Identity Formation at The Keffer Iroquoi

Identity Formation at the Keffer Iroquoian Village: A
Relational Network Approach to Communities of Practice
by
Susan Dermarkar
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Graduate Department of Anthropology
University of Toronto
© Copyright by Susan Dermarkar 2019

Identity Formation at the Keffer Iroquoian Village: A Relational
Network Approach to Communities of Practice
Susan Dermarkar
Doctor of Philosophy
Graduate Department of Anthropology

University of Toronto
2019
Abstract
This thesis employs settlement pattern studies and social network analysis of ceramics to present
a history of the Keffer village and its multiple ceramic practice communities. Keffer is a
fifteenth-century Iroquoian site on the north shore of Lake Ontario. Temporally and spatially
patterned variability in the diverse local tradition and nonlocal ceramics materialized the fluid,
multivalent, and contingent identity of the Keffer potters at the household level. Nonlocal
ceramics, particularly locally produced “emergent” ceramics, expressed unique yet shared
identities with others within the village.
These same analyses produce a nuanced series of development plans that trace the initial
settlement, the growth, and the initial steps in the abandonment of the village. Distinct ceramic
practices indicate that, contrary to what has been argued in some of the literature, the longhouse
clusters that form the initial village occupation may not reflect kin-based social groups.
However, longhouses added independently after this first settlement may reflect the arrival of
small, related, kin-based groups. Village growth appears to have occurred at the level of the
individual household and was likely unplanned. Village abandonment occurred on the same
scale, at the individual household level.

ii
This study also shows that social network analysis of ceramic types is an appropriate mechanism
for the exploration of multiscalar group identity. Analysis at the pan-Iroquoian, regional, and
village levels demonstrates Keffer’s central position in the highly connected north shore
interaction network and its distant relations with St. Lawrence and Eastern Iroquoian groups.
Social relations and the identities they sustained, from the most intimate level of the household to
the pan-cultural interaction sphere, can be successfully revealed and explored through the
application of combined social network, community of practice, and agency approaches.
iii
Acknowledgments
This thesis has been a long-term project I could never have accomplished without the help of a
large number of people. First off, I would like to thank Suzanne Needs-Howarth, my copy editor
and formatter, for all the support and friendship she has provided. Without Suzanne’s incredible
skills I could not have completed this very complicated task. The person most instrumental in
getting this project off the ground is my supervisor at the University of Toronto at Mississauga,
Dr. David Smith. Dave welcomed me as a Ph.D. student 20 years after I finished my Master’s
degree. He has continued to be excited about this project and my research over the years. It was
Dave’s desire to see the Keffer site get the attention it deserved that led to this thesis.
I would like to thank the members of my committee, Dr. Edward Swenson and Dr. Edward
Banning, for providing guidance on theoretical and methodological aspects of my research. Dr.
Swenson helped me with my understanding of identity, and Dr. Banning introduced me to the
exciting field of social network analysis. Their input has had an immense effect on the direction
of the project.
My association with Dave Smith and University of Toronto at Mississauga was made possible by
Dr. Heather Miller, who welcomed me to audit her courses and introduced me to the department.
Before this, Dr. Paul Healy, Dr. Jeffrey Seibert, and Dr. James Conolly of Trent University
helped me update my archaeological theory and culture history knowledge by allowing me to
audit their graduate- and undergraduate-level classes at Trent University. James Connelly and
Dr. Andrew Bevan, of University College London, welcomed me to do observer bias research on
their Antikythera crew. Dr. Helen Haines, of Trent University, provided me with the opportunity
to renew my love of ceramics on the 2011 Ka’Kabish project.
Gaining access to, and temporary possession of, the Keffer material was made possible by the
Ontario Museum of Archaeology in London, the collection steward. I would like to thank Dr.
Robert Pearce for facilitating this loan and that of the Forget materials from the museum. When I
was looking for a suitable contemporary ceramic collection, I had the unfailing support of Dr.
Dean Knight of Wilfrid Laurier University. Dean provided me with use of his university lab
space for an entire year, as well as access to the Baumann ceramic collection. He also welcomed
iv
me on the final year of the Baumann site excavations and supplied any data I requested. Over the
past 35 years, Dean has given me friendship and advice that I will always be grateful for.
I would like to thank Dr. Ronald Williamson, who has been very supportive of my research on
the Don valley. Ron has always made time to meet with me and discuss ideas. He and the team at
Archaeological Services Inc. have provided me with any data and any archaeological reports,
published or unpublished, that I have requested. Robert von Bitter and the staff at the Ontario
Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport deserve thanks for providing me with access to site
reports and archived material.
My research has also led me farther afield to look at research collections. I would like to thank
James Hunter, then at the Midland Museum, for allowing me access to the collections; April
Hawkins of the Royal Ontario Museum, for being interested in my work and giving me support
with research into the Risebrough collection, held at the museum; the staff of the Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority, for providing access to the Seed-Barker reports; and Kathy
David and the Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto St. George campus, for
providing me with lab space to view the university’s ceramic collections from the Black Creek,
Parsons, and Risebrough sites. Stacey Girling and the staff of the Canadian Museum of History
were very helpful with my research into the Draper, Keffer, Jarrett-Lahmer, and Salem sites
ceramics housed in Gatineau. I would particularly like to thank Michel Savard at the Musée
huron-wendat in Wendake, Quebec, for access to the Keffer and Forget collections there and the
warm welcome that the museum afforded me.
Dr. Brandi-Lee MacDonald, now at the University of Missouri, did me a great favour and
analyzed the Keffer site copper artifacts at short notice. I would like to thank Dr. Jennifer Birch
of the University of Georgia, who produced the crucial longhouse post mould density report, for
all the support she has given me over the past decade. Dr. Harry Lerner of McGill University,
Dr. Bruce Jamieson, and Dr. Michael Spence of Western University have willingly provided me
with information on their research on the Keffer site lithics, bone artifacts, and human burials,
respectively. Dr. Peter Ramsden has provided ceramic data from the Trent Valley Project. I
appreciate his generosity and our discussions. Nicholas Adams provided me with his ceramic
data and photographs of the Arbor Ridge site, Dana Poulton, of D.R. Poulton and Associates,
was helpful with advice and access to reports, and Gordon Dibb, of North York Archaeological
v
Services, gave me access to the Snodden and Trent Foster collections and welcomed me in his
home.
Researchers in New York state have been very supportive of my efforts to become familiar with
ancestral Haudenosaunee ceramics and culture. I would like to express my appreciation to the
staff at the New York State museum in Albany for providing access to their precontact ceramic
collections, and I would like to thank Dr. John Hart of the museum for his academic support over
the past few years. Wayne Lenig has helped me on many occasions in my struggles to
understand the history of the Otstungo Notched ceramic type. I sincerely appreciate his
knowledge and advice. Dr. Timothy Abel, of Jefferson Community College, has welcomed me
into his home and freely shared his research on and passion for northern New York state
archaeology. Dr. William Engelbrecht, of the State University of New York College at Buffalo,
who originally introduced me to Haudenosaunee ceramics, has been a wonderful friend. Bill is
always ready to share his vast knowledge of ceramics and Iroquoian archaeology.
During my time in the research lab at University of Toronto at Mississauga, I was honoured to
have the volunteer help of many students. Rachel Gruber, while working on the Keffer pipe
coding, put in more time and effort than could ever have been expected. Erika Johannsson
provided the first preliminary study of the Keffer site ceramic castellations, and Andreas
Vastikas was a great help with the Forget collection and the photography of the Keffer ceramics.
I would like to thank Robert and Elizabeth Dermarkar for the weeks they spent photographing
the collection. Elizabeth also spent endless hours producing illustrations and maps.
To all these people, I extend my thanks. Many other scholars, too many to mention, have helped
me in innumerable ways. I thank them all. Financial support for many aspects of the Keffer site
analysis was provided by a University of Toronto Graduate Studies Research Grant, for which I
am greatly appreciative.
Last, but not least, I would like to thank all the family and friends who have supported me over
the years. My co-Scouters in Enniskillen and beyond helped carry my load by taking over many
of my scouting duties. My sisters pushed me to continue. My children, Liz, Jim, and Bob, and
my friend Quinn Zavagno helped me with computer programs I never learned in school. I want
to thank my friends Margot and Steve, who housed and fed me for a year; Ann, Liz, Mara, and
many others, who gave me tea; and numerous others, who understood and tried not to interrupt
vi
my work. I send my love and appreciation to my mother and mother-in-law, who have hardly
seen me in the past few years. Above all these wonderful people, I thank my husband for years of
understanding and support.
vii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xiv
List of Appendices ..................................................................................................................... xxiv
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................1
Situating the Keffer Village ........................................................................................................1
Chapter Summary........................................................................................................................4
2 Theoretical Underpinning: The Search for Identity ....................................................................7
Identity: From Ethnicity to Active Community ..........................................................................7
Introduction of the Human Factor through Agency Theory .....................................................11
Symbols and Boundaries ...........................................................................................................12
Messaging of Social Distance ...................................................................................................12
Identity and Communities of Practice .......................................................................................22
Interaction and Social Network Analysis ..................................................................................26
3 Background ...............................................................................................................................31
Iroquoian Development .............................................................................................................31
Late Woodland I: Princess Point, A.D. 500–1000 .............................................................34
Late Woodland II: Early Ontario Iroquoian, A.D. 1000–1300 ..........................................34
Late Woodland III: Middle Iroquoian, A.D. 1300–1420 ...................................................35
Late Woodland III: Pre-Contact Iroquoian, A.D. 1420–1550 ...........................................37
Keffer ........................................................................................................................................41
Keffer Site Environment ....................................................................................................41
Early Research at the Keffer Site .......................................................................................47
Keffer Site Excavation, 1984 and 1988 .............................................................................49
viii
4 Method: Ceramic Type and Attribute Analysis ........................................................................54
Ceramic Method and Theory ....................................................................................................54
History of Research on the Keffer Ceramics ............................................................................60
General Procedures Followed in the Current Analysis .............................................................61
Iroquoian Ceramic Typology at Keffer .....................................................................................63
Local Tradition Types and Attributes .......................................................................................65
“Huron” Types ...................................................................................................................67
Neutral Area Types ............................................................................................................74
High Collar Types ..............................................................................................................76
Erie–Niagara Frontier Undecorated Types ........................................................................80
Early Ontario Iroquoian Types ..........................................................................................81
Nonlocal Tradition Types and Attributes ..................................................................................84
Ceramics of the Central and Eastern Iroquois ...................................................................86
Ceramic Types of the St. Lawrence and Northern New York Iroquoians .........................95
Distinctive Ceramic Attributes and Emergent Vessels at Keffer.......................................99
Exotic Attributes Seen at Keffer ......................................................................................109
Nonlocal Learner Vessels and Practice Vessels at Keffer ...............................................112
Discussion ...............................................................................................................................114
5 Social Network Analysis: Keffer in the Iroquoian World ......................................................117
Social Network Analysis of Pan-Iroquoian Ceramic Practice ................................................117
Social Network Analysis of Local Tradition Ceramics from 140 Ontario Iroquoian Sites ....121
Ontario Iroquoian Ceramic Relations as Seen Through Network Analysis ...........................122
Multiscalar Relations of the Southern Ontario Iroquoian and Keffer Site Ceramics .............125
6 Settlement Pattern Analysis ....................................................................................................130
Spatial Arrangement of Major Settlement Features ................................................................130
Topography .............................................................................................................................133
ix
Overlapping and Sharing of Features ......................................................................................137
Definition of Site Clusters.......................................................................................................138
Definition of Site Settlement Phases .......................................................................................141
Site Settlement Phase 1a .........................................................................................................142
Phase 1a, Cluster A ..........................................................................................................144
Phase 1a, Cluster B ..........................................................................................................147
Phase 1a, Cluster C ..........................................................................................................150
Phase 1a, Cluster D ..........................................................................................................153
Site Settlement Phase 1b .........................................................................................................157
Phase 1b, Cluster A ..........................................................................................................157
Phase 1b, Cluster B ..........................................................................................................160
Phase 1b, Cluster C ..........................................................................................................160
Phase 1b, Cluster D ..........................................................................................................162
Site Settlement Phase 2a .........................................................................................................163
Phase 2a, Cluster A-B-D North .......................................................................................165
Phase 2a, Cluster C ..........................................................................................................167
Site Settlement Phase 2b .........................................................................................................169
Phase 2b-2, Cluster A-B-D North ....................................................................................171
Phase 2b-2, Cluster D South ............................................................................................171
Phase 2b-2, Cluster C .......................................................................................................172
Summary of Site Settlement Phases ........................................................................................173
Phase 1a ...........................................................................................................................174
Phase 1b ...........................................................................................................................175
Phase 2a ...........................................................................................................................175
Phase 2b ...........................................................................................................................176
Discussion ...............................................................................................................................176
x
7 Analysis of Keffer Site Local Tradition Ceramics ..................................................................177
Factors Involved in Keffer Site Network Analysis .................................................................177
Social Network Analysis of Local Tradition Ceramic Chronology ........................................181
Application of Local Tradition Ceramics Social Network Analysis Stages to Settlement

Phases ...............................................................................................................................182
Summary .................................................................................................................................184
Constructing a Community .....................................................................................................185
Village Settlement Overview ..................................................................................................194
Social Network Analysis of Local Tradition Communities of Practice ..................................195
Discussion ...............................................................................................................................198
8 Communities of Practice at Keffer ..........................................................................................199
The Emergence of Keffer’s Ceramic Practices .......................................................................199
Chronological Development of the Communities of Practice ................................................209
External Relations of Keffer’s Communities of Practice: A Social Network Analysis ..........219
Overview ..........................................................................................................................220
Communities and Practice ...............................................................................................229
External Ties by Time .............................................................................................................235
Social Network Analysis of Nonlocal Tradition Ceramics at Keffer .....................................238
Nonlocal Ceramic Practice at Keffer ......................................................................................249
Shared Local and Nonlocal Practice at Keffer ........................................................................260
Discussion ...............................................................................................................................265
9 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................268
References ....................................................................................................................................279
Appendices ...................................................................................................................................312
xi
List of Tables
Table 6-1. House and Extension Length(s) and Wall Post Density. ........................................... 130
Table 6-2. Houses and Middens Associated with Each Site Cluster and Elevation. .................. 141
Table 6-3. Possible Concurrent Houses of Phase 1a Clusters. ................................................... 144
Table 6-4. Possible Concurrent Houses of Phase 1b Clusters. ................................................... 159
Table 6-5. Possible Concurrent Houses of Phase 2a Clusters. ................................................... 165
Table 6-6. Possible Concurrent Houses of Phase 2b Clusters. ................................................... 170
Table 6-7. Houses, Middens, and Palisades Associated with Each Cluster of Each Occupation
Phase. .......................................................................................................................................... 174
Table 7-1. Houses and Middens Included at BR 170 in Each of the Seven Node Cluster Groups
for Each Sample Size. ................................................................................................................. 179
Table 7-2. Average Tie Densities Within and Between Individual Clusters, the Combined
Interior Samples, and the Combined Exterior Samples. ............................................................. 180
Table 7-3. Houses and Middens Included in Each Second-Level Temporal Stage Based on Social
Network Analysis and Settlement Studies. ................................................................................. 183
Table 7-4. Proportion of Local Tradition Ceramic Types by Second-Level Stage, Based on
Social Network Analysis and Settlement Studies. ...................................................................... 187
Table 7-5. Settlement Changes in Maps 1–8. ............................................................................. 190
Table 7-6. Houses and Middens Associated with Each Local Tradition Community of Practice.
..................................................................................................................................................... 197
Table 8-1. Local Tradition Ceramic Percentage Ranges by Community of Practice. ................ 206
Table 8-2. Community of Practice by Local Tradition Ceramic Percentage Ranges. ................ 207
xii
Table 8-3. Loci by Map and Local Community of Practice. ...................................................... 209
Table 8-4. Temporal Order of Communities of Practice. ........................................................... 229
Table 8-5. Keffer House and Midden Similarity Ties with Other Ontario Iroquoian Sites........ 236
Table 8-6. Network Ties of Nonlocal Practice. .......................................................................... 251
Table 8-7. Shared Local and Nonlocal Ceramic Practice. .......................................................... 260
Table 8-8. Summary of Ceramic Practices at Keffer. ................................................................. 262
xiii
List of Figures
Figure 3-1. The geographical extent of Northern Iroquoia. .......................................................... 31
Figure 3-2. The Woodland period in south-central Ontario. ........................................................ 33
Figure 3-3. Location of the Keffer site in the Don River watershed. (modified from Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority ca. 2008) .................................................................................... 43
Figure 3-4. The bi-level plateau of the Keffer site. (Ontario Museum of Archaeology) .............. 44
Figure 3-5. Glacial deposits in the vicinity of the Keffer site. (modified from Ontario Geological
Survey 1980) ................................................................................................................................. 45
Figure 3-6. Soils in the vicinity of the Keffer site. (modified from Agriculture Canada 1955) ... 46
Figure 3-7. Map of the Keffer village site. (Clark 1925) .............................................................. 48
Figure 3-8. Aerial view of Lot 13, 1985 excavations, and wooded Lot 12 bottom right. ............ 50
Figure 4-1. Keffer site location within pan-Iroquoia A.D. 1350 to 1650. (David Smith) ............ 59
Figure 4-2. Keffer ceramic object chemistry principal components analysis of major elements.
(courtesy John Creese) .................................................................................................................. 64
Figure 4-3. Huron Incised vessel, Midden 60, Keffer. ................................................................. 67
Figure 4-4. Sidey Notched vessel, Midden 65, Keffer. ................................................................ 69
Figure 4-5. Copeland Incised motif on Black Necked vessel, Midden 60, Keffer. ...................... 69
Figure 4-6. Sidey Crossed vessel, Midden 65, Keffer. ................................................................. 69
Figure 4-7. Warminster Crossed vessel, Midden 60, Keffer. ....................................................... 70
Figure 4-8. Seed Incised vessel, Midden 77, Keffer. .................................................................... 71
Figure 4-9. Warminster Horizontal vessel, surface find, Keffer. .................................................. 71
xiv
Figure 4-10. Black Necked vessel, Midden 65, Keffer................................................................. 73
Figure 4-11. Black Necked vessel with horizontal motif, Midden 65, Keffer.............................. 73
Figure 4-12. Lawson Incised vessel, Midden 57, Keffer. ............................................................. 75
Figure 4-13. Lawson Incised vessel, Midden 57, Keffer. ............................................................. 75
Figure 4-14. Lawson Opposed vessel, Midden 74, Keffer. .......................................................... 76
Figure 4-15. Sopher High Collar vessel, House 19, Keffer. ......................................................... 77
Figure 4-16. Lalonde High Collar vessel, Midden 57, Keffer. ..................................................... 78
Figure 4-17. Lalonde High Collar learner vessel, Midden 65, Keffer. ......................................... 78
Figure 4-18. Lalonde High Collar type variant vessel, Midden 57, Keffer. ................................. 79
Figure 4-19. Lalonde High Collar type variant vessel, Midden 57, Keffer. ................................. 79
Figure 4-20. Niagara Collared vessel, House 12, Keffer. ............................................................. 80
Figure 4-21. Ripley Collared vessel, Midden 65, Keffer. ............................................................. 81
Figure 4-22. Ripley Plain vessel, surface find, Keffer. ................................................................. 81
Figure 4-23. Middleport Oblique vessel, House 6, Keffer. .......................................................... 82
Figure 4-24. Pound Necked vessel, Midden 65, Keffer. ............................................................... 82
Figure 4-25. Pound Blank variant vessel, House 1, Keffer. ......................................................... 83
Figure 4-26. Ontario Horizontal vessel, House 1, Keffer. ............................................................ 83
Figure 4-27. Ontario Oblique vessel, Midden 52, Keffer. ............................................................ 83
Figure 4-28. Cayadutta Incised vessel, Midden 70, Keffer. ......................................................... 87
Figure 4-29. Chance Incised vessel, Midden 57, Keffer............................................................... 88
xv
Figure 4-30. Fonda Incised vessel, Midden 65, Keffer................................................................. 88
Figure 4-31. Otstungo Incised vessel, House 12, Keffer. ............................................................. 89
Figure 4-32. Onondaga Triangular vessel, Midden 85, Keffer. .................................................... 89
Figure 4-33. Cayuga Horizontal vessel, Midden 61, Keffer. ........................................................ 90
Figure 4-34. Thurston Horizontal vessel, Midden 65, Keffer....................................................... 90
Figure 4-35. Cayuga Horizontal vessel, House 4, Keffer. ............................................................ 91
Figure 4-36. Richmond Incised vessel, House 11, Keffer. ........................................................... 91
Figure 4-37. Syracuse Incised vessel, Midden 57, Keffer. ........................................................... 92
Figure 4-38. Wagoner Incised vessel, Midden 61, Keffer. ........................................................... 92
Figure 4-39. Otstungo Notched vessel, Midden 65, Keffer. ......................................................... 93
Figure 4-40. Rice Diagonal vessel, Midden 62, Keffer. ............................................................... 93
Figure 4-41. Dutch Hollow Notched vessel, Midden 56, Keffer. ................................................. 94
Figure 4-42. Seneca Notched vessel, Midden 65, Keffer. ............................................................ 94
Figure 4-43. SDEA motif (Smith 1997) outline on Durfee Underlined vessel, Draper. (Canadian
Museum of History) ...................................................................................................................... 96
Figure 4-44. Roebuck Low Collar vessel, Midden 60, Keffer...................................................... 97
Figure 4-45. Stamped Low Collar vessel, Midden 65, Keffer. ..................................................... 97
Figure 4-46. Roebuck Low Collar vessel with SDEA motif, Midden 73, Keffer. ....................... 98
Figure 4-47. Durfee Underlined vessel with SDEA motif, Midden 60, Keffer. ........................... 99
Figure 4-48. Otstungo Notched vessel, Salem Cat. #697. (Canadian Museum of History) ....... 100
Figure 4-49. Otstungo Notched vessel, Maynard-McKeown. (Canadian Museum of History) . 101
xvi
Figure 4-50. Otstungo Notched vessel, unknown provenience, New York state. (courtesy Wayne
Lenig) .......................................................................................................................................... 102
Figure 4-51. Otstungo Notched vessel, Draper Cat. # 41454. (Canadian Museum of History) . 103
Figure 4-52. Otstungo Notched vessel, Parsons Cat. # 3357. (University of Toronto) .............. 103
Figure 4-53. Otstungo Notched vessel, Damiani. (courtesy Ron Williamson) .......................... 104
Figure 4-54. Otstungo Notched vessel, Mantle. (ASI 2006:Plate 37, Cat. #10432) ................... 104
Figure 4-55. Rice Diagonal vessel, Salem Cat. #699. (Canadian Museum of History) ............. 105
Figure 4-56. Rice Diagonal vessel, Cleary Cat. #011. (courtesy David Smith) ......................... 105
Figure 4-57. Rice Diagonal vessel, Lite. (Canadian Museum of History) ................................. 106
Figure 4-58. Rice Diagonal vessel, Draper Cat. #39180. (Canadian Museum of History) ........ 106
Figure 4-59. Durfee Underlined vessel with SDEA motif, Draper Cat. #114617. (Canadian
Museum of History) .................................................................................................................... 107
Figure 4-60. Durfee Underlined vessel with SDEA motif, Jarrett-Lahmer Cat. #22897. (Canadian
Museum of History) .................................................................................................................... 108
Figure 4-61. Roebuck Low Collar vessel with SDEA motif, Black Creek. (University of Toronto)
..................................................................................................................................................... 108
Figure 4-62. Durfee Underlined vessel with SDEA motif, Parsons Cat. #460 (University of
Toronto) ...................................................................................................................................... 109
Figure 4-63. Northern New York Iroquoian vessel, St. Lawrence Site (Abel 2000:Plate 2). .... 109
Figure 4-64. “Exotic” Durfee Underlined vessel, Midden 60, Keffer. ....................................... 110
Figure 4-65. Vessels with poorly executed thumbnail gouges, Midden 65, Keffer. .................. 111
Figure 4-66. Localized Onondaga Triangular vessel, Midden 77, Keffer. ................................. 111
xvii
Figure 4-67. Otstungo Notched/Rice Diagonal Everted Rim collarless learner vessel, Midden 60,
Keffer. ......................................................................................................................................... 113
Figure 4-68. Durfee Underlined learner vessel, Midden 61, Keffer. .......................................... 113
Figure 4-69. Wagoner Incised learner vessel, Midden 74, Keffer. (courtesy Steven Dorland) .. 114
Figure 5-1. Pan-Iroquoian network BR 100 spring layout. ........................................................ 118
Figure 5-3. Pan-Iroquoian network t2–t3 BR 93 spring layout. ................................................. 120
Figure 5-4. Local tradition ceramics of Ontario Iroquoian sites BR 99 spring layout. .............. 123
Figure 5-5. Local tradition ceramics of Ontario Iroquoian sites BR 140 main component MDS
layout........................................................................................................................................... 124
Figure 6-1. Map showing all post moulds. ................................................................................. 132
Figure 6-2. Map showing all post moulds and the 1 m contour intervals. .................................. 135
Figure 6-3. Digitized sketch plan showing houses, middens, and palisades and the 1 m contour
intervals. ...................................................................................................................................... 136
Figure 6-4. View of the high town and low town longhouses at Keffer’s north end during
excavation. .................................................................................................................................. 137
Figure 6-5. Plan showing the houses (solid fill), middens (dotted fill), and palisades (dotted lines)
associated with each of the four site clusters, and the 1 m contour interval. .............................. 139
Figure 6-6. Plan showing Phase 1a. ............................................................................................ 143
Figure 6-7. Plan (left) and map (right) showing Phase 1a, Cluster A. ........................................ 145
Figure 6-8. Map detail showing House 2 sweatbath postmoulds over House 3 north wall. ....... 145
Figure 6-9. View of House 6 wall post mounds under Feature 2 of House 7. ............................ 146
xviii
Figure 6-10. Plan (left) and map (right) showing Phase 1a, Cluster B. ...................................... 148
Figure 6-11. Plan (left) and map (right) showing Phase 1a, Cluster C. ...................................... 150
Figure 6-12. Map detail showing House 13b wall posts crossing Palisade 1. ............................ 152
Figure 6-13. Plan (left) and map (right) showing Phase 1a, Cluster D. ...................................... 154
Figure 6-14. Map detail showing south end of House 11. .......................................................... 155
Figure 6-15. Plan showing Phase 1b. .......................................................................................... 158
Figure 6-16. Plan (left) and map (right) showing Phase 1b, Cluster A. ..................................... 159
Figure 6-17. Plan (left) and map (right) showing Phase 1b, Cluster B. ...................................... 160
Figure 6-18. Plan (left) and map (right) showing Phase 1b, Cluster C. ...................................... 161
Figure 6-19. Plan (left) and map (right) showing Phase 1b, Cluster D. ..................................... 163
Figure 6-20. Plan showing Phase 2a. .......................................................................................... 164
Figure 6-21. Plan (left) and map (right) showing Phase 2a, Cluster A-B-D north. .................... 165
Figure 6-22. Plan (left) and map (right) showing Phase 2a, Cluster D south. ............................ 166
Figure 6-23. Plan (left) and map (right) showing Phase 2a, Cluster C. ...................................... 168
Figure 6-24. Map detail showing House 16b extension. ............................................................ 169
Figure 6-25. Plan showing Phase 2b-1. ...................................................................................... 169
Figure 6-26. Plan showing Phase 2b-2. ...................................................................................... 169
Figure 6-27. Plan (left) and map (right) showing Phase 2b-1, Cluster D south. ........................ 170
Figure 6-28. Plan (left) and map (right) showing Phase 2b-2, Cluster A-B-D north. ................ 171
Figure 6-29. Plan (left) and map (right) showing Phase 2b-2, Cluster D south. ........................ 172
xix
Figure 6-30. Plan (left) and map (right) showing Phase 2b-2, Cluster C. .................................. 173
Figure 6-31. Plans of (left to right) site settlement Phases 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b-1, and 2b-2. .............. 173
Figure 7-1. Local tradition ceramics Over 1 Vessel BR 170 MDS layout with BR 190 Blue
Backbone structure...................................................................................................................... 181
Figure 7-2. Original Stages 1–5 as established through social network analysis. ...................... 182
Figure 7-3. Plan showing possible features of Phases 1a to 2b-2. .............................................. 182
Figure 7-4. Second-level temporal Stages 1–5 as established through social network analysis and
settlement studies. ....................................................................................................................... 183
Figure 7-5. Undecorated neck Huron, decorated neck Huron, and Neutral ceramics percentages
sorted by decorated neck percentages, highest to lowest. ........................................................... 189
Figure 7-6. Keffer development sequence Maps 1–8. ................................................................ 190
Figure 7-7. Local tradition ceramics Over 1 Vessel BR 185 Gower layout. Temporal patterning,
from earlier to later, is represented by the physical placement in the figure, left to right. ......... 196
Figure 7-8. Local tradition ceramics Over 1 Vessel BR 171 Gower layout ............................... 197
Figure 8-1. Local tradition ceramics Over 29 Vessels BR 190 Gower layout. .......................... 200
Figure 8-2. Local tradition ceramics Over 1 Vessel BR 185 Gower layout. Temporal patterning,
from earlier to later, is represented by the physical placement in the figure, left to right. Colours
indicate community of practice group. ....................................................................................... 202
Figure 8-3. Local tradition ceramics Over 1 Vessel BR 171 Gower layout. .............................. 203
Figure 8-4. Local tradition communities of practice. ................................................................. 208
Figure 8-5. Keffer development sequence Maps 1–8. ................................................................ 209
Figure 8-6. Map 1, with community of practice 5. ..................................................................... 210
Figure 8-7. Map 2, with communities of practice 2, 3, 4, and 5. ................................................ 211

xx
Figure 8-8. Map 3, with communities of practice 1–5. ............................................................... 213
Figure 8-9. Map 4, with communities of practice 1–5. ............................................................... 214
Figure 8-10. Map 5, with communities of practice 1–5. ............................................................. 215
Figure 8-15. 140 Ontario Iroquoian sites, including Coulter and Kirche, and Keffer loci local
tradition ceramics BR 120 spring loaded. ................................................................................... 220
Figure 8-16. Locations of selected ancestral Wendat sites along the north shore of Lake Ontario.
(Williamson 2014:Figure 2) ........................................................................................................ 221
Figure 8-17. Selected Ontario Iroquoian sites, including Coulter and Kirche, and Keffer loci local
tradition ceramics BR 150 spring loaded. ................................................................................... 222
Figure 8-18. Selected Ontario Iroquoian sites, not including Coulter and Kirche, and Keffer loci
local tradition ceramics BR 170 spring loaded. .......................................................................... 223
Figure 8-19. Local tradition ceramics ego Logan BR 170.......................................................... 224
Figure 8-20. Local tradition ceramics ego Damiani BR 170. ..................................................... 224
Figure 8-21. Connected Ontario sites, including Coulter and Kirche, BR 170 Gower layout main
component. .................................................................................................................................. 225
Figure 8-22. Selected Ontario Iroquoian sites, not including Coulter and Kirche, with Keffer loci
local tradition ceramics BR 160 spring loaded. .......................................................................... 226
Figure 8-23. Local tradition ceramics ego Damiani BR 160. ..................................................... 227
Figure 8-24. Local tradition ceramics ego Logan BR 160.......................................................... 227

xxi
Figure 8-25. Connected Ontario Iroquoian sites and Keffer loci local tradition ceramics BR 150
spring loaded. .............................................................................................................................. 228
Figure 8-26. Local tradition ceramic communities of practice plan Maps 1–8. ......................... 235
Figure 8-27. Local tradition ceramic practice by settlement plan Maps 1–8.............................. 238
Figure 8-28. Nonlocal ceramics by sample size BR 100 spring layout. ..................................... 239
Figure 8-29. Nonlocal ceramics by sample size BR 130 spring layout. ..................................... 240
Figure 8-30. Keffer village local tradition practice. ................................................................... 241
Figure 8-31. Nonlocal ceramics by local tradition communities of practice BR 150 Gower layout.
..................................................................................................................................................... 242
Figure 8-32. Nonlocal ceramics by local tradition communities of practice BR 140 spring layout.
..................................................................................................................................................... 243
..................................................................................................................................................... 244
..................................................................................................................................................... 245
..................................................................................................................................................... 246
..................................................................................................................................................... 247
..................................................................................................................................................... 247
Figure 8-38. Nonlocal ceramic group practices. ......................................................................... 250
Figure 8-39. Otstungo Notched emergent ceramic from Keffer. ................................................ 256
xxii
Figure 8-40. Reconstructed Durfee Underlined emergent ceramic from Parsons. (Williamson and
Powis 1998:Figure 20) ................................................................................................................ 257
Figure 8-41. Shared local and nonlocal ceramic practice at Keffer. ........................................... 261
xxiii
List of Appendices
Appendix A: BCal Radiocarbon Dates for the Keffer Site ....................................................... 312
Appendix B: X-ray Fluorescence Analysis of Copper Artifacts from the Keffer Site .............. 314
Appendix C: Previous Research on the Keffer Site .................................................................. 316
Appendix D: All Ceramic Types Represented in the Keffer Site Assemblage ....................... 318
Appendix E: Appendix to Chapter 4: Methodology Brainerd-Robinson Adjacency Matrix ... 340
Appendix F: Appendix to Chapter 4: Pan-Iroquoian Sites Employed in the Social Network

Analysis..................................................................................................................................... 355
Appendix G: Appendix to Chapter 5: Social Network Analysis of 140 Ontario Iroquoian Local
Tradition Ceramic Collections .................................................................................................. 370
Appendix H: Appendix to Chapter 7: Factors Affecting Social Network Analysis Results for
Keffer Site Local Tradition Ceramics ....................................................................................... 381
Appendix I: Appendix to Chapter 7: Chronological Patterning in Keffer Local Tradition Ceramic

Social Network Analysis and Its Effect on Interpretations of Village Settlement Patterns...... 393
Appendix J: Appendix to Chapter 7: Social Network Analysis of Keffer Site Social Relations and
Communities of Practice ........................................................................................................... 431
xxiv
1 Introduction
Situating the Keffer Village
In this thesis, I employ a multiscalar social network analysis approach to explore the social
relationships of the inhabitants of the fifteenth-century Ontario Iroquoian Keffer village. I further
employ a communities of practice approach to illuminate the ongoing emergence of group
identity among village households. The formation of identity is mediated in part by quotidian
engagements with material culture that anchor identity in the habitual practices and dispositions
of social agents (habitus in the spirit of Bourdieu 1977). I show that some Keffer households
were members of separate, but concurrent, traditional and non-traditional communities of
ceramic practice. Each household assemblage (after DeLanda 2006; Swenson 2018) shared
ceramic ties at multiple scales of increasing social distance, or territoriality (Swenson 2018),
with other Keffer households and local, regional, and, in some cases, pan-Iroquoian
communities. The shared, matrilineally based, kin-oriented identities portrayed by these ties do
not reflect ethnicity but are a product of close social relations constructed and maintained
through quotidian domestic interaction.
The Iroquoian inhabitants of the Keffer village and those of the surrounding area are commonly
referred to as ancestral Wendat (Birch and Williamson 2013), one of several geographically
circumscribed Northern Iroquoian groups living in close proximity to the lower Great Lakes of
eastern North America. To the west of Lake Ontario are the peoples referred to as the ancestral
Neutral or Attiwandaron. Differentiation of these two groups is primarily based on their historic
relations, and here they are united as southern Ontario Iroquoians. Other Northern Iroquoians
include the ancestral Haudenosaunee (Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, and Mohawk) south
of Lake Ontario; the Northern New York Iroquoians of Jefferson County, at the eastern end of
Lake Ontario; and the diverse St. Lawrence Iroquoian communities spread eastward along the
shores of the St. Lawrence River. Located amidst a geographically vast territory of Algonquian-
speaking peoples, these groups are united in belonging to the Northern Iroquoian language
family, distantly related to that of the more southerly Cherokee.
1
2
Northern Iroquoian groups shared several similar, but not identical, cultural practices that
distinguished them from their less sedentary Algonquian neighbours. By the turn of the twelfth
century, maize-based horticulture dominated the subsistence pattern. This transformation was
accompanied by dramatic shifts in residential patterns. Iroquoian groups settled into semi-
permanent communities of two to six residential, bark-covered longhouses by the turn of the
fourteenth century (Birch and Williamson 2018). Residences were inhabited by extended
matrilocal families, and matrilineal clan ties linked residents to families and longhouses within
the village and to other communities, both local and farther afield. Exhausted agricultural fields
and deteriorating domestic structures prompted village relocation, usually within the local
drainage system, at intervals of 10 to 50 years (Warrick 1988). For reasons unknown to us,
former village locations were rarely re-occupied. Therefore, most archaeological Iroquoian
village sites represent the occupation of a single generation, in the timeline of one community.
Much of the late-fourteenth- to late-sixteenth-century north shore Iroquoian occupation occurred
on the southern slopes of the Oak Ridges Moraine, to the north of the western and central
portions of the northern Lake Ontario shoreline, in today’s densely occupied Greater Toronto
Area. This area surrounding the City of Toronto has seen rapid residential expansion in the past
half century. With the introduction of mandatory archaeological assessment in the later part of
the twentieth century, a large number of Iroquoian village and special-purpose sites have recently
been subject to intensive investigation and excavation. Southern Ontario is distinguished by an
archaeological record of temporally and spatially distinct small-scale communities almost
unparalleled.
As a small-scale society, Northern Iroquoians are often characterized as tribal or Neolithic

(Creese 2010; Kvetina and Hrncir 2013). While seemingly innocuous, the term tribal is laden
with problematic assumptions (sensu Sahlins and Service 1960; Service 1962). Tribe is the
second of a four-tier neoevolutionary classification scheme presented by Marshall Sahlins and
Elman Service (1960). Band, tribe, chiefdom, and state represent the four stages of socio-
political development. The first of these, bands, are small, nomadic, egalitarian groups. The
second stage, tribes, are characterized by horticultural or pastoralist economies. Social relations
are based on kinship and on reciprocal exchange within larger social groups numbering from a
hundred to a few thousand. Leadership at this level remains egalitarian. In chiefdoms,
hierarchical leadership of groups commonly numbering in the tens of thousands is supported by
3
the introduction of intensive agriculture. The final evolutionary stage is the state, with
centralized authority and social stratification and specialized craft production supported by
intensive agriculture.
The term tribe has been used in North American archaeology to describe the general
characteristics of small-scale agricultural groups without the intention of implying neo-
evolutionary connotations, while the term Neolithic is more common in archaeology across the
globe (Creese 2010:1) but is now gaining more acceptance in Iroquoian archaeology (Birch
2018). Swidden agricultural societies, characteristic of both the Neolithic and tribal categories,
appear in the ethnographic record worldwide and in the archaeological record at least as far back
as 10,000 years B.P. Ethnographic studies of such groups normally deal with the micro-scale
dynamics of social relationships and their articulation with the larger community and society
within a relatively short temporal scale, that of months, years, or, in some cases, decades, at the
level of “evenéments” as defined in the Annales school (Braudel 1980). The incorporation of the
ethnography of small-scale societies provides an unparalleled resource for interpretation of the
archaeological record. Within this record, the processes of these relations can be discerned at the
medium, and sometimes longue, durée scale (Harris and Cipolla 2017). The resolution of the
southern Ontario Iroquoian archaeological record provides the opportunities for the intensive
study of the social dynamics and processes at the micro-, macro-, and multiscalar levels of “non-
state” society.
This thesis aims to contribute to the investigation of the complexity of the social relations of
heterarchical societies as seen in the Iroquoian occupation of southern Ontario by means of the
application of relevant theoretical perspectives including social network analysis; modern
perspectives; the integration of historical contingency, practice theory, and social agency; and a
rich and detailed database. I pursue this goal through the multiscalar examination of Iroquoian
ceramic assemblages from the household to the pan-Iroquoian level. Keffer ceramic
assemblages, analysed employing the commonly used typological taxa developed by Richard
MacNeish (1952), are adopted as proxies representing communities of practice of ceramic
production and/or consumption at the household level. The Keffer assemblage includes a
significant number of “exotic” or “foreign” pottery vessels relative to most Ontario Iroquoian
collections. These vessels, labelled “nonlocal tradition” ceramics here, are considered to embody
distinct communities of practice not seen in the south-central Ontario Iroquoian tradition. This
4
label is not meant to indicate nonlocal production. In contrast, ceramic types described by
MacNeish as characteristic of ancestral Neutral and Wendat production share a common ceramic
heritage and constitute a large majority of the ceramics of Ontario Iroquoian sites. These ceramic
assemblages represent the “local tradition” practice community. Multiscalar examination of the
relationships between these two domains of ceramic practice, at both the intra- and inter-village
levels, aims to decipher the origins and possible destinations of the peoples of Keffer.
Chapter Summary
In chapter 2, I present an in-depth discussion of the various theoretical and methodological
approaches employed in this research. I explore the intersecting concepts of ethnicity and
identity and their relations with communities of practice. In the case of egalitarian pre-contact
Iroquoian society, a relational construction of identity proves more accurate than bounded
categorical identities. The place of communication in these complex forms of identity is also
explored. I examine nuanced elements of individual and group identity through the clinal plane
of social distance. I explore in turn the role of interaction theory and the social network approach
in the analysis of social distance, group identity, and the resulting communities of practice.
Chapter 3 situates the Keffer site within the social and historical context of Iroquoian society in
Ontario and New York state. The Keffer site itself is then discussed in the context of the recent
history of the extensive excavations, research projects, and publications pertaining to the site-
related research which has occurred during the past 35 years.
I explain the methodology used in this thesis to categorize and analyze both the Keffer site
ceramics and pan-Iroquoian ceramics in Chapter 4. Here, the types included in the study and the
guidelines established to assign ceramic types are clearly put forth and explained. These ceramic
types, based on the MacNeish typology, are then assigned to one of two macro-scale
conventions. These include the local tradition ceramics, as described above, and nonlocal
ceramics. This group is comprised of pottery whose style originates to the south and east, among
the New York state or the St. Lawrence Iroquoians. This distinction is made on the basis of
perceived origin and main geographical location of the type’s dominance. Following this, I
describe similarity matrices created using the Brainerd-Robertson coefficient from both the local
and nonlocal ceramic databases and I explain their incorporation into network analysis.
5
In Chapter 5, I present social relations of Northern Iroquoians as mediated by ceramic practice. I

introduce a depiction of the relations of 252 ceramic assemblages at the pan-Iroquoian level as
seen through social network analysis. This is followed by network analysis of the local tradition
ceramics of 142 Iroquoian sites from across southern Ontario. Together they form the diachronic
and synchronic contextual backdrop for the positioning of the Keffer village ceramics.
Chapter 6 then presents an in-depth analysis of the settlement patterns of the village, resulting the
construction of four major phases of development of the village. Each of these phases likely
comprise contemporaneous settlement features, houses, middens, and palisades. In chapter 7, I
present the results of the network analysis performed on local tradition ceramics from each of the
village houses and middens. I interpret network graphs, of increasing levels of similarity and
sample size, into two separate domains, temporal and social. A rough timeline of the Keffer
village occupation, displayed as a series of stages, is produced through the interpretation of the
locations of the village houses and middens along one axis of the graph topology, the
arrangement of ties and nodes in a network graph. In the second domain of interpretation, the
presence of ties among these features is interpreted, displaying social ties among longhouses.
The strongest of these node connections form the core of several partially distinct spheres of
ceramic practice across the site. In the second section of Chapter 7, the communities of practice
are applied to the settlement phases developed in Chapter 6. The incorporation of both ceramic
and settlement analysis provides a more refined and detailed depiction of village development
and results in the division of the four proposed occupation phases into a series of eight
sequences. In Chapter 8, I discuss the separate intra-village local ceramic spheres of practice,
inferred from network analysis, and I investigate the relationships which exist among them.
Further network analysis of the Keffer local tradition ceramics, in comparison with other
southern Ontario sites, reveals close similarities of these Keffer household communities with
those of surrounding settlements. These results are then interpreted to propose possible
population origins for the households of the growing Keffer village. Network analysis of
nonlocal tradition ceramic similarities identifies three additional interrelated spheres of ceramic
practice. The first of these depicts Haudenosaunee influence through north interaction networks.
The second reflects possible direct ties with Iroquoians of the St. Lawrence valley. The third
sphere is composed of two distinct, new and “emergent” (Lee 2006), vessel types, local products
reflecting emergent identities resulting from diverse influences. Overlap in these practice
6
domains is examined in the context of household origin, identity, and internal and external social
relations.
Chapter 9 brings together the results of the settlement pattern and ceramic analysis. A summary
of the growth of the village traces the proposed origins of each new household and the
developing social relationships of ceramic practices within the village over its lifetime. The
decline of the village population is then described, and I offer some hypotheses on the dispersal
and social reconstitution of the final Keffer village inhabitants. In the last section of this chapter,
I evaluate the appropriateness of the methodological and theoretical approaches employed to
unravel the synchronic and diachronic relations of the Keffer village and propose future lines of
research.
Over the course of these nine chapters, I employ settlement pattern studies, in addition to
network and typological analysis of the Keffer village ceramics, to produce a nuanced portrayal
of intra-village social relations within the context of the village, regional, and pan-Iroquoian
developmental history.
2 Theoretical Underpinning: The Search for Identity
Identity: From Ethnicity to Active Community
The terms “ethnicity” and “ethnic group” are the subject of much controversy in the social
sciences. In archaeology, they have often been used as synonyms for “group identity” and “social
group.” In many cases, the authors cited in this chapter refer to these terms interchangeably,
either without reference to a concrete definition or, in some cases, using a definition that does not
accord with contemporary social theory dealing with ethnicity and identity.
Archaeological material culture items displaying common attributes have traditionally been
labelled as individual “types,” while prevalent combinations of various distinctive spatially
associated artifacts found throughout a geographical region area were seen as “diagnostic” of
“cultures” (Childe 1929). Geographically bounded assemblages of material remains were
assumed to derive from a common culture and common language and, ergo, to hold a common
identity (Peeples 2011). Specific diagnostic material culture combinations were then assigned
ethnic identity labels; the “people”—and their associated group identity—were merely a by-
product of the artifacts. These “holistic” units were viewed as disconnected, discrete, and
localized in nature, existing and persisting with little to no external contact (Cunningham 2001).
This culture-historical approach in early twentieth-century Western archaeology

compartmentalized material culture territories into discrete packages of peoples, slotting them
into standardized, geographically and chronologically demarcated containers of culture
conforming to taxonomic system patterns of Phase, Horizon, and Tradition, as exemplified in
McKern’s Midwestern Taxonomic System (Childe 1929; Kossina 1911; McKern 1939; Ritchie
1951, Willey and Phillips 1958). Sassaman and Rudolphi argue that the normative perspective
that characterized the culture-historical approach assumed that learning processes were cross-
culturally and temporally invariant (Sassaman and Rudolphi 2001:407). It was assumed that each
generation produced a replica of earlier material culture attributes and ethnic identity through
time (Trigger 1989), thereby reducing emic relationships of identity and ethnicity to etic
classifications of artifacts (Beisaw 2010:244). Identity, then, from the late nineteenth to the mid-
7
8
twentieth century, registered only at the regional level, and people were viewed only in terms of
the larger “culture groups” to which they were assigned (Stone 2003).
In contrast, by the late 1920s, the term “culture” had been replaced in anthropological circles by
the notion of the “tribe,” then seen as a distinct, self-reliant social group (Diaz-Andreu
2015:4818), which itself was replaced during the mid-twentieth century by “ethnic group,” a
term first theorized at the end of the 1920s (Diaz-Andreu 2015; Jenkins 2008). Those sharing one
ethnicity were seen as having genetic, linguistic, cultural, and, often, spiritual traditions in
common (Peeples 2011). Ethnic identity was seen as directly resulting from the geographic and
social isolation of “culture” groups, separating them from communities outside the materially
conscribed borders. Although the label “ethnic group” would suggest the incorporation of the
concept of “persons,” culture was viewed as homogeneous and homeostatic, and change in
structure only occurred with the introduction of unfamiliar “culture” from external sources,
whether caused by warfare, immigration, or other factors (Kroeber 1939; Linton 1944; Wissler
1914). The categorization of diagnostic material culture attributes formed the basis for the
recognition of group identity in the application of this model.
The first large-scale culture histories of Northern Iroquoian tribal groups, influenced by the
Midwestern Taxonomic System (McKern 1939), appeared in the mid-twentieth century. William
Ritchie’s influential The Pre-Iroquoian Occupations of New York State (1944) and Ritchie and
Richard MacNeish’s The Pre-Iroquoian Pottery of New York State (1949) were followed by
MacNeish’s Iroquois Pottery Types: A Technique for the Study of Iroquoian Prehistory (1952).
The Chance horizon: An early stage of Mohawk Iroquois Cultural Development, by Ritchie,
appeared in 1952 and this work was expanded on by Donald Lenig in 1965. In 1974, Engelbrecht
examined archaeological patterns reflected at the tribal level among the New York state Iroquois.
It was not until the publication of J. V. Wright’s The Ontario Iroquois Tradition (1966) that such
a synthesis was available for the pre-contact period Ancestral Wendat (Huron) materials of
southern Ontario.
These culture histories were products of the unquestioning colonial thinking of the early
twentieth century. As elsewhere, these pre-contact societies were viewed as homeostatic and
unchanging. Aboriginal peoples were seen as uncreative and unimaginative (Trigger 1980).
These “groups,” were not really acknowledged as being constituted of individual beings but were
9
analyzed in isolation within the bounded geographical areas arbitrarily assigned to their
population. Any apparent change in material culture could only be explained as the result of
some external cultural influence. The normative paradigm viewed prehistoric human behaviour
occurring within unquestioned and unchanging societal rules. Only through contact with more
advanced peoples could socio-political, ideological, or economic change occur. This contact took
place in the form of a uni-directional influx caused by either diffusion—the spread of
“successful” or “attractive” attributes (Childe 1950) from one culture to another—or full-scale
population migration into the area. Decades later, in the 1990s, Dean Snow (1995, 1996)
proposed the appearance of Iroquoian cultural traits within a sea of Algonkian peoples to be the
result of migration into the Great Lakes area and not independent in-situ development. Several
Iroquoianists, particularly Crawford and Smith, refuted this hypothesis (Crawford and Smith
1996; Smith and Crawford 1995, 1997, 2002, n.d.). On a smaller scale, major Ontario Iroquoian
scholars, such as Norman Emerson and Frank Ridley, spent many years in a battle over the
direction, not the existence, of fifteenth-century migration between two areas of marginally
distinctive ceramic typologies (Emerson 1998; Emerson and Popham 1952; Pendergast 1965;
Ridley 1952, 1958, 1963). During the following decades, northeastern archaeologists continued
to produce culture histories within a framework of diffusionist–migrationist paradigms to explain
culture change. Wright’s The Ontario Iroquois Tradition (1966) ignored any possibility of
internal cultural transformation as an explanation for apparently sudden shifts in material culture
characteristics. As an example, the conquest of the Glen Meyer peoples to the west by the
Pickering branch of the Early Ontario Iroquois during the thirteenth century was presented as the
only likely cause of widespread ceramic transformation in central Ontario during the thirteenth
century (Wright 1966:53).
As a reflection of the persistence of the culture-historical mindset, which based the definition of
“culture” solely on material culture, The Ontario Iroquois Tradition remained the “bible” of
Ontario archaeology for many decades. Its delimitation of what were considered two
geographically separated ancestral Wendat culture regions was based on the greater presence of
one ceramic vessel type, Lalonde High Collar, to the north of the Oak Ridges Moraine and a
lesser frequency of this type south of the moraine (Wright 1966:68–74).
After this period of intense interest in culture history paradigms, the groundbreaking introduction
by Fredrik Barth of the role of perception in the concept of identity (1969) sparked a renewed
10
interest in the study of identity in anthropology and sociology. This precipitated a radical shift in
social theory. In fact, the concept of the subjective creation of identity had been introduced more
than 40 years earlier, in Max Weber’s Economy and Society, first published in 1922. Weber
proposed that “race” (a word which Jenkins (2008:10) suggests Weber equates with “ethnic
group) “creates a “group” only when it is subjectively perceived as a common trait: this happens
only when a neighbourhood or the mere proximity of racially different persons is the basis of
joint (mostly political) action, or conversely, when some common experiences of members of the
same race are linked to some antagonism against members of an obviously different group”
(Weber 1978:385).
In this view, the ethnic group is defined by the belief in shared descent to support a common
interest (Jenkins 2008:10). Barth’s reintroduction of this idea transposed “identity” from a static
entity into a flexible representation of the interplay of subjective, socially meaningful factors
chosen and ascribed by the players themselves (Diaz-Andreu 2015:4818; Peeples 2011:9).
Significantly expanding on this foundation, Ronald Cohen introduced the idea that identity
(termed ethnicity, in his definition), in all its forms, is both fluid and situational (Cohen 1978),
and that it transforms, in accordance with changing relations and social, economic, and political
factors. Social identity was no longer an attribute of a people, but a relationship created and
maintained through all forms of interaction (Peeples 2011).
Currently the definition of “identity” is commonly accepted as “the way individuals relate
themselves and others to larger groups based on perceived similarities and differences socially
defined as important” (Peeples 2011:2; see also Barth 1969; Calhoun 1995:193–197; Diaz-
Andreu et al. 2005; Emberling 1997; Jenkins 2004:1–8; Jones 1997). Perhaps the most
revolutionary element of this definition is the concept of self-perception. From this perspective,
identity is an acknowledgement of feelings of belonging or not belonging originating from
within. Cunningham suggests that identity consists of one’s stories, the cumulative narratives of
one’s life (Cunningham 2001; see also Ferris 1999, 2006, 2017). It is through the identification
of the differences between individuals and groups that self-ascribed identity is formed (Kolb and
Snead 1997). This self-ascribed identity is purposely and strategically bounded (Barth 1969;
Bowser 2000: Duff 2002; Hodder 1985; Mantha 2009), and according to Cameron (2013:220),
following Barth (1969), agents construct their social identity to optimize their social standing.
The fluid and situational nature of identity (Cohen 1978) is essential to this definition. Since
11
some believe that identity is often manipulated for social advantage, it follows that even
identities as predictable and non-threatening as those associated with marriage and aging may be
altered and signalled to maximize advantages in changing circumstances. The extent of this
maximization is contingent on distinct cultural logic. Such perspectives stress the strong
relationship between the agent and identity (see also Hodder 1982).
Divisions in the ceramic typology employed in Iroquoian archaeology are based on MacNeish’s
perception of Iroquoian ethnicity. This study will show that while ethnicity may be reflected in
some aspects of ceramic production and use, it is not actually reflected in typology. It is,
however, more clearly reflected in the accepted norms of production, or the chaîne opératoire;
form; and, perhaps, function of specific vessel “types” in the case of the Northern Iroquoians.
These vessels are consciously employed as symbols of unique, nonlocal community, or
household relations and identity in the Keffer village.
Introduction of the Human Factor through Agency Theory

