JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 1, 132- 158 (1982)

The Corporate Group as an Archaeological Unit

BRIAN HAYDEN AND AUBREY CANNON

Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby,

British Columbia V5A lS6, Canada

Received May 30, 1981

Although corporate groups have featured in the anthropological literature for a

century, and have more recently been proposed as a potentially useful unit for
archaeological analysis (L. Freeman, 1%8, In Man the hunter, edited by R. Lee
and I. De Vore, pp. 262-267. Aldine, Chicago), application of the concept in
archaeology has largely remained hypothetical, and little theoretical modeling has
been attempted. In spite of this neglect, it is argued here that the corporate group
is potentially one of the most useful and important aspects of the archaeological
record that can be dealt with. This conclusion is derived from a detailed ethnoar-
chaeological analysis of over 150 households in the Maya Highlands, in which it
became apparent that social, economic, and demographic characteristics of
households were only loosely associated with a wide variety of material culture
expressions. In contrast, such inferences seemed to be much more reliable when
households were grouped into “hypothetical corporate groups” and group aver-
ages were compared. In addition, theoretical considerations based on economics
and on interactions also indicate that the analysis of corporate groups should be
more rewarding and potentially more accurate than the analysis of individual
households. Archaeologically, corporate groups can be defined where residential
coherency and internal hierarchies are demonstrable. Because corporate groups
can be viewed as signaling major changes in the structuring of society, and in the
evolution of social and political complexity, the investigation of conditions under
which corporate groups emerge should be of major theoretical signiticance to the
entire discipline of archaeology. Moreover, because of the close logical links to
material culture and the environment, theoretical modeling should be particularly
amenable to archaeological testing. In sum, corporate groups provide an unusu-
ally fertile problem area which archaeologists can hope to attack with at least a
promising degree of success.

INTRODUCTION

Anthropologists have been discussing and defining corporate groups for

over a century, with their usual myriad of points of view and differences.
It has only recently been suggested in the West that corporate groups
might provide a useful unit of analysis in archaeological research
(Freeman 1968). Unfortunately, use of this concept in archaeology has
largely remained hypothetical, while theoretical modeling using the con-
cept has only rarely been attempted. Nevertheless, on the basis of recent

0278-4165/82/020132-27$02.00/O
Copyright @ 1982 by Academic Press. Inc.
 CORPORATE GROUP AS ARCHAEOLOGICAL UNIT 133

ethnoarchaeological work, it is our conviction that the concept of “corpo-

rate group” is potentially one of the more powerful and useful areas of
inquiry that archaeologists can address. Before archaeologists can even
begin to deal with corporate groups, however, there are a number of
problematical issues which must be resolved.
First, the concept must be defined in a way that will be operational
archaeologically. This is especially important given the plethora of defini-
tions which now exist in the anthropological literature.
Second, it must be shown why corporate groups are interesting units of
analysis, and why they might be more useful than other units of analysis
such as individual households or entire communities.
Related to both of these problems is the need for an adequate list of
important characteristics of corporate groups.
While these issues are important methodological concerns, we also
wish to argue that coporate groups constitute an important theoretical
object of study in their own right. Corporate groups are interesting for a
number of reasons. First, they seem to typify many early forms of
stratified societies, and, as we argue shortly, are probably closely related
to the control of resources by individuals or small cliques. Thus, they are
potentially important in explaining the emergence of stratified society.
Second, there has been considerable recent interest in the exchange of
members between families and communities in the form of postmarital
residence (e.g., see Deetz 1965, 1968; Levi-Strauss 1969; Longacre 1968).
Corporate groups probably provide the clearest context where such ex-
change of personnel can be monitored. Because of these theoretical con-
cerns, we think it is important to address in a preliminary fashion the
question of why corporate groups develop and change.

DEFINITIONS

Maine (1861) was the first to have used the term, “corporate group”;
however, since his time, anthropologists have freely adapted the term and
redefined it according to their particular immediate problems and con-
texts, as well as their particular theoretical bents. Thus, some definitions
emphasize the durational aspects of corporate groups, others emphasize
the social aspects, others the hereditary aspects, others the legal aspects,
and finally others emphasize the material or resource aspects. From a
contemporary overview, it is clear that there is no one, “true,” definition
of corporate groups, only definitions useful for dealing with specific as-
pects of group behavior.
A few examples should suffice to demonstrate the diversity of ap-
proaches. At the outset, Maine (1861: 75, 108) emphasized the fact that
“Corporations never die” (his emphasis), and added that they could have
134 HAYDEN AND CANNON

administrators or public officers. He considered nuclear families one form

of corporation. Honigmann (1959:360) used the term in a very similar
sense when he described corporate groups as: enduring, selective, and
stable in membership, conferring specific rights and duties, owning wealth
as a group, administering discipline, having goals, being clearly identifi-
able as a group, and having clear-cut leaders. He included units from
nuclear families to modern-day industrial complexes as corporate groups.
Weber (1947:145 ff.) adopted a much more social definition, using the
term to refer to “a social relationship which is either closed or limits the
admission of outsiders by rules . . . so far as its order is enforced by the
action of specific individuals whose regular function this is, of a chief or
‘head’ and usually also an administrative staff.” He included a wide vari-
ety of associations based mainly on legal criteria.
Cochrane (1971) developed the legalistic approach, arguing that the
only social groups that should be termed “corporate groups” are those
which meet the legal definition of corporate groups in Western societies.
Nadel (1951:160) adopted yet a different point of view, based on the
sharing of rights and duties, arguing that corporate groups are equivalent
to multipurpose groups, whose shared rights and duties become activated
in diverse situations. For him, such groups typically have some kind of
executive.
Belshaw (1967:33) referred to corporate groups as “a continuous as-
sociation of roles organized to achieve common purposes,” admitting that
these purposes can be rather vague, changing, and even contradictory. He
too emphasized that the authority pattern of the group is self-contained,
and stated that authority may extend to the administration of joint prop-
erty.
Finally, Goodenough (195 1:30- 31) defined corporate groups as
“groups that function as individuals in relation to property,” and also
stressed that there is a single administrative authority. Of all the defini-
tions used, this probably comes closest to being archaeologically useful.
Some authors (e.g., Befu and Plotnicov 1962:314) contend that many of
these definitions of corporate groups come close to being synonymous
with any group of individuals who get together for whatever purpose over
an extended period of time or at repeated intervals. It suffices to show
that they have some form of responsibilities to the group and that mem-
bership is to some degree restricted, no matter how minimal such respon-
sibilities and restriction may be, e.g., cocktail parties with redundant
guest lists. While this approach may be useful for studying social interac-
tions on a fine scale, it is clearly not of much use archaeologically, nor will
it probably be very detectable archaeologically.
Thus, what we propose is that archaeologists deal only with very spe-
cific types of corporate groups: those which have come into being as a
 CORPORATE GROUP AS ARCHAEOLOGICAL UNIT 135

