—one group among several that made up the Mandan people—occupied Double Ditch for nearly three hundred years. Shallow basins in the soil mark the places where they built structures for their daily life. Most of the smaller depressions we see today indicate the locations of cache pits, once the warehouses for thousands of bushels of corn” (Fenn [2002] 2014:3, par. 3) 496 [Hidatsa] Figure C.4 “Figure 13.2. A Hidatsa cache pit, redrawn from a sketch by Edward Goodbird,” from Fenn 2014:293 (Fenn [1906] 2014:293) 497 Labor [Pawnee] “Middle-aged women performed most of the household labor, including cooking and gardening, while the youngest women, either unmarried daughters or junior wives, looked after the needs of the men living in the lodge. ... In addition to hunting, young men devoted much of their time to the activities of their societies and to war expeditions, while middle-aged and older men were involved in village political and social activities that kept them away from the lodge” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:534, par. 2) [Pawnee] “The females, besides attending to the housework, generally incumbent upon their sex, are obliged to cut and carry all the fire-wood; prepare the fields for cultivation with their hoes, plant the corn, weed it, and finally, when ripe, gather it in; and take care of the horses of their lords, when not used by them” (Smith [1851] 1852:91, par. 2) [Pawnee] “The lodge was a production workshop in which, with few exceptions, everything required for use was produced, including the collection and processing of raw materials. A substantial part of this work was done by the women. The house was conceived as being divided into two duplicate halves—the north sector and the south sector—each of which carried out the essential household functions in alternation” (Weltfish [(mid-1800s) 1928-1936] 1965:14, par. 1) [Pawnee] “The functions of the women in the earth lodge were subdivided roughly according to age. The north and south quarters of the circumference of the house were each subdivided into three ‘stations.’ The central one of these (due north and due south) was the core position and it was occupied by the mature women of the lodge. They furnished the main provisions and directed the necessary work. At the inner or western station on each side was the place of the immature girls and newly married young women. The outer or eastern station on each side was for the old women, symbolically on the way out and physically nearest to the exit (or entryway) of the lodge. Most commonly each of these stations was occupied by several women who carried out its special functions jointly” (Weltfish [(mid-1800s) 1928-1936] 1965:15, par. 2) [Pawnee] “At the east stations for the old women, the children past the age of infancy were cared for, the old women being referred to by the children as ‘grandmothers,’ regardless of the actual biological kinship. The children slept in the beds with their ‘grandmothers’ and shared a bowl of food with them at meals. Grandma saw that they were warm and well fed and tried to help them in every way” (Weltfish [(mid-1800s) 1928-1936] 1965:15, par. 3) [Pawnee] “The young women and girls at the west stations did minor household tasks, but had a far more significant contribution to make to its ongoing. They were there to please and care for a capable man who would protect the people in the lodge, provide them with fresh meat by his almost daily hunting expeditions for deer, elk, or antelope, participate in the tribal buffalo hunts in the summer and winter each year so that they would all have dried buffalo meat, and 498 carry on the official interrelationships with the community outside the household, including those with the village officials” (Weltfish [(mid-1800s) 1928-1936] 1965:16, par. 1) [Pawnee] “The ground being ritually prepared, they would begin to plant. Early next morning everybody went into the fields. Men and women pulled up the weeds by hand and occasionally a man would use his axe to remove some sumach that happened to be growing there. ... With everyone cooperating, the entire planting would be done in about six days” (Weltfish [(1867) 1928-1936] 1965:102, par. 3-4) [Pawnee] “One of the only common instances of group planting was ‘planting for the daughter-in-law.’ The women relatives of the newly married groom would plant, cultivate, and harvest the bride’s first crop. As many as twenty-five women would be gathered in her field ...” (Weltfish [(1867) 1928-1936] 1965:105, par. 2) [Pawnee] “While the women were at the food pit, the men had been out piling wood in the fields and in camp so that it would be ready for roasting the green corn. They preferred to get dead willows and driftwood; Horse Rider was at the creek piling up driftwood while Victory Call was bringing the willows into the camp. Some men would say, ‘I don’t care—that’s women’s work,’ but a good man would help his wife” (Weltfish [(1867) 1928-1936] 1965:240, par. 1) [Mandan] “The Missouri River protected Huff’s northeast flank, and a dry moat surrounded the other three sides of the town. The women who dug the moat threw the dirt on the inside bank, raising it several feet” (Fenn [1450] 2014:16, par. 2) [Mandan] “Women planted corn; women cultivated corn; women harvested corn; women stored corn; women cooked corn; and women traded corn. The labor of village women thus fueled the daily life, ceremonial life, and commercial life of the plains” (Fenn [1600s-1800s] 2014:57, par. 2) [Mandan] “In a world where women had nearly exclusive rights to the tasks and ceremonies of agriculture, Nicotiana ... was planted by men, especially older men, not just among the Missouri River tribes but also among the peoples of the Eastern Woodlands. ... tobacco cultivation may have emerged separately from other forms of indigenous gardening, for unlike maize, beans, squash, and sunflowers, tobacco was not a foodstuff” (Fenn [1800s] 2014:111, par. 1) [Mandan] “Women spent days and weeks at [hide processing], stretching skins, scraping them, then tanning, smoking, beating, and rubbing them. The German traveler Rudolph Kurz believed the preparation of ‘skins and hides’ was the ‘most difficult’ of all the work performed by Indian women, and they were very good at it. One Indian woman ... ‘dresses a hide in 3 or 4 days just as well, makes the skin just as soft and durable, as our leather dressers do in 6 months’” (Fenn [1846-1852] 2014:69, par. 3) 499 [Mandan and Hidatsa] “... usually in September ... or October. ‘Men, women, and children help with the corn harvest,’ Maximilian observed. Buffalo Bird Woman said that the women spent a day harvesting the corn and piling it in a great heap for husking. The next day, they gave a ‘husking feast’ in the fields, with boiling kettles of maize and meat to draw hungry male assistants. ... With the husking completed in one family’s plot, the men moved on to the next, helping ‘faithfully each day’ until the harvest was in” (Fenn [1846-1906] 2014:71, par. 1) [Hidatsa] “Children accompanied the women to the fields. ... As a small child, [Buffalo Bird Woman] offered little assistance. ‘I liked better to watch the birds than to work,’ she said” (Fenn [1906] 2014:63, par. 3) [Hidatsa] “Between the ages of ten and twelve, girls began contributing significantly to horticultural labor. One task they undertook was defending the fields against predators. During the early part of the summer, farmer-villagers left crop protection to scarecrows ... But in August, ... the scarecrows no longer sufficed, and the girls working as ‘watchers’ had a lot to do. ‘Our corn fields had many enemies,’ Buffalo Bird Woman said, not just crows and magpies but also gophers, famished boys, and after 1740 or so, roaming horses” (Fenn [1906] 2014:69, par. 2) [Mandan] “Each village was an economic unit. It acted as a unit when leaving on the summer buffalo hunt, although there was a certain amount of co-operation among villages in the matter of protecting the old people left behind and in keeping enemy raiding parties from burning the lodges during their absence. Each village had its garden section which was separate from other village garden areas” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:23, par. 2) [Mandan] “The woman did the housework, cared for the gardens, repaired the lodge, and when on tribal hunts, did much of the butchering, while the man did the hunting, cared for the horses, and protected the village in case of attack” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:48, par. 1) Subsistence Production [Pawnee] “The Pawnee horticultural tradition relied on the cultivation of small family plots assigned to women by the village chief” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:525, par. 4) [Pawnee] “For the Pawnee, corn was their most important crop ...” (Parks [late 1700s- mid 1800s] 2001:525, par. 5) [Pawnee] “Horticultural activity began in late April or early May, when the women cleared their fields of vegetation, broke up the sod with hoes and digging sticks, and formed the soil into small hills a foot or more in diameter and one to two feet apart. They planted corn seed in the hills, and planted beans in the spaces between them, where the bean plants could use the cornstalks for support. Squash were planted in separate plots. After they had planted the fields, 500 the women generally hoed and weeded them twice before leaving on the summer hunt” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:526, par. 1) [Pawnee] “Except for a few aged and ill individuals who were unable to travel, the entire village set out on the communal hunts, traveling six to eight miles a day in columns that stretched for several miles and covering a total area of several hundred miles in any given hunting season” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:526, par. 4) [Pawnee] “The favored method of hunting was the surround, in which men on well- trained horses encircled a herd and forced the animals into a milling mass. ... When attacking the herd, Pawnee men preferred to use a bow with metal-tipped arrows rather than a gun, and they often used lances. Although buffalo was the primary game animal hunted, the Pawnee also took elk, pronghorn, deer, and bear on the hunts ...” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:526, par. 5) [Pawnee] “Although their gardens and hunts provided the Pawnee with the bulk of their diet, the wild vegetables, berries, fruits, seeds, nuts, and tubers that grew in the vicinity of their villages and along the routes of their hunting trips provided essential supplements. They made extensive use of prairie turnip (Psoralea esculenta) and groundnut (Apios americana) tubers, as well as Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus) and bigroot morning glory (Ipomoea pandurata) roots. Other favored items that grew within reach of their villages were hog-peanuts (Amphicarpaea bracteata), wild plums, chokecherries, ground plums, currants, and riverbank grapes ...” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:526, par. 7) [Pawnee] “Besides the buffalo, as their main subsistence, they raise some corn, beans, and pumpkins” (Smith [1851] 1852:89, par. 3) [Pawnee] “The team of four—Horse Rider and his wife No Corn and Victory Call and his wife White Woman—worked in the following way: Morning of the first day, White Woman and Horse Rider went out to her field and brought in eight parfleches of corn ears that they had picked. ... When they got back to camp, White Woman and No Corn immediately set to work roasting. The two men, Horse Rider and Victory Call, went back into the field and brought back two more horseloads—eight parfleches full of corn ears. In one day they had gathered in two wagonloads as stated above. In the afternoon, they kept on roasting all day. The men shucked the corn. ... They kept at it all day, and if anyone was hungry he ate some roasted corn. Sometimes one of the women stopped and made bread and coffee while the others kept right on working. ... In the evening Uncle War Cry came along and observed, ‘What are you folks doing? Oh, roasting corn!’ Then he sat down and lent a hand, husking away until he found an especially good ear that he would eat up on the way. Soon his younger brother, Brave Shield (also known as High Noon) joined the party. ... Grandma went to bed and the men sat up husking together and telling stories until quite late. Moonlight nights were particularly likely to invite such husking parties. For the next three weeks their pattern of work continued in much the 501 same way. The four would go out into the fields for the morning, come home at noon and the women set to work with the processing, the men going out again returning in the afternoon, and helping in the evening with the processing” (Weltfish [(1867) 1928-1936] 1965:243, par. 3-6; 244, par. 1-2) [Mandan] “... the women of the Missouri tilled their gardens with hoes fashioned from animal shoulder blades ...” (Fenn [1000] 2014:8, par. 2) [Mandan] “Women planted corn, beans, squash, and sunflowers in small bottomland gardens, which they supplemented by gathering wild plant foods. Each family cultivated three to five acres” (Wood and Irwin [1800s] 2001:355, par. 3) [Mandan] “All members of the village helped during the October harvest ...” (Wood and Irwin [1800s] 2001:355, par. 7) [Mandan] “The summer hunts were grand affairs. Leaving only the elderly and infirm behind, each town set out en masse for the herds. Men, women, children, and dogs all marched single-file over the prairies while the Black Mouths (members of the Mandan warrior society) scouted fore and aft for animals and enemies. Some women carried heavy bundles of tipis and supplies on their backs. Others had dogs that dragged supplies behind them on travois, simple conveyances made of two long sticks with a basket attached in between” (Fenn [1800s] 2014:66, par. 1) [Hidatsa] “[Buffalo Bird Woman] and her mothers ... cleared fields with iron axes and turned over weeds with iron hoes. But her grandmother, Turtle, ... insisted on using a fire- hardened digging stick and a hoe made from a bison shoulder blade instead of the iron tools preferred by the others” (Fenn [1906] 2014:59, par. 5) [Hidatsa] “Once the corn hills were ready—dead roots and stalks removed, soil loosened and raked—the planting began. The women moved from one hill to the next, sowing six to nine seeds in each. If she started before sunrise, Buffalo Bird Woman could plant two hundred and twenty-five hills by midmorning, when she headed home for breakfast” (Fenn [1906] 2014:62, par. 2) [Hidatsa] “There was no respite once the corn was in, since squash and beans came next, both planted in earthen hills of their own interspersed with the maize ...” (Fenn [1906] 2014:62, par. 3) [Hidatsa] “The first hoeing took place when the corn was about three inches high, a stage the Indians called ‘young-birds-feather-tail-corn.’ Again the women worked in the early mornings, tearing out weeds with their hoes. Later, ‘when the corn silk appeared,’ they turned over the soil again. This time, as they uprooted weeds, they also buttressed the corn hills so the stalks would not blow over in the wind” (Fenn [1906] 2014:63, par. 1) 502 [Mandan] “Tobacco was cultivated by the men” (Bowers [1929-1931] 1948:167, par. 2) Non-subsistence Production [Pawnee] “The manufacture of some articles was known to nearly every adult male or female, but the techniques of manufacture of other articles were specialized knowledge confined to a small number of individuals. Nearly all women, for example, knew the techniques of processing animal hides as well as making buffalo-horn spoons, while all men made bows ...” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:526, par. 8) [Pawnee] “Women manufactured pottery vessels in globular jar and bowl forms, using a paddle and anvil technique, with a stamped exterior surface that was often smoothed and polished” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:526, par. 9) [Pawnee] “Another common craft among women was the manufacture of large bulrush mats, which were finely woven and used as floor coverings in both earthlodges and tepees. Several items whose manufacture was limited to a small number of female specialists included: wooden mortars, which were made from hackberry or cottonwood logs hollowed out with live coals and set upright in the lodge floor to be used for grinding corn; ‘black ropes,’ woven from buffalo hair, which men used as belts to fasten their robes; wooden bowls, which were carved from cottonwood or oak burls, polished, and used as eating utensils; and coiled willow gambling baskets, six to eight inches in diameter and two to three inches deep, that were used in dice games ... After obtaining yarn from traders, certain Pawnee women became specialists in weaving multicolored belts worn by boys and girls of good families, as well as by young women; sometimes men also twisted them around their heads to serve as a turban, with the fringes hanging down on both sides of the face and eagle feathers inserted at the back of the head ...” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:527, par. 1) [Pawnee] “Among men the most commonly manufactured items were arms. ... Although every man ... made his own bowstrings out of sinew, only specialists manufactured arrowshafts ...” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:527, par. 2) [Pawnee] “[Pipes] ... were manufactured by specialists, who used ash for pipestems and catlinite, obtained through trade from quarries in southwestern Minnesota, for bowls ...” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:527, par. 3) [Pawnee] “Women made clothing from deer and elk skins ... In contrast to the practice of dressing buffalo hides, men, as well as women, dressed deer and elk skins, since men also used them for making saddles, bridles, stirrups, and saddle bags. Women also made moccasins ...” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:528, par. 2) 503 [Pawnee] “Grandmothers taught girls to prepare food, dress hides, and do other women’s tasks, while grandfathers instructed boys to make bows and arrows and to play games” (Parks [late 1700s-mid 1800s] 2001:534, par. 8) [Pawnee] “Most of the Pawnee crafts were highly specializes and their knowledge was confined to a limited number of people, who were reluctant to reveal their technical secrets” (Weltfish [(1867) 1928-1936] 1965:364, par. 2) [Pawnee] “The mature women did most of the craft work that pertained to the domestic economy. The men made most of the things they used in hunting, war, and ceremonials. The crafts were not taught to the young people as a normal part of their education. A young man or a young woman had to be very eager to learn and only if an older person was willing to sponsor them were they able to do so. The teacher had to receive ample payment as well as a clear indication of a very real desire to learn. ... This consisted in skin clothing or commercial cloth, blankets or shawls, and the standard food stuffs, either native or trade” (Weltfish [(1867) 1928- 1936] 1965:365, par. 1) [Pawnee] “The following is my informant’s account of the circumstances of learning the craft of making a black rope of braided buffalo hair: If a woman wanted to learn how to make a buffalo hair belt from Old Lady Lucky Leader, for example, one would go to her and put a necklace about her neck, and ask to be taught. She would certainly not consent at once. She might answer, ‘Some day I will teach you.’ This signified that if the applicant went quietly away and asked again another day, then repeated her request on subsequent occasions, she might finally give in. If she said, ‘I’ll think about it,’ this meant she might capitulate if asked again. On the other hand, if she said, ‘I can’t do it,’ this constituted an absolute refusal. There were situations in which she would feel impelled to grant the request. This was particularly the case if the woman were a close and respected relative, especially an in-law. On the other hand, she might also feel impelled to teach a woman whose family fortunes were low and who needed to earn something to help out. Such a woman was the wife of Chief’s-Road. Giving the old lady a gift she said, ‘I want you to take pity on me and teach me to make a buffalo hair belt. You know that I am poor and we can’t seem to work out anything. What I want is for you to take pity on me so that it may earn something for us. My husband can’t make much and my sister can’t do anything.’ Having consented, Old Lady Lucky Leader would say, ‘On so-and-so day I am going to make it. Come in then.’ When the wife of Chief’s-Road came in, the old lady directed her to sit down to her left and watch everything. As the work progressed she paid close attention to the manner of braiding and after some of the work had been completed, the teacher asked the pupil to try her hand at it. At first she was very clumsy and was corrected by the teacher and finally she got the idea. When she got home, she tried to do it by herself and from time to time came in to see the old lady saying she didn’t quite remember about this and this detail and asking to be shown” (Weltfish [(1867) 1928-1936] 1965:365, par. 2-4; 366, par. 1) 504 [Pawnee] “Most mature women knew the techniques of skin working with a knowledge of mat making being somewhat less common but still widely known. Everyone could make buffalo-horn spoons. The weaving of the black rope and woven belts as well as the making of wooden bowls were known to a very limited number of craftswomen. In the men’s crafts, the bow was made by everyone, but the extremely restricted number of arrowshaft makers has already been mentioned. The pipe makers were equally specialized and they made both the stem and the bowl. Next to the bow and arrow, the pipe was one of the most significant things the man needed. Only six or seven men among all the Skidi could make them. Skin shirts could only be worn by men who had an outstanding social or military status and these were made by a very limited number of specialists. These specialists were regarded like the village blacksmith of our early towns. They tried to have two or three of them in each village. But even the most common craft techniques could only be learned by a person who was sponsored by someone or had the wherewithal to pay for his instruction” (Weltfish [(1867) 1928-1936] 1965:366, par. 3) [Pawnee] “There is some question whether it was the men or the women who dressed the deer and elkskins. Theoretically they both knew how, but the only accounts of the process I have seen or been able to collect refer to the work of the men” (Weltfish [(1867) 1928-1936] 1965:372, par. 3) [Pawnee] “The men made their own saddles and horse trappings, some of deer and some of buffalo hide. All men made these for themselves and dressed the deer hides, even Eagle Chief himself. But buffalo hide was gotten from the women” (Weltfish [(1867) 1928-1936] 1965:373, par. 1) [Pawnee] “The basic clothing was cut out and sewn with an awl and sinew by the women” (Weltfish [(1867) 1928-1936] 1965:373, par. 2) [Pawnee] “Women were the main manufacturers of objects made of wood. Not only did they gather the fuel and the building materials, but they also made all the objects of general utility in the household. The men were directly concerned only with those things that were for their own immediate use—their weapons and their ceremonial objects” (Weltfish [(1867) 1928- 1936] 1965:382, par. 1) [Pawnee] “The men made the bows, arrowshafts, pipestems, and cottonwood water drums” (Weltfish [(1867) 1928-1936] 1965:389, par. 1) [Pawnee] “Mat weaving was a household craft and the work would not ordinarily be contracted for outside, unless a woman were learning for the first time. Then she would call in an old woman and pay her to demonstrate the technique. During the demonstration, the young woman would try her hand at it from time to time. The finished mat would be hers. The teacher would receive four or five yards of calico and a layer of dried buffalo meat, or a sack of corn (about a foot high) and half a braided intestine mat” (Weltfish [(1867) 1928-1936] 1965:406, par. 3) 505 [Mandan] “Men manufactured bows from elm or ash, and sometimes from horn or bone with sinew backing and a twisted sinew string” (Wood and Irwin [1800s] 2001:354, par. 1) [Mandan] “Women manufactured earthenware pottery in great quantities and many shapes and sizes” (Wood and Irwin [1800s] 2001:354, par. 2) [Mandan] “Children were socialized according to gender. Females were instructed primarily by the elder women of the lodge in horticultural and household skills, curing of meat and hides, food preparation, and the making of clothing. Some women specialized in the making of pottery and in lodge construction. Males were instructed by their fathers and other elder men of the lodge in hunting, fishing, warrior skills, manufacturing of weapons and ceremonial articles, and tobacco planting. Males might learn special skills such as singing, painting, or storytelling. Skills learned from parents or relatives were purchased through gift-giving. Preadolescent males and females were encouraged to join age-societies where they contributed their labor to society projects and established new father-son and mother-daughter relationships ...” (Wood and Irwin [1800s] 2001:361, par. 2) [Mandan] “Bowers noted that elders expected children to offer some token—perhaps ‘a small colored bead or a few kernels of corn’—in exchange for instruction” (Fenn [1929-1931] 2014:105, par. 4) [Mandan] “A girl was trained in lodge management, household arts, gardening, curing of meat, and certain ritualistic practices, receiving her instruction primarily from the women of the lodge. A boy was taught hunting and fishing and went out while still a boy to help bring meat back to the village. Economic training came largely from his father and the older men of the lodge” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:60, par. 4) [Mandan] “A lodge ‘grandfather’ contributed a great deal to a boy’s education. He would make toy bows and arrows and teach him to use them. If he had a fish trap, his grandsons did much of the work of carrying willows to the bank for weaving into sections for the walls, and he would permit them to bail the fish out of the trap. He would teach them games, especially techniques and skills which would be useful in warfare, and tell them stories. Using rivalry between the moieties, these old men who were too old to hunt would arrange the boys ten years and younger on sides and teach them to use shields for their protection, shooting at each other with arrows on the blunt ends of which a ball of mud or wrapped hide had been attached” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:61, par. 2) [Mandan] “Not to be discounted in the training of a young Mandan boy or girl was the informal education they received by living in intimate contact with the entire village population, observing the conduct of others, and being kept informed of contemplated group action by the village ‘criers’ who announced each decision of the village leaders” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:61, par. 3) 506 [Mandan] “A girl’s education was essentially the same as a boy’s except that a different set of relatives instructed her for a different set of economic pursuits. The women of the lodge were responsible for her training. They gave her toys, related stories and traditions, and taught her to care for her younger siblings. Her mother taught her to harness the dogs and took her to the forest for firewood. ... When the women of the lodge dressed hides, the daughter would help, and she had her own sewing kit containing awls, sinew thread, paints, beads, and porcupine quills, and she was taught the techniques of hide dressing and decoration, giving those who helped her little presents to express her affection. As a little girl, she made crude pots when the women of the lodge were making pottery, and, when old enough, she bought her mother’s rights in the techniques and designs of pottery-making” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:61, par. 4) [Mandan] “Payment for training was so highly developed in Mandan society that a young woman assisting her mother in the making of clay pots would prepare a simple feast to which the females of the household were invited in order to receive the right to assist in the making of pots and to make vessels of her own after her mother had died. Within the family group the payments were usually insignificant so far as the value of the goods was concerned. ... The mother would explain each step in pottery-making, the selection of the clay and grit, the molding of the mass, the introduction of decorations, and the drying and baking of the vessels. Mandan vessels had a variety of decorations, and the person buying the right to make pottery acquired only the right to employ such decorations as the mother had a right to use. If she wished to utilize other decorations, she was obliged to seek another woman entitled to make the particular decoration and buy the right of her” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:91, par. 3) [Mandan] “According to tradition, only those who had purchased the right made arrows. Arrowmaking techniques were taught by certain bundle-owners” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:282, par. 4) [Mandan] “... pottery-making was also a secret art, and the women bought the rights and knowledge in the techniques of their mothers or clanswomen, using only such designs as they were instructed to make” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:283, par. 1) Consumption [Pawnee] “There were two main meals a day, for example, the one being provided by the north side, the other by the south side, both serving all. In operation this meant that the woman who cooked the meal had raised all the vegetables in her own gardens, had dried and preserved them and kept them in her storage pit, and that all the meat she served was dried and packed by her on the buffalo hunt, carried back to the village (formerly on her back or by the dogs she raised), and also stored in the pit. In the past, the clay pot she cooked in would have been made by her (now a brass kettle from the trade store), and she was still making the large buffalo-horn ladle with which she served, the wooden mortar and pestle in which the mush was pounded, and for her ‘side’ alone the wooden bowls and buffalo-horn spoons in which the food was served, the 507 rush mats on which the people sat, and all the clothing they wore. Every day, morning or evening, she would serve twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty people a meal” (Weltfish [(mid-1800s) 1928-1936] 1965:14, par. 1) [Pawnee] “There was no prearranged schedule at all as to which side would take the morning, which the evening meal. This was determined on each individual occasion by the inclinations of the principals most directly involved” (Weltfish [(mid-1800s) 1928-1936] 1965:14, par. 2) [Pawnee] “White Woman removed the bucket of corn from the fire and put eleven bowls around it to serve the family. The grandmother-grandchild pairs each got a bowl together and everyone else got a bowl for himself. ... The order in which the members of the household sat at their meal was pretty much in the position of their beds” (Weltfish [(1867) 1928-1936] 1965:66, par. 3-4) [Pawnee] “After he had made his first kill, his kinsman came crossing his path saying, ‘You out hunting?’ Victory Call remarked, ‘That’s good, I did want company to help me butcher.’ They butchered the deer together and the kinsman got approximately half. They divided the spoils in the following order: Victory Call got the hide, the meat along the backbone, head and two ‘quarters’ (a quarter was an arm, leg, or flank). The kinsman got three quarters and the entrails which, whether he received them or not, it would have been his task to clean” (Weltfish [(1867) 1928-1936] 1965:76, par. 3) [Pawnee] “If Victory Call and his kinsman had the good fortune to track down another deer and Victory Call killed it, he would assign the major portion to his helper. Legally, the entire kill belonged to Victory Call and the division was entirely at his discretion. Sometimes he would be planning to have leggings made out of the skins and then he would apologize and say, ‘Excuse me. I can’t give you the hide.’ His helper would reply, ‘That’s all right. I just came around to help you. You gave me meat anyway’” (Weltfish [(1867) 1928-1936] 1965:77, par. 1) [Pawnee] “The informant said that stealing was actually unnecessary, as a poor woman could easily get some corn by appealing to her neighbor directly, saying, ‘I want you to take pity on me and give me some corn’” (Weltfish [(1867) 1928-1936] 1965:103, par. 3) [Pawnee] “The butchering completed, there was a pile of meat; it remained to portion it out among them. The initiative in this distribution belonged entirely to the man who had actually killed the [buffalo]. Legally the animal belonged to him. However, it was the custom to give half of the meat to any who had been present at the kill and helped with the butchering. A generous man—in Pawnee terms, ‘a good man’—would give something to a person who arrived after the killing but helped with the butchering. Late arrivals could expect no such courtesy. The rule also held in this case. The bison was readily divided in two, including the skin, with two doing the butchering. If three had butchered, ‘the nonkillers’ would have had to divide the half between them” (Weltfish [(1867) 1928-1936] 1965:185, par. 2) 508 [Pawnee] “... everyone that had gone on the hunt got some meat. In their turn the hunters shared it so that every tent had some” (Weltfish [(1867) 1928-1936] 1965:199, par. 3) [Pawnee] “Everyone arranged themselves on the mat—White Woman at the south end, Victory Call next to her, War Cry next to him, Horse Rider next, No Corn who was doing the cooking and serving, and on the northernmost end of the line Grandma and then Otter. The dishes of food were passed first to Victory Call, then War Cry and then Horse Rider, and now the boy Otter was given a dish to carry to his mother at the south end. ... Dishes were next passed by No Corn to Grandma and through her to Otter, and then they all began to eat” (Weltfish [(1867) 1928-1936] 1965:264, par. 2) [Pawnee] [winter hunt campsite] “At meals, White Woman sat due south and did the cooking and serving, while Victory Call occupied the southwest position on her left and little Otter, the southeast position on her right. On the north side, the northwest position was vacant, leaving room for piling kettles, mortars, and other things—Horse Rider sitting in the due north position and No Corn at the northeast position. They sat close enough around the fire to simply pass the food around at mealtimes” (Weltfish [(1867) 1928-1936] 1965:427, par. 5) [Skidi Pawnee] “Men and women sat apart at mealtimes, the former being together in the west of the lodge and the women sitting east of the fireplace. Any food out of the ordinary, such as melons in season, was given to the men first. As a rule the children ate by themselves near the women and had to be content with what remained after their parents had finished. Where several families occupied a single lodge, each family in turn cooked for the others in the lodge. [The separation of the sexes at mealtimes is not entirely clear. The manuscript also contains the following statement: ‘The food was prepared in large quantities and divided among the families, each receiving a wooden bowl, and each member of the family eating from this bowl by means of an individual sheepshorn spoon’]” (Dorsey and Murie (and Spoehr) [1903-1907] 1940:79, par. 4) [Mandan] “Meat was shared equally among all families, and quarrels over its division were unknown” (Wood and Irwin [1800s] 2001:356, par. 2) [Mandan] “The men butchered the [bison] —a bull might weigh a ton or more—and hauled the meat to camp, where women preserved it for long-term use. ... The work was labor- intensive, and everyone pitched in without concern for individual or family possession of a given carcass” (Fenn [1800s] 2014:67, par. 1-2) [Mandan] “Successful Indian hunters ... shared their meat. ‘If an Indian has shot some game, he usually shares it with others,’ Prince Maximilian wrote of the Mandans. Lewis and Clark observed and benefited from the same practice. George Catlin believed no system in the ‘civilized world’ could ‘properly be called more humane and charitable’” (Fenn [1800s] 2014:311, par. 1) 509 [Hidatsa] “Buffalo Bird Woman recalled her grandmother making a little ‘booth’ out of ‘willows thrust in the ground in a circle, with leafy tops bent over and tied together.’ A fire burned inside, where food simmered to fuel the day’s labor” (Fenn [1906] 2014:63, par. 3) [Mandan] “The woman was expected to prepare food for ceremonies in which the husband was participating ... “ (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:48, par. 1) [Mandan] “A man was considered to have reached maturity when, several years after his first marriage, he had assumed most of the responsibility of providing meat for the household ...” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:84, par. 1) [Mandan] [summer buffalo hunt] “The men butchered the animals and brought the meat to the camp, while the women cut it into strips and dried it on scaffolds. All were expected to get equal amounts, and a woman could go to the pile brought in by anyone if her husband was slow in returning with his meat. ... Everyone was expected to work curing the meat, men and women alike. ... Crows Heart had been on a number of summer hunts and said that he never made a special effort to help his lodge group. As soon as he unloaded his meat, it was taken by anyone who was ready to cure it. Scattercorn said that one did not ask permission to take a hunter’s meat and that one was more likely to be criticized for not working hard enough than for appearing selfish. All my informants were in agreement that quarrels over division of the meat and hides were unknown” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:89, par. 3) [Mandan] [summer buffalo hunt] “The leader and the leader of the hunters were entitled to the tongues, but these were shared with others having the buffalo as a god, while some tongues were given to old people” (Bowers [1930-1931] 1950:90, par. 1) 510 APPENDIX D: Southwestern Area [Navajo] 511 Data - (4) Navajo [Southwestern Area] Community “The Navajo population in 1864 was probably somewhere between 16,000 and 20,000. By 1945 it had increased to about 55,000, and in 1988 it was estimated at about 200,000” (Adams 2004:par. 3) “... there were about forty thousand Navaho occupying roughly twenty-two thousand square miles of land in northeastern Arizona and northwestern New Mexico” (Collier [1938- 1939] 1966:6, par. 1) “The present-day Navajo Nation is a society within a society, an ethnic minority of more than 130 thousand American Indians, most of whom live in and around the eighteen-million-acre Navajo Reservation in northern Arizona and New Mexico” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:3, par. 1) “The most important formal unit which holds the family groups together and unites them for emergencies is the matrilineal, exogamous clan. Reports vary as to the total number of clans but there are probably not more than sixty. Although the clans are scattered to some extent over the entire reservation there is also considerable clan localization. In any one region there are a few clans that predominate and others that have only a small membership” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:9, par. 3) “This network of clans may be the vital factor in holding together a group as numerous as the Navaho who have no formal political organization on the tribal level. Towards distant clan relatives in far parts of the reservation a Navaho’s ties are more tenuous than toward nearby clan relatives. But there is, despite distance, a strong reciprocal feeling based on sentiment if not action. The strength of this bond is demonstrated and reinforced by the extension of kinship terms to all clan and clan-group relatives” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:79, par. 3) “During the 1920s oil was discovered on the reservation, and the creation of a Tribal Council to sign leases brought the beginning of tribal government modeled after Anglo- American institutions ... The BIA-sponsored stock reduction program of the 1930s forced an unwelcome transformation of the Navajo economy. With the imposition of grazing areas and the limitation placed on size of flocks, it was no longer possible to maintain a subsistence economy based on herds and fields. Since World War II, change has accelerated so that the economy has become a mixed one. The traditional pursuits of sheepherding, agriculture, and production of native crafts have declined, while income from welfare payments and from sporadic employment (for example, railroad maintenance and migrant farm labor) has increased. A substantial number of Navajo have moved to urban areas or have taken wage jobs in some of the small government and trading centers, which are expanding rapidly on the reservation. As a consequence of the Navajo-Hopi Rehabilitation Act (passed by Congress in 1950), the Navajo have access to Public 512 Health Service hospital care, their children are educated at county day schools or BIA boarding schools, and roads have been vastly improved. The reservation has become dominated by institutions from Anglo-American society: hospitals, schools, trading posts, and, more recently, factories and shopping centers, which the Navajo do not control” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:3, par. 2) “... most Navajos continue to live on or near the reservation in extended family hoghan clusters which have been arranged in a dispersed settlement pattern. Within a local area, families tend to use the same school and trading facilities. Because of the growth of the modern local- government system of ‘chapters,’ these areas are becoming ‘communities,’ increasing the interaction and cooperation between unrelated families” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:4, par. 2) “Since World War II, the impact of Anglo-American institutions on the Navajo has accelerated changes already taking place during the earlier periods of contact. Some of the most important changes follow. 1. A decline in the traditional economy and an increase in income from welfare and wages has occurred. 2. With increased medical facilities, the death and infant mortality rates have declined, and these rates, though still higher than for most groups in the United States ... are still low enough to allow for substantial population growth. The population has increased to over 130 thousand, while the land base of the reservation has remained the same. 3. As education has increased, many younger Navajos have been encouraged (through various government programs) to migrate to urban centers throughout the West and to border towns near the reservation or agency communities on the reservation. These young people often return to their home communities after several years, but increasing numbers are remaining away from their kin, except for sporadic visits. 4. American technology has brought the use of transistor radios, and, in homes which have access to electricity, there are television sets, refrigerators, and even electric frying pans. The biggest changes have come with the use of the pickup truck and car as the major means of transportation. Motor vehicles have increased the mobility of the Navajo, giving them more access to off-reservation shopping centers and hospitals and facilitating travel to distant residence groups for the exchange of goods and service or to attend ceremonies, peyote meetings, or funerals” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:8, par. 3-4; 9, par. 1-3) “With the dispersed settlement pattern, most activities and decision making take place in domestic groups (i.e., the household and residence group)” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:31, par. 2) “... the gradual move toward more cattle and less sheep may mean an expanded move toward a cash economy, the breakdown of the residence group as the fundamental unit of social organization, and the greater importance of men in social and economic organization” (Witherspoon 1983:530, par. 1) 513 “There was no ranking in traditional Navajo society; social obligations were determined entirely by kinship and residence. Both men and women had fairly specific, lifelong obligations toward the family into which they were born as well as toward the family into which they were married. ... The status of women was notably high” (Adams 2004:par. 19) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Since there have been no occasions for this group to act as a unit or to split into definite factions, leadership for the group as a whole is at a minimum. On occasions such as planting when all the men work together and at harvesting when groups of brothers or neighbors cooperate, no one person habitually sets the time or the pace. A different man may do so each year” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:37, par. 2) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Informants when questioned, insisted that ‘No one is running things’” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:128, par. 3) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Navajo Mountain traditionally had no superordinate authority, no government in the sense of a state apparatus, no formal courts, no police force, no jail, no sanction of banishment, no insane asylum” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:150, par. 2) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Traditional Navajo society, which had no formal units of government, never developed strong authoritarian characteristics. The locus of the traditional authority system was in the kin groups, which once exercised all decision-making power. Nuclear families or households, extended families or camps, and lineages variously direct the technology, marriage choices, child-raising, ceremonial organization, and much of the informal ‘legal’ activity” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:156, par. 2) [Klagetoh Navajo] “... the attitudes among the groups at Klagetoh and to some extent even the positions of their hogans and fields have been altered by factors outside native Navaho life. The improvement of the spring by the government has held in check attitudes which might have arisen from the use of the water based on native patterns. The building of the dam with the consequent removal of some farms and the surveying of new land and establishment of new farm sites has meant the displacement of original patterns of ownership and inheritance. The establishment of a Soil Conservation Service Demonstration Area and of a day school have caused movement that would not otherwise have taken place. The various groups at Klagetoh have accommodated themselves to these changes without any permanent difficulty” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:63, par. 2) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “The major changes in settlement pattern since 1938 are due to an increase in population from four hundred or five hundred to the 1966 population of one thousand (750 resident and 250 nonresident individuals)” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:22, par. 3) 514 [Copper Canyon Navajo] “Despite the changes that have taken place in the last three decades in Copper Canyon, residents are still traditional in many ways. Navajo is the main language of every household; pastoral and agricultural activities are still important; and Navajo religion, along with belief in ghosts and witches, flourishes. Kinship continues to play a crucial role in the organization of daily tasks even in the midst of material modernity ...” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:32, par. 1) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “... Navajo authority is egalitarian” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:41, par. 2) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “There is no clear, distinct community at Rough Rock. ... Although there were some local leaders or headmen, the area or domain of their leadership was not clearly defined or carefully bounded. In this century, Navajo communities, as local groups of people with common interests, have arisen around trading posts, schools, churches, and chapters. In most cases, the chapter is the strongest force for local community integration. The chapter is the local unit of tribal government, and it is usually the only community institution controlled by the people themselves” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:69, par. 1) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “... the traditional subsistence residential units are continuing to function much the way they have for a long time. At least half of the younger people, however, are not living in these units but are supporting themselves in other ways. But the traditional sheep camps are still functional for many people. Thus, the new economic and residence patterns are not destroying the old patterns; they are just supplementing them” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:78, par. 1) Village “... a semisedentary people ...” (Brugge [1582-1629] 1983:491, par. 1) “They are neither completely sedentary farmers nor nomadic herders, and must to some extent live near their farms and also be free to move about with their sheep according to the season and the pasture” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:7, par. 2) “... the Navajo live in a dispersed settlement pattern consisting of clusters of dwellings— eight-sided hoghans or cabins—that are scattered over an area” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:14, par. 3) “Unlike other agricultural peoples of the Southwest, the Navajo have never been town dwellers. ... Since their pacification in the 1860s, the Navajo have lived in extended-family encampments, usually numbering from two to four individual households, that are scattered over the length and breadth of the vast Navajo Reservation. Many extended families maintain two residential encampments a few miles apart. The summer camps are located close to maize fields 515 and therefore are concentrated to some extent in the more arable parts of the reservation; the winter camps are more scattered and are located primarily for easy access to wood and water” (Adams 2004:par. 7) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “The present population of Navajo Mountain is a hundred and thirty-five individuals. This includes twenty-two men and twenty-seven women all of whom are or have been married, and eighty-six children” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:21, par. 1) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “The some 600 people of this sheep-herding and subsistence- farming community live in residence groups scattered around the 440,000 acres (about 688 square miles) that make up the total area” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:10, par. 4) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “The population of the community numbers 581 individuals, that is, 116 men, 126 women, and 339 children (154 boys, 185 girls) under the age of eighteen. This count includes all Indians, Navajo and Paiute, maintaining residence at Navajo Mountain during 1960 and 1961. Paiute residents number 18—5 men, 5 women, and 8 children. Population density of the area is 0.84 persons per square mile as compared to 1.6 for the Western Navajo region and 3.2 for the Reservation as a whole” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:13, par. 1) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Navajo Mountain settlement follows the traditional pattern of widely scattered residence groups, each such group occupying a camp made up of a hogan, or a cluster of hogans, and assorted outbuildings. There are 46 such camps, each having 1 to 8 hogans for a total of 112 households. ... Some camps may be no more than half a mile from the nearest neighboring residence group, whereas others may be separated by several miles” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:15, par. 1) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “There are 46 camps at Navajo Mountain, varying in size from one household to eight” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:47, par. 2) [Klagetoh Navajo] “Of the two hundred and twenty-seven Navajo living at Klagetoh and involved in this study, one hundred and seventy-three were either born there or moved in by 1925; nine have moved in since 1925; forty-two married in; three married out but moved back; and twelve others married out within the last thirty years” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:51, par. 4) 516 [Copper Canyon Navajo] Figure D.1 “Map 1.1 Copper Canyon winter residences and chapter membership” and “Map 1.2 Copper Canyon summer residences,” from Lamphere 1977:16-17 (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:16-17) 517 [Copper Canyon Navajo] “As a consequence of population expansion, dwellings of adult offspring have been built in the same area as their parents, increasing the hoghan density near the trading post and in other areas” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:23, par. 1) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “Navajo do not live in villages, and have not organized themselves into local communities until rather recently” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:69, par. 1) Descent and Residence “The Navajo clans are not only exogamic but they are markedly local” (Reichard [1923- 1925] 1928:20, par. 1) “The Navajo family is unilateral counting descent in the mother’s line” (Reichard [1923- 1925] 1928:51, par. 2) “When a girl marries, the mother has a hogan or shade—according to the time of year— built somewhere near her own for the daughter and her family. ... although the husband is not permitted to speak to his mother-in-law and avoids coming into her presence, nevertheless, the daughter and her children spend most of their time at grandma’s” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:51, par. 3) “... Navajo residence is matrilocal ...” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:61, par. 2) “It has previously been remarked that residence is matrilocal. A woman usually keeps her daughters and grandchildren around her until her death. If it should happen that she shooses to live at one of the abodes more distant from where her children desire to live one of her grandchildren or a great grandchild will be left with her for company. When the mother is staying at one of her more permanent homes it is not unusual to see many people gathered about the place. These people include her daughters and their children, her unmarried sons who live with her, as well as her married sons who may come for long visits” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:69, par. 3) “While theoretically matrilocal residence is the rule there are exceptions due to circumstances or to preference ...” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:70, par. 1) “In some cases residence is temporary. For example, Policeman ... lived at his mother’s place at least in the summer. At Pueblo Bonito dınetsosi lives in the Chaco Canyon in summer and at his wife’s home in winter. He is obliged to live on his land some of the time because it is a government allotment” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:70, par. 3) “Hastin Jake asserts that a Navajo lives wherever he or his wife prefers” (Reichard [1923- 1925] 1928:70, par. 4) 518 “The reason given for matrilocal residence is that a man must work for his wife’s parents” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:70, par. 5) “Economic necessity due to working for white men or to change of occupation causes the custom of matrilocal residence to break down or to appear to break down at some seasons of the year” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:70, par. 8) “The existence of predominantly matrilocal residence” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:9, par. 3) “... Navajos have matrilineal clans, perhaps forty or fifty, grouped in some eight or nine phratries or clan groups. The clans are exogamic, dispersed, and unorganized” (Aberle 1981:2, par. 1) “The matrilineal clans of the Navajo are based on the mother-child bond, and the child becomes a member of his mother’s clan. Because the clans are exogamous, the child’s father must necessarily be of a different clan than the mother” (Witherspoon 1983:524, par. 2) “All residence rights are ultimately derived from a head mother. The husband of the head mother resides in the unit on the basis of his marriage; the spouses of the children reside in the unit by virtue of their marriages; the head mother’s paternal grandchildren reside in the unit by their right to reside with their mother, by their mother’s right to reside with her husband, and by her husband’s right to reside with his mother” (Witherspoon 1983:526, par. 1) “When divorce occurs residence rights by virtue of marriage are lost. Thus when a couple living with the wife’s mother’s unit is divorced, the husband must leave while the wife and children remain. When a couple living with the husband’s mother’s unit is divorced, the husband remains and the wife and children must leave” (Witherspoon 1983:526, par. 2) “If the husband dies when the couple is living at his mother’s unit, the wife is expected to remarry within the unit or return to her natal unit. However, sometimes she may remain as long as she does not remarry outside the unit. If the wife dies when a couple is living at her mother’s unit, the husband must eventually either remarry into the unit or return to his natal unit. The children will remain in the unit, raised either by their maternal grandmother or one of their deceased mother’s sisters” (Witherspoon 1983:526, par. 3) “When a young couple marry ..., they can live at either spouse’s natal unit. There is a preference and an expectation that they will live at the wife’s mother’s unit, but if circumstances so dictate they may live at the husband’s mother’s unit. Examples of such circumstances would be that the wife’s natal unit was overcrowded or the husband’s natal unit was in need of assistance” (Witherspoon 1983:526, par. 4) “The initial choice of residence of the married couple does not cause them to forfeit their rights to live at the unit that they did not choose. Some couples switch their residence back and 519 forth between the wife’s and husband’s natal units several times before finally settling at one place or the other. This switching back and forth may continue as long as the mothers of both spouses are alive” (Witherspoon 1983:526, par. 5) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “The Navajo Mountain group contains two dominant matrilineal lineages ..., which are linked at various points by intermarriage, and two small lineages linked to the first two through intermarriage. The presence of the latter came about as the result of patrilocal marriages, which total forty-six per cent of marriages recorded at Navajo Mountain” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:68, par. 1) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Thirty-nine (34.5%) of the households are matrilocal; seventeen (15%) are neolocal; sixteen (14.1%) are patrilocal; fifteen (13.3%) are consanguineolocal” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:47, par. 1) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Seventeen (37%) of the camps are neolocal; thirteen (28.3%) are matrilocal; eight (17.4%) are mixed; six (13%) are bilocal; two (4.3%) are patrilocal” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:47, par. 2) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Matrilocal households outnumber any other type, but neolocal camps are the most frequent. Customarily, a newly wed couple does not establish a neolocal camp except in the case of wage workers, who are few in number in this locality” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:47, par. 3) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “It should be noted that in 16 camps, those that are typed as patrilocal, bilocal, or mixed, children are being brought up with paternal instead of, or in addition to, maternal kinsmen” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:47, par. 4) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Navajo clans are exogamic, named, matrilineal, and dispersed. They are not corporate groups; they own no property or rituals and they never function as units. Clan membership, ascribed by birth, serves to regulate marriage and to provide a widespread network for hospitality. A Navajo takes his mother’s clan and is spoken of as ‘born for’ his father’s clan, which serves to acknowledge patrilineal as well as matrilineal relationship” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:52, par. 2) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “... if and when the couple is living matrilocally. ... the son- in-law will be expected to do part of the work around the camp under the leadership of his father- in-law, or whatever relative of the girl is acknowledged as head man of the camp, for as long as he continues to be a member of that camp and shares in the economic resources common to all. If the marriage is a lasting one, the newcomer may look forward to eventually succeeding to the position of head man, or of establishing his own neolocal camp on land to which his bride’s matrilineage has a use-right claim. If circumstances dictate that the couple live patrilocally, then the daughter-in-law assumes obligation to take part in the general woman’s work around the 520 camp, under the supervision of her mother-in-law” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:173, par. 2) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “After the wedding the couple takes up residence in, preferably, the extended family of the bride’s parents. But like all preferred patterns in Navajo society, residence arrangements will vary with circumstances” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:175, par. 2) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “The couple initially lived in the camp of the husband’s parents, but are now residing with the wife’s mother, where the young man’s labor and cooperation are needed” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:177, par. 5) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “In one of the sororal polygyny sets, the joint husband lives neolocally with one wife while the younger woman continues to live in the camp where she was raised. The man and his grown sons by the older wife perform services for the second family, hauling wood and water, moving the family to a summer camp, and driving them to the trading post. He does not, however, furnish economic support; part of this comes from her mother’s sheep and the balance from Aid to Dependent Children” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960- 1966] 1970:182, par. 2) [Klagetoh Navajo] “There are nineteen cases of matrilocal marriage and eight cases of patrilocal marriage” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:51, par. 4) [Klagetoh Navajo] “One third of the Klagetoh cooperating-groups are composed of a single matrilineal lineage, slightly more than a third are composed of a dominant matrilineal lineage interrelated through marriage with one or more numercially small matrilineal lineages, and the remainder are composed of several lineages of about equal size interrelated through marriage. In every case the presence of more than one matrilineal lineage in a cooperating-group has resulted from cases of patrilocal residence, which constituted thirty per cent of marriages recorded at Klagetoh” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:68, par. 1) [Ramah Navajo] “Descent is matrilineal. ... Each Navaho belongs to the clan of the mother and is ‘born for’ the clan of the father. ... There are sentimental linkages and some economic reciprocities between all clansmen. These apply—but in attenuated form—to the group of two to five clans that are ‘linked’ to one’s own” (Kluckhohn [1949-1955] 1966:358, par. 1-2) [Ramah Navajo] “Men ordinarily move away from Ramah on their marriage to a woman elsewhere. Since 1890, 26 Ramah men have married out ... Five of these marriages are more correctly described as bilocal because the family spent at least a few months a year in the Ramah area. Fourteen of the men returned to Ramah on the dissolution of their marriages elsewhere. Conversely, only five women moved away from Ramah upon marriage ... Of these, three returned to Ramah. Since 1890, 39 men from outside have married into Ramah ... Of these, 18 521 returned to their former homes on the dissolution of their Ramah marriages. Eleven women ... settled in Ramah on marriage to men there, through one of these marriages could be called bilocal. It is notable that, in contrast to the figures for the men, only one of these women subsequently moved out of Ramah and she left with her husband and family” (Kluckhohn [1949- 1955] 1966:360, par. 2-3) [Ramah Navajo] “In 97 cases, residence was uxorilocal in 47, virilocal in 33, bilocal in 6, neolocal in 8, and could be classified only arbitrarily in 3” (Kluckhohn [1949-1955] 1966:366, par. 1) [Ramah Navajo] “... the greater the influence of European culture the greater the probability that residence will be virilocal or neolocal ... there is still—even among younger people—a feeling that uxorilocal residence ‘ought’ to be preferred but a growing conviction that the newly married couple can properly choose their place of residence in accord with all the circumstances bearing upon their particular case” (Kluckhohn [1949-1955] 1966:368, par. 4) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “In the first phase of the cycle, a newly married young couple resides with either the husband’s or wife’s relatives and establishes a household within the parental camp. Navajos usually agree that a young couple should live with the wife’s mother (uxorilocally). There are circumstances, however, under which this is neither possible nor desirable. Virilocality results when the wife has no mother with whom to live, when a young husband cannot get along with his in-laws, or when a job or requests of a man’s parents (for help in herding or farming) make it desirable for him to stay with them. Very often a son and his wife will stay with his widowed mother, especially when there is no daughter and son-in-law to give aid. ... A couple may share the same hoghan as the parents, but soon a new dwelling is constructed, and independent cooking and eating arrangements are maintained. One or more brothers or sisters may marry and live in the same camp in separate dwellings. The second phase involves the fission of the residence group. One or more of the younger couples move off to found new camps as couples become economically self-sufficient. The new residences are usually located within a few miles of the parent camp and often within its previous grazing territory. During this period, one or both parents may die, and one or two of the children with their families may remain at the parent camp area to retain control of the land and other resources. While the Navajo often abandon or destroy dwellings after the death of inhabitants, they usually do not abandon the area the family controls for grazing. New units produced by the moving off of middle-aged couples and their children are camps reduced to their smallest proportions: the nuclear family household. In the third period of the cycle, new camps are expanded as children marry and form new households” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:77, par. 2- 5) 522 [Copper Canyon Navajo] Table D.1 “Table 4.2 Residence of Copper Canyon Couples, 1966,” from Lamphere 1977:78 (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:78) [Copper Canyon Navajo and Rimrock Navajo] “... young Rimrock couples are more likely to live in their parents’ residence group, while Copper Canyon couples are just as likely to move out of the community as to establish a household uxorilocally or virilocally” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:79, par. 4) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “Uxorilocal residence, in combination with some virilocal and independent choices, has produced both homogeneous neighborhoods dominated by one sibling group and heterogeneous neighborhoods containing segments of several sibling groups or several unrelated couples and their married children” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:104, par. 3) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “The first rule of residence gives every Navajo the right to live with his mother ... The second rule of residence in Navajo social organization is that a husband had the right to live with his wife, and a wife has the right to live with her husband. So if a husband wishes to live with his mother, he may do so and bring his wife with him. Likewise, a wife may live with her mother and bring her husband with her” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:72, par. 1) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “Nearly everywhere matrilocal residence has been found to be more common than patrilocal residence, but some patrilocal residence has been found in every area of the Navajo reservation” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:74, par. 1) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “Navajo residence rules are based on the primary relationships of kinship and affinity. These two relationships are the mother-child and the 523 husband-wife relationships, respectively. A Navajo may live wherever his or her mother has the right to live. A mother has the right to live wherever her mother lived. In addition, a Navajo may live wherever his or her spouse has the right to live. Residence rules are therefore based on the mother-child and husband-wife relationships, and residence rights are acquired from one’s mother and one’s spouse” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:74, par. 3) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “When divorce occurs between a couple living matrilocally, the husband returns to his mother’s unit, and the wife and children remain. The same is true in the leadership generation, although divorce is uncommon at the leadership level. If the husband dies, the wife and children remain in the unit with no change in residence. ... The same is true for the leadership generation ... When the wife dies, the husband is either expected to remarry into the unit or to leave. If he remarries into the unit, his children will normally stay with him in his household and be cared for by his new wife. If he leaves, the children will be expected to stay, and will be raised by their maternal grandmother or by their mother’s sister. ... In the leadership generation, the husband will be permitted, even expected, to stay without remarrying” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:75, par. 3-5) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “When divorce occurs in patrilocal residence, the wife and the children return to her mother’s unit. The husband of course remains with his mother. ... If the husband dies, the wife is expected either to remarry into the unit or to return with her children to her mother’s unit. She can also remarry elsewhere and take her children with her. In the leadership generation, the wife will remain without remarrying into the unit, because she will likely be the head of the unit. Upon the death of the wife, the children will most likely remain with the husband in his unit. They will likely be raised by their paternal grandmother, whom they will then call mother” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:75, par. 6-76, par. 2) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “Exceptions to these rules and patterns do occur in rare cases because of either necessity or demand. Where exceptions do occur, they must be approved and accepted by all concerned, particularly by the head mothers of the units involved. For example, if a man has some children by a previous wife and wants to keep them and bring them with him to a new marriage, he must first get the approval of the children themselves. Second, either the mother of the children or their maternal grandmother, if their mother is not alive, must approve. Third, the new wife of the man must approve. Fourth, the head mother of the new unit must approve” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:76, par. 3) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “The Navajo preference for matrilocal residence may be explained, in part, by the fact that neither death nor divorce uproots or disrupts the residence patterns of families living matrilocally to the extent that these same occurrences do to families living patrilocally” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:77, par. 1) 524 [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “Neolocal residence is not a new concept or pattern among the Navajo. Before this century, when there was seemingly plenty of land, couples wishing to break away from one or the other’s natal unit could do so whenever they wanted to and had enough skill and livestock to make it on their own. Their new unit would be established wherever there was sufficient unused grazing land. In the past, all units moved around considerably in search of better grazing areas. As the population expanded and the land became more or less totally occupied and utilized, the opportunities for both moving around and neolocal residence were greatly reduced. Until wage employment became possible for many, there was little neolocal residence” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:77, par. 3) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “The possibility of living away from one’s mother’s unit, and then later returning to it, suggests that there is some switching back and forth between matrilocal, patrilocal, and even neolocal residence. ... about 25 percent of all couples have made at least one switch from one residence alternative to another. Some couples have made many of these switches, and a few in the Rough Rock area switch back and forth seasonally. This may continue as long as one’s mother is alive” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:79, par. 1) House/Residential Structure “... lived in ‘underground’ houses in rancherias ...” (Brugge [1582-1629] 1983:491, par. 1) “Sites ... are characterized by pueblitos ..., small Puebloan-style structures ranging from one room to many, usually built in defensive locations and with associated hogans, towers, and defensive walls ...” (Brugge [1710-1715] 1983:493, par. 1) “The winter dwelling is the hogan ... It is a somewhat crude but not uncomfortable one- roomed house in which the family eats, sleeps and lives. Temporary shelters or ‘shades’ are built in which the family lives in summer, but if these are supported by large timbers it is not unusual for them to be occupied year after year when the roof of green branches is renewed” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:7, par. 3-4) “The Navajo hut is relatively permanent in location but is temporary compared with the pueblo house. ... when death occurs, the house is deserted or burned and the family takes up its abode elsewhere. Whatever the circumstances, the property idea is one of use rather than one of ownership or of power to dispose of the house” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:51, par. 2) “The day after the death the two pall bearers load the possessions of the dead which they have decided to bury with him on his favorite horse. Then they close up the hogan entrance (east), cut a hole out of the north side through which they remove the corpse. They then burn the hogan with all its contents” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:142, par. 6) 525 “... Navajo houses are not more than ten to twelve feet high, and since many of them are dome-shaped, a maximum of seven or eight feet is all that can be depended on at the side of the house where the loom is placed” (Reichard [1930-1933] 1936:66, par. 3) “Today the Navaho are really a multiple-residence people. They usually return to the same series of pasture areas and keep the same farming sites from year to year. A family group may have a permanent summer base and a permanent winter base, or only one year round base and move about from there. These various residences are not necessarily far apart, say from three to fifteen miles. Nor does the entire family move each time the sheep are moved to fresh pasture or work is done on the farm” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:8, par. 2) [Ramah Navajo] “Each household had at least one relatively permanent cluster of establishments, usually with one or more adjoining fields. Clusters encompassed as many as 15 buildings of various kinds. In addition, many of the kin groups had one or more smaller, rough and temporary establishments or camps at various distances from their larger cluster of buildings. Each permanent establishment included at least one hogan, made of logs laid in saddle-notched fashion to form a hexagonal or octagonal dome-shaped structure, surmounted by an open smoke hole and roofed and floored with earth. At most clusters there were also small, rectangular log cabins, many of which were equipped with a window, fireplaces, and heating or cooking stoves of iron. There were other structures for storage; ‘shades’; corrals of logs, brush, or wire; and small sweat houses” (Kluckhohn [1949-1955] 1966:346, par. 3) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “The Navajo dwelling, or hogan, is most commonly a one- room, roughly circular building constructed of rough-hewn logs laid horizontally. The one doorway faces east; windows are lacking, but light and air are admitted through a smoke hole in the center of the roof. Cribbed logs form the hemispherical roof, and both top and sides are covered with a thick layer of mud ...” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:13, par. 3) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Not uncommon at Navajo Mountain is the old-style forked- stick conical hogan that is rapidly disappearing in other parts of the Reservation. Welfare houses, which are single-walled frame structures, are also seen, as are tents and stone houses” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:13, par. 4) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “A hogan may vary in diameter from 15 to 25 feet. Within this one room the typical Navajo Mountain family eats together, sleeps on sheepskins laid on the dirt floor, and stores most of their personal possessions and household effects” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:14, par. 1) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “... Navajo destroy a house if someone has died inside, and either build a new hoghan at least fifty yards away or move near another set of relatives, abandoning the old site” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:23, par. 1) 526 [Copper Canyon Navajo] “The floor plan of the hoghan nímazi, as it is used during a curing ceremony, is divided into male and female halves. The men always sit on the south side and the women on the north. ... Female objects are often associated with west and north, male objects with south and east. ... The same sex associations have been preserved in the arrangements of belongings in a hoghan or cabin when it is not being used for a ritual. Belongings associated with the woman’s role (cupboards, dishes, food, etc.) are on the north side; the man’s workbench for silversmithing may be placed on the south side. The stove occupies a central position, and the bed and clothing (stored in suitcases) are in the rear. A loom is usually placed on the south side, even though it is associated with women, probably because there is little room for it on the north side, already crowded with shelves, tables, and benches” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:72, par. 5; 73, par. 1) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “Typically, several hoghans or cabins are clustered together and occupied by members of related households. In addition to several hoghans, this cluster may contain a sheep corral, a horse corral, one or more storage sheds or a cellar, one or more woodpiles, and barrels for water storage. At Copper Canyon, winter clusters are more elaborate, with more storage area, a more permanent corral, and larger houses, which often have tar paper roofing and cement stucco outer walls to provide better insulation. Hoghans, or plain log cabins with dirt roofing, are the rule in summer clusters. Several families put up tents to provide extra sleeping room, and many have summer shades (chaha ʹ oh) for cooking and eating. All the above items are not necessary, since an isolated individual without livestock may live in a single hoghan or cabin without any of the additional accoutrements” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:73, par. 2) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “A nuclear family residence group or an extended family cluster of hoghans usually contains a sheep corral, and the owners of sheep kept in the corrals are primarily adults (but sometimes children) living in the nearby hoghan or hoghans” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:110, par. 1) Household “The normal members of the family are children, parents, maternal grandparents and maternal great-grandparents, for it is not at all unusual to find four generations living. ... a feeling that wherever the mother is is home. ... In a single household may be found the mother, her daughters and their unmarried children and so on” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:51, par. 2) “The head of the family is Red Point. This old patriarch, with his wife Maria Antonia, occupied the central hogan (house) of his little settlement. Each of their three daughters had their own hogans nearby” (Reichard [1930-1933] 1936:1, par. 1) “... the extended, domestic family group. ... was the basic group and still is today” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:8, par. 1) 527 “1) There is a level of residential aggregation above the camp, which I call the ‘coresidential kin group’ or ‘CKG.’ 2) The core element in a CKG is a coresident portion of a matrilineage, consisting mostly of women, but often including some men. 3) This core, aided by the spouses of its members, especially the husbands of its female members, defends a territory against adjacent units of like order, whether the cores of those units are members of related matrilineages or of matrilineages of other clans. 4) The territory thus defended is held to some degree in common. 5) Over time the matrilineage segments and the land is divided. 6) The corporate character of the matrilineage appears in the defense of its territory and in the management of land” (Aberle 1981:1, par. 1) “... the camp, a unit of one or more households, normally the locus of a nuclear or extended family. The camp is the unit of mutual aid on a day-to-day basis for herding, gathering wood and water, and often for farming” (Aberle 1981:2, par. 1) “The residence group is the fundamental unit of Navajo social organization. It is organized around a head mother, a sheep herd, a customary land-use area, and sometimes agricultural fields ... The residence group is both a social and an economic unit. It is a cooperative unit ...” (Witherspoon 1983:525, par. 4) “The personnel of the residence group are organized around a head mother. All rights of residence within the group are ultimately derived from the head mother of the unit. Residence rules are based on the primary bonds of kinship (mother-child) and affinity (husband-wife). A Navajo may live wherever his mother has the right to live. In addition, a Navajo may live wherever his or her spouse has the right to live. Thus residence rights are acquired from one’s mother and one’s spouse” (Witherspoon 1983:525, par. 5) “Most residence groups usually consist of more than one household. Normally every married couple in the residence group has its own household, which they share with their children if they have any. Often mature women with children but without husbands will have their own households. A household can be identified as the group that eats and sleeps together. Household groups tend to merge in the winter and disperse in the summer ... This is mostly due to the great difficulty of acquiring sufficient firewood to heat numerous separate households” (Witherspoon 1983:527, par. 2) “Residence groups are also organized around a sheep herd. Members of a distinct residence group put their sheep in a common herd and share in the tasks of caring for the herd. So at the residence level, social groups correspond to the groupings of sheep into herds. When the distance between houses does not clearly indicate which households form distinct residence groups, the matter can be clarified by ascertaining who puts their sheep in which herd” (Witherspoon 1983:527, par. 3) “... people are known by the household or extended family in which they reside rather than by membership in a named kin group” (Adams 2004:par. 14) 528 “The basic domestic unit in Navajo society is the biological or nuclear family. Its members traditionally live together in a single hogan (an earth-covered log dwelling) and take their meals together. The basic economic unit is the extended family, a group of biological families who live close together and share productive resources such as a maize field and a flock of sheep and goats in common. An extended family unit most commonly comprises the household of an older couple, plus the households of one or more of their married daughters, all situated ‘within shouting distance’ of one another” (Adams 2004:par. 16) “The father in each household was the recognized household head, and the father in the oldest household was the headman of each residence group, with considerable authority over the allocation of labor and resources among all the members of the group” (Adams 2004:par. 19) [Navajo Mountain and Klagetoh Navajo] “... the camp at both places is the household unit in the sense that the daily routine of hauling wood and water and some sharing of food take place within this unit” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:66, par. 3) [Navajo Mountain and Klagetoh Navajo] “The Navaho camp consists of one to four separate hogans with a mean population of fifteen at Navajo Mountain and just over seven at Klagetoh. The population of a typical camp may be a husband and wife, one or more of their married children (sons, or more often, daughters), with their spouses and children, and perhaps the wife’s mother or her deceased sister’s children” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:74, par. 1) 529 [Navajo Mountain Navajo] Figure D.2 “Fig. 2 Interrelationships of Hogans and Camps at Navajo Mountain,” from Collier 1966:23 (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:23) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “... the one hundred and thirty-five residents of Navajo Mountain lived in nine separate groups of hogans. Each hogan houses an elementary family: husband, wife and unmarried children with the addition of perhaps a grandparent and the children of a deceased relative. Occasionally such a family will live alone but generally several families have their hogans within earshot of each other. This combination into a hogan group may be based on any of a number of relationships. The term ‘camp’ is used by interpreters at Navajo Mountain to designate this group ...” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:24, par. 2) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “The camps ... range in size from a one hogan unit to four, and in population from seven to thirty-four. The small units are elementary families. The larger units represent variations on the extended domestic family and include seven cases of matrilocal residence and six cases of patrilocal residence. There are four families that move in an out of Navajo Mountain seasonally. The members of all these families are young. Also they have their fields near Navajo Mountain and return there for the harvest. These points and the fact that they do spend the greater part of the year at Navajo Mountain suggest that it is their real base and will be so the year around when they are older. Other factors may affect the stability of these camps. As the younger married couples have more children and acquire more sheep or need to develop additional farm land, they may break off from the parental group. Quarrels, marital separation, 530 death, compatibility all affect the composition of these groups” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:26, par. 1) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Within the smaller units, the camps, it is obviously the older people, men and women, who make the decisions. ... The older people seem to follow a hands- off policy, allowing the others to make and follow their own decisions” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:39, par. 1) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “The camp seems to be the unit for many of the basic activities. ... this group varies considerably in size, interrelationship among its members, and the division of economic responsibilities among the hogans. The primary responsibility of any individual seems to be toward other members of his camp. Cooperation which goes beyond the limits of the camp appear to follow lines of convenience, proximity and fraternal or sororal relationship” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:43, par. 1) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Each hogan typically houses a single nuclear, or biological, family, or remnants of such, with from 1 to 18 persons dwelling in each Hogan” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:15, par. 1) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “... each of these families has at least a winter and a summer dwelling place, and some extended families have as many as six. A family, or parts of families, will move from campsite to campsite depending on grazing needs. There is also in reality frequent shifting of households within camps, that is, some married sons and married daughters move back and forth between their own and their spouse’s extended family as they see fit or as circumstances demand. Widows and widowers may live with different married children in turn” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:15, par. 2) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “The nuclear family is a kinship, residence, and cooperating unit consisting of a man, his wife, and his unmarried children. It is the smallest viable economic and residence group in Navajo society. The members eat, sleep, and live together in the same hogan. As a group, the nuclear family bears the principal responsibility for the economic support and rearing of the children. Traditionally, it is attached at the outset to an extended family, preferably, but not invariably, that of the bride. Later the nuclear family may break off and establish its own camp, but this is usually not done until the couple has acquired enough livestock and enough manpower to be self-sustaining” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:44, par. 3) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “The extended family is a group based on kinship, coresidence, and cooperation, that comprises typically three generations—grandparental, parental, and children. It is composed of at least two nuclear families, affiliated through the extension of the parent-child relationship, each living in its own hogan ‘within shouting distance of each other.’ Each member of the extended family is expected to contribute work, sheep, or money to common enterprises, and, conversely, expects from the group aid in paying a debt, in 531 holding a Sing, or in providing the goods that are customarily demanded as a bride price. The extended family offers security to individuals who have left the group, but who are free to return in case of unemployment, divorce, or the death of a spouse. It may divide or it may expand through the creation of new nuclear families, or it may agglutinate through the attachment of relatives who are neither couples nor children of resident couples, according to the exigencies of the moment” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:45, par. 1) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “We shall speak of a household as the occupants, or occupant, of one hogan. This is typically a nuclear family, that is, a man and wife (or in rare instances, a man and plural wives) with or without unmarried children. A widow, with or without children, or a widower, with or without children, may also constitute a household. Certain households at Navajo Mountain are made up of close kin related in various other ways” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:46, par. 1) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Five hundred and seventy-eight residents of Navajo Mountain live in 112 households, and two women and a child live on the school campus. The number of occupants of each household varies from one to eighteen persons” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:47, par. 1) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “The extended family is, in fact, the preferred form of cooperative residential group and is more frequently encountered than is the nuclear family” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:236, par. 1) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Table A of the appendix shows the number of camps, the number of persons in each camp, the number of households in each camp, and the number of persons in each household as of 1961,” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:15, par. 3) 532 [Navajo Mountain Navajo] Table D.2 “Table A—Size of Camps and Hogans, 1961,” from Shepardson and Hammond 1970:246-247 (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:246-2 [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Table B of the appendix gives the composition of each camp” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:15, par. 3) 533 [Navajo Mountain Navajo] Table D.3 “Table B—Composition of Camps, 1960-61,” from Shepardson and Hammond 1970:248-257 534 Table D.3 (cont’d) 535 Table D.3 (cont’d) 536 Table D.3 (cont’d) 537 Table D.3 (cont’d) (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:248-257) 538 [Klagetoh Navajo] Figure D.3 “Fig. 4 Interrelationships of Hogans and Camps at Klagetoh,” from Collier 1966:48- 49 (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:48-49) [Klagetoh Navajo] “The two hundred and twenty-seven people at Klagetoh live in thirty- one camps. ... The camps are self-sufficient for household needs, hauling wood and water, cooking, etc. But the local herding, farming and ceremonial procedures bring several camps together into larger units called in this study, cooperating-groups. The camps within a cooperating-group are closely interrelated by kinship and marriage and live within about half a mile of each other. The camps in such a group do not carry on all their work jointly but two or more of them cooperate for various activities” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:53, par. 1) 539 [Klagetoh Navajo] “The cooperating-groups ... range from a population of five to thirty- four with a mean of nineteen, and from a single unit to numerous sub-units. These Klagetoh people remain in the same hogans the year around” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:53, par. 3) [Klagetoh Navajo] “The groups which do emerge at Klagetoh as functioning units are the hogan, the camp, and the cooperating-group. Hauling wood and water are centered in the camp” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:64, par. 2) [Ramah Navajo] “The composition of some families and their places of residence have shown remarkable continuity over the past 20 years” (Kluckhohn [1949-1955] 1966:364, par. 3) [Ramah Navajo] “A ‘unit’ consists of persons (in three instances of only a single person) who ordinarily live together (though not necessarily sleeping in the same dwelling) and who share meals, chores, and—to some extent—-possessions. The term ‘household’ would be appropriate except that, on the one hand, it perhaps implies a single ‘roof’ and that, on the other hand, it could properly be applied to at least some of the extended families of the Ramah Navaho. In many cases a unit means an elementary family or a polygynous family. In other cases it consists of a single divorced or widowed parent with subadult children. Often, however, a unit includes additional adults: unmarried or widowed or divorced parent of a spouse; collateral relatives and adopted children. When two parents are present (and sometimes in other cases), additional adult relatives ordinarily sleep in a different dwelling, but the unit nevertheless works and eats together. A type of unit that occurs frequently and characteristically among the Ramah Navaho I call a ‘relict’ unit; one that lacks a single complete biological family but comprises the ‘remains’ of two or more marriages broken by death or divorce or the ‘relicts’ of one such marriage plus an unmarried adult” (Kluckhohn [1949-1955] 1966:366, par. 2) [Ramah Navajo] “An ‘extended family’ comprises two or more units each of which includes one parent with child or children and at least one of which includes both parents. These units must also be linked by at least one lineal ancestor common to all children in the group. The dwelling of a ‘extended family’ are ordinarily within sight of each other; ... they are close enough so that daily meals and work activities rather constantly cut across the lines of the distinct units. The extended family is involved, as well as the biological family, in questions of inheritance, marriage, etc.” (Kluckhohn [1949-1955] 1966:367, par. 1) [Ramah Navajo] “There were (in June 1950) 125 units (135 if one counted the polygynous marriages separately). These units were composed of 39 simple nuclear families; 25 nuclear families where one or more of the children did not belong to both spouses; 5 nuclear families where one or more children did not belong to either spouse (including two families where one or more children were grandchildren of the spouses); 6 nuclear families plus one unmarried adult; 11 units of polygynous marriage; 17 units where a single parent lives with subadult children; 19 relict units; and 3 isolated individuals. Of these units 53 are embraced in 18 extended families. If one used somewhat more flexible but still relevant criteria or considered 540 a period a year or two earlier, one could speak of an additional 14 extended families” (Kluckhohn [1949-1955] 1966:368, par. 2-3) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “Silversmith’s residence group consisted of his wife, two of her married daughters with children, and two married daughters-in-law with children ...” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:47, par. 5) [Copper Canyon Navajo] Figure D.4 “Fig. 2.1 Silversmith’s genealogy,” from Lamphere 1977:48 (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:48) 541 [Copper Canyon Navajo] Figure D.5 “Fig. 2.2 John Begay’s genealogy,” from Lamphere 1977:51 (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:51) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “... I suggest that the nuclear family household is the smallest domestic unit and that the hoghan is the dwelling which defines its spatial boundaries” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:74, par. 3) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “Not all hoghans in Copper Canyon ... contain nuclear families. Due to death, divorce, and bachelorhood, there may be a variety of other combinations of kin living under the same roof: widowed or divorced women and their children, widowed or divorced men and their children, isolated bachelors, or a grandmother and grandchild. There may also be some ‘doubling up’ with portions of two nuclear families in the same hoghan: a grandmother, her married daughter, husband, and children, or a young married couple and either the husband’s or wife’s parents and unmarried siblings” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:74, par. 4) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “... a nuclear family may occupy two adjacent hoghans. For example, the parents and some children may sleep in one dwelling, and older children may share a cabin attached to the main room or located a few feet away. Although spatial units and kinship 542 groups may not always coincide, Navajos recognize a cluster of people ‘who cook and eat together,’ expressed in the phrase ʹałahjiʹ chʹiiyáán diłʹį́ dóó ʹałahjí daʹííyą́ ą́ (together food is prepared, and together they eat). Interaction concerning these activities usually stabilizes around a nuclear family in a single hoghan” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:75, par. 1) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “Table 4.1 classifies data on the size and composition of households in Copper Canyon, using the criteria of commensality as the basis for defining the household” Table D.4 “Table 4.1 Households in Copper Canyon,” from Lamphere 1977:75 (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:75) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “In general, 60-75 percent of the households are composed of nuclear families, about 10-15 percent contain widows and children, and the remainder include grandmothers and grandchildren, isolated males, or nuclear families with additional relatives” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:75, par. 2) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “... when a couple is first married, they sometimes spend the first months or year of their marriage in the house of either the boy’s or the girl’s parents. In such cases they share food and utensils with the older couple and the unmarried children. The younger couple contributes to the food supply and the daughter or daughter-in-law helps with the cooking, while the son or son-in-law chops wood, hauls water, and helps with other household 543 chores. Until a new house or hoghan has been constructed for the younger couple, and until separate arrangements for food, water, and wood are made, both couples are classed, along with unmarried children, as one household. In a few cases, a girl remains with her mother while the husband returns to his parents; this happens when the marriage is breaking apart, and before it is clear that the couple will be separated permanently. The girl, even if she has young children, cooks and eats with her mother; I have classified her and any children as part of the parental household” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:75, par. 3) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “On the other hand, several old women stay in the same house with a daughter or other relative. They have their own food supply (purchased from welfare income) and their own utensils. If they cook and eat separately from the rest of the family, they are counted as a distinct household, despite the sharing that takes place between such a ‘grandmother’ and her relatives. These women maintain a fair amount of independence and, for example, may not move up on the Mountain when the rest of the household does, or may stay with other relatives for several days at a time” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:76, par. 1) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “... it is possible to define a residence group as either a nuclear family living in an isolated hoghan, or an extended family living in a cluster of hoghans. In the former case, the residence group is composed of one household of those who cook and eat together; its focus is a middle-aged couple ... In the latter case, the residence group is composed of several households; it contains young couples ... and an older couple or widow ... The internal composition of an extended family residence group varies depending on the postmarital residence affiliation of the younger couples, that is, whether they are residing uxorilocally or virilocally” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:77, par. 6) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “Variation in the composition of Copper Canyon residence groups is shown in Table 4.5” 544 [Copper Canyon Navajo] Table D.5 “Table 4.5 Classification of Copper Canyon Residence Groups,” from Lamphere 1977:81 (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:81) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “Camp 32 consisted of a widow, Betsy, and her adult granddaughter in one household, who did most of the herding, and a married son, Andrew, and daughter-in-law, Rebecca, in another household” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:120, par. 3) 545 [Copper Canyon Navajo] Figure D.6 “Fig 6.1 Rebecca and Andrew’s kin,” from Lamphere 1977:120 (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:120) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “Edna lived with her husband, Mike, and children in one household of Camp 20. An old lady of Edna’s father’s clan, Zonnie, shared the two-room house with them. Edna’s widowed mother, her divorced brother, and his daughter lived in a second household” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:133, par. 6) 546 [Copper Canyon Navajo] Figure D.7 Genealogical relationships for Fred’s, Janie’s, and clan relatives’ Transportation Requests, from Lamphere 1977:134 (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:134) 547 [Copper Canyon Navajo] Figure D.8 Transportation Involving Edna, Mike, and Others—Provided and Received, from Lamphere 1977:136 (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:136) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “... Camp 32 consisted of a widow, Betsy, and her adult granddaughter in one household and Betsy’s son, Andrew, and his wife, Rebecca, in the second household” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:135, par. 4) 548 [Copper Canyon Navajo] Figure D.9 Genealogical relationships between Camp 32 and persons who provide transportation, from Lamphere 1977:137 (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:137) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “Camp 12 consisted of an older couple in one household and a daughter and son-in-law in a second household” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:141, par. 2) 549 [Copper Canyon Navajo] Figure D.10 “Fig. 7.6 Genealogical relatives of members of Camps 12 and 19,” from Lamphere 1977:141 (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:141) 550 [Copper Canyon Navajo] Table D.6 “Appendix 4: Settlement Patterns in Three Copper Canyon Clans,” from Lamphere 1977:190-191 551 Table D.6 (cont’d) (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:190-191) 552 Figure D.11 “Map A 4.1 Within-His-Cover people winter residences,” from Lamphere 1977:192 (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:192) 553 Figure D.12 “Map A 4.2 Within-His-Cover people summer residences,” from Lamphere 1977:194 (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:194) 554 Table D.7 “Appendix 4: House-in-the-Rocks People,” from Lamphere 1977:195-196 555 Table D.7 (cont’d) (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:195-196) 556 Figure D.13 “Map A 4.3 House-in-the-Rocks people winter residences,” from Lamphere 1977:197 (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:197) 557 Table D.8 “Appendix 4: Mountain-Recess People…Genealogy,” from Lamphere 1977:199-200 558 Table D.8 (cont’d) (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:190, 191, 192, 194, 195, 196, 197, 199, 200) [Ramah Navajo] “... Navaho social organization is based upon the association of relatives, but ... actual patterns take many forms; matrilineal, patrilineal, and bilateral. ... some groupings arise not from standard factors of Navaho culture but individual likes and dislikes and from economic convenience. Some groups contain particularly large aggregations of regrouped 559 couples or of single spouses with their children or of women with unmarried children” (Kluckhohn [1949-1955] 1966:368, par. 4) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “The subsistence residential unit is the fundamental unit of Navajo social organization. It is organized around a sheep herd, a customary land use area, a head mother, and sometimes agricultural fields ... The primary functions of the subsistence residential unit are to provide its members with a place of residence and a source of subsistence” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:71, par. 5) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “The personnel of the subsistence residential unit are organized around a head mother. Rights of residence and membership in the unit are based on the primary bonds of kinship (mother-child) and affinity (husband-wife). ... the first means of recruitment is by maternal descent or matrifiliation” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:72, par. 1) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “... the subsistence residential unit provides a place of residence and subsistence for its members. It is a multifunctional corporation. Its major asset is land. Its major enterprise is usually the sheep herd. Most of its members are stockholders—that is, they have livestock in the common herd. Recruitment is by marriage and matrifiliation. The subsistence residential unit utilizes all the symbols of motherhood in its organization, structure, and integration” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:73, par. 1) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “A subsistence residential unit is organized around a head mother. Rights to membership in the unit are derived from the head mother. All her children may live in the unit, and so may her husband. The spouses of her children may also live in the unit. The children (grandchildren of the head mother) of these couples may of course live with their mothers. These rights of residence could be extended on and on, by any combination of husband-wife and mother-child links” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:75, par. 1) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “Because a Navajo may always return to his or her mother’s unit to live, there are always a number of members or potential members of the subsistence residential unit who are not residing in the unit. These out-resident members often keep some sheep in the common herd, and thereby maintain their tie to the unit. Out-resident members can be divided into two main types: temporary out-residents, and permanent out- residents. Temporary out-residents are those who have definite plans and times set for their return to the unit. This type involves mostly boarding-school students, college students, members of the armed services, and those away on seasonal farm work. Permanent out-residents are those who have no definite plans or times for returning to the unit but who can return if they so desire. These are usually those who have married into other units and are living there, those who have permanent jobs off the reservation, or those who have jobs and homes in various governmental operations or other such establishments on the reservation. Of the 957 members of the fifty subsistence residential units included in this study, 385 (40 percent) were in-residents, 560 295 (31 percent) were temporary out-residents, and 277 (29 percent) were permanent out- residents” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:79, par. 2-3) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “... dual membership or dual residence rights. A family living as in-residents in one unit may well be permanent out-residents of another. This is because one may switch one’s residence to the home or natal unit of the spouse at whose home unit one is not currently living. Also, permanent out-residents living off the reservation can return and become in-residents” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:79, par. 4) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “Of the 385 in-residents ..., 114 have residence rights in another unit within the fifty, and can be considered permanent out-residents of those units. This results from individuals of one unit being married to individuals of another. These couples and their families are in-residents in one unit—the place of their current home—and out- residents of another” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:80, par. 1) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “The average number of in-residents in the fifty units studied is 7.7 persons. The average of temporary out-residents is 5.9 persons, and the average of permanent out-residents is 5.5 persons. This makes a total average of 19.2 persons per unit. The actual range in total membership for a unit varies from three to forty-eight. The range of in-residents varies from one to thirty-three. The range of permanent out-residents varies from zero to twenty-six. By assuming that boarding-school students are one-third dependent on their units, an average of ten persons actually depend on the economy of the unit for their livelihood” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:81, par. 1) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “The role of leader of the subsistence residential unit is still normally a function of men, but these men are usually older and most often the husband of the head mother. If the head mother has no husband or if he is dead, the oldest son or the husband of the oldest daughter will normally be the leader. ... in every unit there is a person, usually a man, who takes the lead in directing and conducting the affairs of the unit. This role in particular entails taking the lead in livestock operations—sheep, cattle, and horses—and in agricultural operations. In addition, the leader is the one who deals with the outside world, meaning that he speaks for the unit at community meetings, negotiates with the traders and car salesmen, arranges marriages and ceremonies, talks to visiting strangers, and so on” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:82, par. 1) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “The head mother is the person around whom the unit is organized. She is identified with the land, the herd, and the agricultural fields. All residence rights can be traced back to her, and her opinions and wishes are always given the greatest consideration and usually prevail. In a sense, however, she delegates much of her role and prestige to the leader of the unit. If we think of the unit as a corporation, and the leader as its president, the head mother will be the chairman of the board. She usually has more sheep than the leader does. ... When there is a divorce between the leader and the head, it is always the 561 leader who leaves and the head mother who remains, even if the land originally belonged to the mother of the leader” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:82, par. 2) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “Although the roles of leader and head mother and the more general lines of authority usually follow the hierarchical order of generation and sibling order, this is not always the case. Where someone is considered incapable or lacks the respect of others, someone else will fill the role by a sort of silent acclamation. The collective will and feelings of the unit are more often sensed than spoken. ... Of the fifty units studied, the number of generations in each unit varied from one to five” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:83, par. 3) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “The personnel of the subsistence residential units are subdivided into a number of households. A household is organized around a mature woman. Normal members of a household group are the husband and unmarried children of the woman. Seldom do two married couples share the same household, unless they have more than a one- room house. Membership in particular households can normally be distinguished by where one eats and sleeps” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:83, par. 4) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “One household group may have several houses. ... household units also have a tendency to merge in the winter and to disperse in the summer, generally because of the great difficulty in heating so many separate household units. If firewood gets extremely scarce or difficult to obtain, the whole unit may merge into the largest, most easily heated housing unit” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:84, par. 1) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “Of the 117 total households, eighty-four (72 percent) have just one married couple, thirty (25 percent) have no married couples, and only 3 (3 percent) have two married couples living in the same household. Ninety-one (78 percent) of the households are two-generation households. Sixteen (13 percent) are three-generation households, and ten (9 percent) are only one-generation households” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:84, par. 2) Access to Resources “Anyone may pasture his stock where he will and he may use the available water. But no one would deliberately drive his sheep on to land which is being grazed to its full capacity by another. If a newcomer came to a certain territory the matter of grass and water would be talked over with those already there and an agreement made. However if the first family moved to another locality there would be no question that anyone who so desired might use the land and water they had left. There are no definite limits as to where stock may be kept and absolutely no restrictions on use of springs or streams” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:91, par. 2) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “The basic manner of acquiring land in Navajo society is through the preemption and subsequent inheritance of land use rights within a maximal 562 matrilineage. A nuclear or extended family will settle in a region and make use of a definite land area for grazing and farming, and if such preemption is not challenged by previous occupants, a customary use right accrues to members of the preempting lineage. Theoretically, water resources are available to everyone, but in practice use rights to springs are acquired by preemption, rest in the group, and cannot be alienated by an individual. Permission for others to use the water may be granted or withheld at the group’s discretion, but should not be refused in case of emergency. Individuals who marry into the lineage will enjoy use rights to the extended family land so long as they participate as cooperating members of the group. If they leave the extended family, whose core is a lineage section, because of divorce or the death of the spouse, they will usually reactivate a claim to the land of their own matrilineage, that is, return to their mother’s or their sister’s camp” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:49, par. 2) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Children will acquire use rights to land preempted by their father’s matrilineage in those infrequent cases where their mother is living with her husband’s family” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:50, par. 1) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Maternal parallel cousins claim their use rights to land through the original preempting couple of their matrilineage. With increasing population and consequent limitation of land, cousins may quarrel over their share of grazing and farming areas. There are instances where a man or a woman has been away from the Reservation and on his return wishes to take up the use of grazing or agricultural land, claiming his right through parent or grandparent. If the land has been used by cousins in the meantime, they may resent the ‘intrusion’ of new sheepherders, although they are obliged to recognize the fact that their parallel cousins have valid claims” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:94, par. 4) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “An extended family bases its claim to the use of land for grazing on preemption or on relationship to the original family that preempted the land. Every member of the camp shares in these use rights, which cannot be alienated without the agreement of the entire extended family” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:101, par. 7) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “... use rights to farming land, like those governing grazing land, are based on preemption or relationship to the original preempting family. They accrue to the family that first cleared and cultivated the land. If the plots are not farmed for a long time, longer than is reasonable for letting a field lie fallow, another family may plant a crop. However, it is prudent and proper to ask permission of the family that had formerly used the land” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:101, par. 8) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Every family has use rights to small patches of land for dry farms on the plateau or on the mesa, or for small-scale irrigated plots in the canyons” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:112, par. 2) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “Houses, farm land, and grazing areas are thought of in terms of ‘use rights’ rather than ownership. One can say, ‘his house’ (baghan), his field (bidáʹákʹeh), 563 or ‘his land’ (bikéyah), but the meaning here is that an individual has the right to use the field and grazing area; if vacated, land can be claimed by other Navajos. Houses are at the disposal of the nuclear family, and in case of divorce the spouse with whose relatives the couple is living retains the right to stay there ...” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:39, par. 1) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “Rights to use the land on which the residence group is located are controlled by those living in the residence group, particularly the older couple. This involves concepts of ‘use rights’ rather than ownership, so that grazing territory is vaguely defined and constantly shifting. Members of unrelated extended families often move between camps of extended families already located in an area, either without consulting the ‘older’ families or by claiming rights to the area through a relative in the previous generation who had resided there. In general, grazing and residence rights are always changing and are not perpetuated from one generation to the next ...” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:83, par. 1) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “Within a household the spouse and children of the car owner have primary access to transportation in the vehicle ... For those who do not own a car or pickup and whose spouse does not own one, a ride is obtained by asking a car owner in the same or another residence group, or by hitchhiking” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:127, par. 3) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “... since a ride is a much more immediate problem than many other cooperative activities, a Navajo is likely to make a request of someone near at hand. If there is no transportation in the individual’s own household or residence group, he may walk to a neighbor’s house, ask someone when he is at a public gathering place (such as the chapter house or trading post), or make a request of a visitor to his own residence group. These patterns are more likely than walking five or six miles to make the request of someone in his set of primary and secondary relatives (e.g., sibling, adult child, or sibling’s child). This would be a last resort only if several other possibilities had already failed. Transportation is an activity where the proximity of someone with a car is equally, if not more, important than kinship considerations” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:128) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “Although much of the income in each unit goes directly to individuals or to individual households within the unit, those who receive this income are expected to use large portions of it in helping others in the group. Particularly, he or she must buy food for everyone or at least share with everyone the food he or she does buy. This extends to many other things as well, such as giving others free rides, bringing them firewood and water, buying them new clothes, assuming a large part of the financial burden of having ceremonies or ‘sings’ at the unit” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:92, par. 3) Trade “... traded meat, hides, and mineral products, primarily salt and alum, to the Puebloans ...” (Brugge [1582-1629] 1983:491, par. 1) 564 “... Navajo ceremonial objects came from the Southern Ute, Hopi, and Zuni” (Ford 1983:711, par. 6) “Hopi-grown peaches were exchanged with the Navajo ...” (Ford 1983:712, par. 6) “Navajo and Hopi-Tewa exchanged cures” (Ford 1983:715, par. 3) “Long and short strings of shell beads (hishi) were convertible into any good at any time. The Navajo and Pueblos in particular desired these and used them more often than did people to the west” (Ford 1983:720, par. 5) “... Apaches disposed of burdensome Mexican cattle, sheep, and goats with the Navajo and at Zuni” (Ford 1983:722, par. 3) Property “Families traditionally have exclusive use rights to agricultural land as long as they actually farm it; if it lies uncultivated for more than two years another family may take possession. All range land, however, is treated as common and collective property of the whole community and is unfenced” (Adams 2004:par. 13) “Property, like clan membership, is inherited mainly in the female line” (Adams 2004:par. 14) “Basic productive resources are the collective property of the extended family and are not alienable by individuals; they are passed on from generation to generation within the group. Jewelry, saddles, horses, and many kinds of ceremonial knowledge are treated as personal property, however. Individuals have considerable freedom in disposal of these, although it is always expected that a woman will leave most of her personal property to her daughters and that a man will leave much of his property to his sister’s children” (Adams 2004:par. 17) “... the chants are not clan property. They are individual possessions which can be secured primarily only by those having and proving sufficient intelligence, not only to learn them, but to learn them well. The custodian of a chant teaches it preferably to his son who is, of course, not a member of his clan. But if all the sons fail to be interested in learning the chant, or if they lack the ability (the standard of which is high) the chanter might teach his ritual to anyone who fulfils the requirements” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:30, par. 3) “The mother of the family ... possesses a number of sheep and goats—oftentimes more than her husband—and has charge of them. The flocks are frequently large, consisting of the sheep and goats belonging to the mother, to some of her sisters or brothers or to her husband. Sometimes the mother tends them herself. It is more customary, however, for her to see that they are cared for by the children of from seven to twelve years of age ... Old women who no longer 565 have children or large households to attend to may also guard the sheep” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:51, par. 4) “Before trading [his racing stallion] for fifty sheep [Sydney, Mary’s husband] consulted Mary and she advised him to accept the offer even though the horse was Sydney’s individual property” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:52, par. 4) “Ownership of personal property is purely individual among the Navajo. ... Property consists of: livestock, goods, and intangible property. By ‘hard goods (nłıs)’ is meant cash, silver ornaments, precious stones, horse trappings and the like. ‘Soft goods (yŭdi)’ consists of calico and materials, blankets, rugs, sheepskins, clothing, etc. Each individual has his own stock” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:89, par. 1) “Each woman or child who may be seen with a flock has charge of the sheep of a number of people. She has her own and those of her sisters, brothers or husband, or perhaps her mother’s and father’s. Or she may be caring for the animals belonging to her maternal uncle or to some of her cousins” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:89, par. 2) “‘Hard goods’ and ‘soft goods’ are personal property and therefore individually acquired and disposed of” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:90, par. 1) “‘Intangible property’ consists of chants and all that goes with them—song, dance, medicine bundles, prayersticks, etc. —formulas for increasing flocks and horses, power and knowledge. In the category of ‘power’ we may include many things. For instance, the personal name belongs here. A man (or woman) possesses a name ... a name is part of a person’s wealth” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:90, par. 2) “Knowledge too whether acquired by formal instruction or by experience is valuable. It is transferable and heritable. It is usually very closely related to chant wisdom or medicine-lore. A man may teach it to another and receive payment for the instruction without in any way lessening his own wisdom or power” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:90, par. 3) “... the Navajo is rich not only in material property but also in imaginative and supernatural wealth. Some very unusual individuals possess the ‘sacred names’ of property. There are sacred names for sheep, horses, and hard goods, the knowledge of which will cause the particular animal or commodity to increase for the owner of the name” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:90, par. 6) “A ceremonial basket, for example, may belong to a family until a ceremony has been performed. Then it becomes the property of the man who conducted the ceremony. He may give it away or sell it. But if the family has been obliged to borrow the basket, they pay the Singer two or three dollars and return it to its owner” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:91, par. 1) 566 “The foregoing description refers to personal property and under this title we may properly place everything which is owned by the Navajo. The materials and powers owned may be disposed of as well as used by the individual possessing them. When we consider real estate it cannot be placed in the same category. Land is ‘owned’ only in the sense that it is ‘used’” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:91, par. 2) “The garden is close to the summer abode of the family and it, like pasture-land, is owned only when used” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:92, par. 1) “There are conflicting opinions as to the ownership of gardens: ‘The farm is, as a rule, the property of the husband who disposes of it before death,’ according to the Franciscans. Stephen claims that the woman owns the house and all domestic gear. The man must plant the garden for the woman even though he may have his own garden elsewhere. Chee Dodge (Crystal) says the farm belongs to the one who starts it and descends in his or her clan. George Bancroft (Tuba City) says a woman owns the farm and her relatives inherit in the following order: mother, sisters or brothers” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:92, par. 2-6) “I could get no response except astonishment about the ownership of house and farm adjoining. A man has a hut built when it is necessary but he does not own it. Neither does his wife nor his children nor any of his relatives. Everyone owns it who uses it. The idea that a house could be individual property amazed Navajo who had had very little contact with whites. But if a woman, the head of a household, should die her daughter who lives at home would automatically become the head of the house. If there were no daughter a son might bring his wife home or the hogan would be abandoned. The matter depends entirely on the number, relationship and residence of the survivors and on other circumstances” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:92, par. 7) “I quote the following remark on garden produce, ‘The man cares for the corn, but the women and children may help him and when the corn is ripe it belongs to everyone’” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:92, par. 8) “... a man’s children inherit very little, almost none, of his property. If he has made an oral will the family will do all in its power to carry it out. If not, his brothers and his mother’s brother will determine how the property shall be disposed of. The most important thing is to keep it all, or nearly all, in the clan. The little which the children inherit is calculated on the basis of age, not of sex: older children get a little, younger children none. The widow also gets almost nothing” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:94, par. 1) “William Antone’s father (Crown Point) was very rich. ... His married children got most of his property before he died, but William and his younger sisters got theirs after their father’s death” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:94, par. 1) 567 “Gen. I D, 673 was very rich and when he died his property descended to his brother and his brother-in-law who of course was not of his clan” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:94, par. 4) “Under ordinary circumstances a man’s sister and brother, or his mother, if she is living, will inherit the bulk of his property. If they are not living his sisters’ children or their daughters’ children are the next in succession” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:94, par. 5) “A married woman’s property goes to her children if they are married or mature, if they are small, her brother takes precedence. His sisters’ children are, however, his legal heirs” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:94, par. 6) “An unmarried woman’s possessions go to her sisters and brothers” (Reichard [1923- 1925] 1928:94, par. 7) “A wealthy unmarried girl of hacłʼıjni (12) died. Her mother and sisters kept all her property which was not destroyed at her grave” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:94, par. 8) “... If a man dies and no brothers or sisters survive his property goes to his clan relatives. But it would be ‘respectful’ to give a little to his children if he had any” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:94, par. 10) “George [Bancroft of Tuba City] gave what I consider the most important information about inheritance—important in that it gives the best insight into the wide variations which are found as one collects details of inheritance from one family to another: Only the relatives who come to talk over the matter of inheritance of a deceased person’s property share in the estate. They appoint a headman who decides how much each is to have after they have all agreed. That is why no definite amount or percentage can be given, but all is left to the judgment of the members of the family council who are present” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:95, par. 7) “Some valuables may be placed in the grave. For example, fifty dollars in cash was buried with a rich maiden. Then the horse is led near to or over the grave, the valuables on his back: saddle, blankets, etc., as well as any tools which have been used are mutilated or burned; the horse is shot and the mourners return home” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:143, par. 1) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Practically every Navaho owns sheep. The bulk of a herd usually belongs to the middle-aged individuals in the family but the old people always have some and the children own sheep practically from the time they are born. Although this ownership is specific, the use of the animals is pooled and young and old alike must contribute meat and wool to supply the family’s needs” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:27, par. 2) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “The holding of fields is actually a case of use-ownership. A family controls its farmland and no single individual can dispose of the land or of its produce. Traditionally this land-use ownership is transmitted from mother to daughter, but this pattern has always been a source of strain and subject to variation. As a married couple grows old the farm 568 land is usually divided among their daughters. Their sons may receive some if there are no daughters or only a few” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:29, par. 1) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Children expect to inherit from their mother, their share depending on a number of circumstances ...” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:72, par. 5) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “When a mother’s brother dies, his sisters’ children ... expect to inherit something from his estate, at least some token to remember him by. In the days before sheep permits and Indian Court rules of inheritance, a sister’s children might receive a substantial share of the sheep herd left by a maternal uncle” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960- 1966] 1970:87, par. 4) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Sheep are individually owned an earmarked” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:99, par. 3) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Children who herd are given sheep as the nucleus of a future flock. ... Other ways of acquiring sheep are through the purchase of a permit or through inheritance” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:99, par. 3, 5) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Cattle are also individually owned. ... Horses, too, are individually owned as beloved possessions that lend prestige to their owners” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:100, par. 1) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Farms are not individually owned ...” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:101, par. 8) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “The burial of jewelry and personal effects with the dead is still the practice in Navajo Mountain” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:110, par. 1) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Particular rights to inheritance accrue to the following people: members of the matrilineage, the person who cared for the deceased before death, persons close to the deceased who know how to take care of the property, those most in need, a trustee for small children, those present at the distribution, and, in the case of a medicine bag, a relative who knows the appropriate Sing, particularly one who has learned from the deceased” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:110, par. 4) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Living with and taking care of a person in his last days gives a preeminent right to inherit” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:110, par. 5) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Knowing how to farm and raise livestock gives a prior right to an inheritor” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:110, par. 9) 569 [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Members of the matrilineage may act as administrators or as trustees or receive some share of the estate if only as tokens of remembrance” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:111, par. 1) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Only those persons present at the distribution share in the estate” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:111, par. 6) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Every family, nuclear or extended, owns some sheep” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:112, par. 4) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Any Navajo child expects to inherit from his mother or from other members of his matrilineage regardless of whether or not he has a ‘legal’ father. Traditionally, children inherit token gifts of affection from their father, with consideration in the choice of heirs being given to persons with such further qualifications as having cared for the deceased before his death, being present at the distribution of the estate, or being adjudged capable of managing the property” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:169, par. 2) [Klagetoh Navajo] “In only one case does an entire cooperating-group have a truly common herd. Of the remaining cooperating-groups consisting of more than one camp, there are two in which only one of the camps has sheep, the other five have two or three herds each. The three cooperating-groups with but one camp have but one herd. The remaining cooperating- group, most of whose members are employed, pays to have its sheep handled with the herd of another group” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:56, par. 4) [Klagetoh Navajo] “The four single-hogan cooperating-groups have one field apiece. Of the eight multiple-unit cooperating-groups, two have common fields, the other six have two or three fields among them” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:57, par. 2) [Ramah Navajo] “Of all Ramah Navaho families, 44 percent owned no sheep. One extended family owned 9 percent of all sheep, and six other families controlled from 4-6 percent of the total” (Kluckhohn [1949-1955] 1966:347, par. 2) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “... most movable property (including livestock, jewelry, medicine pouches, cars, and wagons) is individually owned. ... If someone comes to borrow a shovel or wagon that belongs to the mother of the household, a daughter might say shimá bóholnííh (‘my mother, it’s her business), ʹéí ʹaa diní (‘you ask her’). If the mother is not at home, the individual making the request must return later, since no one except the owner has the right to dispose of the property or to allow others to use it. Likewise, a sheep in the residence group herd cannot be butchered or sold without the owner’s consent” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:39, par. 1) 570 [Copper Canyon Navajo] “... the residence group ... does not own property collectively. Livestock is individually owned and jointly managed, and fields are jointly used” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:83, par. 1) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “The forty sheep and goats in the herd primarily belonged to Thomas, the husband; he did most of the herding” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:113, par. 1) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “Sheep are individually owned, but are herded and cared for in common within a subsistence residential unit. Nearly everyone has an interest in the common herd, because he or she has his or her own sheep in the common herd. Children are given lambs to begin building their flocks as soon as they are able to share in the tasks of herding, which usually occurs around the age of five” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:72, par. 4) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “When the residential group divides or when one person or family leaves the natal group, the sheep are divided among the people according to individual ownership” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:87, par. 4) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “Another aspect of individual ownership is the right of disposal or sale. One may sell one’s sheep whenever one pleases, and the proceeds are one’s own. One is, however, always expected to use a large portion of all one’s individual income (including wage work) for the general welfare of the group. When a relative from another group (possibly from one’s natal group) comes to one for assistance or for food for a ceremonial performance, one must help by giving one’s own sheep and not somebody else’s” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:88, par. 1) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “The sale or use of wool is done on a group, not on an individual, basis” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:88, par. 3) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “One may sell or dispose of one’s sheep any time one pleases, and one may separate one’s sheep from the common herd if one so desires” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:97, par. 2) [Reservation District 4 Navajo] “A territory occupied by the core of a single matrilineage may become subdivided and occupied by two lineages of different clans if a man of the lineage resides on its land with his wife and children. Such residence, which is permissible, is properly called virimatrilocal ... because the man’s orientation is to his mother’s line and its land. ... A so-called neolocal family living on the wife’s lineage land is best viewed as a special case of uxorimatrilocal residence. According to a well-informed, elderly ceremonialist, a man living on his lineage land should discuss with his lineage mates what part of the land will eventually be used by his wife and children. Thus virimatrilocal residence produces a division of the land some time after the man dies, peaceable if arrangements were made in advance, and possibly conflictful otherwise” (Aberle [1950s-1980] 1981:3, par. 2) 571 Storage “... built special structures for the storage of their harvests ...” (Brugge [1582-1629] 1983:491, par. 1) “Frequently too when the family can afford it, the brush shade is supplemented by a canvas tent which is pitched behind the shelter and where food and valuables are stored” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:7, par. 4) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Tin trunks, or cardboard boxes, are used to contain clothing and bedding” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:14, par. 1) Labor “... at times of crisis, as for example, when the sheep must be rounded up for dipping or shearing, for example, or during lambing time, the whole family aids. The mother, father and older children riding horseback assist at the work” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:52, par. 1) “The woman has to do all the cooking and must care for the house and children. When domesticated animals are killed she has charge of skinning the animals and of drying or cooking the meat; she makes all the clothing except the moccasins for the female members of the family and occupies herself with weaving rugs in her spare moments. ... The cash or produce received by a woman from products of her own manufacture are hers to use or to dispose of at will” (Reichard [1923-1925] 1928:52, par. 2) “Most commonly all stages of the process from carding to weaving are in progress. A woman may have two, or even three rugs started. She will stop weaving to cook or superintend the flock, sometimes even to herd, if no young or old people are available. It is not the province of a successful Navajo matron to herd, but if necessity demands she will do it. She can take her spinning, especially of warp, with her if she must tend the sheep all day” (Reichard [1930-1933] 1936:1, par. 3) “Even the home-maker is often interrupted. In the early summer she spends a part of each day in the corn-patch carefully coaxing the crops to withstand the dry winds and the cutting sands. Later, if her efforts have been successful, she works for days preserving the corn for winter by roasting and drying. Some days she will have visitors. At such times all may card or spin, or the hostess may quietly twist her own yarn as she sits and talks” (Reichard [1930-1933] 1936:2, par. 1) “The Navajo weaver, like any highly skilled workman, can mend her tools; if occasion demands, she can even make them. If, however, she has a husband, a brother, or a father, she is not likely to do so. Even as she shows her pride in her menfolk by weaving them choice saddleblankets, so they express their affection and interest in her work by fashioning her tools and setting up her loom” (Reichard [1930-1933] 1936:51, par. 3) 572 “In contrast to the Hopi and Zuñi it is the women among the Navajo who do most of the weaving. There are among them, however, a few male weavers whose work is of the best. If a Navajo man weaves, he is put in the class of ‘man-woman’, a category sanctioned as including such men as want to carry on woman’s activities, or such men as one of my informants said who ‘do not likes women’” (Reichard [1930-1933] 1936:161, par. 1) “Rarely ... does a woman start in to weave a blanket and go through with it in the systematic way we presuppose. She needs warp, let us say, and her mother needs weft yarn, her sister has perhaps enough of each for a blanket half done, her niece helps everybody. They therefore have a carding party. All four get busy and card if they have that many pairs of towcards. If not, one or two spin while the others card. Thus they, within a few days, produce enough warp and weft to more than supply their immediate wants. A judicious worker calculates exactly how many skeins of dyed yarn she needs so as to have the color exact throughout, but she will be as careful not to have a great deal left over, for her next rug may demand different colors. Thus the different processes go on at varying rates of speed and when making an estimate as to the amount a woman earns a day, we must always remember that the weaving and related activities are not by any means the only thing she does” (Reichard [1930-1933] 1936:186, par. 2) “In the traditional Navajo economy there was a rigid though not total division between male and female tasks. Farming and the care of horses were male activities; weaving and most household tasks were female activities. More recently, however, both sexes have collaborated in lambing, shearing, and herding activities, and both men and women are now heavily involved in wage work. Although males played the dominant roles in Navajo ritual activities, there has always been an important place for females as well” (Adams 2004:par. 12) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “In a single hogan camp the members perform their daily activities without help from neighbors. But in a camp of several hogans various day to day tasks such as hauling wood and water, are carried out jointly. ... Aside from limitations due to avoidance between mother-in-law and son-in-law, there is a great deal of coming and going among the hogans in a camp and fairly constant sharing and helping. Cooking is done by the women. Beyond this, the heavier tasks of hauling wood and water, lassooing a grazing horse, cutting wood, etc., are usually done by the men although the women all can and often do perform these tasks” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:26, par. 2) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “In no case do people from two separate camps cooperate for sheep herding. When there is more than one herd in a camp, the care of the herds is not sharply divided between hogans having separate herds. Children of sheepherding age take turns. The herd belonging to the grandparents is cared for by grandchildren from one of the younger families” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:28, par. 3) 573 [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Cooperation at ceremonials might be said to fall into two types: one in connection with the ceremonial itself, and the other having to do with the preparations for the ceremonials and for feeding a large number of people if the ceremonial is to be an important one. At the shorter and less important ceremonials attended only by the immediate family or the camp itself, all the work can be done by the members of the camp. On the more important occasions people from outside the camp will be asked to help” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:32, par. 1) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “There were fourteen longer ceremonials for more serious conditions in which people from outside the camps participated. In preparation for the larger ceremonials the work of hauling wood and water is usually done by some of the older boys or younger men whether they are members of the camp where the ceremonial is taking place or not. There are three of the older boys in this area who almost invariably do this work. The reason for this is probably that these boys are unmarried and are not busy herding because their younger siblings care for the sheep. The preparation of the food is done by the sisters, daughters and mother of the woman at whose place the ceremonial is held. In addition, data on cooperation show that out of twelve people who helped outside their camps, four helped their brothers-in- law, three helped their sisters, and one each helped a brother, mother’s sister, father’s sister, sister’s son and sister’s daughter. There were two further cases of individuals who had married into Navajo Mountain helping their spouses’ mother’s brother. The bulk of the food consumed during these larger ceremonials was provided by members of the camp. In those cases where food was donated by people outside the camp, it came from sisters of the woman at whose place the ceremonials were being held, whether the ceremonial was for that woman or some other member of her camp” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:32, par. 2) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “There is ... a fair variety of people between whom cooperation at ceremonials is likely but they are all within a narrow range of affinal and consanguineous relationship” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:33, par. 1) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Mothers and daughters are constant companions in work and recreation” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:72, par. 3) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “A grown son living at home will herd with his father, work with him in the fields, spend much time with him in the upkeep or repair of a car” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:75, par. 7) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Brothers and sisters are brought up in the same hogan; as children they play together and herd together. When they approach adolescence, companionship is less constant because their work obligations have become increasingly differentiated” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:81, par. 7) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “As children [sisters] live, work, and play together. They go to school together, and when they marry they are likely to live in adjacent hogans in their camp 574 of origin. Living thus, only a few yards apart, they spend much time together and are constantly available to each other for mutual aid in daily household tasks, in exchanging babysitting stints, in butchering a lamb, or in entertaining with small talk a sister who is weaving” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:84, par. 2) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “A grown niece cooperates with her mother’s sister in the everyday tasks around their family camp ...” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:89, par. 3) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “... cooperative pattern of a family-based pastoralism” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:99, par. 1) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Maintenance of the household is the other activity in which there is regular cooperation. This requires the building and care of hogans, the hauling of wood and water, cooking, and the making, washing, and repairing of clothing. The division of labor is by residence group, by sex, and by age” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:99, par. 2) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Sheep ... are herded in a common flock by members of an extended family or camp. If an ‘outsider,’ or nonmember, of the extended family herds, he expects to be paid, whereas members of the camp are considered to be helping to take care of their own sheep. ... Traditionally, Navajo children were the sheepherders, and they still do most of the herding in the summer; but in the wintertime when they are away at school, the task falls upon the adult men and women, even on the very old if they are able-bodied. ... Women with small children may be excused from their share of herding but other members of the camp who shirk their part often find themselves involved in a family dispute” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:100, par. 2-3) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Women share with men in the work of lambing, castrating horses, shearing, dipping and dusting ..., and in the butchering” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:101, par. 1) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “All the adult men in the camp, plus the boys, cooperate in dry farming on the plateau and irrigated farming in the canyons” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:102, par. 3) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Again we found no evidence of any group larger than the extended family which regularly cooperated for farming” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960- 1966] 1970:103, par. 3) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Men do the heaviest work in the household maintenance. They build the hogans, fell the trees, prepare the logs, which are sometimes hauled for long distances, and cover the hogan with mud. Traditionally, all male members of the camp helped 575 each household head to build a hogan and many still do lend aid; however, there are cases where the individual owner of the hogan is asked to pay relatives for their labor. A son will help build a hogan for his aged mother or assemble a welfare house for which the Navajo Tribe has contributed the lumber” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:107, par. 2) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “The cooking, care of the children, sewing of skirts and blouses and children’s clothes, and hand washing is done by the women. ... Young girls learn these tasks and help their mothers and sisters with the household chores” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:107, par. 3) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “The handling of machinery is frequently considered to be man’s work. Men usually grind the corn in a meat grinder set up either outside in the ramada or inside in the Hogan” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:108, par. 1) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Organizing of the extended-family activities is usually done by the oldest man who is still able to work, in consultation with the other adult men of the camp. The oldest able-bodied woman plans the women’s work in joint household enterprises, but again a great deal of consultation is expected. During a weekend that we spent with a family in Paiute Canyon, the father organized the day’s activities (the mother was working at a school in another district). At breakfast he made assignments to the children: the teenage girls were to cook and wash the dishes; the 11-year-old boy was to fetch water and carry packages. The father’s task was to round up the horses; the older boy was to roll up the bedding, and he and his father were engaged to work on the Tribal project of cleaning out the irrigation ditches. One girl was assigned to take us horseback riding through the canyon. In other families, if the mother is a strong personality, she will plan all of the day’s activities and distribute the chores” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:108, par. 2) [Klagetoh Navajo] “In no case does farming cross cooperating-group lines” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:57, par. 2) [Klagetoh Navajo] “A comparison of the herding and farming practices shows that there are four instances in which groups living in close proximity do not cooperate for either herding or farming” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:57, par. 3) [Klagetoh Navajo] “The same groups that work together regularly for herding and agricultural pursuits at Klagetoh also cooperate for a ceremonial. When ceremonial cooperation goes outside these lines it is usually between people who are of the same clan or whose fathers are of the same clan. Cooperation between people connected by marriage is also very frequent. It is also true that people help each other at ceremonials because they live close together even if they are unrelated. They say that their parents taught them to do this. But this type of cooperation is by no means so frequent as that between people of the same clan” (Collier [1938- 1939] 1966:58, par. 2) 576 [Klagetoh Navajo] “Herding and farming present additional manpower requirements, which are supplied by combination into cooperating-groups. The camps that combine for herding may recombine with different camps for farming. Sometimes the same combination carries on both activities. Each larger group, consisting of the camps cooperating for herding and farming activities, constitutes a territorial unit” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:64, par. 2) [Ramah Navajo] “Both men and women may weave and do silverwork. In Navaho theory, house construction (except for plastering) and working with buckskin are male tasks, but over the past 20 years we have observed women participating in both these occupations. Ritual objects are made only by men, and in the past the manufacture of hunting and war equipment was exclusively male. Only women made baskets and pottery (except for clay hunting pipes which were made by men)” (Kluckhohn [1949-1955] 1966:344, par. 4) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “... the Navajo division of labor is extremely flexible so that Navajo women ... can participate in a wide variety of productive tasks including sheepherding, shearing, and dipping and almost all agricultural activities. ... much of the cooperation at ceremonies focuses on food preparation, which is done in women’s work groups” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:14, par. 1) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “There is a rough division of labor in the household, with the wife performing the cooking, housecleaning, weaving, washing and ironing, and the primary care of children. The husband usually carries out the heavier tasks, such as house-building and repair, water and wood hauling, and wood chopping. ... Many other activities are shared, however, and on numerous occasions one partner takes over a task usually delegated to the opposite sex when the other spouse is absent. For example, almost every Navajo male can cook; when his wife is away, he can prepare mutton stew, boil coffee, and make fried bread or flour tortillas. Similarly, a woman often carries water from a nearby spring, or if she drives a pickup truck, she may haul it from a distant well; she often chops wood for the cookstove and frequently makes repairs. ... Most household tasks can be performed by one adult of either sex as long as there are other adult relatives within the same residence group who can aid in tasks requiring two or more people” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:83, par. 2) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “Joint activities within the residence group concern the care of the sheep herd and the cultivation of fields. ... In an extended family camp the parents or widowed mother are the focus of ... organizing cooperation” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:83, par. 3) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “... the primary kin (parents and married children) who live within shouting distance and who are in daily cooperation, especially for livestock and agricultural activities, and who jointly make use of the same area of land, form a regular pattern of ... cooperative effort. Specifiable patterns of authority indicate that the older couple in an extended family residence group are the main requesters who organize herding and cultivating 577 activities. In a nuclear family residence group ..., the husband and wife jointly consult on these matters and are tʹ áá bee bóholnííh” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:84, par. 6) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “In Copper Canyon, the most typical pattern ... was to rotate herding duties among two or more people, which allowed more freedom of activity” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:112, par. 4) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “For the seventeen nuclear camps, herding was handled by one, two, or at most three adults. In most instances it was a husband and wife who jointly shared the herding responsibilities, although in two cases an unmarried adult son helped. At times one spouse did more herding than the other; a woman did the herding while her husband was away for wage work, and a man herded because most of the sheep belonged to him and not to his wife. If the couple had young unmarried children, they were used for herding during the summer” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:112, par. 5) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “Extended camps with two households (a total of sixteen in Copper Canyon) usually had the following composition: one household contained an older couple (or widow) who were the parents of a son or daughter who lived with a spouse and children in the second or junior household. The widow or older couple had prime responsibility for herding the sheep. She, or they, called on one or both of the adults in the junior household in order to rotate the herding among more individuals. Herding was always done by at least two individuals, and sometimes three or four were recruited from two different households. Within such two-household residence groups, the particular combination of adults who did the herding varied. In one case it was a widow and her son (Camp 7). In another it was an older couple and the son-in-law (Camp 8). In a third instance, herding was shared by the older couple, a daughter, and the son-in-law (Camp 44). Various methods of rotating the herding were worked out, involving members of both households. The pattern of using members of two households to do the herding also held true for camps of three, four, and five households (eleven extended camps). The parental couple, or widow, still had prime responsibility for the herd and did most of the herding. ... They (or she) called regularly on a couple in one of the other households, rather than calling equally on all the remaining households (whether they were two, three, or four in number). In other words, one of the junior couples would help with the herding while others would not. This might have been the household of a son and daughter-in-law or a daughter and son-in-law” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:113, par. 3-5) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “Unlike herding, the organization of cooperation for shearing depends on the size of the herd rather than the composition and size of the residence group” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:115, par. 5) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “For small herds there was a general assumption that each individual should shear his or her own sheep. In practice, members of a residence group who owned sheep in the herd usually did the shearing at the same time, and everyone pitched in rather 578 than each selecting his own sheep. If several adults were working they might do all the shearing in one morning. If only one couple were working, they might stretch out the process over several days” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:116, par. 2) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “In a nuclear camp the husband and wife usually shared shearing responsibility. In extended camps, those who sheared were also the ones who herded, plus anyone in the camp who owned some of the sheep. In several cases a son or daughter who lived at another camp, but who had sheep in the herd, came over to participate” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:116, par. 3) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “In shearing herds of over seventy-five sheep, participants usually came from outside the residence group (whether it was a nuclear camp or an extended camp of two households). A herd this size seemed to mark the boundary between getting help and not doing so. One woman and her fourteen-year-old son sheared a herd of seventy-five without help from other relatives. Her mother herded the sheep but was too old to do more strenuous work, such as shearing; the woman’s husband was employed off-reservation on the railroad, so she and her son sheared a few sheep each morning until the whole herd was completed. This was an unusual case, however. Other nuclear and extended residence groups with herds of the same size received outside help. Workers were paid twenty or twenty-five cents for each pelt, and were also fed a customary meal of mutton stew, bread, and coffee at midday or at the end of the shearing” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:116, par. 4) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “Eleven herds in Copper Canyon numbered over seventy-five animals. Navajos from outside the residence group assisted in shearing at least seven of these herds. (Data were unavailable for two others where outside help was probably forthcoming.) ... The same couples helped in several different cases, but the combination of those present was never quite the same. Those helping were usually classificatory relatives; in other words, they were distant genealogical kin or clan relatives, but not the nonresident close kin of those owning the herd (e.g., adult siblings and sibling children)” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:116, par. 5) 579 [Copper Canyon Navajo] Table D.9 “Table 6.3 Shearing Groups for Herds of More Than Seventy-five Adult Sheep,” from Lamphere 1977:117 (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:117) 580 [Copper Canyon Navajo] “In the three shearing groups in which I participated, the patterns of authority and communication were as follows: The oldest male connected with the herd (a bachelor who had his own herd; an older son who lived with his wife and widowed mother; a father in a camp which included his wife, married daughter, and son-in-law) oversaw the shearing. He did little shearing himself, and he did not give direct instructions or commands to those who came to help. Instead, he tended to take over the small tasks, such as letting unsheared sheep into the shearing corral, tying the bags of wool and loading them into a pickup, and sharpening the shears. He indirectly and unobtrusively watched the progress of the shearing, which usually proceeded smoothly, with both male and female shearers working individually. The son-in-law, in one camp, worked along with the nonresident shearers, though he performed a few of the coordinating activities, such as sharpening the shears. The women of the residence group (the sister, wife, or wife and married daughter) butchered and prepared a meal of mutton stew, fried bread, and coffee for the shearers wither at midday or at the end of the shearing” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:118, par. 2-3) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “[Sheepdipping] is an occasion when all the households in the residence group participate. ... A rough division of labor exists in the dipping activities. The children often do the herding and look after the sheep while waiting their turn to enter the holding pen. Both men and women aid in separating the lambs and kids from the sheep and goats and in pushing the animals through the runways. Men and teen-age boys throw the animals into the vat. Women and children push them through, although some of the old men help. Young men do the counting and herding of the animals into the holding pens after they clamber out of the troughs. There is joint effort on the part of everyone. Some of the men and teen-age boys work most of the day lifting sheep into the vats, even after their own herd has been dipped. Both men and women help with the animals in herds that precede and follow their own” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:119, par. 3-4) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “It is the responsibility of the residence group ... to see that their own sheep are put through the vats. Thus the personnel engaged in each task is constantly changing, and the number of people helping varies depending on the size of the residence group. Larger residence groups have a full cadre of helpers, including many children. Nuclear camps and isolated individuals are able to put the sheep through by themselves, but some receive aid from close relatives who reside in other camps” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:120, par. 1) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “The two days of intense interaction that characterize dipping ... reveal the importance of the residence group as a unit of cooperation. Unlike herding, dipping is apt to bring the participation of the entire residence group. Rather than a system of rotation, it calls for the concerted effort of adults and children in all households for part of a day. In only a few instances—where two small herds are combined into one—is help recruited from outside the residence group” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:121, par. 2) 581 [Copper Canyon Navajo] “Within this uxorilocal extended camp, with transportation, there was mutual aid between households, although members of each household were primarily responsible for packing their own things. As with activities like sheepherding or shearing, the parents, and especially the mother, served as a clearinghouse for coordinating the movements of households ...” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:144, par. 4) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “Women prepare and cook the food while men usually haul the wood and water. Both share in the butchering, wood chopping, and ritual tasks” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:147, par. 3) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “Members of a distinct subsistence residential unit put their sheep into a common herd and share in the tasks of caring for the herd. The sheep herd is normally the most important cooperative enterprise of the unit. The group or communal life of the unit finds its life and existence in the cooperative economy of the unit. And it is in the sheep herd, more than in anything else, that the divergent interests of the individual members of the unit are converged into this meaningful, cooperative undertaking” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:72, par. 3) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “Although the sheep are individually owned, they are herded in common within each unit. Everyone in the unit has an interest in the well-being of the herd, and everyone is expected to share in the tasks of herding, dipping, lambing, and shearing” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:87, par. 1) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “One is never compelled to care for the herd, help with the shearing, or watch over the lambing” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:97, par. 2) Subsistence Production “... planted maize and perhaps other crops but moved to areas distant from their fields for hunting ...” (Brugge [1582-1629] 1983:491, par. 1) “Today the Navaho depend for their livelihood primarily on livestock and agriculture. ... Agriculture is practiced almost universally ... Sheep are by far the most important item of livestock. They are not so evenly distributed as farmlands; a few families have none, some have very small herds and a few have really large herds. In general, however, the Navaho are still both farmers and herders” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:7, par. 1-2) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “At planting time all the men living at Navajo Mountain work together in Paiute Canyon, moving from field to field. The fields on the plateau are planted individually” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:29, par. 2) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Although ... there is never any cooperation between two camps for herding, there is a great deal of mutual help in agricultural pursuits. Work in the smaller fields near the mountain is usually done by each family that uses the products of the 582 field, but in the larger fields in Paiute Canyon several people from outside the camp invariably help. These fields in Paiute Canyon are far enough from the hogans on the plateau so that it is necessary to move down there for several days during planting and harvesting. One or more members of each camp stay at home to herd the sheep but the rest go to the fields together. All the people from Navajo Mountain do not necessarily harvest on exactly the same days but their work does overlap and most of them are in the canyon at the same time” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:30, par. 1) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “The Navaho do say that everyone within the Navajo Mountain group helps everyone else, especially people in nearby fields. It was practically impossible to obtain concrete data on specific people who have cooperated in the past” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:30, par. 2) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “... a man usually helps his neighbors with their fields. ... brothers and brothers-in-law cooperate even though their fields are not adjacent. This is particularly true of men who are young and are married but have no children old enough to help them. ... if a man helps his father-in-law harvest he will help his father-in-law’s brothers as well. Conversely, if a man fails to help any of these relatives he is considered a shirker by the rest of the group. Less frequently a man will ask others who are good workers to help him regardless of their relationship or the location of their fields” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:31, par. 1) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “There are five important agricultural tasks: (1) clearing the field and cleaning the irrigation ditches (for fields on the Flats, which are irrigated), (2) irrigation (only in the Flats fields), (3) plowing and planting, (4) weeding (once or twice during the summer), and (5) harvesting. These tasks are usually performed by men, though women help with the planting, weeding, and harvesting. ... One household in the residence group takes the lead in agricultural activities. Often this is the parental couple, but it may also be one of the junior couples. The latter is most often the case when parents are aging and prefer to leave cultivation to the younger generation” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:122, par. 3-4) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “... fields, though they may be held in the name of one individual or couple, are at the disposal of the residence group. For the nuclear residence group, the husband takes the lead in cultivation, though the wife helps with some tasks. This is true even if the field has been acquired through the wife’s relatives (i.e., obtained though her mother or father). For extended families, one household usually is responsible for planting and taking care of the field. Usually this is the parental couple; however, as they become older, either a married son or daughter living in the camp will take over cultivation. It is unlikely that a field will be placed in the name of a son-in-law while the wife’s parents are still living in the camp. The older couple or widow will be consulted if the junior couple wishes to plant. The field will remain in the mother or father’s name, even though the junior couple have become the actual cultivators. Likewise, a nonresident son or daughter or granddaughter may ask to plant in the parent’s field, especially if members of the residence group have not been using it. Produce is 583 given to other households in the residence group, though the household doing most of the cultivation keeps the bulk for itself” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:123, par. 3) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “The main resources on which the subsistence residential units in the Rough Rock-Black Mountain area depend are sheep, cattle, agriculture, wage work, welfare assistance, payments for medical practice, weaving, and seasonal or part- time work” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:86, par. 1) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “Although the sheep herd produces only about one-fourth of the total income of the subsistence residential units at Rough Rock, it is still the most important aspect of the economy of the unit. Some units do not have any cattle, wage workers, agricultural fields, welfare assistance, medicine men, or seasonal workers, but all units have a sheep herd. ... the subsistence residential unit is organized around the cooperative enterprise of the sheep herd” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:86, par. 2) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “All the fifty units covered in this study were organized around a sheep herd was 131. Of the forty-six herds on which I have data, was approximately four thousand acres, and the average size of a sheep herd is 131. Of the forty-six herds on which I have data, seventeen had less than a hundred sheep. Seventeen had between one hundred and two hundred sheep. Ten had between two hundred and three hundred sheep, while two had more than three hundred sheep” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:87, par. 2) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “Of secondary but increasing importance in the livestock operation of subsistence residential units is cattle raising. Fifty-two percent of the units at Rough Rock had some cattle. ... averages fourteen head of cattle per unit” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:89, par. 2) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “Only eight of the units at Rough Rock plant fields. The crops grown are mostly corn, melons, and squash. Most of these are either consumed within the unit or shared with relatives outside the unit. Sometimes a portion will be sold, but not often. The main reason that most of the units do not plant fields is the lack of access to water for irrigation. Those who do plant fields are in a position to capture some of the runoff water from the mountains or from drainage areas elsewhere” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:89, par. 3) Non-Subsistence Production “The Navajo word for ‘teach’ is to ‘show’, and that is exactly what they do” (Reichard [1930-1933] 1936:3, par. 1) “The first step in the conversion of wool is shearing, which is done in the early spring. ... The shearer ties the legs of each animal together, places it before her and with ordinary hand- 584 shears proceeds systematically to clip the fleece from neck to tail” (Reichard [1930-1933] 1936:13, par. 2-3) “After the wool is carded, the spinner begins her work” (Reichard [1930-1933] 1936:17, par. 1) “Spinning, like a few other things, cannot be taught. A woman can ‘show’ me how to do it; I must learn the coördination through practise. The perfection of the art is one which depends largely on feeling, a niceness of balance and judgment between implement, material, and the spinner’s hands” (Reichard [1930-1933] 1936:18, par. 1) “Since she needs two colors Atlnaba will set two buckets full of water on the brisk fire she makes near the well. While she waits for it to boil she washes the gray and the white skeins in cold water. One soapy wash water and one cold rinse and they are ready to hang up to dry” (Reichard [1930-1933] 1936:25, par. 2) “The dyeing is almost as simple as the washing. Those skeins which are dyed are not washed. Atlnaba shakes the dye into the boiling water, stirs it with a stick, lets it come once more to a boil, then puts her white wool into the red, her mixed wool into the black. She boils them until she judges them to be sufficiently dark, approximately half an hour” (Reichard [1930- 1933] 1936:25, par. 3) “The tangible elements which enter into a Navajo rug are materials, craftsmanship and remuneration. The intangibles are the weaver’s interest, her experience, and finally, her interpretation of her experience in terms of her materials” (Reichard [1930-1933] 1936:27, par. 4) “Never is anything measured exactly, but the weaver uses her judgment or accedes to her circumstances” (Reichard [1930-1933] 1936:47, par. 3) “Unlike the European weaver who has her loom made for her, the Navajo makes hers as she goes. The setting up of the warp involves at the same time the manufacture of the loom” (Reichard [1930-1933] 1936:53, par. 1) “Warp is often strung outside the hogan or at a place where there is no loomframe to which the warp stringing has no necessary relation” (Reichard [1930-1933] 1936:53, par. 4) “Navajo loomframes are not by any means all in houses. Outside, they may be fastened in the earth below and to trees at the top, or other devices may be resorted to. Each household always has one, but very often two or three in various places, both outdoors and in” (Reichard [1930-1933] 1936:61, par. 3) “The weaving done by the expert ... seems simple and easy ... The reason long hours of practise are necessary to achieve her results is that all these motions must be accomplished at 585 nearly the same instant. The comb must be held at rest, as the batten is inserted into the shed and carefully keeping every warp exactly in place. In the twinkling before the batten is moved to horizontal the edge strand must be slipped onto it, and as soon as it is turned, the comb is shifted from its position of rest to the position for pounding. During the process of pounding, the left hand is momentarily idle except as it helps in regulating the tension of the weft which is being laid in” (Reichard [1930-1933] 1936:72, par. 1-2) “... all but one of the effects of ordinary weaving, even the most elaborate, are based on three quite simple design-elements, which may be varied as to composition, but which remain fixed technically. The learner who knows how to make these three elements—one has two variations—will know all the fundamentals a Navajo woman knows. The genius and taste of the worker will determine how they will be combined for the final effects” (Reichard [1930-1933] 1936:86, par. 1) “The weaver must keep the composition of the entire rug surface in her mind, but she must see it as a huge succession of stripes only one weft strand wide. ... This, the broadest and must fundamental principle of design weaving, although habitually employed, is almost certainly not realized by the weavers themselves. It is brought under control only after long practice” (Reichard [1930-1933] 1936:86, par. 2-3) “The elements, from which all elaborations are made, are the horizontal stripe which the weaver has already mastered, the obtuse-angled triangle, the vertical stripe or line which is achieved in two ways, and the more nearly equiangular triangle” (Reichard [1930-1933] 1936:88, par. 1) “If we knew the exact process whereby a Navajo weaver comes by her designs, we should have the definition of inspiration. Almost any drawing has the potentiality of stimulating her with the idea for a rug, but the details of the suggestive material will rarely, except in certain tragi-comic cases, appear exactly as they occur in the original. They will be revamped and reassembled so that, unless the weaver tells us, we should seldom anticipate the origin of her composition. Nor does she always need an external stimulus. While she was working on her last rug, suggested perhaps by the wrapper of a ‘crackerjack’ box, another pattern, perhaps with no discernible relationship, may have come to her” (Reichard [1930-1933] 1936:112, par. 1) “Until quite recently the Navajo women wove all compositions ‘out of their heads’. Most of them still do so. That is, they visualize a design and carry it out” (Reichard [1930-1933] 1936:112, par. 2) “The general characteristics are coarseness and crudeness of material and weave, barbaric or very quiet colors, often a combination of both, designs on face and back similar, with the same, not alternating colors, and use of the simplest design-elements. Materials and techniques remain incredibly stable, designs change overnight. It is impossible to indicate all the variations in style but certain tendencies may be pointed out” (Reichard [1930-1933] 1936:141, par. 2) 586 “Since the beginning of weaving, the time of which we do not know, they have had a few simple designs. The most common are obtuse and acute-angled triangles which if doubled form rectangles or parallelograms; stripes, horizontal, vertical and diagonal” (Reichard [1930-1933] 1936:142, par. 1) “More usually the designs are unique, their weavers’ minds being so versatile that it is seldom possible to determine from what source or sources they drew their inspiration” (Reichard [1930-1933] 1936:146, par. 2) “An expert may show her supremacy by exaggerating size or by providing herself with complications. The most skilful Navajo weaver does both, for with gigantism goes design elaboration. ... the rule is that the larger the blanket attempted the more pretentious the design and the smaller the number of errors” (Reichard [1930-1933] 1936:149, par. 4) “The Navajo weaver, in early days and usually now when left to herself, will weave geometric designs. Once in a great while when she wishes to amuse herself she may try realism” (Reichard [1930-1933] 1936:153, par. 1) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Today, in Navajo Mountain, ideally and actually, the father shares responsibility with the mother for the support and training of his children. He advises, teaches manners and male skills ...” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:74, par. 4) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “The principal craft in Navajo Mountain is weaving, an occupation usually of women. ... Men make the upright loom that is set up each time a new rug is begun either in the hogan if it is cold weather, or outside under a brush shade (ramada), if the weather is warm. Making rugs is a leisure-time occupation, and often weaving is begun when the household is in want of cash. Rugs are sold to the traders and the money belongs to the weaver ...” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:105, par. 3) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Every woman in Navajo Mountain knows how to weave, having learned the art as a child from an older woman, her mother, her mother’s sister, or her mother’s mother. ... One person alone conceives the design and controls the making of the rug, although others may help out under the weaver’s direction” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960- 1966] 1970:105, par. 4) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Another craft activity for women is the making of coiled baskets, and bottle-shaped basketry containers which are covered with pitch so that they will hold water” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:106, par. 3) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Men’s crafts consist of dressing buckskin and making moccasins, lariats, whips, and hobbles” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:106, par. 6) 587 [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “Weaving is another source of income, and nearly all the units have one or more weavers” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:91, par. 2) Consumption “Although the extended family is not a commensal unit for all purposes, some food, especially meat, is shared” (Aberle 1981:2, par. 1) “Communalism operates ... in the sharing of the products of the [sheep] herd. Food from the herd is shared among everyone in the residence group. Usually an informal rotation is followed in the periodic butchering of sheep. The permission of individual owners is not necessary to butcher their sheep if the meat is to be shared within the residence group” (Witherspoon 1983:535, par. 2) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Even in the case of meals, which are generally prepared and eaten separately in each hogan, there is considerable sharing of cooked food” (Collier [1938- 1939] 1966:26, par. 2) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Individuals, by turns, furnish a sheep to be butchered, and the meat is shared among nuclear families constituting the camp” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:101, par. 5) [Navajo Mountain Navajo] “Corn, melons, and peaches are the principal crops; these products are not sold commercially, but may be bartered with neighbors and relatives” (Shepardson and Hammond [1960-1966] 1970:112, par. 2) [Klagetoh Navajo] “Preparing and eating of meals is usually done in each hogan although cooked food may be shared within the camp” (Collier [1938-1939] 1966:64, par. 2) [Copper Canyon Navajo] “Harvesting is a casual operation, with corn and melons being taken from the field as soon as they are ripe. The produce belongs to those who plant it, though it is widely distributed among other members of the residence group and other relatives. Produce is purchased from nonrelatives, and Copper Canyon residents often go to Black House Mesa at the end of the summer to buy corn, melons, or peaches from the residents there who have much larger fields. ... the price is set by the requester and accepted by those giving the food. If, however, a family loads a pickup full of melons, squash, or corn, and goes from camp to camp with the produce, they are considered vendors; it is appropriate to ask how much an item costs, and they reply with an asking price” (Lamphere [1965-1966] 1977:123, par. 2) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “In the routine of daily life, each household group eats at a separate table in or just outside its housing unit (hogan, log house, stone house, or something similar). During special occasions and ceremonies and just after a sheep has been butchered, all resident members of the subsistence residential unit eat together” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:83, par. 3) 588 [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “The sharing of food is a symbol of solidarity. When a sheep is slaughtered for food, everyone in the unit gets what he or she wants and needs. It would be an antisocial act of enormous proportions for one household to butcher one of their own sheep and not share it with others in the unit. ... sheep as sources of food are communally utilized, and the sharing of food is a primary social obligation. This extends even to outsiders and to non-Navajo who may be present at the time of butchering or at mealtime. The refusal to share food is a denial of kinship, and one of the worst things to be said about a person is, ‘She refused to share her food’ or ‘He acts as though he had no kinsmen’—meaning about the same thing” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:88, par. 2) [Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo] “Because food is shared among all members of the unit, the increase or decrease of a single individual’s sheep increases or decreases the food supply for all” (Witherspoon [1966-1968] 1975:97, par. 1) 589 APPENDIX E: The Nahua Area [Tzintzuntzeños] 590 Data - (5) Tzintzuntzeños [The Nahua Area] Community “... Tzintzuntzan had nearly 200 vecinos, i.e., heads of families ...” (Foster [1639] 1948:20, par. 5) “... 1,077 persons of 1940 ...” (Kemper 1974:24, par. 2) “... in 1945, it had only 1,231 residents ...” (Kemper 2002:305, par. 2) “... 1,800 inhabitants ...” (Foster 1961:1176, par. 2) “... about 2,400 people (1969 estimate) ...” (Foster 1969:263, par. 3) “In 1970, the community had a resident population of 2,169 ...” (Kemper 1979:26, par. 5) “In 1970, when the village had 360 households, there were at least 74 migrant households in the capital with a total population of 483 persons” (Kemper 1979:28, par. 4) “... the local population consisted of 2,635 persons living in 429 households in 1980. ... an increase from the 2,253 persons who lived in 360 households ten years earlier” (Kemper 1981:213, par. 3) “In the few years I have studied it—less than a generation—Tzintzuntzan has doubled in size” (Foster [1959-1966] 1967:264, par. 2) “The only governmental unit limited exclusively to Tzintzuntzan is the Comunidad Indígena, the Indigenous Community, the corporate village structure surviving from colonial times when Indian communities held communally all their lands. ... it has no physical office, and very little formal structure. It is headed by a president, elected in open meeting at which all heads of families, whether natives of Tzintzuntzan or not, may participate. He keeps such records as he deems worthwhile, calls meetings if something requires action, and otherwise ‘defends’ the community interests. His term is for an indefinite period, and when asked people often have to think hard to remember who he is. ... It is the Indigenous Community, for example, that is convoked for action on such specific items as repairs to the roof of the monastery (in which the priest lives), or a new pump for the potable water system. So, however informal and often inadequate the system, and however vague its functioning is in the minds of people, it is fairly significant in community life” (Foster [1944-1946] 1967:172, par. 1-2) “Socially and economically the village is relatively homogeneous. Social classes are absent, and there are no families or individuals of disproportionate power and influence” (Foster 1961:1176, par. 2) 591 “The most significant change in village social structure—as yet incipient—is the beginning emergence of feelings of class differences, and the appropriateness of differential behavior depending on one’s perception of position within the system” (Foster [1959-1966] 1967:323, par. 2) “The concern with class differences which are just beginning to come out into the open, and which are being used to justify differences in behavior, based on economic position, will increase in the future as wealth inequalities become even more marked, as advanced schooling gives some young people a great educational advantage over others, and as increased mobility widens the world in which villagers live and work. The groundwork has been laid, and the next twenty years will produce changes no villager yet expects” (Foster [1959-1966] 1967:326, par. 2) [Yaguaro barrio] “scarcity of money and land virtually assures that everyone will spend at least part of his or her life in a joint household” (Brandes [1967-1968] 1979:21, par. 4) Village “An overwhelming majority of Tzintzuntzeños live in the village because they were born in or near it. In addition, others who were born at places farther away were born to parents who had temporarily left Tzintzuntzan, and who returned while their children were still young” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:30, par. 3) “Houses are most closely bunched along the highway and around the plaza and, in true metropolitan style, property values are here highest. Nevertheless, families like the luxury of land about them, and most houses are set in a solar, or lot. The house often, though not always, is built on the street line. Farther from the center of town a house may be set back a short distance from the road ...” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:34, par. 4) “The primary social unit is based on locality, not descent. The basic, visible, identifiable segment is the village” (Foster 1961:1177, par. 2) “In the absence of lineages, functional extended families, and voluntary associations, the individual’s only identification with and allegiance to a corporate body is to Tzintzuntzan itself, a legal entity granted a charter by King Charles V of Spain early in the 16th century. Membership, strictly speaking, stems from birth within the village, although in fact long residence confers legal equality on persons born elsewhere, even though it is always remembered they are not natives” (Foster 1961:1177, par. 3) “Faustino’s home is on the edge of town in a small neighborhood slightly set off from the main grouping of village houses. Sixteen neighbor households lie within a block and a half, forming a recognizable unit. Primary compadres are found in four of these households, 592 secondary compadres in two, while a seventh household is that of his married nephew Adolfo, with whom he shares a patio” (Foster 1961:1189, par. 1) Descent and Residence “Ideally, each family consisting of a married couple and children should have its own house with small yard, and a few of the wealthier fathers are able to provide a separate home for their sons, which is lent or given outright to them. In most cases, however, such arrangements are impossible. ... six family heads live for nothing as caretakers in homes belonging to other individuals. ... Most commonly, ... a newlywed couple continues to live in the home of the father of the boy ... Less often, the boy goes to live in the home of his bride’s parents. Only when sufficient capital has been acquired, or when older relatives die leaving a vacant house, is it possible to set up independent housekeeping, which is the almost universal desire on the part of new couples” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:264, par. 5) “... the nuclear bilateral family is the basic social unit” (Foster 1961:1173, par. 4) “Blood descent is traced equally through the father’s and mother’s lines...” (Foster 1961:1178, par. 5) “Patrilineality is evidenced by the priority of the father’s patronym, and by the fact that with each new generation the parents’ matronyms are sloughed off” (Foster 1961:1178, par. 5) “The extended family[’s] ... most common form, as a residence group, is a married couple, their unmarried children, one or two married children, and grandchildren” (Foster 1961:1179, par. 1) “A newly married couple is expected to live in the home of the groom’s family—less frequently of the bride’s family—for a year or so until the birth of the first child. After this the new family usually goes its own way. ... Not uncommonly married siblings live in adjacent houses or next to the parents’ home ...” (Foster 1961:1179, par. 4) “... modest patrilineal bias in a bilateral kinship system ...” (Foster [1959-1969] 1969:269, par. 1) 593 House/Residential Structure Figure E.1 “Figure 4.—Vicente Rendón yard plan,” from Foster 1948:37 (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:37) “Vicente’s house consists of two rooms about 5 by 6 m., outside dimension, a wide porch along the back patio side ... The kitchen is 5 m. square, outside dimension, with a door but no window” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:124, par. 6; 125, par. 2) “... depending on finish and exact size, a good two-room house in 1945 would cost between $1,500 and $3,000. Probably the poorest house, built by the owner himself, could be constructed with a cash expenditure of $100 or a bit more” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:125, par. 5) “A case history dealing with Vicente and Nati’s attempt to buy their own home sheds additional light on the nature of credit dealings in Tzintzuntzan. They started married life with little beyond a small milpa. For several years they rented a house, and then to save money moved in with Doña Andrea. A year later one of Vicente’s brothers offered him free use of a house on the land which he now owns; the brother had taken it as security on a loan, and had no immediate need for it himself. After a year the owner came to Vicente and told him he would either have to buy or move out” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:145, par. 3) “An ‘average’ house has two rooms with a porch facing an enclosed patio separated from neighboring yards by a high adobe wall. The rear wall of the house backs up to the street, and is pierced by a double door large enough, when its two leaves are open, to permit passage of loaded pack animals and oxen” (Foster [1944-1946] 1967:49, par. 2) “The poorer houses ... are more likely to have only one room that serves for sleeping, cooking, and living. ... Everyone in all but a few of these houses sleeps on reed mats on the floor, rolled up and thrust into a corner during the day. The hearth in 60 percent of these homes consists of the pre-Conquest three stones on the floor on which are placed the tortilla griddle and bean pot, used to prepare most of the food of these families” (Foster [1944-1946] 1967:50, par. 2) 594 “The top 15 per cent of the homes usually have three or more rooms ...” (Foster [1944- 1946] 1967:51, par. 1) [Tzintzuntzan migrants in Mexico City] “... migrants are ... adding rooms to their houses to take care of their children as these persons grow up, marry, and begin to raise their own families” (Kemper [1980] 1981:216, par. 1) Household “Houses frequently were occupied by more than one family, a pattern surviving to the present day. The Relación mentions as types of households two or three men with their wives and relatives, others with a single husband and wife, and in still others merely a woman and her children” (Foster [1538-1539] 1948:10, par. 1) “Each household was to be composed of an extended family consisting of up to a dozen married couples — grandparents, sons, wives, uncles, aunts, and children — with the oldest male the patriarch. Wives were subject to their husbands, and the younger men to the older. In turn, the patriarch was responsible for the conduct of all beneath him” (Foster [1530s] 1948:18, par. 2) “Doña Andrea lives with her youngest son Gabino, age 13, and with an older son Faustino and his wife Pachita, and baby daughter Lucía. In the same patio, but in a different house, lives her daughter-in-law Macaria, with her children Celia and Adolfo. The father, Jesús, is absent in the United States, working as a bracero, or laborer. Next door is an older son Wenceslao, his two children Esperanza and Miguel, and his wife Otelia, who is the sister of his dead first wife, the mother of the children. Natividad and Vicente, and their three children, Gaudencio, Teresa, and Consuelo, live in the next house” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:83, par. 2) “(1) Rendón family ... —The family consists of Vicente Rendón, 42; his wife, Natividad Peña, 40; and their three children: Gaudencio, 10; Teresa, 8; and Consuelo, 5. ... (2) Hernández family ... —The family consists of Melesio Hernández, 45, and his wife Micaela Hinojosa, 36. The children are Francisco, 17; Eucario, 15; Pablo, 12; Ofelia, 9; and Fidelia, 7, all children of Melesio by a former marriage; and Dolores, 16, and Virginia, 11, children of Micaela by a former marriage. Herminia Campuzano, 24, is the sister-in-law of Micaela. ... (3) Melchor family ... —The family consists of Eleuterio Melchor, 40; his wife Aurelia Cuirís, 35; and their children: Carmen, 16; Leonardo, 15; Margarita, 10; José, 8; and María, 2. ... (4) Alejandro Urbano family ... —The family consists of Alejandro Urbano, 55, and his wife, Margarita Farías, 45, and their children: Irineo, 20; Hipólito, 14; and Fidel, 13. ... (5) Jesús Molinero family ... — The family consists of Jesús Molinero, 56; his wife, Josefa, 56; their daughter, Elena, 25; their son, Hilario, 22; and Elena’s son, Guadalupe, 8. ... (6) Rómulo Molinero family ... —Rómulo, 28, is the son of Jesús, and with his wife, Teresa Alonso, 19, and infant daughter, Emilia, lives in the same house with his father. The work, cooking, and family budgets are apart, though pots will be fired in the same kiln at the same time. ... (7) Vázquez family ... —The family consists of Paulino, 50, a widower, and his mother, Salud, 70. ... (8) Severiano Urbano family ... —This is 595 a joint household with that of Paulino. Severiano Urbano, 32, is married to Mariana Vázquez, 28, the daughter of Paulino. Their children are Elvira, 10; Zenaida, 7, and Salud, 2. As in the case of Rómulo Molinero and his father, work schedules and family income and expenditures, as well as cooking, are kept apart from the other family in the same house” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:153, par. 2-9) “Joint households ... are characteristic of a good many families” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:265, par. 1) “In addition to joint households one frequently finds clusters of close relatives living either in adjoining lots or in houses opening into the same patio. Doña Andrea, who lives with her youngest son, Gabino, shares her kitchen—which is also workshop—with her married son Faustino, her daughter-in-law Pachita, and her infant granddaughter, Lucía. Both of these ‘families’ have separate, though adjoining houses in which they sleep. Macaria, a second daughter-in-law, has her own kitchen in which she cooks for herself and her two children, Adolfo and Celia, but the three of them sleep in the same room with Doña Andrea and Gabino. Son Wencelao and wife Otilia, and their two children live in an adjacent house and patio, while next to them live Vicente and Nati and their three children. ... Vicente and Nati are one unit, characterized by an independent work schedule and separate financial arrangements. Otilia makes pots apart from the others, though she glazes and fires them, aided by Wenceslao, in company with Doña Andrea, Pachita and Macaria, in Doña Andrea’s kiln. She and Wenceslao maintain their own financial independence, and eat in their own kitchen. Doña Andrea and Pachita work together in potmaking, and all profits are put into a common fund which buys food and other necessities for the two families. While one is cooking the other may be working, so that the functional arrangement is that of any large family. Macaria makes her own pots and keeps them separate—each potter can recognize her own work—but glazes and fires them with the other members of this work group. Since she cannot alone bring clay and wood, a part of her production goes to Faustino to carry on his trading trips as compensation for the raw materials which he furnishes. Otherwise, her income and expenses are separate. This rather complex economic integration functions without apparent difficulties, and as far as I could ever tell there was no disagreement over the relative contribution of each individual” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:265, par. 2-3) “The 376 families in Tzintzuntzan do not all have separate houses, each with its door to the street ... The 333 married couples ... live in only 277 houses. Of these, 233 have their own homes, but the remaining 100 couples occupy only 44 dwelling units. Most of these joint families (34 cases) are composed of two couples, usually parents plus a married son (28 cases) but occasionally parents with a married daughter (2 cases). In eight households there are three married couples, and in two there are four. Most of these joint households ... have additional persons such as minor children, widowed parents, elderly aunts or uncles, and rarely more distant relatives. ... in only one instance do three generations of married couples live under the same roof, and in only seven instances do pairs of married brothers live together. The 277 homes 596 occupied by one or more married couples, plus 43 occupied by families with no married couples, give us a total of 320 dwelling units in the village” (Foster [1944-1946] 1967:56, par. 1) “There are ... three degrees of ‘jointness,’ as evidenced by cooking arrangements. In 12 dwelling units ... families have physically separate kitchens, so that they can be said to be joint only in the sense that they occupy a common plot of land. In 16 additional homes there is a single kitchen, but the family units cook separately and maintain distinct food budgets. In only 16 instances do two or more couples participate in communal cooking based on a single food budget” (Foster [1944-1946] 1967:56, par. 2) “Joint families are primarily the result of marriage customs. In the usual pattern a man brings his bride to his father’s house where the new couple lives for a year or two, until the first child is born, after which they separate, the son setting up his own home. For a couple with several sons, this means that during their middle years they are almost certain to live under a joint arrangement, for as the older married sons move out to set up their own households, the younger sons marry and bring their brides home. Frequently the last son to marry remains on in the parental home, inheriting it upon the death of his father. In 16 instances of a married on living with his parents, the young husband is 24 years of age or less, and has been married fairly recently. Most of these young couples will soon set up independent households. But in 21 cases the married son (or sons) are older than 24, and usually have several children” (Foster [1944- 1946] 1967:57, par. 1) “... only 13 per cent of the households are joint, but since by definition joint households are larger than single households, this 13 per cent accounts for 22 per cent (with 421 people) of the village population. Thus, despite a stated ideal of each married couple achieving independence and living alone with its children, there actually is a strong current of jointness, and it is a rare individual who has not, at some time in his life, been a member of a joint family” (Foster [1944-1946] 1967:57, par. 2) “... sleeping is often quite communal. A single bed may be used simultaneously by four or five people of various ages. ... Sleeping alone may be an unpleasant, lonely, and therefore frightening experience. The warmth of other bodies in bed, the sounds of breathing, the turnings and stirrings of others, are all reassuring. Crowding ... is a positive value” (Foster [1944-1946] 1967:105, par. 2) “The compound household ... consists either of several separate constructions or buildings surrounded by a wall or fence, or of clearly delineated living quarters constructed against the surrounding wall. This ... predominates among ... Tzintzuntzan ...” (Nutini [1944- 1946] 1967:386, par. 2) “The presence of the extended family is ... reported for ... Tzintzuntzan ...” (Nutini [1944- 1946] 1967:388, par. 2) 597 “The nuclear, bilateral unit is simultaneously the ideal and the most common household” (Foster 1961:1178, par. 5) “Ideal role behavior within the family is simply stated. The husband is dominant, owed obedience and respect by his wife and children even after the latter reach adulthood. The wife is faithful and submissive and recognizes her place in the home. Siblings are expected to display the fraternal virtues of mutual economic and moral support, both while they live under the same roof and after they set up independent households. Real patterns may deviate widely from these ideals” (Foster 1961:1181, par. 1) “Faustino, aged 40, lives with his wife Pachita and their six children” (Foster 1961:1188, par. 3) “In 1970, the village population was divided among 360 households, of which 252 (70 percent) were nuclear, 59 (16.4 percent) were joint, and the remaining 49 (13.6 percent) were ‘truncated.’ These three household categories contained 371 married couples plus the aforementioned 49 truncated families, for a total of 420 families” (Kemper 1974:26, par. 3) [Yaguaro barrio] “... its 304 inhabitants were clustered into 45 separate house sites” (Brandes [1967-1968] 1979:14, par. 2) [Yaguaro barrio] “Twenty-nine of the 45 house sites were occupied by a nuclear family, i.e. a married couple and their children, or any group or individual of which this unit is comprised. Sixteen house sites, or just over a third of the total, were occupied by representatives of more than one nuclear family ... 149 persons in the barrio, or 49 percent of Yaguaro’s total population, lived at a joint family house site. ... in Yaguaro virtually all adults, married and widowed, had at some time lived in an extended domestic unit ...” (Brandes [1967-1968] 1979:14, par. 3) [Yaguaro barrio nuclear household] “Husband, wife, and children sleep in a single dwelling, located at a physically discrete house site” (Brandes [1967-1968] 1979:14, par. 5) [Yaguaro barrio] “The nuclear family becomes extended when a son marries and brings his wife into his parents’ home. The new couple initially shares the dwelling hearth and food budget with the husband’s parents, and the mother and daughter-in-law prepare meals together” (Brandes [1967-1968] 1979:16, par. 2) [Yaguaro barrio] “Definitive partition of a household into nuclear units usually occurs when both parents die, or when only one parent dies and the other remarries. Generally, when both parents die the household automatically reverts to its original nucleated form. Older sons will have probably married and moved out to their own residences, leaving the youngest married son and his family permanent heirs to the house. In Yaguaro, though, several married sons are likely to be living together at the parental house site—albeit in separate buildings. ... the 598 property is divided by walls (bardas), and independent entrances to the street are built, to create several distinct house sites, each occupied by a nuclear family. ... it is common for related household heads, all bearing the same surname, to live in adjacent homes. ... uncles often live next door to married nephews or brothers occupy contiguous house sites ... they are the result of the progressive subdivision of house sites among male heirs practicing patrilocal postmarital residence” (Brandes [1967-1968] 1979:18, par. 1) [Yaguaro barrio] “The people of Yaguaro are ... in an anomalous position: they are poorer than most Tzintzuntzeños, but have more living space. This explains why a much higher proportion of Yaguaro households are joint, and why, proportionately, many more residents of Yaguaro live under such domestic arrangements” (Brandes [1967-1968] 1979:19, par. 4) [Yaguaro barrio] “Nuclear households become residentially joint, experience the economic transformations represented by division of the hearth and budget, and finally partition themselves into nuclear households which are structural replicas of the original. Household division may or may not entail partition of the actual house site; recently, numerous sites have been subdivided, however, as evidenced by the fact that agnatically related kin often are found clustered in adjacent or nearby residences. As house sites decrease in size, site subdivision occurs less frequently, accelerating the pace at which married sons are forced out of the parental home” (Brandes [1967-1968] 1979:21, par. 2) “... most households are composed of a single conjugal family unit, it is a rare Tzintzuntzeño who never resides in a household containing two or more families during his lifetime. ... the joint household often serves as a transitional phase in which some combination of cooking and budget arrangements bring together two siblings’ families or the families of parents and sons ... The truncated household ... results not from choice or expediency but from circumstances of death or separation, and thus creates an imbalance between family needs and their ability to meet them. ... as Tzintzuntzan peasants grow up, marry, have children, and eventually watch them depart, they usually belong to a series of nuclear, joint, and truncated households. These correspond to the requirements of different segments of the typical peasant family developmental cycle, and as such constitute complementary rather than antithetical aspects of village social life” (Kemper [1969-1970] 1974:27, par. 1) [Tzintzuntzan migrants in Mexico City] “... at least 483 persons resided in Tzintzuntzan- affiliated households in Mexico City ... This population was divided among 74 households, of which 46 (62.2 percent) were nuclear, 7 (9.4 percent) were joint, 16 (21.6 percent) were ‘truncated,’ and 5 (6.7 percent) were of unknown status. A total of 80 families and an additional 16 young adults boarding at the city’s secondary schools, seminaries, convents, and universities composed the migrant group. In contrast to village norms, less than one-fifth of Tzintzuntzeños in the capital own their homes; nearly two-thirds rent rooms, apartments, or houses; and only a few (domestic servants) fall into the caretaker category. ... a substantial minority of the migrant households contain persons outside the conjugal unit of parents and children. The large number 599 of temporary guests living arrimado (‘up close to’; i.e., rent-free) in migrant homes combines with a high birth rate to generate a mean household size of 6.7 persons. This is slightly higher than that in Tzintzuntzan (6.2) ...” (Kemper [1969-1970] 1974:27, par. 3) [Tzintzuntzan migrants in Mexico City] “Of the seven migrant joint households, four exist between fathers and sons, two between brothers, and one between cousins” (Kemper [1969- 1970] 1974:29, par. 3) [Tzintzuntzan migrants in Mexico City] “... the matrifocal family is rare ... Several women (widows with children or abandoned mother with children) do head households, but only twice have women formed uniones libres with more than one husband” (Kemper [1969-1970] 1974:30, par. 3) [Tzintzuntzan migrants in Mexico City] “Señora Corona, age 43, works as a school teacher in the day and as a secondary school vice-principal at night to support the seven people in her household (herself, four school-age children by two previous husbands, a nephew attending college, and a 21-year-old man whom she recently ‘married’ and is putting through college)” Kemper [1969-1970] 1974:30, par. 4) [Tzintzuntzan migrants in Mexico City] “... 101 (69.7 percent) of the 145 households were composed of a married couple with or without children or other kin. ... 30 (20.7 percent) of the households were made up of two or more married couples with or without children or other kin. ... the remaining 14 (9.6 percent) of the cases involve households in which there were no married couples ... in general, the Tzintzuntzeños in Mexico City live in independent nuclear households, although the domestic cycle often involves persons in joint (or extended) household forms at one time or another in their lives” (Kemper [1980] 1981:214, par. 1) [Tzintzuntzan migrants in Mexico City] “With regard to household size, the migrants occupy units ranging from one person to twelve persons, with an average of 5.4 persons per household. The distribution is as follows: 1 person, 4 cases (2.7 percent); 2 persons, 15 cases (10.3 percent); 3 persons, 18 cases (12.4 percent); 4 persons, 28 cases (19.2 percent); 5 persons, 20 cases (13.8 percent); 6 persons, 19 cases (13.1 percent); 7 persons, 14 cases (9.6 percent); 8 persons, 14 cases (9.6 percent); 9 persons, 7 cases (4.8 percent); 10 persons, 1 case (0.7 percent); 11 persons, 4 cases (2.7 percent); and 12 persons, 3 cases (2.1 percent). These figures are reasonably close to those obtained in 1970 and 1974 - when the sizes varied between one and thirteen persons, with an average of 5.9 persons per household” (Kemper [1980] 1981:214, par 2) [Tzintzuntzan migrants in Mexico City] “... [women’s] roles in managing the household as a social-economic unit ...” (Kemper [1980] 1981:222, par. 1) 600 Access to Resources “Fishermen pay a federal license of $1.50 yearly for the right to fish. Theoretically this entitles them to fish anywhere in the lake. In practice, long usage has given title to the shallow waters to the fishermen of the nearby villages. Usually men from other parts of the lake can obtain permission for the asking, though there are villages which do not have this mutual agreement. Fishermen from the ranches near Tzintzuntzan cannot fish across the lake in waters belonging to Santa Fe and Chupícuaro, and the reverse also holds good. On the other hand, fishermen from Janitzio continually come to the waters of Ichupio to fish, since their steep, rocky island has no good shallow waters. They are always welcome, and sometimes join forces with local fishermen. There are recognized reciprocal rights between the fishermen of the Tzintzuntzan area and those of San Andrés, San Jerónimo, and Ucasanástacua” (Foster [1944- 1946] 1948:105, par. 3) “Owners of the lakeshore milpas also own the tules which grow beyond the land. Hence, if the petate maker has no land, which is probably the case, he must buy tules for from $0.50 to $1.00 a bundle, cutting the material himself. Often he will buy rights to a certain area of water covered with tule, known as a corte (‘cutting’), which on the average will have 200 bundles. Rights to such an area in 1945 cost about $50. Four or five years earlier they could be obtained for from $10 to $15” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:113, par. 4) “In Tzintzuntzan, there are several teams of four or five men who regularly make mezcal throughout the season. Rights to exploit the hillside land on which the cactus grows are obtained from individual owners. One mezcal maker says that he and his associates paid a total of $55 to various owners for the rights to sufficient land for the entire season. Usually contracts are renewed year after year, since the plants must be selected and cut when they begin to flower the spring preceding the cooking. Usually the price includes, in addition to money, a couple of small hearts from each batch. The communal lands of the Comunidad Indígena are also exploited. In practice, the president of this organization simply sells the rights as if it were his own land; legally, the money should go into the treasury of the Comunidad” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:123, par. 1) “... access to land and housing is ... tied closely to inheritance rights” (Kemper [1980] 1981:216, par. 2) Trade “Tzintzuntzan is one unit in a large area in which free and unrestricted interchange of local products has been a basic feature of the economy for many centuries. Most of Mexico has since pre-Conquest times been characterized by a large proportion of non-self-sufficient villages and areas” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:130, par. 3) 601 “... the pattern of village specialization is ... deeply engrained in central Mexico ...” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:130, par. 5) “Around Lake Pátzcuaro, the area of most importance to Tzintzuntzan, the aboriginal form of the single market day remains little changed. Three markets are noteworthy: Erongarícuaro, where on Sundays exchange between the lake pueblos and the sierra takes place; Quiroga, which has a rather animated though somewhat local market, on Sundays also; and Pátzcuaro, which is the really important commercial center of the region. Here, on Fridays, the main plaza fills to overflowing with buyers and sellers from many kilometers around, and to a lesser extent on Sundays and Tuesdays. ... Tzintzuntzan, too, at one time, had its weekly market. Up until the first years of the 20th century, Saturday was characterized by the assembly of traders from all parts of the lake, coming to barter their wares for what is considered to be the best utilitarian pottery around. ... Today, the Friday Pátzcuaro market and the Sunday Quiroga market are most important to the Tzintzuntzeños” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:131, par. 3-5) [Pátzcuaro market] “Most vendors—perhaps 90 percent—are women, although there are exceptions. Owners of permanent stores have their own male clerks to help, and the large stands of potatoes, dried chiles, and bulk fruits on the east side of the plaza are in the hands of men. Lime, hats from Jarácuaro, much clothing, and some petates are also sold by men. ... The buyers walk down between the two parallel lines of sellers, examining the goods offered, and haggling over prices” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:132, par. 4, 6) [Erongarícuaro market] “The basic exchange is firewood for fish, and all other trade may be considered secondary” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:137, par. 1) “In addition to markets, the trade economy of Tzintzuntzan is based on its local stores. Few are the housewives who do not make at least one trip a day to a store to purchase a variety of items. Purchases are usually for tiny amounts, just enough to last through the day” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:138, par. 2) “... on the average about one-fifth of all sales are for credit, so that a large proportion of the buyers owe money to the storekeeper. Unfortunately for him, there is no way to force collection of these debts. ... Debts are paid, a little at a time, but never in full. In order to keep one’s customers one must continue to extend credit; if credit is stopped, they simply switch their patronage to another store and the entire amount on the books is irrevocably lost. On the other hand, the debtor knows that if he doesn’t pay a little on account from time to time, he can no longer buy, and his bad reputation will spread to the other stores. ... the buyer tries to get as much as possible on credit, and to pay as little on account as possible, while the storekeeper tried to determine how far he can push his customer without losing him entirely, what is the minimum credit he must continue to extend to keep him” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:138, par. 7) “In addition to markets and stores, a fair amount of merchandise changes hands in simple home transactions. Almost every day in 1945 a paletero, a vendor of sweetened ices on sticks, 602 came from Pátzcuaro, and with his iced pail made the rounds of the town, selling $0.10 here or $0.20 there, until his $5 supply was exhausted. Charcoal vendors from Corrales come periodically to sell or exchange for pottery. Ambulant vendors of religious pictures are apt to be found almost any day, particularly near the time of fiestas. Bread likewise is sold informally, both by outside vendors who come with a few pesos’ worth, and by Margarita Farías, who, with her husband Alejandro, bakes plain bread (as contrasted to the fancy sugared breads made by the two bakeries) to sell to a few neighbors. ... Frequently the Indians from La Vuelta drop in to exchange fish for pots, or to buy outright. Always there is haggling about prices, which is a part of the game enjoyed by everybody” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:141, par. 2-3) “Still another means by which Tzintzuntzan sells its wares and acquires others is that of the rescatón, or muleteer. Only small amounts of pottery, the one big export commodity, can be disposed of at home and in neighboring villages, and in Quiroga and Pátzcuaro the market has definite limits, particularly because of competition from Santa Fe and Capula. Hence, a wider market is essential. This is found in more distant towns, to which rescatones transport pottery on mules and burros. Eleven men are full-time rescatones, while 32 more, many of them also potters, dedicate a part of their time to this profession” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:142, par. 2) [Tzintzuntzan migrants in Mexico City] “the bulk of reciprocal exchanges occur among kinsmen, compadres, neighbors, and work companions. ... women play especially important roles in establishing and maintaining relationships of economic reciprocity” (Kemper [1980] 1981:221, par. 3) [Tzintzuntzan migrants in Mexico City] “Most migrants make several trips back to Tzintzuntzan each year, and most receive a similar number of visits from relatives and friends. ... most people going from the city to the village take some goods to exchange or sell with relatives and friends, with televisions, radio-stereo cassette players, clothes and similar goods being currently popular. When the migrants return to the city, they usually bring some crafts (e.g., pottery, straw figures), foods, or even small animals to resell or exchange in the city” (Kemper [1980] 1981:222, par 2) Property “Outside of the village, agricultural lands were recognized to have definite owners; one official was charged with knowing all of the facts of ownership, and settling all disputes which might arise” (Foster [1538-1539] 1948:10, par. 1) “The lands of the pueblo-hospitals were to be communal. ... Each house was allowed a garden or orchard, the produce of which belonged to the family, as contrasted to the communal distribution of the produce of fields” (Foster [1530s] 1948:18, par. 2) “... 244 men, or 90 percent of all family heads, were landholders” (Foster [1875] 1948:171, par. 4) 603 “The ejidos were to be owned jointly and communally by the community, and each individual was to receive an allotment, or parcela, of several hectares, depending upon the nature of the land. Such land could not be considered as privately owned, could not be rented or sold, but was to remain with the ejidatario as long as he worked it himself” (Foster [1917] 1948:172, par. 5) “Milpas, apart from the house plot, are owned by 107 of the 248 households. A dozen individuals, including a woman, hold parcelas, plots of several hectares, in the ejido. A handful of subordinate family heads in joint families own additional land, so that of the 292 heads of families in Tzintzuntzan, about 125 have some agricultural lands. ... Of the 125 landholders, only 15 have enough to produce the maize, beans, and wheat which are needed for family consumption” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:71, par. 1) “More so than in the case of any of the other industries, fishing is done on the basis of a relatively wealthy man who owns the expensive canoes and nets, hiring helpers who share in the catch” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:106, par. 2) “The census shows that 140 oxen are owned by 67 families, and 239 cows and bulls are owned by 84 families. The total number of families with cattle is less than 100, since most of those with cows and bulls are also included in the list of owners of oxen. The number of animals owned per family is low; 11 is the greatest number owned by a single person” (Foster [1944- 1946] 1948:114, par. 2) “All cattle are branded with irons, and each mark is registered in the municipal office in Tzintzuntzan” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:115, par. 4) “... there are 166 burros owned by 100 individuals, 65 mules owned by 32 individuals, and 48 horses owned by 36 individuals. ... Burros, as contrasted to their larger relatives, are within the financial reach of most individuals, and every potter tries to have at least one, and preferably two or three, to carry earth and firewood, and to transport the finished product to the Pátzcuaro market. All of these animals are kept in the patio, frequently under a rough shed thrown against the side of the house. ... Burros, horses, and mules are branded with the same mark the owner uses for cattle” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:116, par. 3-4, 6) “A total of 132 [pigs], large and small, are kept by 66 families. The largest number owned as a unit is 12. Pigs are kept in patios, often in small houses of adobe with tile or shingle roofs ...” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:116, par. 7) “Sheep are of relatively little importance; only 27 animals owned by 12 families are listed in the census. The largest number owned by one person is 6. Sheep ... are kept principally because of the value of their wool” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:117, par. 3) 604 “The census shows that 146 cocks and 757 hens, including chicks, are owned by 171 families. Chickens often have a crude henhouse, and sometimes roost in trees or on trellises. ... Chickens are valued for eggs and meat. Most are raised for home consumption, though there are always persons willing to sell birds when they are low on money. Turkeys are less common, though 61 birds owned by 19 families are listed” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:117, par. 5) “... 207 [dogs] are owned by 139 families, about half the total number of households. ... mostly they are kept for pets and to guard the house” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:117, par. 6) “Ninety-nine cats, quartered in 84 homes, are listed in the census. They are much less popular than dogs, and are valued for killing rats, mice, and lizards” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:118, par. 1) “The father of Moisés Zavala divided his property equally between his sons, leaving nothing to the married daughters and only a small house to the one unmarried daughter. Moisés says he will leave most of his property to his sons, but that he will also leave something to his daughters in the form of a dowry” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:176, par. 3) “... a majority of families own very little, if any, agricultural land, and have only slight amounts of material wealth to pass on ...” (Foster [1944-1946] 1967:74, par. 1) “All children, including daughters, are entitled to inherit equally. [Natalia Paz’s] father, upon his death, indicated that Julio, his eldest son, was to be responsible for the precise division of the large town lot he had owned. When the time came to divide, Julio excluded Natalia and her sister on the grounds that they were married and their husbands already had houses. Natalia felt that, for the years of hard work she had put in helping raise her younger siblings, and the postponement of her marriage because her mother couldn’t spare her, she was entitled to her share” (Foster [1944-1946] 1967:106, par. 2) “[A daughter] inherits equally (in theory and often in fact) with male siblings; she may register property in her name ...” (Foster 1961:1178, par. 5) “... land-ownership is not a major function of the Tzintzuntzan family” (Foster 1961:1179, par. 3) “... someone has a new possession, such as a garment, a kitchen utensil, a household furnishing, or a piglet ...” (Foster [1958-1963] 1965:27, par. 2) “Domestic animals, especially the larger varieties, represent relatively high values...” (Foster [1958-1963] 1965:27-28, par. 4) “... individual ownership of land and other property, rather than some communal form of holding ...” (Foster [1959-1966] 1967:357, par. 1) 605 [Tzintzuntzan migrants in Mexico City] “In comparison with village households, migrant homes contain fair more consumer goods ... the traditional petate is replaced in migrant households by store-bought mattresses, frames, and bedding, ideally with separate beds for each child and a large double bed for the parents. ... all migrant households contain at least a table, chairs, wardrobe closets, and dish shelves. Stoves ..., radios, electric irons, and television sets are ... found in most homes” (Kemper [1969-1970] 1974:39, par. 1) Storage “In her new kitchen, Natividad has a shelved cupboard set into a wall, in which her prettiest plates are shown. Other kitchens may have the same arrangement, or simply wooden shelves on which spare pottery is kept. Often a plank is hung as a shelf from a rafter, swinging freely” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:35, par. 3) “The common troje or granary of central Mexico is lacking in Tzintzuntzan. Instead, most houses have an attic or tapanco under the low roof where the husked ears of corn and dried beans are stored in jute bags. But storage space, except for families who have large supplies of maize and beans, is not an item to be considered in building a house. Foods are bought daily in small quantities, and a bowl or a basket in the kitchen will meet most demands” (Foster [1944- 1946] 1948:36, par. 4) “The small cash surplus which most families will have at any one time may be kept in a covered dish in the kitchen, or perhaps in some more secluded place in the sleeping room” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:265, par. 5) “Cash is kept in a locked chest (women more often than men carry a ring of keys), or in a pot tucked behind the woodpile or placed on a beam where it looks like one among dozens of old vessels and molds. Care is taken to ensure that no one outside the family knows where money is kept” (Foster [1944-1946] 1967:59, par. 3) Labor “Each individual was to be trained not only in agriculture, but also in a trade, such as weaving, stone working, bricklaying, or blacksmithing. Thus, each member of the hospital was trained for the rotation of work which Quiroga ordained. Two years were to be spent farming in the country, away from the pueblo. Then, while others took their places, the farmers came to the hospital for 2 years of work as artisans” (Foster [1530s] 1948:18, par. 3) “Women usually wash clothes once a week, often at the spring in Ojo de Agua where there is an abundance of running water” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:47, par. 2) “Approximately half of the women jefes are domésticas, housekeepers without other occupations. Sixteen are potters, two keep stores, one is a maid, one a seamstress, one a petate 606 maker, and one a fondera, proprietor of a ‘restaurant’ where the few commercial travelers are fed” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:54, par. 1) “Maize and beans are supposed to be harvested when the moon is near full to prevent rotting. Some people believe that if women aid in sowing, the crops will be extra good. Nevertheless, among the Mestizos at least, women but rarely aid” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:69, par. 5) “Ideally, each family plans on turning out a kilnful of pots each week. As often as not, this schedule is interrupted, and a walk through town will disclose different families engaged in all activities” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:92, par. 3) “Normally two or three or more persons will work together, sometimes doing different tasks, stopping to gossip, to prepare a meal, to break the monotony of the work. The potter’s art is a dirty profession, but it has its compensations. Best of all is the quietness of the work, the social opportunities to talk with others, and considerable variety in the tasks one does in a week” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:93, par. 3) “The standard chinchorro fishing party consists of four persons. Usually they are all men, though it is not uncommon to see one or two women helping” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:103, par. 2) “There are no men in Tzintzuntzan who devote themselves exclusively to the making of tule reed mats, known universally in Mexico as petates. A few individuals, mostly fishermen, devote themselves to this activity during their spare moments, and in Ichupio and Ojo de Agua the manufacture is relatively much more important. According to the census five women can be considered as petate makers” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:113, par. 1) “Milking is done by persons of either sex ...” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:114, par. 4) “... a number of women are seamstresses and contribute in a substantial way to the family maintenance. Nevertheless, in terms of numbers they are few, and in terms of function, are first of all housewives” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:119, par. 3) “[Firewood] is gathered a load or two at a time by most home owners on the slopes of Yahuaro and Tariaqueri” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:119, par. 4) “The census lists one full-time mason, and eight who devote a part of their time to this trade. Four individuals are part-time carpenters. Though not listed in the census, there are several individuals, mostly from the nearby Tarascan villages, who make adobes during the dry season” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:123, par. 4) “Two or three individuals make candles as a part-time profession” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:125, par. 6) 607 “Nearly all women’s clothing is made in Tzintzuntzan, and except for pants and overalls, most men’s clothing. Work is done on sewing machines, mostly by women, though there are a few men who sew in their spare time. Eight women do enough sewing to be considered seamstresses” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:127, par. 3) “A dozen women, mostly elderly widows, do odd jobs, the most important of which are clothes washing and tortilla making. When a potter is busy she often dislikes to take time off for these domestic chores, preferring to pay some one else to do the work” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:127, par. 4) “Three men are part-time shoemakers. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say ‘repairers,’ since most of their work consists of patching up the old huaraches of the townsmen” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:127, par. 6) “With one exception, all storekeepers are local men ...” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:138, par. 4) “Work specialization is essentially limited to the family unit ... remove one or more adult or adolescent members from the average family and the work efficiency of the group suffers a serious blow. Such changes, occasioned by marriage, separation, or death, cause a realinement in varying degree in the relationships of a number of people. A father, losing his wife, will close up his home and move in with a married son. An eldest son marries and leaves his father’s home; unless younger sons are growing up to take him place, rescatón trips may be restricted or eliminated, or income earned as a hired laborer no longer accrues to the family coffers. The family unit is, ideally, an integrated whole in which the duties of each individual are clearly defined, and in which the relationships change slowly with the passage of time, except when interrupted by an upheaval of the type just mentioned” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:150, par. 3) “Woman’s most important participation ... in a direct productive process is in pottery making. Agriculture and fishing could be practiced with no female help at all ... Without the female potter, Tzintzuntzan would hardly be a pottery-making village. In this process the unique and intimate cooperation of male and female reaches its highest degree of efficiency; for the best utilization of the time of all workers, a minimum of one adult of each sex is required. There is no rule against a woman going to the clay mine, and a few occasionally do. ... Likewise, there is no rule against a woman going to the hills for firewood. Nonetheless, these tasks are preeminently those of men, and few self-respecting husbands would want it said of them that their wives had had to do either. Members of both sexes can and do control the remaining pottery-making techniques. It is difficult to say whether the fact that women probably put in more hours at pottery making is due to the fact that they are the real potters, or whether it is simply because many men have other duties, such as agriculture, tending of animals, selling trips and the like, which cut into their time. In any event, pottery is most efficiently produced by 608 those family teams in which there are adult members of both sexes actively engaged in cooperative work” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:151, par. 2-3) “The rescatón has little need of the help of a woman in his work, though should he be married, his wife likely will help him load his animals and prepare for the trip. The other minor occupations in Tzintzuntzan ... do not depend to any important degree on the cooperation of man and woman” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:151, par. 4) “With the exception of pottery-making homes, the man is expected to be the breadwinner, while the wife bears children, cares for them, prepares food, and tends her house. Potter wives in many cases probably are the hardest workers of any individuals in the village, since this work is in addition to their normal female chores” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:151, par. 5) “Work division within the family, as determined by age, is of much less significance. Primarily, it takes the form of initiating children, little by little, into the duties and responsibilities of adult status. ... Older people, for the most part, continue with the work patterns of earlier years as much as their health permits. Women have less immediate concern with infants, and can devote more time to pottery making, or, if they are members of a larger family, they may help with the cooking or tending of children. By and large, however, except as modified by child care, the work habits of adults are fairly constant from the time they are married until near the time of their death” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:151, par. 6) “A number of families have plots of land too small to be farmed economically alone, and widows and other single women are also owners. Such lands are sharecropped, usually on an a medias or halves basis, by farmers who have the equipment—particularly the all-important team of oxen—to farm more land than they own. The owner furnishes land and seed, and the sharecropper does the plowing, planting, and cultivating. Both owner and sharecropper share harvest costs, and the crop is split evenly” (Foster [1944-1946] 1967:47, par. 1) “Potting, more than any other occupation, requires the intimate, smoothly integrated, continuing cooperation of husband and wife, and of the older children as well, if the family’s economic needs are to be met” (Foster [1944-1946] 1967:61, par. 2) “In all families the division of labor between husband and wife is clearly spelled out. Women do the cooking, shop for food, wash clothes, keep house, tend the children, feed chickens and pigs, take a hot noon meal to their farmer husbands working away from home, or assume a major responsibility in making pottery. ... Husbands expect to carry out all productive and economic activities that must take place outside the home, such as gathering firewood for cooking and kilns, bringing pottery clays, caring for horses, mules, and cattle, working in fields or fishing, or working for a cash wage” (Foster [1944-1946] 1967:61, par. 3) 609 “... the nuclear family as the basic unit of production, rather than a larger and more diffuse family group ...” (Foster [1959-1966] 1967:357, par. 1) [Yaguaro barrio nuclear household] “Guided by the prevailing age and sex-based rules for the division of labor, family members make pottery and/or engage in agriculture for their common sustenance. In childrearing and socialization, too, the parents and elder siblings, particularly the females, have complete responsibility, though young children may periodically make short daytime visits to other relatives. ... the women often hold de facto power within the family, controlling the purse and making decisions without consulting their husbands” (Brandes [1967-1968] 1979:14, par. 5) [Tzintzuntzan migrants in Mexico City] “Abel and his brother Gabriel—each married with young children—live in the same vecindad in Colonia Buena Ventura. They usually spend their leisure time together, just as their wives devote much of each day to joint activities, including washing clothes, doing dishes, making meals, and watching over the children. Nevertheless, each family pays its own rent and considers itself a separate household” (Kemper [1969-1970] 1974:28, par. 2) [Tzintzuntzan migrants in Mexico City] “... when kin-related families live in the close proximity of a vecindad or even in the same neighborhood, they often share many important social and domestic activities” (Kemper [1969-1970] 1974:28, par. 3) [Tzintzuntzan migrants in Mexico City] “... husband-wife relations in migrant families tend to be egalitarian and mutually supportive: most men assist and cooperate in domestic chores and progressive, younger women are career- as well as family-oriented” (Kemper [1969- 1970] 1974:33, par. 1) [Tzintzuntzan migrants in Mexico City] “Going to the market or to the store involves getting someone to watch one’s house and one’s children, to accompany the shopper to carry home the purchases, and (upon returning home) to exchange some items with neighbors for those earlier borrowed from them. This female-dominated reciprocal exchange of goods and services ...” (Kemper [1980] 1981:222, par. 1) Subsistence Production “Maize, beans, and squash, planted after the first rains in early June, were the basic crops, and chiles, chayotes, and small tomatoes were also grown” (Foster [1538-1539] 1948:10, par. 1) “Most wheat is consumed in bread baked at the two local bakeries. The bakers, like most Mexicans of this calling, are masters at the trade ... Several families, as part-time occupations, have small ovens in which they bake a simple, unleavened, slightly sweetened flat loaf” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:49, par. 3) 610 “When a housewife has time she may prepare a number of other wheat dishes, either grinding her wheat on a metate or, if she has a large supply, taking it to Quiroga to be ground at the mill” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:49, par. 4) “First, and today of least importance, is the gathering of wild products, principally vegetable but also mineral, usually for immediate consumption or use. This is done in a haphazard fashion, without complicated organization, and in a manner to meet the immediate ends of the participant” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:52, par. 5) “... 66 family heads earn all or part of their living from agriculture. In terms of numbers of individuals employed it ranks next to pottery. Because the surrounding mountains closely approach the lake, agricultural land is relatively limited, and consequently there is an absolute limit to the number of individuals who can be employed as field laborers” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:58, par. 2) “The basic agricultural cycle consists of alternate sowing of wheat and maize. Beginning in August wheat lands are prepared so that planting can begin immediately when the rains slacken in mid-September. Wheat is harvested throughout April and the first part of May, terminating in time to permit the complicated plowing for maize which is planted with the first rains in late May or early June. Most maize is not harvested until November or December, too late for sowing wheat” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:59, par. 12) “Maize is planted by 101 families. This figure, which is considerably greater than the census list of 66 full- and part-time farmers, is explained by the fact that a number of individuals plant small gardens in their house lots” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:63, par. 5) “Beans are planted by 101 families, exactly the same number as for maize” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:64, par. 2) “Wheat is planted by 98 families” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:66, par. 1) “A good many—perhaps a majority—of householders plant minor crops within their patios or in flowerpots near the house” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:67, par. 1) “Most important of patio crops is the chayote, planted in 43 percent of all Tzintzuntzan yards. Most families have one or two vines only, though some have up to 10 or a dozen” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:67, par. 2) “In addition to chayotes the following vegetables are planted either in lakeside gardens or in patios: Cabbage. ... Carrots. ... Chiles, green and pasilla. ... Coriander. ... Garlic. ... Lettuce. ... Melons. ... Onions. ... Potatoes. ... Tomatoes” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:67, par. 5) 611 “Ten to 15 peach trees is not an uncommon number for a family, and several have 25 or 30, with 50 trees the largest orchard mentioned” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:68, par. 1) “Fishing, with 4 full-time and 15 part-time fishermen, is the third most important industry in Tzintzuntzan” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:101, par. 4) “In the ideal sowing operation a farmer is assisted by a friend—perhaps a compadre with whom he exchanges labor—who brings his own ox team. As the farmer cross plows, forming the squares, a boy with a bowl of seed follows, dropping three maize grains at each point where furrows intersect. A second boy carrying beans follows, dropping one at each point and, where squash is included, a third boy does likewise with squash seeds. The second ox team and plow cover the furrow and seeds” (Foster [1944-1946] 1967:43, par. 2) “Married people’s primary economic obligation is toward their spouses and above all toward their children” (Foster 1961:1179, par. 4) “Except for obligations toward elderly parents, married couples feel little economic responsibility beyond the nuclear family toward relatives simply because they are relatives” (Foster 1961:1180, par. 1) “In agriculture, an able-bodied man is sufficient for nearly all tasks, especially if he has a son or daughter 10 years of age or more, or a wife willing to help in planting. ... Cultivation and harvesting likewise require little or no help beyond that available within the nuclear family” (Foster 1961:1180, par. 3) [Yaguaro barrio nuclear family] “The father directs the family economy, always doing his best to avoid relying on outsiders for assistance in production” (Brandes [1967-1968] 1979:14, par. 5) “The most important traditional occupation—pottery making—has declined from 57 percent of the labor force in 1945 to 46 percent in 1970, as potters’ sons abandon the craft for day labor or leave the village altogether” (Kemper 1974:24, par. 3) [Tzintzuntzan migrants in Mexico City] “... women are daily involved in obtaining food and other necessities required by its members. Shopping is a daily ritual for almost all migrant women” (Kemper [1980] 1981:222, par. 1) Non-subsistence Production “Pottery, today one of the principal industries, was made in a number of towns, and, as today, some families specialized in ollas (‘pots’) while others made plates and casseroles” (Foster [1538-1539; 1944-1946] 1948:10, par. 3) 612 “Half of the families make pottery. This is a quiet occupation in which various members of the household sit in the patio, talking and laughing as the pots take form” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:2, par. 3) “... pottery making is the most stable profession; of 94 full-time potters, 83, or 88 percent of the total have followed their fathers” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:56, par. 2) “... there are no trade secrets or guild rules which close certain occupations to aspirants. With sufficient intelligence, energy, and wealth, all occupations are open to any man” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:56, par. 4) “In practice, most sons of farmer fathers tend to follow this occupation if they inherit sufficient lands to make it possible. Customarily a father divides his land among his sons, and perhaps also his daughters, so that frequently there is insufficient land for all to make a living from farming alone. Hence, one must turn to other occupations. Some may marry into pottery- making families and take up the work, while others may become rescatones, buying pottery wholesale and carrying it to distant markets to retail. Still others, should they possess draft animals, may remain farmers by share cropping ..., while still others will take to day labor during at least a part of the year. Eventually, some of these men will acquire enough money to buy lands and become full-time farmers, and upon their deaths, the cycle will repeat. The less capable or fortunate sons who have inherited small pieces of land may find it necessary to sell their holdings, sometimes to brothers, sometimes to others, and to come to rely entirely on nonagricultural pursuits” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:57, par. 2) “Pottery, as an occupation, ... requires no great capital investment as compared to fishing, farming, and storekeeping, one’s wife and children are of great help, and by hard work it is possible to earn an adequate living. ... They may have learned the technique as a child from their own parents, or as a result of marriage into a potter’s family they gradually acquire the necessary knowledge” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:57, par. 3) “... pottery is overwhelmingly the chief occupation of the town, and the source of most of its income. Wives and daughters of potters usually help the husband and father” (Foster [1944- 1946] 1948:58, par. 1) “Pottery, ... the single most important economic pursuit, is made on a very small scale during the rains, in part due to the fact that landowners are farming, in part due to lessened demand, and in part to the fact that the rains do not permit thorough drying of the earth” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:70, par. 2) “When the family has enough pottery ready to fill its kiln, preparations are made in the afternoon” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:89, par. 6) 613 “Two or three persons have spent a half day preparing enough glaze to apply to the pots that will fill their kiln for the second firing the same evening. While the women were preparing the glaze—and it is almost exclusively their work—the men have unloaded the kiln, wiping each pot with a rag to remove any dust particles which may cling to it. It is now 1 o’clock in the afternoon, and there is a pause for the main meal of the day. Immediately afterward the family gathers in the patio to apply the glaze” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:91, par. 2) “The sight of a family applying the glaze reveals well-established motor patterns, developed over a period of years, which permit an astonishing amount of work to be done in a short time. Doña Andrea is the dominating person in her household, the master of all steps of the work. She kneels like a proud matron, surrounded by her pots and her offspring, shaded from the sun by a man’s battered straw hat. ... A minute behind her on all steps is Faustino ...” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:91, par. 4-5) “It has been stated that each barrio in Tzintzuntzan specializes in a special type of pottery. This is true only to a limited extent. In the barrio of Yahuaro there are four families who make nothing but comales, in the three basic large sizes. These are the only families that make comales on a commercial scale, although other families may have a few molds and make them occasionally. Three families in Pueblo Nuevo specialize in cazuelas, but only up to the de a cuatro size. Two families, one in Pueblo Nuevo, and one in El Rincón make cazuelas up to the largest size, the guajoloteras. The remaining families, far and away the great bulk, make a bit of everything—ollas and cántaros of all sizes, and small cazuelas. This is because it is easiest to sell a variety of wares” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:93, par. 4) “Each worker has his favorite designs, though there are no copyrights and any one is free to work as he pleases” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:94, par. 6) “Most fishermen can weave their own nets, though as is usually the case there are a few who are particularly adept and who devote a greater part of their time to this occupation” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:107, par. 3) “Nati enjoys experimenting with new designs ...” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:130, par. 2) “The nuclear family as a social isolate is consonant with the demands of the productive system. In both pottery-making and farming this unit normally is adequate for all purposes. The father and older sons mine pottery clays and gather firewood which are brought on burro-back to the home where the mother and older girls prepare paste, mold pots, and grind glazes, perhaps with the help of the males. The father builds and tends the fire, and all family members help load and unload the kiln” (Foster 1961:1180, par. 2) 614 Consumption “The produce of this communal agricultural labor went to the community, and was divided according to the needs of each family and individual, and not according to the work done” (Foster [1530s] 1948:18, par. 3) “Disposal of crops depends upon the individual farmer, amount of production, size of his family, and so forth. Generally, maize is raised for home consumption; only 10 farmers produce enough to sell” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:73, par. 1) “... three meals a day, corresponding to breakfast, dinner, and supper, is the custom for those families that can afford it” (Foster [1944-1946] 1948:165, par. 2) “Perhaps two-thirds of the families have only two formal meals a day” (Foster [1944- 1946] 1967:52, par. 1) “Although the twice-a-day meal pattern probably owes its origin to poverty, many families follow it by choice, since it interferes less with productive activities than does a three- times-a-day pattern. On the other hand, a number of really poor families spread their limited diet over three meals, perhaps hoping to dull the pangs of hunger that are often with them. When the men in farming families are working long hours in the fields, three meals a day are common. ... The housewife, after her morning chores, spends a great deal of time in preparing a substantial noon meal with the inevitable beans and tortillas, and with meat or fish, usually prepared in a vitamin-rich sauce of onions, tomatoes, garlic, chiles, and herbs. This meal is carried to the field where the men are working, so they will not lose time returning home, a fire is built to reheat the food, and husband and wife and field workers eat together. In these families a bit usually is consumed in the evening: coffee, an herb tea, or the maize gruel atole, probably a taco or a tortilla with beans, or perhaps cheese” (Foster [1944-1946] 1967:53, par. 1) “With dusk the pace of work slows, the family gathers in the kitchen, and if it is the custom, a light meal is eaten” (Foster [1944-1946] 1967:54, par. 1) “... they try to eat unobserved so the quality and quantity of their food will go unnoticed ...” (Foster [1944-1946] 1967:138, par. 3) “... goods are exchanged when neighbors drop in to borrow an egg, a few chiles, or some other food or household item immediately needed” (Foster [1944-1946] 1967:221, par. 1) “... when someone—a relative, a neighbor, a compadre, or a friend—with whom the exchange pattern is fully developed drops in, he or she usually is not allowed to leave without being offered whatever food is available: a tortilla, perhaps with a fried egg or beans, a bit of candied sweet potato, a glass of milk, a cup of coffee, or fresh fruit. The nature of the food or drink is not important, but if they are offered they must be accepted. Failure to accept proffered 615 food or drink seriously jeopardizes an exchange relationship ...” (Foster [1944-1946] 1967:221, par. 3) “Since men do not cook, they are denied the opportunity to express affection and friendship to partners by offering them food. But they can offer drinks, which represent the same symbolic values” (Foster [1944-1946] 1967:222, par. 1) “[Natividad Peña] recalled how, when she and Vicente lived in El Rincón, next door to her brother Faustino and his wife Pachita, she would often send them something as simple as a tortilla filled with beans, simply to express her happiness in being near them” (Foster [1944- 1946] 1967:222, par. 3) “The food and drink exchange, important in all institutions, seems especially so between friends and neighbors. Because the ties to these people are unstructured, in a formal sense, in contrast to those of the family and the compadrazgo, even greater attention to constantly reaffirming the relationship is deemed desirable. The offering of food and drink is the quintessance of this reaffirmation, and if someone professes friendship but fails in this informal exchange, he is said to be a ‘friend with his lips on the outside,’ that is, not a genuine friend” (Foster [1944-1946] 1967:223, par. 1) “... food is a scarce commodity ... A diner caught with food feels obligated to ask the intruder to join him, and ... the offering of food is a major expression of recognition of the ties that bind family members, friends, neighbors, and compadres” (Foster [1958-1963] 1965:30, par. 2) “Guests are invited formally to meals only on such ritual occasions as a marriage, a baptism, or a saint’s day celebration. A very few honored friends and close relatives form the core guest list. Often ... the host must go to their home and formally escort them through the streets to his house. Other guests are invited in a casual and informal manner, not to eat, but ‘to accompany us,’ so that the words ‘food’ or ‘meal’ or ‘eat’ are not uttered at all” (Foster [1958- 1963] 1965:30, par. 3) “Food secrecy may also be reflected in the universal custom of covering with a cloth any cooked or uncooked food that is taken from one house to another as part of reciprocal exchange patterns” (Foster [1958-1963] 1965:31, par. 4) [Yaguaro barrio nuclear household] “Husband, wife, and children ... share a single food budget, and cook and eat together at one hearth” (Brandes [1967-1968] 1979:14, par. 5) [Yaguaro barrio] “The primary symbol of family unity is the hearth. Two or more nuclear families that share a single food budget and that cook and eat jointly are said to ‘live together’ (vivir juntos); those that do not are said to ‘live apart’ (vivir aparte), even though they 616 may share a single residential structure. ... food and eating arrangements ... determine whether a family should be considered truly nuclear or joint” (Brandes [1967-1968] 1979:16, par. 1) 617 APPENDIX F: Thirteen Characteristics of Corporate Groups in North America 618 Community Variable: Community Components of the Variable: Is the community stratified, and if so, how? At the time of the ethnographic fieldwork, is the community in a state of social stability, or is the community undergoing a period of change? Is any subsistence, social, or political uncertainty occurring at the time of the ethnographic fieldwork? What external and internal pressures are impacting the community at the time of the ethnographic fieldwork? Table F.1 Community Organization Culture Pawnee Time Period late 1700s - mid 1800s Social organization; Social stratification; Function of governing bodies  individuals could achieve a higher status during their lives o that status not inherited by their descendants  autonomous at village level o village was large extended family originating with village’s founder and chief and his wife o village founder and his consequent chieftainship was hereditary position, passed down patrilineally o hereditary chief could be rejected if he had undesirable personal characteristics  all other village subchiefs (lower in rank than hereditary chief) were elected based on merit of their personal achievements  council of chiefs primarily acted to organize summer bison hunt 1800s Pawnee  hereditarily stratified into an upper class and a class of commoners  upper class and commoners each composed about half of population (commoners might have numbered slightly less than half) Pawnee  Weltfish (1965) suggests there was class of braves Haudenosaunee between upper class and commoners  all Haudenosaunee nations considered themselves to be ideologically one large family as part of League of the Iroquois  each nation generally operated separately, with its own congress of sachems taking responsibility for significant matters of community interest within and between nations mid 1800s mid 1800s 619 Table F.1 (cont’d) Time Period mid 1800s Culture Klamath mid 1800s- 1950s 1860s- 1960s 1870s- 1900s Haudenosaunee (Six Nations of the Grand River, Ontario) Navajo Nuu-chah-nulth Social organization; Social stratification; Function of governing bodies  chiefs relatively unimportant in daily life functions  position acquired via war performance  chiefs were wealthy (but their wives/children were commoners)  band’s corporate interests (e.g., maintenance of roads) provided for by Confederacy councils  council members elected from districts on reservation attended to needs of entire group (e.g., distribution of land on the reservation)  no ranking/stratification  very egalitarian  women had fairly high status  2 main classes: chiefs and commoners o hereditary and assigned at birth  rank of commoners increased with increasing closeness of kin relationships to chiefs  chiefs provided for needs of commoners  slaves also existed; socially lowest, but lived very similarly to commoners 620 Table F.1 (cont’d) Time Period 1880s- 1900s Culture Tlingit 1900s- 1930s Haida Social organization; Social stratification; Function of governing bodies  17 tribes defined geographically  2 exogamous matri-moieties composed of  consanguineal clans living in households whose membership was based on matrilineage membership two classes/ranks: chiefs at the top of the aristocracy, commoners o chieftainship inherited via lineage, maintained by actions  “The duties of the chief were to lead his clan in war, to represent the clan at all functions, to preside over its councils, to entertain strangers, to assist the needy …, to arbitrate disputes and settle differences within the clan. The authority of a chief did not extend beyond his village or tribe” (de Laguna 1991:39) o middle commoners o lower commoners - dependent on those above them o slaves (war captives, their children) were property (not a class of people) - could be freed as part of potlatch ceremony  house chiefs  clan chief (was also a house chief) - only held authority within his clan, not over other clans  one chief for each lineage o above lineage chiefs, each town had a highest- ranking (and wealthiest) lineage chief who owned the land of the town (greatest authority within village) – “‘town master’ or ‘town mother’” (Blackman 1990:251)  chieftainships inherited matrilineally - e.g., by “next oldest brother, any younger brother, and the oldest sister’s oldest son” (Blackman 1990:252)  but chieftainships also required maintenance of wealth  two classes: nobles and commoners (more nobles than commoners) o gradations of status within classes - determined by potlatches given  war captives became slaves o their children inherited their slave status 621 Table F.1 (cont’d) Time Period early 1900s Culture Pawnee Social organization; Social stratification; Function of governing bodies  in addition to chiefs, upper class also included priests, warriors, medicine men  commoners much less wealthy than upper class  below commoners were people of lowest village status, “people who had violated tribal custom or in some other way had become social outcasts and lived on the outskirts of the village” (Parks 2001:533)  Dorsey and Murie (1940) seem to include braves in upper class  chiefs fulfilled important role of representing Pawnee to US government early 1900s early 1900s - mid 1900s Mandan  elected leaders were part of a hierarchy of decision- making council members responsible for maintaining village unity across social and ceremonial endeavors Haudenosaunee  Goldenweiser (1913) and Fenton (1951) each count 10 Cayuga sachems, 9 Mohawk sachems, 9 Oneida sachems, 14 Onondaga sachems, 8 Seneca sachems o all sachems equal to one another in rank o sachems came from Haudenosaunee clans, in which maternal families maintained the hereditary right to elect them  management at local level  chiefs (lower in rank than sachems) elected based on their own achievements (such as in war) o their positions not inherited by their children 1920s Navajo  Tribal Council created to sign leases for managing oil found on reservation 1930s Navajo  organized into exogamous matrilineal clans clustered across reservation  kin groups held authority and were responsible for making decisions for their members  different activities (e.g., raising children, marriages, ceremonies) managed at different levels of kin group (e.g., households, extended families, lineages, respectively)  no formal political organization throughout entire Navajo Nation 622 Table F.1 (cont’d) Time Period 1940s Culture Tzintzuntzeños 1950s Tlingit 1960s 1960s Navajo Mountain Navajo Navajo Social organization; Social stratification; Function of governing bodies  families and individuals more or less equal in status and wealth  1 largely informal governing body (called Comunidad Indígena) o meant to sustain corporate interests of community o president of Comunidad Indígena elected by heads of village’s families for an indefinite term of leadership o president served to support projects to benefit community in various ways (e.g., securing a new water pump for community’s drinking water)  13-14 local tribes defined by territory  two exogamous matrilineal moieties (divided into sibs, lineages/houses)  continuum of class ranking from aristocracy (heads of  houses, plus families) down to commoners told Shepardson and Hammond (1970) that “no one is running things” (128)  decision-making primarily occurred at household level 1970s Haida (Masset)  and at residential hoghan group level town chief had greatest authority over village-wide matters 1980s Navajo undated Eyak  needed support of lower chiefs (house chiefs, lineage chiefs)  men’s importance increasing   residential group started to decrease in importance three classes: chiefs (and their families), commoners, slaves  chiefship inherited by younger brother or maternal nephew  no governing bodies 623 Table F.2 Community Change, Pressure, Uncertainty Culture Mandan Time Period circa 1400s- 1990 Undergoing change; Impact of pressures; Aspects of uncertainty  significant depopulation o about 9,000 Mandan in 1750 to less than 150 Mandan in 1837 (Wood and Irwin 2001) o about 12,000 individuals to less than 300 in 1838 following final smallpox epidemic (Fenn 2014) o significant depopulation resulted in a refugee lifestyle by late 1700s  after 1910, population began to increase again to over 1,200 Mandan in 1990 1639- 1980 early 1700s 1700s- 1800s late 1700s Tzintzuntzeños  signification population growth o 200 heads of families in 1639 o 1,077 people in 1940 o 1,800 people in 1961 o 2,635 people in 1980 Haudenosaunee  significant population movements following Beaver Pawnee, Mandan Pawnee Wars  significant depopulation o especially among the Mandan due to epidemics  environmental pressures took a toll  scarcity of fuel, game, pastureland shifted Pawnee away from living in permanent villages to seasonal villages and summer communal bison hunts 1800s Pawnee  constant warfare between Pawnee and many of their 1833- 1985 Tlingit mid 1800s 1850s- 1860s 1860s- 1870s Pawnee Pawnee Pawnee neighboring tribes (e.g., Sioux, Cheyenne) caused Pawnee to need to move their villages  depopulation in nineteenth century due to smallpox, measles epidemics  population growth in twentieth century due to improving medical care o 10,000 people in 1833 o less than 6,000 people in 1840 o less than 4,000 people in 1920 o almost 10,000 people in 1985  slave trade ended by 1881  food insecurity of both agriculture and hunting  continued their traditions as much as possible when they  were first moved onto a reservation food insecurity further exacerbated by deforestation of Pawnee land by American settlers 624 Table F.2 (cont’d) Time Period 1864- 1988 Culture Navajo 1870s- 1920s Haida Pawnee 1875- 1890 1880s Mandan 1901- 1970 Haida Undergoing change; Impact of pressures; Aspects of uncertainty  significant population growth o about 18,000 people in 1864 o 22,000 people in 1938-1939 o 55,000 people in 1945 o 130,000 people in 1965-1966 o 200,000 people in 1988  population growth was result of adoption of hospitals on the reservation and consequent decreases in mortality rates traditional house and totem-pole raisings ceased in 1881   Canada outlawed potlatch ceremonies in 1884   depopulation caused: traditional houses disappeared altogether in 1905 o disappearance of lineages o changes in settlement patterns and ceremonies  matrilineality and mortuary potlatches, however, were maintained  U.S. government actively suppressed Pawnee culture when they were moved to Indian Territory  Bureau of Indian Affairs forced the Mandan to shift from multi-family to single family homes  both declines and growth in population over time o 900 Haida in 1901 o 588 Haida in 1915 o population growth in 1920s-1930s o 1,224 Haida (903 Masset, 321 Skidegate) in Canada in 1963 o 240 Haida (Kaigani) in Alaska in 1970 1920s Navajo  discovery of oil created first need for tribal governing body, the Tribal Council 1930s Navajo  Bureau of Indian Affairs programs started the decline in 1940s 1940s Navajo Tzintzuntzeños  egalitarianism among community’s families  after World War II, Navajo economy significantly Navajo agricultural/pastoral economic practices shifted toward wage labor (e.g., maintaining railroads, working in government centers on the reservation) 625 Table F.2 (cont’d) Time Period 1950s- 1960s Culture Navajo Undergoing change; Impact of pressures; Aspects of uncertainty  many American institutions incorporated into reservation life (e.g., hospitals, road improvements, schools, factories)  education led younger Navajo to leave the reservation upon adulthood either temporarily or permanently  addition of technology into Navajo homes (most importantly the motor vehicle) increased mobility, access to resources both on and off the reservation families still predominantly lived in extended family hoghan clusters  o essentially created living and working communities of relatives across the reservation physically and socially centered around institutions like trading posts, churches  some of these changes ultimately resulted in 1960s Tzintzuntzeños  rearrangement of family groups across the reservation to adjust for added amenities and for substantial increase in population initial development of class distinctions based on wealth as population grew  Foster (1967) foresaw wealth-based class divisions widening rapidly “as wealth inequalities become even more marked, as advanced schooling gives some young people a great educational advantage over others, and as increased mobility widens the world in which villagers live and work” (326)  multi-family household composition was direct result of “scarcity of money and land” (Brandes 1979:21)  continued to maintain their religion, agricultural and pastoral practices, language  Witherspoon (1975) suggests that many changes to Navajo life supplemented their traditions rather than changing them 1960s 1960s 1960s Tzintzuntzeños (Yaguaro barrio) Copper Canyon Navajo Rough Rock- Black Mountain Navajo 626 Village Variable: Village Components of the Variable: How large is the village in hectares? What is the population density of the village? What is the layout of the village? Where are public and private spaces located in the village, and how are they accessed? Table F.3 Village Nature Time Period 1500s- 1870s late 1500s - mid 1900s 1600s Culture Village nature and composition Pawnee Navajo tradition of village endogamy  semipermanent villages of earthlodges   each village essentially a large extended family  semisedentary  semisedentary lifestyle allowed for both agriculture and herding Haudenosaunee  about 12 or 13 villages existed 1800s Mandan 1800s Tlingit o each dominated by particular nation o villages for each nation clustered together into separate river valleys o villages were semi-permanent  relocated approximately once a generation, or every 12-20 years  each village, both the permanent seasonal villages and the smaller temporary villages, was independent from all other villages  semi-nomadic  permanent winter villages o for remainder of year, smaller subgroups of village separated off to conduct acquisition of resources mid 1800s Klamath  permanent winter villages to which people returned after 1860s Navajo annually o they relocated to small camps in order to fish in spring and hunt and gather in summer  villagers generally related kin  villages more like clusters of encampments of extended family groups o summer camps clustered together close to agricultural fields o winter camps more dispersed 627 Table F.3 (cont’d) Time Period just before 1900 1940s Culture Village nature and composition Nuxalk  endogamous villages Tzintzunteños  permanent village  closed corporate community  village residents almost exclusively born there o some members born elsewhere to parents from Tzintzuntzan who were living away from town for a time late 1960s Rough Rock- Black Mountain Navajo  “Navajo do not live in villages, and have not organized themselves into local communities until rather recently” (Witherspoon 1975:69) Table F.4 Village Size and Density Culture Time Period circa 1300 Mandan late 1500s Haudenosaunee 1600s 1634; 1677 Oneida Haudenosaunee circa 1683 Mohawk before 1687 Haudenosaunee Haudenosaunee 1700s before 1781 Mandan - 1837 Size and population density of village  preferred unfortified villages where possible  spread anywhere from 14-45 earthlodges over upwards of 17 acres o e.g., South Cannonball village site contained 40 houses spread across 15 acres  villages contained approximately 2000 people with about 200 people per acre  villages usually about 5-10 acres in area  palisaded village  66 houses in 1634  100 houses in 1677  town of Kahnawake contained 60 multifamily longhouses housing about 150 nuclear families totaling 800-1000 village occupants  300 to 600 people per village  decreasing village sizes  overall decrease in Mandan village sizes o e.g., largest village decreased in size from 130 to 68 earthlodges 1791 Onondaga  village at Buffalo Creek had only 28 houses 628 Table F.4 (cont’d) Time Period 1797 late 1700s - mid-late 1800s late 1700s - mid 1800s Culture Size and population density of village Mandan  villages ranged in size from 40-113 earthlodges  1 Mandan village contained 15 Hidatsa earthlodges in addition to its 37 earthlodges of Painted Woods Mandan  about 10 people per earthlodge  some early villages had populations of over 1,000 individuals Yakutat Tlingit  village populations of 70-80 people Pawnee  villages varied from 40 to several hundred o e.g., ‘De-ah-gun-ah-ate = village of eight houses within palisade 1833 Mandan mid 1800s Klamath mid 1800s Pawnee 1930s 1930s 1940s 1960s 1960s Klagetoh Navajo Navajo Mountain Navajo Tlingit Navajo reservation Navajo Mountain Navajo earthlodges per village  about 4 earthlodges per acre  one village with 38 earthlodges  another village with 65 earthlodges  many small villages, ranging anywhere from 2-100 earthlodges  on average, villages contained about 10 houses  2,500 people in 80 earthlodges in one village  3,500 people in 140-150 earthlodges in another village  community contained 227 people  population of about 135 people  winter village populations of approximately 350  people regrouped into these winter villages after spending summers in smaller groups acquiring resources  overall population density of 3.2 people per square mile  population density of only 0.84 people per square mile  population of 581 people occupying 46 camps  camps range from single household up to 8 households 629 Table F.5 Village Layout Time Period circa 1300 circa 1450 circa 1475 Culture Mandan Mandan Mandan Village layout; Village public and private spaces and access to them  houses widely spaced  preferred to construct houses in rows parallel to Missouri River o e.g., Huff Village  restructuring of Mandan villages at and above Heart River included compression of villages for addition of fortifications, as well as addition of open plaza (Bowers 1948) o open plaza was located in center of village and surrounded by earthlodges, potentially to be used for social and ceremonial purposes 1600s Haudenosaunee  villages palisaded during times of intertribal late 1600s Cayuga, 1700s Onondaga, Seneca Mohawk, Oneida warfare and hostility  houses gathered inside palisades  hundreds of acres of agricultural land outside palisade walls largely stopped palisading villages   continued to build palisades due to contact with Europeans 1797 Mandan  villages had no internal organization visible to visiting Europeans o explained as defense strategy  villages generally unfortified  no internal organization of earthlodges  earthlodges placed close together, separated only by walking paths and horse pens  village locations chosen for defensive purposes  arranged houses in parallel rows along beach  ideal was 1 long row of really large houses, containing 50 or more individuals, each house with beach frontage for its canoes and for activities like drying fish row of houses set far enough back from shore to leave room for road in between houses and canoes on shoreline Pawnee late 1700s - mid 1800s 1800s 1800s Mandan Tlingit  630 Table F.5 (cont’d) Time Period 1800s Culture Mandan Village layout; Village public and private spaces and access to them  plaza either still central to village or sometimes located at either end of village  plaza was 150 feet in diameter, with cedar post in center surrounded by plank wall  houses surrounding plaza belonged to Okipa religious society members and other important individuals in tribe rest of houses were not organized aside from relatives choosing to live near one another  1850s Haudenosaunee  Morgan (1954) suggests that Haudenosaunee mid 1800s Pawnee late 1800s Tlingit late 1800s Tlingit - early 1900s late 1800s - early 1900s Haida, Kwakwaka’wakw early 1900s early 1900s Pawnee Mandan early 1900s Haida villages were disorganized groupings of house clusters with no clear arrangement to them  not palisaded  Smith (1852) notes that Pawnee villages were situated on high ground for defensive purposes  some villages palisaded  graveyard located on either end of village, sometimes behind row of houses and sometimes on an island opposite the row of houses  villages preferred to be occupied by members of one clan only  as number of villages decreased over time, clans separated themselves into discrete locations within village  houses on village outskirts were those of lowest- status villagers and village outcasts  each village had set of agricultural fields, of which village chief assigned each family a portion to use for subsistence purposes  each village had a village burial ground  Bowers (1950) suggests that central plaza surrounded by earthlodges was unique on the Plains rows of houses faced beach   usually villages contained only 1 row of houses, but larger towns had multiple rows  preference was for larger villages of multiple rows, with maximum of 5 rows 1930s Mandan  people from same bands chose to live near each other in villages 631 Table F.5 (cont’d) Time Period 1940s- 1960s 1960s Tzintzunteños Culture Village layout; Village public and private spaces and access to them Tzintzunteños  houses tended to be clustered both along highway and around town plaza  overall residential pattern seemed to be clusters of  houses into neighborhoods within town typical neighborhood included 16 total households covering a block and a half of territory o at least half these households had kin relationships, both biological and fictive, with one another early 1960s undated Navajo Mountain Navajo Eyak  camps were clusters of anywhere from 1 to 8 hogans and their various necessary outbuildings  villages partially or completely palisaded 632 Descent and Residence Variable: Descent and Residence Components of the Variable: How is descent reckoned? To what group do children belong? What post-marital residential strategy is typically practiced? Who is typically removed from their natal household upon marriage? How much variation is there in post-marital residential strategy, and for what reasons does this variation occur? How is succession to leadership roles determined? Table F.6 Descent and Residence Reckoning Time Period 1600s - mid 1900s late 1700s - mid 1800s 1800s - mid 1900s circa 1900 circa 1900 circa 1900 circa 1900 1920s 1930s mid 1900s mid 1900s Culture Descent reckoning Haudenosaunee  exogamic matrilineal clans  a maternal grandmother, a mother, the mother’s male and female children, and the mother’s sisters’ male and female children all reckoned together as part of same descent group Pawnee  bilateral Mandan  matrilineal Kwakwaka’wakw  exogamic patrilineal clans Tlingit Eyak Haida Navajo Navajo Mountain Navajo, Klagetoh Navajo Haudenosaunee  matrilineal  exogamous matrilineal moieties  exogamic matrilineal clans  40-50 exogamic matrilineal clans forming 8-9 phratries  matrilineal lineages  matrilineal clan membership less strictly enforced  more acceptable for an individual to affiliate with either one’s mother’s or father’s lineage and clan Ramah Navajo  matrilineal clans 633 Culture Descent reckoning Table F.6 (cont’d) Time Period 1960s Tzintzuntzeños 1960s Navajo Mountain Navajo  bilateral  reckoned descent equally through both father and mother with fairly small patrilineal bias (Foster 1969)  exogamic matrilineal clans  “A Navajo takes his mother’s clan and is spoken of as ‘born for’ his father’s clan, which serves to acknowledge patrilineal as well as matrilineal relationships” (Shepardson and Hammond 1970:52) Table F.7 Descent and Residence Strategy Time Period 1600s Haudenosaunee Culture Post-marital residential strategy   ideal was matrilocality it has been suggested that even if technically a particular couple was practicing matrilocality, the husband often spent significant amounts of time with his natal household anyways  significant variation in post-marital residential  strategies it has been suggested that ideal of matrilocality was often not followed in practice, especially if the new husband was going to hold a leadership position  variation in post-marital residential strategies rare  villages endogamous  rare for anyone to leave village upon marriage o men were more likely to do so than women o a man only left the village if he married a woman from another village and even then, only with the approval of his own village’s leaders  matrilocal  Wood and Irwin (2001) claim “the couple lived for a time with the husband’s family; then the wife’s father would present his son-in-law with a horse and invite the couple to live in his lodge” (362) 634 Pawnee late 1700s - early 1900s 1800s Mandan Table F.7 (cont’d) Time Period mid 1800s late 1800s Nuu-chah-nulth 1920s Navajo 1930s 1930s Navajo Mountain Navajo Klagetoh Navajo early- mid 1900s Mandan  4 specific circumstances resulted in variation in post- marital residential strategies Culture Post-marital residential strategy Klamath  couples lived patrilocally until birth of first child, then lived matrilocally for a period of time after the birth  poverty on the part of the husband or a lack of relatives with whom he and his bride might live patrilocally sometimes changed their post-marital residential strategy from patrilocal to matrilocal  patrilocal  allowed exception to patrilocality for chiefs who remained with the group with which they owned property following their marriage, regardless of whether that made their post-marital residential strategy patrilocal or matrilocal o when bride’s parents prompted marriage arrangement and chose her husband o when man’s brother died, if he chose to marry his brother’s widow, he split himself between his wife’s home and his brother’s widow’s home o when elderly woman died, her elderly husband returned to live with his own clanmates o when elderly man died, his elderly wife moved into another household with her female clanmates  matrilocal  bride’s mother has new hogan (for daughter/grandchildren) built near hers  matrilocality allows husband to work for wife’s family  exceptions to matrilocality “due to circumstances or to preference” (Reichard 1928:70) (e.g, occupational requirements) residences can be temporary and/or seasonal   46% of marriages patrilocal  70% matrilocal  30% patrilocal 635 Table F.7 (cont’d) Time Period 1940s Culture Post-marital residential strategy Tzintzuntzeños  nuclear family households were ideal but ultimately  rare in practice in practice, typically the couple moved into the husband’s father’s home, or occasionally into the bride’s parents’ home, for at least a year  nuclear households could be established if the couple made enough money or if a house were vacated through the death of relatives o often these new households were next to the husband’s parents, or occasionally next to the bride’s parents, or sometimes married siblings even established houses next to each other  avunculocal  matrilocal with married men participating more heavily in their marital households than their natal households  post-marital residence generally more flexible  couples residing at first with whichever parents were able to house them and later building a neolocal residence nearby so that siblings clustered their homes near their parents o in clustering their neolocal homes, neither matrilocality nor patrilocality was required of sibling groups o matrilocality still preferred, but patrilocality actually seemed slightly more common  uxorilocality preferred  48% uxorilocal  34% virilocal  8% neolocal  6% bilocal  younger generations felt they should choose residence based on their particular circumstances  preference for matrilocality  households - 34.5% matrilocal, 15% neolocal, 14.1% patrilocal, 13.3% consanguineolocal  camps - 37% neolocal, 28.3% matrilocal, 17.4% mixed, 13% bilocal, 4.3% patrilocal  neolocal camps result from requirements of wage work 636 1950s mid 1900s mid 1900s Tlingit, Eyak Mohawk Haudenosaunee mid 1900s Ramah Navajo 1960s Navajo Mountain Navajo Table F.7 (cont’d) Time Period 1960s 1960s Rough Rock- Black Mountain Navajo 1980s Navajo Culture Post-marital residential strategy Copper Canyon Navajo  uxorilocality preferred  people under age 55 predominantly uxorilocal  virilocality if husband’s mother was widowed or if “the wife has no mother with whom to live, when a young husband cannot get along with his in-laws, or when a job or requests of a man’s parents (for help in herding or farming) make it desirable for him to stay with them” (Lamphere 1977:77)  matrilocality preferred and more common than patrilocality  both matrilocality and patrilocality acceptable  switching between matrilocality, patrilocality, neolocality occurred for 25% of couples  neolocality possible if couple gained sufficient livestock of its own, then broke from its residence group  neolocality more common with wage employment  preference/expectation of matrilocality  also acceptable to join husband’s mother’s residence group depending on circumstances (e.g., too many people already live in wife’s mother’s group or husband’s mother’s group in greater need of additional labor)  some couples switched back and forth between residing with wife’s mother and husband’s mother until one mother died  divorce changed residence of ex-husband, but not of ex-wife/ children (unless couple was living patrilocally)  death of spouse could change residence of surviving spouse if they lived with family of deceased spouse 637 House/Residential Structure Variable: House/Residential Structure Components of the Variable: What are the physical dimensions of houses? How are houses constructed? How are houses internally organized? Are houses reconstructed on the same location multiple times, or are they moved to a different location? When reconstructed, are the internal layouts of houses changed? Table F.8 House/Residential Structure Culture Time Period 1300s- 1780s 1450s Mandan (Huff Mandan Village) 1600s Haudenosaunee 1600s- 1800s Mandan early 1700s Navajo 1730s Haudenosaunee House physical dimensions, construction, internal organization; House reconstruction  circular earthlodges, 20-60 feet in diameter (most  were 20-30 feet in diameter) rectangular log houses about 35 feet wide, 50 feet long  30-150 longhouses in parallel rows, enclosed in  palisade longhouses were about 20 feet wide, 40-200 feet long (averaged 100 feet long)  central aisle containing a hearth every (approx.) 20  feet internal compartments on either side of the central aisle for nuclear families  circular earthlodges averaged 30 feet in diameter, lasted for about 10-15 years  constructed by women  shared living space surrounded the earthlodge’s central fire pit  sacred area in far side of earthlodge, opposite the    door rooftops of earthlodges used as gathering/socializing spaces first evidence of hogan as part of small neighborhoods also containing defensive walls, towers longhouses being replaced by nuclear family cabins 1750s Seneca  most people lived in nuclear family cabins in style 1750s Cayuga of Euro-American cabins, but maintained traditional central hearth longhouses with 3-4 hearths still common  638 Table F.8 (cont’d) Culture Pawnee Time Period late 1700s- 1860s 1800s Eyak 1830s- 1910s Tlingit mid 1800s Klamath House physical dimensions, construction, internal organization; House reconstruction  circular earthlodges 30-60 feet in diameter, lasted for about 10-15 years  constructed cooperatively by the women who owned the earthlodge  earthlodges faced east  central fireplace basin underneath ceiling smokehole o eating/living activities conducted in this space  about 5-10 sleeping platforms around the north and south interior edges of the earthlodge rectangular plankhouses (vertical planks)   nuclear family houses also existed  large rectangular plankhouses housing 40-50 people (~6 nuclear families, unmarried adults, slaves)  some had multiple floors/rooms; others were 1  large room larger houses had central subterranean areas (~5 feet recessed into earth) for daily life/work activities  central fire (~6 foot square) - production, food consumption activities o central smokehole above  sleeping platforms for nuclear families above recessed area, around edges of house; family areas separated by possessions but not by wall partitions  winter - circular earthlodges, ranged from 12-35 feet in diameter o e.g., 30-foot diameter earthlodge housed 5 nuclear families o faced southeast o entry through roof, interior ladder o central fireplace underneath entryway o storage underneath exterior stairs to entryway  smaller, simpler mat-covered versions for summer  reconstructed each autumn on same location 639 Table F.8 (cont’d) Time Period 1850s- 1910s 1870s- 1900s Nuu-chah-nulth 1900s Skidi Pawnee 1920s- 1930s Navajo 1880s- 1900s Kwakwaka’wakw  square houses with (traditionally horizontal, but Culture House physical dimensions, construction, internal organization; House reconstruction Haudenosaunee  multi-family longhouses were about 16 feet wide, 50-130 feet long o central hearth every 10-12 feet, shared by two nuclear families (occupied compartment on either side of hearth)  longhouses housed women of a matrilineage; could be extended in length (and additional hearths added) as matrilineages grew  another type of dwelling existed: temporary triangular bark shelters (primarily during hunts)  newer houses faced the beach (main entryway)  informal entries/emergency escapes at back of house  central fireplace for ceremonial purposes, plus several small hearths for daily cooking of each nuclear family around interior sides of house  “The old houses are said to have lasted almost indefinitely” (Drucker 1951:72) more modern were vertical) plank walls  5 fireplaces - 1 family fire in each quadrant of house, plus central fireplace for feasting  small houses used for hunting shelters  earthlodges ranged from 2 beds to 18 beds    depending on the number of occupants in summer, constructed arbors to sleep under instead of in earthlodges typically lived in multiple residences as close as 3- 15 miles apart this configuration applied to both permanent winter hogans and summer shelters o summer shelters largely temporary but could often be semi-permanent if family put significant effort into building them  both winter and summer houses typically one room structures for eating, sleeping, other daily activities 640 Table F.8 (cont’d) Time Period 1920s- 1960s Culture Navajo 1930s Navajo 1930s Mandan 1940s Tzintzuntzeños House physical dimensions, construction, internal organization; House reconstruction  house was burnt with all of its contents following a  death, after corpse and grave goods had been removed remaining family members then moved to new house on different location at least 150 feet away, sometimes choosing to move closer to other relatives  hogans dome-shaped, measuring 10-12 feet tall in center, 7-8 feet tall on the sides  circular earthlodges predominant  earthlodge plots owned/inherited in perpetuity by women of a lineage  clan members assisted with earthlodge construction  earthlodges began being replaced by 2-room “small rectangular log cabins” (Bowers 1950:28) after 1870 o split members of traditional earthlodges in half - members of north side in one log cabin, members of south side in another  houses varied in size based on wealth of owners  house might have anywhere from 1-3 or more rooms, with 2 rooms being most common  migrants from Tzintzuntzan in Mexico City generally added rooms to their houses as they became multi-generational households accommodating adult children marrying and having children of their own  poor family in one-room house (cost about $100) conducted all daily activities in same space (including cooking and sleeping) in typical 2-room house (cost $1,500-$3,000), each room was about 5 meters by 6 meters in dimension  o one of these rooms was used for sleeping; other was used for other daily activities o often, there was also separate kitchen in yard behind house and porch leading to enclosed patio in yard 641 Table F.8 (cont’d) Time Period 1940s- 1950s Culture Navajo House physical dimensions, construction, internal organization; House reconstruction  hogans hexagonal or octagonal dome-shaped log structures with both earthen floors and roofs, containing central open smoke holes  hogans part of permanent cluster of buildings (including sweathouses, storage buildings, smaller cabins) that belonged to the household o smaller temporary camps located nearby 1950s Haudenosaunee (Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada)  rectangular houses with 1-5 or more rooms; majority had 2 or 3 rooms  most households had only 1 room used as a 1960s Navajo  hogans roughly circular dome shapes about 15-25 bedroom for sleeping (for all household members and any visitors) 1960s Copper Canyon Navajo feet in diameter  hogans had 1 door on east side but no windows, maintained earlier earthen roof with its central smoke hole o one room structures meant for eating, sleeping, other daily activities, as well as storage  hogans began to disappear from the reservation  women’s objects (e.g., food, dishes) located on north side of hogan  men’s objects (e.g., silver working tools and materials) located on south side of hogan  stove maintained central location in hogan  woman’s loom was the exception to this general layout o her loom typically located on south side for practical reasons of space  sheep and horse corrals, storage sheds and cellars, woodpiles, water barrels all located near hogan  several hogans with related families clustered  together this general layout was permanent in winter but also mimicked in more temporary summer arrangements 1970s Onondaga  nuclear family residences 642 Household Variable: Household Components of the Variable: How many people live in a house? What is the population density of a house? Who lives in each house? How is household membership determined? How flexible is household membership? How does household membership change over time, and how often does this occur? Is there a household leader, and if so, who is the household leader? How is the household leader selected? What are the rights and responsibilities of the household leader within the household and within the village? Table F.9 Household Size and Density Time Period 1530s 1630s - mid 1700s late 1700s - mid 1800s 1840s- 1860s Culture Household size and population density Tzintzuntzeños  anywhere from 1-12 married couples with their children  sometimes a single woman with her children  shift from multiple family longhouses to nuclear family cabins  households ranged from 2-10 families, totaling 12-18 to 50 people  nuclear family households Oneida Pawnee Haudenosaunee (Six Nations of the Grand River, Ontario) mid 1800s Pawnee  households of 30-50 people were most 1870s- 1900s 1876 Nuu-chah-nulth Pawnee 1882 Pawnee Yakutat Tlingit Pawnee Mandan 1886 early 1900s 1930s common  multi-family households  households decreased in size over time  congressional act allotted farms on the reservation to individuals and nuclear families first existence of nuclear family households   nuclear family households rare o only 55 nuclear family households on the reservation  e.g., household containing 12 individuals  multi-family households still more common than nuclear family households  households included 1 or more nuclear families 643 Table F.9 (cont’d) Time Period 1930s Culture Household size and population density Navajo Mountain Navajo  average of 15 people in 1-4 hogans 1930s Klagetoh Navajo  average of 19 people in 1-4 hogans composed residential camp  135 people in 9 residential camps o range of 7-34 people per residential camp 1940s- 1960s Tzintzuntzeños composed residential camp residential camp ranged from 5-34 people   single family households most common  joint households also occurred frequently o married couple plus married son o married couples lived and worked separately, houses simply built together 1950s Haudenosaunee (Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada)  averaged 5.36 people per household  significant variation in household size/population density 1960s Haida 1960s Navajo Mountain Navajo 1960s Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo 1970s Tzintzuntzeños o 4-generation household with 12 people in 2-room dwelling o 2-generation household with 8 people in 3-room dwelling o 3-generation household with 6 people in 7-room dwelling o 2-generation household with 5 people in 5-room dwelling  approximately same amount of 2- generation and 3-generation households  1 nuclear family per hogan  nuclear family ranged from 1-18 people  average of 19.2 people per residential camp o average 7.7 in-residents o average 5.9 temporary out-residents o average 5.5 permanent out- residents)  household composition: 78% had 2 generations; 13% had 3 generations; 9% had 1 generation  70% nuclear family households  16% joint households 644 Table F.9 (cont’d) Time Period 1980s Culture Household size and population density Tzintzuntzeños (in Mexico City)  nuclear family households dominant  households averaged 5.4 people o ranged from 1-12 people Table F.10 Household Membership Time Period 1530s Culture Household membership Tzintzuntzeños  extended family members (generations above and 1600s- 1930s Mandan below, as well as same generation) of both the primary husband and wife of the household  household membership based on relations of women  set of sisters commonly formed a household, along with their husbands and children  each household might include 1 nuclear family or multiple nuclear families 1677 Haudenosaunee  “Jesuit Pierre Cholenec described a typical Kahnawake household as consisting of ‘a good old woman and three of her daughters, all married and living in the same cabin as her’” (Parmenter 2010:154) 645 Table F.10 (cont’d) Time Period late 1700s - mid 1800s Culture Household membership Pawnee  household members essentially formed an extended 3-generation family  each household included head wife and husband, sometimes younger sisters of head wife if they were also married to her husband, unmarried sons, daughters with their spouses and their children o sometimes additional relatives might also be household members  female household leaders might invite individuals, nuclear families to join their households  women typically more stable household members  men more transient household members, regularly moving between households for varying lengths of time  other households might be composed of set of brothers sharing wives, children, property commonly among everyone o alternatively, set of sisters might do likewise  household membership could change upon returning to village after summer hunt o households split into smaller groups for o o duration of hunt they sometimes joined groups from other earthlodges then might choose to maintain that arrangement upon resuming life in new earthlodge after hunt  household membership could also change upon death of married man o his widow became part of household of either her own or her husband’s parents until she remarried and changed households again mid 1800s 1870s- 1900s 1870s- 1910s Klamath  household included a man with all his wives Nuu-chah-nulth  household contained members of a lineage  4 chiefs in each household (close paternal kin,  frequently brothers) low-ranking individuals often also temporarily resided in household Haudenosaunee  nuclear family households of bilateral kin formed loose neighborhoods 646 Table F.10 (cont’d) Time Period 1880s- 1900s Culture Household membership Tlingit  men of household all from same lineage/clan  households composed of multiple nuclear families o men of lineage, plus wives, children  slaves also members of households o “In 1882 the slaves that still remained among the Tlingit were treated like members of the family” (de Laguna 1991:38) 1900s- 1930s Haida  household included the house chief’s immediate and extended family members, plus his servants/slaves 1920s- 1960s Navajo o “his wife or wives, his unmarried daughters, his sons under ten years of age, his married daughters with their husbands and children, his younger brothers with their wives and children, a sister’s adolescent son or two, one or more married nephews (who may or may not be sons-in-law as well) with their families, and perhaps some other poor relative and a slave or two. …” (Murdock 1936:15)  each hogan housed nuclear family  60-75% of nuclear families were parents and children o others were “widowed or divorced women and their children, widowed or divorced men and their children, isolated bachelors, or a grandmother and grandchild” (Lamphere 1977:74)  each residential camp contained extended family of “husband and wife, one or more of their married children (sons, or more often, daughters), with their spouses and children, and perhaps the wife’s mother or her deceased sister’s children” (Collier 1966:74) plus sometimes “maternal grandparents and maternal grandparents” (Reichard 1928:51) Tzintzuntzeños  nuclear family households contained married couple   with unmarried children joint households most commonly included married couple and sequence of married sons (until they could afford to set up their own nuclear households) relatives (uncles, nephews, brothers) clustered their homes together 1940s- 1960s 647 Table F.10 (cont’d) Time Period 1950s 1950s- 1970s 1960s 1960s Culture Household membership Haudenosaunee (Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada)  2-generation households most common, followed by 3 generations  members most commonly include parents and unmarried children (of one or both parents), sometimes a married child and spouse, sometimes grandchildren  both living and deceased kin considered household  members female-headed households composed of the head’s children and grandchildren (either within the household or in neighboring households)  married siblings/cousins did not live in same household Haudenosaunee  2-generation households most common Copper Canyon Navajo; Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo Rough Rock- Black Mountain Navajo  beyond sleeping together, households were defined by cooking and eating together, separately from other households of the residential camp  residential camp membership based on matrifiliation and marriage  members could be in-residents (majority) or temporary or permanent out-residents of particular residential camp  allowed people to have dual residential memberships (e.g., in-resident in one camp, out-resident in another camp) 1980s Navajo  multiple households containing extended family composed a residential camp  multiple residential camps containing women of a matrilineage composed a coresidential kin group Table F.11 Household Leadership Time Period 1530s 1600s 1600s- 1800s Culture Household leadership Tzintzuntzeños Haudenosaunee Mandan  men were household leaders  households led by matrons of a matrilineage  women were household leaders 648 Table F.11 (cont’d) Time Period late 1700s - mid 1800s 1870s- 1900s 1870s- 1910s 1880s- 1900s Culture Household leadership Pawnee Nuu-chah-nulth  each household led by the woman who built and owned the earth lodge, as well as her husband  head wife responsible for coordinating labor of other women in household o she also took on primary childcare duties due to her age  4 chiefs in each household  leadership dominated by highest ranking chief o other 3 chiefs held less authority, based on rank Haudenosaunee  men led their nuclear households Tlingit  hereditary clan chiefs and subchiefs were heads of households (house chiefs)  house chief held in high esteem both within and outside household o but little control over daily activities of household members  men were leaders within multi-family households  house chief was male owner of house  significant authority over activities of household members  head patriarch  patriarch and wife led residential camp  house chief still had authority over household members, but less absolute than previously 1900s Haida 1920s Navajo 1930s Haida 1940s Tzintzuntzeños  husband was ideally household leader; however, 1950s Haudenosaunee (Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada) there was significant variation in household leadership in practice  72% households headed by men (average age 50)  28% households headed by women (average age 65) o female household heads could have non- head husbands, or headship could be gained via widowhood  “It often happens that where a man is nominal head of the household, his wife is the practical coordinator of household affairs” (Myers 2006:49) 1950s- 1970s Haudenosaunee  as household leaders, men responsible for providing for needs of household members 649 Table F.11 (cont’d) Time Period 1960s Culture Household leadership Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo  residential camp leader was husband of head mother o responsible for organizing herding, agricultural labor within residential camp  however: “The head mother is the person around whom the unit is organized. She is identified with the land, the herd, and the agricultural fields. All residence rights can be traced back to her” (Witherspoon 1975:82) 1980s Navajo  each residential camp had a head mother 650 Access to Resources Variable: Access to Resources Components of the Variable: Who has access to which resources within the village, and how is this access determined? Do community members claim access to particular resources outside of the village? If so, who has this access, and how is it determined? Table F.12 Access to Resources Within and Outside Village Time Period 1700s 1700s- 1900s Culture Haudenosaunee Yakutat Tlingit Access to resources within village; Access to resources outside of village  unequal access to trade goods among Haudenosaunee  chiefs managed access to resources (land, water, products - wood, animals, fish, plants) of their clan  group consent required to give/sell access rights to 1800s Haudenosaunee others  access rights could be transferred to settle disputes  access to hunting territories restricted by ownership to members of particular nations of League of the Iroquois Klamath  no individual ownership over fishing, hunting, or Haida Nuu-chah-nulth gathering territories    lineages controlled access to halibut banks, coastlines, hunting territories, lakes and streams, bird rookeries, cedar stands, patches of fireweed, crabapple, high- bush, cinquefoil, bog cranberry resources (e.g., fishing coves, beaches, whales that washed up onto beaches, root/berry patches) owned by chiefs, who gave access rights first rights given to kin, then to associates, then to others  access rights could be given via tribute tax of products harvested via access o these tributes used for feasts for village members mid 1800s late 1800s - early 1900s 1870s- 1900s 651 Table F.12 (cont’d) Time Period 1880s- 1900s Culture Tlingit 1900s Haida 1902 1900s 1920s Tlingit of Angoon Haida Navajo Access to resources within village; Access to resources outside of village rights to trade routes/partners restricted   clans owned rights to camping, fishing, hunting, gathering territories and firewood, drinking water rights could change based on warfare or sale   chiefs managed access to resources of their clan  specific spots for fishing, hunting, gathering, house (in winter village), belonged to specific households/families within those clans o inherited matrilineally  resources (hunting, fishing, wood) in areas directly surrounding villages were not restricted from anyone  “Traveler’s through another [clan’s] territory could kill for food, but not for pelt or profit” (de Laguna 1991:22)  each family owned at least part of a creek   if family did not own land, they paid for ability to gather on another’s land families owned stretches of coastline and anything that washed up on it rights to owned resources could be sold   access rights gained through toll of $1 paid to chief who owned hunting/fishing territories lineage chief determined access to lineage property   no restrictions on access to wild water sources  grazing land was restricted o Navajo needed permission to graze on another Navajo’s land 1920s- 1930s Mandan  access to most things acquired through payment of some kind to its owner (might be individual, household, or clan) o e.g., rights to grow corn owned by another clan, information and knowledge possessed by another individual, permission to use another clan’s existing eagle-trapping pits - could all be acquired through a payment to the respective owners  food acquired through game pits was an exception to this practice o while households owned game pits, the food caught in them was distributed to all moieties in the village 652 Table F.12 (cont’d) Time Period early- mid 1900s 1940s Tzintzuntzeños Culture Access to resources within village; Access to resources outside of village Haudenosaunee  agricultural fields predominantly communally owned either by tribe or clan  ownership determined through inheritance via clan     ancestors to receive part of communal harvest, an individual was required to contribute labor to community agriculture individuals could claim their own fields by labeling them with their clan and individual name o fellow clan member in need might choose to take produce from that field without consequences fishermen bought federal licenses to technically fish the entire lake it was understood that the shallow water near each village belonged to fishermen of that village as a result of long term usage  some villages had reciprocal fishing right agreements that allowed fishing by village outsiders if they asked for permission, but others did not o Tzintzuntzan had reciprocal fishing rights agreement with San Andrés, San Jerónimo, Ucasanástacua; not with Santa Fe, Chupícuaro  land predominantly owned individually o e.g., both hillsides where cactus grew and lakeshore milpas, as well as tules in water beyond them were individually owned  if people (e.g., petate makers, mezcal makers) wanted to use resources on that land, they bought use rights annually, which were generally renewed yearly, from owner  use rights purchased for certain price o sometimes flat fee, sometimes fee plus part of product harvested, sometimes fee based on how much was harvested  use rights for communal lands were similarly sold by president of Comunidad Indígena, with money going into organization’s treasury 653 Table F.12 (cont’d) Time Period 1940s Culture Tlingit of Angoon Access to resources within village; Access to resources outside of village rights established via occupancy, use   some resources co-owned by multiple clans  individuals/families could acquire rights to resources by settling among owning clan members  clans could acquire rights to resources via: owning mid 1900s Haudenosaunee  clan migrating away, as reparations for harm done by owning clan, to repay debt, or when owning clan dies out land could not be owned or sold individually because it belonged to all Haudenosaunee who lived there  wages earned by members of household were spent exclusively by the individuals who had earned them 654 Table F.12 (cont’d) Time Period 1960s Culture Navajo Access to resources within village; Access to resources outside of village  conceived of access as use rights rather than ownership  determined access to different resources (primarily including houses and land for both grazing and agriculture) in 3 primary ways: matrilineage rights, residence group rights, and initial settlement rights. residential group could settle on (then clear and cultivate) unoccupied land and claim it as long as no one else contested the initial claim   eldest couple was generally considered primary managers in charge of house, lands  marrying into matrilineage provided access to resources of that lineage until divorce or death severed that relationship (if individual returned to natal household), unless individual chose to remain in marital household  children inherited access rights through their matrilineages  o occasionally child even inherited access rights through father’s matrilineage if couple’s post- marital residential strategy was patrilocal if land was fallow for “longer than ... reasonable” (Shepardson and Hammond 1970:101) amount of time, then another family might request permission to farm or graze that land  access rights to houses and lands often changed between generations  Lamphere (1977) suggests that significant flexibility existed in Navajo access rights  some disagreements over access rights to land occurred between cousins as Navajo population increased (and subsequently, available land on reservation decreased), particularly when some individuals returned to reservation after time away  Shepardson and Hammond (1970) note that access to wild water sources like springs was restricted similarly to access to grazing lands o access to wild water sources was “acquired by preemption, rest in the group, and cannot be alienated by an individual” (49), but others could also access water with permission or in event of emergency 655 Table F.12 (cont’d) Time Period 1960s (cont’d) Culture Access to resources within village; Access to resources outside of village Navajo (cont’d)  access to car determined by proximity rather than by kin relation o car’s owner, as well as owner’s spouse and children had primary access to car o member of car owner’s residence group gained o access by asking for ride or by hitchhiking individuals more likely to ask someone first in their households and residence groups, then someone living nearby regardless of relationship than they were to ask relative living further away  income possessed by individuals but used to benefit residential group (e.g., for buying food/clothing for members of residential group)  water/coastlines no longer owned by lineages  inheritance rights determined access to land, as well as housing 1970s 1980s Haida Tzintzuntzeños undated Eyak  some hunting areas controlled by clans, but not others (varied between Eyak tribes) 656 Trade Variable: Trade Components of the Variable: What items are traded externally to the community? Who participates in this trade, and how is this trade conducted? Table F.13 Trade Items, Participants, and Methods Time Period circa 1200 BC Culture Haudenosaunee Haudenosaunee Plains cultures circa 1200 BC - mid 1900s 1500s- 1700s 1500s- 1800s What items traded; Who participated in trade; How trade conducted      trade especially focused on items to be used as grave goods long distance trade of high value items of “shell beads from the Atlantic coast, soapstone pots and pipes from Pennsylvania, copper from the Great Lakes” (Richter 1992:13) trade conducted communally (Richter 1992) trade primarily for goods of social value rather than for goods of exclusively economic value trade between different Indigenous peoples primarily conducted in Mandan towns as traveling traders with various goods either passed through town on their own or congregated for organized trade fairs Plains cultures  extensive trade network involved Mandan,   Assiniboine, British, Comanche, Pawnee, Crow, Kiowa, Arapaho, Cheyenne, Cree, Lakota, Hidatsa, Sioux foodstuffs = most important and most numerous trade items trade goods included corn, tobacco, horses, beads, paints, mirrors, awls, arrow tips, muskets, fox skins, wolf skins, bison robes, feathers, pumpkin mat, bodkins, knives, shot and powder, kettles, axes, girdles, garters, headdresses 1500s- 1900s Navajo  significant exchanges of goods to outside cultures  trade partners included Apache, Hopi-Tewa, Southern Ute, Zuni, Puebloans traded items like hides, meat, minerals like alum and salt, medicinal treatments and practices  o to acquire ceremonial objects, peaches, medicinal treatments and practices, shell beads, animals like cows, goats, sheep 657 Table F.13 (cont’d) Culture Yakutat Tlingit Haida Time Period 1780s- 1880s late 1700s - early 1800s What items traded; Who participated in trade; How trade conducted    trade managed by women trade based on kin relationships traded sea otter pelts to mariners for goods (e.g. chisels, cloth, clothing, iron pieces, kettles, knives, liquor, muskets, sheet copper, wash basins)  “often refused to trade pelts with one ship either because they were not interested in the goods offered or because they knew another ship whose captain offered better bargains would soon arrive” (Blackman 1990:255) 1806 Mandan  at least one example exists of Mandan women early 1800s 1820s 1830s- 1870s 1830s- 1870s 1840s- 1880s mid 1800s 1880s Plains cultures Haida Haida Tsimshian, Southern Tlingit, Haida Tlingit Klamath         conducting trade with Europeans trade on the Plains predominantly occurred by means of barter and gift exchange traded potatoes to Coast Tsimshian traded furs, dried halibut and herring spawn, potatoes to Hudson’s Bay Company received blankets, cloth, clothing, flour, rice from Hudson’s Bay Company traveled to different towns to trade traded with one another at Fort Simpson traveling trade (upwards of 200 miles away) conducted by men trade intertribally Yakutat Tlingit  women traded arrows, blueberries, carved bone, charms, clams, cockles, crabs, halibut, horn spoons, masks, salmon, woven baskets 658 Table F.13 (cont’d) Time Period 1880s- 1900s Culture Tlingit 1900s Haudenosaunee What items traded; Who participated in trade; How trade conducted  purchased slaves from Haida  act as middlemen between interior tribes (e.g. Athabaskans), Haida, and Tsimshian (copper, skins, fur from interior tribes to Tlingit, then to Haida and Tsimshian, which gave canoes and carved/woven objects) trade conducted from individual to individual, except for with interior tribes (access to trade rights restricted)   only men traveled to trade  different Tlingit tribes specialized in different resources that were more accessible to their villagers and then traded with other Tlingit tribes for their specialties  husband and wife traded as a team  most trade involved ceremonial gift exchange   cloth and food much more predominant as trade trade based on kin relationships items than intended grave goods 659 Table F.13 (cont’d) Time Period 1940s Culture Tzintzuntzeños undated Haida What items traded; Who participated in trade; How trade conducted  specialization at village level in central Mexico around Lake Pátzcuaro meant that these villages were not self-sufficient but depended on extensive and regular trade of each of their local products  Tzintzuntzan’s specialty = utilitarian pottery  4 primary means of exchange: markets, stores, home transactions, the rescatón (muleteer)  multiple regular weekly markets where buyers and sellers congregated o e.g., Erongarícuaro market - most important trade was firewood for fish o ~90 percent of venders were women o certain goods (e.g., potatoes, lime) more frequently sold by men  local stores were as important as markets o local stores were visited daily by housewives purchasing enough supplies for the day’s needs on credit  during home transactions, vendors traveled from house to house, selling/exchanging goods (e.g., charcoal, bread) full-time, part-time male rescatones took quantities of goods (e.g., utilitarian pottery from Tzintzuntzan) to towns further away than those who gathered together at weekly markets traded canoes, dried halibut, seaweed to Tlingit; received dried eulachons, eulachon grease, soapberries from Tlingit received slaves from Kwakwaka’wakw traded also with other Haida (e.g., Skidegate with Masset) for resources      chiefs established kin bonds with Tlingit chiefs and Tsimshian chiefs in order for their people to trade 660 Property Variable: Property Components of the Variable: Who owns property? What property is owned individually? What property is owned by groups, and how are these groups determined? How is property inherited? How are non-physical types of property, such as cultural symbols, accessed and owned by individuals and groups? How are non-physical types of property distributed within and between households? Table F.14 Property Ownership Time Period 1500s 1600s- 1860s Culture Property ownership Tzintzuntzeños  agricultural property (as well as produce harvested from that property) owned communally  households individually owned their own gardens, orchards Haudenosaunee  men individually owned weapons, hunting/fishing implements  matrilineage communally owned agricultural land/tools  property ownership based on use rights  property of husband and wife owned separately  men individually owned their weapons, pipes  matrilineage owned its earthlodge and all of its contents ornaments, medicines, land and water resources, houses, and non-physical property like ceremonies, songs, dances, names, etc.  clans owned names  individuals owned slaves, personal possessions like war knives  crests, traditions owned at village level  clan legend owned communally by members of clan 661 1860s Pawnee  buffalo-hide tent cover collectively owned by family  agricultural fields (0.5-1.5 acres) belonged to adult women Nuu-chah-nulth  most property owned by chiefs, including: hair Pawnee late 1700s - mid 1800s 1800s Mandan 1870s- 1900s 1880s Tlingit 1890s Nuxalk Table F.14 (cont’d) Time Period 1900s Culture Property ownership Skidi Pawnee  women owned both winter and summer houses, 1900s Haida 1900s- 1910s 1900s- 1940s Haudenosaunee Tzintzuntzeños 1920s Navajo as well as their own tools  names, symbols, crests owned by families  children could use crests of their fathers until marriage  agricultural fields owned by women  names, burial grounds owned by clans  ejido belonged to entire community in a type of continuation of system started in 1500s  both male and female individuals were allotted parcelas to work for food for their families land outside of the ejido could also be owned   about 43% of household heads owned/had access to agricultural land  animal ownership and use was strictly not communal  animals owned only at family or household level o 23% of families/households owned oxen o 29% owned cattle o 23% owned pigs o 4% owned sheep o 59% owned chickens o 7% owned turkeys o 48% owned dogs o 29% owned cats  chants, names owned individually  “cash, silver ornaments, precious stones, horse trappings ... calico and materials, blankets, rugs, sheepskins, clothing” (Reichard 1928:89) all owned individually  ownership of land (for pastures/gardens), house viewed in terms of use-rights 662 Table F.14 (cont’d) Culture Time Period 1930s Mandan 1930s 1930s Seneca Haida 1930s- 1960s Navajo Mountain Navajo; Copper Canyon Navajo; Rough Rock- Black Mountain Navajo 1940s- 1950s Yakutat Tlingit Property ownership  varieties of corn, names owned by individual clans  earthlodge owned by clan of its women  sacred bundles, game pits owned collectively by household members  household women collectively owned bedding, dogs, gardens, tools for gardening/household/food preparation tasks, pottery  clothing, personal bundles owned individually  songs owned by families and clans  potlatch for house-building o husband and wife accumulate property over several years o wife lends blankets to people of her clan/moiety one year prior o distribution of blankets, clothing, dishes, utensils, mats, etc. at potlatch supervised by wife o wife plays most important roles of potlatch  ownership of agricultural fields conceived as use-rights communally available to a family  sheep, cattle, horses owned individually o managed communally by residential camp (both labor and benefits)  “livestock, jewelry, medicine pouches, cars,   and wagons” (Lamphere 1977:39) all individually owned land ownership arose through settlement or purchase territories owned by sibs; settlement spots within them owned by the kin groups who live there  sibs owned non-physical property (e.g., songs, crests, names, titles, ceremonies, rights, stories)  non-physical property could be gifted 663 Table F.14 (cont’d) Time Period 1950s 1950s- 1970s Culture Property ownership Haudenosaunee (Six Nations Reserve, Ontario, Canada)  27% of houses owned by female heads of households; 51% of houses owned by male heads of households  names, charms, dances owned corporately by lineages, controlled by female head of lineage Haudenosaunee  clothing and ritual items (e.g., rattles) individually owned Table F.15 Property Inheritance Culture Time Period 1800s Mandan Property inheritance  sons and daughters paid to inherit parents’ tribal bundles  oldest son inherited parents’ tribal bundles matrilineally o shifted to father-son inheritance in late 1800s 1850s- 1910s 1870s- 1900s Haudenosaunee  all property, physical and non-physical, inherited Nuu-chah-nulth  matrilineally inheritance of one’s property occurred throughout a person’s life, rather than at his or her death Pawnee mid 1800s 1920s Navajo 1920s- 1930s Mandan  children inherited from their fathers; women inherited from their husbands after marriage  property transferred during potlatch ceremonies  family property inherited by oldest son  very little inheritance  property inherited by siblings or oldest children, or clan members (if no siblings/children)  when no one left to inherit lineage property, it went to clan members (horses, personal property to men; fields, dogs, earthlodges, personal property to women) 664 Table F.15 (cont’d) Time Period 1930s- 1960s Culture Property inheritance Navajo Mountain Navajo  use-rights to fields passed down from mothers to daughters 1940s Tzintzuntzeños  generally, children inherited from mothers  “Particular rights to inheritance accrue to the following people: members of the matrilineage, the person who cared for the deceased before death, persons close to the deceased who know how to take care of the property, those most in need, a trustee for small children, those present at the distribution, and, in the case of a medicine bag, a relative who knows the appropriate Sing, particularly one who has learned from the deceased” (Shepardson and Hammond 1970:110) inheritance not generally significant typically little land ownership/access or goods available to inherit    “all children, including daughters, are entitled to inherit equally” (Foster 1967:106) o in practice, it varied from family to family  generally, fathers left most of their property to their sons o some divided it equally among them  daughters treated with more variation o sometimes daughters inherited equally with sons o sometimes married daughters inherited nothing o sometimes daughter’s inheritance was in the form of dowry o sometimes unmarried daughters inherited small houses from their fathers  sometimes there were conflicts if the father left division of his inheritance in the hands of 1 of his children o e.g., who deserved to inherit what property, how much of it should be inherited by whom 665 Table F.15 (cont’d) Time Period 1940s- 1950s Culture Property inheritance Yakutat Tlingit  inheritance (of land, water resources, songs, names, chiefly titles) was supposed to remain within owning sib/clan and occur strictly matrilineally o however, early 20th-century contact with non- Indigenous outsiders resulted in violations of those traditions and subsequent shifts in some inheritance practices 1950s Haudenosaunee 1950s Haudenosaunee (Six Nations Reserve, Ontario)  sons could inherit personal possessions from fathers,   grandfathers inheritance was shifting from matrilineal to father-son inheritance first to legal spouse/next of kin, then to band  property (land, money) no longer inherited matrilineally, but personal possessions could still be 666 Storage Variable: Storage Components of the Variable: What do people store? What kind of storage facilities do people create? Where are these facilities located? What storage facilities exist inside houses, and where are they located? How are they accessed and used by members of the household? What storage facilities exist outside of houses, and where are they located? How are they accessed and used by members of the village? Table F.16 Storage Contents Culture What people store Haudenosaunee  food Navajo  harvests Time Period circa 1200 BC late 1500s - early 1600s 1600s Haudenosaunee  food, firewood, personal items 1700s - early 1900s 1800s mid 1800s mid 1800s Pawnee  dried food, including corn, vegetables, bison meat, beans, and squash, as well as seeds, skins, clothing, pumpkin mats Oneida Klamath  crops, meat  food, fish, plums, wokas, seeds Haudenosaunee  corn, beans, clothing, household and hunting items, weapons late 1800s Kwakwaka’wakw late 1800s Nuu-chah-nulth early 1900s Navajo    food, blankets, valuables, clothing, dried salmon, herringroe, Olachen-oil (ʟ!ēʹᵋna), dogfish-oil (xuʹlq!wēs); oil made of seal (mēʹgwat!ēs), porpoise (k·ōʹlōt!ēs), whale (g ̣wēʹg·īs), bear (ʟᴇʹntsēs); Catfishoil (dzēʹk!wīs) food not stored food and valuables 667 Table F.16 Storage Contents Time Period early 1900s 1940s mid 1900s 1950s Culture What people store Haudenosaunee  corn, apples, vegetables, squash, pumpkins, potatoes, carrots Tzintzuntzeños  very little storage needed Navajo  clothing and bedding Haudenosaunee (Seneca, Six Nations Reserve in Ontario)  clothing, money, valuables (e.g., charms, sacred possessions, burial clothing, medicinal items, rattles, water drums) undated Haida  food, clams, seaweed, potatoes, berries, special/valuable items like shamans’ charms, eagle down Table F.17 Storage Location, Access, and Use Time Period circa 1200 BC late 1500s - early 1900s Culture Where storage facilities located; How storage facilities accessed and used Haudenosaunee  ceramic pots and storage pits for food Navajo  above-ground storage facility external to house o sometimes only a canvas tent, sometimes a full structure  used outdoor storage primarily for storing food and harvests but also for storing valuables 1600s Haudenosaunee  storage compartments at both end of longhouses  additional storage in nuclear family compartments o along walls, in pits under sleeping platforms, in spaces above ceilings 668 Table F.17 (cont’d) Time Period 1700s - early 1900s 1800s Oneida 1841 Mandan Culture Where storage facilities located; How storage facilities accessed and used Pawnee, Mandan, Hidatsa  large bell-shaped cache pits outside earthlodges  each lodge possessed cache pit for household storage o built at time of earthlodge’s construction  rare for earthlodge to have more than 1 cache pit o only the household of “an exceptionally important public figure” (Weltfish 1965:268) might have 2 cache pits   typically, cache pits ranged from 6-10 feet deep (most commonly 10 feet deep) o round at bottom with 10 foot diameter the north side and south side of cache pit were each owned and used by the north family and south family of earthlodge, respectively  women of household were responsible for cache pits o women cleaned, maintained them o women organized, inventoried them o women accessed cache pits, supplies inside  barrels for meat storage  barns, pits, grain elevators for crops  suggestion by George Catlin (1841) that cache pits were located inside their earthlodges 669 Table F.17 (cont’d) Time Period mid 1800s Culture Klamath Where storage facilities located; How storage facilities accessed and used  used baskets and bags inside house for storage  stored food in large tule sacks that they buried along the edges of their houses  stored fish on scaffolds while it was drying  underground food storage in the form of large pits called pᴇnŏʹηks o averaged 15 feet in diameter and 3 feet deep o communally dug and then used by group of neighbors located near to the pits o within pits, food stored under tule mats under dirt  sometimes used caves for storage in a similar manner and closed them with stones mid 1800s - early 1900s Haudenosaunee  corn hung from longhouse rafters, buried in bark-lined pits  barrels of beans, corn, apples, vegetables tucked into corners throughout longhouse  meat buried in pits  apples, vegetables (e.g., squash, pumpkins, potatoes, carrots) buried in pits late 1800s Kwakwaka’wakw  used large cedar-wood boxes, large cedar-bark early 1900s mid 1900s 1950s 1950s Haudenosaunee  corn cribs outside houses replaced storage pits baskets, and kelp bottles for storage Navajo Seneca Haudenosaunee (Seneca, Six Nations Reserve in Ontario) for corn  but other vegetables still stored in pits  stored bedding and clothing inside cardboard boxes or tin trunks  bags/baskets for special items like rattles, water drums (that were kept on shelves or in drawers)  valuables and sacred possessions stored in bedrooms  dresser/chest in bedroom for daily items like clothing undated Haida  used different types and sizes of baskets for storage 670 Labor Variable: Labor Components of the Variable: How is labor divided by age? How is labor divided by sex? How are cooperative labor groups organized? Table F.18 Labor Division by Age and Sex Time Period 1530s 1600s- 1800s 1600s - early 1900s late 1700s - mid 1800s Culture Division of labor by age and sex Tzintzuntzeños  every individual trained in both agriculture and a Mandan  women managed every aspect of agriculture non-subsistence trade o sowing and tending corn o gathering and putting corn into storage o cooking and exchanging corn Haudenosaunee  young men hunted while elderly men fished  women processed animals killed by hunters and fishers  women made pottery, basketry  women gathered wild foods (e.g., nuts, berries)  women collected firewood o elderly men also involved in collection of firewood in early 1900s  women responsible for agricultural endeavors o agricultural endeavors were organized/directed by a chief matron elected from village women Pawnee  household labor fell to middle-aged women o cooking, entire agricultural process (from field preparation to harvest)  young men served as warriors and hunted large summer bison hunts o o small daily hunts for antelope, deer, elk  middle-aged and elderly Pawnee men managed village political matters 1800s Mandan  agriculture for food products was responsibility of women tobacco cultivation done exclusively by men  671 Table F.18 (cont’d) Culture Division of labor by age and sex  women gathered firewood, cared for horses, in addition to their agricultural labor responsibilities  middle-aged women were responsible for overseeing and organizing production activities in their respective halves of their earthlodges, as well as for rationing out supplies from their respective halves of their earthlodges’ cache pits  elderly women cared for young children  men were responsible for representing their earthlodges in larger village matters  men also helped their women with firewood o gathering firewood was considered a woman’s task, but a husband who helped his wife with her firewood was viewed favorably by the village  women also responsible for entirety of processing hides/skins  women were exclusively responsible for gathering roots, seeds, firewood o women exclusively responsible for storing, drying, preparing all food o women supplemented fishing/hunting  women made canoes, all clothing/moccasins, baskets/mats, mortars/metates, nets, ropes, cords  according to Spier (1930), adult men did the least labor of anyone, but they did fish, hunt, were responsible for building permanent winter homes  men made weapons/nets, helped make mortars/metates, did most woodworking (e.g., of canoes)  older individuals of both sexes responsible for processing seeds  at times, elderly men assisted with food preparation  women collected kelp  “only old women [were] allowed to dig fern roots” (Boas 1921:616) 672 Time Period mid 1800s Pawnee mid 1800s mid 1800s Mandan Klamath late 1800s Kwakwaka’wakw Table F.18 (cont’d) Time Period late 1800s Culture Division of labor by age and sex Nuu-chah-nulth  women gathered marine invertebrates and yellow cedar bark, prepared food, did weaving  men were also sometimes involved in these types of women’s tasks for various reasons o e.g., husband might assist his wife with gathering marine invertebrates/cedar bark o e.g., young men might prepare some types of dishes for feasts  men did weaving of fish traps/weirs but not of baskets, mats, robes  slaves primarily responsible for manual labor (e.g., hunting, fishing), for packing/handling canoes  men hunted bears, ptarmigan, seals (seals were most important)  women processed seals (including meat, fat, skins), gathered clams, cockles, sea urchins  everyone in community (from slaves to high-ranking individuals) worked o they were responsible for different types of tasks based on their status  men fished, hunted, and gathered shellfish, chitons, clams  women gathered berries, roots, seaweed and shellfish, chitons, clams o women hunted birds, grew tobacco  women and children assisted men in hunting auklets, murrelets  men built houses and canoes, carved and painted, gathered wood, made hunting equipment  women were responsible for all food  processing/preparation, manufacture of all clothing/basketry, preparation of animal skins female children accompanied women to agricultural fields to help them, especially by chasing away unwelcome predators of their crops, including crows, gophers, horses  women prepared meals, processed food, made clothing, did weaving, cared for children/houses 673 Tlingit late 1800s - mid 1900s 1900s- 1970s Haida early 1900s Hidatsa 1920s Navajo Table F.18 (cont’d) Culture Time Period 1930s Mandan 1930s Navajo Division of labor by age and sex  women were responsible for housework, agriculture, maintaining earthlodge, butchering animals  men hunted, cared for their horses, defended village in event of danger from external people  women did weaving  “If a Navajo man weaves, he is put in the class of ‘man-woman’, a category sanctioned as including such men as want to carry on woman’s activities, or such men as one of my informants said who ‘do not likes women’” (Reichard 1936:161) 1930s Navajo Mountain Navajo  women prepared meals  men cut wood, collected wood/water, managed 1940s Tzintzuntzeños horses  children helped with sheepherding  about half of women were housekeepers; women were seamstresses, made clothing  men fished, were masons and carpenters  both men and women milked  division of labor by age less important than division of labor by gender  “In all families the division of labor between husband and wife is clearly spelled out. Women do the cooking, shop for food, wash clothes, keep house, tend the children, feed chickens and pigs, take a hot noon meal to their farmer husbands working away from home, or assume a major responsibility in making pottery. ... Husbands expect to carry out all productive and economic activities that must take place outside the home, such as gathering firewood for cooking and kilns, bringing pottery clays, caring for horses, mules, and cattle, working in fields or fishing, or working for a cash wage” (Foster 1967:61) 1940s- 1950s Ramah Navajo  men made items for hunting, rituals, war  women made baskets, pottery 674 Table F.18 (cont’d) Time Period mid 1900s 1950s- 1960s 1960s Tzintzuntzeños Navajo Mountain Navajo; Copper Canyon Navajo Table F.19 Labor Cooperative Culture Division of labor by age and sex Haudenosaunee  as women grew older, they shifted their labor to focus on their gardens, as well as nonsubsistence tasks like weaving mats, beading clothing  both men and women earned wages  considered appropriate for men to work further from home (e.g., collecting wood, digging wells)  considered more ideal for women to work within household  children were taught gendered labor ideals early in life  women of a household worked cooperatively under the direction of head woman of household to prepare meals for their husbands and children, to care for children when they were not in school, to garden, to gather wild nuts/berries, to care for cows/chickens, to clean/maintain house, beds, dishes, laundry  sometimes older daughters or grandmothers cared for younger children  older daughters helped prepare some meals  production occurs within nuclear families  gendered division of labor began at adolescence  men were responsible for house construction/repair, cutting wood, collecting wood/water  women were responsible for making clothing, preparing meals, weaving, childcare  people of either gender could complete oppositely gendered tasks in their partner’s absence Culture Cooperative labor Haudenosaunee  men and women worked separately in order to combine fruits of their labor most effectively for their combined households Time Period 1600s 675 Table F.19 (cont’d) Time Period mid 1800s Culture Klamath mid 1800s Pawnee Cooperative labor  men and women worked together to build their houses together, the team dug the housepit then, men prepared/erected timbers o o o women spread dirt/grass over the structure  women’s household production was divided between women of north half of earthlodge and women of south half of earthlodge lodge halves alternated production responsibilities between the halves   production activities were completed within earthlodge mid 1800s - early 1900s Mandan, Hidatsa  harvest involved men and women working together o women harvested corn o men from multiple households worked together to husk corn from each of their earthlodges  cooperative labor groups worked on harvest of 1 earthlodge at a time o when group finished 1 earthlodge’s harvest, they then moved on to harvest of next one, working systematically earthlodge by earthlodge 1860s Pawnee  horticulture was primarily women’s responsibility  occasionally, parts of horticulture (e.g., weeding, planting) became cooperative endeavors involving both men and women  occasionally, women from multiple earthlodges planted cooperatively for a new bride if they were related to the new groom Kwakwaka’wakw  herring fishing used cooperative labor of a husband/wife team o wife steered/paddled canoe o husband caught herring with herring- rake, deposited them into canoe late 1800s 676 Table F.19 (cont’d) Time Period 1900s Culture Cooperative labor Haudenosaunee  as descent reckoning shifted from matrilineal to 1920s 1940s Navajo Tzintzuntzeños bilateral, cooperative agricultural tasks of clearing, planting, harvesting (previously fallen to female members of lineages) were completed by both matrilateral and patrilateral kin of a husband and wife out at least to third/fourth cousins  herding tasks were completed by entire family   pottery was cooperative endeavor within nuclear fishing done in cooperative groups of 4 men families mid 1900s 1960s Haudenosaunee  clearing new field was cooperative task Navajo Mountain Navajo; Copper Canyon Navajo; Rough Rock-Black Mountain Navajo involving both men and women  cooperative labor of residential camp was more important than division of labor by sex or age  women’s cooperative labor was organized by oldest working woman in residential camp o sisters of neighboring hogans assisted one another  men’s cooperative labor was organized by oldest working man in residential camp o men of residential camp farmed cooperatively  elder couple/widow organized cooperative agricultural/herding tasks o sheep herd was held in common by residential camp o all members of residential camp (men, women, children) were involved in tasks related to sheep o herding, lambing, shearing, sheepdipping 677 Subsistence Production Variable: Subsistence Production Components of the Variable: What subsistence items are produced? Who participates in subsistence production? Where, how, by whom, and for whom is food prepared? Table F.20 Subsistence Production Time Period 1500s 1600s - mid 1800s Culture Subsistence items produced; Who participates in subsistence production; Food preparation practices Tzintzuntzeños  growing maize, beans, squash, followed by chiles, Haudenosaunee chayotes, and tomatoes  subsistence emphasis on horticulture  horticulture = primary responsibility of Haudenosaunee women who worked cooperatively to clear, plant, and harvest their fields o fields located near village upon its founding but progressively further away as fields declined in productivity over time 678 Table F.20 (cont’d) Time Period late 1700s - early 1900s Culture Pawnee, Mandan, Hidatsa Subsistence items produced; Who participates in subsistence production; Food preparation practices  corn = primary crop  women responsible for agricultural subsistence  village chief assigned small family plot of about 3-5 acres to each woman to cultivate  women prepared their fields starting in late April or early May o process required clearing fields; then breaking up sod and loosening soil, which could either be done with iron tools or digging sticks and bison scapula hoes; then raking and mounding soil; then planting corn, beans, squash, and sunflowers; then hoeing and weeding  agriculture could be team effort with pairs of husbands and wives working together for efficiency o since each woman had her own field, team worked first on one and then on other  women and men picked corn together in morning and brought it back to village  women started roasting corn while men  went back to field to get another load then they all worked together with men husking and shucking and women roasting  other relatives stopped by to help and eat  too they repeated this process daily for a few weeks until all of the harvest was completed 679 Table F.20 (cont’d) Culture Mandan Time Period late 1700s - early 1900s Subsistence items produced; Who participates in subsistence production; Food preparation practices  October harvest involved entire village  hunting as important as agriculture o majority of each village participates in annual summer bison hunt o hunting done by men on horses with bows and arrows o bison was primary target, but bear, deer, elk, and pronghorn were also hunted  gathering wild plants was secondary to agriculture and hunting o plants included bigroot morning glory roots, groundnut tubers, Jerusalem artichoke roots, prairie turnips, chokecherries, currants, ground plums, hog-peanuts, riverbank grapes, wild plums Navajo  maize important Haudenosaunee  corn prepared in several different ways made up Haudenosaunee majority of diet, followed by venison and other wild game  men also involved in agriculture  men worked with plows and oxen on large farms of 50- 200 acres, growing peas, oats, timothy, and wheat  women continued to grow corn and potatoes using their traditional methods on smaller farms of 10-20 acres  women and daughters also gathered wild berries late 1700s - mid 1900s mid 1800s mid 1800s - early 1900s 680 Table F.20 (cont’d) Culture Time Period 1900s Navajo Subsistence items produced; Who participates in subsistence production; Food preparation practices  most important = herding sheep  cattle secondary o about half residence groups own average of 14 head of cattle  subsistence production was male activity; women helped with some agricultural tasks such as planting, weeding, and harvesting farmland distributed more equally than sheep  o farmland distributed among individual Navajo men for benefit of all members of their residence groups o often farmland was inherited from wife’s parents o disparities in ownership of farmland were largely result of disparities in access to means of irrigation (e.g., runoff from the mountains)  most families had small sheep herds but a few families had either very large herds of over 300 sheep or no herds at all  herding was not cooperative  farming was conducted cooperatively o individual men worked together to plant and harvest each of their fields in turn o agricultural cooperation occurred between neighbors and family members (including in- laws) o farming organized and directed by one household within residence group  usually older adult couple, with husband taking primary lead and wife assisting, was responsible for directing the process o produce then distributed among households in residence group, with head household keeping greatest share for itself  sometimes produce also shared with other relatives who did not live in residence group mid 1900s mid 1900s Yakutat Tlingit  hunting and gathering of berries, seaweed, and shellfish done by small groups o e.g., grandmother and granddaughter collecting clams Haudenosaunee  households had their own gardens to grow their own beans, corn, and potatoes for household consumption 681 Table F.20 (cont’d) Time Period mid 1900s 1940s Culture Navajo Subsistence items produced; Who participates in subsistence production; Food preparation practices  melons and squash secondary crops Tzintzuntzeños  about 23% of household heads were agricultural laborers, alternating their fields with maize and wheat  men were primary agricultural laborers  cultivation and harvesting process was generally completed by a nuclear family that then also provided for elderly parents  preferable for two related men to operate plows while three boys planted maize, beans, squash seeds o one man with wife or son or daughter at least 10 years old could also complete job  most households grew food in small family gardens: chayote, maize, beans, wheat, peach trees, and several minor crops including cabbage, carrots, chiles, coriander, garlic, lettuce, melons, onions, potatoes, and tomatoes.  wild vegetable gathering was done irregularly, for immediate use rather than storage.  7% of men were fishermen  families baked a little bread for themselves, but most bread was baked by 2 master bakers of town  housewives made many other wheat dishes, sometimes grinding their own wheat at home and other times taking it to the mill to be ground  average size of sheep herds was 131 sheep 1960s Rough Rock- Black Mountain Navajo 682 Non-subsistence Production Variable: Non-subsistence Production Components of the Variable: What items are produced? Where, how, and by whom are these items produced? How does an individual learn to produce these items? Table F.21 Non-subsistence Production Items and Participants Culture What non-subsistence items produced; Who participated in non-subsistence production Tzintzuntzeños  pottery dominated non-subsistence production o half of families participate o some families specialized in particular type of pottery, occasionally on a commercial scale, but most made several different types  pottery production was nuclear family endeavor  men, as heads of households, are potters; wives and  daughters assisted with production initial parts of process: “The father and older sons mine pottery clays and gather firewood which are brought on burro-back to the home where the mother and older girls prepare paste, mold pots, and grind glazes, perhaps with the help of the males. The father builds and tends the fire, and all family members help load and unload the kiln” [Foster 1961:1180]  women prepared glaze while men prepared kiln  applying glaze was a family activity o e.g., for one family, it was dominated and orchestrated by matron of household, with her children assisting Pawnee  some crafts available to everyone Time Period 1500s- 1900s late 1700s - mid 1900s o women - processed animal hides, made buffalo- horn spoons, pottery, woven bulrush mats, moccasins, clothing from deer/elk o men - bows, sinew bowstrings, bridles, saddle bags, saddles, stirrups  other crafts restricted to specialists o pipes o men - arrowshafts o women - wooden mortars, buffalo hair ropes, wooden bowls, willow gambling baskets, woven belts  men - bows  women - pottery  female specialists - pottery, building earthlodges 683 1800s Mandan Table F.21 (cont’d) Time Period 1860s Culture Pawnee 1900s Haida 1930s Mandan 1950s Seneca What non-subsistence items produced; Who participated in non-subsistence production  most crafts restricted to specialists  mature women - domestic crafts, all household items o e.g., made buffalo-horn spoons (everyone), worked skins, wove mats, wove belts and buffalo hair ropes (very rare)  men - items for ceremonies, hunting, war o e.g., bow and saddles (everyone), arrowshafts and pipes and skin shirts (very rare)  women made baskets from spruce root and red cedar bark  carpentry and boatbuilding also important  women - pottery - specialized craft o women bought (e.g., with feasts) rights and knowledge to the craft from mother and other women o only allowed to use designs they were taught, bought rights to use  arrowmaking - specialized craft o had to purchase rights and knowledge  water drum production allowed to be done by any man  but only a few actually practiced this craft and owned tools to do so o they produced water drums both for themselves and for their community but not commercially 684 Table F.21 (cont’d) Time Period mid 1900s Culture Navajo What non-subsistence items produced; Who participated in non-subsistence production  men and women involved in different types of non- subsistence production  crafts involving buckskin = men’s work o also production of hobbles, lariats, moccasins, whips o men also sometimes make looms upon which women weave  women responsible primarily for weaving and secondarily for basketry  all of the several steps involved in weaving were completed by women o shearing sheep in springtime o carding wool o spinning o washing spun wool o dyeing it o making her loom and stringing her warp o finally the weaving itself  weaving conducted during woman’s leisure time unless there was significant household need for income from selling her work  sometimes weaving done indoors and sometimes outdoors  sometimes there were even 2 or 3 looms in a single house  designs were unique to each weaver o generally a combination of horizontal and vertical lines and a few different types of triangles o designs often geometric, sometimes more realistic o occasionally weaver chose to challenge herself with an overly large or complicated design  weaving materials and techniques largely did not change over time  weaving designs often changed very quickly  occasionally, rugs were made by multiple women o one woman was in charge of rug’s creation and chose the design while other women simply helped with execution of her desires  each residential group had at least one professional weaver who provided income by selling her rugs to the outside world 685 Table F.22 Non-subsistence Production Training Culture How individuals learned to produce items Pawnee  grandmothers taught girls women’s tasks (e.g., food preparation, hide dressing)  grandfathers taught boys to make bows and arrows Time Period late 1700s - mid 1800s 1800s Mandan Mandan  children paid gifts (e.g., small amounts of beads, corn)  elder women taught girls (e.g., making clothing)  father and elder men taught boys (e.g., making weapons, ceremonial objects)  children paid gifts to parents and older relatives for teaching them  children no longer taught craft production  exception if: learner had strong desire to learn, older person was willing to teach, and learner made generous payment to teacher  parents, parents’ siblings, grandparents taught children of same sex  girls learned from mothers or mothers’ mothers  boys learned from uncles  girls learned from mothers  boys started learning from fathers, then from mothers’ brothers to elders for teaching them  girls learned from women of their earthlodge (e.g., assisted women while they dressed hides, practiced making pots while women potted)  boys learned from father and older men of their earthlodge informal education by observing village activities   88% of potters were sons of fathers who were potters and taught them when they were children  other potters married into potting families and then learned to pot as adults  pottery designs were available for use by any potter o potters were noted as having personal favorite designs and some enjoyed experimentation with design.  