With the introduction of agency theory, British researchers, such as Hodder (1982) and Shanks
and Tilley (1987), successfully challenged the non-involvement of humans, either as individuals
or as groups, in the creation and maintenance of their culture. Agency theory, a theoretical tenet
of postprocessualism along with creation and negotiation of meaning, proposes that people were
actively, often intentionally, involved in directing and historically affecting their social, political,
economic, and ideational environment (Dobres and Robb 2000). This theory was immediately
integrated into European archaeology but remained on the periphery of human interaction and
identity research in North America until somewhat later (Hegmon 2003).
The merger of Frederick Barth’s “self-ascribed identity,” Cohen’s concepts of identity as fluid
and situational, and the actors of agency theory gave researchers such as Cohen (1978), Hegmon
(1992), and Emberling (1997) the theoretical tools that they coalesced into the interactionist
approach to group identity, or “ethnicity,” as described by Stone (2003; see also Svensson 1985).
This interactionist approach rejects the characterization of identity as a concrete entity, a
consequence of spatial and social group isolation or local environmental adaptation defined by
material traits that remain unchanging prior to the introduction of new cultural attributes
imported with the influx of outside populations or ideas. The approach defines identity as a
process whereby individuals consciously create, use, and manipulate material and non-material
12
symbols of group inclusion and exclusion. In the formation and re-formation of identity through
interaction within and between groups, this social categorization of self and others is in a
constant state of negotiation (Emberling 1997). Ascription to any and all groups required
recognition and acceptance of such status by both self and all others in the applicable social
milieu.
Symbols and Boundaries

Symbols of inclusion are meaningful only when they are recognized by both those referenced
and those excluded. The tensions involved in this dichotomy bore the potential for conflict in the
reification of us–them categorization and the creation of social boundaries.
It is in the complex agential manoeuvring of social relations involved in interaction that the
process of identity creation occurs (Weber 1978). This identity creation takes place across all
dimensions of society, from the immediate family, to the most comprehensive scale of
interaction and can encompass all aspects of culture—social, political, economic, and ideational.
These social relations link participants through both space (i.e., within a household) and time
(i.e., across generations).
Messaging of Social Distance

This prioritization of social relations as the driving force in identity creation, in concert with the
exclusion of the material mediation of the interactions (Jones 1996), is seen as a major fault of
the interactionist approach. Researchers approaching identity studies from the enculturationist
school point out that a relational view emphasizes differences to the detriment of similarities,
thereby stressing boundary maintenance (Bentley 1987), while overlooking the internal unity of
social groups. In contrast, in the enculturationist model, culture content and the categorization of
diagnostic material culture attributes formed the basis for the recognition of group identity.
Consumers and producers of less visible symbols may unconsciously communicate inclusion
within social groups. Change in production methods of less visible material objects is considered
to reflect divergence in learning environments or inculcation of outsider behaviours into the daily
habitus at the small scale. In contrast, highly visible symbols were sometimes employed
consciously to demarcate similarities and differences (Peeples 2011).
13
The enculturationist approach employs Bourdieu’s concept of habitus as the main source of
identity formation. Habitus encompasses the deep-seated dispositions and the embodiment of the
socialized norms that guide human behaviour and thinking within a structure of socially
conditioned and acceptable limits to that behaviour. Habitus thus forms the basis for the creation,
maintenance, and re-creation of “culture” (Bourdieu 1977). Identity orientation stems from the
cultural matrix in which people experience, use, learn, and act within their daily lives, and within
which they construct an ongoing sense of themselves and an understanding of their fellows.
Culture and identity are not “‘something” that people “have,” or, indeed, to which they “belong’”
(Jenkins 2008:19); instead, they are best thought of as ongoing processes of identification.
Additionally, critics such as Jones (1996, 1997) reject the assumptions of the interactionist
approach that all behaviour and interaction is consciously performed in direct pursuit of
perceived personal benefit. They insist that unity is created through the everyday habitus of
practice shaped by unspoken social norms and that action is often performed without conscious
intention. Interactionists reject this enculturationist approach as a return to primordialist thinking,
in which identity formation is dependent on isolation and in which humans lack any input, either
conscious or unconscious, directing their lives.
As will be more fully discussed below, one of the fundamental characteristics ignored by the two
approaches, but essential to their differences, is the variable of scale. Enculturationists fail to
recognize that the foundation of their approach lies in interaction. This interaction, however, is at
the most intimate level, the micro-scale of family relationships. Habitus is formed through
repeated and daily practice within the cultural context of the micro-scale of the immediate family
and/or household. Habitus is interaction. Without such small-scale, intra-household interaction,
there could be no learning, no enculturation. Interactionists, on the other hand, most commonly
investigate patterns at levels of interaction above this intimate familial level, looking at evidence
for interaction among bounded groups in the search for larger-scale, collective group identities
(e.g., Braun and Plog 1982; Duff 2002; Emberling 1997:319–325; Jones 1997; Peeples 2011:14;
Plog 1980, 1983; Shennan 1989; Upham 1982). But identity is not just based on cultural
affiliation. Gender, age, ritual societies, and clan sodalities operate at much smaller scales.
In the end, the selection of an appropriate theoretical and methodological approach for research
of past identity depends on the social scale of social interaction, whether at the individual or at
any of the multitude of social group levels.
14
The social distance approach was proposed by Lyons and Clark (2008) to overcome the
shortcoming of the two perspectives discussed above and to bring together in one analysis the
positive aspects of the interactionist approach to ethnicity, with its emphasis on agency and the
purposeful use of style to communicate identity (as seen by Wiessner 1984; Wobst 1977), and
the enculturationist analysis of style as a passive element embedded in the habitus of everyday
life that reproduces the cultural structure within which it exists (Sackett 1973, 1977). Structure
and agency are given equal weight in Lyons and Clark’s approach, in contrast to previous
approaches to identity, which have tended to emphasize either an enculturationist or an
interactionist view, each to the exclusion of the other. The enculturationist approach measures
the magnitude of social and physical learning frameworks of artifact production in social
distance or, more accurately, social proximity. In the study of these communities of practice,
social closeness, or proximity, of members is assumed and generally taken for granted.
Lyons and Clark (2008) examine the ethnographic study of the historic relationship of the Tewa
and Hopi peoples of the American southwest and the material and nonmaterial consequences of
their interaction over time (Kroskrity 1993) to uncover patterns relating to increased social
interaction and its effect on cultural convergence. The results of this research produced two
general observations. The first states that increased social relations between two groups (in this
case specifically what they consider “ethnic groups”) will lead to a decrease in social distance.
The second states that these increased cultural similarities, seen in both material and ideational
forms, may not occur in all areas of culture. Distinctive core traits may be retained or
emphasized, or both, by one or both groups as “badges of ethnicity.” Lyons and Clark (2008)
admit that we do not yet have the capability to address ancient ethnicity directly. They therefore
suggest that social distance can be used as a proxy to measure relative group identity.
Consequently, it seems plausible that these could be equally applied to non-ethnic collective
identities. Following the work of Kroskrity, Lyons and Clark conclude:
1. Ethnicity (Collective Identity) as a force of social agency is quite durable and may remain
after inter-group contact.
2. The diacritica (those traits which emphasize difference) of ethnicity (Collective Identity) can
change as social distance decreases and cultural similarity increases.
3. Some diacritica may disappear after contact but others may remain and be emphasised.
15
4. Time depth is necessary for elucidating the dynamics which reflect social distance.
5. With increasing cultural similarity, as seen in material or ideational culture, there will be a
decrease in social distance and subsequently a decrease in diacritica.
6. Knowledge of the distinct cultural traditions of both groups prior to increased interaction is
necessary in order to ascertain changes [Lyons and Clark 2008:195–196].
Lyons and Clark (2008) also incorporate the bridging perspective of Abbott (2000). This
approach, closely based on that of Moerman (1965), explicitly brings together the effects of
enculturation, as seen through the analysis of ceramic technology, and of interaction, represented
by ceramic intergroup exchange, to examine changes in social affiliation over time. Specifically,
Abbott sees an increased similarity in ceramic technologies and the intensification of intergroup
ceramic exchange as evidence of a decrease in social distance. Interpersonal closeness is
characterized by Lyons and Clark as an ever-expanding circle of relationships. In contrast to the
implications of the permanence of boundary maintenance characteristic of the interactionist
camp (Cohen 1978; Emberling 1997; Hegmon1992; Stark 1998) social distance “evokes process,
change, and scale” in the examination of interpersonal distance between groups or individuals.
Lyons and Clark (2008) attempt to determine circumstances in which different “classes” of
diacritica mediate social interaction. Following Barth (1969) and Stone (2003), they suggest that,
under stable conditions, there will be many forms of ethnic diacritica. Highly visible, public
“badges” of group membership, manifest in body adornment, public architecture, and so forth,
appear. In periods of crisis or a demographic or power imbalance between populations, diacritica
of alternate self-ascription will be salient and more commonly employed. This element of
identity may be materialized in the possession of nonlocal ceramics as a public sign of alternate
identity. These traits are flexible and are easily emphasized or de-emphasized according to
specific and fluctuating contexts. This manipulation of diacritical symbols is based on the
advantage or disadvantage of stressing particular identities in differing circumstances. Crisis
and/or power imbalance and the ensuing social disruption can cause a breakdown in the
continuity of learning frameworks and enculturative traditions, thereby causing a discontinuity in
cultural traditions as communities of practice are disrupted or destroyed (for an Iroquoian
example see Martelle 2004).
16
In the culture-historical approach, and to a lesser extent in the interactionist approach,

“difference” was employed to create the designation of concrete divisions separating groups of
people, termed boundaries. Boundaries, which are often evident in the presence of socially
acknowledged symbols, existed simultaneously at various scales. Consequently,
inclusion/exclusion at one level did not determine inclusion/exclusion at another. These
boundaries and their respective symbols and social relations are always in a state of flux because
interaction and the factors that determined it changed. The existence of spatial, physical
boundaries between groups at any level is not essential in this approach. Boundaries, such as the
one-row palisades seen in fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Iroquoia, most often take the form of
social distinction (Stone 2003) marking social inclusion and exclusion within the village
community. Although physical boundaries, in the form of village palisades and internal house
partitioning, do exist, these divisions are interpreted as relational, not categorical, in nature
following Creese (2010, 2012) and, following Pauketat and Ault (2005), should be viewed as the
result of shared practice binding a community.
In a similar vein, Mills (2018) has recently employed material culture boundary markers to
explore relational identity in the American Southwest. In social distance and network studies,
difference and similarity exist on a gradual plane of distance among social relationships, marking
a sliding scale of association. In the study of boundary objects, the boundary is composed of an
intermediary space linking two practices, not a line of demarcation. However, I view this
approach as based on the concrete boundaries of discrete practices. It is in the union of two well-
defined and dissimilar objects or attributes that the boundary is bridged. This bridging object is
reducible to its two parts as unrelated entities and therefore does not recognize clinal social
distance. Identity in this case may be based on ethnicity. I suggest emergence theory (Lee 2006),
and the related concept of relational typologies within assemble theory (DeLanda 2006, 2016;
Fowler 2017) are more useful concepts for the study of relational identity through ceramic
analysis. In emergence theory, the appearance of a new and distinctive entity is due to the
interaction of its constituent parts through collective action. The characteristics of this new entity
are not explicable in terms of the base parts, and the object produced is irreducible back to these
components (Lee 2006). This process of transformation and evolution was, and remains, an
integral element of Iroquoian ideology as demonstrated in the recurring theme of metamorphosis
in Iroquoian creation stories (Martelle 2002:448). Emergence is fluid, and if the newly emergent
17
entity has no productive effect and is epiphenomenal, it will vanish with time. With the
integration of the emergence perspective, assemblage theory interprets archaeological types as
dynamic, contextual, emergent, and relational (Fowler 2017). Incorporation of the relational
perspective of assemblage theory in Iroquoian ceramic studies provides a direct link to the
multiscalar exploration of relational identities. Within Iroquoian society, social relations, and
therefore identities, were configured through kinship (Birch 2008; Sioui 1999).
In non-state societies, such as the Northern Iroquoians, kinship is thought to be the universal or
near-universal model structuring social behaviour (Chernela 1992; Shennan 1989). Shennan
suggests that kinship may in fact be the only basis for group identity formation in these societies
(Shennan 1989). He ignores the obvious social connections of such characteristics as gender and
age, among many others. Although important, kinship is but one element of identity in non-state
societies. Kinship escalates from the level of the individual, through nuclear and progressively
less closely related family ties, to extensive clan networks. Each individual is related, whether
this is acknowledged or not, to all kin at some level of social distance. Therefore, all individuals
acquire multiple, multiscalar identities (Peeples 2011:2). As these identities are formed in
relation to one’s perceived connection with others, along the clinal relationship scale from
intimacy to enmity, identity is always situational and fluid (Ortman 2010) because contact with
others is continually in a state of flux, even though some social identities may claim the ethos of
permanence (Peeples 2011:2).
Material remains, as uncovered through excavation, particularly in the case of Northern

Iroquoian sites, encapsulate a brief period in the life of a community. In the past this led to a
view of these communities as static and fixed. However, non-state populations, including
Northern Iroquoians (Finlayson 1985; Ramsden 2009) were characterized by a pattern of
perpetual circulation of individuals, families, and larger groups (Preucel 1988; Schachner 2010),
and what appear to have been static, settled communities were unceasingly in a state of flux.
Ethnographic and ethnohistoric studies confirm fluidity of social group membership in non-state
societies (Cameron 2013:221). All relocations, including those on the smallest scale, resulted in a
change in group composition and therefore a transformation in all its interconnected and
interacting social units (Cameron 2013). This flux in membership, therefore, replicates itself in
changes in identity, likely at a variety of scales simultaneously. Creese’s application of
“personhood,” as it pertained to Northern Iroquoians, provides a more nuanced perspective that
18
moves beyond possible biases of present-day identity politics in simply acknowledging the
multiplicity and contingency of individual identities (Creese 2012, 2016). In Creese’s definition
of personhood, individual or nuclear family identity was “fractal” or “part-in-whole” and could
not be separated from one’s collective identities, particularly those of the house and the lineage
(Creese 2012:366). This multifaceted identity was formed in large part through habitus within
the household and the longhouse. Continuous change in the membership of these groups was
accompanied by constant recreation of this identity. Changes in identity, on the other hand, may
have caused transformation in household membership. Approaching Iroquoian identity as based
on “part-in-whole” personhood, it may be possible, through the analysis of ceramics associated
with specific longhouses and the larger village, to uncover relationships and attendant identities
of groups in terms of local, nonlocal, and emergent, household-focused spheres of practice at
Keffer as the village grew through time.
In the social distance approach, relative distance, measured by ceramic similarity, is evaluated in
terms of those traits that are passively produced and those traits that are actively created. I see
passive traits in the ceramics of Keffer as those conforming to the general practice of the local
tradition chaîne opératoire. Agency is materialized at graduated, increasing levels of identity
communication through decorative variation at the lowest level and the production of vessels
through the auspices of nonlocal tradition chaîne opératoire. Lyons and Clark (2008; see also
Stone 2003), following the work of Jenkins (2008), invoke the “social constructionism of
ethnicity,” suggesting that the diacritica (those traits which emphasize difference) of passive and
intentional messaging are evident in different aspects of material culture. It is only through the
evaluation of the visibility and permanency of these signals within environments of social
interaction that the nature of this messaging can be ascertained.
The transmission of passive or intentional identity may be dependent on the nature of the identity
that is being communicated. According to Peeples (2011), following the “New York School” of
relational sociology, and the work of Christopher Tilly (1978, 2001), identity takes two separate
but interconnecting forms, namely, relational and categorical. Relational identity is formed in the
course of both casual and formal relationship networking and interaction in the form of kinship
or exchange. It is based on personal positions (Hall 1990:225) within networks of interaction
among individuals and, as such, has no perceivable boundaries. Categorical identity, on the other
hand, acknowledges inclusion in a more formally recognized group based on perceived similarity
19
and differences with others in a well-defined social unit, such as those of state, religion, age, and
gender.
To be formally defined, a categorical identity must have tight boundaries of inclusion and
exclusion. Categorical identity is the actively expressed affiliation with a specific social group
that persists despite changing membership and participation (Barth 1969:10). Similarly,
categorical identity is named and needs to be symbolized to facilitate recognition. Some
researchers of prehistory believe that categorical identities were not significant in the past
(Creese 2013; Shennan 1989), while others (Stone 2003) suggest that this stance ignores the
existence of inequality in earlier societies. In the case of Northern Iroquoians of the pre-contact
and pre-Confederacy era, it is widely held that strong social strictures were deeply integrated into
the Iroquoian social system to counteract the existence of social inequality (Trigger 1990),
therefore reducing the influence of most categorical identity. Categorical identity based on the
sexual division of labour is, however, assumed, specifically in the realm of ceramic production,
to the point where this study is presumably based entirely on the social influence of one gender
and age group, that of the mature female producers and consumers of pottery. Here, identity will
be explored as relational and emergent in nature and will be viewed from a relational approach,
incorporating the enculturation perspective through the micro-scale relations of intra-village
spheres of ceramic practice.
For Rowlands (1998), relational identity only appears as a product of contact with “others.” In
Middle Bronze Age Germany, relational identity appeared and expanded into more complex
signalling through dress or costume as trade networks increased in size. These traits are not
apparent earlier, in what Rowlands views as a period of isolation (Rowlands 1998:223). Indeed,
Comaroff and Comaroff insist that identity is only constructed to emphasize contrast, not
similarity or resemblance. Identity is only performed, or created, when one is faced with others
“who are different” (Comaroff and Comaroff 1992:245). Since identity is formed through the
constant negotiation and renegotiation of relationships, it can be said that any single identity does
not exist as an essentialized construct (Peeples 2011; Rowlands 1998), although “some social
identities may maintain strong perceptions of permanence, which can structure the actions of
individuals through time” (see Bentley 1987:24–27; see also Jenkins 2000; Jones 1997:84–105;
Peeples 2011:2).
20
In the greater field of identity studies, there has been a tendency to conflate identity to singular
categories, such as race, sex, and religion. The deep integration of ethnographic studies has been
instrumental in producing more nuanced views of identity within the field of anthropology
(Somers 1994). This new view of identity generally aligns with Creese’s use of the fractal nature
of personhood in Iroquoian society (Creese 2012), which is formed through everyday interaction
with all aspects, both human and material, of the surrounding world, but also meaning that an
object belonging to a person constitutes a partible and living extension of the person in question.
The replication of these interactions at progressively smaller scales correlates well with the
commonly accepted definition of identity as “the way individuals relate themselves and others to
larger groups based on perceived similarities and differences socially defined as important”
(Peeples 2011:2; see also Barth 1969; Diaz-Andreu et al. 2005; Emberling 1997; Jenkins
2004:1–8; Jones 1997).
In the archaeological literature, the term “ethnicity” continues to reference a great variety of
social group identities. Often the terms “ethnicity” and “identity” are used interchangeably
within a single context (Peeples 2011), and yet these words are not synonymous. The conditions
necessary for a group identity to be labelled ethnicity are currently the subject of much debate
among scholars, though most acknowledge that ethnicity is only one of multiple forms of
collective identity. Current understandings of ethnicity largely adopt Jones’s perspective (1997),
as demonstrated by Diaz-Andreu’s recently formulated definition: “that aspect of a person’s self-
conceptualization and his or her conceptualization by other individuals that result from
identification with one or more broader groups in opposition to others, on the basis of perceived
cultural differentiation or common descent” (Diaz-Andreu 2015:4818). In many ways, this varies
greatly from the term’s earliest usage as bounded, static, genetically related groups that shared
material and ideological cultural traditions.
As is evident in the above definition, many researchers in anthropology and archaeology view
ethnic identity or ethnicity (sensu Comaroff and Comaroff 1992) as an actively created identity
consolidating a group of disenfranchised or politically overpowered and “oppressed” persons
with a self-perceived common heritage, who actively engage “ethnic” symbols or signals as
unifying elements. The display and embodiment of symbols in specific public contexts
powerfully integrates peoples of profoundly varying genetic and cultural backgrounds who
might, in other contexts, not view themselves as members of interrelated units. This
21
confederation may embody a method of resistance to the economic and political supremacy of
others (e.g., the Assembly of First Nations, created to resist systemic injustice of the Indian Act
of the government of Canada). Some researchers insist that there can be no ethnicity and, in
some cases, no identity without power asymmetries (Jenkins 1997; Weber 1922).
Ethnicity is a problematic concept (Huntley 2004). A number of historically known ethnic and
tribal groups were created as a response to contact with state-level society (Bentley 1987;
Emberling 1997; Jones 1997; Lockwood 1981; MacEachern 1998; Shennan 1989; A.D. Smith
1986). Researchers in the field of sociology and anthropology argue that ethnicity is either
uniquely a product of Indigenous/European colonization (Comaroff and Comaroff 1992), or, as
presented by Gellner (1983) and Nash (1987), it constitutes a product of capitalism (Emberling
1997:307–308). Emberling (1997) also argues that few studies have been able to identify ethnic
divisions in stateless societies. He thus suggests that the concept of ethnicity is not relevant in
non-state studies. In contrast, Stone proposes that ethnicity, as a socially constructed category,
“is evoked during interactions between individuals of different social identity” and therefore
involved “the channeling of power relative to other individuals and groups” (Stone 2003:40). She
argues that ethnicity is not the exclusive domain of groups interacting at the state level, but exists
in any situation of power difference at all levels (Stone 2003:41). Supporting this view, Cameron
(2013) suggests that power differences occur in any situation where a group, whether large or
small, is moving into an area occupied by, or claimed by, others, as seen in the incorporation of
nonlocal ceramic practices common to fifteenth- to seventeenth-century Iroquoian communities.
As proposed by Emberling (1997), ethnogenesis is accepted here to be the creation of an ethnic

identity as primarily occurring in contexts of inequality, where creation of a unified identity is
employed as an act of social dominance or resistance. In adopting this position, I accept that the
terms “ethnic identity” and “ethnicity” may be acceptable in the context of exclusive ceramic
chaîne opératoire, as they reflect differing cultural understandings within the pan-Iroquoian
scale. This categorical identity may co-exist with multiple relational collective identities.
Therefore, I endorse group identity in terms of the unbounded and clinal perception of
relationships, as being formed, following the social distance (Lyons and Clark 2008) model, of
ever-increasing waves of interconnectedness (Abbott 2000) in concert with more categorical
identities. The analysis of multiscalar collective identities will include the concept of Iroquoian
22
personhood (Creese 2012) as polyvalent and fractal (after Fowler 2004). Participation in multiple
ceramic community of practice groups is viewed as a reflection of the self-ascription to
multifaceted identity. Each aspect of which is dependent upon the fluid and situational nature of
these communities multiscalar group identities in the fifteenth-century Iroquoian context will be
examined as negotiated and relational.
Identity and Communities of Practice

As discussed, identity is multifaceted, “fractal,” multiscalar, fluid, and emergent. Only a minute
fragment of any group identity can ever be discerned through archaeological study of material
culture. However, communities of practice, at whatever level, constitute a significant aspect of
group identity that can be inferred through a study of their material culture. A community of
practice is a group of people who are tied together through “mutual engagement” in prolonged
execution of some process of creation according to a set of mutually accepted guidelines or
standards (Wenger 1998). The social identity and relations of the group members are reinforced
and reproduced in the product of this process (Hodder 1982). Changes in the identity and
membership are constantly in flux through time and across geographical and social distance.
Ethnographic analogy has clearly shown that identity materializes as people socially construct
themselves (Mauss 1935). Material expressions of the artisans reflect these changes (Sassaman
and Rudolphi 2001:408). Ongoing engagement within the community and the maintenance of
co-production ties constantly reproduce the community despite accrued changes. Membership
within one community of practice does not preclude involvement in others, and each person
identifies, whether consciously or not, with multiple communities.
Identity is the reflection of the relations created and employed in the commission of tasks as they
are reproduced through tracing similarities among social groups. These groups are defined by
association with an archaeological location, such as a household or village community. Practice
communities, in the case of Iroquoian ceramics, have no clear boundaries but may, instead, be
characterised by ever-expanding circles of weaker social ties as expressed in decreasing
similarity of artifacts. In this study, the communities of practice to be studied are those relating to
ceramic production, use, and disposal (Gifford-Gonzalez 2014; Gonzalez 2014; Mills 2016:256).
With the exception of a minor group of ceramics, which exhibit unique form and motif
23
execution, the majority of ceramic producers within the Keffer village belong to the larger north
shore Iroquoian community of practice.
In Iroquoian studies, pottery production is accepted as gender specific and is generally regarded
as being an element of women’s domain of practice as documented for the “Huron” of the
historic period by the French missionary Father Gabriel Sagard (Wrong 1939) and in the
ethnographic writings compiled by Elisabeth Tooker (1991:59).Trigger (1978:60) emphasized
the strict division of labour between sexes. This strict separation of tasks and Sagard’s allocation
of pottery production as a female endeavour together provide a strong argument for the
interpretation of ceramic messaging as a reflection of female identity. Engelbrecht (2003:87),
following Fenton (1978:303), suggests that domestic ceramics “stood as symbols of family and
hospitality” in Iroquoian society.
In Iroquoian society women were central to the family units. As kin identity was traced through
the female lineage in Iroquoian society, female identity was at the core of the domestic social
structure. Women were the permanent residents of the household and longhouse. The fragile
nature of marriage resulted in frequent divorce, with men often entering and leaving the family
unit (Tooker 1984). Brown (1970, 1975) proposed that, as producers and distributors of food,
women yielded great economic, social, and political influence, suggesting it outweighed that of
the men. Tooker (1984) and Trigger (1978) refute this interpretation on several grounds. They
believe Brown has misinterpreted the economic contribution of men in the precontact period, and
therefore the relative social positions of the genders. As Tooker (1984:118) points out, social
relations in Iroquoian society were not based on economic or political control, as manifest in
ownership. It is reciprocal obligations embedded in these, mostly kin-based, relations that
structured society. For Trigger, “Matrilocality and the influential role played by women in
matters concerning their extended families were closely related to their role in the economic
pattern of their communities and the activity patterns associated with this role. The result was not
a matriarchy, but equality based on the separation and complementarity of sexual roles”
(1978:61). Like men, women had their own sphere of influence and power (Mann 2000). Thus,
the household was the nexus of female influence and power and the central portal of identity. It
was in the domain of these matrilineally based family groups that ceramic production was
centred. Therefore, it is the members of these families, as practice groups, whose identity was
communicated in this production.
24
Ontario Iroquoian ceramics of the fifteenth century followed a single vessel form. These vessels
had globular to round bodies with wide mouths and collared rims. These thick-walled vessels
had a high centre of gravity and were designed for cooking (Latta 1991). Collars were an integral
element of this form. Thickening of the rim through the application of collars added to the
strength of the vessel neck, whereas shaping of the collar improves pouring and filling while
providing surfaces for easier handling (Martelle 2002:239). This pottery may also have served
for storage and transport purposes (Holterman 2007), although Martelle suggests very small pots
seen in collections from the turn of the seventeenth century may have been used for individual
servings (Martelle 2002). Residue analysis has produced no clear distinction in function by size
(Martelle 2002:199). Vessels of similar shape are found in sizes ranging from the 1.5 litre
capacity size to “cauldrons” or “kettles” of 10 litres or more capacity (Martelle 2002:214). The
majority of vessels conform to a medium size of 4 to 5 litres and were most likely used most
often. All of these ceramics would have been on display in a central location in the household
within domestic or ceremonial contexts at some time. In the domestic arena, specifically when
placed on the central fire, the collars of these vessels would have been the central visual focus of
the pot and contained identity messaging (Chilton 1996). Decoration on vessel necks, directly
below the collar, would also have been visible. Martelle, citing ethnographic evidence, suggests
different size vessels were used in different contexts (2002:233). Medium-sized vessels may
have been used on a quotidian basis, ever present on the central fire with the meals for the day.
Family members helped themselves at will from collective family pots (Waugh 1916:46).
Decorative elements, in this case, would be intended to communicate messages of inclusion and
unity.
Hospitality was a fundamental tenet of Iroquoian culture (Latta 1991; Tooker 1984; Trigger
1976:51; Wright 1999). Cooking and pottery were central to social and political events such as
feasting and burial ceremonies. The largest kettles were prominent in feasting, where the vessel
remained at the central fire, while individuals, seated around the fire, were served from it
(Martelle 2002:233). Messages of identity inculcated in these ceramics may have served a
similar purpose or a quite different purpose, but again it is the identity of the matrilineal,
matrilocal family that is being projected. Ceramic projection of male identity has been
hypothesized to exist in the creation and use of smoking pipes (Woolfrey et al. 1976).
25
Since the Iroquoian groups are matrilineal and practice matrilocal residence, it has long been
assumed that pottery production occurred within the context of household communities of
practice. The smallest units of communities of ceramic practice are composed of the female
members of matrilineally based extended family households. Each residence is therefore
considered to represent a single practice community. Increasing scale—from residence to
longhouse cluster, village community, river drainage basin and the village clusters within—is
accompanied by increasing social distance seen in decreasing similarity in the profiles of ceramic
type frequency. With the exception of a minor group of ceramics determined to be of nonlocal
origin, which exhibit unique form and motif execution, the majority of ceramic practitioners
within the Keffer village share a larger pan-regional community of practice, that of the south-
central Ontario Iroquoians. At the most intimate level, a community of practice might include
only those who produced and fired their ceramics in a single location and within a single fire.
Due to the small size of the ceramic samples available for several residences at Keffer, I employ
the household, defined as a single longhouse and its associated middens, as the lowest
discernible level of community.
As household membership is continually in a state of flux in Iroquoian communities, so, too, is

membership within the community of practice. The accepted ceramic repertoire of these groups
is also in flux (Birch and Williamson 2018), although some groups may be more conservative,
experimental, or innovative. Learning within the community is situational and hands-on (Crown
2014, Dorland 2018). Acquiring expertise is a gradual process, involving interaction and
participation (Dorland 2018; Striker et al. 2017). Those with less skill first engage on the
periphery of production; they are drawn towards the group core as skill levels increase, as skill
develops through continuous learning (Lave and Wenger 1991). As practitioners move into,
through, and out of the group core, the repertoire of practice and resulting assemblages gradually
experiences change (Birch and Williamson 2018). With this change, the identities of both the
individual, and the group, have potential for transformation. The emergence of new elements of
practice may occur at any tempo. New attributes may develop over the long course of the village
occupation or within a more abrupt moment of change. Production technique is likely to change
more gradually, at the temporal scale of generations (Arnold 1998:357–358), while decorative
transformation occurs more rapidly, over the short term. Changes in both production technique
and decorative repertoire, some intentional and directed, others more passive and obscure, can
26
mark changes in group identity. All change, and sometimes continuity, is the result of decision
making and marks the implementation of agency within the community (Dobres 2000) as
existing forms are repositioned socially, or “resocialized,” and newly introduced ones become
standard (Wendrich 2012:16).
Interaction and Social Network Analysis

Until recently, few quantification procedures were available for the analysis and presentation of
social distance. The introduction of social network analysis into material culture studies in
archaeology (Brughmans 2010; Knappett 2013; Mills et al. 2015; Peeples 2011) has provided a
useful approach for portraying these relations in both absolute and relative terms, taking into
account the caveat that archaeological data sets are always partial samples of unknown wholes
and whose absolute measures remain speculative. Most social network analysis in the past has
concentrated on large-scale, regional or pan-regional, interaction (Tom Brughmans, personal
communication, March 2018; Knappett 2018). Studies at the regional inter- and intra-site level
have recently been introduced but remain in a small minority (see Blair 2015; Pailes 2014). The
research presented in this thesis will employ social network analysis of ceramic vessel types to
determine the dynamics of social relationship and social distance of groups across the Keffer site
and also among its neighbours in the Don River valley and farther afield. This work will attempt
to address temporal, spatial, and social dimensions of identity through ceramic proxies in order
to historicize relational constructions of identity among the Keffer village occupants and their
pan-Iroquoian relations.
I view human culture as inextricably intertwined with interpersonal communication and

relations, whether taking the form of artistic expressions of the experienced world, trade, the
sharing of everyday utilitarian items, or storytelling throughout time. Communication, in
whatever form, has connected peoples of the world throughout history and prehistory (Sindbaek
2013) because societies have never existed or developed in isolation, devoid of outside human
contact (Wolf 1982). The essential role of social interaction in the explanation of spatial
distributions of archaeological material remains must be acknowledged (LaBianca and Scham
2006). The influence and incorporation of “habitus” (Bourdieu 1977) and structuration (Giddens
1979), and the works of such British archaeologists as Ian Hodder, Christopher Tilley, and
Michael Shanks during the 1980s, injected human agency into the explanation of past cultures. In
27
this new perspective, humans were seen, not as passive victims of external pressures, but as
active agents consciously or unconsciously producing and affecting change.
This shift in anthropological theory coincided with the initial integration or first participation of
Ontario and North American indigenous peoples within the field of archaeology. The
involvement of descendant individuals forced archaeologists to acknowledge that the ancestors,
the subjects of our studies, were actual persons. While these innovations were taking place at the
central core of archaeological theory the definition and characteristics of culture itself were also
undergoing change as archaeologists slowly began to “abandon the view that societies or cultures
were closed or tightly bounded units” (Trigger 2006:437). There was a realization that, as
diffusionist scholars of the past had suggested, cultures do not develop in total isolation from
other human contact (Wolf 1982), and researchers interested in cultural similarities began to
investigate the multidirectional movement of information and contact (Hodder 1982:1).
But interaction studies were not new. Archaeologists had long been tracing a variety of network
forms, such as the Hopewell Interaction Sphere (Caldwell 1964; Streuver 1963), Mesoamerican
obsidian trade routes (Drennan 1984; Zeitlan 1982), the spread of the “Olmec Horizon” (Coe
1962), and Inca road networks (Hyslop 1984; Regal 1936; Topic and Topic 1983). In the
influential work of Renfrew and Cherry on peer polity, the effects of social entities of similar
size were seen as co-dependents, affecting change upon each other through non-oppressive,
egalitarian mechanisms (Renfrew 1986; Renfrew and Cherry 1986). Williamson and Robertson’s
(1984) revised peer polity model for northeastern Iroquoians was one the first examples of the
application of this new way of looking at cultural exchange in Ontario. It marked an increased
interest in theoretical research in exploring the many and diverse factors that influence culture
change (Williamson and Robertson 1994). This work was in direct opposition to studies which
focused on centralized sources of power, where an Iroquoian village’s largest longhouses,
labelled “chiefs’ houses,” were viewed as being the source of historical acts of power (Ramsden
1990) and where the underlying social dynamics which facilitated power were unrecognized.
Interaction in pre-contact indigenous culture was not directly explored. David Anthony, with his
study of migration that analyzed culture change in the context of larger social dynamics, exerted
a great influence on interaction studies (Anthony 1990). Anthony’s approach provided a
theoretical stepping stone for studies of group movement (Peeples 2011; Stone 2003). Trigger
suggested that archaeologists of this period studying the Northeast no longer viewed societies as
28
bounded, closed systems, but saw them as developing within the constraints and influences of the
greater social network (Trigger 2006:439). However, it seems apparent that, to the contrary, a
number of Iroquoianists continued studying “ethnic” “tribal” groups in isolation for many years
(Hart and Brumbach 2003).
During this same period, in the field of sociology, researchers who had always been deeply
concerned with human action began to investigate direct relationships among individuals. This
effort to understand individual practices and interpersonal relations and the structure of societies
was based on the philosophy of Georg Simmel, who proposed that the networks of these
relations are the basis of society (Simmel 1922). Each social connection formed a fundamental
element of a greater web of relationships (kinship, friendship, citizenship, etc.). During the
1970s, these insights were coalesced into the field of social network analysis (Knappett 2013:3).
Social network analysis (SNA), is not meant to be either a theory or a methodology for problem
solving (for a contrary opinion, see Borgatti and Halgin 2011). Rather, it is an approach
providing an alternative paradigm aimed at examining human culture through the investigation
of interaction and relationships (Brughmans 2010:277; Marin and Wellman 2009:23). As
Wasserman and Faust state, “The social environment can be expressed as patterns or regularities
in relationships among interacting units” (1994:3). These relationships are drawn using graph
theory and portrayed as network graphs. In graph theory, networks have two main components:
nodes, which are points on the graph representing entities; and edges, ties, or links, which are
lines connecting the nodes and signify direct relationships between them. Interpretation of the
network is essentially visual, although mathematical measurements are often used to assess the
strength and positioning of the nodes and related ties. In social networks, the nodes represent
individuals or groups of people, while the ties denote some form of relationship, perhaps kinship
or possession of similar characteristics. Although sharing the same methodical foundation with
other social sciences, the study of social networks in archaeology is differentiated by one main,
and quite substantial, distinction. Nodes in other social sciences generally represent living
beings, whose relationships can be ascertained first-hand through direct observation. In
archaeology, nodes must be constructed from excavated remains. The creation of a node entails
close scrutiny in reference to its suitability for the proposed research. Although any entity can be
used as a node, I propose that the selection of inappropriate archaeological units can lead to
meaningless or misleading results.
29
Archaeological “network analysis” of both hierarchical and non-stratified societies, like those
mentioned above, is deficient in formal methodology and generally follows an amorphous set of
constructs dealing with power, wealth, and population distributions to describe and classify
(prevailing) societal frameworks (Van der Leeuw 2013:2). The resulting connections
demonstrated between archeological entities lack clarity and precision of definition. In the
respect that these analyses merely trace the flow of material culture across space, they do not
reject any of the long-held normative paradigms characterizing culture as static and people as
lacking choice.
Social network analysis, in contrast, endeavours to investigate the network causes of a

phenomenon (Hanne man and Riddle 2005) and is based on the underlying principle that a
regular pattern in relationships, or interaction, “equals” the “structure” of a social network, “a set
of nodes (or network numbers) that are tied by one or more sets of relations” (Wasserman and
Faust 1994:3). This structure is uncovered and recreated through analysis of the quantifiable
variables of closeness, degree, and centrality of the edges, or ties (Sindbaek 2013). While the
overall objectives of any research project may be much broader, the three primary goals of the
analysis of social networks are the elucidation of the centrality measures of individual nodes; the
detection of communities of nodes; and the characterization of weak and strong links, or
relationships (Knappett 2013). These results are found through an examination of the qualities,
such as strength or weakness, of ties between nodes, not the characteristics of the nodes
themselves. In the social sciences, relationships are categorized as economic, political,
interactional, and affective (Wasserman and Faust 1994). They are commonly investigated as
individual networks, entirely separate from, and unrelated to, the others. In most cases, the
network, or groups of nodes, investigated is given some form of arbitrary limits but in fact, social
networks have no boundaries (Borgatti and Halgin 2011). Social networks are also dynamic and
constantly in a state of flux as the structure of society is changing and therefore “always
becoming” or emergent (Van der Leeuw 2013:2). The characteristics of interaction, and therefore
the structure of the network, can change gradually or abruptly due to shifting internal or external
conditions (Sindbaek 2013). Although SNA can reveal factors affecting a transformation, the
results cannot be applied to a situation with the prospect of predicting the form a network will
take as an outcome of change. SNA provides direction for in-depth research (Marin and
Wellman 2009:23). It is not meant to provide simplistic resolutions to complex inquiries.
30
Despite the profound ideological shift in Northeast archaeology, our understanding of late pre-
contact history remains grounded in the culture history of the 1960s and 1970s, and much of
current research focuses on dating cultural traits and mapping their occurrence (Beisaw
2010:244; Martelle 2002:9–10). Hart and Brumbach acknowledge this and criticize current use
of culture-historical taxa, which, they insist, should not be assumed to bear “any social or
cultural reality in the past” (Hart and Brumbach 2003:750). In an effort to overcome this, I have
rejected the use of the controversial ethnic labels employed by MacNeish for pre-contact Ontario
Iroquoian peoples, replacing these with references to geographical areas. In terms of New York
state pre-contact Iroquoians, I continue to use these ethnic labels, but only in the sense that they
represent geographically oriented territories of separate communities.
At its core, human society is essentially a vast network of multiscalar interconnecting social
relations. These relations are the basis of identity at all levels because there can be no identity in
isolation. Relations, and therefore identity, occur along a scale of intimacy and distance that is in
constant flux. The female potters of the Keffer village, as members of matrilineal and matrilocal
households, communicate diverse and expanding spheres of collective female identity and social
relations through the production and use of three domains of pottery. These domains are (1)
pottery characteristic of the local north shore tradition, (2) exotic pottery acquired through
regional and pan-regional interaction, and (3) locally produced vessels created as symbols of
nonlocal relations and identity. These ceramics lend themselves to exploration, through network
analysis of the fluid temporal and social multiscalar relations of intra-community, inter-regional,
and pan-regional identity as reflected in ceramic communities of practice. These communities
emerge, flourish, and recede with changing social relations realized in ceramic vessels.
3 Background
Iroquoian Development
Figure 3-1. The geographical extent of Northern Iroquoia.
The Keffer village is a fifteenth-century pre-contact community, part of the Iroquoian occupation
of the north shore of Lake Ontario, hereafter called the north shore Iroquoians. As such, it is one
manifestation in the long, continuous sequence of Iroquoian and ancestral Iroquoian peoples in
the North American Northeast (Figure 3-1). Iroquoian peoples, characterized in the pre-contact
period by a common language; a lifestyle centred around egalitarian social structure; sedentary,
maize-based agriculture; distinctive bone, stone, and ceramic material culture; and villages of
bark-covered matrilineal, matrilocal, multifamily residences, have occupied lands surrounding
the eastern section of the lower Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence valley from the turn of the
twelfth century to the present day. By the mid-seventeenth century, territories in central Ontario
and along the shores of the St. Lawrence River were generally abandoned, while the New York
31
32
state Iroquois and surrounding Iroquoian groups receded from the south shores of these large
waterways as a result of various factors, including the Wars of the Iroquois (1649–1651).
The Iroquoian occupation has been traced back in time almost two thousand years, to the Early
Woodland occupation of Ontario, Quebec, New York, and surrounding areas in the northern
United States. Early efforts to make sense of the archaeological record followed approaches of
the taxonomic systems common in the early to mid-twentieth century, namely, the Midwestern
Taxonomic System of McKern (1939) and James Wright’s ground-breaking Ontario Iroquois
Tradition (1966), which established a framework for the chronological and spatial placement of
Iroquoian sites in the province, giving structure to the limited, but growing, data available. The
rapid expansion of this database in the past half century, along with changing theoretical
perspectives towards more relational thinking, have moved views of Iroquoian culture beyond
this paradigm. Based on the still relevant central divisions of the Woodland occupations of
Ontario, but rejecting the concepts of phases and horizons, Creese (2010:26) has presented a
broad framework that he terms the Ontario Iroquoian Tradition (after Ellis and Ferris 1990).
Divisions within this framework are flexible and are based on the gradual changes in settlement
and subsistence patterns seen in the archaeological record.
Patterns seen in the south-central Ontario tradition, as described below, are generally replicated
in neighbouring New York State and along the St. Lawrence River. As interaction with Iroquoian
groups of these areas is central to this work, I will compare datasets from this region with the
ceramic assemblages at Keffer. In this system, gradually changing characteristics of the
Woodland occupation of the Northeast form the basis for the creation of three main periods: the
Early, Middle, and Late Woodland. Archaeological remains from the Early Woodland, dating
from the ninth to second centuries B.C., document small, mobile, extended family groups
subsisting on a foraging, fishing, and hunting–based lifestyle. These groups are found throughout
southern Ontario and into Quebec and western New York (Spence et al. 1990:125). The first
appearance of pottery in the area occurred in the Woodland period (Spence et al. 1990:125).
Maize appeared around 1,000 B.C. in New York state (Thompson et al. 2004).
33
Figure 3-2. The Woodland period in south-central Ontario.
The Early Woodland occupations of Ontario are closely related to contemporary occupations of
southern Quebec and New York state. The late Early Woodland Middlesex complex (Figure 3-2)
is represented almost exclusively by burial contexts in the northern United States and along the
St. Lawrence River. The appearance of Adena-like artifacts suggests widespread macroregional
shared decorative traits, indicating regional-scale interaction (Ferris 2003; Hart 2000; Hart and
Brumbach 2003; Spence et al. 1990).
A gradual and spatially inconsistent transformation in settlement and subsistence patterns heralds
the Middle Woodland stage, circa the beginning of the fourth century A.D. During this time,
foraging, fishing, and hunting remained the main subsistence sources, but food acquisition
strategies differed from the earlier period. Evidence would suggest a growing dependence on a
seasonal movement subsistence strategy, following an annual round within a band-based territory
(Creese 2010:27; Smith 2000). During the warmer months, microband groups converged in
large, seasonal campsites in areas of large-scale seasonal food resources available in centralized
locations, such as river mouths (Spence et al. 1990:168). These locations show evidence of long-
term use and may have been a focal point of annual rounds. In the winter months, the larger
34
groups dissolved into small, scattered family groups. Seasonal movements resulted in long-
distance interaction as a routine characteristic of this period (Ferris 2003; Hart 2000; Hart et al.
2003).
Late Woodland I: Princess Point, A.D. 500–1000