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. In taking this approach,
we have adopted the general orientation of Morgan (1881) and Engels
(1884) to the analysis of residential groups. These will be referred to as
“residential corporate groups.” We explicitly exclude from this definition
groups of people who join together for political, religious, or monetary
reasons and who do not reside together. In our view, these groups can
most usefully be dealt with as a separate analytical unit, which we suggest
should be called an “institution.” Such a term is generally consistent with
present archaeological and anthropological usage, especially where spe-
cial structures situated apart from members’ residences play a role in
group activities. Institutions cannot be dealt with in the same meth-
odological fashion as residential corporate groups since it is generally
difficult if not impossible to identify any particular households or house-
hold residents with institutions. Nor does the term “institution” carry any
of the implications of the close interpersonal bonds or communal life that
are characteristic of residential corporate groups. Residential corporate
groups are much more closed and exert a pervasive influence on all as-
pects of individuals’ lives, including their marriage, their postmarital resi-
dence, their economic production, their feasting and celebrations, and
their pastimes and pleasures.

ASSUMPTIONS

At this point we should discuss our assumptions concerning the condi-

tions which give rise to residentially coherent corporate groups, as well as
other assumptions we make when viewing such groups archaeologically.
First, we assume that no other factors besides economics and environ-
mental conditions are strong enought to result in recognizable residential
coherency. Because of differing individual interests and limited re-
sources, human relationships are characteristically fragile and ephemeral,
especially where more than two persons are involved (see Hayden 1978;
Wilk n.d.:25,27). In fact, fights and disputes, and changing personal al-
legiances are among the most consistent cross-cultural characteristics of
egalitarian societies. We therefore argue that very strong forces indeed
must be present before any significant number of families can be induced
to live constantly with each other. Economic, environmental, and defense
considerations are the only forces that we know of that seem capable of
accounting for such behavior. The economic/environmental basis of cor-
porate groups has been explicitly used to define them by Goodenough
(1951:30-31) and Anderson (1970), thus our approach is certainly not a
136 HAYDEN ANDCANNON

dramatic departure from established usage. We will discuss this assump-

tion and its theoretical implications further in our concluding comments.
A second assumption which we make is that there is a continuum of
development with regard to what abstractly can be called “corporate
group strength.” Like the similar concept of “social solidarity” (White
1959:103), “strength” is not very amenable to direct measurement. Ob-
jective measures of strength might be made in contemporary societies on
the basis of proportions of interactions within vs between corporate
groups, but no such data exist. Nevertheless, it is clear that some corpo-
rate groups are very loosely knit, while others are so tightly knit that only
minimal interaction occurs with persons from other corporate groups.
What we argue here is that there is a broad threshold along the “group
strength” continuum below which no residential coherency will occur,
but above which corporate groups will exhibit residential coherency and
can be classified as “archaeological corporate groups.” Even above this
threshold, however, it is clear that corporate groups vary to some degree
in strength as well as size. For instance, in the opening period of the
Iroquois tradition, longhouses were only 50 ft long, whereas in later peri-
ods they were often 200 and sometimes even 400 ft long (Tuck
1971:96,204). One of the more interesting questions that can be asked in
such cases is why these changes occurred. But before questions of this
sort can be addressed, it is necessary to develop objective and consistent
means of measuring relative strength and size of corporate groups.

LIMITS

Having stated these underlying assumptions, we would like to discuss

some of the limitations which we think are appropriate to place on the
archaeological use of the corporate group concept. At the outset, we
would note that according to anthropological definitions corporate groups
include a wide range of sizes, extending from the nuclear family to entire
communities. We believe that both of these extremes should be excluded
from the definition of archaeological corporate groups, partly because
they already constitute analytical units of great utility and power, and
partly because we believe it would be most useful to concentrate theoreti-
cally on the forces which create strongly coherent and relatively indepen-
dent groupings of families within communities.‘** Another reason for
treating these units separately is that, from our ethnoarchaeological work,
we have been led to the conclusion that households, corporate groups,
and communities are not all equally suitable for the same types of ar-

* See Notes section at end of paper for all footnotes.

 CORPORATE GROUP AS ARCHAEOLOGICAL UNIT 137

LUXURY ITEM
FREQUENCY
18.0 t

2
*

* * *
2 * 2 3
* 2
3.6 ..
5 3 *
b 3 2
* 4 2
0 + * * *
i 2 i i
ECONOMIC RANK

FIG. 1. The relationship between luxury item frequency in individual households and
economic rank in Maya villages.

chaeological interpretations. For example, as part of the Coxoh Ethno-

archaeological Project we have conducted analyses of artifact variability
in over 150 contemporary Maya households in three highland com-
munities using technomic, sociotechnic, and ideotechnic artifacts com-
pared to a comprehensive range of socioeconomic and demographic vari-
ables that archaeologists generally assume to affect artifact variability.
The results of our analyses at the household level demonstrate that when
single artifact classes are used there are simply too many sources of
variability affecting artifact and feature patterning to be able to make
useful predictive or interpretive statements concerning most socioeco-
nomic or demographic characteristics of the household, except in the
more extreme cases. Thus we would argue that except for the extreme
and readily obvious cases of the very wealthy, the very poor, or the very
specialized, analysis at the single household level is of limited value for
most of the socioeconomic questions that archaeologists want to ask
about household inhabitants.*
What we discovered in dealing with these households was that indi-
138 HAYDEN AND CANNON

AVERAGE
LUXURY ITEM
FREQUENCY
1.7 l

7.0 ..

6.2 ..

5.5 '. l

4.8 '.

4.1 .. *
c
1 2 3 4

ECONOMIC RANK
FIG. 2. The relationship between average luxury item frequency within economic ranks
and economic rank in Maya villages.

vidual households tended to be affected by many independent variables.