son of farmer generally took up father’s occupation of farming, as long as he had enough land  anyone allowed to take up any occupation he chose 1860s Pawnee Nuu-chah- nulth Tlingit Haida late 1800s late 1800s late 1800s 1920s- 1930s 1940s Tzintzuntzeños 686 Table F.22 (cont’d) Time Period 1960s Culture How individuals learned to produce items Haida  children were taught traditional Haida arts in schools o schools started special programs involving elders teaching children in schools mid 1900s Navajo teaching and learning followed an apprenticeship model   both mothers and fathers were responsible for training their children of the same gender in the necessary manners and skills expected by the community of a Navajo individual of that gender  every female child learned how to weave from older female relative within her matrilineage (e.g., mother, grandmother, aunt) o e.g., when learning to spin, a woman showed a younger woman how to do it, then younger woman had extensive period of practicing in order to become proficient herself  for weaving, only the process was learned from an older woman; designs were unique to each weaver 687 Consumption Variable: Consumption Components of the Variable: How is food distributed within a household? How is food distributed between households? Where and how is food consumed? Table F.23 Consumption Location and Methods Time Period mid 1800s Culture Where and how food consumed Pawnee  two daily meals for all 20-50 members of each earthlodge  north side of earthlodge prepares one meal; south side prepares other daily meal  scheduling of meal preparation varied daily, decided by women involved  “the woman who cooked the meal had raised all the vegetables in her own gardens, had dried and preserved them and kept them in her storage pit, and ... all the meat she served was dried and packed by her on the buffalo hunt, carried back to the village (formerly on her back or by the dogs she raised), and also stored in the pit. In the past, the clay pot she cooked in would have been made by her (now a brass kettle from the trade store), and she was still making the large buffalo-horn ladle with which she served, the wooden mortar and pestle in which the mush was pounded, and for her ‘side’ alone the wooden bowls and buffalo-horn spoons in which the food was served, the rush mats on which the people sat, and all the clothing they wore” [Weltfish 1965:14]  each person received own bowl of food, except for children; each child shared a bowl with an elderly woman  members of earthlodge sat around fire in middle of earthlodge in same arrangements as their beds (located around outer edge of earthlodge)  either woman responsible for preparing meal served everyone or everyone passed food around to one another; once all were served, everyone began eating together 688 Table F.23 (cont’d) Time Period mid- late 1800s mid- late 1800s mid- late 1800s early 1900s early 1900s Culture Where and how food consumed Klamath   food prepared by all women of a household together in a separate building near house; prepared meal also eaten together in one large collective family group instances of some multi-family houses cooking and eating separately in their nuclear family groups rather than as large collective household group Kwakwaka’wakw  husband of household and any guests ate meal at a  food-mat; wife served food and drinking water food typically served in small dishes for single person, child, or married couple  when there were guests, food served in larger dishes for three people to eat from at once (e.g., one dish of two halibut for four guests; two dishes of three total halibut for six guests) Nuu-chah-nulth  during ‘Shamans’ Dance’ (ʟōqwɔnȧ) ceremonial, all meals required to be group meals  meal groups were smaller or larger, depending on host’s rank Skidi Pawnee  men ate in western half of earthlodge separately from Haudenosaunee 1900s- 1930s Mandan mid 1900s Haudenosaunee (Six Nations Reserve in Ontario)  women eating in eastern half of earthlodge families share food from communal bowls; children eat women’s leftovers  primary family meal occurred in morning - served from large communal dish by housewife first to the men and then to the other women and children  meal was either eaten sitting on floor or standing  housewife offered food to any visitors to the house at any time of day  men responsible for providing all of the meat for their households  women responsible for preparing food for their husbands’ ceremonial activities  whatever members of household were home at time of meal ate together (both children and adults)  meal was presided over by mother of household  each individual served himself from large communal dishes 689 Table F.23 (cont’d) Time Period 1930s- 1960s Culture Where and how food consumed Navajo  nuclear family butchered sheep and then cooked meal in individual house  prepared meal then shared with other nuclear families in residence group  each nuclear family ate their meal in their own respective house, or just outside of it, separately from other nuclear families in residence group, even though they were sharing same original meal if multiple nuclear families living in same house, they each ate at their own respective tables inside or outside house   only times entire residence group customarily ate   together were for ceremonies, special occasions, or upon butchering of sheep three meals a day preferred two meals a day more common (in part due to poverty and largely as matter of convenience for workday schedule)  only women cooked; men did not cook  in agricultural families, housewife prepared large noon meal (typically beans and tortillas with fish or meat in chiles, garlic, herbs, onions, and tomatoes) o housewife brought the meal to the field and ate it with her husband and any other agricultural laborers working with him  after workday, smaller evening meal was eaten by nuclear family together in kitchen (typically a taco or tortilla with beans or cheese and coffee, tea, or atole to drink) 690 1940s Tzintzuneños Table F.24 Consumption Food Distribution Culture Time Period 1530s Tzintzuntzeños mid 1800s Pawnee How food distributed within and between households  agricultural produce communal  distribution based on needs of each household  typical for two related men to hunt together; o o o if one killed an animal, they butchered it together and then split meat (hunter who killed animal got slightly more meat than relative) if hunter killed second animal, then he gave slightly more of second animal to relative that helped him butcher it legally hunter not required to share his kill even if someone helped him butcher it o sharing customary and expected (in this way, all village families had meat to eat) late 1800s Nuu-chah-nulth  successful hunter of porpoise, sea lion, sea otter, or whale technically owned all of his game but was expected to host a feast and give portions of his food to others  specific division of meat was up to hunter’s preferences 691 Table F.24 (cont’d) Time Period late 1800s Culture How food distributed within and between households Kwakwaka’wakw  distribution of food depended on identity of particular food o gooseberries, currants, Solomon’s seal berries exclusively for nuclear family o viburnum-berries exclusively for nuclear family but occasionally close relatives of a man were invited to share them o men invited friends to their homes to eat roasted salmon-tails and heads of halibut o men invited “common people” (Boas 1921:332) to their homes to eat salmon-heads o men invited “whomever he likes” (Boas 1921:571) to their homes for meal of salal- berries o wives asked their husbands to invite “many people of different tribes” (Boas 1921:581) to eat huckleberries o men invited their “tribe” (Boas 1921:489) to partake in their sea-eggs; four sea-eggs distributed to each husband-wife pairing in attendance o porpoises and hair-seals distributed according to rank  head chief received chest  limbs like dorsal fin and side-fins went to lower chiefs  common people received body pieces  the tail went to those of lowest social ranking o older people asked to be invited for meals of salmon-heads o men invited themselves to meals at others’ homes for herring-spawn 692 Table F.24 (cont’d) Time Period 1800s- 1930s Culture How food distributed within and between households Mandan  only bison tongues reserved for village leaders, religious leaders, and elderly villagers  otherwise, all villagers received equal shares of meat regardless of which hunter killed it; o this practice not disputed; sharing hunted meat with all fellow villagers was accepted universal practice  butchering completed in field by hunters but processing and curing meat done collectively (by women in 1800s but both men and women by the 1930s), regardless of who would eventually end up with which piece of meat  sharing of meat (especially when sheep was butchered by nuclear family) with other members of residence group was very important socially, to the point of being an obligation  meat even shared with non family members, non residence group members, and non Navajo if they were present in community when sheep was butchered or when meal was prepared or eaten  sometimes other food (often in form of cooked meals) shared among extended family members and residence group  sometimes food (especially produce like corn, melons, and peaches) shared within residence group or between family members through process of bartering o these foods also sometimes just shared by those who planted them within residence group or with extended family members and sometimes even sold to nonrelatives outside of residence group  farmers generally only produced crops for their own nuclear families  neighbors exchanged foods (e.g., an egg for a few chiles)  sometimes neighbors sent small gift of food (e.g., bean- filled tortillas) if they were particularly close to their neighbors (e.g., sister and husband living next to brother and wife) 693 1930s- 1980s Navajo 1940s Tzintzuntzeños APPENDIX G: Alexandra Site Longhouse Attributes 694 Table G.1 “Table 2: Alexandra Site House Variability,” from Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) 2008:7 695 APPENDIX H: Alexandra Site Longhouse Attributes—Contents 696 Table H.1 Alexandra Site Longhouse Attributes—Contents 697 ALEXANDRA SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTES HouseFeatureProvenienceContentsType196South wallsterilepit97560N, 240Epottery, bone, chert, debitage, CPR, FCR, sweat pipe frag, worked bone, 2 bone beads, 1 awllodge98575N, 255Epottery, bone, chert, debitage, FCR, workedsweatbonelodge100Centersterilepit101South wallsterilepit102Centersterilepit103South wallsterilepit104570N, 250Epottery, bone, pipe fragpit105565N, 250ECPR (3 maize kernels)pit108South wallsterilepit109Centersterilepit111Centersterilepitpost 4560N, 240Ebeaver incisor chiselpost7152North bunk/sterilepitEast end 155560N, 255Eground stonepit156560N, 255Epottery, chert, debitagepit157555N, 250Epottery, bone, chert, debitage, FCR, sweatground stone, celt, 2 whet stoneslodge158560N, 250Echertpit159555N, 245Epottery, bone, chert, debitage, FCRpit160North bunksterilepit161555N, 240Epottery, bone, chertpit168550N, 240Epottery, bone, chert, debitage, pipe frags, FCR,sweatground stone, whet stone, celt, worked bone, lodge2 bone beads, CPR, carbonized reed mat 171550N, 240Ebone, debitagehearth/ burnevent174550N, 235Ebone, chert, debitage, gound stone, whetpit stone 175South bunksterilepit176Centersterilepit179South bunksterilepit7180Centersterilepit Table H.1 (cont’d) 698 ALEXANDRA SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTES HouseFeatureProvenienceContentsType7181550N, 230Epottery, bone, chert, debitage, quartz debitage,sweatFCR, CPR, ground stone, worked bone, awl fraglodge185550N, 230Epotterypit164Exteriorpottery, bone, burned bone, chert, debitage.pitactivitypipe frags, worked bone, shell, hammer stone, areaCPR, FCR 7165Exteriorbone, chert, debitage pitactivityarea10246540N, 250Epottery, bone, debitage, bone bead, bonesweathandlelodge248W. end wallsterilewall trench249535N, 240EFCRpit250535N, 245Epottery, bone, chert, debitage, pipe frag, sweatshell bead, metatelodgepost 28535N, 245Epotteryposthole12299475N, pottery, bone, chert, debitage, FCR, sweat215/220Eworked bone, awl, bone beadlodge301470N, 115Epottery, bone, chert, debitage, FCRsweatlodge308S. bunk ext.sterilepit13287470N, 225Epotterypit288470N, 225Epottery, boneash pit289470N, 225Epotterypit291475/480N,bonewall225Etrench295480N, 215Ebonewalltrench306470N, 230Epottery, bone, debitage, FCR, worked shell,sweatbone bead, biface frag, chisel (woodchucklodgeincisor), human remains307470N, 230Ebone, debitagepit313465N, 240Ebone, FCRpit314North bunk?sterilepit13315465N, 240Epottery, chert, FCRpit Table H.1 (cont’d) 699 ALEXANDRA SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTES HouseFeatureProvenienceContentsType13319465N, 235Epottery, bone, debitage, pipe frag, bone bead, sweatFCR, human bonelodge320465N, 235Epottery, bonepit325470/475N,bone, human remainspit230E13327475N, 230EpotterywalltrenchNOTE: FEATURE 299 IS RECORDED IN HOUSE 12 SUMMARY, BUT IT ISMAPPED IN HOUSE 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299475N, potterysweat 215/220E lodgeI collected data for this table from Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) (2008). APPENDIX I: Alexandra Site Longhouse Attributes—Ceramics 700 Table I.1 Alexandra Site Longhouse Attributes—Ceramics 701 ALEXANDRA SITEHouse(H) #H - 1H - 2H - 3H - 5H - 6H - 7Ceramic TypeMiddleport Oblique1, F701, F1381, F1921, P2/31, F671, F1241?1, P121, P*Pound Necked1, F*,P*1, F1983, F1682, F1241, F1471, F157Black Necked1, F972?1?1, F1381, P313?1, F192Ontario Horizontal1?1?1, F581, F1381, F1931, P221, F1241, P72?Iroquois LinearHuron Incised1, F1381, F166Lawson IncisedLawson Opposed1, F*,P*1, F1241?Middleport Criss-Cross1, F192Niagara CollaredOntario Oblique1, F1381?Pound Blank1?Ripley Plain1, P2Warminster HorizontalCastellation1, F32House(H) #H - 8H - 8/9H - 9H - 10H - 11H - 12Ceramic TypeMiddleport Oblique2?1, F2931, ?1, F2461, P11, F301Pound Necked1, P411, F2771?1?1?Black Necked1, P202?1, P491, P72Ontario Horizontal1, P331?1, P1301?1?Iroquois Linear1?Huron IncisedLawson Incised1, P36 Table I.1 (cont’d) 702 ALEXANDRA SITEHouse(H) #H - 8H - 8/9H - 9H - 10H - 11H - 12Ceramic TypeLawson Opposed1, P351, P73Middleport Criss-CrossNiagara Collared1, P128Ontario ObliquePound Blank1?Ripley PlainWarminster Horizontal1?Castellation1, P51, P641, P*House(H) #H-12/13H - 13H - 14H - 15H - 16H - 17Ceramic TypeMiddleport Oblique1, P332, F3191, F3361, ?1, P161, F350 1, P101, F3451, F*Pound Necked1, F3192?1, P49Black Necked1, F3061?2?1?Ontario Horizontal1, F3271, F3361?1?Iroquois LinearHuron IncisedLawson Incised1, F3191, F347Lawson Opposed1?1?Middleport Criss-CrossNiagara CollaredOntario ObliquePound Blank1, P21, P3Ripley PlainWarminster Horizontal1, P16Castellation* Location not provided in report. F= Feature. P = Posthole.I collected data for this table from Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) (2008).Data from ASI, 2008, APPENDIX 3 gives n = 74. If data from ASI, 2008, p. 69 (Table 59) is added to the above table, n = 111. APPENDIX J: Mantle Site Longhouse Attributes 703 Table J.1 Mantle Site Longhouse Attributes 704 MANTLE SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTES # of LengthWidthAreaOrientationSite# of # of pit# ofHousemetersmeters(m²)(°E OF N)PhaseHearthsFeaturesash pits142.97.227195early7215.67.4102109early4337.65.520193early7413.56.373100late16530.26.920693early6621.56.6135102early 1(720.96.312492early218)20.96.913999late914.76.181101late1110a22.26.9150100early 310b21.37.0143105mid-late117.1*/21.0¹6.339*/114¹81late41225.87.317392early-late22011318.77.312256very early101433.56.921899early-late191542.7*/55¹7.8370*/446¹103early-late21616a23.26.5142101early4616b49.46.5304101early1716.47.3109103early1311832.47.6236101early-late11411920.4*/25¹7.4125*/170¹95early-late112050.3*/54¹7.9369*/400¹96early-late132(2111.67.27796early222)28.07.5199160late912314.25.471147early-mid (2427.07.5199101late2425)40.37.629899early2655.56.83632early1127a17.17.611796early-late727b40.47.628696early-late122818.87.51300late42922.16.9142116early 53016.06.810950mid-late33116.46.49258mid-late33234.27.72416late81(3339.26.524499early Table J.1 (cont’d) 705 MANTLE SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTES # of LengthWidthAreaOrientationSite# of # of pit# ofHousemetersmeters(m²)(°E OF N)PhaseHearthsFeaturesash pits34)43.57.7329100late 3526.3*/30¹5.8*/7.2¹132*/208¹23late3(3631.07.421798late137a25.6*/37.7¹7.6182*/281¹107early12337b)37.7*/40.5¹7.6281*/308¹107early3822.47.716497early83917.56.9117356late514032.5*/35¹7.8245*/258¹102early4132.9*/41¹7.6236*/327¹78late13(429.86.75991late043)23.87.917196early514420.0*/31¹8.0147*/234¹95early04535.66.823790early0946a157.41111late046b21.97.41651late4719.47.312394early4(48a13.87.29286early-mid48b20.47.213986early-mid49)15.17.31047early-mid65026.37.2175128mid-late25114.06.888125mid-late05213.47.0870early-mid0(5323.17.3152.3150mid-late1854)41.57.530448late8557.5*/30¹7.453*/220¹4late12(5617.4*/29¹6.498*/182¹90early57)23.66.815653late155819.1*/27¹7.6140*/202¹47late5924.06.014679early12(6019.26.511277early161)47.4*/50¹7.6302*/370¹78early-mid1(6227.2*/316.3129*/20256early 963)29.9*/33¹7.6176*/250¹56late264a18.45.910938early-late1064b24.07.216038early-late64c31.07.921938early-late Table J.1 (cont’d) 706 MANTLE SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTES # of LengthWidthAreaOrientationSite# of # of pit# ofHousemetersmeters(m²)(°E OF N)PhaseHearthsFeaturesash pits6511.77.17932late16635.07.425332late0146716.77.111819late 16815.57.010518early26924.4*/27¹6.9187¹11early970a31.57.6222150late1770b8.14.735.6150mid-late70c10.45.753.5150mid-late7146.37.736711early-mid42037230.37.1192357early-mid17320.18.015213late074a17.57.612028late10274b23.67.616028late7523.27.114827late7625.47.7188357late18(7718.57.412119mid-late1278)15.9*/19.5¹7.0127¹23early17929.97.223230early-mid480a28.3*/32.6¹7.3180.2*/206.1¹40early380b32.6*/39¹7.3206.1*/270¹40early8120.7¹7.4144¹36late 118235.0¹7.2250¹40early168323.27.1170¹35early-mid78416.87.112734late38523.87.617814early198624.27.51741late418721.57.41458early8820.37.814712early58920.7*/29¹7.3188¹36late9019.3*/307.019540late11191Inc.7.3Inc.36early9211.8*/30¹6.0237¹97early229316.07.71155early594n/an/an/an/an/a958.5*/22¹5.9130.8569early Table J.1 (cont’d) I collected data for this table from Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) 2012. 707 MANTLE SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTES # of LengthWidthAreaOrientationSite# of # of pit# ofHousemetersmeters(m²)(°E OF N)PhaseHearthsFeaturesash pits9616.46.9103.2350early ¹estimated * = indicates varying lenghts of house constructed ¹ = estimated length, width or area91: Inc.= Inconclusive, not sufficient data for accurate measurement.I collected data for this table from Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) (2012). APPENDIX K: Mantle Site Longhouse Attributes—Contents 708 Table K.1 Mantle Site Longhouse Attributes—Contents 709 MANTLE SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTESHouse #Feature #NorthingEastingContents3716530190pottery734530185pottery, chert, bone747525200pottery, bone, FCR750525180pottery, bone752530175pottery, bone754530170pottery3757530170pottery, chert, bone, bone beads, FCR12772505155pottery, bone790505160pottery, chert, bone791505155bone 837505170pottery, bone838505170pottery, bone840505180pottery, chert, bone844505180pottery, bone846505180pottery, chert849505180pottery, chert852505180pottery, bone853505165pottery 854505170pottery, bone855505180pottery, chert, bone856505170pottery, chert, CPR 857a505170pottery, ground stone 857b505170pottery, ground stone 858505170pottery, chert, ground stone, bone, CPR863505170pottery, bone, CPR12866500175pottery, chert, bone, nails (not kept)873500170pottery, bone, chert875505175bone876505175pottery, bone903505175pottery, chert, bone905505175pottery, bone, CPR 906505175pottery, bone908505175chert, ground stone, bone, CPR1051505160pottery, chert, bone121053500155pottery, chert, bone12,13859505185bone, CPR, FCR860505185FCR Table K.1 (cont’d) 710 MANTLE SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTESHouse #Feature #NorthingEastingContents13839500180pottery, chert, bone862505185pottery, chert, ground stone, bone870500175pottery871500175bone 872500175pottery, chert, bone, FCR878500185pottery, chert, bone, shell, hammerstone13901500190pottery, chert, bone14880495210pottery, bone, CPR881495220bone882500205pottery, chert883500220pottery884500205pottery, chert885500220bone886500210pottery891500215bone, CPR 894500200pottery, ground stone896500215pottery897500215pottery, bone899505195pottery, bone900500195pottery14977500210pottery, ground stone, bone18930485155pottery, chert, bone953485165bone954485165pottery, bone 962485180pottery, chert967485180pottery, chert, bone1068480175pottery, chert, ground stone, bone, drill1069480175bone1070480175pottery1071480175pottery, bone1079485160pottery, chert, bone, worked bone1080485160pottery, chert, bone1081485160pottery, chert, bone1084480175chert, bone1085485160chert, bone 1088485165pottery, chert, bone181089485165pottery, chert, ground stone, bone Table K.1 (cont’d) 711 MANTLE SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTESHouse #Feature #NorthingEastingContents181090485165bone1092485165pottery, chert, ground stone, bone1095480180chert1101480170chert1102480170pottery, chert, ground stone, bone, shell1105480180pottery, chert 1109480180pottery, chert, bone1111480180pottery 1112480180bone1113480170bone1114480180bone1115485175pottery, bone1116480180pottery, chert, bone1117485180pottery181123480170bone20987470135pottery, chert988470135pottery, bone990475140chert, bone991475140pottery, bone992475140bone, shell994475140pottery, ground stone996475165bone997475135chert, bone, shell, hammerstone 999475135chert, bone, worked bone201001475135bone1002475135bone bead1003470155pottery1004475130pottery, bone1005470155pottery, chert, shell1006470145pottery, chert, bone, shell 1007470145pottery, chert, bone, shell1008470145chert, bone1009470145bone1010470140pottery, chert, shell1017475150pottery, chert, ground stone, bone,nails, historic ceramic201028475150pottery, bone Table K.1 (cont’d) 712 MANTLE SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTESHouse #Feature #NorthingEastingContents201031475150pottery, chert, bone1034475145chert, bone 1038475145chert, bone, hammerstone1042475145pottery1043475145pottery, ground stone, bone, worked antler1045470145pottery, bone, mortar stone201046470155pottery, FCR1098475165pottery1395470175pottery, bone1398470170bone1399a470165pottery, bonenot mapped1399b470185bone bead 1400470170FCR1403470160bone1404470155pottery201406465160pottery, chert, bone45441430175pottery451425165pottery 452430160pottery, bone 454425160pottery, bone 455425160pottery, bone456425130pottery457430155pottery, bone458430155pottery, chert, bone, shell459430155pottery, chert, bone, CPR460430150pottery, chert, bone45646425170pottery80336360120pottery, bone395385140pottery, bone 396385135pottery, chert 399380135pottery402380140pottery403380140bone404380140pottery, chert, bone, shell 406380140chert 408380145bone80422375130pottery, bone, glass Table K.1 (cont’d) I collected the data for this Table K.1 from appendices of Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) (2012). 713 APPENDIX L: Mantle Site Longhouse Attributes—Ceramics 714 Table L.1 Mantle Site Longhouse Attributes—Ceramics 715 MANTLE SITE House(H) #H - 1H - 2H - 3H - 4H - 5H - 6Ceramic Type00 00Huron Incised1, F-7571, F-755Sidey Notched1, F-757Lawson Incised1, F-734Black Necked1, F-754 Chance Incised1, F-787Castellation1, F-757 House(H) #(H - 7H - 8)H - 9H - 10H - 11H - 12Ceramic Type00Huron Incised1, F-783.1, F-8321, F-8551, F-8342, F-8581, F-8661, F-873 1, F-9031, F-906 1, F-1051Lawson Incised1, F-804.Dutch Hollow Notched1, F-819.Seed Incised1, F-7721, F-858Black Necked1, F-840Castellation1, F-840 1, F-1051House(H) #H - 13H - 14H - 15H - 16H - 17H - 18Ceramic Type0Huron Incised1, F-9012, F-8941, F-9121, F-9781, F-930 2,F-927AB1, F-1102 3, F-927b Sidey Notched1, F-8721, F-986Lawson Incised1, F-878Dutch Hollow Notched1, F-9861, F-1102Seed Incised1, F-960Black Necked2, F-1109Roebuck Corn Eared1, F-912 Table L.1 (cont’d) 716 MANTLE SITE House(H) #H - 19H - 20(H - 21H - 22)H - 23(H - 24Ceramic Type0Huron Incised1, F-9281, F-?1, F-1339.2, F-11471, F-9881, F-1391. 1, F-10432, F-1392.Sidey Notched1, F-9941, F-1336.1, F-1060Lawson Incised1, F-9351, F-1158Dutch Hollow Notched1, F-9Seed Incised1, F-1339.Seed Corded1, F-1406Ontario Horizontal1, F-1391.Castellation1, F-1136 House(H) #H - 25)H - 26H - 27H - 28H - 29H - 30Ceramic Type00Huron Incised.1, F-12701, F-13611, F-14461, F-1380Sidey Notched.1, F-1349Lawson Incised.1, F-1358Dutch Hollow Notched.1, F-1270Seed Incised1, F-1265House(H) #H - 31H - 32(H - 33H - 34)H - 35(H - 36Ceramic Type00Huron Incised1, F-?.1, F-11661, F-1322 1, F-1215.1, F-14271, F-1217.1, F-1220.1, F-1221.2, F-1340.Sidey Notched1, F-1209.1, F-12961, F-1329.Black Necked1, F-1238 Chance Incised1, F-1221.Castellation1, F-1215.1, F-1199Untyped..1, F-1228..1, F-1288 Table L.1 (cont’d) 717 MANTLE SITE House(H) #H - 37)H - 38H - 39H - 40H - 41(H - 42Ceramic Type0Huron Incised.2, F-4641, F-1491 .Sidey Notched.2, F-428Dutch Hollow Notched1,F-1471Seed Corded1, F-14071, F-1408House(H) #H - 43)H - 44H - 45H - 46H - 47(H - 48Ceramic Type00Huron Incised6, F-4271, F-592Dutch Hollow Notched.1, F-427Seed Incised1, F-4551, F-427Warminster Horizontal1, F-427Ripley Plain1, F-427Ripley Corded1, F-427Cayadutta-Otstungo1, F-427House(H) #H - 49)H - 50H - 51H - 52(H - 53H - 54)Ceramic Type000Huron Incised.1, F-432. 1, F-478.1, F-564. 2, F-580.Sidey Notched2, F-564.1, F-583.Seed Incised1, F-566.Warminster Horizontal1, F-564.Roebuck Corn Eared1, F-564.House(H) #H - 55(H - 56H - 57)H - 58H - 59(H - 60Ceramic Type000Huron Incised2, F-6901, F-547. 1, F-670.Sidey Notched1, F-692. Chance Incised1, F-692. Table L.1 (cont’d) 718 MANTLE SITE House(H) #H - 61)(H - 62H - 63)H - 64H - 65H - 66Ceramic Type00Huron Incised1, F-?.1, F-5461, F-?1, F-521.7, F-475 1, F-554.1, F-5111, F-562.1, F-620Sidey Notched1, F-475Dutch Hollow Notched1, F-562.Seed Incised1, F-475Black Necked1, F-475Ontario Horizontal1, F-475Ripley Plain1, F-629Cayadutta-Otstungo1, F-656Cayuga Horizontal1, F-475House(H) #H - 67H - 68H - 69H - 70H - 71H - 72Ceramic Type000Huron Incised1, F-3611, F-1671, F-1431, F-3621, F-364 1, F-4881, F-3681, F-369Dutch Hollow Notched1, F-490Castellation1, F-486House(H) #H - 73(H - 74H - 75)H - 76(H - 77H - 78)Ceramic Type0Huron Incised1, F-2941, F-290.Lawson Incised1, F-289.Ripley Plain 1, F-289. Chance Incised1, F-176Roebuck Corn Eared1, F-412.Otstungo Notched1, F-180.Castellation1, F-294 Table L.1 (cont’d) I collected the data for this table from appendices of Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) (2012). 719 MANTLE SITE House(H) #H - 79H - 80H - 81H - 82H - 83H - 84Ceramic Type00Huron Incised1, F-?1, F-1101, F-213Huron Incised1, F-226Sidey Notched1, F-396 Chance Incised1, F-?House(H) #H - 85H - 86H - 87H - 88H - 89H - 90Ceramic Type000Huron Incised1, F-1151, F-1991, F-? 10, F-156Sidey Notched2, F-2041, F-99 3, F-156Seed Incised1, F-156Warminster Horizontal1, F-156High Collar1, F-156House(H) #H - 91H - 92H - 93H - 94H - 95H - 96Ceramic Type0 000Huron Incised1, F-7931, F-22.......NOTE: Where houses in one column are identified starting with an opening parenthesisand then followed in the next numbered column with a closing parenthesis, this indicatesthat the houses so overlapped that artifacts could not be definitively attributed to only oneof the two house. See e.g.,(H - 7H - 8) APPENDIX M: Molson Site Longhouse Attributes 720 Table M.1 Molson Site Longhouse Attributes 721 MOLSON SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTESLengthWidthCalculated # of# of # of pitHouse #metersmetersAreaOrientationFeat.HearthsFeatures1a burnt196.2117.8NW to SE1074161b257.5187.5215¹undeter.undeter.NE to SW1 396.558.5NE to SW10 4a burnt157105NW to SE166104b3172175a177.5127.5NW to SE129915b307.52256258.5212.5NW to SE4267a157.3109.5NW to SE40427b17.37.3126.3 8a136.584.5NW to SE12138b96.558.5 9157105NW to SE1947 10a76.243.4NW to SE251610b14.77.2105.8 11undeter.undeter.undeter.x .12undeter.undeter.undeter.x.. ¹estimated ......... Table M.1 (cont’d) 722 MOLSON SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTESHouse #COMMENTS1a burntpit f. F-2,3,5,22,42,43,56,64a,65,72,74,75,76,98,106,1071bhearths F-28,37,55,91sweat lodges b/n F-55 and 912x--very little of H-2 exposed; parallel to H-3possible entranceH-2 possible storage area3very few subsoil feat./very little cultural material4a burnthearths F-11,12,51,61,64,92,110/127,142,152,1654bF-9 ash pit, F-111 probable entrance; most "feats."= postmolds2/3-3/4 North end relatively rich deposits cultural material F-43 BRASS CONE, stone/ceramic gaming disks, stone celt5a12 ash pits; storage pit F-1295bF-72, F-99 central hearths; 20 "hearth related feats."7 shallower hearths + 2 deeper hearthsF-67 possible"ceramic workshop" w/ broken ceramic vessel and large mass unfired/untempered clayF-83 possible former primary burial locationF-87 3 pot frags. with castellation (mended)6central pit hearths F-28, 29; storage areas both ends H-6shallow central hearths F-1,10,23,40 storage areas both ends H-6 7astorage pits F-7, 22; F-7 abundant ceramic frags. .7bhearths F-8, 37 shallow; F-26 deep basin-shaped pit hearth w/ refuse.hearth F-16, 10cm deep, some ceramic refuse/abundant FCRsweat lodges F-8, 26 along center line b/n hearths.F-17, 35 possible former primary burial locations.8astorage pits F-9, 11, 13; small amt. ceramic frags.8bcentral hearth F-7 F-5 possible slash pit w/ large section of ceramic vessel97 storage pits incl. F-2,3,11,15,17; F-15 abundant ceramic frags.central hearths F-5, 7, 9, 11; F-14 possible sweat lodgeF-15 4 ceramic ves. reconstructed with some of frags. F-17, 1 BRASS BEAD, ceramic frags. Table M.1 (cont’d) I collected the data for this table from the report of Lennox (2012). Areas were calculated by A. Conell. 723 MOLSON SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTESHouse #COMMENTS10astorage pits F-1, 2, 17, 19, 20, 21; limited cultural material10bcentral hearth F-511, 12discovered in same test trench in which H-10 located; notexcavated because October brought end of season APPENDIX N: Molson Site Longhouse Attributes—Contents 724 Table N.1 Molson Site Longhouse Attributes—Contents 725 MOLSON SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTES HouseFeatureProvenienceContentsType11.glass bead.225N, 30Epottery, pipes, bird/fish bone frags, copper ring, pit disc shell bead, iron awl, glass bead,calcined bone325N, 30Epottery, bone frags, lots of FCR, 2 glass beads,pitdebitage, shell425N, 30Epottery pot stand525N, 30Epottery, fist-sized granite, bone frags, calcined bone.625N, 30Enothing recordedsup. post725N, 30E1 boneslash pit825N, 30Epottery, decayed granite cobblessup. post9.nothing recordedslash pit1025N, 30Epottery, grinding stone.1125N, 30Enothing recordedsup. post12A25N, 30Eawl frag, 3 faunal, 3 ms, bipolar core (Huronia).12B25N, 30Enothing recorded, bipolar core (Huronia).11325N, 30Enothing recordedsmall pit 14/1525N, 30Epottery, FCR.1425N, 30Elithic artifacts, FCRtopsoillens15.lithic artifacts, FCR, bone frags.1625N, 30Enothing recordedposthole1725N, 30Epottery, bone frags, CPR, calcined boneash pit1825N, 30Efish bone frags, 2 shoulder sherdspost pit19A25N, 30Epottery, bone frags, CPR, large FCRsup. post19B25N, 30Epottery, bone frags, CPR, large FCRsup. post2025N, 30Elarge amt pottery, incl rim sherds, bone frags,slash pit lots FCR, calcined bone2125N, 30Epottery, lithic artifacts, debitage, bone frags, FCR,root 1 shoulder sherd, 2 corn, 6 charcoal, calcined bonedisturb2225N, 30Epottery, bone frags (fish/small mammal), 6 charcoal.23.unfired pottery,debitage, pottery, bone frags, pit calcined bone, quartz flake2425N, 30Epottery, 2 FCR, 1 corn, bone frags.2525N, 30Epottery, bone frags (fish vert)pit2625N, 30E2 pottery piecespit12725N, 30Epottery, bone frags (10 small), glass bead. Table N.1 (cont’d) 726 MOLSON SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTES HouseFeatureProvenienceContentsType12825N, 35Epottery, bone frags, shellhearth/ashpit2925N, 35Enothing recordedpit3025N, 35Epottery, bone artifacts, bone frags, calcined bone,sup. post 1 corn, worked bone awl 3125N, 35Ebone frags incl rodent jaw, 1 corn.3225N, 35Epottery, bone frags, iron knife, clay pipe stem.3225N, 35E3 corn, 1 seed3325N, 35Ebone frags, 2 FCRash pit3425N, 35Epottery.3525N, 35Ebone frags.3625N, 35Epottery, bone frags, 1 FCR, calcined bone, sup. post 6 charcoal3725N, 35Esmall pottery, fish bone fragshearth 3825N, 35Epottery, fish bone frags, 1 FCRsup. post13925N, 35Ebone frags incl rodent jaw, 1 corn, calcined bone,ash pit 1 large mammal longbone frag, pottery4025N, 35Epottery.4125N, 35Ebone frags, debitage, ~15 charcoalpit4225N, 35Epottery, bone frags, 2 shell beads, body of pot intact,garbagehuman tooth (removed), 2 corn, 7 CPR, chert,pit20 charcoal, iron nail4325N, 35Epottery, lithic artifacts, bone frags, debitage, 3 corngarbagelarge rodent jaw, worked bone cup and pin,pitiron nail4425N, 35Enothing recorded.4525N, 35Enothing recordedpit46.pottery, bone artifacts, bone frags, debitageash pit4725N, 35E1 shoulder sherd, bone fragstoragepit4825N, 35Ebone frags.4925N, 35Enothing recordedsup. post5025N, 35Epotterypit5125N, 35Epottery, bone frags, 4 sherds, 1 quartz, 1 calcined ash pitfish vert, 2 calcined bone, 2 shell frags, microsherds152A25N, 35Etiny bone fraggarbagepit Table N.1 (cont’d) 727 MOLSON SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTES HouseFeatureProvenienceContentsType152B25N, 35Enothing recorded.53.nothing recordedpit5425N, 35Enothing recordedslash pit5530N, 30Edebitage, bone frags, micahearth5620N, 35E21 sherds, 2 chert, 1 corn, many bones incl fish,garbagebird, mammal, carnivore jaw, debitage,pitground stone abrader, brass ring 5720N, 35Esterilepit58A20N, 35Epottery, bone frags.58B20N, 35Epottery, bone frags.5920N, 35E3 sherds, calcined bone, bone frags incl fish, small. mammal, rodent teeth6020N, 35Enothing recorded.6120N, 35Ebone frags, 2 beaver teeth, 3 sherdssup. post6220N, 35E8 sherdssup. post6320N, 35Epottery (15 sherds), fishbone frags,pit ground stone celt frag16420N, 35Epottery, 8 microsherdspit6520N, 35Epottery, debitage, bone frags, FCR,pit 7 sherds, 1 rim sherd, 4 chert, 1 beaver tooth, ground stone celt frag, lead frag6620N, 35Enothing recorded.6720N, 35Epottery, lithic artifactssup. post6820N, 35Epottery, lithic artifactspit6920N, 35Esterile.70A20N, 35Enothing recordedsup. post70B20N, 35Enothing recordedsup. post7120N, 35Esterile.72.4 rim sherds, 1 neck/shoulder sherd, pottery, .1 castellation, bone frags72A30N, 35Epottery, debitage, bone frags incl rodent skull, CPR,pitFCR, 31 sherds, ~30 corn, 12 charcoal, chert72B30N, 35Epottery, lithic artifacts, debitage, bone frags, CPR,storageFCR, calcined bone, 4 shell, chert, 14 sherdspitglass bead7330N, 35Eone minute micro sherd.17430N, 35Ebone frags, european iron spoon, 7 sherds, 1 corn. Table N.1 (cont’d) 728 MOLSON SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTES HouseFeatureProvenienceContentsType17530N, 35Epottery, bone frags (fish), 4 euro copper beads. 1 large mammal longbone frag, 2 small longbones, 2 sherds, brass bead7630N, 35Epottery, adze, scraper, bone frags, CPR, storage debitage, 16 charcoal, 1 medium rodent skullpit7730N, 35Esterile.7830N, 35Eabundant body sherds, gaming disc, shell, sup. feat. calcined bone, FCR7930N, 35Egaming disc, FCRsup. feat.8030N, 35Esterilesup. feat.8130N, 35Epotterysup. feat.8230N, 35Epotterysup. feat.8330N, 30Efishbone ash pit8430N, 30Esterile.8530N, 30Epottery, bone frags, 1 rim sherdash pit18630N, 30Ebone artifacts, calcined bone frags, 2 corn,sup. feat. 6 charcoal8730N, 30Epottery, bone fragsash pit8830N, 30Epottery, bone frags, debitage, 1 shell.8930N, 30Epottery, charcoal, 3 corn, 3 CPR.9030N, 30Ebone frag, charcoal.9130N, 30Edebitagehearth9230N, 30Ehuge pieces of charcoal .9330N, 30Epottery.9430N, 30Epottery.9530N, 30Epottery, stone gaming disc?, abundant FCRsup. feat. debitage, 1 corn, 11 sherds9630N, 30Epottery, 4 microsherds.9730N, 30Echarcoal, 9 corn, 1 squash seed, many bones inclsup. post fish/small mammal9830N, 30Epottery, lithic artifacts, debitage, bone frags incl refuse pitrodent jaw, clay lumps, FCR, 2 chert nodules,bipolar core (Huronia)9930N, 30Epottery, lithic artifacts, debitage, bone fragsrefuse pit10030N, 30E3 microsherdsstain10130N, 30Enothing recorded.110230N, 30Esterile. Table N.1 (cont’d) 729 MOLSON SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTES HouseFeatureProvenienceContentsType110330N, 30Enothing recordedpit10435N, 25Emicrosherds.10535N, 25Emicrosherds.10635N, 25E~40 charcoal.110735N, 25Esterile.215N, 55Esterileentrance25N, 55Epottery, rough stone artifacts, decayed graniteposthole3135N, 50Epottery (Pound Blank?), bone and shell fragspit235N, 50Esterilepit335N, 50Esterile.430N, 55Esterile.530N, 50Enothing recordedpit6...7/1030N, 45Epottery, debitage, large piece wood charcoal, CPRhearth830N, 45Edebitage, CPR, corncob frag, 4 FCRpit930N, 45Esterilepit1025N, 45Epottery.31125N, 50Emicrosherdpit41.pottery, glass bead.2.pottery, bone artifactspit315N, 0Epottery, bone artifactspit4.pottery, bone artifactspit5.potterypit6.potterypit715N, 0Epottery, bone artifactsash pit815N, 0Esterilepit910N, 0Epottery, beads, lithic artifacts, bone artifacts.1015N, 0Epottery, bone frags, CPR.1110N, 0Esterilehearth1215N, 0Epotteryhearth1310N, 0Enothing recordedpit14.pottery, bone frags, CPRpit1510N, 0Esterilepit1610N, 0E(1 float sample)pit1710N, 0Epotterypit1810N, 0Esterile.41910N, 0Epottery, debitage. Table N.1 (cont’d) 730 MOLSON SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTES HouseFeatureProvenienceContentsType42010N, 0Enothing recorded.2110N, 0Enothing recorded.2215N, 0Epottery, lots FCR, preserved uncharred wood,pit mano(frag)/metate(granite), charcoal2315N, 0Epotterypit2415N, 0Echarcoal, bone frags, debitage, fired/unfired potterypit250N, 10Epottery.2610N, 0Enothing recorded.27.sterile.2815N, 0Epottery, red ochre nodulesup. feat.2915N, 0Epotterysup. feat.3010N, 0Epottery.315N, 0Epottery.325N, 0Esterilepit3310N, 0Epottery, wood piece.3410N, 0Esterile.3510N, 0Epottery.43610N, 0Enothing recorded.3710N, 0Esterilepit3815N, 0E(1 float sample)sup. post39.potterysup. feat.40.nothing recordedpot stand410N, 10Esterilepit425N, 15Epottery, pipes, bone frags, snail shell, charcoal.43.pottery, lithic artifacts, European brass tinkling cone,storageground stone celt (Huronia), scraper, gaming discpit4415N, 5Wsterile.4515N, 5Wsterileash pit4615N, 5Wsterile.4715N, 5Wpottery.4810N, 5Wnothing recorded.4910N, 5Wbone frags, CPR.5010N, 5Wbone frags .5115N, 5Wfishbone fragsash pit5220N, 5W(1 float sample)ash pit45320N, 5Wpotterypit Table N.1 (cont’d) 731 MOLSON SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTES HouseFeatureProvenienceContentsType45510N, 5Wpottery, debitage, bone frags, CPRstoragepit5610N, 5Wnothing recordedentry step5715N, 5Wpottery, CPRpit5820N, 5Wsterilepit5910N, 0Edebitage.6010N, 0Esterile.6115N, 5Wpottery, CPR, cornhearth6215N, 5Wpottery, bone frags, fishbones, CPR, corn, bean,ash pit shell beads6315N, 5Wpottery, debitage, bone frags, cornpit6415N, 5Wpottery, bone frags, CPR, squash, brass beadhearth/ashpit6615N, 5Wpottery, lithic artifacts, anvil stonestoragepit6715N, 5Wsterilepit6815N, 5Wnothing recordedpit46915N, 10Wpottery, bone frags, fishbones, CPR, corn, beanspit7015N, 5Wpotterypit7115N, 5W1 pottery, 1 manopost pit7215N, 5Wpotterypit7315N, 5Wpottery, FCR, bone frags, corn, squash, beans.74.potterypit7510N, 5Wpottery, CPR.76A15N, 5Wpottery, bone artifacts, CPRpit7610N, 5Wpottery, unfired pottery, debitage, bone fragsstoragepit77A10N, 5W(1 float sample)pit7715N, 5Wpotterypit7815N, 5Wpottery, bipolar core (Huronia)pit7910N, 0Enothing recordedroot stain8015N, 10Wsterileash pit8115N, 10Wpotterydisturbedpit8315N, 10Wcharcoal ash pit8415N, 10Wsterileash pit48510N, 0Epottery. Table N.1 (cont’d) 732 MOLSON SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTES HouseFeatureProvenienceContentsType48610N, 0Epottery, many carbonized seeds, charcoal.8715N, 10Wpotterypit8815N, 10Wpottery, bone frags, CPRpit8910N, 0Epottery, bone fragsash pit9010N, 0Esterilepit9110N, 0Epottery, bone frags, FCR, glass beadpit9210N, 0Echarcoalhearth9310N, 0Epottery, pipes, lithic artifacts, bone frags, CPR,storage glass beadpit9410N, 0Epottery, bone fragspit9520N, 5Wsterile.9620N, 5Wsterile.97A20N, 10Wpottery, bone frags, CPRpit97B20N, 10Wiron knife fragpit9810N, 0E1 bone artifact.49920N, 10W(1 float sample)sup. feat.10010N, 0Ebone frags, FCRash pit10120N, 10W(1 float sample)sup. feat.10220N, 10Wbone frags, charcoalpit10310N, 0Echarcoalash pit10410N, 0Epottery, charcoalash pit10510N, 0Echarcoalash pit10620N, 10Wbone frags, CPR, charcoalpit10720N, 10Wpottery, debitage, bone fragssup. feat.10820N, 5Wdebitage, bone frags, charcoal.10920N, 10Wpotterypit11020N, 10Wpottery, bone frags, calcined bone frags (see F127)hearth11120N, 10W(1 float sample)pit11220N, 10Wbone fragspost in pit113.potterysup. feat.11420N, 15Wsteriledrip line11520N, 10Wpottery, debitage, bone frags, calcined bone fragsash pit11615N, 10Wnothing recordedpit11715N, 10Wpottery.11810N?, 5E?sterile.11910N, 5Enothing recorded.412010N, 5Epottery. Table N.1 (cont’d) 733 MOLSON SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTES HouseFeatureProvenienceContentsType412110N, 0Echarcoal.12210N, 0Enothing recorded.12310N, 5Esterile.12410N, 5Enothing recorded.12510N, 5Emicrosherd (not saved)sup. feat.12610N, 5Emicrosherd (not saved), cortical flakesup. feat.12720N, 10Wcharcoalhearth12810N, 5E(1 float sample).12910N, 5E2 microsherds.13010N, 0Wpottery, debitage, corn kernel, iron celtpit13110N, 0Wpotterypit13210N, 5Epottery.13310N, 0ECPR.13410N, 0Epottery, microsherds, bone frags.13510N, 0Esterile.136.charcoal.13710N, 5E/0Epottery, bone frags, brass.413810N, 0Epottery, bone frags, calcined bone, iron ringash pit139.sterilesup. feat.1405N, 5Epottery.1415N, 10Enothing recorded.1425N, 10Enothing recorded.1435N, 10Epottery, FCR pit1445N, 0Ebone fragsash pit1455N, 0Edebitage, CPRash pit14610N, 0Epotterysup. post1475N, 5Ebody sherdsup. post1485N, 10Epottery, pipes.14910N, 0Enothing recordedstoragepit15010N, 0Esterile.1515N, 5Esterilepit1525N, 5Epotteryhearth1535N, 5Esterilepit1545N, 5Esterilepit1555N, 5Epotteryslash pit 415610N, 0Esterile. Table N.1 (cont’d) 734 MOLSON SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTES HouseFeatureProvenienceContentsType41575N, 5E(1 float sample).1585N, 5Esterilepot stand1595N, 5Esterilepit1605N, 5Epotterypit1615N, 5Esterilepit1625N, 5Epotterypot stand1635N, 5Eiron wireash pit1645N, 5Enothing recordedpit1655N, 5Emicrosherd (not saved), blue glass bead fraghearth41665N, 5Epottery, polished bone artifacts, bone frags.5130S, 30Esterile. 230S, 30Epottery, bone bead, bone frags incl fish/small. mammal, 1 rodent jaw, debitage330S, 30Epotteryash pit430S, 30Epottery, debitage, CPR, bone frags incl ~180. small bones (fish/rodent jaws/mammal), shell530S, 30Epottery, debitage, bone frags incl fish scales, ribs, . 6 CPR, copper beads, 3 corn, 1 seed630S, 30Epottery, debitage, CPR, 3 corn, 3 charcoal.730S, 30Epottery, many charcoal, ~20 small mammalpit bones, 1 fish vert830S, 30Esterilesup. post5930S, 30Enothing recordedsup. feat.10.became another feature and so was deleted.1130S, 30Epottery, debitage, bone frags, red ochre,. worked rock, many small/medium bones incl fish/small mammal, large mammal (rib frag, vert, epiphysis1230S, 35Epottery, debitage.1330S, 35Ebone frags.1430S, 35Epottery, pipes, lithic artifacts, debitage, 4 CPR,. bone frags, mammal femur w/ unfused epiphysis, ~117 sherds +1 sherd w/ finger imprint, 13 corn, 3 nutshell frags, shell frags, bipolar core (Huronia), ground stone celt, copper point, iron bail fastener51530S, 30Epottery, 1 bone artifact, bone frags. Table N.1 (cont’d) 735 MOLSON SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTES HouseFeatureProvenienceContentsType51630S, 30Efish bone fragspit1730S, 30Epottery, lithic artifacts, CPR, bone frags incl. rodent jaw, 1 corn, calcined bones, glass bead1830S, 30E(1 float sample)hearth1930S, 30Epotterypit2030S, 30Epottery, lithic artifacts, bone frags incl fish,ash pitsmall mammal, CPR, 3 corn2130S, 30Erocks.2230S, 30Epottery.2330S, 30Esterile.2430S, 30Enothing recorded.25A30S, 30Epottery, many bone frags incl fish/small mam.,pit small piece of copper, 2 corn, CPR,25B30S, 30Erecorded with F-25Apit2635S, 30Esterile.2735S, 30Epottery, iron chisel.2835S, 30Epottery, bead frag, debitage, bone fragsash pit3 sherds 2930S, 35Epottery, debitage, 3 microsherds.53035S, 30Enothing recorded.3130S, 30Esterile.3235S, 30Epotteryash pit3330S, 35Esterilepit3435S, 30Epottery, debitage, 4 corn, ~20 bone frags inclash lensetiny rodent tooth, mouse/vole jaw3530S, 30Epottery."87"35S, 30Esterile.3635S, 30Epottery, mini pipe bowl frag.36A35S, 30Epottery, mini pipe bowl frag, debitage, 5 sherds,depres- 4 bone frags sion36B35S, 30Epottery, pipe bowl frag, debitage (quartz flakes),pit~20 calcined bone, 3 corn, calcined bone, bonefrags incl teeth, verts36C35S, 30Esterile (depth not taken due to bulldozer arrival)stain3735S, 35Esterile.3835S, 35Epottery, 1 piece of brass (copper), 3 sherds.53935S, 40Esterilepit Table N.1 (cont’d) 736 MOLSON SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTES HouseFeatureProvenienceContentsType54035S, 35Eground stone celt, ground stone adzepit4135S, 35E6 sherds, small bone frags, 2 calcined bones, ash pit 2 corn, 1 shell frag4235S, 35EFCRsup. feat.4330S, 30Enothing recorded.4435S, 35Esterile (intruded by post, 6cm diam/15cm depth)ash pit4530S, 30Ebone frags, fossil, small tooth (bear?).4635S, 35EFCRsup. post4735S, 30Ebone frags (fish/small mam), metal (brass scrap)pit, clay3 sherds content,ash layer54835S, 35E1 sherd, 1 corncob frag, 6 small bone fragsash pit4935S, 35Edebitage, bone frags.5035S, 35Epottery, bone fragsash pit5135S, 35E(sterile?, pipes?, lithic artifacts?, debitage?).5235S, 35Enothing recorded.5335S, 35Esterilepost/pit5435S, 35Epotterypit5535S, 35Epotterypit5635S, 30Enothing recordedsup. post5730S, 30Epottery, bone frags incl 7 fish, debitage, pit 2 sherds, 1 shell5830S, 30Epottery, bone frags.5930S, 30E(1 float sample).6030S, 30Ewood.6130S, 30Epottery.6230S, 30Epottery, debitage, bone frags incl 12 small,ash pit 5 sherds, 1 microsherd6335S, 30Enothing recordeddrip stain6435S, 30/35EFCRhearth6535S, 30Epottery, pipespit56625S, 25Epottery, bone frags. Table N.1 (cont’d) 737 MOLSON SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTES HouseFeatureProvenienceContentsType567A+B25S, 25Epottery, large portion of vessel, 2 rim sherds, .31 body sherds, 1 neck sherd, 37 microsherdsbone frags, bone concentration, 2 articulateddeer(?) verts, large mammal phlange, 1 rib frag,longbone frag, tooth, mam. claw, calcined bone,2 medium/large mammal phalanges, fish/smallmammal bone frags, unfired pottery6825/30S, 25Epottery, bone frags, slightly pitted anvil stonepit6930S, 25Epottery, shell.7030/35S, 25Epottery, bone fragspit7125S, 25Esterilepit7230S, 25Enothing recordedhearth7330S, 25Epotteryash pit57430S, 25Enothing recorded.7530S, 25Enothing recorded.7630S, 25Esterileash pit7730S, 25Epottery, 2 sherds, 26 bone frags incl 12 fish vert. purple/mauve shell bead7830S, 25E1 pottery sherd, 6 fishbone frags, FCRash pit7930S, 25Enothing recorded.8030S, 25Enothing recorded.8130S, 25Enothing recorded.8230S, 25Epottery, 4 sherds.8330S, 25EFCR, lead fragash8430S, 25Epottery, fishbone fragsash8535S, 35Esterilesmall pit86A + B30S, 30Esterilesup. posts8730S, 20Ewhole pot in 3 parts found below rock slab/northpitend of pit, 6 large albs(?) near pit bottom (edgesof 1 appear flaked for shape at edge), 6 fist-8730S, 20Esized FCR at bottom of pit, bone frags inclmedium mammal (1 scapula?), boiling stone"killed" vessel--11 sherds, 2 flakes, lower jawfrag (deer/elk?) w/ teeth, many bones incl fish,58730S, 20Esmall/medium mammals, 2 small beads(?),1 rib frag Table N.1 (cont’d) 738 MOLSON SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTES HouseFeatureProvenienceContentsType58830S, 20Elithic artifacts, fishbone frags, CPR-squash/ash pit11 corn/bean/2 nutshells/1 pin cherry seed8930S, 20Epottery, bone frags, cornash pit9030S, 20Esterilepit9130S, 20Epottery, gaming disk, 3 FCR, bone frags incl.tiny pelvis, rodent incisor, calcined femur head,medium mammal rib, 17 sherds9230S, 25Epottery, bone frags, 2 FCRpit93A30S, 25Epottery, bone artifacts, calcined clamshell. (discarded)93B30S, 25Eceramic gaming disc, bone artifacts, 1 corn.9430S, 25Enothing recordedpit9530S, 25Epottery, calcined shell frag, 2 charcoalash pit 2 sherds, 2 microsherds9630S, 25Epottery, brass beadpit59730S, 25Epottery, 2 fist-sized FCR, bone fragsash pit9830S, 25Esterileash pit9930S, 25Epottery, 1 FCR, bone frags incl ~10 smallash pit mammal, 2 sherds10030S, 25Epottery, bone frags, pipeash pit10130S, 25Epottery, pipe bowl frag, bone fragspit10230S, 25Epottery, ceramic gaming disc, bone fragspit10330S, 25Ewhite pine woodpost10430S, 25Epottery, scraper, bone frags, bipolar core (Huronia)pit10530S, 25Epine woodpost10630S, 25Epottery, debitage, 7 sherdsash pit10730S, 25Epottery, pipes, bone frags, CPR, 20 large FCRstoragepit10830S, 25Epottery, bone frags, brass scrapstoragepit10930S, 25Epottery, debitage, bone artifacts, 10 small bonepit frags incl fish/mammal, 1 microsherd11030S, 25E2 sherds, 1 microsherd, 1 calcined bone, . 1 small longbone, 1 small longbone epiphysis11130S, 25Epottery, debitage, bone frags, ground stone.511230S, 20Esterile. Table N.1 (cont’d) 739 MOLSON SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTES HouseFeatureProvenienceContentsType511330S, 20Epottery, CPR, 5 corn, pecked stone, 3 micro-.sherds, many bone frags, mostly fish/small mam.114.3 corncob frags, 2 squash seeds, 18 corn,.debitage, 2 small bones, 2 microsherds, 1 sherd114A35S, 35Epottery, debitage, bone artifacts, CPR, corncobash pit114B35S, 35Eclay bead, fishbone fragsash pit11535S, 35Esterilepit11635S, 35Enothing recordedhearth11735S, 35E1 sherd, 4 calcined bones, 1 small boneash pit11835S, 40Esterileslash pit11935S, 40Esterile.12035S, 40Esterileslash pit12135S, 40Epottery, debitageslash pit12235S, 40Esterileslash pit12335S, 30Epottery.12440/35S, 35E5 pieces pottery, 4 charcoalstoragepit12540/35S, 35Esterilestoragepit12640S, 35E2 microsherds, discarded.12740S, 40E7 sherdsdisturbed12840S, 40Epottery, fish vertabraepit512940S, 40Epottery, fishbone frags.6135S, 20Epottery, 1 microsherdhearth235S, 20Enothing recorded.335S, 20Esterilepit435S, 20Enothing recorded.535S, 20Esterile.640S,15Esterile.740S,15Epottery sup. feat.840S,15Enothing recordedsup. feat.935S, 20Epottery, bone frags.1035S, 15Esterilehearth1135S, 15Esterile.1235S, 15Epottery body sherd (not bagged).1335S, 15Esterile.61435S, 15Esterilesup. feat. Table N.1 (cont’d) 740 MOLSON SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTES HouseFeatureProvenienceContentsType61535S, 15Epottery sherd (not bagged).1630S, 10Esterilesup. feat.1730S, 10Esterile.1830S, 10Ebone artifact, fish scale.1930S, 10Esterilesup. feat.2030S, 10Epottery, charcoal.2130S, 10Enothing recorded.2230S, 10Enothing recorded.2330S, 10Epotteryhearth2430S, 10Esterile.2530S, 10Esterile.2625S, 15Epottery, bone frags, rocks.2725S, 15Epottery, bone frags, glass beads, 25 large rocks.62830S, 15E(1 float sample)hearth2930S, 15Epottery.3030S, 15Enothing recordedsup. post3130S, 15Enothing recorded.32A30S, 15Epotterysup. feat.32B30S, 15Epotterysup. feat.32C30S, 15Epotterysup. feat.3325S, 5Esterilepit3430S, 15ECPR, nut shellsup. feat./pit3530S, 15Epottery body sherd (not bagged) wood from post.3630S, 15Esterile.3725S, 10Esterile.3825S, 10ECPR, hickorylnear endfeature3925S, 10Epossible gaming stone preformlnear endfeature4025S, 10Enothing recordedhearth4130S, 10Epottery, many FCR, ground stone celt frag.64230S, 10Ewood.7150S, 15Wpottery, bone awl (possible bear), bone frags.250S, 15W2 iron frags.350S, 15Wsterilepit7455S, 20Wpottery . Table N.1 (cont’d) 741 MOLSON SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTES HouseFeatureProvenienceContentsType7555S, 20Wsterile.655S, 20Wnothing recordedsup. post755S, 20Wpottery, pipes, bone frags, esp. fish verts/scalestorage 7 microsherds, pointed castellation, groundpit stone hammer/anvilstone850S, 20Wsterilehearth950S, 20Wsterile.1050S, 20Wsterile.1150S, 20Wpottery, bone frags (burned/calcined),refuse pit unfired clay, 11 sherds1250S, 20Wpottery, debitage, CPR, 1 corn, bone frags, . 1 calcined bone1350S, 20Wpottery, bone frags .1450S, 20Wsterile.1550S, 20Wpottery, bone frags--few small bones, 1 sherd.1650S, 20W15 large FCR, fishbone frags, 43 body sherds,pit 10 neck sherds, 54 microsherds, 9 sherds (vessel possibly reconstructable?)1750S, 20Wpottery, bone frags incl deer(?) cervical verts.1850S, 20Wpottery, bone artifacts, 2 small bones, 4 sherds.1950S, 20Wpottery, bone artifacts, 1 small bone.72050S, 20Wpottery, charcoalashrefuse pit21a50S, 20Wsterile.21b50S, 20W1 piece pottery.2255S, 20Wceramic gaming disc frag, bone frags.2355S, 20Wpotterypit2455S, 20Wnothing recordedpit2550S, 20Wpottery, lithic artifacts, charcoal chunks, bone.frags incl 3 medium bones, 1 large phalange, (~4.5cm length), 5 calcined bone, 3 sherds2650S, 20Wpottery, bone artifacts, 16 sherds, bone fragshearth/incl 6 fish verts, 1 longbone frag, bird, 1 tinyashpit femur, 2 calcined bones2750S, 25Wsterilepit2850S, 25Wpottery, 4 sherdspit72945S, 25Wpottery, iron knife, 2 sherds, many shell fragspit Table N.1 (cont’d) 742 MOLSON SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTES HouseFeatureProvenienceContentsType73050S, 25Wpottery, 2 sherds pit3150S, 25Wpotteryslash pit3250S, 25Wpottery, FCRpit3345S, 25Wpottery, effigy pipe fragsup. post3445S, 25Wpottery, FCR, debitage, 1 shell, few bone frags,. 5 sherds 3545S, 25Wnothing recordedash pit3645S, 20Wpottery, copper ring.3745S, 25Wsterilehearth3845S, 25Wsterilepit3945S, 20Wpottery.4045S, 25Wpottery, quartz debitage, 1 sherd, post mold7bipolar core (quartz)810N, 25Epottery, body sherd.20N, 25Esterile.35S, 20Epottery . 45S, 20Epieces of wood.55S, 20Epottery, broken pot in situ.60N, 20Eband of charcoal chunks around edge, pottery, . 2 rim sherds, bone frags70N, 20Esterilehearth80N, 20Enothing reported.90N, 15Epottery.100N, 20Esterile.110N, 20Epottery, debitage, CPR, FCR.120N, 15Esterile.8130N, 20Epottery, debitage .9115S, 15Esterilepit 210S, 15Epottery (large sherds), 3 pieces of rolled metal,pitpipe stem frag, bone frags, CPR, corn cluster ground stone celt midsection310S, 15Epottery, pipe stem, bone frags, CPR.415S, 15Ebody sherd (not bagged)sup. feat.515S, 15Epottery .615S, 10Esterile.710S, 10Epottery, debitage, bone frags.9815S, 10Ebone frags. Table N.1 (cont’d) 743 MOLSON SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTES HouseFeatureProvenienceContentsType9910S, 10Epottery, debitage, bone frags, charcoal, clamshell.1010S, 10E1 pipe stem, debitage.1110S, 10Epottery, debitage, bone fragshearth/pit1210S, 5Esterile.1310S, 10Esterilesup. post1410S, 5Epottery, CPR, adze frag, human bone andpitanimal bone, calcined bone, 10 FCR,multiple castellations, 2 ground stone celt midsection91510S, 10Epottery, bottom lined with pottery, adze,refuse pitbone frags, corn cluster, FCR, 909 sherds,1 CPR, ground stone celt, ground stone celt pole end, ground stone celt blade edge absent,copper tinkling cone1610S, 5Esterile.17a10S, 5Epottery, debitage, CPR, multiple castellations,storage ground stone celt midsection, copper beadpit17b10S, 5Epottery, debitage, CPR, multiple castellations,storage ground stone celt midsection, copper bead,pit brass bead1810S, 5Esterilepit91920S, 15Epottery concentration, debitage, bone artifacts,housebone frags, CPRend10150S, 45Wbone frags.250S, 45W1 small scrap of iron, bone frags, ground stone celtstoragepit350S, 45Wsterile.450S, 45Wsterilesup. feat.550S, 45Wbone beadhearth650S, 45Wsterile.750S, 45Wsterile.850S, 45Wbone frags.950S, 45W1 fish vertabrae.1050S, 45Wpottery, CPR.1150S, 45Wnothing recordedslash pit1250S, 45Wpottery sup. feat.1350S, 45Wpottery, bone artifacts, bone frags.101450S, 45Wpottery. Table N.1 (cont’d) 744 MOLSON SITE--LONGHOUSE ATTRIBUTES HouseFeatureProvenienceContentsType101550S, 45Wpottery.1650S, 45Wpottery (not bagged).1750S, 45Wpottery, debitage.1845S, 45Wpottery, 3 body sherds (not bagged)slash pit1955S, 50W1 bone frag.2050S, 50Wpottery, bone frags, lots of fish bones.2150S, 50Wpottery.2250S, 50Wsterilesup. feat.2350S, 50Wpottery.2445S, 50Wbone frags.102545S, 50Wsterile.sup. feat.= support feature sup. post = support postI created this catalogue by combining the original excavation field notes and boxes ofartifacts held in the repository at the Museum of Ontario Archaeology located inLondon, Ontario, with feature identification information published in Lennox (2000). APPENDIX O: Molson Site Longhouse Attributes—Ceramics 745 Table O.1 Molson Site Longhouse Attributes—Ceramics 746 MOLSON SITEHouse(H) #Total%H - 1H - 2H - 3H - 4H - 5Ceramic TypeHuron Incised7814.1810Sidey Notched28451.4242419Sidey Crossed71.3Lawson Incised386.91412Seed Incised397.13Richmond Incised132.4Niagara Collared101.81Plain Collared162.9113Collarless Rims305.424Black Necked30.5Warminster Crossed122.2Warminster Horizontal101.84High Collar81.42Ripley Corded10.2Pound Blank10.2 1Middleport Oblique10.2Cayuga Horizontal10.2Castellation1 Turret22 Incipient Turret6 Pointed31, F-72 Notched2 Multiple Castellations16House(H) #Total H - 1H - 2H - 3H - 4H - 5Shoulder Decoration Impressed316242113 Trailed and Impressed64935 Trailed64882 House(H) #H - 6H - 7H - 8H - 9H - 10H - 11H - 12Ceramic TypeHuron Incised571Sidey Notched795292Sidey Crossed1Lawson IncisedSeed Incised1 Table O.1 (cont’d) I collected the data for this table from the report of Lennox (2012), pages 57-91. 747 MOLSON SITEHouse(H) #H - 6H - 7H - 8H - 9H - 10H - 11H - 12Ceramic TypeRichmond Incised13Niagara Collared213Plain Collared23Collarless Rims61Black NeckedWarminster Crossed12Warminster HorizontalHigh CollarRipley CordedPound BlankMiddleport Oblique1Cayuga HorizontalCastellation12 Turret1, F- 17 Incipient Turret Pointed Notched1, F- 7 Multiple Castellations1, F- 14House(H) #H - 6H - 7H - 8H - 9H - 10H - 11H - 12Shoulder Decoration Impressed7540 Trailed and Impressed21081 Trailed32 REFERENCES 748 REFERENCES Abel, Timothy J., and Adrian L. Burke 2014 The Protohistoric Time Period in Northwest Ohio: Perspectives from the XRF Analysis of Metallic Trade Materials. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 39(2):179-199. Aberle, David F. 1961 Matrilineal Descent in Cross-Cultural Perspective. In Matrilineal Kinship, edited by David M. Schneider and Kathleen Gough, pp. 655-727. University of California Press, Berkeley. Aberle, David F. 1968 Discussion: Comments by David F. Aberle. In New Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by Sally R. Binford and Lewis R. Binford, pp. 353-359. Aldine Publishing, Chicago. Aberle, David F. 1981 Navajo Coresidential Kin Groups and Lineages. Journal of Anthropological Research 37(1):1-7. Acabado, Stephen 2013 Defining Ifugao Social Organization: “House,” Field, and Self-Organizing Principles in the Northern Philippines. Asian Perspectives 52(2):161-189. Acheson, S. R. 1991 In the Wake of the Ya’aats’ Xaatgaay [‘Iron People’]: A Study of Changing Settlement Strategies Among the Kunghit Haida. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. Adams, William Yewdale 2004 Culture Summary: Navajo. Human Relations Area Files, New Haven, Connecticut. https://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/document?id=nt13-000, accessed June 10, 2019. Adams, William Y. 2016 The Boasians: Founding Fathers and Mothers of American Anthropology. Hamilton Books, New York. Allen, Kathleen M. S. 1988 Ceramic Style and Social Continuity in an Iroquoian Tribe. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo. Allen, Kathleen M. S. 1992 Iroquois Ceramic Production: A Case Study of Household-Level Organization. In Ceramic Production and Distribution: An Integrated Approach, edited by George J. Bey III and Christopher A. Pool, pp. 133-154. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. 749 Ames, Kenneth M. 1994 The Northwest Coast: Complex Hunter-Gatherers, Ecology, and Social Evolution. Annual Review of Anthropology 23:209-229. Ames, Kenneth M. 1995 Chiefly Power and Household Production on the Northwest Coast. In Foundations of Social Inequality, edited by T. Douglas Price and Gary M. Feinman, pp. 155-181. Plenum Press, New York. Ames, Kenneth M. 1996 Life in the Big House: Household Labor and Dwelling Size on the Northwest Coast. In People Who Lived in Big Houses: Archaeological Perspectives on Large Domestic Structures, edited by Gary Coupland and E. B. Banning, pp. 131-150. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Ames, Kenneth M. 2003 The Northwest Coast. Evolutionary Anthropology 12(1):19-33. Ames, Kenneth M. 2004 Supposing Hunter-Gatherer Variability. American Antiquity 69(2):364-374. Anderson, E. N., Jr. 1970 Lineage Atrophy in Chinese Society. American Anthropologist 72(2):363-365. Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) 2008 Report on the Stage 3-4 Salvage Excavation of the Alexandra Site (AkGt-53) Draft Plan of Subdivision SC-T20000001 (55T-00601) Geographic Township of Scarborough Now in the City of Toronto, Ontario. Report on file at the Ontario Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries, Toronto. Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) 2012 The Archaeology of the Mantle Site (AlGt-334): A Report of the Stage 3-4 Salvage Excavation of the Mantle Site (AlGt-334) Part of Lot 33, Concession 9, Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, Regional Municipality of York, Ontario. Report on file at the Ontario Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries, Toronto. Arima, Eugene, and John Dewhirst 1990 Nootkans of Vancouver Island. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 391- 411. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Babcock, Barbara A., and Nancy J. Parezo 1988 Daughters of the Desert: Women Anthropologists and the Native American Southwest, 1880-1980. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 750 Bala, Poline 2002 Changing Borders and Identities in the Kelabit Highlands: Anthropological Reflections on Growing Up near an International Border. Unit Penerbitan Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Sarawak, Malaysia. Bamann, Susan 1993 Settlement Nucleation in Mohawk Iroquois Prehistory: An Analysis of a Site Sequence in the Lower Otsquago Drainage of the Mohawk Valley. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, State University of New York at Albany, Albany. Bamann, Susan, Robert Kuhn, James Molnar, and Dean Snow 1992 Iroquoian Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:435-460. Basso, Ellen B. 1973 The Kalapalo Indians of Central Brazil. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. Beardslee, L. A. 1882 Reports of Captain L. A. Beardslee, U. S. Navy, Relative to Affairs in Alaska, and the Operations of the U. S. S. Jamestown Under his Command, while in the Waters of that Territory. 5 parts. Senate Executive Document No. 71, Washington, DC. Becker, Mary Duke 2006 William N. Fenton (1908–2005): Relationships, Research, and Museums. Museum Anthropology 29(1):44–49. Befu, Harumi 1968a Ecology, Residence, and Authority: The Corporate Household in Central Japan. Ethnology 7(1):25-42. Befu, Harumi 1968b Origins of Large Households and Duolocal Residence in Central Japan. American Anthropologist 70(2):309-319. Befu, Harumi, and Leonard Plotnicov 1962 Types of Corporate Unilineal Descent Groups. American Anthropologist 64(2):313- 327. Bell, Duran 1998 Wealth Transfers Occasioned by Marriage: A Comparative Reconsideration. In Kinship, Networks, and Exchange, edited by Thomas Schweizer and Douglas R. White, pp. 187-209. Cambridge University Press, New York. Beresford, William, and George Dixon 1789 A Voyage Round the World; but more Particularly to the North-West Coast of America Performed in 1785, 1786, 1787, and 1788 in the King George and the Queen Charlotte, Captains Portlock and Dixon. G. Goulding, London. 751 Berle, A. A., and Gardiner C. Means 1931 Corporation. In Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 4, Commerce-Dante, edited by Edwin R. A. Seligman and Alvin Johnson, pp. 414-423. Macmillan Company, New York. Berman, Judith 1996 “The Culture as It Appears to the Indian Himself:” Boas, George Hunt, and the Methods of Ethnography. In Volksgeist as Method and Ethic: Essays on Boasian Ethnography and the German Anthropological Tradition, edited by George W. Stocking, Jr., pp. 215-256. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. Bettinger, Robert L. 1983 Aboriginal Sociopolitical Organization in Owens Valley: Beyond the Family Band. In The Development of Political Organization in Native North America: 1979 Proceedings of The American Ethnological Society, edited by Elisabeth Tooker, pp. 45-58. American Ethnological Society, Washington, DC. Betts, Colin M. 2006 Pots and Pox: The Identification of Protohistoric Epidemics in the Upper Mississippi Valley. American Antiquity 71(2):233-259. Biggar, Henry P. (editor) 1922-1936 The Works of Samuel de Champlain: 1615-1618. 