The gradual change to a semi-sedentary lifestyle began in the closing of the Middle Woodland,
as the earliest Late Woodland lifeways, termed Princess Point, emerge in Ontario’s southwest,
while hunter-gatherer-foragers continue to inhabit much of the province (Smith 1997). In this
period of innovation, the first introduction of maize “gardening” occurs within floodplain areas
of the lower Grand River; at Cootes Paradise, at the west end of Lake Ontario; in the Waterloo
area; and along the north shore of Lake Erie (Crawford and Smith 1996, 2002; Smith and
Crawford 1997; Crawford et al. 1997, 1998; Warrick 2000). Similar settlements are found to the
west, in the Rivière au Vase tradition, and to the east, in the Sandbanks tradition of Prince
Edward County (Warrick 2000). Evidence of large-scale warm-season gatherings is seen in the
poorly preserved, scattered temporary wood framed shelters (Smith and Crawford 2002). This
marks a change in the annual round, as these riverine settlements became the permanent, central
hub of small family groups (Smith 2000). Towards the end of Princess Point, intensification of
maize cultivation laid the foundations for the following Glen Meyer subperiod. Glen Meyer
peoples were fully dependent on cultivated crop species (Ounjian 1998). Settlement and social
systems experienced major transitions in adopting crop-based subsistence patterns (Ferris 2003).
Late Woodland II: Early Ontario Iroquoian, A.D. 1000–1300

The ensuing Late Woodland II, Early Ontario Iroquoian period in central and southwestern
Ontario sees the proliferation of nucleated, sedentary, semi-permanent settlements between A.D.
900 and 1100. These small villages of four to five 10–20 m longhouses (Dodd 1984) held 75 to
150 people. Most settlements are now located in upland areas, away from navigable waterways
(MacDonald 2002; Pearce and Williamson 1999) and are sometimes palisaded (Warrick 2000;
Williamson 1990). Many episodes of rebuilding in the same place meant certain locations could
experience long-term use (Kapches 1993:11). Sites such as Calvert may have experienced up to
one hundred years of occupation (Timmins 1997). Settlements were located in distinct,
autonomous clusters by A.D. 1150 (Timmins 1997; Williamson 2014). Kapches (1990) argues
that limited house floor space and heterogeneous pottery within villages suggest the absence of
35
matrilocal residence at this time. Each settlement is economically and politically independent, as
reflected in the heterogeneity in ceramics between site clusters (Timmins 1997:239). Maize
accounts for up to 20 percent of the diet by the end of the thirteenth century (Katzenberg et al.
1995; Warrick 2000:437; Williamson 2014:9), but traditional foraging, hunting, and fishing
provide important food sources (Williamson 1985). Seasonal movements in search of these
resources bring people out of the villages for large portions of the year (Kapches 1987; Timmins
1997). Changes in village organization over the course of the Calvert occupation indicate
increasing social integration, the existence of matrilineal and matrilocal residence within the
larger longhouses of Early Iroquoian villages, and the “socio-political institutions” necessary for
village planning (Timmins 1997:239-240). Similarly, after intensive analysis of house and
village settlement plans, Creese proposes that the new “physicality of the longhouse” reflects a
new sense of belonging and place with membership in co-residential longhouse groups, and that
the forming of community occurs through “an increase in the anticipated stability of the
constituent social groups” (Creese 2010:34).
This subsistence settlement pattern is adopted at different times by different groups throughout
southern Ontario and New York, with nucleated settlements not appearing until after A.D. 1300
in some areas (Hart and Brumbach 2003; Snow 1996; Warrick 2000). Increasing and
unprecedented interaction between village clusters occurs towards the Early Iroquoian period,
resulting in province-wide similarity in material culture, specifically in the pervasive linear-
impressed oblique ceramic motif (Timmins 1997:240). By the end of the period, increasing
population numbers and village fission leads to the migration from isolated clusters of two or
more villages, to colonize new areas across southern Ontario and New York (MacDonald and
Williamson 1995; Niemczycki 1984; Warrick 2000).
Late Woodland III: Middle Iroquoian, A.D. 1300–1420

The rapid population growth leads to dramatic transformations in subsistence, settlement, and
socio-political organization throughout Iroquoia during the Middle Iroquoian period of the
fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries. By the fourteenth century, most traits deemed
characteristic of Iroquoian culture are widespread (Trigger 1976:91–104; Williamson 2014:9).
An overall trend in the homogenization of subsistence, settlement, and socio-political strategies,
along with the inter-related processes of population expansion and increasing maize dependency,
36
are the major hallmarks of this time. These mechanisms, the result of increasing interaction
among newly established, independent community clusters, led to greater similarity overall. A
major marker of increased cultural uniformity is seen in the widespread adoption of the
horizontal ceramic motif across Iroquoia, which first appeared in the previous century (Dodd et
al. 1990; Wright 1966). At the same time, the geographic isolation of the clusters accounts for
preservation of distinctiveness within communities.
The first three decades of the fourteenth century experienced a steady but rapid growth in
population. This resulted in the expansion of both longhouses and villages throughout Ontario
and New York (Engelbrecht 1985; Niemczycki 1984; Warrick 1990). Although population
growth is rapid, the large increase in settlement size was due to the merging of some smaller
communities into villages (Creese 2010; Dodd et al. 1990; Warrick 1990). Small settlements,
characterized by single clusters of four to five longhouses, held groups of 250 to 350, while large
villages held 400 to 500 occupants (Warrick 2000:440).
Social stress caused by the congregation of these large numbers results in the first examples of
village fission (Warrick 2000:441). The fluidity of membership within household groups and
villages became an integral component of Iroquoian social relationships hereafter (Hart and
Brumbach 2009; Warrick 2000:444). The emergence of kin–based, sometimes fictive kin,
longhouse groups, often referred to as clans, and the formalization of matrilineages and
matrilocal residence, provided the basis of the social framework (Kapches 1995; Warrick 1984)
that is essential for the integration of diverse groups (Warrick 2000). Although in later Wendat
communities, marriage is documented to have taken place between local community members
within a family’s circle (Tooker 1991:125–128; Trigger 1990a:78–79), existing ties within the
marital residence were based on female descent. New mechanisms for the integration of the large
numbers of unrelated men brought together through the practice of matrilocal residence include
small-scale rituals of group sweats. These are seen in the presence of semi-subterranean sweat
lodges in fourteenth-century Iroquoian longhouses (MacDonald 1988), larger ossuary burials,
and the accompanying feasts. The co-mingling of bones of the deceased from each house in the
village, and perhaps multiple villages, creates both the performance and the concretization of
social unity (Ferris and Spence 1995).
37
After 1330, the population exploded (Warrick 2000:439). The heavy reliance on maize, to the
point where it now made up as much as 50 percent of the diet (Williamson 2014), was not the
sole cause of this population growth; improved childhood health appears to be a major factor
(Warrick 2000). As a result of this large-scale growth, Middle Iroquoian villages often
experienced fission, as small groups left the community and migrated into new areas of southern
Ontario. Small village clusters appeared to the southwest, almost to the territory of the ancestral
Western Basin Algonquians (Lennox and Fitzgerald 1990); along the north shore of Lake
Ontario; eastwards into the St. Lawrence valley (Jamieson 1990); and, for the first time, in the
Historic Wendat homeland of Simcoe County (Sutton 1999). The population explosion also led
to an increase in longhouse length (Dodd 1984) and a concomitant increase in house numbers.
Village size was highly variable, and a single village at this time could hold more than 660
people. Integration of these large numbers was facilitated by the organization of the village into
kin-based clusters with an axial focus on outside open space (Creese 2010). Semi-subterranean
sweat lodges become ubiquitous in the last half of the fourteenth century. Social mediation
occurred through the performance of large-scale feasts, evidenced by the appearance of large
feasting vessels at this time (Finlayson 1988; Tooker 1991:73), and smaller-scale rituals,
evidenced by the appearance of elaborately decorated pipes (Smith 1997). The development of
kinship-based clans (whether this kinship is fictive or otherwise) may have been one major
mechanism of social integration (Engelbrecht 1985; Trigger 1985; Warrick 2000).
Late Woodland III: Pre-Contact Iroquoian, A.D. 1420–1550

The early fifteenth century saw stabilization in the rate of population growth throughout
Iroquoian Ontario (Warrick 2000:452). However, the increase in population due to the earlier
“baby boom” (Warrick 2000:449) resulted in continued expansion of communities in the area
southwest of Lake Ontario (Lennox and Fitzgerald 1990); into Waterloo County (Lennox and
Fitzgerald 1990); into Simcoe County (Sutton 1999); eastward along the north shore of Lake
Ontario (Birch and Williamson 2013); into the lower Trent valley (Ramsden 1990b; Sutton
1990); and still farther east, into Prince Edward County (Adams 2003). Small settlement clusters
within restricted physiographic boundaries, generally river watersheds, characterized this period.
Geographic separation and clustering of community groups were instrumental in new regional
diversity.
38
Small, unpalisaded villages display a range of settlement variability in both size and
configuration, but generally are composed of one or two clusters of three to six aligned
longhouses (Birch 2010:51; Lennox and Fitzgerald 1990; Warrick 2000). Spacing of longhouses
within settlements is inconsistent. In some cases, no clustering is apparent, while in others the
houses are highly clustered (Birch and Williamson 2013). Birch suggests that settlements of two
clusters, such as the mid-fifteenth-century Alexandra, Hope, and Orion-Murphy-Goulding sites,
formed as the first instances of community amalgamation within drainages (Birch 2010:84).
Formation of larger social entities within these growing communities likely resulted in the
creation of larger production groups beneficial for agricultural production (Dodd 1984). The
absence of palisades reinforces the argument that communities did not aggregate for defensive
purposes (Birch 2010). The presence of numerous unprotected associated hamlets, agricultural
cabins, and other special-purpose buildings in the vicinity of the villages indicates that
subsistence activities kept large portions of the population away from the villages for most of the
year, spring to fall (Warrick 2000:449), further supporting the supposition that there was a lack
of concern for defence in the early part of the fifteenth century.
Community congregation coincided with an unprecedented increase in house size. Growth within
communities in the form of multiple, large house expansions, not in the creation of new houses;
30 percent of longhouses in the fifteenth century show evidence of expansion. In the first half of
the fifteenth century, longhouses across Ontario increased in length to an average of 62 m, from
35 m in the preceding period (Dodd et al. 1990). Structures in the Neutral area expanded to
incredible sizes, some being more than 90 m in length (Warrick 2000), and one house at the
Coleman site reached the remarkable length of 124 m (MacDonald 1986). The increasing size of
membership within households may be the cause of, or may reflect, the growth of kin-based
corporate groups focused on subsistence activities. Meanwhile, the sustained need for social
integration mechanisms is documented by the continuing use of semi-subterranean sweat lodges
into the middle of the fifteenth century.
The establishment of local, spatially separated community clusters oriented around geophysical
land features led to increased regionalization across southern Ontario (Ramsden 1990a; Warrick
2000). Ramsden notes that a strong regional difference in ceramic traits characterized this period
within ancestral Wendat populations (Ramsden 1990a:381). The scarcity of exotic materials and
artifacts in these unpalisaded communities indicates regional isolation and limited long-distance
39
interaction in the early decades of the century (Dermarkar 2013; Lennox and Fitzgerald
1990:427). This pattern continued in southwestern Ontario throughout most of the fifteenth
century, possibly due to social isolation. Neutral area groups were more widely spaced than any
other Iroquoian groups in this period. However, they likely did not constitute a homogenous
entity, despite similarity in ceramics (Anderson 2009; Lennox and Fitzgerald 1990). Lack of
evidence for long-distance exchange in Simcoe County during the first half of the fifteenth
century suggests that a similar pattern of isolation may have existed in this area (Stopp 1982).
The introduction of nonlocal ceramics, steatite, and exotic shell artifacts to the north shore of
Lake Ontario began towards the middle of the century, with the first significant collection
documented at the Joseph Picard site, in the recently defined Oshawa cluster (Williamson
2016b).
As the first signs of long-distance interaction and perhaps the first immigration of small,
nonlocal social groups (Williamson 2016b) began to occur, large-scale change took place across
most of Iroquoia. This transformation did not occur in ancestral Wendake. Long-distance
interaction increased across most of Iroquoia throughout the mid-century (Kuhn 2007:336; Snow
1994:37; Warrick 2000). The presence of Onondaga chert and quantities of eastern Durfee
Underlined and Roebuck Low Collar pottery on mid-century north shore sites points to
harmonious relations with both the western Neutral and the eastern Iroquoians (Williamson and
Robertson 1998:147–149; Warrick 2008:157). Construction of new villages along the southern
reaches of the Canadian Shield indicates increasing trade between central Ontario Iroquoians and
Shield Algonquians (Warrick 2000:451). The increased interaction seen in the Late Woodland III
period (Kuhn 2004; Snow 1994:37; Warrick 2008) contrasts with the growing differentiation
among regional clusters across Iroquoia as large-scale settlement nucleation begins at both the
community and the regional level.
In Ontario, communities grew in size in the mid-fifteenth century as existing villages

experienced the influx of social groups of various sizes. As in the previous periods, village and
household membership remain fluid (Engelbrecht 1995; Niemczycki 1991:32; Snow 1994:84).
This inherent social flexibility was noted in the seventeenth century by the Jesuit Jejune
(Thwaites 1896-1901). While these immigrant groups may have had nonlocal origins (Robertson
and Williamson1998:147), the increase in village size generally reflected the integration of social
groups from various communities within the local watershed. At the Draper village site in the
40
Rouge–Duffins watershed large-scale growth resulted from the coalescence of several complete
village settlements from within the watershed (Birch 2010, 2012; Birch and Williamson 2013).
This same form of coalescence may also have occurred at the Lawson site far to the west and the
Coulter site in the Trent valley (Damkjar1982; Lennox and Fitzgerald 1990; Ramsden 1990).
This contraction of population distribution is commonly attributed to the rise of incessant
intertribal warfare (Warrick 2000:446). Larger, 2–4 ha villages are surrounded by multiple
palisades (Warrick 2008:155). Defensive earthworks in combination with palisades distinguish
the Neutral and St. Lawrence regions at such sites as Lawson and Southwold (Anderson 2009;
Wintemberg 1939), as well as in upper New York—the Onondaga Burke site being one example
(Tuck 1971:126). Scattered human skeletal elements and human bone artifacts are found on
many of these sites, including the Neutral Lawson site; the Toronto-area Damiani, Jarrett-
Lahmer, Keffer, and Parsons sites; the Rouge–Duffins-area Draper site; the Prince Edward
County Lite site; and sites in the St. Lawrence valley and New York (ASI 2015; Finlayson et al.
1985; Jenkins 2016; Pendergast 1972; Pradzynski 2013; Rainey 2002; Warrick 2008;
Williamson 2000; Williamson and Pfeiffer 2003). However, archaeologists have interpreted the
presence of substantial quantities of nonlocal ceramics within villages throughout the latter half
of the fifteenth century (Pearce 1978; Pendergast 1980; Pihl 1984; Robertson and Williamson
1998; Smith 1991) as an indication of either peaceful, long-distance interaction or absorption of
refugees (Finlayson, Smith et al. 1987; Warrick 2000:451).
Conflict appears to have been local or regional in nature in Ontario (Anderson 2009:16; Dupras
and Pratte 1998). South of Lake Ontario, hostilities among contemporary ancestral
Haudenosaunee seemingly occurred between regions, as local groups appear to have already
established formalized alliances within historic territories (Anderson 2009:16). The middle of the
fifteenth century sees increased regionalism and warfare throughout Iroquoia (Kuhn 2004), but
this occurred earlier in Ontario than in New York and may have been on a different scale (Birch
and Williamson 2013:22). Endemic warfare lessened in intensity as communities abandoned the
mid- to late fifteenth-century villages. Heavily fortified villages were built, with multiple rows of
palisades, but other evidence of conflict was slight.
At the turn of the sixteenth century, changes in settlement location and socio-political
organization continued. The most striking of these changes is the fusion of previously dispersed
regional communities into restricted territories (Engelbrecht 1999). By 1550, all Neutral area
41
villages were located to the east of the Grand River (Lennox and Fitzgerald 1990:411; Warrick
2000) and north shore communities moved north along the valleys of the south slopes of the Oak
Ridges Moraine, away from the north shore of Lake Ontario (Williamson 2014). Jefferson
County in northern New York was abandoned (Abel 2002, 2017), and St. Lawrence Iroquoians
also relocated. Villages at this time were much fewer in number, larger in scale, and spaced at a
greater distance (Birch 2010:52; Lennox and Fitzgerald 1990; Warrick 2008). Large villages on
the upper reach of the north shore were characterized by smaller, tightly spaced houses in
parallel alignment. The decline in house length, to less than 30 m on average, may represent a
gradual change in social structure from matrilineal lineages to clan segments (Warrick 2000:449)
and more fluid group membership (Engelbrecht 1985:15–17). By the end of the sixteenth
century, most of these large villages fissioned, with the component communities moving across
the Oak Ridges Moraine into Historic Wendake (Birch 2010:53) and possibly joining groups in
the upper Trent River valley (Ramsden 1990a:375). With the final abandonment of the upper
Humber and Rouge River drainages, permanent habitation on the central north shore of Lake
Ontario ceased as villages flourished in the Historic Wendake homeland. A consolidated
presence of the ancestral Neutral remained at the western end of Lake Ontario into the contact
period.
Keffer
Keffer Site Environment
The Keffer site represents the remains of a 2.1 hectare (Stewart 1991:2), ancestral Wendat
village composed of 18 longhouses and 26 middens and an encircling palisade. It is the last
known of a presumed series of settlements of the Don River Iroquoian community, located on
the upper reaches of the Don River drainage system, north of present-day Toronto in the
province of Ontario, Canada. Preliminary settlement and ceramic studies have suggested a
tentative date for the Keffer site occupation to the mid- to late fifteenth century of the Late
Woodland period (Finlayson et al. 1985). BCal standard calibration (http://bcal.shef.ac.uk/; Buck
et al. 1999) of seventeen AMS radiocarbon dates from Keffer interior pot residue lend support to
this chronology. This analysis was run without a priori assumptions about chronology because
none exist for the Keffer site. At the 95 percent probability level, the results have a tendency to
fall between A.D. 1380–1550 (Appendix A) with a reasonable amount of overlap. The mode, or
42
most common, result lies between A.D. 1450–1510. A newly proposed chronology for Iroquoian
sites of the Rouge–Duffins drainage sequence (Manning et al. 2018) raises some questions
concerning the conventionally accepted chronology of Ontario Iroquoian sites. These results
suggest that much more research will be necessary in this field to clarify these issues. With the
present information, a mid- to late fifteenth-century date is put forth for the occupation of the
Keffer site. However, in this present study, ordinal rather than absolute chronometric positioning
of Keffer and other Iroquoian sites anchor the analysis. A second source for Keffer’s
chronological position is X-ray fluorescence analysis of two Keffer copper pieces, one scrap and
one rolled bead, performed by Brandi-Lee MacDonald. Both pieces are of indigenous
manufacture, supporting the assignment of the Keffer site to the precontact era (Appendix B).
Keffer’s appearance followed the large-scale growth in settlements throughout the upper Lake
Ontario river watersheds that occurred in the earlier decades of the century. The village is
situated on land located on the east bank of a small, unnamed tributary of the upper West Don
River, less than 2 km south of the Oak Ridges Moraine. The moraine, a major geological feature
of the region, divides the north- and south-flowing drainage systems of south-central Ontario to
the north of Toronto. The Don River is the major drainage system of the central and eastern
portions of Toronto (Figure 3-3).
43
Figure 3-3. Location of the Keffer site in the Don River watershed. (modified from Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority ca. 2008)
44
The Keffer village is located at a linear distance of 24 km from the shore of Lake Ontario. This
distance increases greatly if one follows the course of the water flow along the tributaries of the
drainage system, a route that was perhaps the preferred path of least resistance for resource
gathering groups. With distance from the shoreline comes increasing elevation, as the southern
slopes of the Oak Ridges Moraine rise to the north. The village site sits at an elevation of 205–
208 m ASL, 125 m above the level of Lake Ontario.
The site is located on a steep-sided, bi-level terrace (Figure 3-4), 5–8 m above the Don River
tributary below. Surface runoff and agricultural ploughing have caused the erosion of several
longhouse extremities, including end walls, particularly near the western terrace edge. The
village occupies both levels of the terrace; the upper village is located on a 3 m high plateau
overlooking a tributary of the Don River to its west and a low-lying plain, or depression which
encircles it to the north, east, and south (Spence 1988). The plateau comprises roughly a third of
the village area (Figure 3-4).
Figure 3-4. The bi-level plateau of the Keffer site. (Ontario Museum of Archaeology)
The Keffer site is situated within the Peel Plain physiographic region (Chapman and Putman
1984:174–175, Figure 3-5). This region is crossed from north to south by several watersheds
draining into Lake Ontario and is characterized by pockets of a variety of soil types resulting
from ancient glacial activity in the area.
45
Figure 3-5. Glacial deposits in the vicinity of the Keffer site. (modified from Ontario
Geological Survey 1980)
The Peel Till Plain, a widespread glacial deposit of boulders, clay, and sandy silt till deposited in
the last ice age, underlies large swaths of this area north of Lake Ontario. Two sizeable pockets
of glacial pond–deposited Malton Clay, a stone-free lacustrine clay, define the immediate
vicinity of the site to both the north and south (Figure 3-6, Figure 3-7). Southern lobes of the Oak
Ridges Moraine extend southward to within a couple of kilometres of the site.
46
Figure 3-6. Soils in the vicinity of the Keffer site. (modified from Agriculture Canada 1955)
47
The site itself is located on a bed of Chiguacousey clay loam with imperfect drainage. This
deposit stretches to the east and south between the east and west branches of the Don River,
while soils to the north and east consists of clay deposits of the Peel Plain less advantageous for
agriculture (Agriculture Canada 1955). Tracts of well-drained Oneida clay loam are present
within 1–2 km of the site. The steep slope of the Peel Plain, rising more than 120 m from the
shoreline northward, has facilitated the formation of deep valleys cut by both the Humber and
Don Rivers. Two small outcrops of the underlying shale bedrock occur along the Don River to
the south of the Keffer site, along with small areas of sandstone and chert-bearing limestone
(Kerr and Spelt 1965:14, in Stewart 1991:9). This till plain geology resulted in an area of well-
drained, agriculturally productive soils supporting a climax deciduous forest of mixed hardwood
species, dominated by sugar maple, beech, and oak, along with hickory, basswood, and white
pine. White ash, elm, and white cedar predominated in depression areas (Chapman and Putnam
1984:289). No swamps or bogs are present on this till plain (Stewart 1991:9), although large
wetlands existed at the mouth of the Don River. With consistent levels of precipitation occurring
throughout the year and a long frost-free spell, from late May to October, this upper south-slopes
area provided an excellent venue for maize horticulture (Stewart 1991a:10), with access to a
wide variety of faunal and floral species and rock and clay sources.
Early Research at the Keffer Site

David Boyle, of the Canadian Institute, initially reported the existence and partial excavation of a
large ossuary located on Lot 12, Concession 3, in the Township of Vaughan in 1889 (1907:16).
The site itself was first noted and mapped in detail by A.J. Clarke in 1925 (Figure 3-7) in the
course of Clarke’s archaeological surveys of the Toronto area, during which he explored,
recorded, and mapped the location of numerous sites. A small collection of artifacts acquired
during this exploration now resides at the Canadian Museum of History in Gatineau, Quebec.
Clark’s map portrays the village site as occupying parts of both Lot 12 and Lot 13 of Concession
3, with the associated ossuary located below a local farm barn erected in 1884 on a knoll in the
southwestern section of Lot 12 (Spence 1988). Victor Konrad reported visiting the village site in
the early 1970s (Konrad 1973), during his survey of the archaeological resources of the
Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area. Konrad registered the village site as Borden number
AkGv-14 and the ossuary as AkGv-15 with the Ontario Ministry of Citizenship and Culture.
Although Konrad considered that the protected location of the Keffer ossuary lessened the threat
48
of modern disturbance, he suggested that the 6–10 acre village site, already subject to partial
disturbance, was threatened by development in the near future.
Figure 3-7. Map of the Keffer village site. (Clark 1925)

49
Keffer Site Excavation, 1984 and 1988

The proposed development of Lot 13, Concession 3, by Magna International in the early 1980s
led to renewed interest in this archaeological site. In 1984, the Museum of Indian Archaeology
(MIA) was hired to assess and, subsequently, salvage-excavate the northern portion of the site,
on lands slated for development by the Magna Corporation. Peter Timmins undertook the initial
reconnaissance and testing, in the fall of 1984 (Timmins 1984). During this investigation, seven
extensive exploratory trenches were laid out across the presumed occupation area. These
trenches were mechanically stripped of the plough zone soil, after which areas of interest were
shovel shined. The excavators uncovered the remains of a two-row palisade in six of the seven
trenches (Finlayson et al. 1985a). These preliminary investigations suggested that 1.56 ha of the
site located within Lot 13 were threatened by development. At this time, there were no
immediate plans for development of Lot 12, the southern portion of the site. On May 6, 1985, the
MIA began salvage operations of the northern area of the site, having been awarded the contract
in March (Finlayson et al. 1985a). The large scale of the Keffer project was made possible by
funding from all three levels of government and private corporate support. Independent grids of
slightly different orientation were laid on the upper and lower levels of the site prior to
excavation. Disturbed middens were identified in the ploughed portion of the site through site
survey. Middens were then excavated by shovel in one metre squares and the matrix was
screened through 6.4 mm mesh (Stewart 1991:3). Basal middens appear under surface midden
deposits at depths of 10–40 cm. Therefore, natural stratigraphy was followed where it was
present. Where stratigraphy was not apparent, middens were excavated in arbitrary, 10 cm levels.
Following excavation of the middens, the remainder of the soil in the ploughed portion of the site
was removed mechanically, without screening for cultural material (Finlayson et al. 1985a:3).
Post moulds and features in the subsoil were exposed with the mechanical stripping. Features,
specifically subsurface pits and some posts, were excavated by hand, sectioned, and drawn, and
the fill was screened on 6.4 mm mesh for cultural remains. Flotation samples were taken from all
features. Post moulds and features were measured by triangulation from the southwest grid stake
of the square. All information was recorded on standardized field note forms. Grid squares were
then plotted on personal computers on-site. After being printed, the field forms were verified for
accuracy. Human burials found within the village were investigated and reported on by Michael
Spence (1988). The appearance of a burial ground of undefined limits exterior to the village
50
palisade and the requirement for further testing for a sewer right-of-way led to further
exploratory trenching from beyond the outer palisade in the late fall of 1985.
Figure 3-8. Aerial view of Lot 13, 1985 excavations, and wooded Lot 12 bottom right.
Further plans for development on Lot 12, Concession 3, prompted MIA to excavate the
remainder of the Keffer village site. A large portion of Lot 12, unlike Lot 13, had not been
subject to agricultural ploughing and hosted a hardwood forest (Figure 3-8). Excavation of this
area followed a different methodology. This portion of the site was excavated by hand in one
metre squares. The grid layout continued that of the 1985 excavation of the upper part of the site.
The short time allotted for this second excavation season meant that while the houses were hand
excavated in one metre squares, sizable areas between the houses and palisades were only
investigated through the use of one metre test trenches in the village’s southern portion.
In addition to providing descriptions of the 1985 excavations, the Keffer field report (Finlayson
et al. 1985) offered interpretations of the temporal and cultural placement of the site within the
greater Ontario Iroquoian occupation. The report proposed an early fifteenth-century date for the
51
site based on preliminary analysis of the settlement data and ceramics and noted the unusual bi-
level occupation of the site for a “Huron” (now termed ancestral Wendat) village. The
superpositioning of structures and the presence of two distinct palisade lines led to the
presentation of two differing construction scenarios. The first of these entailed contraction of the
village over time, with the removal of numerous longhouses and a reduction of the two-row
palisade into a smaller, single-row fence line. An alternate site history proposed village
expansion from a small group of six longhouses surrounded by a one-row palisade on the lower
level of the site to a larger, bi-level settlement surrounded by a two-row palisade. The
replacement, expansion, and renovation of some lower-town houses would have occurred in
conjunction with the erection of this new palisade. The settlement history of the upper plateau
area is not discussed in this interpretation, perhaps due to incomplete nature of the excavation in
this area at the time of publication.
The Rouge–Duffins drainage Draper site, at that time the only other extensively excavated
contemporary north shore Iroquoian village, provided the most appropriate comparison for
settlement pattern and material culture. Although house structures were found to be very similar
to those of Draper, the overall shorter length of the Keffer longhouses led the authors to suggest
an earlier date for the Keffer site. The team also noted a much lower feature-to-postmould ratio
for Keffer. Possible socioeconomic implications of this difference remain unresolved. Similar to
Draper, however, the Keffer site contained a large number of broken and burnt human skeletal
elements (n=1,237) within its middens and houses (Rainey 2002; Spence and Rainey 2017:25),
pointing to warfare of at least regional nature during the fifteenth century (Finlayson et al.
1985:8). The presence of two deer scapula pipes, thought to be characteristic of the St. Lawrence
Iroquoians, and a small percentage of St. Lawrence Iroquoian ceramics provide possible
evidence of long-distance interaction, perhaps warfare, with St. Lawrence Iroquoians to the east
(Finlayson et al. 1985:9). The authors also argued that the ceramics indicate similar contact with
Seneca to the south and west (Finlayson et al. 1985:9). The large-scale excavation operation at
Keffer provided essential information on the complexity and diversity of Iroquoian villages,
enabling more in-depth study of transformations in settlement pattern into the early Late
Iroquoian period (Finlayson et al. 1985:9–10).
Preliminary reports of the first excavations presented an initial analysis of botanical samples
undertaken by Charles Turton (Finlayson et al. 1985:8), which documented the presence of the
52
agricultural cultigens maize, beans, squash, sunflower, and tobacco and also provided evidence
of long-term occupation for the Keffer village. According to Turton, the presence of maple and
beech charcoal at the base of a village midden overlain by strata containing evidence of more
varied mixed trees marks the initial settlement in an established forest. The non-climax trees seen
in later deposits suggest that the area was entirely cleared of the original forest and that forest
regrowth occurred during the occupation period (Finlayson et al. 1985:9). The use of the
secondary growth forest by Keffer residents argues for a long duration of occupation of the
village.
Finlayson and his team published a summary of the 1985 excavation season and a description of
the artifacts, in 1987 (Finlayson et al. 1987), prior to the 1988 excavations of the southern
portion of the village. Large-scale research continued as part of the project into the 1990s.
Published reports include David G. Smith’s (1991) ceramic study, Frances Stewart’s (1991)
analysis of Keffer site fauna and Dawn Wright’s (1991) examination of botanical remains.
Numerous unpublished studies (Appendix C) add to large body of research undertaken on the
Keffer site. In addition, Keffer has been the subject of several academic presentations and
publications. These include the work of John Creese on the Keffer pipes and identity (2013,
2014), my own (Dermarkar 2012, 2013a, 2013b, 2014b, 2016) presentations on the Keffer site
and its ceramic relations, Tara Jenkins’ work on the human bone artifacts (Jenkins 2014, 2016),
Michael Spence and Dori Rainey’s (2017) study of the cultural significance of the Keffer site
human burials and most recently Steve Dorland’s (2018) thesis on learner vessels.
In summary, the Keffer site is the remains of a Late Iroquoian village located on a small tributary
of the upper Don River, north of Toronto and Lake Ontario. Keffer sits on a bed of clay loam and
is surrounded by many pockets of arable land on a glacial till plain just south of the Oak Ridges
Moraine. The local vicinity is characterized by a variety of floral, faunal, and geological
resources, and the climate is amenable to seasonal agriculture. The presence of an Iroquoian
village site in this location has long been known. Previous research on the Keffer village has
established it as a fifteenth-century ancestral Wendat village which experienced multiple changes
in its settlement pattern throughout its history. External relationships may have been
characterized by warfare, as seen in scattered human bone and perhaps less violent interaction, as
evidenced in Keffer’s nonlocal ceramics.
53
Although the ceramics of the Keffer site have previously been examined and reported on by
David Smith (1991), the main purpose of his report was to provide a preliminary introduction to
the ceramic and pipe data and an exploratory review of the decorative variation found among
longhouse and middens locations. Smith also examined the utility of ceramic attribute
combinations and typology as analytical units (Smith 1991:1). A significant amount of research
on the habitation of the village has occurred over the past 40 years. The earliest studies, focused
on material culture description of the large collection available for the Keffer site, have
supported some ground-breaking work in archaeological method and theory (Creese 2013, 2014;
Dorland 2016a, 2016b, 2017, 2018). The body of research briefly described above has not yet
been compiled into a cohesive record of the Keffer occupation and its place within greater
Iroquoian culture. Although this is not the purpose of this thesis, information from these works
will be incorporated here where appropriate.
54
4 Method: Ceramic Type and Attribute Analysis

Ceramic Method and Theory
Ceramics have played a central role in the study of Iroquoian society since the earliest days of
research (Beauchamp 1894, 1900; Boyle 1889, 1891, 1892, 1896, 1897a, 1897b, 1898, 1902;
Hunter 1900, 1902, 1907; Laidlaw 1891, 1917; Wintemberg 1900, 1901, 1903). Early research
concentrated on the collection of artifacts from ash pits and middens visible in the agricultural
fields of Ontario and New York. Ceramic study focused on description and illustration, with an
emphasis on traits of form and decorative style (Emerson 1954; Houghton 1916; Jury and Jury
1955; Ridley 1952b). The appearance of the unique Iroquoian ceramics and other material
culture within an area surrounded by Algonkian groups presented a puzzle to researchers of the
day. Archaeologists proposed a model of intrusive migration from the south into the lower Great
Lakes region to explain this anomaly (Beauchamp 1894, 1900; Parker 1916, 1922; Skinner
1921). As early as 1939, Phileo Nash at the University of Toronto hypothesized a local origin for
the Northern Iroquoians based on his work at the Pound site, where he noted continuity in
ceramic practice from earlier occupations (Pearce 1996:23–24). In the 1940s, the in situ
hypothesis became the subject of great interest (Griffin 1944; Kraus 1944). In order to test this
hypothesis, Richard MacNeish developed a pottery typology based on his examination of
assemblages from all regions of Northern Iroquoia. The resulting typological series, published in
Iroquois Pottery Types (MacNeish 1952), dominated Ontario Iroquoian pottery analysis until the
mid-1960s, and it continues to be a mainstay of Ontario Iroquoian ceramic study.
As recently summarized by Matthew Peeples, types “are descriptive units that identify sets of
objects that share some, though not generally all, analytically important characteristics. The
selection of these “important” characteristics often renders the typology a subjective one
(Peeples 2011:239). While typologies can be the product of a systematic combination of
attributes (see Gifford and Smith 1978), in MacNeish’s taxonomy, ceramics are grouped and
arranged according to MacNeish’s intuitive separation of vessels, derived in large part from
examination of the rim and collar attributes as entire vessels are rarely available in Iroquoian
assemblages. He cites an earlier joint statement with William Ritchie to explain the approach:
We conceive of the typing of archaeological materials as an attempt to recapture

the stylistic concepts in the minds of the original makers…. We believe that, at
55
least to a certain degree, our types reflect aesthetic and utilitarian standards of
value which operated as cultural compulsives on the minds of artisans and
therefore, they possess some genuine measure of intrinsic validity [Ritchie and
MacNeish 1949:98, cited in MacNeish 1952:2].
MacNeish used the analysis of ceramic rims, both their shape and their decoration, combined
into types, to define ethnic identity and trace peoples through time. Each of his ceramic types has
been directly designated to one of the major “ethnic” groups. It is almost universally accepted
today that some communities did, in fact, remain within a single river drainage area, moving
within its boundaries on a fairly regular basis (see Abel 2002; Bamann et al. 1992; Birch 2010;
Birch and Williamson 2013; Bradley 1987; Pearce 1996; Snow 1997; Tuck 1971; Warrick and
Molnar 1986; Wray and Schoff 1953). Other Iroquoian individuals, families, and communities,
on the other hand, often relocated into either uninhabited or occupied, distant or adjacent, lands
from their home communities, sometimes into existing villages. Widespread interaction
throughout the region is reflected in shared ceramic types and attributes.
Although MacNeish (1952:2) assigned each of his ceramic types to a historically documented,
ethnic tribal nation, this identity is not intrinsic to the nature of typology. Types, as well as
attributes, can be employed as tools distinct from any implied ethnic connotations. As they are
used today, types are handy tools for preliminary ceramic analysis, providing a large-scale
overview of general ceramic affinities and reflecting some level of social relations (Birch et al.
2017). Newer approaches to typology in use in Britain today, such as emergence (Lee 2006) and
assemblage theory (DeLanda 2006, 2016), have not yet been introduced into precontact
Iroquoian archaeology. Yet these linked perspectives offer theoretical support to the recent
introduction of relational network studies within the discipline (Dermarkar et al. 2016, Hart and
Engelbrecht 2012; Hart et al. 2016). Of particular importance to this study is Chris Fowler’s
(2017) presentation of a relational interpretation of typology which grounded in assemblage
theory following Lucas (2012). In contrast to the MacNeish-Ritchie view of types as static
concepts in the mind of the ceramicist Lucas argues that types in fact have no essence. There is
no unchanging idea, or mental template. Types are a process of recurrent citation and are
composed of “constituent populations of things” that are produced from “a similar iterative
process” (Fowler 2017:99). The object, here ceramic vessels, and the type, perhaps Huron
Incised, are co-emergent. As the vessel is formed, and the action repeated, the type arises. In this
56
view types are not static and inflexible. New elements may be introduced in successive iterations
but they will be removed in other iterations if they prove ineffective. In this way types are an
important tool in detecting relations and making sense of different past ways of becoming
(Fowler 2017:104). This new perspective on typology provides a path forward for the
incorporation of ceramic types in Iroquoian archaeology after decades of deliberation regarding
its utility.
Debate on the meaning and validity of types (Ford 1954; Ford and Steward 1954; Pratt 1960;
Spaulding 1953; Whallon 1972, 1980) of the typological series has defined lower Great Lakes
archeology since its inception in the early 1950s (MacNeish 1952; Ritchie and MacNeish 1949).
However, in Ontario, change did not occur until 1966, when J.V. Wright published a critique, in
his seminal work The Ontario Iroquois Tradition, regarding the limitations of typologies,
including their subjective and therefore irreplicable nature. As an alternative he proposed their
replacement with individual variable analysis. Attribute analysis became the focus of major
studies during the 1970s and 1980s following the work of Peter Ramsden (1977). Attribute
analysis is available for a large number of collections. However, in Ontario the introduction of
attribute analysis has not been entirely successful due to the lack of a common methodology
(ASI 2010c; Pendergast 1973; Ramsden 1977; Smith 1990). A common ceramic attribute
database therefore does not exist. Since roughly 1990, however, many analyses of Iroquoian
pottery have included both typological and attribute analysis.
While attribute analysis has been successfully employed for the production of ceramic-based
chronologies and the reconstruction of social relations across the province in individual and
incomparable studies (Ramsden 1977; Smith 1990), MacNeish’s typology has most often been
employed to create chronological site and regional sequences in Ontario Iroquoian studies
(Bursey 1993; Wright 1966). In fact, while Wright espoused the use of attribute analysis, he
himself relied on the MacNeish typology in his production of the framework of Ontario
Iroquoian culture predominant during the latter half of the twentieth century. The ubiquitous use
of typology (following Lenig 1965; MacNeish 1952; Noble 1968, 1974; Pratt 1976; Wright
1966) in Ontario, and the production of a large quantity of ceramic type data from New York
state over the past half century, much of it available in the published literature, makes
comparable large-scale ceramic data easily obtainable and provides an extensive databases for
analysis.
57
The assumption that the occurrence of ceramic types and attributes varied in a patterned way
over time and that specific types pre-date others across the southern portion of the province
formed the basis of the production and interpretation of regional site sequences. The relative
chronological position of sites was explored through seriation, using the battleship-shaped curve
or the production of Brainerd Robinson co-efficient of similarity (BR) matrix of the relative
frequencies of assemblage types (Bursey 1993; Chapdelaine 1989; Emerson 1954; Engelbrecht
1971; Niemczycki 1984; Pendergast 1984; Ramsden 1977; Smith 1990; Wright 1966). It is now
clear, however, that while there may be general temporal patterns of popularity among certain
“time-sensitive” ceramic types and traits, percentages of these may vary greatly among drainage
basin–delineated community clusters (Birch 2010; Birch and Williamson 2013; Williamson and
Powis 1998; also see Ramsden 1977). It is imperative, therefore, in assessing the chronological
position of ceramic collections, to be cognisant of the geographical, and often resulting cultural,
associations of the sites employed in the BR analysis.
Network analysis of ceramic attributes presents some problems. The formation of the data matrix
employs a sole variable for comparison of the ceramic samples investigated. This results in the
selection of only one attribute for comparison, as seen in the collar motif network analysis of
Iroquoian ceramics (Dermarkar et al. 2016; Hart and Birch 2017; Hart and Engelbrecht 2012;
Hart et al. 2015a, 2015b; Hart et al. 2017), or the use of attribute combinations consolidated into
a single variable. In either case, network analysis of attributes entails the ranking of vessel
attributes in relation to the questions posed. The specific attributes deemed important by the
producer and the consumer—and according to which the vessel was formed or chosen—remain
beyond our understanding. While it may be possible to propose a rank order for ceramic
attributes according to specific hypotheses, the multiscalar tacking (sensu Wylie 1989) among
several scales of social relations employed in this research, from the household to the pan-
Iroquoian level, requires an analytical unit of ceramic measurement applicable at multiples
scales. Attributes or traits portray only specific elements of practice. These must be combined
with other specific vessel attributes, deemed meaningful to the research question, to illustrate
social practice above the level of one component of action in the production of pottery.
Communities of practice occur at multiple scales simultaneously. At these differing scales they
can primarily reflect aesthetic orientations of production and use, as seen in Ann Stahl’s (2013)
examination of figurines in the Volta Basin, or explorations of production technique (Dorland
58
2018). Comparison of types in some instances, as is evident in the MacNeish typology, can
reflect diversity in many aspects of the chaîne opératoire of two vessels, as is evident when
comparing Otstungo Notched everted-lip and Durfee Underlined pots. In contrast with the
comparison of Huron Incised and Sidey Notched vessels, only small aesthetic modifications to
the rim are defined. Therefore, the ability of a type to reflect a single component of production, a
complete chaîne opératoire of ceramic practice at the level of the individual completed vessel, or
a larger household or village community of practice through the examination of entire
assemblages makes typology well suited to multiscalar analysis.
In this study, I employ types in various combinations at descending geographic and social scales
to unveil decreasing social distance and increasingly intimate social relations as represented by
ceramic use and production. However, the exploration of nuanced relationships between
assemblages often entails investigation at the smaller scale, i.e., that of attribute variables. Single
attributes may be employed to explore agency at the level of the macro-community or at the level
of micro-scale influences and, perhaps, direct contact. For instance, the relative quantities of
neck decorated vessels present in an assemblage may aid in the chronological placement of an
occupation within a regional grouping or cluster. In contrast, the relationship between occupants
of two longhouses within a site might require a micro-scale, nuanced analysis of the number of
horizontal lines decorating the neck of vessels in those locations.
Although some Iroquoian ceramic types, such as Black Necked and Pound Necked, are prized as
chronological markers, others are conjectured to have geographical and socio-cultural
affiliations. This is explicit in reference to the St. Lawrence Iroquoian ceramic types Roebuck
Low Collar and Durfee Underlined, which occur at Keffer, as well as Corn Ear, Lanorie Corded,
Lanorie Crossed, Lanorie Mixed, and Swarthout Dentate, which do not appear at Keffer.
MacNeish originally determined Roebuck Low Collar and Durfee Underlined to be of Onondaga
ancestry (MacNeish 1952:60–61). These types have now all been designated as St. Lawrence
Iroquoian in origin (Dermarkar et al. 2016; Funk 2004:150; Hart et al. 2016). Investigation into
the origin and distribution, both pan-regionally and across the village, of Rice Diagonal and
Otstungo Notched, two “Mohawk” (MacNeish 1952:74–75) types that occur in significant
numbers at Keffer, also provides multiscalar ceramic relations. In contrast, I view types believed
to have originated with the pre-contact Neutral in southwestern Ontario, widespread across
southern Ontario, as reflecting long-term interregional interaction.
59
Figure 4-1. Keffer site location within pan-Iroquoia A.D. 1350 to 1650. (David Smith)
A different level of interaction is seen in the examination of specific ceramic attributes. The
presence of nonlocal, St. Lawrence Iroquoian production elements, or attributes: reed punctates
(indentations assumed to have been created with the use of cut reeds), basal thumbnail gouges,
and finely detailed decorative implementation not generally seen on Ontario Iroquoian ceramics
mark the appearance of exotic vessels at the site (Chapdelaine 1991; Jamieson 1990). The minor
presence of these attributes in limited loci across the site traces common external ties within the
village. The distribution of other attributes, including particular motifs, though lacking in
specific geographical or temporal importance, traces distinct practices across the site and in some
cases across Iroquoia.
In summary, I have chosen ceramic typology following MacNeish and others as the analytical
unit anchoring this research. Typed pottery assemblages best represent the agency of the
60
nontechnical aspects of ceramic practice and are useful at multiple scales of social distance.
Iroquoian collections in particular are well suited for multiscalar network research because of
their overall uniformity and widespread availability. Individual ceramic attributes provide small-
scale supplementary insights.
History of Research on the Keffer Ceramics