However, when households were grouped together to form hypothetical
corporate groups with distinct social or economic characteristics, and
when averages were taken for households in these groups very strong
patterns emerged-similar to those archaeologists often dream of. For
instance, archaeologists generally posit a relationship between the
number of luxury items and the relative wealth of households. Examina-
tion shows that inferences about the economic rank of individual house-
holds cannot be made very reliably on the basis of luxury items (Fig. 1);
whereas if households are grouped into general wealth levels (i.e.,
hypothetical corporate groups strongly differentiated by wealth), and av-
erages of luxury items are taken for each of these groups, very accurate
inferences of relative wealth ranks can be made on the basis of luxury
items3 (Fig. 2). In a similar vein, it could be argued that wealthier house-
holds should have more floor area per person than poorer households. On
a household-to-household basis this relationship is again very weak (Fig.
 CORPORATE GROUP AS ARCHAEOLOGICAL UNIT 139

*
+
* *
41.4 2
* 3
:
2 *
*
:
27.2 4 *
*
2"
* 2 *
* 2
13.0 2
c
1 2 3 4
ECONOMICRANK
FIG. 3. The relationship between house floor area in individual households and economic
rank in Maya villages.

3); however, if the average of all households within each economic rank is
calculated, the relationship is clear and conforms to expectations (Fig. 4).
Similarly, archaeologists might well argue that greater numbers of people
in a community will seek to interact in close relationships with econom-
ically prosperous individuals, than with economically impoverished indi-
viduals. We can use “economic rank” as a general indicator of economic
prosperity and the number of cornpadres (fictive kin relationships) as an
indicator of the number of close relationships within the community be-
yond kinship networks. At the individual household level, there is again
enormous variability (Fig. 5), while if households are grouped according
to their economic rank and the averages of these groups are taken, the
strong, expected relationship again is evident (Fig. 6).
Of course, before any attempt is made to infer socioeconomic or demo-
graphic characteristics using material indicators, it should first be demon-
strated that groups exhibit a statistically significant difference in terms of
the indicator used. Obviously, small-scale differences in indicator vari-
ables will not necessarily show a consistent correspondence to the char-
140 HAYDENANDCANNON

AVERAGE
HOUSE FLOOR
AREA
47.7 4

44.1 I'

40.4
!

36.8 ..

33.2

29.5 *
l

1 2 3 4
ECONOMICRANK
FIG. 4. The relationship between average house floor area with economic ranks and
economic rank in Maya villages.

acteristics to be inferred. Where observations for groups are normally

distributed and exhibit equal variances, a simple Student’s t test can be
used to demonstrate the significance of differences in group means.
Where these conditions are not met, the Mann-Whitney U test can be
used as a nonparametric alternative. In all our tests of logically important
relationships using grouped data, differences in values were significant at
a very high level (Figs. 2, 4, 6).
The point of all these analyses is that, while the error involved in
interpreting most individual household assemblages is very large, it is
greatly reduced when dealing with groups of households. Such grouping
tends to average out the effects of specific historical and idiosyncratic
factors acting on individual households. Thus it should be possible to
determine relative differences in the most important socioeconomic char-
acteristics of residentially coherent corporate groups to a much more
accurate degree than is generally possible with individual households. In
fact, we would argue that, for the types of detailed settlement pattern,
 CORPORATE GROUP AS ARCHAEOLOGICAL UNIT 141

TOTAL
COMPADRES
20 + 2

16 .

4 *
4 ” 2 3 2
3

2 * *
*

0 + 2

i z ; .i
ECONOMIC RANK

FIG. 5. The relationship between the total number of compadres in individual households
and economic rank in Maya villages.

residential, interactional, social, and economic interpretations which ar-

chaeologists are now attempting, residential corporate groups are the best
candidates for meaningful analytical units that we have to deal with. Indi-
vidual households, except in unusual circumstances, are very poor candi-
dates. On the other hand, assessment of interaction, economic, and de-
mographic factors is probably more accurate at the community level.
However, for studies of intracommunity differentiation, such assessment
is probabiy most reliably made at the level of corporate groups rather than
at the level of the household.
The only study that we know of which employed grouped household
values in the way that we suggest is most useful, is the analysis of Kam-
inaljuyu corporate groups by Michels (1979).

TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL CORPORATE GROUPS

Operationally, there are three basic types of residential corporate

groups that our definition can be used to identify. The first type consists
of the clearest type of corporate residency, i.e., situations where numer-
142 HAYDEN AND CANNON

AVERAGE
NUMBER OF
COMPADRES
10.7 + *

9.4 ..

5.7

4.4
1 2 3 4
ECONOMIC RANK

FIG. 6. The relationship between the average number of compadres with economic ranks
and economic rank in Maya villages.

ous nuclear families lived in the same structure, and where several such
structures composed communities. Ethnographic and archaeological
examples come easily to mind, such as the Iroquoian longhouse (Fig. 7),
the Mandan lodges (Fig. 8), the large Northwest Coast plank houses (Fig.
9), and the Danubian longhouses (Fig. 10).
Somewhat less obvious are corporate groups of the second type, in
which each family unit occupies a separate structure, but where all struc-
tures forming part of the group are placed next to each other in a patterned
fashion. Examples of this type of corporate residence are the Fulani and
Massa circular compounds described by David (1971) and Fraser (1968).
This type of corporate residence also occurs in some Maya areas, where
the sons of lineage heads build their structures adjacent to their fathers as
illustrated and discussed by Vogt (1%9:133). As Wilk (n.d.:28) states for
Belize:
When households form a cooperative union they show their solidarity by building
houses so they almost touch, and they show their separation from the rest of the
village by moving to the margins of the settlement.
 CORPORATE GROUP AS ARCHAEOLOGICAL UNIT