6 vols. Translated and edited by J. H. Cameron and collated by W. F. Ganong and H. H. Langton. The Champlain Society, Toronto. Birch, Jennifer 2010 Coalescence and Conflict in Iroquoian Ontario. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 25(1):27-46. Birch, Jennifer 2012 Coalescent Communities: Settlement Aggregation and Social Integration in Iroquoian Ontario. American Antiquity 77(4):646-670. Birch, Jennifer 2015 Current Research on the Historical Development of Northern Iroquoian Societies. Journal of Archaeological Research 23(3):263-323. Birch, Jennifer 2016a Geopolitics and Dimensions of Social Complexity in Ancestral Wendake c. A.D. 1450-1600. Ontario Archaeology 96:35-46. Birch, Jennifer 2016b Interpreting Iroquoian Site Structure through Geophysical Prospection and Soil Chemistry: Insights from a Coalescent Community in Ontario, Canada. Journal of Archaeological Science 8:102-111. 752 Birch, Jennifer 2016c Relations of Power and Production in Ancestral Wendat Communities. Palethnology 8:31-48. Birch, Jennifer, and John P. Hart 2018 Social Networks and Northern Iroquoian Confederacy Dynamics. American Antiquity 83(1):13-33. Birch, Jennifer, and Ronald F. Williamson 2013a Organizational Complexity in Ancestral Wendat Communities. In From Prehistoric Villages to Cities: Settlement Aggregation and Community Transformation, edited by Jennifer Birch, pp. 153-178. Routledge, New York. Birch, Jennifer, and Ronald F. Williamson 2013b The Mantle Site: An Archaeological History of an Ancestral Wendat Community. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland. Birch, Jennifer, Sturt W. Manning, Samantha Sanft, and Megan Anne Conger 2021 Refined Radiocarbon Chronologies for Northern Iroquoian Site Sequences: Implications for Coalescence, Conflict, and the Reception of European Goods. American Antiquity 86(1):61-89. Birch, Jennifer, Robert B. Wojtowicz, Aleksandra Pradzynski, and Robert H. Pihl 2016 Multi-scalar Perspectives on Iroquoian Ceramics: Aggregation and Interaction in Precontact Ontario. In Process and Meaning in Spatial Archaeology: Investigations into PreColumbian Iroquoian Space and Place, edited by Eric E. Jones and John L. Creese, pp. 147-190. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Blackman, Margaret, B. 1990 Haida: Traditional Culture. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 240-260. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Blanton, Richard E. 1995 The Cultural Foundations of Inequality within Households. In Foundations of Social Inequality, edited by T. Douglas Price and Gary M. Feinman, pp. 105-128. Plenum Press, New York. Blau, Harold, Jack Campisi, and Elisabeth Tooker 1978 Onondaga. In Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 491-499. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Bliege Bird, Rebecca, and Eric A. Smith 2005 Signaling Theory, Strategic Interaction, and Symbolic Capital. Current Anthropology 46(2):221-248. 753 Boas, Franz 1896 The Limitations of the Comparative Method of Anthropology. Science 4(103):901-908. Boas, Franz 1900 The Mythology of the Bella Coola Indians. In Publications of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, edited by Franz Boas, pp. 25-127, 6 end plates. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History, Vol. II. G. P. Putnam’s Sons, New York. Boas, Franz 1909 The Kwakiutl of Vancouver Island. In The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, edited by Franz Boas, pp. 300-556. Memoir of the American Museum of Natural History, Vol. V, Pt. II. G. E. Stechert, New York. Boas, Franz 1921 Ethnology of the Kwakiutl: Based on Data Collected by George Hunt. In Thirty-fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution: 1913-1914, edited by H. W. Hodge, pp. 43-794. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Bohaker, Heidi 2006 “Nindoodemag”: The Significance of Algonquian Kinship Networks in the Eastern Great Lakes Region, 1600-1701. William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, 63(1):23-52. Bourdieu, Pierre 1978 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Translated by Richard Nice. Cambridge University Press, New York. Boucher, Pierre 1883 [1664] True and Genuine Description of New France, commonly called Canada, and of the Manners and Customs and Productions of that Country. Translated by Edward L. Montizambert. George E. Desbarats & Company, Montreal. Bowers, Alfred William 1948 A History of the Mandan and Hidatsa. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago, Chicago. Bowers, Alfred W. 1950 Mandan Social and Ceremonial Organization. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Bradley, James W. 1987 Native Exchange and European Trade: Cross-Cultural Dynamics in the Sixteenth Century. Man in the Northeast 33:31-46. Brandão, José António (editor) 2003 Nation Iroquoise: A Seventeenth-Century Ethnography of the Iroquois. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 754 Brandes, Stanley 1979 The Household Development Cycle in Tzintzuntzan. In From Tzintzuntzan to the “Image of Limited Good:” Essays in Honor of George M. Foster, edited by Margaret Clark, Robert V. Kemper, and Cynthia Nelson, pp. 13-23. University of California, Berkeley. Brugge, David M. 1983 Navajo Prehistory and History to 1850. In Southwest, edited by Alfonso Ortiz, pp. 489- 501. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 10, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Byrd, Brian F. 1994 Public and Private, Domestic and Corporate: The Emergence of the Southwest Asian Village. American Antiquity 59(4):639-666. Campisi, Jack 1978 Oneida. In Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 481-490. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Carleton, Chris W., James Conolly, and Mark Collard 2013 Corporate Kin-Groups, Social Memory, and “History Houses”? A Quantitative Test of Recent Reconstructions of Social Organization and Building Function at Çatalhöyük during the PPNB. Journal of Archaeological Science 40:1816-1822. Casselberry, Samuel E. 1974 Further Refinement of Formulae for Determining Population from Floor Area. World Archaeology 6(1):117-122. Catlin, George 1841 Letters and Notes on the Manners, Customs and Condition of the North American Indians. 2 vols. George Catlin, London. Chang, Kwang-Chih 1958 Study of the Neolithic Social Grouping: Examples from the New World. American Anthropologist 60(2):298-334. Chardon, Roland 1980 The Linear League in North America. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 70(2):129-153. Cheney, Charles C. 1979 Religion, Magic, and Medicine in Huave Society. In From Tzintzuntzan to the “Image of Limited Good:” Essays in Honor of George M. Foster, edited by Margaret Clark, Robert V. Kemper, and Cynthia Nelson, pp. 59-73. University of California, Berkeley. 755 Cleland, Charles E. 1992 Rites of Conquest: The History and Culture of Michigan’s Native Americans. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Codere, Helen 1990 Kwakiutl: Traditional Culture. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 359- 377. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Collier, Malcolm Carr 1966 Local Organization Among the Navaho. Human Relations Area Files, New Haven, Connecticut. Conklin, Harold C., and William C. Sturtevant 1953 Seneca Indian Singing Tools at Coldspring Longhouse: Musical Instruments of the Modern Iroquois. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 97(3):262-290. Cook, Robert A. 2008 Sunwatch: Fort Ancient Development in the MississipianWorld. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Cornelius, Wayne A. 1974 Introduction. In Anthropological Perspectives on Latin American Urbanization, edited by Wayne A. Cornelius and Felicity M. Trueblood, pp. 9-20. Latin American Urban Research, Vol. 4, Wayne A. Cornelius and Felicity M. Trueblood, general editors, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, California. Coues, Elliott (editor) 1897 The Manuscript Journals of Alexander Henry, Fur Trader of the Northwest Company, and of David Thompson, Official Geographer and Explorer of the Same Company, 1799- 1814, Exploration and Adventure Among the Indians on the Red, Saskatchewan, Missouri, and Columbia Rivers. 3 vols. Ross & Haines, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Coupland, Gary G. 1988 Prehistoric Cultural Change at Kitselas Canyon. Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper 138. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Ottawa. Coupland, Gary, and E. B. Banning 1996 Introduction: The Archaeology of Big Houses. In People Who Lived in Big Houses: Archaeological Perspectives on Large Domestic Structures, edited by Gary Coupland and E. B. Banning, pp. 1-10. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Coupland, Gary, Terence Clark, and Amanda Palmer 2009 Hierarchy, Communalism, and the Spatial Order of Northwest Coast Plank Houses: A Comparative Study. American Antiquity 74(1):77-106. 756 Creese, John L. 2011 Deyughnyonkwarakda—“At the Wood’s Edge”: The Development of the Iroquoian Village in Southern Ontario, A.D. 900-1500. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Toronto. Creese, John L. 2012 The Domestication of Personhood: A View from the Northern Iroquoian Longhouse. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 22(3):365-386. Creese, John L. 2014 Village Layout and Social Experience: A Comparative Study from the Northeast Woodlands. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 39(1):1-29. Curet, L. Antonio, and José R. Oliver 1998 Mortuary Practices, Social Development, and Ideology in Pre-Columbian Puerto Rico. Latin American Antiquity 9(3):217-239. Curtis, Edward S. 1907-1930 The North American Indian: Being a Series of Volumes Picturing and Describing the Indians of the United States, the Dominion of Canada, and Alaska. 20 vols. Edited by Frederick W. Hodge, Plimpton Press, Norwood, Massachusetts. Darnell, Regna 1998 And Along Came Boas: Continuity and Revolution in Americanist Anthropology. John Benjamins Publishing, Philadelphia. Darnell, Regna 2001 Invisible Genealogies: A History of Americanist Anthropology. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Darnell, Regna 2007 William N. Fenton (1908-2005): Obituary. Journal of American Folklore 120(475):73- 75. Dawson, George Mercer 1880 Report on the Queen Charlotte Islands, 1878. In Geological Survey of Canada. Report of Progress for 1878-1879, pp. 1B-239B. Dawson Brothers, Montreal. Deetz, James 1968 The Inference of Residence and Descent Rules from Archeological Data. In New Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by Sally R. Binford and Lewis R. Binford, pp. 41-48. Aldine Publishing, Chicago. De Laguna, Frederica 1952 Some Dynamic Forces in Tlingit Society. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 8(1):1-12. 757 De Laguna, Frederica 1960 The Story of a Tlingit Community: A Problem in the Relationship between Archaeological, Ethnological, and Historical Methods. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 172. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. De Laguna, Frederica 1972 Under Mount Saint Elias: The History and Culture of the Yakutat Tlingit. 3 vols. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. De Laguna, Frederica 1983 Aboriginal Tlingit Sociopolitical Organization. In The Development of Political Organization in Native North America: 1979 Proceedings of The American Ethnological Society, edited by Elisabeth Tooker, pp. 71-85. American Ethnological Society, Washington, DC. De Laguna, Frederica 1990a Eyak. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 189-196. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. De Laguna, Frederica 1990b Tlingit. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 203-228. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. De Laguna, Frederica (editor) 1991 The Tlingit Indians: George Thorton Emmons. University of Washington Press, Seattle. De Laguna, Frederica, Francis A. Riddell, Donald F. McGeein, Kenneth S. Lane, J. Arthur Freed, and Carolyn Osborne. 1964 Archaeology of the Yakutat Bay Area, Alaska. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 192. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. De Lepervanche, Marie 1967 Descent, Residence and Leadership in the New Guinea Highlands. Oceania 38(2):134- 158. DeMallie, Raymond J. 2001 Introduction. In Plains, edited by Raymond J. DeMallie, pp. 1-13. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 13, Part 1 of 2, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Dermarkar, Susan 2019 The Social Dynamics of Coalescence: Ancestral Wendat Communities 1400-1550 C.E. PhD thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Toronto. 758 Dixon, George 1789 A Voyage Round the World; But More Particularly to the Northwest Coast of America (1785-1788). G. Goulding, London. Dobyns, Henry F. 1964 The Social Matrix of Peruvian Indigenous Communities. Department of Anthropology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Dodd, Christine F. 1984 Ontario Iroquois Tradition Longhouses. National Museum of Man, Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper 124:184-437. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa. Dodd, Christine F.. Dana R. Poulton, Paul A. Lennox, David G. Smith, and Gary A. Warrick 1990 The Middle Ontario Iroquoian Stage. In The Archaeology of Soutern Ontario to A.D. 1650, edited by Chris J. Ellis and Neal Ferris, pp. 321-359. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5, London, Ontario. Donald, Leland 1997 Aboriginal Slavery on the Northwest Coast of North America. University of California Press, Berkeley. Dorsey, George A., and James R. Murie 1940 Notes on Skidi Pawnee Society. Anthropological Series Field Museum of Natural History, Vol. 27, No. 2, prepared for publication by Alexander Spoehr. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. Dove, Michael 1985 Swidden Agriculture in Indonesia: The Subsistence Strategies of the Kalimantan Kantu. Moutan Publishers, New York. Drucker, Philip 1951 The Northern and Central Nootkan Tribes. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 144. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Drucker, Philip 1983 Ecology and Political Organization on the Northwest Coast of America. In The Development of Political Organization in Native North America: 1979 Proceedings of The American Ethnological Society, edited by Elisabeth Tooker, pp. 86-96. American Ethnological Society, Washington, DC. Dunn, John A., and Arnold Booth 1990 Tsimshian of Metlakatla, Alaska. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 294-297. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. 759 Ehrhardt, Kathleen L. 2013 “Style” in Crafting Hybrid Material Culture on the Fringes of Empire: An Example from the Native North American Midcontinent. In The Archaeology of Hybrid Material Culture, edited by Jeb J. Card, pp. 364-396. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. Engelbrecht, William 2003 Iroquoia: The Development of a Native World. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, New York. Ensor, Bradley E. 2013 The Archaeology of Kinship: Advancing Interpretation and Contributions to Theory. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Fenn, Elizabeth A. 2014 Encounters at the Heart of the World: A History of the Mandan People. Hill and Wang, New York. Fenton, William N. 1936 An Outline of Seneca Ceremonies at Coldspring Longhouse. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 9(13):1-23. Fenton, William N. 1951 Locality as a Basic Factor in the Development of Iroquois Social Structure. In Symposium on Local Diversity in Iroquois Culture, edited by William N. Fenton. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 149, pp. 35-54. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Fenton, William N. 1998 The Great Law and the Longhouse: A Political History of the Iroquois Confederacy. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Ferguson, Theresa 1979 Lithic and Bone Tools of the Draper Site (Structure 2) and the White Site. In Settlement Patterns of the Draper and White Sites: 1973 Excavations, edited by Brian Hayden, pp. 97-122. Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia. Ferris, Neal 2013 Place, Space, and Dwelling in the Late Woodland. In Before Ontario: The Archaeology of a Province, edited by Marit K. Munson and Susan M. Jamieson, pp. 99-111. McGill- Queen’s University Press, Montreal, Quebec. 760 Finlayson, William D. 1985 The 1975 and 1978 Rescue Excavations at the Draper Site: Introduction and Settlement Patterns. National Museum of Man, Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper 130. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa. Fladmark, Knut R. 1973 The Richardson Ranch Site: A 19th Century Haida House. In Historical Archaeology in Northwestern North America, edited by R. M. Getty and K. R. Fladmark, pp. 53-95. University of Calgary Archaeological Association, Calgary, Alberta. Foley, Denis 1975 An Ethnohistoric and Ethnographic Analysis of the Iroquois from the Aboriginal Era to the Present Suburban Era. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, State University of New York at Albany, Albany. Ford, Richard I. 1983 Inter-Indian Exchange in the Southwest. In Southwest, edited by Alfonso Ortiz, pp. 711-722. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 10, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Fortes, Meyer 1950 Kinship and Marriage Among the Ashanti. In African Systems of Kinship and Marriage, edited by A. R. Radcliffe-Brown and Daryll Forde, pp. 252-284. Oxford University Press, London. Fortes, Meyer 1953 The Structure of Unilineal Descent Groups. American Anthropologist 55(1):17-41. Foster, George M. 1948 Empire’s Children: The People of Tzintzuntzan. Institute of Social Anthropology Publication No. 6. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Foster, George M. 1961 The Dyadic Contract: A Model for the Social Structure of a Mexican Peasant Village. American Anthropologist 63(6):1173-1192. Foster, George M. 1965 Cultural Responses to Expressions of Envy in Tzintzuntzan. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 21(1):24-35. Foster, George M. 1967 Tzintzuntzan: Mexican Peasants in a Changing World. Little, Brown, Boston. Foster, George M. 1969 Godparents and Social Networks in Tzintzuntzan. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 25(3):261-278. 761 Foster, George M. 1979 Fieldwork in Tzintzuntzan: The First Thirty Years. In Long-Term Field Research in Social Anthropology, edited by George M. Foster, Thayer Scudder, Elizabeth Colson, and Robert V. Kemper, pp. 165-184. Academic Press, New York. Foster, George M., Thayer Scudder, Elizabeth Colson, and Robert V. Kemper 1979 Introduction. In Long-Term Field Research in Social Anthropology, edited by George M. Foster, Thayer Scudder, Elizabeth Colson, and Robert V. Kemper, pp. 1-13. Academic Press, New York. Foster, Michael S., Douglas R. Mitchell, Cory Dale Breternitz, and Christine K. Robinson 1996 Late Classic Period Hohokam Households: A Preliminary View from Pueblo Grande. In People Who Lived in Big Houses: Archaeological Perspectives on Large Domestic Structures, edited by Gary Coupland and E. B. Banning, pp. 27-45. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Freeman, Derek 1955 Report on the Iban of Sarawak: Iban Social Organization. Government Printing Office, Kuching, Malaysia. Freeman, Leslie G. 1968 A Theoretical Framework for Interpreting Archaeological Materials. In Man the Hunter, edited by Richard B. Lee and Irven Devore, pp. 262-267. Aldine Publishing, Chicago. Fried, Morton H. 1957 The Classification of Corporate Unilineal Descent Groups. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 87(1):1-29. Fried, Morton H. 1967 The Evolution of Political Society: An Essay in Political Anthropology. Random House, New York. Friesen, T. Max 2013 When Worlds Collide: Hunter-Gatherer World-System Change in the Nineteenth- Century Canadian Arctic. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Gahr, D. Ann Trieu 2006 Architects to Ancestors: The Life Cycle of Plank Houses. In Household Archaeology on the Northwest Coast, edited by Elizabeth A. Sobel, D. Ann Trieu Gahr, and Kenneth M. Ames, pp. 57-79. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor. 762 Gahr, D. Ann Trieu, Elizabeth A. Sobel, and Kenneth M. Ames 2006 Introduction. In Household Archaeology on the Northwest Coast, edited by Elizabeth A. Sobel, D. Ann Trieu Gahr, and Kenneth M. Ames, pp. 1-15. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor. Garfield, Viola E. 1947 Historical Aspects of Tlingit Clans in Angoon, Alaska. American Anthropologist 49:438-452. Garrad, Charles 2014 Petun to Wyandot: The Ontario Petun from the Sixteenth Century. Canadian Museum of History and University of Ottawa Press, Gatineau, Quebec. Gillespie, Susan D. 2000 Rethinking Ancient Maya Social Organization: Replacing “Lineage” with “House.” American Anthropologist 102(3):467-484. Glass, Henry 1882 Report of United States Naval Officers Cruising in Alaska Waters. Part 1, October 11, 1880, to June 8, 1881. Part II, June 28, 1881, to October 18, 1881. Part III, November 14, 1881, to January 10, 1882. House of Representatives Executive Document No. 81, Washington, DC. Goldenweiser, Alexander A. 1913 On Iroquois Work, 1912. Summary Report of the Geological Survey of Canada, Anthropology Division, Sessional Paper No. 26, pp. 464-475. Government Printing Bureau, Ottawa. Goldenweiser, Alexander A. 1914 On Iroquois Work, 1913-1914. Summary Report of the Geological Survey of Canada, Anthropology Division, pp. 365-372. Government Printing Bureau. Goldschmidt, Walter R., and Theodore R. Haas 1946 Possessory Rights of the Natives of Southeastern Alaska: A Detailed Analysis of the Early and Present Territory Used and Occupied by the Natives of Southeastern Alaska, except the Natives of the Village of Kake (partially treated), Hydaburg, and Klawock, a report to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC. Goode, Judith Granich 1970 Latin American Urbanization and Corporate Groups. Anthropological Quarterly 43:146-167. Goodenough, Ward 1951 Property, Kin, and Community on Truk. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. 763 Goody, Jack 1961 The Classification of Double Descent Systems. Current Anthropology 2(1):3-25. Goody, Jack 1969 Comparative Studies in Kinship. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. Goody, Jack 1990 The Oriental, the Ancient and the Primitive: Systems of Marriage and the Family in the Pre-Industrial Societies of Eurasia. Cambridge University Press, New York. Gough, Kathleen 1952 Changing Kinship Usages in the Setting of Political and Economic Change Among the Nayars of Malabar. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 82:71-88. Grant, William L. (editor) 1907 Voyages of Samuel de Champlain, 1604-1618. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York. Halpin, Marjorie M., and Margaret Seguin 1990 Tsimshian Peoples: Southern Tsimshian, Coast Tsimshian, Nishga, and Gitksan. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 267-284. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Harris, Marvin 1971 Culture, Man and Nature. Crowell Publishing, New York. Hart, John P., and William Engelbrecht 2012 Northern Iroquoian Ethnic Evolution: A Social Network Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 19:322-349. Hart, John P., Termeh Shafie, Jennifer A. Birch, Susan Dermarkar, and Ronald F. Williamson 2016 Nation Building and Social Signaling in Southern Ontario: A.D. 1350-1650. PLos ONE 11(5):e0156178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156178, accessed February 2, 2018. Hart, John P., Jennifer Birch, and Christian Gates St. Pierre 2017 Effects of Population Dispersal on Regional Signaling Networks: An Example from Northern Iroquoia. Science Advances 3(8):e1700497:1-11. Hasenstab, Robert J. 1990 Agriculture, Warfare, and Tribalization in the Iroquois Homeland of New York: A G.I.S. Analysis of Late Woodland Settlement. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 764 Hayden, Brian 1976 Corporate Groups and the Late Ontario Iroquoian Longhouse. Ontario Archaeology 28:3-16. Hayden, Brian 1978 Two Views of Late Prehistoric Iroquois Trade and Settlement: II: Bigger is Better? Factors Determining Ontario Iroquois Site Sizes. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 2:107- 116. Hayden, Brian (editor) 1979 Settlement Patterns of the Draper and White Sites: 1973 Excavations. Archaeology Press, Archaeology Department, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia. Hayden, Brian 1995 Pathways to Power: Principles for Creating Socioeconomic Inequalities. In Foundations of Social Inequality, edited by T. Douglas Price and Gary M. Feinman, pp. 15-86. Plenum Press, New York. Hayden, Brian 2011 Traditional Corporate Group Economics in Southeast Asia: An Ethnographic Study with Archaeological Implications. Asian Perspectives 50(1/2):1-23. Hayden, Brian, and Aubrey Cannon 1982 The Corporate Group as an Archaeological Unit. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:132-158. Hayden, Brian, and Jim Spafford 1993 The Keatley Creek Site and Corporate Group Archaeology. British Columbian Quarterly 99:106-139. Hayden, Brian, Edward Bakewell, and Rob Gargett 1996 The World’s Longest-Lived Corporate Group: Lithic Analysis Reveals Prehistoric Social Organization near Lillooet, British Columbia. American Antiquity 61(2):341-356. Hegmon, Michelle 2003 Setting Theoretical Egos Aside: Issues and Theory in North American Archaeology. American Antiquity 68(2):213-243. Heidenreich, Conrad E. 1971 Huronia: A History and Geography of the Huron Indians, 1600-1650. McClelland and Stewart, Toronto. Heidenreich, Conrad E. 1972 The Huron: A Brief Ethnography. Discussion Paper No. 6. York University, Toronto. 765 Heidenreich, Conrad E. 1978 An Analysis of Champlain’s Maps in Terms of His Estimates of Distance, Latitude and Longitude. University of Ottawa Quarterly 48(1-2):12-45. Herman, Mary W. 1956 The Social Aspect of Huron Property. American Anthropologist 58(6):1044-1058. Hewitt, John N. B. 1920 A Constitutional League of Peace in the Stone Age of America: The League of the Iroquois and Its Constitution. In Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution for 1918, pp. 527-545. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Hewitt, John N. B., and William N. Fenton 1944 The Requickening Address of the Iroquois Condolence Council. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 34(3):65-85. Hieb, Louis A. 1993 Elsie Clews Parsons in the Southwest. In Hidden Scholars: Women Anthropologists and the Native American Southwest, edited by Nancy J. Parezo, pp. 63-75. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Hodder, Ian 2006 The Leopard’s Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük. Thames & Hudson, New York. Hodder, Ian (editor) 2010 Religion in the Emergence of Civilization: Çatalhöyük as a Case Study. Cambridge University Press, New York. Hodder, Ian 2016 More on History Houses at Çatalhöyük: A Response to Carleton et al. Journal of Archaeological Science 67:1-6. Hodder, Ian, and Craig Cessford 2004 Daily Practice and Social Memory at Çatalhöyük. American Antiquity 69(1):17-40. Hodge, Frederick Webb 1913 Handbook of Indians of Canada: Published as an Appendix to the Tenth Report of the Geographic Board of Canada. C.H. Parmelee, Ottawa. Hoffman, Bernard G. 1961 Cabot to Cartier: Sources for a Historical Ethnography of Northeastern North America, 1497-1550. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. 766 Hoffman, Brian W. 1999 Agayadan Village: Household Archaeology on Unimak Island, Alaska. Journal of Field Archaeology 26(2):147-161. Holm, Bill 1990 Kwakiutl: Winter Ceremonies. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 378- 386. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Hong, Evelyne 1987 Natives of Sarawak: Survival in Borneo’s Vanishing Forest. Institut Masyarakat, Penang, Malaysia. Howey, Meghan C. L. 2012 Mound Builders and Monument Makers of the Northern Great Lakes, 1200-1600. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Hymes, Dell 2005 Models of the Interaction of Language and Social Life: Toward a Descriptive Theory. In Intercultural Discourse and Communication: The Essential Readings, edited by Scott F. Kiesling and Christina Bratt Paulston, pp. 4-16. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Massachusetts. Imori, Rikuhei 1937 Noson Saiboke [Rural Sociology] (1): Hida Shirakawa-mura No Daikazokusei. Tottori Nogakkaiho 6:154-164. Inglis, Gordon B., Douglas R. Hudson, Barbara K. Rigsby, and Bruce Rigsby 1990 Tsimshian of British Columbia Since 1900. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 285-293. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Jacknis, Ira 1996 The Ethnographic Object and the Object of Ethnology in the Early Career of Franz Boas. In Volksgeist as Method and Ethic: Essays on Boasian Ethnography and the German Anthropological Tradition, edited by George W. Stocking, Jr., pp. 185-214. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. Jamieson, Susan M. 1981 Economics and Ontario Iroquoian Social Organization. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 5:19-30. Janowski, Monica 1995 The Hearth-Group, the Conjugal Couple and the Symbolism of the Rice Meal Among the Kelabit of Sarawak. In About the House: Levi-Strauss and Beyond, edited by Janet Carsten and Stephen Hugh-Jones, pp. 84-104. Cambridge University Press, New York. 767 Johnson, William C. 2001 The Protohistoric Monongahela and the Case for an Iroquois Connection. In Societies in Eclipse: Archaeology of the Eastern Woodlands Indians, A.D. 1400-1700, edited by David S. Brose, C. Wesley Cowan, and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr., pp. 67-82. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Jonaitis, Aldona 1986 Art of the Northern Tlingit. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Jordan, Kurt A. 2013 Incorporation and Colonization: Postcolumbian Iroquois Satellite Communities and Processes of Indigenous Autonomy. American Anthropologist 115(1):29-43. Kaberry, Phyllis M. 1967 The Plasticity of New Guinea Kinship. In Social Organization: Essays Presented to Raymond Firth, edited by Maurice Freedman, pp. 105-123. Frank Cass & Co., London. Kapches, Mima 1984 Cabins on Ontario Iroquois Sites. North American Archaeologist 5(1):63-71. Kapches, Mima 1990 Spatial Dynamics of Ontario Iroquoian Longhouses. American Antiquity 55(1):49-67. Keesing, Roger M. 1975 Kin Groups and Social Structure. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Chicago. Keithahn, Edward L. 1963 Monuments in Cedar: The Authentic Story of the Totem Pole. Bonanza Books, Seattle, Washington. Kemper, Robert V. 1974 Family and Household Organization Among Tzintzuntzan Migrants in Mexico City. In Anthropological Perspectives on Latin American Urbanization, edited by Wayne A. Cornelius and Felicity M. Trueblood, pp. 23-45. Latin American Urban Research, Vol. 4, Wayne A. Cornelius and Felicity M. Trueblood, general editors, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, California. Kemper, Robert V. 1979 Compadrazgo in City and Countryside: A Comparison of Tzintzuntzan Migrants and Villagers. Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers 55/56:25-44. Kemper, Robert V. 1981 Obstacles and Opportunities: Household Economics of Tzintzuntzan Migrants in Mexico City. Urban Anthropology 10(3):211-229. 768 Kemper, Robert V. 2002 From Student to Steward: Tzintzuntzan as Extended Community. In Chronicling Cultures: Long-Term Field Research in Anthropology, edited by Robert V. Kemper and Anya Peterson Royce, pp. 284-312. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California. Kemper, Robert V. 2007 George McClelland Foster Jr 1913—2006: A Biographical Memoir by Robert V. Kemper. Biographical Memoir, Vol. 90, pp. 2-41. National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC. Kennedy, Dorothy I. D., and Randall T. Bouchard 1990 Bella Coola. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 323-339. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Kluckhohn, Clyde 1966 The Ramah Navajo. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 196, Anthropological Papers No. 79, pp. 327-377. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Knight, Dean H. 1987 Settlement Patters at the Ball Site: A 17th Century Huron Village. Archaeology of Eastern North America 15:177-188. Knowles, Francis 1937 Physical Anthropology of the Roebuck Iroquois with Comparative Data from Other Indian Tribes. Bulletin No. 87, Anthropological Series No. 22. National Museum of Canada, Ottawa. Krause, Aurel 1956 The Tlingit Indians: Results of a Trip to the Northwest Coast of America and the Bering Straits. Translated by Erna Gunther. American Ethnological Society, Seattle, Washington. Kuijt, Ian, Emma Guerrero, Miquel Molist, and Josep Anfruns 2011 The Changing Neolithic Household: Household Autonomy and Social Segmentation, Tell Halula, Syria. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30:505-522. Labelle, Kathryn Magee 2013 Dispersed by Not Destroyed: A History of the Seventeenth-Century Wendat People. UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia. Labrecque, Marie-France 1978 La Mobilité Comme Élément de I’infrastructure? Remarques Exploratoires à Partir de Données Ethnohistoriques. Recherches Ameridiennes au Quebec 7(3-4):91-99. 769 Lafitau, Joseph François 1974 [1724] Customs of the American Indians Compared with the Customs of Primitive Times. Translated and edited by William N. Fenton and Elizabeth L. Moore. The Champlain Society, Toronto. La Fontaine, Jean 1973 Descent in New Guinea: An Africanist View. In The Character of Kinship, edited by Jack Goody, pp. 35-51. Cambridge University Press, New York. Lamphere, Louise 1977 To Run After Them: Cultural and Social Bases of Cooperation in a Navajo Community. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Lamphere, Louise 1993 Gladys Reichard Among the Navajo. In Hidden Scholars: Women Anthropologists and the Native American Southwest, edited by Nancy J. Parezo, pp. 157-181. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Landy, David 1978 Tuscarora Among the Iroquois. In Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 518-524. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. LaPerouse, Jean F. 1799 A Voyage Round the World, Performed in the Years 1785, 1786, 1787, and 1788. 3 vols. Lackington, Allen and Company, London. Lapham, Heather A., and William C. Johnson 2002 Protohistoric Monongahela Trade Relations: Evidence from the Foley Farm Phase Glass Beads. Archaeology of Eastern North America 30:97-120. Leacock, Eleanor 1983 Ethnohistorical Investigation of Egalitarian Politics in Eastern North America. In The Development of Political Organization in Native North America: 1979 Proceedings of The American Ethnological Society, edited by Elisabeth Tooker, pp. 17-31. American Ethnological Society, Washington, DC. Lennox, Paul A. 2000 The Molson Site: An Early Seventeenth Century, Nations Settlement, Simcoe County, Ontario. Bulletin of the London Museum of Archaeology 18:i-179. Lepofsky, Dana, Karla D. Kusmer, Brian Hayden, and Kenneth P. Lertzman 1996 Reconstructing Prehistoric Socioeconomics from Paleoethnobotanical and Zooarchaeological Data: An Example from the British Columbia Plateau. Journal of Ethnobiology 16(1):31-62. 770 Lesser, Alexander 1930 Levirate and Fraternal Polyandry Among the Pawnee. Man: A Monthly Record of Anthropological Science 30:98-101. Longacre, William A. 1964 Archeology as Anthropology: A Case Study. Science 144(3625):1454-1455. Loren, Diana DiPaolo 2008 In Contact: Bodies and Spaces in the Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Eastern Woodlands. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland. Lowie, Robert H. 1920 Primitive Society. Boni and Liveright, New York. Lowie, Robert H. 1927 The Origin of the State. Harcourt Brace and Company, New York. McClellan, Catharine 1975 My Old People Say: An Ethnographic Survey of Southern Yukon Territory. 2 parts. National Museum of Man, Ottawa. MacNeish, Richard S. 1952 Iroquois Pottery Types: A Technique for the Study of Iroquois Prehistory. Bulletin No. 124, Anthropological Series 31. Department of Resources and Development, National Parks Museum of Canada, Ottawa. Maine, Henry Sumner 1861 Ancient Law: Its Connection with the Early History of Society, and Its Relations to Modern Ideas. J. Murray Publishers, London. Manning, Sturt W., Jennifer Birch, Megan A. Conger, Michael W. Dee, Carol Griggs, Carla S. Hadden, Alan G. Hogg, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Samantha Sanft, Peter Steir, and Eva M. Wild 2018 Radiocarbon Re-dating of Contact-Era Iroquoian History in Northeastern North America. Science Advances 4:eaav0280. Manzanilla, Linda 1996 Corporate Groups and Domestic Activities at Teotihuacan. Latin American Antiquity 7(3):228-246. Marshall, Lorna 1960 !Kung Bushman Bands. Africa: Journal of the International African Institute 30(4):325-355. 771 Marshall, Yvonne 2004 Houses and Domestication on the Northwest Coast. In Household Archaeology on the Northwest Coast, edited by Elizabeth A. Sobel, D. Ann Trieu, and Kenneth M. Ames, pp. 37-56. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Martindale, Andrew R. C. 1999 The River of Mist: Cultural Change in the Tsimshian Past. PhD thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Toronto. Martínez Solórzano, Manuel 1903 Relación de las Ceremonias y Ritos y Población y Gobernación de los Indios de la Provincia de Michuacán, hecha al Illmo. Señor Don Antonio de Mendoza, Virrey y Gobernador de esta Nueva España por S. M. G. Alfonso Aragon Prendimiento, Morelia, Michoacan, Mexico. Matson, R. G., and Gary Coupland 1995 The Prehistory of the Northwest Coast. Academic Press, New York. Meares, John 1790 Voyages Made in the Years 1788 and 1789, from China to the North West Coast of America. To which are Prefixed, an Introductory Narrative of a Voyage Performed in 1786, from Bengal, in the Ship Nootka; Observations on the Probable Existence of a North West Passage; and Some Account of the Trade between the North West Coast of America and China; and the Latter Country and Great Britain. Logographic Press, London. Mitchell, Donald H., and Leland Donald 1988 Archaeology and the Study of Northwest Coast Economies. In Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 3: Prehistoric Economies of the Pacific Northwest Coast, edited by Barry L. Isaac, pp. 293-351. JAI Press, Greenwich, Connecticut. Moemeka, Andrew 1998 Communalism as a Fundamental Dimension of Culture. Journal of Communication 48:118-141. Morgan, Lewis Henry 1858 Laws of Descent of the Iroquois. Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science 11(2):132-148. Morgan, Lewis Henry 1954 [1851] League of the Ho-De’-No-Sau-Nee, or Iroquois. 2 vols. Human Relations Area Files, New Haven, Connecticut. Morrison, Kenneth M. 2002 The Solidarity of Kin: Ethnohistory, Religious Studies, and the Algonkian-French Religious Encounter. State University of New York Press, Albany. 772 Mourelle, Don Francisco Antonio 1920 Voyage of the Sonora in the Second Bucareli Expedition; To Explore the Northwest Coast, Survey the Port of San Francisco and Found Franciscan Missions and a Presidio and Pueblo at that Port. Thomas C. Russell, San Francisco. Murdock, George Peter 1934 The Haidas of British Columbia. In Our Primitive Contemporaries, edited by George P. Murdock, pp. 221-263. MacMillan, New York. Murdock, George Peter 1936 Rank and Potlatch Among the Haida. In Yale University Publications in Anthropology, No. 13, edited by Edward Sapir and Leslie Spier, pp. 1-20. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. Murie, James R. 1914 Pawnee Indian Societies. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, Vol. XI, Part VII. Order of the Trustees, New York. Murphy, Robert F. 1972 Robert H. Lowie. Columbia University Press, New York. Murray, Francis J., Jr. 1970 Local Groups and Kin Groups in a Tagalog Tenant Rice-Farmers’ Barrio. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Murray, Francis J., Jr. 1973 Lowland Social Organization I: Local Kin Groups in a Central Luzon Barrio. Philippine Sociological Review 21(1):29-36. Murray, Stephen O. 2013 American Anthropology & Company: Historical Explorations. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Myers, Merlin G. 1962 Household Structure Among the Longhouse Iroquois of the Six Nations Reserve. PhD dissertation unpublished, Department of Archaeology, Cambridge University, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Myers, Merlin G. 2006 Households and Families of the Longhouse Iroquois at Six Nations Reserve. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Nadel, Siegfried. F. 1951 The Foundations of Social Anthropology. The Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois. 773 Netting, Robert McC. 1990 Population, Permanent Agriculture, and Polities: Unpacking the Evolutionary Portmanteau. In The Evolution of Political Systems: Sociopolitics in Small-Scale Sedentary Societies, edited by Steadman Upman, pp. 21-61. Cambridge University Press, New York. Niblack, Albert P. 1890 The Coast Indians of Southern Alaska and Northern British Columbia. National Museum, Washington, DC. Noble, William C. 1968 Iroquois Archaeology and the Development of Iroquois Social Organization (1000- 1650 A.D.): A Study in Culture Change Based on Archaeology, Ethnohistory and Ethnology. PhD dissertation, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. Noble, William C. 1969 Social Implications of the Iroquois “In Site” Theory. Ontario Archaeology 13:16-28. Noble, William C. 1971 The Sopher Celt: An Indicator of Early Protohistoric Trade in Huronia. Ontario Archaeology 16:42-47. Norcliffe, G. B., and C. E. Heidenreich 1974 The Preferred Orientation of Iroquoian Longhouses in Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 23:3-30. Nutini, Hugo G. 1967 A Synoptic Comparison of Mesoamerican Marriage and Family Structure. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 23(4):383-404. Oberg, Kalervo 1973 The Social Economy of the Tlingit Indians. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Olson, Ronald L. 1936 Some Trading Customs of the Chilkat Tlingit. In Essays in Anthropology: Presented to A. L. Kroeber in Celebration of his Sixtieth Birthday, June 11, 1939, edited by Robert L. Lowie, pp. 211-214. University of California Press, Berkeley. O’Gorman, Jodie A. 2010 Exploring the Longhouse and Community in Tribal Society. American Antiquity 75(3):571-597. 774 Orme, Bryony 1981 Anthropology for Archaeologists: An Introduction. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. Ortner, Sherry B. 2006 Anthropology and Social Theory: Culture, Power, and the Acting Subject. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina. O’Shea, John M., and Claire McHale Milner 2002 Material Indicators of Territory, Identity, and Interaction in a Prehistoric Tribal System. In The Archaeology of Tribal Societies, edited by William A. Parkinson, pp. 200-226. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Pailes, Matthew C. 2014 Social Network Analysis of Early Classic Hohokam Corporate Group Inequality. American Antiquity 79(3):465-486. Parker, Arthur C. 1910 Iroquois Uses of Maize and Other Food Plants. University of the State of New York, Albany. Parks, Douglas R. 2001 Pawnee. In Plains, edited by Raymond J. DeMallie, pp. 515-547. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 13, Part 1 of 2, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Parmenter, Jon 2010 The Edge of the Woods: Iroquoia, 1534-1701. Michigan State University, East Lansing. Peregrine, Peter N. 2001 Matrilocality, Corporate Strategy, and the Organization of Production in the Chacoan World. American Antiquity 66(1):36-46. Perrelli, Douglas J. 2009 Iroquoian Social Organization in Practice: A Small-Scale Study of Gender Roles and Site Formation in Western New York. In Iroquoian Archaeology and Analytic Scale, edited by Laurie E. Miroff and Timothy D. Knapp, pp. 19-50. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Petersen, James B., and Ellen R. Cowie 2002 From Hunter-Gatherer Camp to Horticultural Village: Late Prehistoric Indigenous Subsistence and Settlement. In Northeast Subsistence-Settlement Change: A.D. 700-1300, edited by John P. Hart and Christine B. Rieth, pp. 265-287. University of the State of New York, Albany. 775 Pfeiffer, Susan, Ronald F. Williamson, Jennifer Newton, Petrus le Roux, Crystal Forrest, and Louis Lesage 2020 Population Movements of the Huron-Wendat Viewed through Strontium Isotope Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102466, accessed April 8, 2021. Powell, J. W. 1881 Wyandot Government: A Short Study of Tribal Society. In First Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1879-’80, directed by J. W. Powell, pp. 57-69. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Prezzano, Susan Carol 1992 Longhouse, Village, and Palisade: Community Patterns at the Iroquois Southern Door. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, State University of New York at Binghamton, Binghamton. Quain, B. H. 1961 The Iroquois. In Cooperation and Competition among Primitive Peoples, edited by Margaret Mead, pp. 240-281. Beacon Press, Boston. Radcliffe-Brown, Alfred Reginald 1950 Introduction. In African Systems of Kinship and Marriage, edited by A. R. Radcliffe- Brown and Daryll Forde, pp. 1-85. Oxford University Press, New York. Ramsden, Peter G. 1978 Two Views of Late Prehistoric Iroquois Trade and Settlement: I: An Hypothesis Concerning the Effects of Early European Trade Among Some Ontario Iroquois. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 2:101-106. Ramsden, Peter G. 2009 Politics in a Huron Village. In Painting the Past with a Broad Brush: Papers in Honour of James Valliere Wright, edited by David L. Keenlyside and Jean-Luc Pilon, pp. 299-318. Mercury Series Archaeology Paper 170. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Gatineau, Quebec. Randle, Martha Champion 1951 Iroquois Women, Then and Now. In Symposium on Local Diversity in Iroquois Culture, edited by William N. Fenton. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 149, pp. 167-180. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Read, K. E. 1954 Cultures of the Central Highlands, New Guinea. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10(1):1-43. 776 Reichard, Gladys A. 1928 Social Life of the Navajo Indians with Some Attention to Minor Ceremonies. Columbia University Press, New York. Reichard, Gladys A. 1936 Navajo Shepherd and Weaver. J. J. Augustin, New York. Richards, Cara E. 1967 Huron and Iroquois Residence Patterns 1600-1650. In Iroquois Culture, History, and Prehistory: Proceedings of the 1965 Conference on Iroquois Research, edited by Elisabeth Tooker, pp. 51-56. University of the State of New York, Albany. Richter, Daniel K. 1992 The Ordeal of the Longhouse: The Peoples of the Iroquois League in the Era of European Colonization. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Richter, Daniel K. 2001 Facing East from Indian Country: A Native History of Early America. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Ritchie, William A., and Robert E. Funk 1973 Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Northeast. New York State Museum and Science Service, Memoir 20. State University of New York, Albany. Sahlins, Marshall D. 1957 Land Use and the Extended Family in Moala, Fiji. American Anthropologist 59(3):449- 462. Sahlins, Marshall D. 1961 The Segmentary Lineage: An Organization of Predatory Expansion. American Anthropologist 63(2):322-345. Sahlins, Marshall 1981 Historical Metaphors and Mythical Realities: Structure in the Early History of the Sandwich Islands Kingdom. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Salisbury, R. F. 1956 Unilineal Descent Groups in the New Guinea Highlands. Man, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 56:2-7. Schneider, Peter, Jane Schneider, and Edward Hansen 1972 Modernization and Development: The Role of Regional Elites and Noncorporate Groups in the European Mediterranean. Comparative Studies in Society and History 14(3):328-350. 777 Seaver, James E. 1918 A Narrative of the Life of Mary Jemison, the White Woman of the Genessee. American Scenic & Historic Preservation Society, New York. Service, Elman R. 1962 Primitive Social Organization: An Evolutionary Perspective. Random House, New York. Seton-Karr, Heywood W. 1887 Shores and Alps of Alaska. S. Low, Marston, Searle and Rivington, London. Shephardson, Mary, and Blodwen Hammond 1970 The Navajo Mountain Community: Social Organization and Kinship. University of California Press, Berkeley. Shimony, Annmarie 1961 Conservatism Among the Iroquois at the Six Nations Reserve. Yale University Publications in Anthropology, New Haven, Connecticut. Shmueli, Galit 2010 To Explain or to Predict? Statistical Science 25(3):289-310. Smith, David Zeisberger 1852 Description of the Manners and Customs of the Pawnee Indians. The Moravian Church Miscellany 3:86-94. Smith, M. G. 1956 On Segmentary Lineage Systems. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 86(2):39-80. Smith, M. G. 1966 A Structural Approach to Comparative Politics. In Varieties of Political Theory, edited by David Easton, pp. 113-128. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Smith, Wallis M. 1970 A Re-Appraisal of the Huron Kinship System. Anthropologica 12(2):191-206. Smith, Patricia E. 1998 When Small Pots Speak the Stories They Tell: The Role of Children in Ceramic Innovation in Prehistoric Huron Society as Seen Through the Analysis of Juvenile Pots. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario. Snow, Dean R. 1995a Mohawk Valley Archaeology: The Collections. Occasional Papers in Anthropology No. 22. Matson Museum of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park. 778 Snow, Dean R. 1995b Mohawk Valley Archaeology: The Sites. Occasional Papers in Anthropology No. 23. Matson Museum of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park. Snyderman, George S. 1951 Concepts of Land Ownership Among the Iroquois and Their Neighbors. In Symposium on Local Diversity in Iroquois Culture, edited by William N. Fenton. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 149, pp. 13-34. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Sobel, Elizabeth A. 2004 Social Complexity and Corporate Households on the Southern Northwest Coast of North America, A.D. 1450-1855. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Spier, Leslie 1930 Klamath Ethnography. University of California Press, Berkeley. Stearns, Mary Lee 1984 Succession to Chiefship in Haida Society. In The Tsimshians and Their Neighbors of the North Pacific Coast, edited by Jay Miller and Carol M. Eastman, pp. 190-219. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Stearns, Mary Lee 1990 Haida Since 1960. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 261-266. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Steckley, John L. 2007 Words of the Huron. Wilfrid Laurier University Press, Waterloo, Ontario. Steckley, John L. 2014 The Eighteenth-Century Wyandot: A Clan-Based Study. Wilfrid Laurier University Press, Waterloo, Ontario. Stocking, George W., Jr. (editor) 1974 A Franz Boas Reader: The Shaping of American Anthropology 1883-1911. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Stocking, George W., Jr. 1976 Ideas and Institutions in American Anthropology: Thoughts Toward a History of the Interwar Years. In Selected Papers from the American Anthropologist, 1921-45, edited by George W. Stocking, Jr., pp. 1-53. American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC. 779 Stocking, George W., Jr. 1992 The Ethnographer’s Magic and Other Essays in the History of Anthropology. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. Stocking, George W., Jr. 1996 Boasian Ethnography and the German Anthropological Tradition. In Volksgeist as Method and Ethic: Essays on Boasian Ethnography and the German Anthropological Tradition, edited by George W. Stocking, Jr., pp. 3-8. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. Striker, Sarah 2018 The Social Dynamics of Coalescence: Ancestral Wendat Communities 1400-1550 C.E. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. Sturtevant, Andrew 2016 “Over the Lake” The Western Wendake in the American Revolution. In From Huronia to Wendakes: Adversity, Migrations, and Resilience, 1650-1900, edited by Thomas Peace and Kathryn Magee Labelle, pp. 35-73. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Sutlive, Vinson H., Jr. 1978 The Iban of Sarawak: Chronicle of a Vanishing World. Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, Illinois. Suttles, Wayne P. 1968 Coping with Abundance: Subsistence on the Northwest Coast. In Man the Hunter, edited by Richard B. Lee and Irven Devore, pp. 56-68. Aldine Publishing, Chicago. Suttles, Wayne P. 1990 Central Coast Salish. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 453-475. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Suttles, Wayne, and Aldona Jonaitis. 1990 History of Research in Ethnology. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 73-87. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Swanton, John R. 1905a The Haida of Queen Charlotte Islands. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History, Vol. VIII, Pt. I. G. E. Stechert, New York. Subsequently published 1909 as Contributions to the Ethnology of the Haida. In The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, edited by Franz Boas, pp. 1-300. Memoir of the American Museum of Natural History, Vol. V, Pt. I. G. E. Stechert, New York. 780 Swanton, John R. 1905b Haida Myths and Texts. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 29. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Swanton, John R. 1908 Social Condition, Beliefs, and Linguistic Relationship of the Tlingit Indians. In Twenty- Sixth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1904-1905, edited by W. H. Holmes, pp. 391-485. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Swanton, John R. 1909 Tlingit Myths and Texts. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 39. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Tanner, Helen Hornbeck (editor) 1987 Atlas of Great Lakes Indian History. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Thomas, Norman D. 1979 The Mesoamerican Barrio: A Reciprocity Model for Community Organization. In From Tzintzuntzan to the “Image of Limited Good:” Essays in Honor of George M. Foster, edited by Margaret Clark, Robert V. Kemper, and Cynthia Nelson, pp. 45-58. University of California, Berkeley. Thwaites, Reuben G. (editor) 1896-1901 The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents. 73 vols. Burrows Brothers, Cleveland, Ohio. Tikhmenev, Petr Aleksandrovich 1940 [1863] Historical Review of the Origin of the Russian-American Company and its Activity up to the Present Time. 2 vols. Edward Veimar, St. Petersburg, Russia. Translated by Michael Dobrynin and Dimitri Krenov. U.S. Work Projects Administration, Seattle, Washington. Tooker, Elisabeth 1967 An Ethnography of the Huron Indians 1615-1649. Huronian Historical Development Council and Ontario Department of Education, Midland, Ontario. Tooker, Elisabeth 1978 Iroquois Since 1820. In Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 449-465. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Tooker, Elisabeth 1991 An Ethnography of the Huron Indians, 1615-1649. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, New York. 781 Trigger, Bruce G. 1961 The Destruction of Huronia: A Study in Economic and Cultural Change, 1609-1650. Transactions of the Royal Canadian Institute 33(68):14-45. Trigger, Bruce G. 1969 The Huron: Farmers of the North. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. Trigger, Bruce G. 1976 The Children of Aataentsic: A History of the Huron People to 1660. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal. Trigger, Bruce G. 1979 Sixteenth Century Ontario: History, Ethnohistory, and Archaeology. Ontario History 71(4):205-223. Trigger, Bruce G. 1981 Archaeology and the Ethnographic Present. Anthropologica 23(1):3-17. Trigger, Bruce G. 1985 Natives and Newcomers: Canada’s “Heroic Age” Reconsidered. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal. Trigger, Bruce G. 1990 Maintaining Economic Equality in Opposition to Complexity: An Iroquoian Case Study. In The Evolution of Political Systems: Sociopolitics in Small-Scale Sedentary Societies, edited by Steadman Upman, pp. 119-145. Cambridge University Press, New York. Tuck, James A. 1971 Onondaga Iroquois Prehistory: A Study in Settlement Archaeology. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, New York. Tuck, James A. 1978 Northern Iroquoian Prehistory. In Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 322-333. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Veniaminov, Ivan Evsieevich Popov 1840 Notes on the Atkin Aleuts and the Koloshi. In Notes on the Islands of the Unalaska District. Vol 3. Russian-American Company, St. Petersburg, Russia. Warrick, Gary 1984 Reconstructing Ontario Iroquoian Village Organization. National Museum of Man, Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper 124:1-80, National Museums of Canada, Ottawa. 782 Warrick, Gary 1990 A Population History of the Huron-Petun, A.D. 800-1650. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, McGill University, Montreal. Warrick, Gary 1996 Evolution of the Iroquoian Longhouse. In People Who Lived in Big Houses: Archaeological Perspectives on Large Domestic Structures, edited by Gary Coupland and E. B. Banning, pp. 11-26. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Warrick, Gary 2000 The Precontact Iroquoian Occupation of Southern Ontario. Journal of World Prehistory 14(4):415-466. Warrick, Gary 2013 The Aboriginal Population of Ontario in Late Prehistory. In Before Ontario: The Archaeology of a Province, edited by Marit K. Munson and Susan M. Jamieson, pp. 62- 76. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal. Waselkov, Gregory A. 2009 French Colonial Archaeology. In International Handbook of Historical Archaeology, edited by Teresita Majewski and David Gaimster, pp. 613-628. Springer, New York. Waugh, F. W. 1973 Iroquois Foods and Food Preparation. Reprinted. Iroqrafts, Ohsweken, Ontario, Canada. Originally published 1916, Memoir 86, No. 12, Anthropological Series, National Museums of Canada, National Museum of Man, Ottawa. Weaver, Sally M. 1972 Medicine and Politics Among the Grand River Iroquois: A Study of the Non- Conservatives. National Museums of Canada Publications in Ethnology, Ottawa. Weaver, Sally M. 1978 Six Nations of the Grand River, Ontario. In Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 525-536. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Weber, Max 1947 The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Translated by A. R. Henderson and Talcott Parsons. William Hodge & Company, London. Webster, Gloria Cranmer 1990 Kwakiutl Since 1980. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 387-390. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. 783 Weiner, James F. 1982 Substance, Siblingship and Exchange: Aspects of Social Structure in New Guinea. Social Analysis: The International Journal of Social and Cultural Practice 11:3-34. Weltfish, Gene 1965 The Lost Universe: Pawnee Life and Culture. Basic Books, New York. Whallon, Jr., Robert 1968 Investigations of Late Prehistoric Social Organization in New York State. In New Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by Sally R. Binford and Lewis R. Binford, pp. 223- 244. Aldine Publishing, Chicago. White, Richard 1991 The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region 1650- 1815. Cambridge University Press, New York. Williamson, Ronald F. 2013 The Woodland Period, 900 BCE to 1700 CE. In Before Ontario: The Archaeology of a Province, edited by Marit K. Munson and Susan M. Jamieson, pp. 48-61. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal. Wissler, Clark 1922 The American Indian: An Introduction to the Anthropology of the New World. 2nd edition. Oxford University Press, New York. Wilk, Richard R., and William L. Rathje 1982 Household Archaeology. American Behavioral Scientist 25(6):617-639. Witherspoon, Gary 1975 Navajo Kinship and Marriage. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Witherspoon, Gary 1983 Navajo Social Organization. In Southwest, edited by Alfonso Ortiz, pp. 524-535. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 10, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Witthoft, John 1966 Archaeology as a Key to the Colonial Fur Trade. Minnesota History 40(4):203-209. Wolf, Eric R. 1957 Closed Corporate Peasant Communities in Mesoamerica and Central Java. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 13(1):1-18. 784 Wolf, Eric R. 1967 Levels of Communal Relations. In Social Anthropology, edited by Manning Nash, pp. 299-316. Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 6, Robert Wauchope, general editor, University of Texas Press, Austin. Wood, W. Raymond, and Lee Irwin 2001 Mandan. In Plains, edited by Raymond J. DeMallie, pp. 349-364. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 13, Part 1 of 2, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Wrong, George M. (editor) 1939 The Long Journey to the Country of the Hurons by Father Gabriel Sagard (1632). Translated by Hugh H. Langton. The Champlain Society, Toronto. Zenk, Henry B. 1990a Alseans. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 568-571. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Zenk, Henry B. 1990b Kalapuyans. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 547-553. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. 785