Cataloguing of the Keffer site artifact assemblage was performed under the direction of David
Smith. The better part of a year was devoted to matching and reconstructing vessels and rim
segments, facilitating further analysis of the ceramics. The large size of the collection made it
impractical to lay out all of the pottery for extensive visual comparison. Thus, only ceramics
from adjoining units within specific site features (that is, houses or middens) were laid out in the
lab at any one time, according to their original grid system provenience relationships. These
ceramics were then roughly sorted by type or highly visible attribute similarities and compared
among the excavation units for vessels match, whether “empirical” (i.e., actual physical mends)
or “inferred” (i.e., close similarity of shape and decoration) (Smith 1991:3).
Rim sherds were selected for coding and analysis on the basis of some simple criteria. Foremost
of these was the presence of the entire exterior design sequence, encompassing at least part of the
vessel lip, the complete upper rim exterior, and enough of the neck to ascertain its primary
design. Presence of the interior surface was not deemed crucial for inclusion in the study. The
sherds matching these criteria came from almost 5,000 individual vessels. All sherds not
assigned to a vessel rim section and not meeting these criteria, which numbered in the thousands,
were considered fragmentary and were removed from the analyzable collection.
The rims included in the original analysis were initially sorted within their larger house or
midden loci according to the basic typological system proposed by MacNeish. Each rim was then
labelled with a unique “Unit” identification number directly related to its provenance, or locus of
origin. In general, the vessels were ordered sequentially, generally according to ceramic type,
ranging from the simplest exterior collar decoration to the most complex exterior collar
decoration. For example, Huron Incised rims originating in Midden 65 might be sequentially
labelled as 650001, 650002, 650003, etc., while those of the Lalonde High Collared type, with
complex collar motifs, could be much farther along in the sequence, labelled 650222, 650223,
650224, etc. With the large number of vessels in this collection, this cataloguing method makes
61
identification of vessel origins immediately obvious at the macro, village level. Following field
procedure, ceramics originating in Houses 1 to 20 are labelled beginning with the digits 01 to 20,
while ceramics originating in middens are labelled beginning with the digits 60 to 80.
Information on specific intra-house feature location of artifacts is available in the catalogue
database. Due to the small number of features found within houses (Finlayson et al. 1985), intra-
house-level analysis proved uninformative.
While preliminary analysis of the collection was a focus of the initial research on the ceramics,
Smith (1991:xi) states that one of the main objectives of the work was to make the data
accessible and useful for other researchers. To facilitate future analysis an extensive list of
attribute variables was included. The code developed by Smith for his Ph.D. research on
Middleport ceramics (Smith 1997) was modified for the Keffer site ceramic analysis. The
cataloguing, coding, and typing of the ceramic vessels was partially completed by temporary
employees supported by the Ontario government’s Summer Employment Program. These
individuals had little or no archaeological background and little experience or training in ceramic
coding and identification. The resulting coding and typological assignments of the rim sherds
therefore tended to be inconsistent.
General Procedures Followed in the Current Analysis

Early in this research, the need for a re-evaluation of the nearly 5,000 vessels to assure coding
uniformity throughout the collection became evident. This re-evaluation ensured that the results
could be comparable with those of other assemblages coded using Smith’s Version 4. In the
present analysis, material from each locus was laid out according to the original cataloguing
scheme, generally by type. This resulted in vessels of similar characteristics being displayed
roughly adjacent to one another, which enabled the matching of many rim segments previously
attributed to separate vessels. In addition, sherds deemed to be too fragmentary for coding in the
previous study were re-evaluated for inclusion in this research, since the criteria previously used
were restrictive to certain forms and prioritized some variables to the detriment of the greater
study (i.e., evidence of complete neck motif over its presence/absence). With the integration of
these additional vessels and the ability to visually match rim segments with others from the same
house or midden, the analyzable assemblage has grown to a total of a minimum number of 5,674
vessels. This substantially increased the size of what was already one of the largest collections of
62
vessels in all of Iroquoia. Although MacNeish’s types are the unit of analysis for this study, I
also reassessed the attribute coding of the entire collection. In the course of re-analysis of the
collection I added several new attributes, dealing with sherd size, reed punctates, and secondary
rim notching to the database. I employ these attributes, most notably the presence of reed
punctates, in the non-network-based analysis to gain further insights into specific temporal and
geographic origins of the vessel.
Since type assignment poses several challenges, the specific application of the assigned types in
this study requires some explanation. To assure consistency in the intra- and inter-village
correlation of ceramic typology, it is essential that I define and describe the Iroquoian ceramic
types to be used. MacNeish (1952) provided the basic underlying definitions. I have modified his
typological catalogue with some additions and clarifications from later work by Latta (1983),
Lenig (1965), Noble (1968, 1974), Pratt (1980), Ridley (1952b), and Wright (1966). I describe
issues pertaining to type definitions that have affected the Keffer analysis below. Complete
definitions of all types as they are employed in this work are included in Appendix D.
It has not been possible to perform comparison through actual sherd-to-sherd assessment for all
of the material because the collection has been physically sorted and stored according to the
original individual material provenience. The immensity of the Keffer collection and the large
size of some of the vessels, ranging from a couple of centimetres to one metre in height and/or
diameter, make physical comparisons among the vessels of the various loci untenable and even
impossible. Therefore, I created a photographic library of the entire analyzable ceramic
rim/vessel collection during the recoding process. The ease of accessing photographs for
comparison and analysis purposes also makes the collection now more available and accessible
to other researchers, as was intended by the original team. The main purpose of the library is not
to produce publication-quality images, but, rather, to create a useful visual catalogue which will
be easily accessible for basic visual character information on the collection, without having to
pull sherds from storage once again, piece by piece. The photography of all the Keffer vessels,
which were sorted and stored primarily according to provenance—most importantly the
photography of those with more complex motifs—also allows the exploration of the relationships
among large numbers of similar vessels through visual analysis/comparison of the photographs
on large viewing screens.
63
Iroquoian Ceramic Typology at Keffer

The ceramic collection of the Keffer village comprises 37 individual ceramic types. (A
description of all of these types is available in Appendix D.) This assemblage has the largest
diversity of types of any Ontario Iroquoian collection known to date. The great majority, 87.2
percent, of the rimsherds included in the current analysis conform to MacNeish’s Huron and
Neutral wares, here called local tradition ceramics. Earlier Ontario Iroquois types make up 1.0
percent of the collection, and undecorated collar Niagara and Ripley types represent 1.1 percent.
The remaining rimsherds comprise a large variety of types, present in much lower quantities, that
share characteristics of shape and decoration distinctive to geographically more distant Iroquoian
groups. Generally labelled “exotics” by others (Birch and Williamson 2013; Kuhn 2004:446),
these ceramics are here collectively termed nonlocal ceramics.
Most of these ceramics appear to have been produced at Keffer or nearby, roughly following
decorative formulas originating farther afield, beyond the ancestral south-central Ontario
Iroquoian homelands. Although the decorative motif and rim shape, or both, loosely conform to
type definitions, the simplification of the motif and lack of precision in the application of the
motif suggest a local versus nonlocal production for the majority of these vessels. To confirm
this belief, Laser ablation-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) was
performed by John Creese on vessels of local and nonlocal ceramic types from Keffer. The local
types examined in Creese’s study are Huron Incised rims from three separate middens, one Black
Necked rim, and one Lalonde High Collar rim. The nonlocal types examined are one Otstungo
Notched vessel, one Onondaga Triangular sherd, and several Durfee Underlined vessels. In all,
15 vessels were tested, only one of which was deemed ahead of time to be exotic, of probable St.
Lawrence origin due to the precision and complexity of the collar decoration. In Creese’s
principal components plot (Figure 4-2); all vessels are represented by blue triangles. The
generally homogenous nature of these samples is apparent when compared with the more
scattered distribution on the plot of the pipe bowls (represented by green diamonds), pipe stem
beads (represented by black circles), and effigy pipes (represented by red squares). The
uniformity of the ablation results for these vessels, as seen in their clustering to the middle left of
the graph, indicates local, on-site manufacture of the majority of both the local tradition and the
nonlocal tradition ceramics sampled. In addition, Creese found that ceramic production waste
from across the Keffer site has essentially the same profile of major chemical elements as the
64
majority of the tested pottery vessels, supporting the suggestion of on-site production of both
local and nonlocal ceramic types (John Creese, personal communication 2014).
Figure 4-2. Keffer ceramic object chemistry principal components analysis of major
elements. (courtesy John Creese)
A small portion of these nonlocal ceramics at Keffer consists of several vessels deemed to be of
foreign manufacture. These are found across the site in association with several diverse features.
The hypothesis of off-site manufacture for these vessels is based on subjective judgement of
vessel attributes. Primary among these are the elaborate, complex motifs, with fine detail
executed with visible precision. The reed punctates motif commonly decorates these vessels. The
designation of these vessels as “exotic,” or foreign-made, is supported by Creese’s analysis. The
circled blue triangle on the bottom left of the graph represents a finely made Durfee Underlined
vessel with reed punctates on the collar. The presence of these vessels of foreign manufacture
within the Keffer village indicates long-distance external social ties, materialized in the form of
trade items or gifts. Pots located within the main body of the cluster belong to both the local and
Haudenosaunee traditions and emergent vessels indicating likely local manufacture
65
Local Tradition Types and Attributes

I deem concave interior rim forms on local tradition ceramics in this study to represent the
influence of a unique community of practice whose origin archaeologists have often assigned to
the southwestern region of Iroquoian Ontario (MacNeish 1952; Wright 1966). Ceramics typical
of sites culturally designated as “Neutral,” namely, Lawson Incised and Lawson Opposed, are
characteristic of these western ceramic collections of the mid-fifteenth century. They are also
present, although in much smaller proportions, on Iroquoian sites throughout most of south-
central Ontario during this period. These mid-fifteenth-century Neutral ceramics are
characterized by concave interior rim form and vertical and opposed incised lines (where a single
oblique or a set of obliques meet obliques of the opposite direction), respectively. Pound Necked
and Pound Blank share this rim form but are most popular in the preceding century. Convex
interior rims may reflect both time and area of influence. Convex rims became increasingly
common into the seventeenth century, when they form the majority of interior vessel rim shape
in Wendat collections. The height of a portion of Iroquoian vessel rims increased from medium
(3.5 cm) to high (well over 5 cm) in the fifteenth century. These high collars became less
common in the sixteenth century. General height characteristics are subsumed in ceramic types
and are reflected to some extent in the network topology. Neck decoration, a general temporal
indicator within local community groups, is represented here by the Black Necked and Pound
Necked types. Interpretation of temporal position in the network graphs partially relies on the
presence or absence of these types in the detailed exploration of resultant ties. The ceramic collar
attributes of interior rim form, collar height, and neck decoration are reflected in the categories
of local tradition pottery created for this analysis. Interior rim form distinguishes between
“Huron” and “Neutral” ceramics. Neck decoration is marked in the categories of decorated neck
and undecorated neck. Collar height is subsumed under the Huron, Neutral, and High Collar
labels. These specific attributes are integral to this study and integral to the local tradition
categories generated.
The local tradition ceramics found at the Keffer village are grouped into three major categories,
undecorated neck Huron, decorated neck Huron, and Neutral, following MacNeish’s divisions.
No tribal or ethnic designation is implied by these labels in this work. Each of the groups
comprised one or more individual MacNeish, Noble, Ridley or Wright types. Brief descriptions
and reference information for each of the types are given in Appendix D. A list of the types
66
comprising each larger group of ceramics is given at the end of each section, in alphabetical
sequence.
The distinction between the “Huron” type Huron Incised and the “Neutral” type Lawson Incised
is of primary concern in the typing of local southern Ontario Iroquoian vessels. (Note that
hereafter, in the text and captions, these terms are mostly used without quotation marks, as a
shorthand.) Ceramics designated to be of Huron tradition see their highest frequencies in the
geographical area of the Lake Ontario north shore area and Simcoe County. The Neutral types
are ceramics originating to the west of Lake Ontario that are accepted as characteristic of the
ancestral peoples of the historic-period Neutral area. The name Neutral was applied by the first
Europeans in the area to the people whom the historic Wendat called the Attiwandaron. It should
be noted that, although MacNeish (1952:14, 34) assigned Huron and Neutral ceramics to
different Iroquoian traditions, their true relationship remains unresolved because both types
appear to stem from a common Middleport base.
Types of both of these traditions have a strong presence at Keffer, though the number of Huron
vessels far surpasses the number of Neutral ones. In the fifteenth century, collar decoration, in
the form of closely spaced parallel vertical or oblique lines encircling the rim, characterized
ceramics of both traditions. Martelle (2202) in her study of late sixteenth—early seventeenth
century Wendat ceramics presents a similar argument noting that that the combination of
decorative attributes on Huron rims built on the baseline of the Huron Incised motif of a set of
either vertical or oblique lines (2002:447). “The majority of decorative types…merely add to
modifications to these baselines” (2002:447). The final size, shape and decoration of the vessels
varied according to the intended social and functional context of use but Huron Incised was
always the baseline from which the potter worked. Martelle interprets the resulting ceramics as
transformations which always remain connected to their origin. This “sense of connection is
something integral to Iroquoian metaphysics” (2002:448). From a related perspective, I view the
presence of the oblique background on central Ontario Iroquoian pottery rims as indicative of the
assertion of collective identity at the macro Ontario Iroquoian level. Engelbrecht supports this
hypothesis of passive action in the production of ceramics in his assertion that “Women shaped
this clay into culturally prescribed [italics mine] forms” (Engelbrecht 2003:87). I believe it is in
the performance of alterations to these patterns that the expression of identity occurs. Likewise,
plain collars should be viewed as the result of a conscious decision to remove the oblique line
67
background, thus altering the “norm.” These vessels therefore should not be considered
undecorated, but, rather, the product of active choice. Production and use of pottery conforming
to accepted norms may reflect a sense of inclusion and acceptance. I argue that it is in the
modification of these markers of belonging that agency expresses new ways of self and group
identification and dynamic associative membership.
“Huron” Types
One of the primary markers of inclusion in the global pre-contact ceramic practice of the Lake
Ontario north shore area Iroquoians is the ubiquitous use of the Huron Incised type ceramic. The
Huron Incised type (Figure 4-3) is defined as having “oblique or vertical lines on an outflaring
short collared pot with the inner surface opposite the collar straight to convex” (MacNeish
1952:34). For Iroquoians to the west, this is mirrored in the dominance of the Lawson Incised
type vessel. Diagnostic features of Lawson Incised are “oblique or vertical lines on short poorly-
defined, channeled (convex interior) collars” (MacNeish 1952:14). In the current recoding of the
Keffer ceramics, the MacNeish definitions were closely followed, with the poorly defined and
channelled collar of Lawson Incised employed as the main traits separating the two types.
Figure 4-3. Huron Incised vessel, Midden 60, Keffer.
North shore Lake Ontario Iroquoian ceramics are divided here into two main groups, those with
neck decoration and those without. For these local tradition types, the presence of geometric
68
decorative motifs below the collar base is deemed temporally sensitive (Ramsden 1977:184;
Wright 1966). Undecorated neck vessels of the mid-fifteenth century consist of two distinct
ceramic forms, those commonly considered to have Neutral traits—including low collars, convex
interior profiles, and simple incised exterior collar motifs (Ramsden 1977)—and those with a
straighter high collar form, such as the Lalonde High Collar type, defined by Ridley (1952b), and
Noble’s Sopher Incised type, a minor type with a small presence at Keffer. These high collar
types represent local manifestations of a widespread practice and are therefore assigned to the
independent high collar category described below.
In this thesis, the word Neutral is used only in the context of ceramic categorization. It refers to
vessel types which I include in a general class based on MacNeish’s (1952) Huron Incised type.
Along with interior collar profile—straight or convex in earlier times and predominantly convex
towards the period of European contact—the oblique or vertical parallel line pattern is an
essential element of the Neutral community of practice. Therefore, Huron Incised is the basic
Neutral type around which most other Neutral types are defined. The closely spaced parallel
oblique lines, most often incised or stamped, are predominantly sloped from bottom left to upper
right of the rim, but they may also slope to the upper left or be entirely vertical.
As noted, this pattern forms the basic background common to most Neutral vessels, with other
types generally displaying some form of manipulation or superimposition over the basic design.
Variations primarily consist of the addition of short, regularly spaced, repetitive incised marks
overtop of the pre-existing definitive background of the characteristic parallel oblique or vertical
linear incisions on the collar. The simplest variant is embodied in the addition of vertical lip
incising, which defines the type Sidey Notched (Figure 4-4). The Copeland Incised, Sidey
Crossed, Sidey Notched, and Warminster Crossed types are characterized by slight linear incised
variations placed over this basic Huron Incised type motif. Copeland Incised (Figure 4-5) (Ridley
1952b:205; Wright 1966:73) sees the basic oblique line background being completely interrupted
by a series of horizontal lines forming panels along the collar. Sidey Crossed (Figure 4-6)
involves the superimposition of horizontal lines, either interrupted or continuous, near the base
of the collar.
69
Figure 4-4. Sidey Notched vessel, Midden 65, Keffer.
Figure 4-5. Copeland Incised motif on Black Necked vessel, Midden 60, Keffer.
Figure 4-6. Sidey Crossed vessel, Midden 65, Keffer.

70
In Warminster Crossed (Figure 4-7), superimposed diagonal lines cross the background design at
a wider line spacing interval. Seed Incised (Figure 4-8) shares vessel shape with other Neutral
ceramics but has a distinctive motif, with a band of short, vertical slashes, or gashes, at the base
of the lip and the base of the collar. MacNeish considers this design a later derivative modifying
the vertical impressions of the basic Huron Incised motif (MacNeish 1952:35). It appears in
small numbers at Keffer. Unlike on the undecorated neck types mentioned above, the Huron
Incised oblique background may not be clearly visible on Warminster Horizontal (Figure 4-9)
collars. This ceramic shares collar form and shape with other Neutral types but is characterized
by superimposed horizontal trailing. This trailing often overwhelms the oblique pattern, which
may be visible at the top and the base of the collar. Undecorated neck Neutral vessels increase in
frequency with time within their geographically or socially bounded extended communities of
practice (Ramsden 1977) (for example, the watershed community of Rouge–Duffins).
Figure 4-7. Warminster Crossed vessel, Midden 60, Keffer.

71
Figure 4-8. Seed Incised vessel, Midden 77, Keffer.
Figure 4-9. Warminster Horizontal vessel, surface find, Keffer.
The Black Necked type (Figure 4-10 and Figure 4-11) is the only local tradition ceramic with
prominent and large-scale neck decoration. Single lines of punctates are sometimes found just
below the collar on other vessel types. The presence of these punctates does not inform on
ceramic type, however. Therefore, the Black Necked vessels represent the attribute of neck
decoration in the north shore Iroquoian ceramics of this study and form the entire neck decorated
Huron category. High percentages of Black Necked pottery are seen as a marker of an early
manifestation of north shore ceramic assemblages (Ramsden1977:184). Black Necked vessels
are distinguished from the above types by large-scale decoration on the vessel neck, generally
72
commencing directly below the break of the collar base and often continuing towards the
shoulder. While the presence of upper, or whole, neck decoration is the main characteristic of
this type, a well-defined collar is also fundamental. Black Necked vessels can be adorned by
either encircling horizontal lines at the top of the neck or any combination of vertical or oblique
patterns, sometimes quite elaborate. Uncollared vessels or vessels with poorly defined collared
rims with encircling horizontal lines are assigned to the earlier, Middleport-era Pound Necked
type. They are not considered Neutral vessels. Other ceramic analysts have in the past followed
different sets of unstated ceramic typing priorities. A clear statement of procedures used in the
application of any typology can and will produce concise, interpretable, and replicable results.
The definition of the Black Necked ceramics has raised problems in previous work on the Keffer
ceramics because no clear distinction was being made regarding the dominant attribute used for
assigning Neutral vessels. Often, without explanation, other attributes, such as lip decoration or
collar motif, were given precedence over the presence of neck decoration in typing vessels. In
this study, decoration on the neck overrides any decoration of the collar in the definition of
Huron types because this is the definitive definition of the Black Necked type. All Huron vessels
with significant neck decoration have been retyped as Black Necked. All vessels with substantial
upper neck decoration, excluding the presence of a sole linear display of encircling punctates, are
typed as Black Necked unless they fall under the auspices of the Middleport Pound Necked or
Middleport Oblique (Figure 4-23) types. Where no neck decoration is present on local tradition
sherds, rim motif and collar shape are the primary elements used in the definition of types.
73
Figure 4-10. Black Necked vessel, Midden 65, Keffer.
Figure 4-11. Black Necked vessel with horizontal motif, Midden 65, Keffer.
To summarize, for the purpose of this ceramic analysis, the local Neutral tradition ceramics
found at the Keffer village are grouped into three major categories, each of which comprises one
or more individual MacNeish, Noble, Ridley, or Wright types.
Undecorated neck Huron

74
 Copeland Incised
 Huron Incised
 Seed Incised
 Sidey Crossed
 Sidey Notched
 Warminster Crossed
 Warminster Horizontal
Decorated neck Huron
 Black Necked
Neutral Area Types

While the motif of the Lawson Incised type (Figure 4-12 and Figure 4-13) is identical to that of
the Huron Incised type, other vessel characteristics, predominantly exterior collar shape and
interior form, distinguish these two main ceramic traditions. Neutral ceramic identification is
based on the works of MacNeish (1952) and Ridley (1961). Neutral types are described as
having constricted necks on flaring collared or collarless vessels, and generally short collars
(Lennox and Fitzgerald 1990:415). The common modification of the main background oblique
pattern of the Huron Incised motif so often seen in Wendat ceramics—like the late-fourteenth- to
seventeenth-century increases in the Sidey Crossed, Warminster Crossed, and Copeland incised
types—does not occur to the same extent in the Neutral equivalent type (i.e., Lawson Incised).
Alteration of this oblique motif is generally only seen in the appearance of the Lawson Opposed
motif/type. Lawson Opposed (Figure 4-14) is decorated with bands of opposing obliques, a motif
commonly seen adorning the necks of Black Necked Huron vessels. This motif is not common
on Huron collars. This type is likely derived from Lawson Incised (MacNeish 1952:14) and is
much less common than Lawson Incised, particularly in north shore Wendat sites. Both types
75
appear at Keffer. Since they are closely related and share the time-sensitive characteristic of
undecorated necks, they are placed here within the general category of Undecorated Necked
Neutral.
Figure 4-12. Lawson Incised vessel, Midden 57, Keffer.
Figure 4-13. Lawson Incised vessel, Midden 57, Keffer.

76
Figure 4-14. Lawson Opposed vessel, Midden 74, Keffer.
Neck decoration is not common on Neutral vessels after the early fifteenth century. Undecorated
collar vessels of the Ripley Plain type are common in Neutral assemblages, but less so in areas
where the Huron ceramics predominate. Earlier in the Neutral area sequence though, neck
decoration is common. It is a distinctive trait of the Pound Necked and Ontario Horizontal
vessels found here and across southern Ontario, primarily in the late fourteenth century. A minor
occurrence of these necked types, most notably the Pound Necked vessels, is found on sites
across southern Ontario throughout the fifteenth century.
In summary, the Neutral types used in this analysis are as follows:
Undecorated Neck Neutral (also called Neutral)

 Lawson Incised
 Lawson Opposed
High Collar Types

High collar vessels (Figure 4-16 to Figure 4-19), that is, local tradition ceramics with straight
collars over 3 cm in height, appear regularly, in small numbers, throughout Iroquoian Ontario,
from the Neutral area in the west to the St. Lawrence valley in the east and Simcoe County in the
north, during the mid- to late fifteenth century (Lennox and Fitzgerald 1990; William Fitzgerald
personal communication 2014; Dana Poulton personal communication 2018) and as seen in this
work. They are one of three minor groups included here. The Huron Lalonde High Collar type is
highly characteristic of early fifteenth-century Simcoe County, although the type appears in low
77
numbers throughout the north shore and sporadically in outlying sites for the next two centuries
(Nougerat 2012). Sopher High Collar vessels (Figure 4-15), a type first described by Noble
(1968), are uncommon on the north shore. They generally appear in low proportions in late pre-
contact Simcoe county collections (see Latta 1983:39). Lalonde High Collar vessels (Figure 4-16
and Figure 4-17) have rims measuring above 35 mm, often above 60 mm. They are characterized
by straight to slightly convex interior and exterior profiles and complex triangular motif inside or
above upper or lower collar horizontals, or both. The type name Lalonde High Collar is often
applied to fifteenth-century high collar ceramics which do not conform to the relatively rigid
Ridley definition (Dermarkar 2014; Ridley 1952b) but which are characterized by rims greater
than 35 mm in height. Unlike some New York Iroquoian types, local Ontario high collar vessels
have well-defined collar bases. High collar vessels are a characteristic of this period—in fact this
rim form predominates in Iroquoian ceramic collections of fifteenth-century New York state
(Engelbrecht 2003:85)—and, as in Ontario, rim heights decline in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries.
Figure 4-15. Sopher High Collar vessel, House 19, Keffer.

78
Figure 4-16. Lalonde High Collar vessel, Midden 57, Keffer.
Figure 4-17. Lalonde High Collar learner vessel, Midden 65, Keffer.
The Lalonde High Collar basal lines and vertical interruption of base lines on this vessel and the
nubbin castellation show Lalonde High Collar production.
79
Figure 4-18. Lalonde High Collar type variant vessel, Midden 57, Keffer.
Figure 4-19. Lalonde High Collar type variant vessel, Midden 57, Keffer.
The high collared ceramics are as follows:
High Collared
 High Collared, no type name
 Lalonde High Collar
 Sopher High Collar
80
Erie–Niagara Frontier Undecorated Types

Undecorated collared vessels appear in small proportions at Keffer and on other central north
shore Iroquoian sites, but in greater proportions, up to 25 percent, at western sites, such as
Lawson. They are the second minor group included here. The appearance of these vessels at
Keffer is therefore significant and of particular interest. As mentioned above, it is the presence of
short, parallel incised lines on vessel collars that characterizes both ancestral Neutral area and
north shore Iroquoian pottery. The absence of this element represents a specific and intentional
choice by the maker. The purpose behind this choice is unknown, but it should be included in
any analysis as an indication of ceramic diversity and ceramic practice.
Examples of the Erie-Niagara Frontier undecorated rim types are shown in Figure 4-20 to Figure
4-21.
Figure 4-20. Niagara Collared vessel, House 12, Keffer.

81
Figure 4-21. Ripley Collared vessel, Midden 65, Keffer.
Figure 4-22. Ripley Plain vessel, surface find, Keffer.
These types can be summarized as follows:
Erie-Niagara Frontier
 Niagara Collared
 Ripley Collared
 Ripley Plain
Early Ontario Iroquoian Types

Though they are generally found in small numbers, the presence of vessels from the Early
Ontario Iroquoian group aids in the chronological placement of Keffer features and of the site.
82
This pottery makes up the third minor group included in this analysis. The Middleport Oblique
type is represented by only two fragmentary sherds (Figure 4-23). The early Neutral decorated
neck Pound Necked type (Figure 4-24) is characterized by horizontal lines on the upper portion
of the neck. Due to its infrequent occurrence in this collection, its early temporal assignment, and
its limited presence at Keffer (49 vessels), the Pound Necked (Figure 4-24) sample has been
incorporated into a category here labelled Early Ontario Iroquoian ceramic types. With only one
vessel in the Keffer collection, Pound Blank (Figure 4-25) has also been subsumed into the Early
category. Other Early Ontario Iroquoian types that are present in the Keffer assemblage are
Ontario Horizontal (Figure 4-26) and Ontario Oblique (Figure 4-27). Single examples of these
types are commonly found on fifteenth-century sites and appear in very small proportions at
Keffer.
Figure 4-23. Middleport Oblique vessel, House 6, Keffer.
Figure 4-24. Pound Necked vessel, Midden 65, Keffer.

83
Figure 4-25. Pound Blank variant vessel, House 1, Keffer.
Figure 4-26. Ontario Horizontal vessel, House 1, Keffer.
Figure 4-27. Ontario Oblique vessel, Midden 52, Keffer.

84
In summary, the Early Ontario Iroquoian types are as follows:
Early Ontario Iroquoian
 Middleport Oblique
 Ontario Horizontal
 Ontario Oblique
 Pound Blank
 Pound Neck
Nonlocal Tradition Types and Attributes

As noted above, ceramic types originating in areas outside of the territories occupied by the
southern Ontario Iroquoians of the north shore, Simcoe County, and Neutral areas are designated
as nonlocal. These ceramics are subdivided into three main groups: Central Iroquois, Eastern
Iroquois, and St. Lawrence –Northern New York Iroquoian. Ceramics of the Northern New York
Iroquoians of Jefferson County have no specific types or attributes known to originate within
their community of practice and generally share the majority of their types and attributes with
ceramics of the St. Lawrence Iroquoians, particularly in reference to the Durfee Underlined type.
New York state Iroquoian ceramics were divided into types by MacNeish according to
geographical location within historic Haudenosaunee Iroquois confederacy territories. Based on
limited data of the time MacNeish assigned the origin of each specific type in accordance with its
greatest frequency at sites within each of these territories, regardless of the temporal placement
of the site in the local sequence. Each type was thus assigned to an ethnic identity linked with a
historic Iroquois Confederacy territory through the concept of the direct historical approach and
named according to the geographic locale of discovery. Affiliation of many of these types with
historic tribes or Nations has created confusion since MacNeish’s publication of Iroquois Pottery
Types in the early 1950s.
Vessels showing similar characteristics but appearing in separate regional developmental

sequences bear different names (Engelbrecht 2004) as a result of MacNeish’s application of
85
individual labels to similar ceramics found in these separate geographic areas, which he
associated with historic Iroquois confederacies. In addition, types assigned as characteristic of
one tribal group may actually have originated with another group or have a shared origin. The
separate village sequences of the Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, and Mohawk developed
from the Middle Iroquoian, formerly called the Owasco, tradition and the later Oak Hill horizon
in upstate New York. This makes designation of a single origin for these types difficult and
ambiguous.
The earliest researchers considered Onondaga and Mohawk ceramics a unified body (Dyck
2004:13). Later researchers, namely, Dean Snow (1989), Donald Lenig (1965), and William
Starna (1980), established a distinctive history for the Mohawk, demonstrating in situ
development from the Oak Hill horizon into historic times (see also Chapdelaine 1990). More
recently still, social network analysis (SNA) (Dermarkar et al. 2017; Hart and Engelbrecht 2012;
Hart et al. 2016) shows the distinctiveness of Mohawk area vessels from those from other
regions. Similarly, MacNeish designated ceramics from the Ivey, Lanorie, Putman, and Roebuck
sites, along with collections from northern New York and along the shores of the St. Lawrence
ethnically Onondaga (MacNeish 1952:56–57). The Durfee Underlined, Lanorie Corded, Lanorie
Mixed, Lanorie Crossed, and Roebuck Low Collar types, placed in this “Onondaga” ethnic
category by MacNeish, are currently considered to be of St. Lawrence Iroquoian origin
(Clermont et al. 1983; Funk 2004:150). With these changes, only Onondaga Triangular and
Syracuse Incised remain as types specifically affiliated with the historic Onondaga nation area.
The recent application of novel theories has exposed the inherent limitations of assigning ethnic
labels to these ceramics. Pratt (1980) merged several MacNeish types together, suggesting that
minor attribute variations were not significant. These include the Wagoner-Syracuse Incised
type, reminiscent of fifteenth-century Ontario high collars. This composite type was formerly
divided into Syracuse Incised and Wagoner Incised on the basis of basal notching in Wagoner
Incised vessels. Cayadutta-Otstungo Incised was also divided by MacNeish into Cayadutta
Incised and Otstungo Incised due to basal notching on Cayadutta Incised pottery. In this study,
these ceramics are considered to originate within the greater Eastern Iroquois tradition because
the ceramic sequences share a common origin. In the Ontario and pan-Iroquoian analysis, these
combined Pratt types are used in the database, since a significant proportion of the data available
in the literature follows this typology. I have retained type names assigned by MacNeish in the
86
intra–Keffer village analysis because the attribute of basal notching is deemed significant at the
micro scale.
In the first decades of the fifteenth century, ceramics with design and/or form considered typical
in terms of type and/or attributes of St. Lawrence and Eastern Iroquois, that is, the Onondaga,
Oneida, and Mohawk of the ancestral Haudenosaunee (Engelbrecht 2004) area, began to trickle
into the north shore area. The mechanism responsible for their introduction, whether trade or
population movement, is now the subject of much dialogue (Abel 2016; Birch 2016; Dermarkar
et al. 2016; Engelbrecht and Jamieson 2016; Gates-St. Pierre 2016; Gaudreau and Lesage 2016;
Lesage et al. 2016; Ramsden 2016; Richard 2016; Steckley 2016; Warrick and Lesage 2016;
Williamson 2016). The nonlocal ceramic types found within the Keffer village are divided into
three groups: Central Iroquois, Eastern Iroquois, and St. Lawrence Iroquoian. The first two are
further subdivided following the MacNeish subgroups, as noted below.
The significant presence of many of these nonlocal ceramics in the Keffer collection necessitates
an overview of these pottery traditions. Following convention, they are discussed here in
geographical sequence. The Otstungo Notched and Rice Diagonal types are considered in some
depth due to the surprisingly large presence of these types in the Keffer collection.
Ceramics of the Central and Eastern Iroquois

These ceramics share a tradition of uncollared, thickened, everted-lip vessels and collared
vessels. The latter are derived from the horizontal motifs of earlier Point Peninsula/Early Owasco
times (Lenig 1965:79). On later, Iroquoian collared vessels from the region, the horizontals are
reduced in number. One to three horizontals ascend to the upper portion of the medium to high,
upright rim. Horizontals do not appear on the base of Eastern Iroquois collar motifs. The
presence of one or more upper horizontals characterizes several other types, all of which
MacNeish assigned to one of the pre-Confederacy tribes, Onondaga, Oneida, or Mohawk. These
include the Cayadutta Incised (Figure 4-28), Chance Incised (Figure 4-29), Fonda Incised
(Figure 4-30 and Figure 4-31), and Otstungo Incised (Figure 4-31) types, designated as Mohawk,
and Onondaga Triangular (Figure 4-32), long considered Onondaga in origin. Each of these
ceramics has the distinctive upper framing over vertical or obtuse triangular motifs, with or
without various forms of basal notching or upper rim verticals, or both. Related types with
primarily horizontal motifs include the Mohawk Fonda Incised and Cayuga Horizontal (Figure
87
4-33) types, each with a horizontal motif interrupted by a series of parallel oblique–lined panels.
Cayuga Horizontal, as well as the Oneida Thurston Horizontal (Figure 4-34), lack upper rim
horizontals and are instead characterized by a series of mid-collar horizontals. Unlike the types
with discontinuous horizontal designs, Thurston Horizontal is typified by a continuous and
unbroken band of horizontals framed on the top and bottom with bands of short, vertical
incisions. Thurston Horizontal and the Huron Warminster Horizontal (Figure 4-9) share similar
motifs but are dissimilar in collar shape. Once again, the MacNeish definition was closely
followed here. Warminster Horizontal, as a motif modification of Huron Incised, is characterized
by a constricted neck with a short, outflaring collar and a convex interior rim profile (MacNeish
1952:35). The slightly constricted neck of Thurston Horizontal, on the other hand, is surmounted
by a well-defined, incurving, interior-channelled collar of medium height, 25–55 mm (MacNeish
1952:68). The main similarity between these two types then lies in the mid-collar encircling
horizontals.
Figure 4-28. Cayadutta Incised vessel, Midden 70, Keffer.

88
Figure 4-29. Chance Incised vessel, Midden 57, Keffer.
Figure 4-30. Fonda Incised vessel, Midden 65, Keffer.

89
Figure 4-31. Otstungo Incised vessel, House 12, Keffer.
Figure 4-32. Onondaga Triangular vessel, Midden 85, Keffer.

90
Figure 4-33. Cayuga Horizontal vessel, Midden 61, Keffer.
Figure 4-34. Thurston Horizontal vessel, Midden 65, Keffer.
According to Lenig (1965), horizontal motifs are generally earlier than opposed motifs and are
derived from the Point Peninsula and Owasco linear ceramics. The poorly delineated rim–neck
junction of the Cayuga Horizontal (Figure 4-33 and Figure 4-35) type is mirrored in the
somewhat later Cayuga ceramic type Richmond Incised (Figure 4-36). This type is defined by
the presence of vertical or oblique incisions on a relatively high collar. Of similar design are the
Onondaga Syracuse Incised (Figure 4-37) and basally notched Mohawk Wagoner Incised (Figure
4-38) types. Well-defined collar bases separate the latter two ceramics from Richmond Incised
vessels. The high collars of Eastern Iroquois vessels are reminiscent of the Simcoe County
Lalonde High Collar (Figure 4-16 and Figure 4-17) vessels, though their motif and collar shape
91
are not identical. It is recognized that there is a relationship between the height and motifs of the
high collar of the Eastern Iroquois vessels and that of the Lalonde High Collar ceramic (Ridley
1952b). The nature of the relationship, however, remains unclear.
Figure 4-35. Cayuga Horizontal vessel, House 4, Keffer.
Figure 4-36. Richmond Incised vessel, House 11, Keffer.

92
Figure 4-37. Syracuse Incised vessel, Midden 57, Keffer.
Figure 4-38. Wagoner Incised vessel, Midden 61, Keffer.
The Mohawk types Otstungo Notched (Figure 4-39) and Rice Diagonal (Figure 4-40) and the
Seneca types Dutch Hollow Notched (Figure 4-41) and Seneca Notched (Figure 4-42) are
discussed in more detail in the section titled Distinctive Ceramic Attributes and Emergent
Vessels at Keffer.
93
Figure 4-39. Otstungo Notched vessel, Midden 65, Keffer.
Figure 4-40. Rice Diagonal vessel, Midden 62, Keffer.

94
Figure 4-41. Dutch Hollow Notched vessel, Midden 56, Keffer.
Figure 4-42. Seneca Notched vessel, Midden 65, Keffer.
To summarize, the Central and Eastern Iroquois types are as follows (sequenced geographically,
as noted above):
95
Seneca
 Dutch Hollow Notched
 Seneca Notched
Cayuga
 Cayuga Horizontal
 Richmond Incised
Onondaga
 Onondaga Triangular
 Syracuse Incised
Oneida
 Thurston Horizontal
Mohawk
 Cayadutta Incised
 Chance Incised
 Fonda Incised
 Otstungo Incised
 Otstungo Notched
 Rice Diagonal
 Wagoner Incised
Ceramic Types of the St. Lawrence and Northern New York Iroquoians
Until the mid-1970s, Iroquoian sites on the south shore of the St. Lawrence valley in Quebec
were considered remnants of early Onondaga tribal movements throughout the area (Dyck 2004;
MacNeish 1952:57). It was not until Bernard Hoffman (1961), the first researcher to differentiate
these sites, proposed a unique identity for the peoples of the river valley that St. Lawrence
Iroquoians were acknowledged as a distinct regional or social group in the archaeological
literature (Pendergast cited in Dyck 2004:15). As noted by Abel (2017), sites situated in the St.
Lawrence valley were ignored as part of Wright’s (1966) greater Ontario Iroquois Tradition.
Acceptance of St. Lawrence Iroquoians as a distinct archaeological construct finally occurred
with the 1972 publication of Pendergast and Trigger. Then, in 1996, general acceptance of this
redesignation occurred with the publication of a National Geographic article on the St. Lawrence
96
Iroquoians (Dyck 2004:16). Today, while it is acknowledged that groups of the St. Lawrence
valley were independent of other Iroquoian groups, it is also recognized that great diversity
existed within peoples of the extended St. Lawrence geographic area and that they cannot be
seen as one cohesive social group or “nation” (Chapdelaine 1991).
As a result of these developments, the ceramic types Durfee Underlined (Figure 4-43) and
Roebuck Low Collar (Figure 4-44), which were defined according to vessels from the St.
Lawrence Roebuck site, formerly considered Onondaga in origin, now are considered part of the
St. Lawrence and Northern New York ceramic groups, as separate from the Eastern Iroquois
traditions. Pendergast’s Stamped Low Collar (Figure 4-45) is now also considered part of the St.
Lawrence group.
Figure 4-43. SDEA motif (Smith 1997) outline on Durfee Underlined vessel, Draper.
(Canadian Museum of History)
97
Figure 4-44. Roebuck Low Collar vessel, Midden 60, Keffer.
Figure 4-45. Stamped Low Collar vessel, Midden 65, Keffer.
The type Durfee Underlined, while partially based on form and collar height, is distinguishable
from incised Eastern Iroquois types by its primary defining trait, the presence of one or two
horizontal lines near both the base and the upper rim of the medium-height collar. All Eastern
Iroquois types lack basal collar horizontals. MacNeish (1952:61) suggests that this ceramic may
be related to Lanorie Corded, often found in eastern Quebec. The higher-collared Durfee
Underlined pottery of the fifteenth century reflects the general trend for high collars in this
period. General form and motif similarities shared by Durfee Underlined and the Lalonde High
Collar type most popular in fifteenth-century Simcoe County were at the centre of debate during
the mid-twentieth century (Emerson 1959a; Emerson and Popham 1952; Ridley 1952b). This
issue eventually fell to the background of Iroquoian ceramic and interaction studies unresolved.
98
Further research in this area is outside the realm of this thesis but remains central to the
understanding of pan-Iroquoian relationships of the fifteenth century.
In some cases, Roebuck Low Collar (Figure 4-46) may share the distinctive lower collar line
motif of Durfee Underlined (Figure 4-47), but, unlike in Durfee Underlined, this collar line is not
“the” defining element of the type. The short, channeled collar can be decorated with one of any
number of incised oblique designs (MacNeish 1952:61). St. Lawrence Low Collar is a label
commonly used to incorporate pottery of this rim shape decorated with a myriad of motifs. I
have incorporated a greater group of Low Collar vessels into the analysis but retained the
Roebuck Low Collar type.
Figure 4-46. Roebuck Low Collar vessel with SDEA motif, Midden 73, Keffer.
99
Figure 4-47. Durfee Underlined vessel with SDEA motif, Midden 60, Keffer.
The St. Lawrence Iroquoian types are thus as follows:
St. Lawrence Iroquoian
 Durfee Underlined
 Roebuck Low Collar
 Stamped Low Collar
Distinctive Ceramic Attributes and Emergent Vessels at Keffer

In the New York Iroquois ceramic traditions, uncollared vessels with thickened lips comprise up
to 20 percent of vessel assemblages (Bradley 1987:121). This vessel form does not appear in the
southern Ontario traditions. Engelbrecht (2003:85) suggests that variation in pottery forms may
relate to alternate food preparation functions, since preliminary analysis shows a low level of
carbonized food remains on these vessels compared with other types. He postulates that these
uncollared vessels may serve for tea brewing or storage. At Keffer, uncollared vessels are
divided into two groups. The first group, composed of the Dutch Hollow Notched type (Figure
4-41), is present in low numbers across the site and conforms to the more crudely formed vessels
typical of New York uncollared pottery. The second group, composed of the Otstungo Notched
100
(Figure 4-39) and Rice Diagonal (Figure 4-40) types, as seen at Keffer and other north shore
fifteenth-century sites, appears to be quite different in several aspects from Keffer’s Dutch
Hollow Notched pottery. These vessels are consistently well formed, with intricate rim and,
sometimes, neck decoration. MacNeish identified uncollared and decorated thickened lip Rice
Diagonal and Otstungo Notched vessels as Mohawk in origin and ethnicity, but their presence in
significant proportions on earlier Onondaga and Oneida valley sites (Engelbrecht 2003:14)
suggests they are part of a larger, more widespread tradition.
There is no concrete evidence to suggest that the Otstungo Notched and Rice Diagonal vessels
found at Keffer, Draper, and other Ontario sites are of foreign manufacture, or “exotics.” Vessels
with form and decorative attributes similar to the Otstungo Notched vessels at Keffer do not
appear to be present in other Northern Iroquoian collections (Timothy Abel, personal
communication 2015; Bruce Jamieson, personal communication 2018; Wayne Lenig, personal
communication May 2018) with the exception of identical vessels at Parsons and Draper and
similar but smaller sherds at Jarrett-Lahmer and Damiani. Otstungo Notched vessels at Salem
(Figure 4-48) and Maynard-McKeown (Figure 4-49) conform to the MacNeish definition of the
type) but show variations in form from those found in the north shore area.
Figure 4-48. Otstungo Notched vessel, Salem Cat. #697. (Canadian Museum of History)
101
Figure 4-49. Otstungo Notched vessel, Maynard-McKeown. (Canadian Museum of History)
The horizontal line motif, lacking parallel obliques, common on New York Otstungo Notched
vessels, is mirrored in one vessel found in Midden 61 at Keffer. Vessel form, however, suggests
local production. Wayne Lenig (personal communication, 2018) acknowledges that Otstungo
Notched vessels appearing at Keffer follow the type definition of both MacNeish (1952) and
Lenig (1965) (see Figure 4-50 for an example). However, the Keffer vessels are more robust and
show increased precision in decoration when compared with New York vessels. Otstungo
Notched vessels found at the Rouge–Duffins Draper (Figure 4-51) and Parsons (Figure 4-52)
sites, both dating to the fifteenth century, are identical to those seen at Keffer. Vessels at Jarrett-
Lahmer (ASI 1999:59) and Damiani (Figure 4-53) are quite similar. One of the later sixteenth-
century Mantle site vessels (Figure 4-54) matches those of western New York, suggesting an
alternate origin pathway. It is apparent, given the high quality of production of the north shore
renditions of the Otstungo Notched vessels that these ceramics are not intended to mimic or
replicate examples found outside the north shore. These emergent vessels are a new creation,
communicating a new identity. They are not hybrids that merely combine those elements, but
material statements of a previously unseen identity. The north shore Lite site Rice Diagonal
vessel (Figure 4-56) appears to be an intermediary between the simplistic motif of the St.
Lawrence Otstungo Notched vessels and the more complex motif of those on the central north
shore. The trend to larger, more rounded notches found on north shore Rice Diagonal and
Otstungo Notched vessels, away from the tiny, grooved notches of the eastern vessels from the
St. Lawrence valley and New York, also characterizes this Lite site vessel. One might even call
this a north shore type, as it appears exclusively in this area. A number of Rice Diagonal vessels
found on the St. Lawrence Salem (Figure 4-55) and Cleary (Figure 4-56) sites and the Prince
102
Edward county Lite (Figure 4-57) site share similar form and motif with the Keffer (Figure 4-40)
and Draper (Figure 4-58) site Rice Diagonal vessels. The Rice Diagonal vessels found at Keffer
and Draper are close copies of many found on St. Lawrence sites. I suggest that north shore
ceramicists combined the precision of form and decorative techniques found on St. Lawrence
Rice Diagonal vessels with the Otstungo Notched type motif, thereby creating a ceramic unique
to their practice communities while retaining the original Rice Diagonal template. In addition,
complex neck decoration was commonly, but not always, applied to these new vessels. Neck
decorated ceramics are very common in fifteenth-century Rouge–Duffins drainage ceramic
assemblages and seen in lesser, but varying, amounts across the contemporary north shore. In
contrast, neck decoration is not common on Rice Diagonal or Otstungo Notched vessels of St.
Lawrence or New York assemblages. This might suggest a Rouge–Duffins origin for these
ceramics but, as network analysis shows, interaction among the fifteenth-century north shore
communities was very active.
Figure 4-50. Otstungo Notched vessel, unknown provenience, New York state. (courtesy
Wayne Lenig)
103
Figure 4-51. Otstungo Notched vessel, Draper Cat. # 41454. (Canadian Museum of History)
Figure 4-52. Otstungo Notched vessel, Parsons Cat. # 3357. (University of Toronto)
104
Figure 4-53. Otstungo Notched vessel, Damiani. (courtesy Ron Williamson)
Figure 4-54. Otstungo Notched vessel, Mantle. (ASI 2006:Plate 37, Cat. #10432)
105
Figure 4-55. Rice Diagonal vessel, Salem Cat. #699. (Canadian Museum of History)
Figure 4-56. Rice Diagonal vessel, Cleary Cat. #011. (courtesy David Smith)
106
Figure 4-57. Rice Diagonal vessel, Lite. (Canadian Museum of History)
Figure 4-58. Rice Diagonal vessel, Draper Cat. #39180. (Canadian Museum of History)
Another example of this modification of nonlocal ceramic traits is seen in the almost exclusive
use of a distinctive complex motif designated SDEA (horizontal lines over vertical lines beside
oblique right lines over horizontal lines), following Smith Version 4 ceramic attribute code
(Smith 1997:Appendix C:122, 138) (Figure 4-43), on the majority of Durfee Underlined (Figure
4-47) and some Roebuck Low Collar (Figure 4-46) vessels at Keffer. The opposed motif without
107
horizontal lines also appears in small numbers on Ontario Iroquoian high collar and low collar
(Figure 4-45) vessels at Keffer. The SDEA motif itself is not unique to north shore site nonlocal
vessels; it is the ubiquity of this motif on locally manufactured ceramics of the fifteenth-century
north shore that stands out. Although the identical motif is present at sites such as Draper (Figure
4-43 and Figure 4-59), Jarrett-Lahmer (Figure 4-60), Black Creek (Figure 4-61), and Parsons
(Figure 4-62), preliminary visual analysis of these collections suggest it is more common at
Keffer. On St. Lawrence and Northern New York Durfee Underlined vessels, this specific motif
is less common by ratio than other motifs. When present, it usually displays a more complex and
finely executed version of the motif (Figure 4-63) than is visible on vessels from Keffer and its
neighbours. Durfee Underlined vessels with the SDEA motif are present at all sites on the central
north shore where north shore Otstungo Notched ceramics are present. They are more numerous
at Draper, Parsons, and, perhaps, Jarrett-Lahmer than Otstungo Notched and appear at sites such
as Black Creek, where the later vessels have not been found. I suggest that this motif, like the
Ontario Otstungo Notched vessels, is a local redesign of a nonlocal form that doesn’t appear
elsewhere.
Figure 4-59. Durfee Underlined vessel with SDEA motif, Draper Cat. #114617. (Canadian
Museum of History)
108
Figure 4-60. Durfee Underlined vessel with SDEA motif, Jarrett-Lahmer Cat. #22897.
(Canadian Museum of History)
Figure 4-61. Roebuck Low Collar vessel with SDEA motif, Black Creek. (University of
Toronto)
109
Figure 4-62. Durfee Underlined vessel with SDEA motif, Parsons Cat. #460 (University of
Toronto)
Figure 4-63. Northern New York Iroquoian vessel, St. Lawrence Site (Abel 2000:Plate 2).
Exotic Attributes Seen at Keffer

The nonlocal ceramic category also includes the few sherds of “foreign”, that is, vessels of
nonlocal manufacture. These sherds are labelled “exotic.” Such designation occurs when specific
attributes, that are not characteristic of the local tradition practice, are present in combination on
vessels lacking local tradition motifs or decorative attributes. Basal notching is a nonlocal
110
attribute, commonly seen on Eastern Iroquois and St. Lawrence vessels. However, thumbnail
notching, in which the imprint of the thumb nail is visible (Figure 4-64 and Figure 4-65), is
considered a St. Lawrence attribute. While basal notching is apparent on a large number of
nonlocal vessels at Keffer, basal thumbnail notching is much less common and appears only in
concert with “exotic” reed punctates.
The St. Lawrence Iroquoian ceramic tradition is characterized by specific decorative attributes
rather than by specific MacNeish types. These include annular “reed” punctates, generally below
sloping castellations; the corn ear motif; ladder plait incising (Chapdelaine 1990; LeMoine 2015)
(believed by Wonderly [2004] to represent a stylized corn ear motif); and precisely formed and
intricate motif patterns (Jamieson 1990:92; Ramsden 1977). At Keffer, these “exotic” attributes
include “reed” punctates, thumbnail-gouged notches, and elaborate, finely executed complex
design motifs (see Figure 4-64 for an example). These are found almost exclusively on foreign-
produced pottery. Only one vessel of probable local production with reed punctates was found at
Keffer (Figure 4-66).
Figure 4-64. “Exotic” Durfee Underlined vessel, Midden 60, Keffer.