0.:.:-..
IJ.
 SACRED PLACE

FIG. 8. Floor plan of a Mandan lodge (Wilson 1934:384). Note particularly the sleeping
areas of individuals. Wilson describes this lodge as follows:
Diagram of the Interior of Hairy-coat’s Father’s Earthlodge at Old Fort Berthold.
a. Father’s place; b. Mother’s (the wife’s) place; c. Goes-on-water; d. Hairy-
coat’s place; e-f. Children; 1. Corral for stud horse; 2. Feed for horse; 3. Bull-
boats; 4. Partition or palisade: 5. Firewood; 6. Door in partition (only in large
earthlodge); 7. Food platform for general use; 8. Saddle platform; 9. Clothes in
bags; 10. Hairy-coat’s bed: 11. Empty spade, arrowshafts and feathers in rings,
suspended; 12. Goes-on-water’s bed; 13. Lance; 14. Backrest; 15. Shrines (the
segment outlined, x-y-z, from the fire outward is sacred); 16. Father’s bed; 17. Set
of arrow-making tools on a board; 18. Clothes suspended from roof; 19. Children’s
bed; 20. Cache pit; 21. Pottery and cooking utensils; 22. Sweatlodge; 23. Mortar;
24. Stone and hammer for cracking bones; 25. Platform for saddles, moccasins,
etc.; 26. Firewood piled between posts; 27. Stall in corral, for a mean horse;
28. Corral for eight or ten mares and foals; 29. Feed for horses; 30. Extra corral,
outside; 31. Cache for yellow corn; 32. Cache for corn and vegetables.
Courtesy of The American Museum of Natural History.
144
CORPORATE GROUP AS ARCHAEOLOGICAL UNIT 145
146 HAYDEN AND CANNON

FIG. 10. Floor plan of a Neolithic Danubian longhouse (from Milisauskas 1978:103, re-
produced by permission of Academic Press).

In contrast, individual households which do not form part of a cooperative

union “tend to move around all over the village, changing their affiliation
from one cluster to the next, and their housesites to wherever they have
access to water.”
Perhaps even more difficult to precisely define archaeologically are
neighborhoods, or barrios, which can act as very large residential corpo-
 CORPORATE GROUP AS ARCHAEOLOGICAL UNIT 147

rate groups. These constitute a third type of residential corporate group.

Where these are strongly developed, as in some Mesoamerican com-
munities, marriage and residence and interaction are strictly controlled by
barrio membership. Characteristically, nuclear families inhabit separate
dwellings, and boundaries of the group are generally difficult to recognize
physically. Such large corporate groups often have specialized structures
within the residential area to conduct and administer corporate group
affairs, such as education, worship, and sacrifice, and economic affairs.
These structures, when reduplicated in various parts of a community, can
be taken as one type of evidence for the existence of some sort of
neighborhood corporate group. Because of the larger degree of autonomy
of individual families in these large corporate groups it might be argued
that they are weaker and less coherent than the smaller types of corporate
groups and that they share much in common with institutions. This may in
fact be accurate. In fact, it probably will be useful to deal with all three of
these corporate group types (single multifamily structures, clustered
households, and neighborhoods) as separate types of phenomena, at least
initially. Examples of neighborhood corporate groups come largely from
Mesoamerica, and include strongly developed contemporary barrios
as well as the calpulli present at the time of the Conquest (Soustelle
1961:95-96; Carrasco [authors in] 1976:163,257). Both the contemporary
corporate barrio and the calpul very likely are corporate forms which
have their origins in early Mesoamerican chiefdom development.4 The
clearest example of this comes from Kaminaljuyu (Michels 1979). Blanton
(1978:20 ff., 66 ff.) has also shown the existence of various barrios at
Monte Alban using similar criteria; and in exceptional cases, such as at
the Late Post-Classic site of Canajaste in Chiapas, there may even be
walls demarcating barrio boundaries (M. Blake, personal communica-
tion).

ESTIMATING CORPORATE GROUP STRENGTH

Architecture (in terms of multifamily structures, patterned individual

residences, and reduplicated administrative/service structures) not only
provides the major criterion for identifying residential corporate groups,
but size and complexity of architecture may also provide a good indicator
of the strength or coherency of corporate groups. Another potential tech-
nique for estimating corporate group strength or coherency is the analysis
of stylistic variability within and between corporate groups within the
same community. Elsewhere, we have argued that corporate groups
should constitute a much more closed and bounded cooperative interaction
network than other social units within communities (Hayden and Cannon
148 HAYDEN AND CANNON

n.d.), and that craft learning prior to marriage is much more likely to take
place within the corporate group than outside of it. As such, objects made
by persons who stay within the corporate group after marriage should be
much more homogeneous in style than crafts made by persons outside the
corporate groups, or by persons such as spouses who enter the corporate
group from elsewhere. Thus, the degree of homogeneity in the style of
these artifacts should be related to the strength, or coherency of corporate
groups and the degree of interaction between their members and individu-
als from outside the group. We disagree completely with Stephen Plog
(1976, 1980) that style is unrelated to interaction.5 We argue that stylistic
homogeneity does provide a potential method for estimating corporate
group strength/coherency. And in fact, it may also be used to identify
corporate group limits where these are not residentially evident, as in the
case of neighborhood corporate groups (see Blanton 197874 ff. for some
good examples).
It cannot be stressed too much, however, that before this technique is
employed, it must be demonstrated, (a) that the artifact types being used
in the stylistic analysis were actually being produced somewhere within
the corporate group, and (b) that the craft was likely to have been learned
prior to marriage. Neither of these factors has been addressed in the
archaeological applications attempted to date. In fact, the Pueblo studies
have been demonstrated to be flawed precisely because stylistic analyses
were based at least in part on imported pots rather than those made in the
community (Plog 1980:74-76). In addition, some types of artifacts are
generally unsuitable for such stylistic analysis, while others are more
suitable (for elaboration of these points, see Hayden n.d.). Thus, while
stylistic analysis is of potential use for estimating corporate group coher-
ency and strength, it must be used with the utmost caution and only with
control over other major factors related to socioeconomic aspects of the
community. Such an analysis will probably only be feasible in a small
proportion of sites that archaeologists deal with.
In all the ethnographic examples that we have mentioned, and in most
of the anthropological definitions, there is always some sort of adminis-
trative or authoritative hierarchy which directs major decisions concem-
ing the corporate group, and which should be relatively easy to detect
archaeologically where sufficient numbers of households are involved
(e.g., see Hayden 1977). Where detectable, this can probably be used as
supporting evidence for the identification of corporate groups ar-
chaeologically. The degree of development of a hierarchical administra-
tion might be used as another indicator of corporate group strength. The
presence of such a hierarchy also implies that power and control over
resources is vested in one or a few people. This is consistent with our
 CORPORATE GROUP OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL UNIT 149

argument that it is economic and environmental factors which largely

create conditions under which corporate groups develop. We would argue
that the control of important resources by one or a few individuals is the
major factor which draws other families to that individual, which binds
them together, and which accounts for the authority of that individual
within the corporate group.

CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH CORPORATE GROUPS FORM

Previously, we used the assumption that where access to important

resources can be restricted by a few people for use or control by them-
selves, without adverse repercussions, individuals, or cliques, will act to
gain control of those resources, and restrict access to them. This in turn
would render other individuals to greater or lesser degrees dependent on
those persons who controlled resources, and it would be thus that ar-
chaeological corporate groups would be formed. Here we would like to
explore some of the specific economic and environmental conditions
which appear to give rise to corporate groups. Ethnographic and ar-
chaeological examples demonstrate the range of potential formative con-
ditions and forms of corporate groups. We clearly recognize that these
examples may not exhaust the entire range of such conditions or forms,
but they do provide extremely useful starting points for the investigation
of corporate groups in cultural evolution. In order to investigate the pre-
historic occurrences and variations of these conditions and forms, we will
present a list of archaeological types of data which should be examined.
Although not all ethnographic accounts provide adequate descriptions
of such economic aspects, the ones that do clearly place the control of
essential resources in the position of keystone for the building and col-
lapse of residential corporate groups. For instance, among the Haida on
the Northwest coast, Blackman (1977:50) specifically cites the removal of
control over key economic resources (especially fishing and shellfish
beds) by missionaries and government agents as the cause for the under-
mining of corporate group coherency, rituals, and large corporate group
residences. In fact, after the economic base for the matrilines had been
removed, there were no further corporate houseraising ceremonies, and
structures became entirely nuclear family residences.
Hayden (1977, 1978) has argued for a very similar situation for the
Ontario Iroquois contact period where control over trade in furs and,
subsequently, trade in European industrial goods, provided the economic
basis for the emergence of strong corporate groups. When trade routes
could be controlled by a few individuals, Iroquois corporate groups
reached their maximum size. When trade goods became available to all
individuals, corporate groups disintegrated into their component nuclear
families.
150 HAYDEN ANDCANNON

Chichicastenango Chimaltenango

i chfiaziIza

Increasing land scarcity ____c

FIG. 11. Relative lineage strength in relationship to land availability in the Maya area
(redrawn after Collier 1975:77). Several Maya villages are situated along this curve as exam-
ples.

The most critical resource in most agricultural societies is land, and it is

thus not surprising to find that the availability of land is the major deter-
minant of lineage strength in many areas. For instance, in Highland
Chiapas, Collier (1975:77) argues that lineages emerge as corporate
groups only under conditions of moderate land shortage, while very
scarce land and very abundant land leads to intensive individual competi-
tion (Fig. 11). Similarly, in Belize, Wilk (n.d.:25-28) directly relates the
average length of time individual sons spend living with their fathers after
marriage to: (a) the amount, quality, and distance of the land they stand to
inherit, and (b) the relative amount, quality, and distance of land available
to all community members.
In China, Anderson (1970) has made one of the clearest cases for the
emergence of large, coherent lineages as being a direct function of exclu-
sive control over land resources. As corporate groups, these lineages
often occupied large, walled compounds and were autocratically ruled.
Anderson also clearly relates the disappearance of such lineages to the
loss of exclusive control over their land.
A definite trend toward the development of lineage-based corporate
groups has also been noted in Taiwan (Cohen 1967) and in the Philippines
(Yengoyan 1971) in areas where the growing of cash crops has been intro-
duced. In these cases the impetus for corporate group development has
come not from land scarcity per se, but rather from the need to maintain
cohesive land tracts sizable enough to make cash crop production profit-
able, as well as from the additional need to maintain a sufftcient labor
force to work the land.
Mesoamerican corporate barrios provide another example. It can be
 CORPORATE GROUP OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL UNIT 151

demonstrated that in most cases these strongly coherent barrios were

landholding groups, and generally consisted of distinct groups of lineages
(Carrasco [authors in] 1976:163,257). Michels (1979) has argued that the
early and highly structured appearance of similar neighborhood residen-
tial corporate groups in Kaminaljuyu was related to the control of highly
lucrative trade commodities found near the site, such as obsidian. Simi-
larly, in contemporary urban poor neighborhoods, there is often a strong
sense of community due to the scarcity of most resources and the need to
share them or obtain them from coresidents in the neighborhood (Lomnitz
1978:206).
Similar factors are usually seen as leading to entire “closed” (strongly
coherent) communities. Wolf (1957:6) argues that scarce resources lead to
“closed” corporate communities. Chang (1962) has used similar argu-
ments in accounting for the highly corporate nature of Siberian as op-
posed to Eskimo communities. The latter fall in Collier’s category of
communities with extremely scarce resources (Fig. 1 l), where corporate
groups are not viable.
In the archaeological literature, long distance trade has been proposed
as one of the results of the control of localized, scarce resources by only a
few people. Rathje (1972) has argued that such a situation was responsible
for the initial elaboration of corporate groups (either communities or sub-
sections thereof) in the Lowland Maya area. While this argument is not
flawless, it has provided the best single explanation for the rise in spe-
cialized craft activity in this area prior to the Conquest.
In sum, while it seems clear that residential corporate groups are
formed only under specific economic-environmental conditions,6 we still
are not in a position to pinpoint exact relationships, nor is it yet possible
to assign critical values to the independent variables concerned.
However, the emergence of archaeological corporate groups does ap-
pear strongly related to the restricted economic control over important
resources (land, trade, fishing sites, cattle, etc.). This factor may also
explain why residential corporate groups among upper class families per-
sist (as in China-Tsao 1957; and among the Maya-Wilk, n.d.:26) even
where corporate groups disappear almost entirely among lower classes.
In all cases, it would appear that the emergence of corporate groups
denotes a moderate to highly competitive environment for restricted es-
sential or highly desired resources. It is the relative scarcity of desired or
needed resources, and the improbability of single individuals being able to
obtain them for themselves which leads to cooperation among groups of
people and their tolerance of each others’ differences, and which gener-
ates mutual reciprocity and close personal relationships. The sizes of
traditional corporate groups and the strength of their development are
most likely to be related to the manpower requirements for optimally
 152 HAYDEN AND CANNON

retaining (defending) and most efficiently exploiting essential or highly

desired resources, and to the general availability of the resources.

PERTINENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL VARIABLES

The types of data of most relevance for characterizing and explaining

the rise and collapse of corporate groups archaeologically are:
(1) size of structures, and estimates of number of member households;
(2) environmental evidence concerning exploitation levels and general
availability of critical resources;
(3) evidence for trade;
(4) evidence for differential status within corporate structures-
inferences concerning this aspect must be made with the utmost care
since variability among component households will probably be great;
nevertheless, using multiple and independent lines of evidence, and where
differences are extreme enough, relatively accurate inferences regarding
hierarchy should be possible in some, if not most cases, provided that the
relevant data has been preserved and recorded (e.g., see Hayden 1977);
(5) proximity and geometrical patterning of individual households;
(6) reduplicated public/administrative structures in community
neighborhoods;
(7) stylistic homogeneity and heterogeneity of crafts within and be-
tween postulated corporate groups-being careful to control for the most
useful artifact types, manufactured within the corporate groups, and
learned prior to marriage;
(8) evidence of defense concerns and their intensity;
(9) the characterization of each corporate group by artifacts from its
associated middens, or constituent household refuse areas, in terms of
relative wealth, trade items, stylistic variability, craft manufacturing, etc.

SUMMARY

Overall, we have argued that the emergence of residential corporate

groups should be viewed as signaling major changes in the structuring of
society, and in the evolution of social and political complexity. Although
there appear to be several kinds of these corporate groups (single unified
large structures; lineage-sized clusters of structures; and closed neighbor-
hoods) these subtypes probably only occur under specific economic/
environmental conditions. Collier (1975) has proposed the basic formula-
tion (Fig. 11) that corporate groups are nonadaptive both under conditions
of extreme resource abundance and resource scarcity. This may explain
why residential corporate groups do not occur at all among hunter/
gatherers subsisting on scarce, limited, and fluctuating resources, It may
 CORPORATE GROUP OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL UNIT 153

also account for agricultural situations such as that of the Ifugao, where
cultivable land is in extremely short supply and the only corporate unit is
the nuclear family. Additional archaeological investigation of the condi-
tions of corporate group emergence and decline should significantly con-
tribute to the refinement and development of this type of theoretical
generalization. It is economic and environmental factors which can most
parsimoniously account for the formation of residentially corporate en-
tities and therefore it is these factors which should receive the attention of
archaeological investigation.
We have presented arguments and data showing that socioeconomic
inferences concerning corporate groups are much more likely to be accu-
rate than similar interpretations at the household level; and we argue that
the study of corporate groups is a natural and logical step in archaeologi-
cal analysis. Because of all these factors, and because of the extremely
close relation which we believe to exist between corporate group charac-
teristics and economic-material factors, the investigation of the precise
conditions under which corporate groups emerge should be of major
theoretical significance to the entire discipline. Theoretical modeling in
this area should be especially amenable to testing. In sum, corporate
groups as defined here provide an unusually fertile problem area which
archaeologists can hope to attack with at least a promising degree of
success.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Original data presented in this paper were obtained as part of the Coxoh Ethno-
archaeological Project. This project was carried out with the financial support of the Cana-
dian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Canada Council, and the
Brigham Young University, New World Archaeological Foundation. We would like to ex-
press special gratitude to all the cooperating offtcials of Mexico and Guatemala, including
Alfonso Villa Rojas and Felix Baez-Jorge (Jefes, INI); Jaime Litvak-King and Carlos
Navarrete (UNAM); Francisco Polo Sifuentes and Luis Lujan Munoz (Directors, IAH);
Jose Castaneda M. (Director IIN); the Gobemador of Huehuetenango; Manual Castellano,
Augustin Ramiro, Marta Turok (INI: San Cristabal); and the many administrative officials in
each of the villages where we stayed who facilitated our stay and work. These people
included: in Cancuc, Lorenzo, the Agent; in Chanal, Manual Ensin Gomez (Presidente
Municipal), and Timoteo Gomez (First Regidor); in Aguacatenango, Francisco Vasquez
Hemandez (Agente Municipal), and Jose Perez Hemandez (First Regidor); in San Mateo
Ixtatan, Lucax Malpal (Alcalde). The support and encouragement of all the above individu-
als is sincerely appreciated.
We owe our very deepest gratitude to those individuals who aided in interpreting, in
Chanal: Gilbert0 Gomez Hernandez (Chavin), Juan Gomez Lopez (Chavin); in
Aguacatenango: Jose Perez Hemandez (First Regidor), Augustin Hemandez Espinosa
(Comiseriado Ejidal), Carmen Hemandez Jiron (Policia), Juan Aguilar Hemandez, Aucensio
Juroz Aguilar (Second Juez), Francisco Vasquez Hemandez (Agente Municipal), Felii
Juarez Perez (Suplente), Civilio Hemandez Vasquez (First Juez); in Cancuc: Antonio Perez
Santis (Mekat), Esteban Santez Cruz (Pin), Lorenzo the Agente; in Bajucu: Antonio Mendez
154 HAYDEN AND CANNON

Santez (ex-presidente municipal); in Napite: Hermalindo Jimenez Jimenez; in San Mateo:

Xun Xantex. Father William Mullan, the Maryknoll priest in San Mateo was keenly in-
terested in the traditional culture of San Mateo and had gathered much ethnographic and
historical information. He not only was very generous in sharing his data and insights, but
went out of his way to help in interpreting and gathering additional data. We are most
grateful for all of his cooperation.
We would especially like to thank all those individuals who received us in their homes and
extended to us their hospitality and cooperation. Project members included: Mike Blake,
Susan Blake, Russell Brulotte, Margot Chapman, Mike Deal, Jane Deal, Gayel Horsfall,
Paula Luciw, Roxane Shaughnessey, Geof and Joanna Spurling, Cathy Starr, Olivier De
Montmollin, Ben and Peggy Nelson, Brian and Huguette Hayden. Aubrey Cannon dealt
with much of the data processing and statistical analyses with great lucidity and efficiency,
which was instrumental in the success of many analyses.
Thomas Lee Jr. and Gareth Lowe and John Clark of the New World Archaeological
Foundation were especially encouraging in the formulation and actualization of the project.
Nit David (U. of Calgary) and Michael Schiffer (U. of Arizona) provided helpful comments
on an earlier drat?, for which we are grateful.