111
Figure 4-65. Vessels with poorly executed thumbnail gouges, Midden 65, Keffer.
Figure 4-66. Localized Onondaga Triangular vessel, Midden 77, Keffer.
The motif seen on this vessel, in Figure 4-66, oblique right diagonals over verticals with
repeating pattern, commonly occurs on Durfee Underlined ceramics at Keffer and other north
shore sites. This vessel, however, is Onondaga Triangular in type as it lacks basal horizontal
lines and has multiple upper lines. Multiple upper horizontal lines are not common at Keffer or
other north shore sites. This vessel, with its combination of reed punctates, a St. Lawrence
characteristic, and Onondaga motif, fits into Pendergast’s hybrid category. The lack of intricate
detail, the misalignment of the vertical punctates, and the simplified SDEA motif support the
hypothesis that this is locally produced pottery. This vessel is one of very few examples of
hybrid ceramics at Keffer.
112
Thumb-nail-gouged basal rim notches are also most apparent on exotic vessels (Figure 4-64).
Like reed punctates, thumbnail-gouged notches appear very rarely on Keffer vessels. At Keffer,
such gouges appear on one locally produced nonlocal vessel. Again, the precision of the foreign-
produced ceramics is missing in the execution of the thumb nail gouges (Figure 4-65). Exotic
attributes are very rarely applied to locally produced pottery in the Keffer assemblage. Instead,
the local north shore potters of the late fifteenth century have redesigned nonlocal type vessels
into north shore ceramics not seen elsewhere. These include the Rice Diagonal with neck design,
the Otstungo Notched, and the Durfee Underlined vessels, all of which appear at Keffer and
several other north shore sites.
Nonlocal Learner Vessels and Practice Vessels at Keffer

Learner vessels can provide a wealth of information regarding the dynamics of local
communities of practice (Dorland 2018:11). The presence of learner vessels produced following
the general concepts or attributes of specific ceramic types is a positive indication that vessels of
this type were produced on site. It confirms the existence of associated communities of practice.
The motor skills required for the creation of different vessel and rim forms are acquired during
initial learning experiences, in the Iroquoian case most likely in childhood (Dorland 2018).
While certain aspects of this production, generally dealing with decorative elements (Arnold
1991), can be more easily altered in later life, the motor skills employed in vessel formation are
more difficult to relearn.
Learner vessels with nonlocal traits, such as those illustrated below, display characteristics of the
three most numerous nonlocal vessels found at Keffer, namely, Ostungo Notched/Rice Diagonal
(Figure 4-67), Durfee Underlined/Roebuck Low Collar (Figure 4-68), and Wagoner Incised
(Figure 4-69), confirming the local, on-site production of these types. The everted-lip vessel
shown in Figure 4-67 displays elements of vessel form which distinguish the Otstungo Notched
and Rice Diagonal types. This sherd, originating in Midden 60, provides important evidence in
support of the hypothesis of on-site production of these nonlocal vessels. These vessels are
characteristic of the nonlocal community of practice as exemplified by ceramics of Houses 12
and 18, on the village plateau.
113
Figure 4-67. Otstungo Notched/Rice Diagonal Everted Rim collarless learner vessel,
Midden 60, Keffer.
Figure 4-68. Durfee Underlined learner vessel, Midden 61, Keffer.

114
Figure 4-69. Wagoner Incised learner vessel, Midden 74, Keffer. (courtesy Steven Dorland)
The Durfee Underlined learner vessel shown in Figure 4-68, from Midden 61, associated with
House 14 provides evidence of the production of this St. Lawrence–linked type in Keffer
ceramic practice. Interestingly, the opposed motif may be an attempt to conform to that of the
SDEA code motif. The production of this vessel and that of the learner everted-lip collarless
vessel shown in Figure 4-67 support the hypothesis that a new form of previously nonlocal
ceramics was produced on the north shore and specifically at Keffer. More traditional nonlocal
Iroquois vessels were also included in the learning process, as illustrated by the Wagoner Incised
learner vessel in Figure 4-69. Chemical ablation of 15 Keffer local, nonlocal, and exotic vessels
appears to confirm that local tradition, nonlocal tradition and emergent pottery was produced by
practice communities at Keffer.
Discussion
Typology, following MacNeish (1952), forms the core of ceramic analysis in this study at all
levels, from intra-village to pan-Iroquoian. This is supplemented with the examination of specific
local and nonlocal tradition attributes. The pottery examined here falls into two basic categories
115
of local tradition and nonlocal tradition ceramics. The nonlocal group is further divided into
vessels conforming to the Haudenosaunee tradition, vessels of foreign or “exotic” production and
newly emergent pottery.
In the next chapters analysis of the Keffer site ceramic material aims to seek out relationships in
a multiscalar fashion and at many levels, from intra-site to inter-regional. To this end, the
analysis operates at many levels, from the most specific to the most general, from micro scale to
macro scale, from the household-level community to the pan-Iroquoian community. Types and
attributes are both employed. Alone and in combination, they complement each other to form a
more complete and richer picture of the inter-relationships of ceramics at Keffer and within
greater Iroquoia. Combined types of all local and nonlocal ceramics, often used in regional
ceramic analysis, are adopted for large-scale analysis. Analysis at the regional, pan-Ontario
Iroquoian level local tradition types, as defined here, forms the database for network exploration
of the chronological and social connections, in the context of ceramic practice, prevailing among
the north shore of Lake Ontario communities. These analyses result in chronologies and social
relations of the Keffer village settlement, the Ontario Iroquoian community and the pan-
Iroquoian community. On the face of it, use of the MacNeish/Ridley typology may appear
contrary to these aims, because MacNeish’s typological framework is essentially one of ethnic
classification based on deeply entrenched ideas of the perpetual, unchanging, and conservative
nature of indigenous pre-contact cultures. A typological approach can unveil the nature of these
relationships while avoiding the preconceived notions of ethnic divisions they original reflected.
Instead, ceramic types are viewed as representations of individual and practice community
choices, whether conscious or unintentional.
Choices occur within the structure of perceived acceptability at the lowest level, that of the
household. Such actions result from quotidian relationships and habitus. As such, types are not
situated in this work as ethnic identifiers but as representations of contingent choices. The
Brainerd-Robinson similarity measure (See Appendix E) in the R program (R, Core Team 2013)
is used to produce data matrices which are then manipulated in the Ucinet social network
analysis program. Visual analysis of the resulting graphs (see Appendix E), with statistical
backup, are the basis of resulting interpretations regarding inter-group relations. At the regional
(that is, Ontario) and Keffer village scales, the factors producing these patterns are explored in
more detail through the analysis of the specific typological configurations of the samples.
116
Individual communities of ceramic practice are constructed as a result of this micro-scale

exploration. Integration of resulting social and chronological relationships at the village and
Ontario and pan-Iroquoian scales is employed to examine the position of the Keffer community
in the fifteenth-century Iroquoian world.
117
5 Social Network Analysis: Keffer in the Iroquoian World

Social Network Analysis of Pan-Iroquoian Ceramic Practice
Situating the Ontario Iroquoian and Keffer ceramic community within the wider pan-Iroquoian
cultural context is crucial to understanding the social relations and the divergent identities of the
ceramic practice communities of the Keffer village inhabitants. Social network analysis has been
demonstrated to be an effective mechanism for elucidating patterns with macro-scale ceramic
datasets (Brughmans 2010; Knapp 2013; Mills 2013, 2017; Peeples 2011). Large-scale network
analysis of pan-Iroquoian ceramic relations has been the focus of numerous studies during the
past decade (Birch and Hart 2018; Dermarkar et al. 2016; Hart and Engelbrecht 2012; Hart et al.
2016, 2017). These studies have produced an overview of the relationship and development
across Northern Iroquoia of vessel collar motifs, which, the authors suggest, are employed as
social signals. The correlation between the possible social signalling function of vessel rim motif
decoration and the communication of social relations involved in the production of ceramic
types, cannot be equated with any certainty. In fact, collar motif and vessel type may be entirely
unrelated. For example, specific collar motifs are not an essential element of the definition of
several Iroquoian ceramic types, including Black Necked, Sidey Notched, Durfee Underlined,
Roebuck Low Collar, and several of the ancestral Haudenosaunee ceramics with complex collar
motifs. Consequently, the results of these previous analyses are not directly applicable to the
present work. In this study, vessel types are employed in the exploration of communities of
practice. Although social communication may be involved in some aspect of ceramic production,
social signalling is not a focus of this research.
Instead, I analyse a dataset of ceramic types from 252 Iroquoian sites (Appendix F) from
southern Ontario and New York to investigate the strength and direction of the ceramic relations
among Keffer’s Iroquoian neighbours, the origins of these interaction patterns, and Keffer’s
place within this social network. (I present a full explanation of the analysis undertaken and the
methods of network interpretation used in Appendix E.)
Network analysis of pan-Iroquoian ceramic types (Figure 5-1, Figure 5-2) clearly shows a strong
division between the ceramic practices of the New York state Iroquois and those of southern
Ontario. The role of geography in the ties of the Ontario sites is less evident in this graph.
118
Figure 5-1. Pan-Iroquoian network BR 100 spring layout.
The network analysis portrays several distinct ceramic groups. Those of New York State adhere
closely to their geographic or territorial boundaries. At first, it may appear that these groupings
are a product of the historic tribal affiliation of types used by MacNeish. However, the original
ascription by MacNeish of the Northern New York and some St. Lawrence sites, as Onondaga
argues that this is not the case. The Northern New York sites form distinct territorial and
topological clusters yet are characterized by ceramics of other territories. In general, New York
119
state Iroquoians shared ceramic practice is restricted to geographical locations within the historic
tribal homelands to various extents. The division between Eastern and Central Iroquois groups is
highly evident, with the first ties appearing between these groups at low similarity levels only in
the later, t5 and t6, periods, suggesting closer ties occurred with the confederation of the Five
Nations Iroquois. Much higher levels of ceramic interaction are present throughout southern
Ontario in all periods, with the highest uniformity in the t1 and t6 periods. The t6 consolidation
reflects the creation of the Wendat, Petun, and Neutral confederacies in the contact period. T2 to
t5 ceramic practice across the north shore is generally well integrated across both time and space
and remains so up to BR 140, or 70 percent type similarity (Figure 5-2).
Network analysis shows the ceramic practice communities of Ontario and New York to have
been quite distinct throughout the period A.D. 1350–1650. Ontario groups form a compact
network cluster. In New York, more dispersed spatial clustering occurs within the Five Nations
traditional territories. Nodes from within each of the traditional territories of the Eastern Iroquois
and the Northern New York Iroquois cluster together, with each cluster lightly tied to one of the
others. Nodes representing the Cayuga and Seneca ceramic collections of the Central Iroquois
are weekly tied together and also weakly connect sixteenth-century Onondaga and Oneida sites
through contemporary sites to the Ontario component. These Cayuga and Seneca sites connect
with sixteenth-century site nodes of the group often designated as Erie (Dermarkar et al. 2016;
Engelbrecht 1991, 2004). This group, in turns, bonds tightly with the Neutral sites of the middle
temporal range of the Ontario cluster and most likely represents movement of Neutral
populations south and east from their traditional homeland, as Lennox and Fitzgerald (1990) and
Engelbrecht (1991) note. The late timing of this connection precludes this path being the conduit
for the arrival of eastern-influenced ceramics into Ontario practice in the mid-fifteenth century.
The shared Owasco heritage of the ancestral Central and Eastern Iroquois and the lack of ties
with Ontario in the earlier periods imply an ancestral tradition quite different from that of the
fourteenth-century Ontario Iroquois.
In contrast, the unified early Ontario ceramic tradition of the fourteenth century may have
exerted a strong influence on, or been the origin of, the Ontario St. Lawrence and Northern New
York ceramic practices. This is indicated by the presence of a weakly tied topological bridge
comprised of the earliest St. Lawrence sites connecting the fourteenth-century Ontario and early
fifteenth-century Northern New York Iroquois sites. This is the last evidence of shared ceramic
120
practice between St. Lawrence Iroquoians and north shore Ontario peoples. The close ties shared
by St. Lawrence Iroquoians with Northern New York Iroquois potters during the fifteenth
century are replaced by strong bonds between the St. Lawrence and later sixteenth-century
Oneida with the abandonment of Jefferson County by the Northern New York Iroquois in the
early sixteenth century. At this time, the St. Lawrence Iroquoians abandoned the St. Lawrence
valley, a movement completed by the end of the century. Like the Iroquoians of south-central
Ontario, the peoples of New York retreated from the open shorelines in the sixteenth century.
Connections between the New York and Ontario ceramic communities occur, but only at very
low levels, and only in the earliest and latest periods of the Iroquoian occupation of Ontario.
Aside from one weak mid-fifteenth-century tie between Northern New York and Prince Edward
County sites, there is no evidence of any strong ceramic relationships between the two fifteenth-
to early sixteenth-century populations. While groups in New York restricted ceramic practice
within defined territories, fifteenth-century ceramicists in southern Ontario pursued more
integrative activities. Here, there is a general trend in the change of ceramic practice, both over
time and across geographical distance. The turn of the fifteenth century witnesses the greatest
diversity of practice, with nodes of this period in Ontario found throughout most of the
component body. This is the era of the introduction of ancestral Wendat (“Huron”) and
Attiwandaron (“Neutral”) ceramics across the province, a time of ceramic transformation.
Figure 5-3. Pan-Iroquoian network t2–t3 BR 93 spring layout.

121
In summary, network topology indicates a high level of interaction throughout Iroquoian

Ontario, which generally stopped at the barrier created by Lake Ontario and the Niagara and St.
Lawrence rivers. Interaction of a slightly different character occurred south of this boundary.
These territorially oriented groups shared somewhat less similar ceramic practices within local
communities and more varied practices between regions. The ancestral Wendat and Neutral
appear to have been more socially integrated peoples than the populations of New York. The low
level at which the New York and Ontario ceramic samples connect portrays somewhat sporadic
contact between the two groups, with no indication in the network topology of large-scale
movement or contact between contemporary ceramic practice groups of these two Iroquoian
peoples.
The Keffer site sits within the core of the consolidated t2–t3 and t3–t4 Ontario components, fully
integrated into the large-scale ceramic community of practice of southern Ontario. This cluster is
well separated from those of New York state and the St. Lawrence Iroquoians and gives no
indication of the ties evidenced by the presence of nonlocal and exotic ceramics at Keffer and
other fifteenth-century north shore sites.
Social Network Analysis of Local Tradition Ceramics from 140

Ontario Iroquoian Sites
Determining ceramic affiliations of the Keffer communities of practice on a clinal scale of social
distance within the highly connected network of the greater Ontario Iroquois population is a
major focus of this study. The history and relationships of the Keffer ceramic communities are
explored and uncovered through examination of these connections. Prior to this micro-scale
analysis, the Keffer site itself must be situated in the greater Ontario Iroquoian ceramic network.
These relationships are explored here through a meso-scale use of social network analysis. The
Keffer local tradition ceramic collection is compared with other Iroquoian collections from
across the province. I examine local tradition ceramics from 140 sites (Appendix G) spanning the
period A.D. 1350–1650, previously known as the Late Ontario Iroquoian period. Local tradition
ceramics are exclusively employed in this analysis to deduce underlying long-term shared
ceramic traditions. Nonlocal tradition ceramics, as seen in relatively high proportions at such
sites as Damiani, Draper, Mantle (now renamed Jean-Baptiste Lainé), Parsons, and Seed-Barker,
are not included in this analysis. It is argued in this study that these nonlocal ceramics are
122
reflective of external ties, not historical practice. I suspect that inclusion of this pottery may
obscure strong long-term relationships of local practice tradition.
Ontario Iroquoian Ceramic Relations as Seen Through Network

Analysis
The Keffer village is the last-known manifestation of Iroquoian occupation in the Don River
valley and is centrally located geographically within the Ontario Iroquoian homeland. Although
archaeologists have argued that communities moved further north with time, towards the
headwaters of the rivers draining into Lake Ontario, many earlier t2 and t3 Don River sites are
located to the north, upslope from the Keffer location. Evidence for occupation of the Don River
valley is heavily skewed to the t2 (A.D. 1400–1450) and t3 (A.D. 1450–1500) periods
(Williamson 2014). Only one site, Moatfield, provides documentation of earlier Iroquoian
occupation, and sites later than Keffer have yet to be discovered (Williamson 2014:21).
Discussion of ceramic relations within Ontario therefore centres most heavily on this 100-year
period of the fifteenth century.
Ontario ceramics in the network analysis (Figure 5-4) divide into two main components. This
division is primarily temporal, as early Late Ontario Iroquoian ceramics from across the study
area form a distinctive assemblage almost entirely disengaged from later sites at higher similarity
levels, above 70 percent, in the late fourteenth century.
123
Figure 5-4. Local tradition ceramics of Ontario Iroquoian sites BR 99 spring layout.
There is, however, evidence of a strong continuation in ceramic practices throughout the early
fifteenth century exhibited across all studied geographic groups. The lack of evidence for early
sites in the archaeological record of the Don and Humber drainages, while unfortunate, does not
invalidate the hypothesized continuation of early ceramic practices in this area. The maintenance
of local ceramic practice is extrapolated from the prevalence of this pattern as seen across
Ontario. Early fifteenth-century sites of all areas display ties with fourteenth-century sites at BR
130 (65 percent similarity). Across the north shore of Lake Ontario, shared ceramic traditions are
continuous in most areas. Although the Humber t2 Black Creek site ceramics are integrated with
those of the larger ceramic culture, evidence suggests that sites of the Humber valley do not form
a single, unified ceramic community. The early Downsview ceramics are most closely aligned
with London-area Neutral ceramics. Parsons and Bosomworth also share close ceramic
similarities with Neutral sites near the western end of Lake Ontario and with late fifteenth-
century PEC ceramics. The late fifteenth-century Humber River drainage Damiani and Logan
sites share close ceramic ties with the fifteenth-century Don River drainage Keffer and Jarrett-
Lahmer sites.
To the west, Neutral sites began to disengage from the earlier ceramic conformity by the early
fifteenth century, similar to a distinctive group of sites in Simcoe County. This topological
separation of Simcoe County sites may reflect Sutton’s suggestion of two separate movements
124
into the area from the south (Sutton 1995, 1996, 1999). Another relatively unified ceramic
community of separate, but highly interacting, groups existed throughout this century from the
Don valley eastward to the Trent valley and into Prince Edward County. Slightly later, A.D.
1450–1550, the Trent valley sites, Kirche and Coulter, were also present in this formation,
clearly separated from the sizeable later sixteenth- and seventeenth-century aggregate of sites
representing the final Iroquoian occupation of Ontario, centred in northern Simcoe County.
Terminal sites of drainage-centred communities eastward from the Humber valley shared a
higher level of ceramic similarity with the late Simcoe cluster than with slightly earlier sites in
their area of origin. The Humber Damiani and Logan sites link the contemporary late fifteenth-
century eastern sites, Keffer and Jarrett-Lahmer, to the Simcoe core. The Rouge–Duffins Mantle
and Aurora sites sit within this core. The later Humber valley McKenzie and Seed-Barker sites
bind the seventeenth-century Neutral Bradt and earlier Neutral and Humber sites to those of the
highly integrated Simcoe cluster.
Figure 5-5. Local tradition ceramics of Ontario Iroquoian sites BR 140 main component
MDS layout.
Network analysis indicates that the interrelated fifteenth-century sites of the Trent, Rouge–
Duffins, and Don drainages formed the central core of the Ontario Iroquoian local ceramic
125
tradition, binding fourteenth-century ceramic practices with sixteenth- and early seventeenth-
century assemblages. The central location of the Keffer and other Don valley sites in this bridge
structure highlights Keffer’s integral role in the transition of ceramic practices from the fifteenth-
century north shore to the later home of the Huron-Wendat in Huronia, in Simcoe County.
Fifteenth-century Humber and Neutral, and some Simcoe County ceramic practices are to some
extent peripheral to these developments. It is clear that the north shore of Lake Ontario was an
area of widespread ceramic interaction among local tradition ceramic communities during the
century leading up to the dispersal of the region’s occupants. This interaction pattern continued
from an earlier period of province-wide ceramic unity so well displayed in the t1 cluster of sites.
Thus, network analysis places the Keffer practice community as a central player, both
chronologically and geographically, in the ceramic relations of north shore Iroquoian movement,
from its origins on Lake Ontario’s north shore to the final settlement in Huronia.
Multiscalar Relations of the Southern Ontario Iroquoian and Keffer

Site Ceramics
Pan-Iroquoian network analysis confirms distinct ancestral ceramic traditions for the Ontario
Iroquoian peoples and most New York Iroquoian peoples, although Seneca and Cayuga sites in
the earliest period shared closer ties with early Ontario sites than with those of the Eastern
Iroquoians (Figure 5.1). The division between these two main groups persisted throughout time
despite sporadic ceramic connections at the eastern and western ends of Lake Ontario. The close
ties among Ontario, St. Lawrence, and Northern New York sites in the fifteenth century reflect
interaction among these groups at that time. In general, New York–based Iroquoians were much
more restricted in their ceramic interaction by geography than were Ontario-based groups. Close
ties among later (t4–t6, A.D. 1500–1650) Neutral and Erie site nodes support the conjectured
movement of the Ontario Neutral southward and eastward. This explains the near disappearance
and disengagement of the Neutral nodes from the Ontario cluster at this time. Other than this
movement, there is no strong evidence in the networks of large-scale movement of ceramic
practices among the New York state groups or between these groups and the Iroquoians of the
Ontario cluster who consolidated in the Simcoe area, called Huronia, towards the end of the
sixteenth century. The tightly bound cluster of Ontario Iroquoians seen in the networks portrays
a much higher level of ceramic interaction across the southern part of the province than is seen to
the in New York state to the south.
126
Within the Ontario Iroquoian ceramic history, both network graphs and typology illustrate a
highly interactive network of ceramic tradition, which is summarized here following a temporal
framework. The main periods are described from west to east and then north into the Simcoe
County area. Early communities are widespread across southern Ontario in all areas surrounding
the Don and Humber drainages, which lack sites from this time. These communities shared in the
widespread Early Ontario Iroquoian ceramic heritage of the fourteenth century. Two somewhat
distinct practices developed from this heritage. These include ceramics of the Neutral tradition,
with only undecorated neck forms, and of the “Huron” tradition, with both decorated and
undecorated neck forms. Neutral ceramics are generally more common in the area west of Lake
Ontario, while “Huron” ceramics dominate the area east of this along the north shore of Lake
Ontario and into the Simcoe County area.
In the early fifteenth century, “Huron” ceramics, in the form of undecorated neck vessels, began
to appear in sites to the north of the Milton Neutral cluster. This pattern continued in the Credit
valley, where ties to the east now became stronger than those to the west. These patterns link this
area to sites on the other side of Toronto, as the Don and Humber valleys lack sites from this
period. Contemporary early sites in the Highland Creek and Rouge–Duffins drainages seem to
share a single, or affiliated, ceramic community of practice. These collections are composed of
50 to 85 percent of Early Ontario Iroquoian types, with almost no decorated neck “Huron”
ceramics in the earliest sites and a very limited presence, of up to 6 percent, of undecorated neck
“Huron” ceramics. Towards the turn of the fifteenth century, decorated neck vessels began to
have a greater presence, with 6 to 30 percent at Rouge–Duffins sites. Neutral ceramics appeared
at moderate levels, 3 to 9 percent, in these early sites and retained this low presence throughout
the community history. After A.D. 1400, decorated neck “Huron” vessels saw a great surge in
popularity, rising to 80 percent at Joseph Picard, while undecorated neck vessels remained below
35 percent. In the post–A.D. 1450 period, undecorated neck vessels rise in favour and match
decorated neck vessels in popularity. By the end of the occupation of this area in the mid-1600s,
decorated neck pottery had almost disappeared, diminishing to just 2 percent at Mantle.
Undecorated neck “Huron” ceramics continued to represent less than 70 percent of the
assemblages, as locally manufactured nonlocal tradition ceramics gained prominence in the
collections.
127
During the late fourteenth century, in the more easterly Trent River watershed, the Early Ontario
Iroquoian ceramics that were so prevalent elsewhere at this time occurred in smaller frequencies,
between 40 and 65 percent. Decorated neck pottery occurred in larger proportions than before,
now composing up to 20 percent of the Trent valley ceramic sample. Likewise, undecorated neck
ceramics, representing less than 15 percent, were also more numerous at this time in the Trent
valley than they are in the Rouge–Duffins/Highland Creek area. After A.D. 1400, the Rouge–
Duffins and Trent drainages shared equal proportions of undecorated neck ceramics, up to 36
percent, while decorated neck proportions skyrocketed to dominance, making up 40 to 85
percent of the total ceramics. As the fifteenth century ended, decorated neck pottery remained
slightly more popular in the Rouge valley, at 40 percent, than in the Trent valley, where a lower
level, of 30 percent, characterizes contemporary collections. After A.D. 1500, however,
decorated neck ceramics disappeared almost completely in the Rouge–Duffins region. They
retained a substantial minority position, upwards of 30 percent, in the Trent valley, alongside a
small but increasing majority of undecorated neck ceramics. The small presence of Neutral
pottery found earlier in the Trent valley (less than 10 percent) slowly shrank over time. In the
post–A.D. 1500 period, no evidence of these ceramics remained. The absence of these ceramics
in the Trent valley collections raises questions concerning their significance and the causes of
their absence in this area. The rise of popularity in the Neutral ceramics in the Rouge–Duffins
drainage at the Mantle site in this later period, in conjunction with the almost complete
disappearance of neck decorated ceramic here, portrays a division in the ceramic pathways of the
two watersheds that had earlier shared close similarity. Similarly, some Simcoe County sites
contain up to 10 percent Neutral ceramics, while many show no evidence of this pottery. With
the exception of those sites in the Prince Edward County cluster of Arbor Ridge, Hillier, and
Lite, all sites of the early fifteenth century geographically surrounding the Don–Humber region
consistently contain appreciable percentages of Neutral ceramics.
Decorated neck vessels (in this case, Black Necked) never achieved the level of popularity in
Simcoe County that they experienced in the Trent and Rouge–Duffins areas. Proportions
fluctuate across Simcoe County sites of the period. On the other hand, undecorated neck “Huron”
ceramics display more consistency and overall popularity in Simcoe County. After A.D. 1450,
undecorated neck “Huron” ceramic proportions increased steadily throughout Simcoe County,
until they constituted almost 100 percent of the collections at several early sixteenth-century
128
village sites. Decorated neck ceramics are almost non-existent in most villages by this time.
While a general decrease in decorated neck ceramics and a respective increase in undecorated
neck ceramics is true for the period A.D. 1400–1600 in Simcoe County, the pattern is, in fact,
more highly variable and sporadic than patterns seen in other drainage communities, due to
several waves of peoples from more southerly areas, along the Lake Ontario north shore.
The chronological separation of the network as portrayed in Figure 5-5, with earlier sites to the
left and later sites to the right of the graph, reflects the shift from the neck decorated pottery of
earlier, Middleport-based ceramics to the rising popularity of DNH ceramics present in the t1–t2
bridge between the two sides of the component. The introduction in t2 and subsequent increased
in popularity in t3–t6 of undecorated neck “Huron” pottery produces the tighter formation of the
later contact period. The spread of sites from the bottom of the graphs shows the range of the
influence of Neutral ceramics, with large proportions in the Neutral-area sites and almost none in
the t3 Rouge–Duffins, Trent, and some Simcoe sites. The increasing dominance of undecorated
neck “Huron” pottery is manifest in the late Simcoe-area sites at the right of the networks. The
continuing popularity of decorated neck ceramics into the sixteenth century the Trent valley is
demonstrated by the position of the Kirche and Coulter site nodes, which are integrated with
earlier t2 and t3 Rouge–Duffins and other north shore sites. The absence of ties between Trent
valley sites and the t5 Rouge–Duffins Mantle site, which possesses almost no neck decorated
vessels, exemplifies a disconnection in shared traditions.
The Don valley group of sites, with the centrally located Keffer site, sits solidly in the centre of
the Ontario local tradition post-t1 core. This centrality illustrates the central role of the Don
valley occupations as a conduit of ceramic tradition though both time and space. Collections of
the numerous t2 and t3 sites in this centrally located watershed are characterized by their
diversity. Neutral, decorated neck, and undecorated neck “Huron” vessels appear in varying
proportions at most sites. This diversity illustrates the complex ceramic interaction occurring in
this central area throughout the fifteenth century.
Network analysis indicates that the interrelated fifteenth-century sites of the Trent, Rouge–
Duffins, and Don valleys form the central core of the Ontario Iroquoian local ceramic tradition,
binding fourteenth-century ceramic practices with those of the sixteenth and early seventeenth
centuries. The central location of the Keffer and other Don valley sites in this bridge structure
129
highlights Keffer’s integral role in the transition of ceramic practices from the fifteenth-century
north shore to the later home of the Huron-Wendat in Huronia (Simcoe County). Fifteenth-
century Humber, Neutral, and some Simcoe County ceramic practices are somewhat peripheral
to these developments (Figure 5-3). It is clear that the north shore of Lake Ontario was an area of
widespread ceramic interaction among local tradition ceramic communities during the century up
to the dispersal of groups from the region. This followed an earlier period of province-wide
ceramic unity so well displayed in the t1 cluster of sites (Figure 5-3). Network analysis thus
places the Keffer community of practice as a central player, both chronologically and
geographically, in the ceramic relations of Huron-Wendat, from their origins on Lake Ontario’s
north shore to their final settlement in Huronia.
Although some interaction between St. Lawrence and New York sites and those of the north
shore is apparent in the various network graphs, the disconnection between the ceramic heritages
of the two areas is well visualized, and the independent and highly intra-connected nature of the
Ontario ceramic tradition is plainly evident. The Don–Humber ceramic communities, and the
Keffer site itself, are located at the centre of this Ontario Iroquoian ceramic tradition
development and show no close ties to ceramic communities to the south. An in-depth,
multiscalar investigation of the internal and external relations of the Keffer ceramics will help to
locate Keffer more precisely in the larger network and provide insights into ceramically
mediated social relations and interactions of the village inhabitants.
130
6 Settlement Pattern Analysis

In this chapter I follow the research of Dodd (1984) and Warrick (1984) and analyze the
settlement features of the Keffer site, houses, middens, and palisades into four spatial groups, or
clusters. Settlement clusters likely reflect some aspect of social relations, generally kinship-based
formations. Consideration of the inter-relationships of the archaeological features within each
cluster and between clusters is aimed at providing potential chronological links within clusters
and across the village as a whole. This chronological framework, grounded in settlement data,
will provide a basis for a detailed temporal and social interpretation of the network analysis of
the Keffer village ceramics in chapter 7.
Spatial Arrangement of Major Settlement Features

This settlement pattern analysis examines three types of features, namely, longhouses, palisades,
and middens. The Keffer village site is composed of 18 longhouses, ranging in length from 15 to
65 m, and one small, circular structure of unknown function. The latter building was originally
labelled House 5 in the field and has retained that name is subsequent work. All structures
thought to be houses were numbered in the field during the course of excavation. One of these,
“House 17,” was deemed not to be a house in post-excavation analysis; therefore, house
numbering is not contiguous. Several of these houses were extended after their initial
construction. These house extensions were given letter suffixes (Table 6-1). Post mould densities
are highest in the walls of the longest houses (with one exception), indicating long-term
occupation (Table 6-1, Figure 6-1). The exception is House 15, which, despite being the longest
house, at 65 m, has the lowest post mould count, indicating that it was likely short-lived.
Table 6-1. House and Extension Length(s) and Wall Post Density.
House/Extension Length (m) Addition Length (m) # Wall Posts per m
1a 37.5 10.7
1b 45 7.5
2 35 4.1
3a 22 4.7
3b 30.5 8.5
131
4 42.5 4.8
6 35 4.3
7a 28 13.4
7b 45 17 4.9
8 40 7
9a 27.5 7.9
9b 40 6 (north), 7.5 (south)
10a 22 4.3
10b 29 7
11a 40 10.5
11b 55 15
11c 62 7
12 45 6.4
13a 32 5.4
13b 40 7.5
14a 28 7 (north) 4.5
14b 40.5 7.5 (south)
15a 37.5 3.8
15b 65 27.5
16a 32.5 7.7
16b 40 7.5
18a 24 6
18b 36.5 5 (north), 7.5 (south)
18c 44 7.5
19 25 7.7
20 40 6.3
132
Figure 6-1. Map showing all post moulds.

133
Twenty-seven middens, or centralized refuse deposits, were identified during excavation and
have been included in this site synthesis. Some midden features, such as Midden 76, lack clear
physical contexts. Some, such as Midden 58, possess samples of unverified origin. Others,
including Midden 64, lack analysable ceramics, while Middens 69 and 70, were re-classified as
other types of features during post-excavation analysis. Therefore, not all 27 “middens” are
discussed here, and the numbering of the middens is not contiguous.
At first glance, the settlement plan of the Keffer village suggests a slightly dispersed pattern of
three longhouse clusters, each spatially disconnected from the four longhouses scattered around
the eastern and southern perimeters of the site. These houses are situated within one or both of
two well-defined palisades, one double-row palisade exterior to the village (labelled Palisade 2),
and a second, much smaller, single-row palisade entirely within the limits of the first. A 50 m
fence line (labelled Palisade 3) partially surrounds House 10 at the base of the plateau slope.
Several surface middens are scattered throughout the site both inside and outside Palisades 1 and
2, but the largest middens appear on the riverside terrace slope and within a slight depression at
the southeastern edge of the site. Again at first glance, this suggests a transparent pattern of
growth, from a small, clustered, 11 longhouse occupation encircled by a single-row palisade, to
larger village of 15 houses, encircled by a double-row palisade.
Topography
The superposition of the topographic features of the greater site area over the excavated
settlement layout (Figure 6-3, Figure 6-2) provides a supplementary and essential explanatory
context for the comprehension of the village layout. The geophysical aspects of hillside slopes,
most relevantly the 3 m rise in elevation from the basal elevation of the “low town” to the crest
of the upper plateau of the “high town,” at the western limit of the site, can account for the
specific structural characteristics of the village features. The topographic analysis reveals that the
double-row-palisaded village of 15 houses consisted of two coexisting groups of houses
separated by the differing elevations. The 25 m separation of the high town longhouses from the
rest of the residential structures is explained by the steep slope (Figure 6-4) encircling the
plateau. What appear to be interior surface middens throughout this 25 m band are now revealed
as hillside middens originating from households throughout the high town. The materials from
134
these middens most likely derive from the high town and are not by-products of deposition from
nearby houses at the lower elevation.
The middens thus take two general forms: surface middens, spread in shallow deposits across the
interior village living space, and hillside middens, consisting of debris deposited away from the
living space, down the slopes between the two elevations or on the village outskirts. Most large
middens at Keffer, like those at other Iroquoian villages of this period (such as Baumann and
Jarrett-Lahmer, see DRPA 1996a; Stopp 1985), are hillside middens, as is evident from their
location in relation to the contour intervals (Figure 6-3).
135
Figure 6-2. Map showing all post moulds and the 1 m contour intervals.
136
Figure 6-3. Digitized sketch plan showing houses, middens, and palisades and the 1 m
contour intervals.
137
Figure 6-4. View of the high town and low town longhouses at Keffer’s north end during
excavation.
Overlapping and Sharing of Features

An analysis of overlapping and shared features can help sort out the settlement sequence. As the
Keffer settlement plan attests, throughout all stages of the village occupation, wall post moulds
of some structures are either shared with, or are directly in contact with, those of other structures.
Many structures share this characteristic of physical contact. For example, the northwest corner
and the east wall of House 18a, the earliest manifestation of this residence, are in direct physical
contact with Palisade 1 and House 15a, respectively. In a similar manner, House 1a is located in
direct contact with Palisade 1, and House 13a may share posts with the southern limit of the
palisade. The earliest edition of House 11a is also in physical contact with this palisade. There
are also indications that Houses 7a and 15b may also connect with the palisade. Later structures,
Houses 4 and 19, show evidence of direct contact with the second palisade construction. The
positioning of these structures in such a manner that each of these houses aligns exactly with the
nearby palisade—and such that there is no evidence of structural contact between House 4 and
138
Palisade 2 or House 19 and Palisade 2b—strongly suggest the contemporaneity of the structures.
Instances of non-contemporary overlapping of features are clearly apparent in other places on the
site plan.
Despite the common occurrence of midden–palisade interfaces, the presence and location of
these middens adjacent to the palisades does not greatly inform settlement sequences. Interior
middens, in contrast, often affect village mobility patterns, impeding access throughout the
settlement, and therefore can be informative regarding settlement sequences. The closely spaced
and overlapping nature of the different house clusters prevents refuse accumulation in these
areas. Apparently, the initial structural proximity within these clusters already restricted mobility
between houses. This is illustrated in the placement of several houses at Keffer (namely, Houses
1, 4, 10, and 11) in direct contact with palisades at one of the structural corners. It is only around
the peripheries of these clusters, skirting the interior village limits or hilltops, that ground surface
middens appear, in locations where they do not seriously impede traffic flow.
Definition of Site Clusters

Visual analysis of the spatial distribution of the longhouses in conjunction with the site
topography indicates that the main occupation features of the village are spatially separated into
four distinct sectors, or clusters (Figure 6-5). The placement of houses in clusters assumes that
they were constructed together as a planned unit (Warrick 1984). Each of the middens in the
village is correlated with one or more houses, according to its proximity to the structure, the
topography of the landscape surrounding the midden, the ease of intra-site mobility between the
house and the midden, and the overall size of the midden. With this in mind, the houses and their
correlated middens are ascribed to one of the four “clusters,” Clusters A, B, C, and D (Table
6-2). The clusters are colour coded for ease of viewing (dark orange = Cluster A; light orange =
Cluster B; light green = Cluster C; dark green = Cluster D).
139
Figure 6-5. Plan showing the houses (solid fill), middens (dotted fill), and palisades (dotted
lines) associated with each of the four site clusters, and the 1 m contour interval.
140
Cluster A is comprised of those houses (Houses 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7) and their affiliated middens
(most notably the two large hillside middens, Middens 57 and 60), located in the northernmost
area of the lower level of the site. These features are closely positioned and share a generally
parallel east–west orientation. While the western edges of the structures appear to be aligned
facing Palisade 1, their eastern ends open onto a 3 m2 area that is largely devoid of refuse and of
exterior features and posts. “House 5,” a round structure 8 m in diameter with no evidence of a
hearth or other occupation features, is not a true longhouse but a construction of unknown
function. It is included in Cluster A, along with three surface middens (Middens 51, 63, and 64),
and the two large, adjoined hillside middens (Middens 57 and 60). Midden 64 is a small surface
deposit located directly south of Midden 52. It has no analyzable ceramics and no clear
relationship with any other archaeological features. Therefore, it is not included in this analysis.
Separated from Cluster A by orientation, rather than distance, are the three houses of Cluster B:
Houses 8, 9, and 10. While House 8 shares an east–west alignment with House 7 in Cluster A, its
radial orientation with Houses 9 and 10 around an open plaza area suggests its inclusion in the
spatially distinct Cluster B. Cluster B is therefore deemed to consist of three houses, Houses 8, 9,
and 10, oriented at a 40-degree angle, southeast–northwest. The houses of this semi-circular
cluster focus on a small open area to the west. Middens associated with these houses are Midden
55 (located in the western plaza area, where the three house ends meet), Midden 56 (to the south
of House 9), Midden 58 (located overtop of House 10), and Midden 67 (located just to the south
of the fence line surrounding House 10).
Cluster C is composed of a concentrated grouping of six houses oriented north–south,

perpendicular to Houses 9 and 10 of Cluster B. This group is composed of all houses positioned
on the hilltop plateau, in the so-called high town area (Houses 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 18). These
structures generally articulate radially towards the centre of the plateau. Several middens along
the surrounding hill slope are associated with the heavy occupation of this hilltop area. These
include the surface deposit Midden 59 (just outside Houses 14 and 16), Midden 61 (to the north
of House 14), Midden 62 (a hillside midden associated by proximity with House 18), Midden 66
(located on the western slope of the plateau), Midden 72 (on a hill slope to the south of Houses
12 and 13), Midden 73 (on the plateau next to the south end of House 13), Midden 74 (a very
large midden surrounding the southern and western portions of House 12), Midden 75 (on the
141
hill slope south of House 15b), Midden 78 (to the east of Midden 75), and Midden 80 (adjoining
and to the north of Midden 75).
The last group of longhouses, Cluster D, is a collection of four structures, Houses 4, 11, 19, and
20, located around the site periphery. These houses do not form a physically close-knit group or
cluster per se, but they share uncommon positioning. The occupants of Cluster D are spatially
isolated from those of the village core by the location of the longhouses exterior to the original
palisade. At the northeastern periphery of the village, two houses, House 4 and House 11, are
better integrated and share the lower-level terrace with Clusters A and B. The two longhouses at
the southern end of the village periphery, Houses 19 and 20, are separated from the village centre
by the extensive slope surrounding the east and south sides of the village plateau housing Cluster
C. Several interior middens within the cluster block easy navigation among these houses. These
are Middens 53, 65, 71, and 77. Also interrupting movement are surface Middens 52 and 56,
located between Clusters B and D.
Table 6-2. Houses and Middens Associated with Each Site Cluster and Elevation.
Cluster Houses Middens Elevation
A 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 51, 57, 60, 63 low town
B 8, 9, 10 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 67 low town
C 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 59, 61, 62, 66, 68, 72,73, 74, 75, 78, 80 high town
D 4, 11, 19, 20 65, 71, 77 low town
Definition of Site Settlement Phases

The Keffer site occupation history can be divided into two main phases of construction, based on
the location of the houses and middens in relation to the palisades. Phase 1 consists of those
occupation features which, according to settlement pattern analysis, could have existed prior to
the construction of, or during the lifetime of, Palisade 1. This phase is further subdivided into
Phase 1a, defined as all those features which could have co-occurred during the initial stage of
the period, and Phase 1b, defined by features which might have co-occurred as some of the initial
structures were replaced while Palisade 1 remained intact.
The demolition of Palisade 1 and the expansion and rebuilding of existing houses, together with
the construction of new houses and a second, more extensive village palisade, mark the
142
beginning of Phase 2a. The major expansion of the palisaded area during the village occupation
provides a clear break in the settlement history. A small extension of the second palisade,
Palisade 2, in the southwest corner of the site, marks the final stage of palisade construction, in
Phase 2b. Phase 2b is further separated into 2b-1 and 2b-2, the final structural change seen in the
village.
The separation of the occupation into these phases of development is not meant to suggest that
this scenario represents temporal snapshots of any period of the village occupation. Nor is it
meant to suggest that changes within sub-phases a or b happened simultaneously in all clusters.
This allocation simply represents the potential of co-occurrence of features within the complex
village construction history. Overlapping longhouses, palisades, and middens throughout the site
make it clear that all houses and areas of the village could not have been occupied
simultaneously and help to reveal a relative chronology of settlement pattern. This chronology is
examined in detail and illustrated through the use of post mould maps and site plans. Plans
indicate newly appearing or newly altered settlement features of each phase by progressively
lighter colours in the colour coding (burgundy = Phase 1a; bright red = Phase 1b; orange = Phase
2a; ochre = Phase 2b-1; yellow = Phase 2b-2).
Site Settlement Phase 1a

Phase 1 is defined by the presence of the first (and smaller), oval palisade. It is thought to
correspond to the establishment of the hamlet or village. This phase is broken down into two
main events, 1a and 1b (Table 6-3, Figure 6-6). This division is marked by the restructuring of
the Cluster C high town settlement before the major village expansion that occurs with the
erection of Palisade 2.
143
Figure 6-6. Plan showing Phase 1a.