NOTES
r Because all of these units (nuclear families, corporate groups, and communities) are
related to some degree in terms of their dynamics of formation, many of the factors which
are important in determining variations in size and internal coherency of families and com-
munities may also be important in determining variability in size and strength of ar-
chaeological corporate groups. To the degree that this is true, insights gained from studying
the dynamics of these other analytical units may provide important models for the dynamics
of archaeological corporate groups.
*Although it may be neither accurate nor useful to make interpretations concerning
socioeconomic aspects of individual households, the excavations of households can be
useful in other ways. For instance, households can be grouped into residential units, and
average values for these groups can be usefully compared, as Michels (1979) has done for
barrios at Kaminaljuyu. Values for specific household characteristics can also be grouped by
component, or by site, and compared to other components to determine temporal trends or
differences between sites. The number of extreme cases for various craft specializations
may also provide useful comparative measures. Finally, important inferences can be derived
simply from the proportion of structures in a community that are composed of nuclear family
dwellings, as opposed to corporate residences, or closely associated structures.
3 In our study area, there were unfortunately no large, residentially coherent corporate
groups, and it was therefore impossible to test our propositions in a direct fashion. However,
we reasoned that it would be possible to test the proposition that: significant differences
between groups of households defmed in economic terms would be accurately reflected in
the averaged values for material and social characteristics of the groups by grouping
households according to their economic standing and looking at the group averages of
specific material and social characteristics-irrespective of whether such groups actually
formed residentially coherent corporate groups or not. In the examples used in the text,
relative wealth ranks were based upon arbitrary divisions in a continuous economic scale
constructed from: the sum of the monetary value of livestock and land holdings and annual
income from wage labor, specialized craft sales, merchant activities, surplus produce sales,
hunted meat sales, and monetary contributions from individuals outside the household.
’ The assertion that contemporary corporate barrios as well as the calpulli at the time of
the Conquest represent the continuation of a socioeconomic unit which originated when
 CORPORATE GROUP OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL UNIT 155

Mesoamerican communities were organized at the chiefdom level is based on a number of

similarities. Firth (1957) observed that among conical clans in Polynesia, “land rights estab-
lished by descent-group membership tend to remain operational only through residence.”
By definition, members of such a clan are supposed to be able to trace their ancestry back to
some real or fictive ancestor. There is considerable exogamy, and membership is relatively
fluid due to the ability to establish kinship connexions either through the male line or the
female line. Michels (1979:261-263) has argued that these characteristics best fit the data at
Kaminaljuyu, with five major conical clans, or subchiefdoms being represented, each with
its own residential area (barrio), its own ritual and administrative buildings, and its own
administrators and specialists. Activities of all the conical clans were coordinated by a
paramount chief. These characteristics are remarkably similar to those of corporate barrios
even today. These barrios (which are often called “calpulli”) clearly function as the primary
land-holding and resource-controlling unit within the communities. Membership is some-
times relatively fluid, but can be very strictly based on kinship. Generally, members must
reside within the barrio. Different name-groups characterize each barrio, and marriage is
usually exogamous. They have their own administrations, and, where su&iently devel-
oped, they have specialized buildings for barrio needs (Tax et al. 1944:27; Carrasco 1976;
Carmack 1981: 165-166). In sum, the similarities are very striking, and it is difficult not to
see in these similarities some sort of generic relationship. But why, even at the chiefdom
stage, clans tended to divide into subunits, or why different clans chose to live in the same
community, thus forming several land-holding units within each community, is still prob-
lematical. One possible reason for the formation of such intracommunity groups is that by
deftition, (a) access to resources is restricted, and (b) there is a high degree of competition
to gain control over resources. Even if a single corporate group could gain control over all
the important resources of a single community, highly competitive conditions would insure
that rival factions would develop within the corporate group, and eventually split off. This
process would be prevented from continuing to the point where each nuclear family was an
independent competitor by the inability of isolated nuclear families to defend themselves or
their control over resources in the face of any concerted aggression from competing house-
holds. Thus, in this early stage of development of resource control, those families who wish
to control resources are very much dependent on the willingness of other families to support
them. On the other hand, for most member families, the only viable way of obtaining
consistent access to resources is via affiliation with the heads of a corporate group. There is,
then, a true symbiotic relationship.
5 We believe that, aside from unusual cases of independent invention, the only logical
factor that can account for stylistic similarities among traditional manufacturers of artifacts
in the vast majority of cases is interaction. If this assumption is not made, stylistic patterning
would not exist, and styles would vary at random and chaotically, without any coherency or
order. In fact, in most circumstances, styles are highly patterned. We believe that Plog’s
conclusions about the lack of correspondence between interaction and stylistic similarities
derive primarily from poor formulation of the problem and poor hypothesis testing. In none
of the studies that he cites, including his own, is there any attempt to identify different types
of interaction, or even different types of communities. From work done by Hayden, it is
clear that there are many types of interaction and that not all of these types are conducive to
the transfer or adoption of stylistic patterning. For instance, impersonal commercial in-
teractions, such as characterize interethnic contacts, are poor interaction contexts for the
transfer of stylistic patterns, just as warfare is. On the other hand, close cooperative or
teaching interactions are the best interaction contexts for the transmittal of stylistic patterns.
There may be other sources of stylistic variation, but interaction of the appropriate type is
the only factor which can account for stylistic trends over space and time documented so
often archaeologically. As a corollary of this discussion, it is clear that the relationship of
156 HAYDEN ANDCANNON

interacting units must be taken into consideration in any interactionistylistic analysis. The
interaction between a political administrative center and one of its rural communities simply
cannot be dealt with in the same fashion as the interaction between two rural communities.
Yet this is precisely what Plog (1976, 1980:74-76) has done in arguing that style is unrelated
to interaction in the Southwest.
5 Warfare is obviously another factor which can motivate people to group together
cooperatively. However, we view unusually intense warfare as being the product of highly
competitive conditions involving basic resources. That is, we view warfare as a product of
the same economic and environmental factors which are responsible for the formation of
corporate groups. As such, it does not merit a separate causal status but is part of the general
corporate group phenomenon.

REFERENCES CITED

Anderson, E. N., Jr.

1970 Lineage atrophy in Chinese society. American Anthropologist 72:363-367.
Befu, H., and L. Plotnicov
1962 Types of corporate unilineal descent groups. American Anthropologist
64:313-327.
Belshaw, Cyril
1967 Theoretical problems in economic anthropology. In Social organization: essays
presented to Raymond Firth, edited by Maurice Freedman, pp. 25-42. Chicago.
Blackman, Margaret
1977 Ethnohistoric changes in the Haida potlatch complex. Arctic Anthropology
14(1):39-53.
Blanton, Richard
1978 Monte Alban: settlement patterns at the ancient Zapotec capital. Academic
Press, New York.
Carmack, Robert
1981 The Quiche Mayas of Utatlan. Univ. of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Carrasco, Pedro, et al. (editors)
1976 Estratificacion social en la Mesoamerica prehispanica. Centro de Inves-
tigaciones Superiores, INAH, Mexico.
Chang, Kwang-chih
1962 Settlement and community patterns in some circumpolar societies. Arctic
Anthropology 1:28-41.
Cochrane, Glynn
1971 Use of the concept of the ‘corporation’: a choice between colloquialism or
distortion. American Anthropologist 73: 1144- 11.50.
Cohen, Myron
1967 Variations in complexity among Chinese family groups: the impact of modem-
ization. Transactions, New York Academy of Sciences 29:6384&C
Collier, George
1975 Fields of the Tzotzil. Univ. of Texas Press, Austin.
David, Nicholas
1971 The Fulani compound and the archaeologist. World Archaeology 3: 11l- 131.
Deetz, James
1965 The dynamics of stylistic change in Arikara ceramics. Illinois Studies in
Anthropology, No. 4. Univ. of Illinois Press, Urbana.
 CORPORATE GROUP OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL UNIT 157

1968 The inference of residence and descent rules from archaeological data. In New
perspectives in archaeology, edited by S. Binford and L. Binford, pp. 41-48.
Aldine, Chicago.
Engels, Frederick
1884 (reprinted 1954) Origin of the Family, private property, and the state. Foreign
Languages Publishing House, Moscow.
Firth, Raymond
1957 A note on descent groups in Polynesia. Man 57~4-7.
Fraser, D.
1968 Village planning in the primitive world. George Braziller, New York.
Freeman, Leslie
1968 A theoretical framework for interpreting archaeological materials. In Man the
hunter, edited by R. Lee and I. De Vore, pp. 262-267. Aldine, Chicago.
Goodenough, Ward
1951 Property, kin, and community on Truk. Yale University Publications in
Anthropology, No. 46.
Hayden, Brian
1977 Corporate groups and the Late Ontario Iroquoian longhouse. Ontario Archaeol-
ogy 28:3-16.
1978 Bigger is better?: factors determining Ontario Iroquois site sizes. Canadian
Journal of Archaeology 2: 107- 116.
In press Essential considerations in interaction interpretations. To appear in Introduc-
tion to the ethnoarchaeology ofthe Chiupas Maya, edited by Thomas Lee, Jr.,
and Brian Hayden. New World Archaeological Foundation Paper, New World
Archaeological Foundation, Provo, Utah.
Hayden, Brian and Aubrey Cannon
n.d. Patterns of craft learning and implications for archaeology. MS. on ftle, Simon
Fraser University, and New World Archaeological Foundation.
Honigmann, John
1959 The world ofman. Harper and Brothers, New York.
Levi-Strauss, Claude
1969 The elementary structures of kinship (second ed.). Beacon Press, Boston.
Lomnitz, Larissa
1978 Survival and reciprocity: the case of urban marginality in Mexico. In Extinction
and survival in human populations, edited by C. D. Laughlin, Jr. and I. Brady,
pp. 181-207. Columbia Univ. Press, New York.
Longacre, William
1968 Some aspects of prehistoric society in east-central Arizona. In New Perspec-
tives in Archaeology, edited by S. Binford and L. Binford, pp. 89-102. Aldine,
Chicago.
Maine, Sir Henry
1861 (reprinted, 1960) Ancient law (Everyman’s Library No. 734). E. P. Dutton, New
York.
Michels, Joseph
1979 The Kaminafiuyu Chiefdom. Pennsylvania State Univ. Press, University Park, Pa.
Milisauskas, Sarunas
1978 European prehistory. Academic Press, New York.
Morgan, Charles
1881 Houses and house life of the American Aborigines. U.S. Geological Survey,
Contributions to North American Ethnology IV. Washington, D.C.
158 HAYDEN ANDCANNON

Nadel, S. F.
1951 Foundations of social anthropology. Free Press, New York.
Plog, Stephen
1976 Measurement of prehistoric interaction between communities. In The early
Mesoamerican village, edited by Kent Flannery, pp. 255-272. Academic Press,
New York.
1980 Stylistic variation in prehistoric ceramics. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
Rathje, William.
1972 Praise the gods and pass the metates. In Contemporary Archaeology, edited by
Mark Leone, pp. 365-392. Southern Blinois Univ. Press, Carbondale.
Sendey, John
1977 The Noothan Indian. Albemi Valley Museum, Port Albemi, B.C.
SousteIIe, Jacques.
1961 Daily Life ofthe Aztecs. Penguin, London.
Tax, Sol, et al.
1944 Middle American cultural anthropology series III. No. 17-20. Microfilmed
typescript, Univ. of Chicago.
Tsao, Hsueh-Chin
1957 Dream ofthe red chamber (trans. Chi-chen Wang). Doubleday, New York.
Tuck, James
1971 Onondaga Iroquois prehistory. Syracuse Univ. Press, Syracuse.
Vogt, Evon
1%9 Zinacantun. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Weber, Max
1947 The theory of social and economic organization. Oxford University Press, New
York.
White, Leslie
1959 The evolution of culture. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Wilk, Richard
n.d. Labor management and household organization among the Kekchi Maya.
Manuscript available from the author, Dept. of Anthropology, Univ. of Arizona.
Wilson, Gilbert
1934 The Hidatsa earthlodge. American Museum of Natural History, Anthropolog-
ical Papers 33(5):339-420.
Wolf, Eric
1957 Closed corporate peasant communities in Mesoamerica and central Java.
Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 13:1-18.
Wright, J. V.
1972 Ontario prehistory. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa.
Yengoyaff, Aram
1971 The effects of cash cropping on Mandaya land tenure. In Land tenure in the
Pacific, edited by Ron Crocome, pp. 362-374. Oxford University Press,
London,