144
Table 6-3. Possible Concurrent Houses of

Phase 1a Clusters.
Cluster Houses
A 1a, 3a/b, 5, 7a
B 8, 9a/b, 10a/b
C 15a/b, 12
D 4, 11a, 20
Phase 1a, Cluster A

The five aligned houses of Cluster A (Figure 6-7) are efficiently fit into the northernmost level
area, inside Palisade 1. The cluster is comprised of two sets of overlapping buildings (Houses 2
and 3, and Houses 6 and 7); a small, circular structure of unknown function (House 5); and one
spatially independent residence (House 1). House 1 lies east–west along the southern edge of the
palisade. The initial construction of House 1a, in Phase 1a, measured 37.5 m in length. A wall
post density of 10 posts per metre (ppm) suggests a long period of occupation for this house.
This is supported by the extensive midden, Midden 1, located just metres from its western end
wall. The northeast corner of House 1a makes direct contact with the northeastern portion of
Palisade 1. The rest of the building sits 10 m from the northern part of the palisade. Less than a
metre to the south of House 1 is the north wall of House 2, a 35 m long, lightly occupied
dwelling with evidence of a single construction phase. The short-term occupation of House 2 is
suggested by the paucity of interior posts and features, as well as the lack of expansion of the
residence. It is also supported by the low wall post density of 4.1 ppm, when compared to the site
average of 6.5 ppm.
145
Figure 6-7. Plan (left) and map (right) showing Phase 1a, Cluster A.
House 3 parallels and overlaps the entire southwest half of House 2. The first construction of
House 3a measures 30.5 m and has a wall post density of only 4.1 ppm. House 3b is later
extended by 7.5 m. Even with the extension, House 3 appears to have a relatively short lifespan
for a Keffer site house. House 2 features a large interior sweatbath (a circular pattern of post
moulds approximately 1 m in diameter marking a temporary, tent-like sauna structure used for
spiritual cleansing). It is characterized by an extremely high density of posts. This sweatbath
overlies part of the north wall of House 3, thus indicating that House 2 definitely postdates
House 3 and placing House 2 in a later construction sequence (Figure 6-8).
Figure 6-8. Map detail showing House 2 sweatbath postmoulds over House 3 north wall.
146
Also overlapping House 2 on the east is House 5, an 8.6 m circular structure of unknown
function. In its first guise, House 3a is located more than 7 m from House 5, but the 7.5 m
extension brings the House 3b east wall in contact with that of the House 5 structure. The
circular wall of House 5 is also in direct contact with House 6 to its south. House 6, a 35 m
building of one construction episode, lies at an angle to Houses 3 and 7 in this cluster, but
parallel to Houses 1 and 2. The east end wall of House 6 crosses Palisade 1, while the west end
wall is covered by Feature 2, an occupation feature of House 7b (Figure 6-9). House 7a, which in
its original form is 28 m long, is situated 3 m south and parallel to Houses 3 and 5.
Along with House 3b, Houses 1 and 7, the two longest-occupied structures in the cluster (as
indicated by the high wall post density and interior post density [Figure 6-7]) show evidence of
structural extensions. House 1a, initially 37.5 m long in Phase 1a, was expanded to 42 m in a
later phase, as seen by its growth across the palisade line. The initial construction, fitting very
snugly within the palisade, is likely an early construction and is therefore assigned to Phase 1a.
Figure 6-9. View of House 6 wall post mounds under Feature 2 of House 7.
147
Post mould density studies do not support the previous interpretation of multiple eastward
extensions to House 7 as has previously been argued (Finlayson et al. 1987). At Keffer, as
clearly indicated by the House 11 expansions, walls of the final stage of longhouse construction
(expansions) are characterized by the lowest post density for the structure. The rebuilding or
fortifying of previous expansions, as in House 11b, results in wall segments with higher post
densities in the final construction, but lower post densities than in the original section of the
building, such as the walls of House 11a. In House 7, Birch (2011) has identified only two
episodes of construction. While the initial House 7a has the highest post density of any
longhouse yet documented in Northern Iroquoia (Jennifer Birch, personal communication 2014),
at 13.4 ppm, the extension of House 7b has a much lower density, below the site average, at 4.9
ppm. This density is constant across a distance of 15.9 m of the 17 m extension side wall. The
consistency in wall post density across the length of the addition supports a single house
expansion, to a final length of 42 m. The superpositioning of House 7b Feature 2 over the end
wall of House 6, which dates to a later phase, indicates that the expansion of House 7b occurred
later in the site history, post–Phase 1, after the removal of House 6 and Palisade 1.
As noted above, a definitive temporal relationship for all features cannot be ascertained from
settlement evidence alone. However, it is clear that House 2 must postdate House 5 and,
therefore, House 3. House 6 must postdate the removal of Palisade 1, and according to its
parallel alignment with Houses 2 and 7, it probably coexists with these structures, although it
pre-dates the extension of House 7b. Therefore, the initial settlement of Cluster A in Phase 1a
potentially includes Houses 1a, 3a, 3b, 5, and 7a. Houses 2, 6, and 7b belong to a later
construction phase. With the exception of Midden 54, which overlies Houses 6 and 7b, all
middens in this area may have been formed during this early phase. These include the small
surface middens 51, 63, and 64 and the large hillside middens 57 and 60.
Phase 1a, Cluster B

Cluster B (Figure 6-10) is composed of three longhouses (Houses 8, 9, and 10), four middens
(Middens 54, 55, 56, and 67), and a semi-circular fence line 50 m in length, here labelled
Palisade 3. House 8 lies parallel to the Cluster A House 7 and 5 m to its north. Although it sits in
parallel alignment with Houses 1 to 7, and thus appears to belong with Cluster A, House 8’s
eastern end is not aligned with those of Houses 1 to 7. Together with the north ends of Houses 9
148
(38 m long) and 10 (28 m long), the western porch/storage area of House 8 opens onto a central
plaza and refuse area probably shared by these three houses, indicating they form a socially
linked group, Cluster B. Post lines and interior feature data advocate for a single construction
event for House 8. A wall post density of 7 ppm, slightly above the site average, supports a
relatively long lifespan for the house. The post layout (Figure 6-10) and the presence of wall
trenches suggest a rebuilding of this longhouse at some point, but no extensions. Instead, at the
west end of House 8 is an interior end wall, commonly used to separate the living and
storage/exit areas of longhouses, labelled “vestibules” by Creese (2010:257).
Figure 6-10. Plan (left) and map (right) showing Phase 1a, Cluster B.
The closely aligned and parallel Houses 9 and 10 are angled at 40 degrees to the southeast of
House 8, forming a rough semi-circular cluster at their western ends. The parallel, side-by-side
alignment of Houses 9 and 10 indicates coexistence at some point. House 9a, with a wall post
density of 7.9, was originally a small building, 27.5 m in length. It experienced expansions at
both ends of the building, 6 m to the north and 7.5 m to the south. The final structure is 40 m in
length. House 9 was probably erected in this phase (Phase 1a), since the first village palisade,
Palisade 1, skirts around it and House 8 at a distance of 10 m, a common buffer zone size at
Keffer. The heavy concentration of interior sweatbaths present in House 9 suggests a long or
149
intensive occupation. House 10 was also in the first instance built as a small residence, of only
22 m. It was later expanded by 7 m, and the exact fit of House 10b (at 28 m) within the eastern
and western limits of Palisade 3 suggest that the house was extended from its original length
after the erection of this interior palisade or fence line. The paucity of interior features, low
density of wall posts, at 4.3 ppm, and the superpositioning of Midden 58 over the interior of
House 10, portray a short habitation period for this house and confirm its abandonment prior to
the end of the village occupation.
The purpose and timing of the erection of a 50 m barrier or fence line (Palisade 3), bordering
House 10 on three sides is not clear. It likely provided a barrier for protection of some kind,
perhaps related to climatic, geographic, or social factors. The placement of Palisade 3 in direct
contact with the end of the House 10 sidewall replicates the not uncommon practice at Keffer of
abutting longhouse corners to palisade structures. Logic would suggest, however, that the
palisade was constructed prior to the extension of the smaller House 10a (21 m), when a sizable,
10 m gap would have existed between the two constructions, allowing easy passage. While the
second iteration of the house fits neatly within the palisade, it would have restricted access to and
from House 10. The co-presence of the very small refuse accumulation of Midden 67, at the base
of the slope from the high town, directly adjacent to—and possibly contemporary with—Palisade
3 would have had little effect on intra-site mobility. Since the interior fence line, Palisade 3,
surrounding Houses 9 and 10 on the west, already limits much of the pedestrian access for the
inhabitants of these structures; the addition of Midden 55 at their northern egress would have
almost entirely cut off access among these three structures. This situation suggests that Houses 8,
9, and 10; Palisade 3; and Midden 55 were not entirely coeval. However, the lack of
superpositioning leaves the temporal positioning of these features unknown.
Also associated with this grouping (specifically with Houses 9 and 10), is Midden 56, a surface
midden at the southeastern end of House 10, which abuts the interior palisade. Its presence likely
posed only a minor obstacle while Palisade 1 remained in place, as it lay nested alongside the
interior fence wall. in an alternate scenario this fence line as either predated or post-dated the
village.
150
Phase 1a, Cluster C
Figure 6-11. Plan (left) and map (right) showing Phase 1a, Cluster C.
The high town plateau at Keffer gradually rises to a height of 3 m above the level ground of the
low town. Tightly fit within this tableland are six overlapping longhouses, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and
18, which together form Cluster C (Figure 6-11). The six houses involved in this development
include five with some evidence of growth over time (Houses 13, 14, 15, 16, and 18). Three
structures, Houses 12, 13, and 14, display evidence of long-term occupation, as seen in the high
density of interior posts. Houses 15, 16, and 18 contained fewer interior posts and features,
suggesting they experienced a shorter occupation.
The longest house in the high town, House 15, at its greatest extent measured 65 m long, but it
was originally constructed to a length of 37.5 m, roughly two-thirds the final dimension. The
west wall of House 15a merges with the east wall of House 18a (25 m long). It is unlikely these
two structures co-existed, as large areas of the plateau around the buildings would thereby
remain open, while the area between the buildings would be impassible. All other houses in
Cluster C (the high town) except House 14 could have existed simultaneously with either House
151
15a or House 18a, but not both. However, because the earliest House 18 construction crosses the
surrounding palisade, Palisade 1 clearly belongs to a later village construction phase.
The overlap of up to four constructions, Houses 14a (32 m), 14b (38 m), 15a, and 15b, within a
small area makes post mould patterns difficult to decipher. Nonetheless, a distinct end wall for
House 15a can be deciphered (Figure 6-11). More than 50 percent of the area covered by both
stages of House 14’s construction overlaps almost the entirety of House 15a and portions of
House 15b. The parallel alignment of Houses 14 and 18 suggest they are concurrent structures,
indicating that House 14 also belongs to this later stage. House 15 therefore appears to be the
earliest of these three longhouses. The early construction of House 15 is supported by its central
location across the middle of the plateau. As Houses 13, 14, and 16 cross House 15b, which is
the latest extension of this structure, they, too, must post-date House 15. Post mould studies
show House 15 to have the lowest wall post density of all the houses at Keffer, at 3.8 ppm, with
no evidence of repairs or rebuilding of the original structure. Internal sweatbath features are
present, but not in the high density seen in the neighbouring House 12. This indicates that House
15 witnessed a relatively short occupation. Yet House 15b was expanded to the south an
additional 27.5 m, making it the village’s largest longhouse, at 65 m in length. Midden 78,
located on the slope just beyond the house end, may have originated as a result of this expansion.
House 12, built at 45.1 m, shows no evidence of rebuilding, but the wall post density, of 6.4 ppm
is much higher than that of House 15, and a dense pattern of sweatbath features covers the entire
extent of the interior. The high concentration of sweatbath posts located throughout the
longhouse interior indicates that this house experienced the longest occupation of all six houses
of the high town. These characteristics, along with House 12’s lack of building superimpositions,
indicate a long occupation for this house. The existence of House 12 prior to the final, lightly
occupied (and therefore probably short-lived) extension of House 18c is evidenced in the overlap
of this expansion across the north end porch of House 12. Since House 12 did not survive to the
end of the village occupation, as revealed by the overlapping ends walls of House 18c, it must
have been constructed early in the village history. Consequently, House 12 may have co-existed
with House 15, which pre-dates Houses 13, 14, 16, or 18a/b.
Although an early presence of the smallest version of House 18 is possible in the high town, in
the earliest stage its abutment with House 15a in a sparsely built area, and its parallel alignment
152
with the later House 14, suggest it dates to a later construction phase. There are clearly two sets
of post moulds in the west end of House 18b. This would seem to confirm that this end of the
house was rebuilt once, following the same outline. Both these sets of posts cross the Palisade 1
line, demonstrating that this portion of the house was erected after the palisade was moved.
While Houses 13a (28 m), 13b (39.9 m), and 16 (approximately 33.5 m, although the true length
is impossible to obtain due to erosion) may have existed in conjunction with the earliest House
15 (15a), their overlap of House 15b suggests they were constructed later. The overlap of the
southernmost limit of House 13 with Palisade 1 (Figure 6-12) shows that House 13b post-dates
the palisade and that it coincides with the construction of House 18b. Therefore, Houses 15a and
15b must both pre-date the appearance of Houses 13, 14, 16, and 18. Archaeological settlement
data, therefore, suggest that only Houses 12 and 15 could have co-existed in this earliest stage.
Figure 6-12. Map detail showing House 13b wall posts crossing Palisade 1.
Long-term occupation of the six houses on the plateau resulted in the deposition of several
extensive hillside middens and two surface middens. Midden 59, lying at the apex of the cluster
of Houses 14, 15, and 16, is situated at the top of the plateau slope but does not form a
communication barrier. Surface Midden 73 slightly overlies the House 15b end wall, and thus
most likely post-dates the removal of this structure. As neither midden intersects any of the
structures, they provide no clues to house sequence. Middens 61 and 68, on the hillside of the
northeastern plateau, inside Palisade 1, and Middens 72, 75, 78, and 80, exterior to Palisade 1,
cross no palisade or house post lines, and thus cannot be attributed to any specific era of the
153
hilltop occupation. These exterior middens may therefore date to a later phase. Middens 62 and
74 cross both the Palisade 1 and the Palisade 2 lines, suggesting long-term deposition. The
possible Phase 1a Cluster C features thus include Houses 12 and 15a/b and Middens 59, 61, 68,
73, 74, 75, and 80.
Phase 1a, Cluster D

To the east of the original village palisade, Palisade 1, on the remaining level ground south and
west of a rise to the north and east, four additional longhouse structures were constructed—
House 4 to the northeast, House 11a directly to the east, House 20 to the southeast, and House 19
farther south. These structures and the six associated middens, Middens 52, 53, 65, 67, 71, and
77, are designated Cluster D. Whether this collection of occupation features combines to form a
true cluster is uncertain, but their existence within the expanded village area between the two
village palisades suggests some form of connection. Unlike Houses 4, 11, and 20, the
southernmost of the houses, House 19 (a shorter, 25 m, single-construction longhouse),
undoubtedly belongs to a post–Phase 1 stage, as it overlies the construction of the second village
palisade, Palisade 2. Similarly, Midden 52 can also be assigned to a later phase, as it partially
covers Palisade 1, next to House 4. Conversely, Midden 53, situated just south of House 4, is
composed of isolated surface refuse and may derive from this early time in Phase 1a. Excavation
notes suggest that Midden 76, originally assigned to an area overlapping the west end of House
19, is part of the post-occupation disturbance and should not be considered an archaeological or
cultural feature.
154
Figure 6-13. Plan (left) and map (right) showing Phase 1a, Cluster D.
Settlement pattern evidence alone suggests that House 11 may have been the first residence
constructed in a central location in this open area outside the original village boundary. At some
point prior to the removal of the first palisade, perhaps even early in the village’s lifespan, the
first, 40 m construction of House 11 (11a) was erected, partially abutting the exterior east wall of
the palisade. A further sign of an early (perhaps Phase 1a) date for this structure is indicated in
the features of the house itself. While the interiors of most of the intensively occupied
longhouses at Keffer, including House 11, show evidence of multiple aboveground sweat lodges,
common in the late fifteenth century (Williamson 2014:11), House 11 is the only structure at the
site with evidence supporting the presence of a possible semi-subterranean sweat lodge within its
interior (MacDonald and Williamson 2001:66–67; Williamson 2014:9). A large (203 × 183 cm)
feature (Figure 6-14) abuts the construction of the House 11 east wall. The rebuilding of this wall
155
may have obliterated any evidence of a passage into the house. Although its depth is unknown,
the large size and location of this feature (Feature 4) suggest it may have functioned as a sweat
lodge. The proposed function of this feature remains speculative, however. The occurrence of a
sweatbath in this location would argue for a relatively early occupation of House 11a in the
village history, as no evidence of additional semi-subterranean sweat lodges has been found at
Keffer. House 11a has a high wall post density, of 10.5 ppm. This density, second only to that of
House 7a, together with the numerous interior occupation features in the south end of the house,
indicate it is one of the longest occupied households of the site. It also supports an early date for
the construction of House 11a’s southern section.
Figure 6-14. Map detail showing south end of House 11.
Whether Houses 4 and 20 were constructed concurrently with House 11 remains unknown, since
neither of these structures possess wall post lines which intersect with those of other features,
although House 4 sits in almost direct contact with the outer palisade, Palisade 2. This house was
originally built with a length of 42.5 m and was not extended. With the exception of Houses 15
and 11, at 65 m and 62 m, respectively, most extended houses at Keffer have a final length of
this same approximate dimension, of 40 m. House 4 is aligned in parallel with, but 5 m from
156
Palisade 1. This house was most likely constructed prior to the removal of this palisade, before
the elongation of House 11b/c, and prior to the erection of House 6, thereby affording it a wide
exterior pathway running from end to end. House 4 has a low interior post density, with the
exception of a large sweatbath feature, with a high density of post moulds suggesting multiple
constructions, in its southern end. It is also characterized by a low wall post density, of 4.8 ppm.
This density measure is very similar to those of the short-term structures, Houses 2, 3, and 6, as
well as the extension of House 7b, at 4.1, 4.7, 4.3, and 4.9 ppm, respectively. The low ppm,
together with the absence of a large midden deposit in the immediate area, suggests a relatively
short occupation for this residence.
House 20 has a heavier feature density (and therefore longer lifespan) than House 4. It is located,
along with House 19, at a distance from the other site residences. Its north end lies 25 m from
House 11 and approximately 40 m southeast of the next closest house. House 20 is post-dated by
House 19, which lies only 10 m to its southwest. Surface Midden 71, located directly north of
House 20, probably appeared with the first occupation of House 20. As it is physically separated
from other village features, Midden 71’s existence in Phase 1a is uncertain and cannot be ruled
out. In contrast, Midden 77’s overlap of Palisade 2 indicates its deposition in a later phase. Lying
between Houses 11 and 20 (two long-term residences) is Midden 65, the largest refuse deposit in
the village. The position of Midden 65 within a wide depression on the village’s southeastern
periphery, distant from the main village occupation, suggests it could have been an early location
for refuse deposition. There is a lack of evidence for the intersection of Midden 65 with other
village features; therefore, there is a possibility that it, too, may originate in Phase 1a.
The archaeological settlement data for Phase 1a of the village residential development allow for
the erection of 11 longhouses concurrently with the construction of Palisade 1 in this early
period. The palisade was evidently designed to skirt House 1a along the northern portion of the
village, as it runs at a distance of some 20 m beyond the north wall of House 3a and 15 m east of
House 5. Following this same reasoning, Houses 8 and 9 must have also been present at the time
of the construction of Palisade 1. Palisade 3, a small, interior, semi-circular structure surrounding
and abutting the northwest wall of House 10, seems to isolate the area of Houses 9 and 10 from
the upslope occupation of the high town. The wall trench of House 9 (Feature 1, Excavation
Square Form 470-515) interrupts the Palisade 3 (Palisade 301 on excavation records) wall, with
no evidence of the palisade posts intruding into the construction trench. Palisade 3 is therefore
157
earlier than House 9 in this spot. Whether Palisade 3 is earlier or later than House 10 is unknown.
At its greatest expanse, after the mostly northerly portion of the barrier was disassembled, this
fence line enclosed both Houses 9 and 10.
Site Settlement Phase 1b

Phase 1b, Cluster A
Phase 1b, is illustrated in Figure 6 15 and summarized in Table 6 4. The maps of the individual
clusters within it are shown in Figure 6 16 to Figure 6 19.
158
Figure 6-15. Plan showing Phase 1b.

159
Table 6-4. Possible Concurrent Houses of Phase 1b Clusters.
Cluster Houses
A 1a, 3a/b, 5, 7a
B 8, 9a/b, 10a/b
C 12, 13a, 14, 16, 18a
D 4, 11a, 20
Figure 6-16. Plan (left) and map (right) showing Phase 1b, Cluster A.
The shift into Phase 1b is marked by only minor alterations in the configuration of longhouse and
midden features throughout the lower level of the village. In contrast, occupation on the plateau,
in Cluster C, experiences fundamental realignments.
The changes marking the end of Phase 1a in each cluster are specific to those clusters and have
no relation to the timing of changes delineating the commencement of Phase 1b in other clusters.
The relative temporal relationship of the events among clusters in Phase 1b is unknown. This
restriction disappears with the advent of Phase 2 and so, consequently, the description of
modifications via clusters is used for Phase 2. Possible modifications in Cluster A during Phase
1b include the expansion of House 3a to its final length of 26.3 m (House 3b), perhaps in
160
conjunction with the removal of the House 5 structure, which would have opened up transit paths
in this section of the cluster.
Figure 6-17. Plan (left) and map (right) showing Phase 1b, Cluster B.
Phase 1b, Cluster B

Nearby, in Cluster B, it may be that, while House 8 remained essentially unchanged, Houses 9
and 10 experienced small expansions, of 6 m to the north and 6 m to the south, respectively. It is
also possible that these areas, with little evidence of use, served as porch/storage areas. On the
other hand, the southern extension of House 9 shows evidence of intense use. Palisade 3, the
small fence/palisade surrounding Houses 9 and 10 and protecting them from the west, may have
been erected before the extension of House 10a. Changes to House 9 may have occurred at any
point in the village occupation.
Phase 1b, Cluster C

Cluster C experienced the greatest transformation in Phase 1b. While changes in this latter part
of Phase 1 are minimal in most areas of the village, Cluster C was subject to almost total
renovation. This transformation is initiated with the removal of the village’s longest residence,
House 15b. House 15a/b may possibly constitute the most briefly occupied dwelling of the
village, as demonstrated by its low interior feature density and the village’s lowest wall post
density. (Table 6-1). Unlike those residences with more lengthy occupation, it possesses no wall
trenches and shows no evidence of rebuilding or renovation. In contrast, the adjacent and
161
concurrent House 12 has a density of 6.4 ppm. Although House 15 intersects with four other
houses, their radial alignment makes most of their associated interior features relatively easy to
separate, indicating their residential affinity.
Figure 6-18. Plan (left) and map (right) showing Phase 1b, Cluster C.
The plateau settlement layout appears to have been planned ahead of construction, with House
18 well integrated into the layout, in a parallel alignment with Houses 12, 13, and 14 in the post–
House 15 settlement.
Four shorter longhouses were erected in the significant stretch of hilltop that opened to the north
and east of House 12 following the demolition of House 15b. These new structures include
Houses 14a/b and 16a/b, as well as the initial versions of Houses 13a and 18a, both of which fit
snugly within the original village palisade. The close proximity of the five structures left a small
central plaza area but little extra exterior transit space. House 14 was erected almost directly over
what had been the north end of the House 15. House 18a sits parallel and 2 m to the east of
House 14. House 13a, 10 m south of House 14, is similarly aligned, 5 m east of House 12.
Examination of the four structures in isolation from the rest of the high town features would
suggest that Houses 13 and 16 either pre-date the southern extension of House 15 or post-date
162
the structure entirely, as they overlay the House 15b extension, but not the initial House 15a
construction. Houses 13 and 18, however, both feature house expansions overlapping Palisade 1,
suggesting they post-date both House 15 and this early palisade.
The low interior post feature density within House 18 indicates a short occupation history. The
highest feature and post mould density are seen in the northern end of the building, affirming this
as the area of longest occupation. Yet the wall post density of House 18a, at 6 ppm, is quite low
for a structure with evidence of two expansions and renovations. The intersection of the House
18b wall posts with those of the Palisade 1 post line indicate a later date for this house extension.
It is conceivable that House 18 was not constructed during Phase 1b. House 18 and Midden 62
may belong to the later Phase 2.
There is no evidence for the removal of the first village palisade during this stage, and all
surrounding refuse deposits may have continued to amass along the hillside slopes, in Middens
59, 61, 62, 68, 72, 74, 75, 78, and 80, throughout Phase 1b. Although it is clear that the
residences of the high town, Cluster C, cannot all be contemporaneous, a definitive relative
occupation sequence cannot be ascertained solely from the settlement evidence.
Phase 1b, Cluster D

The position of Cluster D (Figure 6-19), made up of Houses 4, 11a, and 20, between the first and
second palisades, and the lack of any physical relationship with structures of Clusters A, B, and
C, within the first palisade, obscure the timing of any changes which might have occurred during
Phase 1. All dynamics attributable to Phase 1a are equally possible in Phase 1b. House 19 was
not present during this phase.
163
Figure 6-19. Plan (left) and map (right) showing Phase 1b, Cluster D.
Site Settlement Phase 2a

The shift to Phase 2 is marked by the removal and replacement of Palisade 1. Post mould
evidence suggests that the entire palisade was removed and rebuilt, expanding the interior of the
village 25 m to the east, to the point where the land begins to rise uphill again; 10–15 m to the
west, down the edge of the ravine; 10 m to the north; and 35 m to the south, to the edge of the
level terrain (Figure 6-20). In these areas, the second palisade, Palisade 2, is double-rowed, with
1.5 m between the rows. The expansion of the village limits 35 m southward, off the hillside to
flatter ground, allowed for the extension of several of the existing houses at the site and the
addition of new ones. The houses, middens, and palisades belonging to Phase 2a are summarized
below.
164
Figure 6-20. Plan showing Phase 2a.

165
Table 6-5. Possible Concurrent Houses of Phase 2a Clusters.
Cluster Houses
A, B, and D merged 1b, 2, 4, 6, 7a, 8, 9b, 10b, 11b/c
C 12, 13a/b, 14a/b, 16, 18a/b
D 19, 20
Phase 2a, Cluster A-B-D North

In Phase 2a, the removal of Palisade 1 and construction of Houses 4 and 11 change the
configuration of the inter-longhouse relations. Because inter-household patterns are no longer
clear the houses of Clusters A and B and the houses of the north end of Cluster D are grouped
together (Figure 6-21). The southern part of Cluster D forms its own cluster (Figure 6-22), as
does the entirety of Cluster C (Figure 6-23).
Figure 6-21. Plan (left) and map (right) showing Phase 2a, Cluster A-B-D north.
In Cluster A, House 1b was extended to its final length of 44.5 m, crossing the former palisade
line. Although the relative timing of the replacement of House 3 with House 2 and the coincident
removal of House 5 cannot be determined in relation to the expansion of the village palisade in
166
Phase 2, it is probable that the erection of House 6, which crosses the earlier palisade line and is
in parallel alignment with House 2, occurred at this time. House 5 posts overlap with those of
House 2, indicating they cannot be coeval. The coexistence of the converging walls of Houses 5
and 6, which block all passage in the vicinity, is improbable, suggesting that the removal of
House 5 also occurred with this restructuring of Cluster A. Houses 2 and 6 were therefore likely
erected simultaneously with the destruction of Houses 3 and 5. House 6, which underlies the
House 7b extension, was placed to the end of the original House 7a building.
Although there is little to no change evident in the structure of Houses 8, 9, and 10 of Cluster B
in conjunction with the elimination of Palisade 1, the removal of the palisade profoundly
increases accessibility among houses of the three clusters and contributes to the integration of all
houses on the lower town elevation. At some point subsequent to the removal of the palisade,
deposition of Midden 52 began over the earlier barrier between Houses 4 and 8, suggesting
shared usage of space across the previous barrier. Palisade 2 was erected directly east of House
4, at the very edge of the flat terrain. The limitations on available space led to Palisade 2 being
erected in very close proximity, side-by-side with House 4. Just south of House 4, House 11 was
extended by 10 m over the former village palisade, to a length of 35 m.
Figure 6-22. Plan (left) and map (right) showing Phase 2a, Cluster D south.
167
There is no evidence of any changes to House 20 at this stage, but the village area now
encompassed by the new palisade is greatly expanded, leaving more than 10 m of free space
around it and Midden 65. To the south of House 20, post mould evidence suggests that House 19
was erected outside the village area, with its northeast corner in direct contact with the southern
edge of Palisade 2. Alternatively, House 19 may have appeared in conjunction with Palisade 2,
being purposely excluded from the larger village. There is little evidence in the way of interior
posts or features to support an intense occupation history for this structure. However, a relatively
high density of wall posts, 7.7 ppm, may indicate that the longhouse was rebuilt after a brief
period of occupation. Midden 77 may have initially appeared between Houses 19 and 20 around
this time.
Phase 2a, Cluster C

On the plateau, in Cluster C, the expansion of the interior village area allowed for the extension
of House 18b to the north and, possibly simultaneously, to the south, bringing its length to 36 m.
The final and very short-lived expansion to a total length of 43 m overlies the very north end of
House 12. The destruction of House 12 and expansion of House 18 may have occurred in this
phase or later, in the next stage.
168
Figure 6-23. Plan (left) and map (right) showing Phase 2a, Cluster C.
The growth of House 13b to 40 m also happened after the removal of Palisade 1. House 11c, the
longest structure in this latter part of the occupation, at 62 m, may also have been extended in
Phase 2a. Directly south of House 13, at the top edge of the hillside slope, Midden 72 also
appears at this time, as seen by the sub-midden post moulds of Palisade 1. Midden 66, down the
west slope of the embankment and accessible to all houses of the high town, also accumulates
with the eradication of the palisade. Located across the plateau and not associated with the
palisades, House 14b may have expanded from 35 m to 41 m at any time during its existence.
Similarly, House 16b appears to have experienced enlargement, from approximately 32 m to 40
m, at an unspecified time (Figure 6-24).
169
Figure 6-24. Map detail showing House 16b extension.
Site Settlement Phase 2b

Phase 2b marks the final episode of construction in the Keffer village. Phase 2b is further divided
into Phase 2b-1 (Figure 6-25) and Phase 2b-2 (Figure 6-26).
Figure 6-25. Plan showing Phase 2b-1.
Figure 6-26. Plan showing Phase 2b-2.

170
Two main events mark this final stage. The first, seen in Phase 2b-1, is the extension of the
enclosure (becoming Palisade 2b) around the southern flank of House 19 at some point after its
construction on the south side of the pre-existing Palisade 2 (Figure 6-27), in this way bringing
the residence within the physical and social limits of the village proper. The second major
change is seen in Phase 2b-2.
Table 6-6. Possible Concurrent Houses of Phase 2b Clusters.
Cluster Houses Palisade(s)
A-B-D 1b, 2, 4, 7a, 8, 9b, 11c Palisade 2b, 3
C 13b, 14b, 16b, 18c Palisade 2b
D 20 Palisade 2b
Figure 6-27. Plan (left) and map (right) showing Phase 2b-1, Cluster D south.
171
Phase 2b-2, Cluster A-B-D North

Following the relocation of the southern portion of the palisade to incorporate House 19 into the
larger community, the number of occupied longhouses in the village began to decline (Figure
6-28). This is seen in the removal of three of the shortest and least densely occupied longhouses,
Houses 6, 10, and 19. The deposition of interior Middens 54, 58, and 77, respectively, over the
occupation layers of these three houses confirms the end of their occupation. The presence of
Midden 54 over the eastern extension of House 7b indicates that this structure was either
shortened or abandoned at this time. Deposits of Midden 57 overlie the western end of House 7,
although it is not clear whether this is due to post-occupation disturbance of the large midden or
post–House 7 use. Although Midden 58 is quite small and may therefore represent a short period
of deposition, both Middens 54 and 77 are substantial, and their presence is indicative of a longer
period of use.
Figure 6-28. Plan (left) and map (right) showing Phase 2b-2, Cluster A-B-D north.
Phase 2b-2, Cluster D South

The expansion of Midden 77 over the east end of House 19 indicates the removal of this
structure at a time when House 20 was still occupied (Figure 6-29). The sparse nature of the
house’s interior features and low post mould density support a short lifespan for this structure.
172
Figure 6-29. Plan (left) and map (right) showing Phase 2b-2, Cluster D south.
Phase 2b-2, Cluster C

The expansion of Midden 74 over the southern end of House 12, along with the extension of
House 18c over its northern end, signals the removal of this longhouse while other houses on the
plateau survive (Figure 6-30).
173
Figure 6-30. Plan (left) and map (right) showing Phase 2b-2, Cluster C.
Summary of Site Settlement Phases

Each of the phases—Phases 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b—illustrate a range of potential co-existing
features within the village. Thus, the preceding discussion can be visually summarized in a short
series of five village layout maps displaying the development of the village layout in a general
order determined by settlement feature relationships and superpositioning (Figure 6-31, Table
6-7).
Figure 6-31. Plans of (left to right) site settlement Phases 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b-1, and 2b-2.
174
Table 6-7. Houses, Middens, and Palisades Associated with Each Cluster of Each
Occupation Phase.
Phase Cluster Houses Middens Palisades

A 1a, 3a/b, 5, 7a 51, 57, 60, 63
B 8, 9a/b, 10a/b 55, 56, 67
1a 1, 3
C 15a/b, 12 59, 61, 68, 75, 78, 80
D 4, 11a, 20 53, 65, 71,77
A 1a, 3a/b, 5, 7a 51, 57, 60, 63
B 8, 9a/b, 10a/b 55, 56, 67
1b C 12, 13a, 14, 16, 18a 58, 59, 61, 62, 68, 72, 73, 74, 1, 3
75, 78, 80
D 4, 11a, 20 53, 65, 71, 77
A, B, and D north merged 1b, 2, 4, 6, 7a, 8, 9b, 10b, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 60, 63,
11b/c 65, 67
2a C 12, 13a/b, 14a/b, 16, 18a/b 59, 61, 62, 66, 68, 72, 73, 2, 3
74, 75, 78, 80
D south 19, 20 65, 71, 77
A, B, and D north merged 1b, 2, 4, 7a/b, 8, 9b, 11c 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 60, 63,
67
2b-1 C 12, 13a/b, 14a/b, 16, 18a/b 59, 61, 62, 66, 68, 72, 73, 74, 2b, 3
75, 78, 80
D south 19, 20 65, 71, 77
A, B, and D north merged 1b, 2, 4, 7a/b 8, 9b, 11c 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58,
60, 63, 67
2b-2 C 13b, 14b, 16, 18c 59, 61, 62, 66, 68, 72, 73, 74, 2b, 3
75, 78, 80
D south 20 65, 71, 77
Phase 1a
The initial configuration of the Keffer village was likely shaped by the concurrent construction
of a single-row palisade encompassing longhouses belonging to three of the four residential
clusters at the site (Clusters A, B, and C). However, there is no concrete evidence to confirm
contemporary construction.
Settlement pattern evidence suggests the co-presence of three longhouses, Houses 1a, 3a, and 7a,
and one poorly understood circular structure, House 5, in Cluster A, within the northern
periphery of Palisade 1. Each of these houses was later extended to its final configuration.
Houses 3 and 7 may have been expanded during the existence of this first palisade. House 1 was
expanded in a later phase. These three houses form a tightly knit, parallel cluster and are
associated with large hillside middens, Middens 57 and 60, to the west. The small surface
midden, Midden 63, may have been deposited simultaneously, although its position in the centre
175
of what may have been an outdoor activity area makes this timing uncertain. To the south,
Cluster B, composed of three radially situated longhouses, Houses 8, 9a, and 10a, opened onto
Midden 55, a sizeable surface deposit. A large open area existed between Houses 8 and 9. House
10, surrounded by a small palisade or fence line was originally a shorter structure but may have
been expanded during this phase to fit neatly within the fence enclosure. Deposition of Midden
56, to the south of Houses 9 and 10, may also have begun in the period. Midden 67, just outside
the House 10 fence line, may be the product of this cluster or of the high town Cluster C House
15. This house, along with House 12, is one of the first structures to appear in the high town.
Phase 1b
House 15 was expanded sometime after its initial construction, but the evidence of limited
internal features suggests that this expansion had a short duration of occupation. Middens 59, 73,
and 78 may have started to accumulate after House 15a expanded into the southern portion of the
hilltop, to form House 15b. Numerous middens surround the plateau, and while most could have
been used in Phase 1a, it is probable that only a few would have been. These are Middens 61, 68,
74, 75, and 80. Outside the palisade, Houses 4, 11a, and 20, along with their associated
middens—Middens 53, 65, and 71—may have emerged soon after the construction of the first
village palisade, and certainly would have emerged prior to its removal and the building of a
double-row palisade that included a much larger portion of the site. On the plateau, a major
reorganization resulted in the replacement of House 15 with four new houses, Houses 13, 14, 16,
and 18.
Phase 2a
The next major step in the residential development occurred with the erection of an expanded
village palisade, Palisade 2, which now incorporated the three houses of Cluster D, Houses 4, 11,
and 20, inside the village area. House 19, a small and short-occupation residence, was
constructed outside and touching Palisade 2 soon after it was erected. The increase in internal
village area allowed for the expansion of Cluster A Houses 1b and 3b, Cluster D House 11b/c,
and Cluster C Houses 13b and 18b, across the previous palisade line. Houses 14b and 16b in
Cluster C also experienced expansion. In Cluster A, the new House 6 is placed in the area
opened up with the removal of the interior palisade. Houses 3 and 5 are removed and replaced
with the new house, House 2. This structure shares better alignment with Houses 1 and 6 than the
176
now-removed House 3. The small House 19 residence was constructed abutting the exterior wall
of Palisade 2 soon after this barricade was erected.
Phase 2b
Shortly afterward, the southern limits of this portion of Palisade 2 were expanded 15 m to the
south, to incorporate House 19 into the community. Around this time, or perhaps slightly earlier,
House 12 in the high town cluster is removed to make way for the southern expansion of House
18c. Low wall post and interior feature densities indicate that this expansion was extremely
short-lived. Deposition of Midden 77 on top of the east wall trenches of House 19 confirms the
short lifespan of this residence. In the last stages of the village occupation, Houses 6, 10, 12, and
19 are abandoned, while House 18, and possibly House 11, are slightly expanded, to form
Houses 18c and 11c.
Discussion
The complex history of the Keffer settlement, with its constantly shifting village residential
patterns and the consequent indications of both social inclusion and social exclusion, are evident
in the archaeological settlement pattern data. The allocation of each of the village features,
houses, middens, and palisades to phases depicting their first potential presence in the village
indicates an early appearance of most components. With this settlement sequence as a
framework, network analysis of the village ceramics will be employed in the next chapter to
provide a more nuanced portrayal of the temporal and social relationships among the Keffer
village inhabitants.
177
7 Analysis of Keffer Site Local Tradition Ceramics

Factors Involved in Keffer Site Network Analysis
I employ network analysis of the local tradition ceramics to produce two sets of linked relations,
concerning both chronological and social ties. In social terms, I aim to reveal ceramic
communities of practice as they appear in the village both synchronically and diachronically.
Communities of practice are seen in highly connected topological subgroups within the network
structure. To understand the development of these ceramic communities throughout the lifespan
of the village, demonstration of chronological control proves essential. Production of this
chronology is therefore pursued prior to the examination of individual communities of practice.
Both network and conventional ceramic seriation approaches are employed in conjunction with
the settlement pattern analysis performed in Chapter 6. This chronology is then integrated with
the newly revealed communities of practice to produce a temporal view of ceramic practice
development.
As network analysis of ceramic collections at the intra-site level is a novel approach a highly
detailed investigation of the Keffer ceramics is described in Appendix H to fully explore this
process. In Appendix E the effect of graph layout on the interpretation of the Keffer dataset was
intensively examined. Graph layout was seen to have a substantial effect on visual interpretation,
and it was concluded that network graphs portrayed in Gower metric and non-metric
multidimensional scaling (MDS) best display the true strength of relationships both between
individual houses and middens and throughout the greater village. Consequently, these two graph
algorithms are adopted here in the examination of local tradition ceramic relationships and
communities of practice across the Keffer village.
The data matrices used in this analysis are composed of 12 values, in this case Iroquoian ceramic
types, within 1 variable, that of ceramic type. This list of values is exclusive to all those types
deemed by the author to be typical of ceramics produced by post–A.D. 1350 Iroquoian peoples
of south-central Ontario west of the lands occupied by St. Lawrence Iroquoians in the pre-
contact period. These types are assigned to the local tradition ceramic category. They have not
been assigned to the more exclusive categories of ethnic Iroquoian affiliation or time periods
within the data structure, so as not to bias the interpretation.
178
The total ceramic collection from each archaeological locus, whether residential or refuse
deposit, represents the entire period of use of that feature. In the absence of extensive research
into the location of each sherd, none of these ceramic collections can be considered indicative of
one specific event or time period in the locus’s lifespan. Episodes of deposition, whether initial
or final, cannot be separated from the long-term praxis of use. The sample, as a whole, instead,
represents the entire temporal life span of the feature. This results in highly skewed samples sizes
within the collection.
To mitigate against the problems associated with the great range in size of the loci samples, from
6 to 966, and the extremely small size of some of these samples, matrices of three differing
sample size parameters are used to examine the effect of sample size on network results. The
first of these includes all samples containing between 2 and 19 vessels (labelled Over 1 Vessel);
the second includes all samples containing between 20 and 29 vessels (labelled Over 19
Vessels); and the third includes all samples containing 29 or more vessels (labelled Over 29
Vessels). Statistically, sample sizes larger than 30 are considered more robust, and results
produced from the Over 29 matrix are therefore considered the most reliable. However, several
important loci on this site are characterized by samples of fewer than 29 vessels. While those
features with 20 to 29 vessels (Over 19 Vessels) may provide statistically weaker results, their
inclusion contributes essential evidence regarding the nature of their relationships. There can be
little confidence in results arising from network analysis of samples under 20 vessels (Over 1
Vessel), but they offer the only hints regarding the relationships of the archaeological features
containing these vessels with other features within the greater ceramic community of the village.
Three loci, Houses 14, 16, and 18, are characterized by only one vessel each, and these ceramics
have not been included in the analysis.
Three network graph runs were completed with each of the three matrices, for a total of nine
runs. In the first step, the most exclusive (Over 29 Vessels) database was analyzed at increasing
similarity levels: BR 170, 180, and 190. The Over 19 Vessels and Over 1 Vessel matrices were
then run following the same procedure. When the similarity level is increased with each run, the
number of nodes included in the graph decreases and the pull exerted on the remaining nodes is
also reduced. Through visual comparison of these ties, the effect of smaller samples on the
overall structure of the graphs can be evaluated. Network statistics, graph density, and node
degree are employed to confirm these observations.
179
These analyses confirmed that both smaller sized samples and decreases in similarity levels
(Table 7-1) affected the relationships among larger samples with stronger ties. In both cases the
inclusion of additional nodes on the peripheries of the graphs caused an alteration in original
topology. Accordingly graph interpretation is founded on the highest-level similarity graphs of
samples with a minimum of 30 vessels. These observations form the core of the results with
lower-level ties, and those of smaller samples providing additional inferential information.
Table 7-1. Houses and Middens Included at BR 170 in Each of the Seven Node Cluster
Groups for Each Sample Size.
Node Cluster House/Midden Over 29 House/Midden Over 19

Group Vessels Vessels House/Midden Over 1 Vessel
1 a 52, 54, 60 52, 54, 60, 65, 72, 73, 74 52, 54, 60, 65, 72, 73, 74
b 65, 72, 73, 74
2 59, 61, 66, 71 1, 4, 7, 59, 61, 66, 71 1, 61, 63, 66, 71, 10, 77, 80
3 13, 20 13, 20 13, 20
4 56, 62 56, 62 56, 62
5 77, 80 77, 80
6 51, 55
7 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 59
Network researchers suggest that it is generally accepted that the closer together in geographic
space two groups are, the more similar they are likely to be (Borgatti et al. 2013; de Nooy et al.
2011:346; McPherson et al. 2001; Watts and Strogatz 1998). In archaeological terms, this is
interpreted as the axiom proposing that the closer two populations are, the more they will interact
and ultimately the more similar their material culture will be (Hart 2012:128; Willey and Phillips
1958). Thus, geographical proximity should be a predictor of material culture similarity.
Accordingly, and taking into account that most Iroquoian villages represent a single, short-term
occupation lasting 10 to 20 years in general, a ceramic type similarity network graph should
illustrate that settlement loci within a village will share the highest similarity values with those
closest to them in space. The distance employed, or measured, should ideally reflect topography
180
and intervening obstacles, since these factors can greatly affect path length. Network analyses of
the Keffer ceramic data on the effect of geographic distance (see Appendix H) concluded that
physical location of the samples within the village were not the primary determinants of high-
level similarity ties. Social factors affecting ceramic change are elusive, however. Longhouse
clusters, thought by Iroquoianists to represent matrilineally related social groups of formed
pottery manufacturing bodies, or communities of practice, are not highly visible in the weak
pattern of intra-cluster ties seen in the statistical evidence (Table 7-2). These results indicate that
temporal and social factors not related to cluster origin were therefore likely factors in the
network graph topology of the Keffer ceramics.
Table 7-2. Average Tie Densities Within and Between Individual

Clusters, the Combined Interior Samples, and the Combined
Exterior Samples.
Cluster A Cluster B Cluster C Cluster D
Cluster A 167 161 165 175
Cluster B 161 167 164 163
Cluster C 165 164 166 170
Cluster D 175 163 170 181
Exterior 167 162 166 169
Interior 167 167 166 181
Interior/exterior difference 0 +5 0 +12
Percent difference 2.5% 6%
Total difference 14 6 6 18
Note: Boldface denotes intra-cluster density.

181
Social Network Analysis of Local Tradition Ceramic Chronology

In this section, I examine the chronological patterning of the network graphs to interpret the
occupation sequence of the Keffer village. This results in a series of five village plans, labelled
Stages 1 to 5. These results are then correlated with the settlement phases, Phases 1a to 2b-2,
discussed in Chapter 6. This analysis permits the development of a related but alternate plan of
village development through time, labelled second-level Stages 1–5.
Interpretation of the network topologies dealing with intra-site relations is dependent on the
establishment and use of a frame of reference (see Betts 2008), provided by the settlement phases
illustrated in section 6.5. From this, two houses, Houses 15 and 19, have been assigned
chronological positions as, respectively, the first and last longhouses constructed in the village.
Their appearance as topologically opposed isolated pendants circumscribing most house and
midden collections in the local tradition network indicates (Figure 7-1) chronology may be a
fundamental component of the Gower and MDS layout graph structure. Therefore, the axis
which lies between these two nodes, approximately horizontal in orientation, is assumed to
loosely represent temporal change in the ceramic practice across this village. The resulting
chronology is illustrated in a series of five stages (Figure 7-2).
Figure 7-1. Local tradition ceramics Over 1 Vessel BR 170 MDS layout with BR 190 Blue
Backbone structure.
182
Figure 7-2. Original Stages 1–5 as established through social network analysis.
Application of Local Tradition Ceramics Social Network Analysis

Stages to Settlement Phases
The village occupation sequence is further refined through the integration of the SNA Stages 1–5
(Figure 7-2) and settlement pattern Phases 1a to 2b-2 (Figure 7-3). This is an essential step in the
development of an occupation history of the village. Detailed analysis is provided in Appendix I.
Phases indicate the viable physical coexistence of village features but lack social elements. SNA
stages on the other hand lack the physical control of settlement studies. The incorporation of this
physical control results in an amended, or second level, series of stages (Figure 7-4, Table 7-3) in
which several houses and middens have been reallocated to alternate stages.
Figure 7-3. Plan showing possible features of Phases 1a to 2b-2.

183
Figure 7-4. Second-level temporal Stages 1–5 as established through social network analysis
and settlement studies.
Table 7-3. Houses and Middens Included in Each Second-Level Temporal Stage Based on
Social Network Analysis and Settlement Studies.
Second-Level Cluster A Cluster B Cluster C Cluster D Cluster A-B-D

Stage
1 M51, M57 M55, M67 H15a, M68, M78 M53
2 H3, H5, M51, H8, M56, M55, H12, H15b, M53

M57 M67 M62, M75, M68,
M78
3 M60, H3, H5, H10, H8, M56, H13, M61–H14, H20, M65, M77,
M51, M57 M55, M67 M72, M73, M74, M53
M80, H12, M62–
H18a, M68, M75,
M78
4 H1b, H2, M63 H9, H10, H8, M59–H16, M66, H4, H11, M71, H6
M60, H3, M51, M56, M55, M67 H13, M61–H14, H20, M65, M77,
M57 M72, M73, M74, M53
M80, H12, H15b,
M62–H18a, M68,
M75, M78
5 H7, H1b, M60, H9, H10, H8, M59–H16, M66, H19, H4, M71, M52, M54, H6
H2, H3, M51, M56, M55, M67 H13, M61–H14, H20, M65, M77,
M57, M63 M72, M73, M74, M53
M80, H12, H15b,
M62–H18a, M68,
M75, M78
Notes: Boldface indicates new additions in the stage, added at the beginning of the cell. M = Midden; H = House.
184
Summary
The combined ceramic social network and settlement pattern analyses convey a picture of
gradual growth across the Keffer village with the development, or introduction, of several small,
but not dissimilar, ceramically linked residential groups.
The initial occupation may have consisted of one residence, located on the plateau, and several
small refuse deposits across the site. Whether the erection of Houses 3, 8, and 12 occurred
concurrently or somewhat later is unclear because nearby middens, Middens 51, 53, 55, and 57,
of Group 5, display slightly earlier positions on the temporal axis of each graph. Midden 62, as a
proxy for House 18, appears in this early period, most likely indicating the coinciding erection of
House 18a and the removal of House 15. House 18’s alignment with House 12 would also argue
for their concurrent construction. The third stage is characterized by at least one large-scale,
tightly knit ceramic group appearing within the village. On the plateau, this is seen in the
ceramics of House 13, its associated Group 2 hilltop Midden 73, and hillside Middens 72 and 80,
along with the northern neighbour, House 14, and its related large hillside midden, Midden 61.
The high-level bond shared between House 13 and House 20 in Group 3 indicates that this
community extended outside the village proper even before the expansion of the village palisade.
The high-level integration of these groups across the site is seen in the membership of the large
Midden 60 to the north and House 9 at the site’s core.
The placement of Middens 52 and 54 in Stage 3, as shown in the network topology, may be due
to social rather than chronological factors, as settlement studies show both middens to be of a
later stage, as they overlie longhouses which appear in this stage. The expansion of the palisade
in Stage 4 is mirrored by population growth in the northern part of the village, with four houses
of shared ceramic characteristics constructed between pre-existing houses. Two houses, Houses
1 and 9, show evidence of long occupation, and these structures likely date to an earlier part of
the sequence. House 4 is a new addition within the growing boundaries of the village. The last
part of the sequence, Stage 5, is marked by the distinctive Group 4, here composed of Houses 2,
7, and 11. Archaeological features of House 2 show light occupation indicating the structure may
have only experienced short-term use. Houses 7 and 11 are each characterized by expansions
which also experience short-term occupation. The associated ceramics may derive from these
later expansions. At the periphery of the network is House 19. In accordance with evidence from
185
settlement Phases 2b-1 and 2b-2, ceramics of this last residence may be characteristic of the last
stages of communal ceramic production and use near the end of the village occupation, a profile
not differentiated in earlier and/or longer occupations of other loci at the site.
Interpretation of the network based on the temporal positioning of peripheral nodes, as indicated
by settlement pattern analysis, appears to have been generally successful. Reliance on small
samples is problematic but not insurmountable, provided the robustness of samples is not
overlooked or ignored but, rather, taken into account during interpretation.
Constructing a Community
Through the use of the network approach, the gradual changes in ceramic practice can be traced.
In the specific case of the Keffer village, this process may be correlated with time and has
produced a timeline of ceramic practice transformation from the appearance of the first residence
to that of the last residence constructed in the village. However, specific changes, resulting from
in situ development or outside influences in the form of trade or immigration, are not accessible
through network analysis, but might be inferred from the integration of local tradition ceramic
typology into the settlement sequence. In-depth typological analysis should also aid in the
evaluation of the validity, or soundness, of the suggested village development and the utility of a
visual analysis of networks approach for small-scale intra-site exploration.
In this analysis the placement of each house and midden within one of these five stages is
correlated with the relative quantities of the local tradition vessels in their samples. Because the
two main categories, decorated neck Huron and undecorated neck Huron, index chronological as
well as social distinctions, the ratio of these two groups can be used to assess the placement of
each house and midden within the stages. In this way, a more nuanced timeline is formed.
As with the majority of Iroquoian ceramic analyses in this study, typology, following the work of
MacNeish (1952), forms the basis of the classification. However, in this in-depth investigation
into the factors influencing the topology of the network graphs, the local tradition ceramics have
been allocated to more inclusive type categories, as explained in Chapter 4. This amalgamation
of types aims to reduce the isolating effect produced by the division of generally similar ceramic
vessels on the basis of minor differences. When each type is given equal weight in the analysis,
types that separate according to slight variations, for example in collar motif, can complicate
186
analysis and have a significant influence on inter-sample comparison results. Therefore, local
tradition ceramics have been allocated to one to the following categories, as explained in Chapter
4:
 undecorated neck “Huron” (UNH)
 decorated neck “Huron” (DNH)
 “Neutral”
 high collar
 early Ontario Iroquoian types (Early)
Readily discernible differences in assemblage characteristics are apparent when ceramic

frequencies are investigated. Variations as they apply to the ceramics of each house and midden
are examined in terms of the three of the five main local tradition ceramic type groups, as they
appear within the suggested stages. These are:
 decorated neck “Huron” (here restricted to Black Necked)
 undecorated neck “Huron” (here consisting of all low collar “Huron” incised types)
 “Neutral” (here restricted to Lawson Incised and Lawson Opposed)
Primary sequential relationships based on local tradition ceramic type are advanced according to
the temporally suggestive type categories, the possible influence on the proportions of
undecorated neck Huron and decorated neck “Huron” (i.e., Black Necked). Ceramics in the
village’s collections of ceramics from the west will be assessed by the relative presence of
Neutral pottery (represented by two types, Lawson Incised and Lawson Opposed). These
numbers vary significantly at locations across the site, from zero to 20 percent (Table 7-4), with
an average of 6.5 percent.
187
Table 7-4. Proportion of Local Tradition Ceramic Types by Second-Level Stage, Based on
Social Network Analysis and Settlement Studies.
Second-
Sample Level High Niagara
Cluster Size Stage Locus UNH DNH Neutral Collar & Ripley Early
A 3 1 M51 60.3 24.1 10.3 1.7 3.4 0.0
A 7 1 M57 62.3 19.0 12.3 3.5 0.4 2.5
B 4 1 M55 60.9 24.8 9.3 0.6 0.6 3.7
B 1 1 M67 61.1 11.1 16.7 0.0 0.0 11.1
C 2 1 M78 45.5 18.2 27.3 9.1 0.0 0.0
C 2 1 M68 50.0 22.2 22.2 0.0 5.6 0.0
C 2 1 H15 55.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0
D 3 1 M53 57.1 28.6 3.6 3.6 7.1 0.0
A 1 2 H3 66.7 0.0 16.7 16.7 0.0 0.0
B 1 2 H8 66.7 20.0 6.7 6.7 0.0 0.0
B 3 2 M56 66.7 25.6 2.6 5.1 0.0 0.0
C 3 2 M75 62.1 10.3 20.7 6.9 0.0 0.0
C 5 2 M62 67.5 23.8 5.3 1.3 2.0 0.0
C 4 2 H12 70.4 21.4 2.0 1.0 5.1 0.0
A 7 3 M60 73.6 15.7 7.2 2.0 0.6 0.8
B 1 3 H10 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C 3 3 M73 68.9 15.6 6.7 4.4 2.2 2.2
C 7 3 M74 69.6 20.2 6.9 1.2 0.7 1.4
C 3 3 M72 69.9 19.3 9.6 1.2 0.0 0.0
C 4 3 H13 73.1 25.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.9
C 3 3 M80 75.3 15.1 5.5 2.7 1.4 0.0
C 6 3 M61 75.7 15.5 5.6 1.3 1.6 0.3
D 7 3 M65 67.0 19.9 8.7 1.4 1.5 1.5

188
D 5 3 H20 73.8 24.1 0.0 1.3 0.8 0.0
D 4 3 M77 75.2 17.7 4.4 1.8 0.9 0.0
A 1 4 H6 71.4 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3
A 1 4 M63 72.7 18.2 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0
A 3 4 H1 76.5 17.6 0.0 2.9 0.0 2.9
A 1 4 H2 87.5 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
B 3 4 H9 74.3 8.6 14.3 0.0 2.9 0.0
C 3 4 M59 76.3 15.0 2.5 0.0 6.3 0.0
C 3 4 M66 79.3 12.1 6.9 0.0 1.7 0.0
D 4 4 M71 79.3 16.3 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
D 3 4 H11 83.9 12.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2
D 2 4 H4 84.2 15.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
A 2 5 H7 84.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0
B 4 5 M54 74.8 18.5 5.9 0.0 0.8 0.0
D 4 5 M52 72.2 20.1 5.6 0.7 0.0 1.4
D 3 5 H19 91.7 6.3 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Note: UNH = undecorated neck Huron, DNH = decorated neck Huron
Legends for Table 7-4
Sample Number of
Size Vessels Colour Local Tradition Ceramic Percentage Ranges
1 6–19 40–62% UNH/10–20% DNH/12–28% Neutral
2 22–29 65–70% UNH/15–25% DNH
3 30–49 50–60% UNH/25–40% DNH
4 50–99 70–80% UNH/12–25% DNH
5 100–299 80–90% UNH/6–12% DNH
6 300–499
7 500–999
The presence of Neutral ceramics (represented by two types, Lawson Incised and Lawson
Opposed) in occupation features across the site also ranges significantly, from zero to 20 percent,
although the average is much lower, namely, 6.5 percent. This disparity in the presence of these
distinctive ceramics is significant. It represents alternative influences on the communities of
ceramic practice across the village, whether in terms of production, consumption, or both. There
189
appears to be no correlation between the proportions of decorated neck Huron and undecorated
neck Huron vessels and Neutral vessels (Figure 7-5), suggesting that their presence is not a
temporal marker but reflects some aspect of social relations.
Decorated neck Huron vessels, represented by Black Necked–type vessels, on the other hands
are generally present in larger proportions than the Neutral ceramics and are seen in widely
divergent frequencies across the site, from 0 to 40 percent. Like all the ceramic classifications in
this study, this range may be partially attributable to the great range in ceramic sample sizes
across the site, as previously discussed. Taking this into account, these frequencies are employed
with care so that inferences relating to the relationships of all household groups across the living
village can be evaluated. A detailed explanation of this analysis is presented in Appendix J.
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
H15 M56 M55 H20 M68 M74 H8 M72M54 M63 H1 H4 M73 M80 H6 H2 H7 M75 H19
Undecorated Neck Huron Decorated Neck Huron Neutral
Figure 7-5. Undecorated neck Huron, decorated neck Huron, and Neutral ceramics
percentages sorted by decorated neck percentages, highest to lowest.
The combination of settlement, network, and ceramic type category analyses has produced a
comprehensive picture of the development of the Keffer village occupation history (Figure 7-6,
Table 7-5).
190
Figure 7-6. Keffer development sequence Maps 1–8.
Table 7-5. Settlement Changes in Maps 1–8.
Palisades Houses
Time in Use Houses Added or Expanded Removed Middens in Use
Map 1 15a 67, 68
Map 2 1, 3 1a, 3a, 5, 7a, 8, 9a, 10a, 12, 15b 51, 53, 55, 56, 57, 74, 75, 78
Map 3 1, 3 3b, 9b, 10b, 13a, 14a/b, 18a, 20 15 60, 61 (H14), 62 (H18), 65, 72, 73, 77,
80
Map 4 1, 3 11a
Map 5 2a 1b, 2, 4, 6, 7a, 11b, 13b 3b, 5 59 (H16), 63, 66, 71, 52
Map 6 2a 19
Map 7 2a 7b, 11c, 18c 6, 10, 12
Map 8 2b 7a/b, 19 54, 58; expansion of 74, 77
The site was first settled by the occupants of House 15a (Figure 7-6, Map 1). This house was
placed in a prime location in the central portion of the riverside hilltop, or plateau, of the site. Its
191
diagonal placement across the plateau suggests that further occupation of the location may not
have been planned at this time. The settlement may have originally served as a special purpose
hunting or agricultural cabin within newly expanding fields in the area, similar in purpose to the
occupation of the nearby Hidden Spring site. Alternately, House 15a may have been the home of
an advance construction party established as a foundation for planned future movement into the
location. This hypothesis is supported by the following expansion of the longhouse to 65 m,
becoming the largest longhouse at the site. Large-scale development of the village occurs in
concert with this expansion (Table 7-6, Map 2). On the plateau, creating the newly formed
Cluster C, House 12 is constructed to the west of the newly expanded House 15b. This marks a
population influx on this upper elevation.
Occupation of the lower level, at the base of the plateau, also begins around this time, with the
appearance of two small residential clusters. At the northern edge of the lower ground, three
longhouses, Houses 1a, 3a, and 7a, are built, along with the structure labelled House 5, to the
east of House 3a. These structures comprise Cluster A. The second low town cluster, Cluster B,
is also composed of three longhouses, Houses 8, 9a, and 10a. House 10 is protected to the west
by a fence line, Palisade 3, erected sometime during its life history. Construction of this initial
village settlement coincides with the erection of the first village enclosure, Palisade 1 (Figure 7-
6, Map 2). This first community at Keffer therefore appears to be composed of three social units
as displayed through inter-longhouse proximity and clustering.
The next major development is defined by a series of distinct, yet seemingly related, events
occurring across the site (Figure 7-6, Map 3). In Cluster A, to the north, the small House 3a is
extended to meet the edge of the round structure, House 5. Houses 9a and 10a in Cluster B, to the
south, also experience expansion, possibly at the same time. Interestingly, House 9b shows clear
evidence of total reconstruction with this expansion. This is not a common practice in the
extension of Iroquoian longhouses on the north shore. Also occurring after this initial
construction of Palisade 1 is a restructuring of the plateau settlement layout, as seen in Cluster C.
Perhaps in order to make room for denser occupation, House 15b is removed at this point and
three new longhouses are constructed in a new orientation, parallel with the alignment of the
remaining house, House 12. House 13a is located alongside House 12 at the south end of the
plateau. Houses 14a and 18a are similarly aligned directly to the north. The construction of
House 20 to the south of the village palisade marks the arrival of the first household physically,
192
and therefore socially, excluded from the residents of the village proper, in the area labelled
Cluster D (Figure 7-6, Map 3). The high level of similarity between the local tradition ceramics
of Houses 20 and 13, however, suggests that a strong social relationship existed between these
two households.
The lower level of the Keffer village was situated in a small, valley-like depression, with hill
slopes to both the east and west and somewhat lower ground present to the south. House 20 is
built in the most accessible area of this lowland. After its construction, land for further building
becomes limited. When a second longhouse, House 11a, was built outside the palisade, the
narrow space remaining between the eastern palisade and the eastern hill slope provides the best
location for this construction (Figure 7-6, Map 4).
After the appearance of House 11a, Palisade 1 was removed and most of the surrounding low-
lying land was encompassed within the growing village (Figure 7-6, Map 5). The erection of
Palisade 2 was part of the large-scale growth and change across the site. The expansion of
several longhouses and the addition of new houses mark a significant event of population
growth. House 11a, which formerly intersected with the exterior of Palisade 1, was now
expanded to the north and entirely rebuilt. A second longhouse, House 4, was added in the newly
opened-up area of the village interior to the north of House 11b. The ratio of local tradition
decorated versus undecorated neck Huron vessels shows Houses 4 and 11 to be very similar
ceramically and to share a common heritage. Spatial limitations are apparent in the tight
positioning of House 4 directly adjacent to the east wall of Palisade 2. A second new longhouse,
House 6, was built between the end of House 7a in Cluster A and House 4. At this point, Houses
3a and 5 are removed and House 2 was built to replace them, between Houses 1 and 7. House 1
was expanded beyond the former palisade line and was entirely rebuilt. House 7 also appears to
have been rebuilt at this time. The expansion of Houses 9b and 10b likely occurred
simultaneously with the increase in growth across the community, although their expansion may
have occurred earlier. The new settlement configuration in the lower level of the site reflects
changing social dynamics. Clusters A and B were no longer spatially segregated, and Houses 4
and 11 are integrated into a larger collective area. Houses 1b, 2, 4, 7a, 8, 9b, 10b, and 11a are
joined in Cluster A-B-D. House 20, in the southern end of Cluster D, may now have been more
socially aligned with its nearest neighbour on the plateau, House 13b, which also experiences
expansion and rebuilding in the same location with the relocation of the palisade. Houses 14a
193
and 18a, to the north, were expanded and rebuilt as well. To the east, a new structure, House 16a,
was added on the only remaining hilltop land, a narrow projection of the plateau to the east, as
House 12 was rebuilt in its original footprint, without structural expansion.
Large-scale village renewal is most clearly seen in the relocation of the palisade. With this
comes the erection of three new longhouses, Houses 4, 6, and 16. Four longhouses, Houses 1b,
13b, 14b, and 18b, are extended in the course of their complete reconstruction. House 20 was
rebuilt but not extended. Houses 9b and 10b may also have been rebuilt and extended at this
time, while Houses 3b and 5 were removed and replaced with House 2. This reconfiguration of
the village layout was a significant event in the social reconstruction of the Keffer community. It
reflects the immigration, acceptance, and inclusive integration of others, previously considered
outsiders, into the social world of the Keffer community.
The construction of House 19, outside and to the south of Palisade 2 marks the final period of
population growth in the village. Sometime after the House 19 construction, a portion of Palisade
2, to the north, was removed and expanded to encompass House 19 within the village. Evidence
of the short occupation of the recently built Houses 2, 6, and 19 suggests that the village was not
occupied long term after the erection of Palisade 2. The removal of House 6 in Cluster A-B-D
and of House 12 on the plateau appears to signal the first episodes of household groups
relocating outside the village. The rebuilding and expansion of Houses 7b, 11c, 16b, and 18c, on
the other hand, reflect growth within their respective households. The spread of refuse from
Midden 74 over the south wall post line of House 12, in the meantime, shows that large-scale
occupation on the plateau continued after the removal of House 12. The expansion of Midden 77
over the east wall of House 19 also suggests the continued occupation of House 20 after the
removal of House 19 in the southern end of the site. To the north, the appearance of the surface
deposit of Midden 58 over the central portion of House 10b marks the removal of House 10
around this time, while the spread of Midden 57 over the west wall of House 7b and the
deposition of Midden 54 over its eastern end confirm the removal of House 7b prior to the end of
the Keffer village occupation (Figure 7-6, Map 8).
During the final habitation of Keffer, as seen through archaeological evidence, the village
population decreases significantly from its height, as seen in Map 5. The removal of Houses 6
and 7 now isolates Houses 1 and 2 in Cluster A. Cluster B was somewhat re-formed to include
194
Houses 4, 8, 9b, and 11c. Occupation on the plateau continues in Houses 13b, 14b, 16b, and 18c.
House 20 remains in the southern part of the low land. Whether Keffer was finally abandoned en
masse or gradually, household by household, is unknown.
The preceding section has presented a lifecycle history of the Keffer village. This was achieved
through the integration of network analysis of ceramic types, local tradition ceramic proportions,
and the physical layout of site structures as indicators of the temporal position of habitation,
refuse, barrier, and palisade features. The ceramic evidence was integrated into the five stages
derived from network analysis settlement data phases as a framework. It is clear that these
proposed changes occurred over the course of the occupation of the village, but while the data
allow for the sequence to be reconstructed, the absolute temporal distance between each
alteration is inaccessible. Some changes may have been contemporaneous or may have occurred
at a rapid pace, one after another, while other innovations may have required lengthy planning
between episodes of change.
Village Settlement Overview

The life history of the Keffer community is unique, like that of other north shore Iroquoian
villages whose settlement history has been studied in depth. At Keffer, the original settlement of
one longhouse quickly expanded with the addition of three residential clusters. This first village
was surrounded by a palisade. Sometime after expansion of lower-elevation houses, longhouse
additions and cluster reorganization on the plateau mark a period of increased population. At this
point, longhouses began to be added outside the village, leading to the eventual expansion of the
palisade to include the new houses, while expansion and replacement of older houses lead to
infilling of the village interior. A final house was added outside the palisade, which is then
expanded once again, bringing the last household into the village. In the final stages of the
village’s life, individual houses were removed as the village population gradually decreased and
several households left the community, perhaps as an advance construction party for the next
home of the village community. While neither settlement nor ceramic data can reveal the final
habitation and abandonment of the village, ceramic links with other, nearby Iroquoian
settlements may provide clues to its synchronic and diachronic relations with other communities
in the area.
195
To access the agency of the people who built and lived in the village, it is necessary to delve
more deeply into the subtleties of communities of practice at the household level. Households are
the basic social units (see Creese 2010; Timmins 1997), and these combine into larger household
clusters, thereby forming the next level of the social network.
Social Network Analysis of Local Tradition Communities of

Practice
The dynamic structure of the graphs and the changing patterns of clusters and outliers apparent at
different similarity levels and sample sizes inform on the nature of the ceramic relationships at
Keffer. The Over 29 Vessels BR 190 (Figure 7-1) network provides the backbone structure of the
closest relationships among local tradition ceramic samples. This framework is composed of a
one small world formation, Group 2, composed of several highly similar ceramic midden
collections from across all settlement clusters of the village. Members of this small world appear
to date to the middle of the village occupation, although they have close ties to both earlier and
later deposits. A second minor small world, Group 3, includes primarily deposits of the western
side of high town. As tie levels are lowered and new constituents are added, shifting allegiances
and new bonds emerge. The network fills in and relationships become more numerous and more
complex across the village as a whole. Outliers encircling the core relationships materialize,
reflecting diverse influences on local traditions. At the more inclusive end of the spectrum, the
Over 1 Vessel BR 170 network, new ties hint at weaker relationships, providing supplementary
information to be integrated into analysis after higher-level connections are taken into account.
Detailed analysis of high similarity level, BR 190 and 180, graph topology, discussed in
Appendix J, has produced a revised series of groups, believed to represent the local tradition
ceramic communities of practice present throughout the village occupation (Figure 7-7 and
Figure 7-8, Table 7-6).
196
Figure 7-7. Local tradition ceramics Over 1 Vessel BR 185 Gower layout. Temporal
patterning, from earlier to later, is represented by the physical placement in the figure, left
to right.
197
Figure 7-8. Local tradition ceramics Over 1 Vessel BR 171 Gower layout
Table 7-6. Houses and Middens Associated with Each Local Tradition
Community of Practice.
Local Tradition
Community of
Practice Houses Middens
1 13, 20
2 1, 9, 10 54, 61, 77, 80, 52, 60, 71, 66, 59,63
3 8, 12 72, 74, 73, 65, 56, 62
4 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 19
5 3, 15 51, 53, 55, 57, 67, 68, 75, 78
Note: Boldface indicates initial high-level core nodes of communities. Order indicates
approximate strength of ties.
198
These groups represent social units that produced or consumed ceramics as a collective. The
divisions are to some extent indicative of chronological patterning in the graph and reflect social
ties across time within the village.
The five communities of practice (CoP) are numbered according to the relative strength of their
highest ties. That is, the members of community of practice 1 (CoP 1) are more similar than
those of CoP 2, and so on. The strongest ties within each group are indicated in boldface type
and are located within the list next to those with which the group shares this high-level tie. In the
last group, CoP 5, lower similarity level relations produce a less cohesive and more loosely tied
community.
Discussion
Social network analysis of local tradition ceramics has resulted in a chronology of ceramic
practice at the Keffer village. This pattern has been interpreted along two separate but linked
pathways. A nuanced sequence of the village occupation was produced through the incorporation
of this chronology with settlement pattern information provided in chapter 6 and an examination
of the ceramic typological characteristics of the settlement features. The interpretation of high
levels of similarity among the ceramics of house and midden collections, as demonstrated in
graph topology, has further defined a series of social related ceramic communities of practice.
Closer examination of these communities of practice and their significance in the development of
the village community occurs in Chapter 8.
8 Communities of Practice at Keffer
The Emergence of Keffer’s Ceramic Practices
This study looks at the household as the minimal group size in which identity is reflected in
ceramic production. Investigation at the level of intra-longhouse divisions is not possible with
the samples available from Keffer even though it has one of the largest ceramic collections in
Iroquoia. Most longhouses on the site are characterised by relatively small sample sizes. Three
houses contain only one vessel each. Most have samples in the low end of the range from 6 to
131 vessels. Only House 20, which was excavated by hand, with 261 vessels, contains an
adequate sample. In addition to the paucity of interior features at Keffer most longhouses
experienced taphonomic processes and/or inconsistent excavation resulting in minimal or uneven
samples across the length of the structure.
Network analysis was performed on three matrices of escalating ceramic sample sizes.
Distinctive local tradition practice groups are evident, or “hinted at,” in the network graphs at
every level of similarity examined, from BR 190 down to BR 170, where all nodes join the
network. Conclusions are compiled from the foundation of the highest level and most exclusive
relationships, as identified in the network backbone (Figure 8-1), progressively changing
community configurations as lower-level results are applied.
199
200
Figure 8-1. Local tradition ceramics Over 29 Vessels BR 190 Gower layout.
Change in ceramics assemblages are now accepted as resulting from gradual transformation in
the accepted practices within communities of practice, the producers and consumers of pottery,
often as a result of changing social relations (Crown 2014; Dorland 2018; Striker et al. 2016).
Network graphs of the Keffer ceramic assemblages clearly demonstrate that ceramic practice
changes through time. The network graphs of the Keffer ceramics reveal that the temporal axis
constitutes one of the main components affecting node layout. Incorporation of this hypothesis is
used above in the development of an occupation sequence based on the network analysis results
at Keffer. Integrating the temporal axis, which in this case (Figure 8-2) appears to run
approximately horizontally across the graph, traces development from the earliest ceramics on
the left to the latest on the right. However, the vertical span of the network confirms that time is
not the only variable affecting the graph topology. But the strength of network analysis lies in its
portrayal of patterns in data structure. The approach does not provide causes of the resulting
structural patterning. Therefore, other factors influencing the topological location of nodes must
be determined elsewhere. In this case, in-depth ceramic typological analysis will be employed
201
(see Appendix I). This section aims to identify groups of nodes representing similar local
ceramic systems. These node clusters are interpreted as proxies illustrating multiscalar
differences in ceramic communities of practice. As nodes are constantly in motion across the
graph structure with changing similarity levels, the ultimate goal of the analysis is to uncover the
closest ties of each node as illustrated through colour coding. At the BR 195 level several
separate components are present in the network. As nodes appear and connect with existing
components with decreasing similarity, they are coloured to match the first node with which they
connect. This process resulted in five discrete ceramic communities.
At the very high BR190 level (Figure 8-1), close ties emerge between some loci. By BR 185
(Figure 8-2), I identified five separate and widely isolated components.
202
Figure 8-2. Local tradition ceramics Over 1 Vessel BR 185 Gower layout. Temporal
to right. Colours indicate community of practice group.
By BR 171 (Figure 8-3) each node was assigned to one of the five main groups. The BR 185
(Figure 8-2) graph structure shows a clear bifurcation of the practice community which appears
to be temporal in nature. The main component is divided into two large groups, Group 2, and 3,
the nodes of which fit into a narrow column on the horizontal temporal axis. The intervening gap
is bridged by the Group 1 pair, Houses 13 and 20, and a more distant pair comprised of Midden
52 and the larger Midden 60. Group 3, located to the left, is interpreted as the first of the two
large groups. This group is composed of features located on the western half of the high town
plateau, Midden 62, and its affiliated House 18, and Midden 74, which is a product of House 12
and likely House 13. Interestingly Midden 73, first connecting with Group 2, shares many strong
203
ties with Group 3, and by the BR 185 similarity level joins it. Midden 73 likely results from the
occupation of House 13. House 8 and Midden 56, both located in the central portion of the low
town, are also members of Group 2. In the early period of the Keffer village, Midden 56 lay
towards the limits of the village interior near the wall of Palisade 1. This refuse was likely a
result of deposition from the nearby House 9, and possibly neighbouring House 8.
Figure 8-3. Local tradition ceramics Over 1 Vessel BR 171 Gower layout.
Connecting the earlier Group 5 community to Group 2 is the village’s largest midden, Midden
65. This deposit is located outside the first palisade downhill from the early occupation of the
plateau, Cluster C. Its massive assemblage of 966 vessels argues for a long period of use and
therefore it may have been one of the first large-scale dumps for the residents of southern section
204
of Cluster C. House 12, a fairly long structure near the edge of the western slope, may have
blocked access to this hillside for occupants of the extended House 15b.
Midden 52, which overlies Palisade 1, originates in the newly combined Cluster A-B-D area.
Though linking closely with Midden 74 Midden 52 is also heavily tied with Group 2. Like
Midden 52, Midden 60 shares close relationships with both Groups 2 and 3. Although its
topological position suggests Midden 60 dates slightly earlier than Group 2, at low similarity
levels. Midden 60 is pulled by the new nodes of Houses 6 and 9 into Group 2 itself. Midden 60
lies at the western hillside end of Houses 1, 2, and 3, and somewhat north of House 7 in Cluster
A. There is little doubt the majority of its contents are the product of these residences. Although
Midden 60 ties closely with Group 2 there are no ceramic samples in Cluster A closely
connected with this group. This indicates that there was a clear separation, at least in the earliest
days of occupation, between the northern low-town inhabitants and those of the west side of the
plateau, while there was some joint practice between the Cluster B Houses 8 and 9 and these
Group 3 practitioners.
The very strong connection between House 13, located on the eastern side of the high town, and
House 20, outside the first palisade, reflects the strong similarity in ceramic practices of Groups
2 and 3. Originally isolated between the two large components, House 20 drifts towards the
western Group 2. House 13 becomes entirely enfolded into Group 3 as similarity levels decrease.
At BR 171 the two houses and their practice communities are clearly separated.
Group 2, towards the east, is dominated by the strongly tied small world ceramics of House 10,
the nearby late Midden 54, and Midden 61, which represents the occupants of house 14, and
Midden 80, one of the main repositories of House 13. Midden 59, most closely associated with
the eastern hilltop House 16, is slightly outside of this core but links with House 13 and the
slightly isolated Cluster A House 1, which itself links with the adjacent Midden 63. Midden 77, a
late deposit of House 20, and possibly the later House 19, may bring the House 20 community
into Group 3.
The origins of the refuse in Midden 66 are uncertain. Despite its location adjacent to the Group 3
western residences Houses 12 and 18 the ceramic material relates more closely with that of the
eastern Houses. Midden 66 may have been accessed by residents of Houses 14 and 16 sometime
before the expansion of House 18c and/or after the removal of House 12. This would explain its
205
membership in the eastern Group 2 community. Midden 71 is a later deposit from House 20.
Adjacent Midden 77, located between Houses 19 and 20, may have been abandoned during the
erection and occupation of House 19. Deposits from this midden would therefore by-products of
the last residents of Houses 19 and 20. For this reason, Midden 71 links directly with the latest
practice community Group 4, a pendant stretching to the right, later, side of the network. Some
Group 4 samples are quite small, but several contain enough material to provide a reasonable
picture of the local traditions employed. This pendant connecting with the Group 2 core is
characterized by sample of descending similarity which may be almost entirely temporally
based. It is comprised of the last houses to be constructed at Keffer, as seen in settlement studies.
Each of these structures was either newly built, House 4, 6 and 19, outside or across the original
palisade, constructed after the removal of an earlier building; House 2 was erected after the
dismantling of House 3, contracted and possibly rebuilt as seen in House 7, or reconstructed and
expanded as seen in the parallel wall post lines of House 11.
The earliest community of ceramic practice seen at Keffer is distinct from those of the later and
more widespread occupation. This group, Group 5 is internally diverse and characterized
topologically by three pendants emerging off the large 522 vessel Midden 57. This midden’s
strongest connection is with Groups 2 and 3 via Midden 65, an early midden with a long period
of use. The tie between these two middens may originate in their similar early date at opposite
locations of the site while intra-village travel was wide open.
Midden 57’s long period of use may result in a later date for this collection than any of the other
smaller Group 5 deposits. Middens 53 and 55, surface deposits, are both located in the central
low town area in Clusters B and D. Midden 51, also a surface midden, is found north of House 1
and may have been deposited prior to the House 16 expansion. The early House 3 structure is
central to all of these middens as well as hillside Midden 57. House 15, in the prime location on
the plateau, most likely created the four small middens surrounding it on the plateau slopes,
Middens 68 and 75 to the south and 78 to the north as well as the small deposit, Midden 67
beside Palisade 3. Although Houses 3 and 15 are both depicted as primary occupations of the
low town and high town, respectively, ceramics of these Houses 3 and 15 do not share much in
common. This may be due to the very small samples of these houses. Despite this, House 3
shares some similarity with the House 15 middens being more similar to those of Middens 67
and 75. All of these samples, Houses 3 and 15, and Middens 67, 68, 75 and 78, include less than
206
32 vessels, some much less. Group 5 samples with larger collections, Middens 51, 53, 55 and 57,
are marginally closer to the main component.
The Keffer village local tradition ceramic collections portray a large amount of intra-village
unity with all collections connecting to the main network component by the 85.5 percent (BR
171) similarity level. Network investigations at higher levels suggest greater unity among
specific nodes forming slightly differing, separate practice communities. As illustrated in graphs
at the BR 185 and 171 levels (Figure 8-2 and Figure 8-3), time is a factor in the separation of
these practices. It is also apparent that other factors are involved in the formation of the graph
topology. Ceramic profiles, in terms of the local tradition categories, of the five communities of
practice are incorporated in the examination of the divisions and connections seen in the graph
structures. Although network analysis was performed at the level of individual types,
summarizing samples through the individual analysis of 20 types would result in a lack of clarity.
Local tradition categories provide a more concise illustration of results (Table 8-1).
Table 8-1. Local Tradition Ceramic Percentage Ranges by Community of Practice.

Local Decorated
Tradition Undecorated Neck
Community of Neck Huron Huron Neutral
Practice (%) (%) (%)
1 74 25 0
2 72–79 12–20 3–14
3 67–70 16–25 2–10
4 71–92 6–16 0–2
5 (all vessels) 46–67 10–46 4–27
5 (>29
vessels) 57–62 10–29 4–21
Note: In this and similar tables, the colour coding in
the headers indicates the three main local ceramic
categories.
Practice communities 1 to 5 were originally labelled according to the strength of their internal
ties. Divergence among the core of each of the groups is clearly visible at the BR 185 level
(Figure 8-2) but small sample size exaggerates this difference in the pendants of communities 2
(green) and 4 (yellow). At the lower BR 171 measure, these pendants are absorbed into the
communities in the main component. Those nodes in the community 5 pendant are also now
more integrated, but the diversity in the smaller samples produce three new pendants at BR 171.
207
Table 8-2. Community of Practice by Local Tradition Ceramic Percentage Ranges.

Local
Tradition Undecorated Decorated
Community of Neck Huron Neck Neutral
Practice (%) Huron (%) (%)
5 (all vessels) 46–67 10–46 4–27
5 (>29
vessels) 57–62 10–29 4–21
3 67–70 16–25 2–10
1 74 25 0
2 72–79 12–20 3–14
4 71–92 6–16 0–2
Here the communities of practice (Table 8-2) have been reordered following their temporal
positions. As previously mentioned, the percentage of decorated neck vessels generally decrease
with time, but absolute quantities must be compared to those within the watershed communities,
as these may vary significantly. Undecorated neck Huron vessels are believed to have increased
with time within central Ontario Iroquoian collections. These two hypotheses form the premise
of the ceramic chronology. Temporal characteristics of Neutral ceramics are not so clearly
understood, although observations made in the course of examining hundreds of site ceramic
profiles in this study suggest that they appear to decrease in time east of the Credit River. Neutral
ceramic quantities are not considered highly significant temporal factors in the Keffer samples,
however. Neutral ceramics may be a stronger indication of inter-regional interaction. The
absence of Neutral ceramics in community 1 separates these nodes from other communities at
the BR 190 level, this but has less effect as more nodes exert pull on the House 13 node at BR
171.
Allocation of the house and midden ceramics to individual communities of practice was
originally accomplished through visual topological analysis. Application of ceramic profile
percentages to the communities indicates that the undecorated neck Huron ceramics are a major
factor in the separation of these groups, as they comprise between 57 and 92 percent of the Over
29 Vessels samples. Neutral and neck decorated vessels are characterized by much larger
percentage ranges within most communities of practice, signalling less influence on node
allocation. The second-largest group, decorated neck Huron ceramics, varies from 6 to 29
percent. Several Keffer samples contain no Neutral vessels, but in some instances these ceramics
constitute up to 27 percent.
208
The spatial distribution of the local tradition practice communities (Figure 8-4) indicates quite
diverse patterns in the history of ceramic usage across the village, particularly between the high
town and low town residences.
Figure 8-4. Local tradition communities of practice.

209
Chronological Development of the Communities of Practice

Changes in the social relationships among the village households throughout the course of the
village occupation emerge through the integration of communities of practice (Table 8-2 and
Table 8-3) and the Keffer development sequence, as illustrated in Maps 1 to 8 (Figure 8-5).
Figure 8-5. Keffer development sequence Maps 1–8.
Table 8-3. Loci by Map and Local Community of Practice.
Local
Tradition
Community
Map of Practice Loci
1 5 15, 67, 68
2 2 1, 9, 10
2 3 8, 12, 56, 74
2 4 7
2 5 3, 51, 53, 55, 57, 75, 78
3 1 13, 20
3 2 60, 61, 77, 80
3 3 62, 65, 72, 74
4 4 11
5 2 52, 59, 63, 66, 71
5 4 2, 4, 6, 19
8 2 54
210
The first occupation of the Keffer village is composed of the small House 15a, placed in a central
location on the plateau, and its two small middens, Middens 67 and 68 (Figure 8-6) located at
either end of the longhouse. Ceramics of this first settlement belong to community of practice
(CoP) 5 and are generally characterized by the lowest level of UNH (undecorated neck Huron)
vessels, below 65 percent of the sample, and almost equal proportions of DNH (decorated neck
Huron) and Neutral ceramics (Table 8-2).
Figure 8-6. Map 1, with community of practice 5.
The expansion of House 15b is indicated by the deposition of CoP 5 Middens 75 and 78 to the
south of the extension (Figure 8-7). Following, or perhaps contemporary to, the House 15b
expansion, ceramic practices change as the population of the village increases. House 12, with
211
the adjoining Midden 74, both members of CoP 3, with higher levels of UNH and lower levels of
Neutral ceramics, appear on the plateau to the south of House 15b. At the base of the hill slope,
Houses 1a, 3a, and 7a form cluster A to the north. House 3a and nearby Midden 57 and Midden
51 to the north of House 1 belong to Community 5, supporting their early appearance. House 1
shares CoP 3 with House 12. The small CoP 4 sample of House 7 has high levels of UNH
characteristic of later ceramic samples. A second residential group, Cluster B, consisting of
Houses 8, 9a, and 10 and Middens 53, 55, and 56, also occurs at this time. Middens 53 and 55,
located at either end of House 8, belong to CoP 5 and may be early deposits from these Cluster B
houses. House 8 and Midden 56 belong to CoP 3, like House 12 on the plateau. Houses 9 and 10,
along with House 1, are the first members of CoP 2.
Figure 8-7. Map 2, with communities of practice 2, 3, 4, and 5.

212
Continued growth at Keffer is seen in the construction of three additional longhouses on the
plateau. House 14a’s construction is signalled by the appearance of its associated CoP 2 Midden
61 on the northern slope (Figure 8-8). House 18a beside it is represented by the new CoP 3
Midden 62. The appearance of CoP 3 Midden 72 on the south slope and Midden 73 directly east
of House 13 may indicate that the first construction of House 13a, built following the removal of
House 15b, also belonged to the increasingly common CoP 3. However, the inclusion of the
House 13 ceramics in CoP 1, together with those of House 20, newly constructed outside the
village palisade, may indicate changing directions in regional interaction, mirroring those of the
new arrivals. No Neutral ceramics are present in this new practice community. The presence of
Midden 77, adjacent to House 20, and Midden 80, to the south of House 13, both of which
belong to CoP 2 (the strong small world cluster seen in the graphs), may represent deposits from
specific, and perhaps unique, families within these houses. The large size of surface Midden 65,
located in a slight depression at the western edge of the lower level, argues for long-term use as a
refuse area by occupants of the village’s south end. The inclusion of this midden in CoP 3 may
reflect the increasing population in this area over time. Population growth occurs in the northern
section of the village, in Clusters A and B, during this same period. Expansion of Houses 3b, and
continued heavy occupation of House 1a, may account for the spread of refuse deposition north
of Midden 57 into the new CoP 2 Midden 60.
213
Figure 8-8. Map 3, with communities of practice 1–5.
The ceramics of House 11, which settlement analysis indicates was the next structure built,
belong to CoP 4. Although the first iteration of the longhouse was erected before the demolition
of Palisade 1, the ceramics reflect the long-term occupation of House 11a, b, and c (Figure 8-9).
214
The expansion of the interior village area with the construction of Palisade 2 is paralleled by
further population expansion (Figure 8-10). The new House 16, as seen in the appearance of
Midden 59 and perhaps Midden 66, shares CoP 3 with House 14, beside it on the plateau. The
removal of Palisade1 and House 3 opened up the north end of the village, allowing the expansion
of House 1b, whose new inhabitants created the nearby surface Midden 63, also part of CoP 2.
Midden 52, to the south, also belongs to this community of practice. It was begun after the
removal of the first palisade. The expansion of the palisade to the bottom of the eastern hill slope
also allowed for the construction of new longhouses, House 2, 4, and 6, and the expansion of
House 11. All of these houses belong to the latest ceramic group, CoP 4. The late date of these
ceramics is marked by a sharp increase in the presence of UNH, a decrease in DNH, and the
215
almost total absence of Neutral vessels. These later ceramic collections do not appear anywhere
on the plateau.
A new residence, House 19, belonging to the late CoP 4, is the last structure erected at Keffer
and marks the end of its major growth period. This house, although sharing ceramic practice with
those houses most recently constructed on the low ground, was built outside of the village proper
(Figure 8-11). The acceptance of this household into the village community, which may be
partially related to its membership in CoP 4, resulted in the final configuration of the settlement’s
largest occupation. At this point, members of this later practice community occupied many of the
216
low-town structures, and Houses 7b and 11c expanded to their greatest extent. Due to their great
length, they, along with House 4, held a large percentage of the village population and their
community of practice grew.
The dismantling of House 12, on the western plateau, may be a sign of, or a consequence of, this
change. However, as House 12, an extremely long-lived structure with evidence of repairs but no
conclusive proof of rebuilding, was removed, perhaps due to it poor condition, House 18c
expanded over a large area of the plateau (Figure 8-12). Shared practice between Houses 12 and
18 suggests that the members of the House 12 household may have moved into the greatly
expanded House 18c. Continuation of this community of practice on the west side of the plateau
is seen in the expansion of Midden74 over the remains of House 12. In Cluster A-B-D, on the
northern lowland, the extension of House 7b may similarly be the result of the acceptance of
House 6, which was removed and covered by House 7b. They also share a community of
practice, CoP 4.
217
The removal of House 12, on the plateau, was followed by the elimination of several houses on
the lowland (Figure 8-13). To the west of House 9, a small deposit, Midden 58, marks the
removal of House 10. This ceramic sample was not suitable for examination due to adverse
taphonomic processes. Midden 54, a large surface midden, covers the area where both House 6
and 7b had been removed. This midden shares CoP 2 with the extended Houses 1b and 9b. The
latest structure added to the village, House 19, was also removed at this time, as the large-scale
expansion over its east wall indicates. The deposits of these three surface middens over the
previously existing houses signify the last evidence for occupation of the Keffer village.
218
The first residents at the Keffer village brought with them a ceramic practice characterized by
relatively low amounts of UNH ceramics and high proportions of DNH pottery. These
collections also contain Neutral ceramics in varying proportions, from 4 to 21 percent. As the
village expanded, two new practice groups emerged. Ceramics of those households on the west
side of the plateau, in Houses 12 and 18, and those of House 8, on the lowland, appear slightly
earlier than those of the east, Houses 13, 14, and 16. These ceramics mirror the ceramic practice
of lowland Houses 1, 9, and 10, which were built early in the village’s construction. Houses 13,
on the plateau, and House 20, at its base, may have been constructed during this episode of
expansion, but the absence of Neutral ceramics suggests that their ceramic origins may have
differed slightly from those of the other residences. With the removal of the first palisade and
219
expansion of the village, a later ceramic practice, with very high levels of UNH pottery, appeared
with the influx of new residents in the last, short-lived houses. Houses, 4, 6, and 19 and the
newly extended House 11c are squeezed into the only available land. The growth of House 7b
only occurs after the removal of House 6, both characterized by these late ceramics. Gradual and
large-scale transformation in the communities of local tradition ceramic practice during the
growth, expansion, and early stages of abandonment at Keffer indicate a long period of
occupation at the village, characterized by constant movement of people into, within, and out of
the village. High dwelling concentration and ubiquitous longhouse expansion and refurbishment
support these conclusions.
External Relations of Keffer’s Communities of Practice: A Social

Network Analysis
The Keffer ceramic assemblage is typical of north shore Iroquoian ceramics of the fifteenth
century. As part of the Don River drainage occupation (Don River nodes are yellow), it shares a
high level of similarity with other central north shore communities of the period and is part of the
highly connected Ontario Iroquoian tradition (Figure 8-14). The local tradition ceramics of
Keffer, like those of other non–St. Lawrence Ontario sites, are distinct from those of the New
York Iroquois. The search for strong influences on the Keffer ceramic practice communities is
therefore confined to local Ontario sites.

220
Overview
Earlier network analysis of local tradition ceramics in this study was employed to postulate
differing regional-level practices and intra-village practice communities along both the temporal
and social scales. Here, connections among the Keffer loci collections and other Ontario
Iroquoian communities are investigated using a single similarity matrix comprised of all Keffer
house and midden samples and those of 140 additional sites. Due to the large number and close
similarity of the intra-site Keffer nodes, the resulting network graphs of over 200 nodes present
tight hairball clusters of the Toronto area sites.
Formerly, Ontario ceramic site collections have commonly been recorded as single sample
entities. It is now acknowledged that many settlements are not characterized by a single
community of practice (Ramsden 2009, 2016; Williamson and Powis 1998). In this work, the
Keffer house and midden local tradition ceramic database is combined with that of other central
Ontario Iroquoian settlements to demonstrate ties among the sub-village-loci–level practices at
Keffer and those of associated communities. I will propose possible communities of origin for
the original House 15a settlers and those of subsequent newcomers to the village. The resulting
network graphs portray high-level similarities and display possible relations among these
ceramic communities (Figure 8-15). The location of north shore sites is illustrated in Figure 8-16.
Figure 8-15. 140 Ontario Iroquoian sites, including Coulter and Kirche, and Keffer loci
local tradition ceramics BR 120 spring loaded.
221
Figure 8-16. Locations of selected ancestral Wendat sites along the north shore of Lake
Ontario. (Williamson 2014:Figure 2)
Both social and temporal factors influence differing praxis within village ceramic communities.
At Keffer, the existence of these dynamics is manifest in the village palisade expansion and
placement of houses exterior to both the first and second palisades. As such, it is evident, as seen
in settlement development studies, that Keffer was home to more than one incoming social
community.
At high similarity measures, specific links between Keffer loci and other sites become evident.
Again, sample size must be taken into account in interpreting these results. This is clearly
illustrated by in the intra-village Keffer results as nodes of small samples sizes, generally below
20 vessels, in Houses 2, 3 6, and 10 and Middens 67 and78 are distributed along the peripheries
and are loosely connected to other sites (Figure 8-17).
222
Figure 8-17. Selected Ontario Iroquoian sites, including Coulter and Kirche, and Keffer
loci local tradition ceramics BR 150 spring loaded.
Though network graphs of the Keffer ceramics portray a village with a high level of internal
ceramic overall similarity (Figure 8-17), characterized by an average network density of BR
173.8 (in the Over 29 Vessels samples), the variance in the values of highest edge tie per node (a
range of BR 171–198) illustrates a level of heterogeneous praxis, perhaps attributable in some
part to distinct origins of the local ceramic practices. This topological distribution is evident even
at the low BR 120 similarity level as internal village nodes intersect with those of diverse
geographic regions and chronology, connecting earlier t2; contemporary t3; and later t4, t5, and
(Figure 8-15) from as far east as the Trent valley to as far north as Wendake, in Simcoe County.
The interlinked component of the Ontario sites and the 38 Keffer nodes provides a very good
overview of Keffer’s position in the province-wide Iroquoian network. For illustration and
analysis purposes, however, extraneous nodes, which are topologically distant from the core area
of interest surrounding the Keffer nodes, and their connections have been removed. This includes
all t1 and many t2 ceramic collections that are peripheral to the fifteenth-century Keffer ceramic
interaction sphere. Several sites in the Don watershed—the t2 Baker, Boyle-Atkinson, McGaw,
Orion-Murphy-Goulding, and Over sites—as well as several in the neighbouring Humber
valley—including the t2 Downsview, t3 Black Creek and Parsons, t4 Seed-Barker, and t5
223
McKenzie-Woodbridge sites—do not connect closely with this core and are therefore absent
from the resulting higher-level graphs (Figure 8-18).
Figure 8-18. Selected Ontario Iroquoian sites, not including Coulter and Kirche, and
Keffer loci local tradition ceramics BR 170 spring loaded.
The network structure begins to take form at the BR 170 similarity level as four regional sites
connect to the mesh of Keffer house and midden nodes, which are already highly connected.
Nearby settlements on the Don and Humber rivers share the largest number of high-level
similarity ties with Keffer houses and middens, particularly those features with larger sample
sizes. These sites include the t2 Don valley Risebrough site, located to the south; the nearby t3
Don valley Jarrett-Lahmer village; the t3 Humber valley Damiani site; and the t3 Logan site,
situated at the headwaters of the Humber River on the Oak Ridges Moraine. In the spring layout
graph at this level, the position of the Logan site between early and mid-stage development
nodes within the Keffer core communicates the close association of Logan’s ceramics with those
of Keffer’s first occupants. The later Damiani site is located on the fringes of the component,
while the Don valley t2 Risebrough and t3 Jarrett-Lahmer sites connect to two separate nodes via
pendants. The Damiani site shows more similarity with the overall ceramics of Keffer than do
either of the Don valley sites.
The tightly clustered nature, or hairball topology, of the Keffer nodes that occurs when the
similarity levels are lowered to a point where external ties occur, makes the decipherment of the
224
individual ties difficult or next to impossible. Ego network plots of the two Humber valley sites,
Logan and Damiani, demonstrate these relationships more clearly (Figure 8-19 and Figure 8-20).
Figure 8-19. Local tradition ceramics ego Logan BR 170.
Figure 8-20. Local tradition ceramics ego Damiani BR 170.
At BR 170, the ego plot of the Logan node (Figure 8-19) uncovers several strong ties with House
12 and Middens 52, 60, 71, 74, and 77. In the larger component graph, Logan is invisible, though
it is present in a central position, behind Midden 74 (Figure 8-21). This would suggest that the
Logan site has deep-rooted ties to many components of the Keffer network.
The BR 170 Damiani ego network (Figure 8-20) is smaller and does not connect with any of the
nodes of the Logan network, indicating differing communities of ceramic practice. The nature of
this difference, whether social, spatial, or temporal, is not provided by network analysis.
Included in this small component are House 9 from the low town and Middens 61 and 73,
thought to be products of high town end-to-end Houses 14 and 13, respectively.
225
Figure 8-21. Connected Ontario sites, including Coulter and Kirche, BR 170 Gower layout
main component.
The t2 Risebrough site, located approximately 5 km south of Keffer, connects at this level, BR
170, with the early low town Midden 57, while the later and geographically closer t3 Jarrett-
Lahmer site ties in a similar pendant to the large Midden 65.
House 15, the earliest structure at Keffer, connects at this high level with the nearby t3 McNair
site. It is only through a bridge created by connections between the Trent t4 Coulter site and
Midden 56 that this component connects to the main structure of the graph. In the absence of
these later intermediary sites (Figure 8-18), House 15 and the other members of this isolated
group, the Don t2 Walkington 2, t2 Watford, t3 Hidden Spring, and t3 McNair sites, remain
unattached. Interestingly, the Rouge–Duffins t3 Spang site is highly connected with House 15.
This is undoubtedly due to the high proportions of DNH vessels present in the Rouge–Duffins
tradition. For this reason, the t2 Best site is also part of this structure but does not connect
directly with House 15. Neither Spang nor any other Rouge–Duffins site share other high-level,
at or above BR 150, ties with any of the Keffer loci (Figure 6-22).
226
The Kirche and Coulter nodes tie elements of the main component to the earlier House 15 and
the early Don and Rouge–Duffins community sites. Many features of the early settlement at
Keffer—including House 15 and Middens 51, 53, and 55 and those of slightly later occupation of
the plateau, Houses 12 and 13 and Middens 62—also tie with the t4 Trent Kirche community at
the BR160 measure. The Coulter and Kirche nodes do not, however, connect these Keffer loci
nodes with nodes of other sites, even as similarity decreases to BR 160. For this reason, graphs
both with and without the Coulter and Kirche pair, will be used only to illustrate inter-site Keffer
ceramic relations.
Figure 8-22. Selected Ontario Iroquoian sites, not including Coulter and Kirche, with
Keffer loci local tradition ceramics BR 160 spring loaded.
227
The large increase in network ties that results from lowering the similarity level to BR 160
results in a dense maze of nodes within the central component of the network (Figure 8-22 and
Figure 8-23).
Figure 8-23. Local tradition ceramics ego Damiani BR 160.
Figure 8-24. Local tradition ceramics ego Logan BR 160.
Because Damiani carries several additional ties with Keffer loci at this level, it becomes partially
integrated into the dense mesh of the graph (Figure 8-25). An expanded Damiani ego network at
the BR 160 level (Figure 8-24) now includes Houses 2, 7, 9, and 19 and Middens 54, 59, 60, 61,
66, and 73. Damiani also connects with the Robitaille site, in Wendake. The more deeply
embedded Logan ego (Figure 8-25) network displays ties with mid-life Houses 12 and 13 and
228
Middens 51, 52, 54, 57, 60, 62, 66, 71, 72, 74, and 80. At this level, the upper Humber Logan
and Damiani nodes share ties with Middens 54, 60, and 66. The Don sites, meanwhile, are
generally linked to the earliest houses and middens. Risebrough and Watford both tie with
Middens 51, 55, and 68. Risebrough is also connected with Midden 75, affiliated with House
15b. Watford and Hidden Spring, a site suggested to be a satellite of Keffer (ASI 2010b), and
shown by Spence and Rainey (2017) to be socially related, are linked to House 15. In addition,
the t2 Don Hope site joins the House 15 component at this level. The Watford collection now
connects with other Keffer midden samples, specifically, Middens 57, 72, and 74.
Figure 8-25. Connected Ontario Iroquoian sites and Keffer loci local tradition ceramics BR
150 spring loaded.
Most of the Keffer nodes have numerous ties as the similarity level declines to BR 150. Only a
few small-sample nodes remain on the periphery, with limited ties. House 3, with 6 vessels,
lingers as the only Keffer node tied to the main component through an external site, the t3 Credit
valley Emmerson Springs site. Midden 56, a deposit for House 9 and possibly House 11, sees its
first exterior connection with Damiani at this point. It is also at this level that a second tie to the
Rouge–Duffins drainage appears when the ceramics of Midden 59, associated with House 16,
229
link with those of the later t4 Mantle collection. House 11 also gains its first external ties, with t4
Kirche. Small-sample loci Houses 6 and 8 and Midden 63 connect with the t2 and early t3 Don
valley Jarrett-Lahmer, Risebrough, and Watford collections, while Midden 78 attaches to Logan
and House 3 joins with the later t5 Credit valley Emmerson Springs site.
The late Middens 54 and 66 also share ties with sites to the north, in ancestral Wendake. These
include the t4 Gwynne and the t5 Hunter’s Oro 17 and Starr sites. Gwynne also ties with
Middens 60 and 71, and Starr connects with Midden 59, while the t6 Alonso site ties with the
very late House 19.
Communities and Practice
Network analysis of Keffer ceramics (Chapter 7) has been employed to determine separate
communities of local tradition ceramic practice within the Keffer village and to create a timeline
of settlement development. Of course, these results are inextricably intertwined. The local
tradition communities of practice, divided into five subgroups, and the community development,
divided into eight maps, or plans, form the background data structure, as seen in Table 8-4, used
to detect the development of extra-village ceramic relations at Keffer.
Table 8-4. Temporal Order of Communities of

Practice.
Local
Tradition
Community
Map of Practice Loci
1 5 15, 67, 68
2 5 3, 51, 53, 55, 57, 75, 78
2 3 8, 12, 56, 74
3 3 62, 65, 72, 74
3 1 13, 20
2 2 1, 9, 10
3 2 60, 61, 77, 80
5 2 52, 59, 63, 66, 71
8 2 54
2 4 7
4 4 11
230
5 4 2, 4, 6, 19
Community of Practice 5: Houses 3 and 15, Middens 51, 53, 55,

57, 67 68, 75, and 78
Nodes of the first, and earliest, of the communities of practice, CoP 5, which consists of Houses
15 and 3 and Middens 51, 53, 55, 57, 67, 68, 75, and 78, connect most highly with earlier Don
valley sites. The early House 15, ties very highly with the nearby McNair site and, at lower
levels, with Watford and Hidden Spring (Figure 8-22). Spence and Rainey (2017) proposed that
the people of these sites are biologically affiliated with the people of Keffer. The presence of a
rare genetic dental trait at both Keffer and Hidden Spring led them to suggest that close kin ties
may have existed between Keffer and Hidden Spring. Williamson (2014) proposed that Hidden
Spring is a special purpose site affiliated with Keffer. The t3 Spang site, in the upper Rouge–
Duffins drainage, is strongly linked, above the BR 170 level, to House 15. This anomaly is
explained by the unique nature of the local tradition community of practice of the Rouge–Duffins
watershed. Ceramic collections from this area are characterized by very high proportions of
decorated neck Huron vessels, specifically, Black Necked. Neck-decorated pottery is generally
accepted to decrease within each community over time, but the overall larger proportions seen in
both the Rouge–Duffins and the Trent sites skew the appearance of their temporal relationships,
placing them chronologically with earlier ceramic collections of other drainage basin–oriented
communities. The smaller middens of this community of practice, Middens 67 and 68, which
appear with House 15a in the first settlement, connect most closely with the nearby Jarrett-
Lahmer site and with the Risebrough site to the south. At a lower level, just above BR 150,
Midden 67 also ties with the Don valley McNair site.
With the expansion of House 15b in the next development of the village, Midden 75, located
south of House 15b, ties to the Risebrough site on the Don River. Midden 78 is also created to
the south of House 15b. Ceramics from this deposit connect with the Logan site, officially in the
Humber watershed but closely affiliated with Keffer. Midden 57, situated to the west of the first
houses in Cluster A, in the low town, shares close ties with the earlier Don valley Risebrough
site (Figure 8-22). The large size of Midden 57 suggests a significant timespan for the use of this
midden, by a large population. This suggests that the first community of practice was not short
lived at Keffer. Midden 57 also shares ties with Logan and Jarrett-Lahmer. This may indicate an
231
early to mid-century date for the Logan site. Also appearing in the low town with the first village
expansion are Middens 51, 53, and 55. Midden 53’s position near later Houses 4 and 11 would
suggest a later date for this midden, but its close ties with the earlier Don Watford and McNair
sites indicate it is an early midden that ties to the first longhouses of Cluster B, its neighbours,
Houses 8 and 9. At the west end of these houses, Midden 55 links closely with the slightly later
Don Jarrett-Lahmer and Risebrough sites. The first occupation of the Keffer site is characterized
by a community of practice based in the larger Don drainage community of the mid-fifteenth
century.
Community of Practice 3: Houses 8 and 12, Middens 56, 62, 65,

72, 73, and 74
The introduction of a new and slightly different community of practice is seen in this first
expansion. In the low town, Cluster B House 8 shows some affinity with the earlier Don
Macartney site but shares ties to the Logan site. At the south end of the cluster, Midden 56,
appearing at this time, also shows low-level ties with Logan and with one Don drainage site, the
McNair site. A similar level tie with the later Trent valley Coulter and Kirche sites reflects the
significant amount of decorated neck Huron vessels in the sample. Its presence at this time helps
to confirm that House 9, directly north, existed in this early period. This practice community also
appears on the plateau. The first house added to the high-town cluster is House 12. Midden 74
beside it begins with the erection of this house. Both ceramic collections share their highest ties
with Logan and lower ties with the Don Jarrett-Lahmer and Risebrough sites. House 12’s ties
with Coulter and Kirche reflect the neck decorated vessels present here, but not seen to such an
extent in Midden 74.
This community of practice expands with next growth of the high town occupation. With the
removal of House 15b, new longhouses are constructed on the plateau. Refuse from the first
occupation of House 13a is found in Middens 72 and 73 to its south end, and deposits from
House 18a are found nearby on the northwest slope in Midden 62. Middens 62 and 72 both tie
most closely with the Logan sites and, at a slightly lower level, with the Don Jarrett-Lahmer and
Risebrough sites, supporting the early placement of Houses 13a and 18a in the village. Midden
73 links at its highest level with the later Humber valley Damiani site and may date to a slightly
later occupation of House 13. At some distance from the base of the plateau slope, outside the
232
village palisade, refuse began to accumulate in Midden 65, the site’s largest midden, around this
time. Midden 65, located between House 20 and the later House 19, shares a high-level tie,
above BR 170, with the neighbouring Jarrett-Lahmer site, indicating that it may have
experienced considerable use in this early period by members of this practice community located
in Houses 8 and 9 of Cluster B.
Community of Practice 1: Houses 13 and 20

In this period, a new longhouse, House 20, was built outside the first palisade. It has a unique
ceramic practice, characterized by the absence of Neutral ceramics, an unusual occurrence at
Keffer. This is matched by an alteration in the ceramic practice of House 13 from that seen in its
original refuse deposits, Middens 72 and 73. The House 13 and 20 pair, which tie at BR 190,
form the small group of CoP 1. The strongest level external link shared by both Houses 13 and
20 is with the Trent Kirche site at BR 160, although House 13 also ties with the Humber Logan
site at this level. House 20 shares a slightly weaker bond with Logan and Coulter. It is the high
level of decorated neck vessels, that is, Black Necked, and the total absence of Neutral ceramics
that distinguish this community of practice.
Community of Practice 2: Houses 1, 9, and 10, Middens 52, 54,

59, 60, 61, 63, 66, 71, 77, and 80
The large membership of CoP 2 grows from the appearance of Houses 1a, 9a, and 10a in the
settlement of the low town. The weak external ties of these houses, just above BR 150, suggest
that their long-term occupation and the changing practices occurring over that period within the
houses lack signs of distinctive relations with any specific village or village community. House 1
shares a low-level connection with the Logan site, but Houses 9 and 10 are linked to more distant
sites, the Simcoe County Bidmead site and the Prince Edward County Ames site, respectively.
Midden 60, started sometime after the construction of House 1 and directly to the west, shares a
much higher tie, above BR 170, with the Logan site as well as ties above BR 160 with the later
Damiani site, in the upper Humber valley, and with the Simcoe County Gwynne site. Midden 61,
associated with House 14, on the north slope of the plateau, directly south of Midden 60, also
shares ties above BR 170 with Damiani and with Starr, another Simcoe County site. Midden 80,
probably associated with the occupation of the House 13b, is more closely related to the Logan
233
site. In cluster D, Midden 77, associated with House 20, shares ties not only with Logan, but also
with the earlier Don Risebrough site.
The slightly later House 20 midden, Midden 71, is tied at a high level with Logan as well, but its
slightly lower ties are with the Simcoe County Gwynne site. To the north, in the newly opened-
up lowland area inside Palisade 2, Midden 52 forms between House 8 and the newer House 4.
Ceramics of this midden link with Logan above BR 170 and with earlier Don sites, Risebrough
and Jarrett-Lahmer, at lower levels. New middens of CoP 2 forming on the plateau at this time
no longer tie with earlier Don sites. Midden 59, related to the new residence, House 16, shares its
highest ties with Starr in Simcoe County and slightly lower-level ties with Damiani. Midden 66,
earlier suggested as relating to House 16 and other late residences on the plateau, ties most
closely with Damiani and then Logan. Lower-level ties link it to the Gwynne. Near the end of the
village occupation Midden 54 appears over the remains of Houses 6 and 7b. This late midden is
tied most closely with the later Damiani site.
Ceramic practices reflected in this community of practice are dominated by their affinity with the
two differing Humber valley sites. Earlier samples link most highly with the Logan site and some
early Don sites while ceramic practices of the later Damiani site are associated most strongly
with the last longhouses. Many houses in this community are also characterized by developing
ceramic similarities with later sites in the Wendake homeland.
Community of Practice 4: Houses 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, and 19

Small-sample Houses 2, 4, 6, 7, and 11 and the larger-sample House 19 make up CoP 4.
Construction of these houses occurred at several different stages of the village’s growth. House 7
likely dates to the first settlement of Cluster A in the low town. House 11 was originally
constructed outside of Palisade 1, before this palisade’s removal. Houses 2, 4, and 6 were likely
constructed in conjunction with the erection of the second palisade, while the extension of House
7b post-dates the removal of House 6. House 19, like House 11, was originally built exterior to
the village palisade but was later incorporated into the village. Traces of the early occupation of
these longhouses are present in their accompanying middens. The practice reflected in the house
ceramics dates to later occupation of the houses. Longhouses at Keffer had very few pit features.
Ceramics from these houses therefore probably date to their late occupation. We see practice
changing in this late period, as undecorated ceramics make up a much larger percentage of the
234
samples. These changes are reflected in the links appearing at low levels with Simcoe sites. The
community has no external ties above BR 170 and few below, as these nodes sit peripheral to the
main component of the network. Houses 2 and 19 and, to a lesser extent, House 4 tie with the
later Damiani site. The earlier House 7 links with Logan above BR 160. House 6, with a very
small sample, of 8 vessels, has no external ties at or above BR 150. House 11 shares its highest
external similarity with the later Simcoe Orr Lake and Bidmead sites at just above BR 140.
Strong ties existing between Logan and nodes of the each of the later strongly tied communities,
CoP 1 to 4, are particularly interesting as the absence of nonlocal ceramics at Logan suggests it is
an early fifteenth-century settlement. Latta (1980) dates Logan ceramics to the same period as
the mid-fifteenth-century Oshawa-area Macleod site.
The influence of external communities on the dynamic process of change and the development of
Keffer’s ceramic practices (Figure 8-26) may lie in the multiple connections linking Keffer
ceramic practice groups to other southern Ontario Iroquoian settlements through time.
235
Figure 8-26. Local tradition ceramic communities of practice plan Maps 1–8.
External Ties by Time

As far as the ceramic tradition of Keffer, the people of this village, in all its stages of
development, appear to have come from the local Don valley community. Nonlocal ceramics are
not the majority in any of the collections, and those that follow other traditions are almost
certainly made on site. There is no evidence of a “foreign” group establishing of any of the
households or communities of practice.
236
Table 8-5. Keffer House and Midden Similarity Ties with Other Ontario Iroquoian Sites.
Sites with Highest Ties

Local
Tradition
Commun Geographical Ties Ties Ties
ity of Areas with Ties above Ties above BR above above above
Map Locus Practice Highest Ties BR 170 160 BR 150 BR 140 BR 130
1 H15 5 Don McNair, Watford,
Spang Kirche, Coulter
1 M67 5 Don Jarrett- McNair
Lahmer,
Risebrou
gh
1 M68 5 Don Jarrett-Lahmer,
Risebrough
2 H3 5 Credit, Don Emmers Risebro
on ugh
Springs
2 M51 5 Don Risebrough,
Logan, Jarrett-
Lahmer,
Coulter
2 M53 5 Don Watford McNair
2 M55 5 Don Jarrett-Lahmer, Logan
Risebrough
2 M57 5 Don, Logan Risebrough, Jarrett-Lahmer Logan
Logan
2 M75 5 Don Risebrough Gwynne
2 M78 5 Don Risebrou
gh
2 H12 3 Logan, Trent, Logan Kirche Coulter Jarrett-
Don Lahmer,
Risebrou
gh,
Fournier
2 H8 3 Don Logan,
Macart
ney
2 M56 3 Logan, Don Logan,
Kirche,
Coulter,
McNair
2 M74 3 Logan, Don Logan Jarrett-Lahmer,
Risebrough,
Gwynne
2 H1 2 Logan Logan
2 H10 2 Prince Edward Ames Damiani
County,
Humber
2 H9 2 Simcoe, Bidmead Damiani
Humber ,
237
Emmers
on
Springs
2 H7 4 Humber Damiani Ames
3 H13 1 Logan, Trent, Logan Kirche Coulter,
Don McNair
3 H20 1 Logan, Trent Kirche Logan,
Coulter,
Fournier
3 M60 2 Logan, Humber Logan Damiani,
Gwynne,
Risebrough
3 M61 2 Humber, Damiani Starr Damiani
Simcoe
3 M77 2 Logan, Don Logan Gwynne,
Risebrough
3 M80 2 Logan, Humber Logan Damiani
3 M62 3 Logan, Don Logan, Jarrett-
Lahmer,
Risebrough,
Gwynne
3 M65 3 Don, Logan Jarrett- Logan
Lahmer
3 M72 3 Logan, Don Logan Jarrett-Lahmer,
Risebrough,
Fournier
3 M73 3 Humber, Don Damiani Jarrett-Lahmer
4 H11 4 Simcoe Orr
Lake,
Bidmead
5 M52 2 Logan, Don Logan Risebrou
gh,
Jarrett-
Lahmer
5 M59 2 Simcoe, Starr, Damiani Logan
Humber
5 M63 2 Simcoe, Fournier
Humber ,
Damiani
5 M66 2 Humber, Damiani, Gwynne
Simcoe Logan,
5 M71 2 Logan, Simcoe Logan Gwynne Orr
Lake,
Bidmead
5 H2 4 Humber, Damiani Bidmead
Simcoe , Ames
5 H4 4 Humber Damiani Logan
5 H6 4 Simcoe Fournier
6 H19 4 Humber, Prince Damiani, Ames Robitaill
Edward County e,
Bidmead
8 M54 2 Humber, Logan Damiani, Damiani
Logan, Starr
238
Social Network Analysis of Nonlocal Tradition Ceramics at Keffer

The Keffer local tradition ceramics have been separated into a series of five spheres of practice.
The hard boundaries are archaeological constructs and are not recognizable among the practices
within the village. Instead, ceramic practice occurred within a temporal and social continuum, as
demonstrated in these plans of ceramic practice development, labelled Plan Maps 1–8 (Figure
8-27).
Figure 8-27. Local tradition ceramic practice by settlement plan Maps 1–8.
In this section, in the social network analysis of the above-mentioned emergent, nonlocal, and
exotic ceramics are examined within one database. Further analysis of the graph results, using
detailed typological information for the collection, is then used to separate the ceramics of these
three categories, discussed in section 9.5.
Network analysis of the nonlocal collection includes all vessels not belonging to the local
tradition as defined in section 4.5. This includes locally made vessels and those made outside the
village. All pottery fitting a type definition is hypothesized to reflect similar external influences.
The first set of network graphs employing nonlocal ceramic data are characterized by the node
attribute of sample size to determine the effect of this attribute on graph topology at both high
239
and low similarity levels (Figure 8-28 and Figure 8-29). At BR 100, all of the small-sized
samples (fewer than 50 vessels) are excluded from the core of the graph; they are connecting as
pendants or, in some cases, totally detached from the component. Larger samples are generally
located within the graph core.
Figure 8-28. Nonlocal ceramics by sample size BR 100 spring layout.
At the higher BR level of 130 (Figure 8-29), several large collections, specifically Midden 74,
the second largest sample at the site, with 644 vessels, and Midden 62, with more than 200
vessels, do not connect with the main component. Midden 57, with more than 500 vessels, does
not connect with any other sample nodes. Thus, the size of small samples, those under 50
vessels, is at least partially a determinant of network topology. These small samples often
include very few, sometimes only one, nonlocal vessels. The percentage of nonlocal ceramics in
those samples that do include nonlocal vessels ranges from 3.2 percent to 25 percent. This
proportion is not a direct result of total sample size, since Midden 57, with 522 vessels, has 6
percent nonlocal pottery, while Midden 62, with 208 vessels, has 25 percent nonlocal ceramics.
Instead, it is a result of the fact that smaller samples, even those with close ties to other nodes, do
not contain the wide diversity of nonlocal ceramic types, 15 in all, that is possible in larger
collections and therefore cannot connect highly with the largest samples at the core of the
component. Large samples may not include this high level of diversity either and likewise
remain on the graph periphery.
240
Figure 8-29. Nonlocal ceramics by sample size BR 130 spring layout.
The primary network analysis of nonlocal ceramics at Keffer explores possible distinct practice
communities for ceramics of this category and examines their relations with the established local
tradition communities of practice. To facilitate this last aim, graph nodes are colour-coded here
according to their local tradition communities of practice, CoP 1–5, as seen below (Figure 8-30).
241
Figure 8-30. Keffer village local tradition practice.
Ties formed at the highest level display the fundamental differences in these relationships, and
lower-level connections bridge the separate practices (Figure 8-31). Delineation of separate
practices is visually assessed and thus the product of subjective choice.
242
Figure 8-31. Nonlocal ceramics by local tradition communities of practice BR 150 Gower
layout.
Nonlocal ceramic samples separate into two distinct groups at BR 150, or 75 percent similarity.
The largest collection, from CoP 3 Midden 65 anchors CoP 2 Middens 61 and 77 into the close-
knit component of nonlocal ceramics (NLC) Group 1. Midden 65 sits on the periphery of the
core in the local tradition graphs at BR 185 and is not closely linked with either Midden 61 or
Midden 77.
Two other nodes of CoP 2, Middens 80 and 66, are linked by House 13 of the small, tightly
bound CoP 1. House 20, with which it shares very high similarity in local tradition ceramics,
does not appear with House 13 at this level, but its closest ties, Middens 80 and 66, are located
close to House 13 on the plateau. CoP 3 Middens 60 and 71 also link to House 13 at BR 140
(Figure 8-32). These middens are more distant from House 13, with Midden 71 located next to
House 20 and Midden 60 farther away, in the north end of the site. No new nodes join the
Midden 65–centred NLC Group 1 at this level, but two new small component pairs appear.
Middens 62 and 74, which form the core of local tradition CoP 3, are linked in Group 3. CoP 5
Midden 53 and CoP 3 Midden 54 do not share local tradition practices but are closely positioned
beside House 8 in the low town. This pair is labelled NLC Group 4.
243
Figure 8-32. Nonlocal ceramics by local tradition communities of practice BR 140 spring
layout.
House 20, which ties closely with House 13 in CoP 1, links to House 13 and the adjoining CoP 2
Midden 60 and 80 nodes at BR 130 and ties this growing component with the NLC Group 1
Middens 65 and other CoP 2 nodes Middens 61 and 77 (Figure 8-33). House 20 and Midden 65,
which are of differing local tradition practices but are located side by side, bridge these two
components. CoP 1 House 20 links through House 13 with NLC Group 2. Midden 72, part of
CoP 3, and located south of House 13 and beside Midden 80, ties through Midden 80 to House
13. The early Midden 55, a member of CoP 5, links to House 13 and Midden 71 at BR 130.
Midden 55 is not found in close proximity to any other village features of this component. No
changes are seen in the two pair groups, NLC Groups 3 and 4. One new pair appears. CoP 5
Midden 51 and House 2, a late house in the northern part of the village’s lowland, are located in
close proximity on the site. Few nonlocal vessels are found in these samples, and this may be the
reason for their high similarity level, as discussed above.
244
layout.
The components of the graph continue to consolidate as the similarity level decreases to BR 120
(Figure 8-34). CoP 2 Midden 59 links to this core through Midden 66, both of which are related
to House 16 according to the settlement analysis. To the right of the component, Midden 65 acts
as a bridge connecting the three main clusters of NLC Groups 1, 2, and 3 with the CoP 3 nodes
of NLC Group 3, Middens 62 and 74, which are connected in peripheral pendant formation. It is
only at this level that the large, early CoP 5 Midden 57 joins the main component of NLC Group
2, through Midden 61. Midden 57’s topological position as a pendant confirms its distinctive
character when compared with the growing component centred on the later House 13. CoP 4
House 19 similarly links in a pendant to Midden 77, which overlies it in the later occupation of
the site.
245
layout.
At the similarity level of BR 110 (Figure 8-35), the nodes of CoP 1 and CoP 2 compose the main
core of the large component. At this level, CoP 3 House 12 connects with the peripheral CoP 3
NLC Group 3 through Midden 62. The CoP 3 Midden 73 node, on the other hand, connects with
the main core through House 13, which is directly beside it on the plateau. CoP 5 nodes are
scattered as pendants. Middens 68 and 75, related to the last occupation of House 15b link with
House 12, which was erected at the same time as House 15b. The pair NLC Group 4 ties through
early Midden 57 to the component. The low level and peripheral connections of these CoP 5
nodes illustrate their temporal difference from the main body of the CoP 1 and NLC Group 3
core. The second pair group from the north end of the village, House 2 and Midden 51, are
joined by the nearby Midden 52, located at the north end of House 9, and Midden 56, situated to
its south. Connections made at these low levels are not indicative of strong similarities.
246
layout.
Below BR 120, additional nodes, with weak ties, have only a small effect on the main structure
of the main component, but they pull stronger ties away from each other and hide the original
nonlocal groups apparent at higher levels. These peripheral ties suggest possible relationships of
those samples with very few, often only one, nonlocal vessels (Figure 8-36 and Figure 8-37).
Ties at these levels are not considered significant.
247
layout.

layout.
248
The lower similarity levels characteristic of nonlocal networks has resulted in generally less
distinct separations within village practice of these ceramics. Smaller sample sizes appear to be
partially responsible for these results. However, network topology indicates that nonlocal
ceramic practice within the Keffer village is highly varied across the site. This variation spreads
along a continuum from three distinct centres of unique, dissimilar practice. The original
components seen at the 75 percent (BR 150) (Figure 8-31) level of similarity, include NLC
Group 1, composed of Middens 61, 65, and 77; NLC Group 2, a larger star component with five
nodes, House 13, Middens 60, 61, 71 and 80; and the NLC Group 3 component of Middens 62
and 74. The NLC Group 4 ceramic samples from Middens 53 and 54, with three and seven
vessels, do not provide sufficiently robust data to form the core of a community of practice. The
position of these two nodes within a pendant unconnected to nodes other than the Midden 57
bridge node at the low BR 100 level (Figure 8-36) support this conclusion.
At BR 130, the NLC Group 2 component grows with the addition of Houses 1 and 20 and
Midden 55. This group then links directly to the core node of House 13 (Figure 8-33). Midden 72
joins the component as a peripheral node. With the appearance of the House 20 node in a
connection to the NLC Group 1 House 13 node at the BR 130 level, a bridge is created linking
the two small world NLC Groups 1 and 2 through the large Midden 65 node. NLC Group 3
remains as a separate component, suggesting that it has unique properties. It eventually links to
the main component through the Midden 65 node at BR 120. At this level, the distinct nature of
these three components remains visible as NLC Groups 1 and 3 project outward from the main
body of the NLC Group 2 component. As similarity levels decrease below this level, additional
pendants attach to this main body and it becomes apparent that NLC Group 2 is the centre of
most nonlocal practice in the village. NLC Group 1 was joined by House 19 at BR 120, and
House 12 attached to NLC Group 3 at BR 110, with Middens 68 and 75 also connecting as
pendants. By this level, no separation is visible between NLC Groups 1 and 2, and these
practices join to form a larger and more diverse community of practice. NLC Group 3 also links
with this larger practice community at this level, but it remains somewhat divergent on the
periphery of the graph (Figure 8-35).
249
Nonlocal Ceramic Practice at Keffer

Three connected and related communities of practices (Figure 8-38, Table 8-6) can be discerned
from visual analysis of the nonlocal ceramic network graphs. The relations among these three
components vary in strength and direction, with the members of NLC Group 1, specifically
Midden 65, taking a central bridging location. Tied with Midden 65, the other core nodes of this
group, Middens 61 and 77, became integral to holding the components together. Many nodes
also tie to the main component as weakly connected components, not really members of any of
the three groups.
250
Figure 8-38. Nonlocal ceramic group practices.

251
Table 8-6. Network Ties of Nonlocal Practice.
Loci/Nonlocal Ceramic Practice Groups with Highest Ties

Nonlocal
Ceramic
Practice
Group BR 150 BR 140 BR 130 BR 120 BR 110 BR 100
1 61, 65, 77 NLC Group 2 NLC Group 3, P19,
P57
2 66, 13, 80 60, 71 NLC Group 1, 20, 55, P59 P73
P1, P72
3 62, 74 NLC Group 1 P12, P75 NLC
Group
2
Note: P means the node ties as a pendant.
As a mediator between the NLC Groups 2 and 3 practices, NLC Group 1 is dominated by the
large and very diverse collection of Midden 65. This midden was accessible to most occupants of
the southern half of the low town at different times during the habitation of the village. Midden
77, at the opposite end of House 20 from Midden 65, is also a core member of this NLC Group.
The position of House 20, on the other side of the bridge linking NLC Groups 1 and 2, is of
interest as Midden 77 is a refuse deposit located between Houses 19 and 20 and therefore
associated with both. House 19, the last house to be erected at the village, joins this community
at the BR 120 level. To the north, on the plateau slope, Midden 61 and its associated plateau-top
house, House 14, is the third member of this core NLC Group. Located to the north of Midden
61, on the riverside slope of the low town Cluster A, the large and long-term Midden 57 connects
this NLC Group via a pendant to Midden 61. The proximity of Midden 57 to the west end of
House 3 and to House 7, which it overlaps, and perhaps to the later House 2, suggests that these
houses may also be part of the NLC Group 1 community.
The second practice community centres on the neighbouring eastern plateau-top House 13 and
nearby Middens 66 and 80. At BR 130, Midden 72 joins this NLC Group as a pendant,
suggesting that it is tied to the practice here but not integral to it. The connection of Midden 59,
at BR 120, to the core indicates that the associated longhouse, House 16, which is situated next
to House 13, is also part of the community. This may be due to its spatial location between NLC
Groups 2 and 3. Midden 71, a late deposit located at the base of the plateau slope in this area is
also a core member of this practice NLC Group. Midden 71 relates to the latest occupation of
252
House 20, which joins this NLC Group at the slightly lower BR level of 130. Situated in the
extreme north of the village’s low town, Midden 60 also belongs to the core of this second
practice NLC Group. The addition of House 1, situated to the east of Midden 60, into this NLC
Group at BR 130 illustrates that the use of similar emergent ceramics was also occurring in this
area of the low town. Midden 55, located just south of the House 1 cluster, is also integrated into
this NLC Group at BR130. This is significant as the low volume of pottery from excavations in
the northern part of the low town makes associations for households in this zone conjectural. The
probable creation of this midden by the occupants of Houses 8 and 9 suggests that these two
households may have also been part of this larger nonlocal ceramic practice community.
The third NLC Group is composed of Middens 62 and 74. These repositories for the waste of
Houses 12 and 18 are located on the west side of the plateau, along with Houses 12 and 18.
House 12 joins this component at BR 110, as does Midden 75, southeast of House 12. Core
members of this NLC Group are confined to Houses 12 and 18 on the west side of the plateau.
Membership within both NLC Groups 2 and 3 appears to be spatially oriented, most noticeably
by the position of the communities on opposite sides of the village plateau. While the smaller
NLC Group 3 community of two houses is limited to the west side of the plateau surface,
members of the NLC Group 2 community located on the eastern edge of the hilltop, in Houses
13 and 16, spread both north and south into Cluster A and D of the low town. With the later
construction of the NLC Group 1 House 14, all three practice NLC Groups reside, side by side,
on the plateau. Ceramic evidence indicates that the highly linked NLC Groups 1 and 2 are both
spread across the lower level of the site, to the north and the south. Most houses and middens not
included in these highly tied components connect loosely with Group 2, on the opposite side of
the graph from Group 3. The NLC Group 3 community, more distinct in its nonlocal practice,
perhaps due to its small size, is confined, and perhaps limited to, one extended family, although
local tradition ties suggest that it is affiliated with House 8 on the lower level.
These differing practices, as determined by the graphic separation of NLC Groups 1 and 2 above
the BR 130, or 75 percent, similarity level, and at BR 120 for NLC Group 3, can only be
understood through detailed analysis of their ceramic samples. This is particularly valid in the
case of nonlocal collections.
253
The large proportion of vessels in the Keffer site collection which no do fit within the definition
of local tradition ceramics have been categorized as “nonlocal” here and by others (Birch et al.
2017; Spence and Rainey 2017). It is now apparent that this term conflates multiple unique
nonlocal ceramic practices. In this section, nonlocal ceramics are divided into three categories.
The first category is composed of those ceramics which fit well within the MacNeish type
definitions of ceramics believed to have originated within one of the historic Haudenosaunee
territories. Those vessels characteristic of Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, and Mohawk
types appearing on north shore sites in the mid-fifteenth century appear to follow the traditions
of communities within their respective Haudenosaunee territories. However, visual examination
of the Keffer vessels in this category cannot determine their location of manufacture. No
distinguishing local tradition traits have been observed in examples of the Keffer collection. The
presence of a well executed Wagoner Incised learner vessel suggests the presence of potters with
knowledge of nonlocal vessel manufacture although the wide diversity of types present in low
numbers across the site does not support an on-site centre of production. These vessels may be of
local or foreign manufacture, but only further investigation and chemical testing can resolve this
issue. These ceramics are referenced under the label Haudenosaunee. Here, the term “exotic,”
often used for any nonlocal ceramics on Ontario sites, is reserved for vessels of almost certain
off-site, or foreign, production.
The second category of nonlocal ceramics is thus that of vessels of foreign manufacture, or
“exotics.” These vessels make up a small minority of the nonlocal collection and consist almost
exclusively of the Durfee Underlined type, belonging to the St. Lawrence Iroquoian and
Northern New York tradition. Roebuck Low Collars are also found. Both of these vessel types
may be embellished with reed punctates and thumb-nail gouged basal notches characteristic of
St. Lawrence Iroquoian sites of southern Ontario. Other hallmarks of the St. Lawrence Iroquoian
tradition are complex glide reflection motifs (David Smith, personal communication 2018) and
precision of decoration. The presence of a small proportion of these ceramics at various locations
throughout the Keffer village suggests that direct long-distance relations occurred between
members of these households, or communities of practice, and peoples producing St. Lawrence
Iroquoian ceramics, hundreds of kilometres to the east.
St. Lawrence and Northern New York–type vessels found in north shore collections, specifically
Durfee Underlined and Roebuck Low Collar, on the other hand, often do not display the
254
characteristics of St. Lawrence valley manufacture. These vessels conform to the type definition
as set out by MacNeish and are therefore typed as such. When these vessels are compared with
vessels of known St. Lawrence provenience, obvious differences become apparent. Potters of
these north shore vessels do not follow the accepted chaîne opératoire of the original practice
community. It now appears that many, if not all, of these north shore vessels were manufactured
locally within north shore villages, while a minority, namely, those characterized by St.
Lawrence Iroquoian production traits, are believed to be of foreign manufacture. The presence of
locally made “St. Lawrence Iroquoian-style” (Trigger et al. 1980) ceramics on north shore
Iroquoian sites has been acknowledged for several decades. A study involving chemical analysis
of these anomalous vessels concluded that “there is no reason to believe that the St. Lawrence
Iroquoian-style sherds were not being manufactured locally” and that “no significant difference”
in the chemical distribution of sherds from either the “local Ontario Iroquoian-style” or St.
Lawrence Iroquoian–style ceramics examined from the Parsons site was apparent (Trigger et al.
1980:128). I have examined vessels from the Parsons site included in this 1980 study and can
confirm that they coincide in appearance with Durfee Underlined vessels found at Keffer and on
other north shore sites. The uniformity of production within the collection of “St. Lawrence
Iroquoian–style” ceramics follows the concept of emergent ceramics (Lee 2006; Fowler 2017).
These new ceramics have often been regarded as “hybrid.” However, in Pendergast’s (1980)
study of St. Lawrence Iroquoian–like ceramics from the Draper site, he regarded hybrid pottery
as a mixture of random ceramic attributes combined haphazardly on various vessels. It is
believed to be the result of contact among distinct ceramic traditions that involved the adoption
of individual traits of interest. Hybrid vessels, following this definition, are found in very small
numbers at Keffer. In a recent study of mixed tradition ceramics in the American Southwest,
Barbara Mills pronounced the term “hybrid” as unhelpful because it describes an object without
providing an explanation for the processes responsible for its appearance (Mills 2018).
Following Wenger’s (1999) work on communities of practice, Mills has categorized these
vessels as “boundary objects” (Mills 2018). These ceramics, however, reflect a distinctive type
of hybrid object. Here, defining traits of ceramics from two different traditions are blended in a
standardized manner, producing vessels of a new “type.” These ceramics clearly reflect the
influence of both traditions and are meant to negotiate a new social reality where the boundary
between the two traditions is erased. The new St. Lawrence—Northern New York “type” vessels
255
found in significant numbers at Keffer are not hybrid ceramics, characterized by random
nonlocal traits applied to Huron vessels, or vice-versa. Neither do they fit the definition of
“boundary objects.” Although they display obvious characteristics or the original iterations of
production of these types, there is no visual evidence of purposeful blending of two traditions to
signify a new joint identity.
Along with the locally made Durfee Underlined vessels, three additional ceramic types found at
Keffer fit this description. These are Roebuck Low Collar, whose prototype also originated in the
St. Lawrence valley, and Otstungo Notched and Rice Diagonal, which are thought to have
Mohawk origins. As discussed in Chapter 4, the fact that these ceramics are found in the
collections of only a few sites on the north shore, and nowhere else in Iroquoia, indicates that
they are local redesigns, or recreations, of nonlocal ceramic types. These types have been divided
into two main categories. The first of these is composed of locally made vessels conforming to
the MacNeish Otstungo Notched type, with 118 vessels, and second is the related Rice Diagonal
type, with 46 vessels.
The Otstungo Notched and Rice Diagonal types are collarless, everted-lip forms characterized by
a long neck and slightly oblong body shape whose widest diameter matches that of the rim.
Otstungo Notched and Rice Diagonal ceramics of Keffer and other sites on the north shore
closely follow the type description of MacNeish but are clearly different from the New York
ceramics (Figure 8-39). These vessels are of more “bold” (Wayne Lenig, personal
communication 2018) construction and decoration. Vessels and rims are of heavier and more
regular form, with precise and well-executed motifs. Unlike New York State vessels, those of the
north shore are commonly decorated with large-scale horizontal line or complex oblique neck
decoration, a trait particularly common east of the Don River at this period, in the Rouge–
Duffins and Trent drainages. The two types are commonly found together on north shore sites
and separated from each other only by a variation in the lip decoration. These everted-lip vessels
belong to a production tradition, or chaîne opératoire, quite distinct from that of north shore
Iroquoian ceramics. They have been amalgamated into a category of ceramics labelled “everted-
lip.” Examples found at Keffer and other north shore sites are very well executed and would
have required a great deal of skill to produce. Although these ceramics are found in large
proportions at Keffer, they appear in much lower proportions on other fifteenth-century north
shore sites.
256
Figure 8-39. Otstungo Notched emergent ceramic from Keffer.
Ceramics fitting the Durfee Underlined type, numbering 76 vessels, and those of the Roebuck
Low Collar type, numbering 50 vessels, are characterized by a very different vessel form from
that of the everted-lip vessels, one much more along the lines of north shore Iroquoian vessels,
with a globular body, constricted neck, and prominent collar. These traditions share a similar
chaîne opératoire. The complex motif and vessel formation of this pottery is generally not well
executed, and less effort appears to have been put into vessel production in general. These
vessels do not show the precision of either construction or decoration seen in St. Lawrence
Iroquoian vessels. They are, however, uniform in construction and decorative characteristics
across the north shore, forming a “subtype” per se. Durfee Underlined vessels in this category
are most often decorated with the simplified SDEA motif (Figure 8-40), as described in Chapter
4. It is seen on some of the north shore Roebuck Low Collar vessels as well, but not with the
same frequency. This motif is not common on St. Lawrence valley–constructed vessels.
Distinction between the two types is heavily based on collar height, with collars of the low collar
257
vessels being under 25 mm and those of Durfee Underline types measuring over 35 mm. High
collar vessels with complex or opposed collar decorations are a hallmark of mid-fifteenth-
century Ontario Iroquoian pottery. Due to the prevalence of the higher-collared Durfee
Underlined vessels over Roebuck Low Collar vessels at this site, ceramics of this second
category are known here simply as Durfee Underlined ceramics. Both the Durfee Underlined and
Roebuck Low Collar vessels, identical to those seen in several other sites across the north shore,
fit the definition of emergent ceramics.
Figure 8-40. Reconstructed Durfee Underlined emergent ceramic from Parsons.

(Williamson and Powis 1998:Figure 20)
These locally manufactured Durfee Underlined and Everted-lip ceramics adhere closely to
characteristics of emergent ceramics that forms the third category of nonlocal ceramics at Keffer.
In the Keffer collection, these emergent vessels make up the majority, 59 percent, of the 495
nonlocal ceramics of known house or midden provenience. Haudenosaunee ceramics comprise
258
38 percent of the nonlocal ceramics, and “exotics” account for only 4.4 percent of the total
nonlocal pottery.
The nonlocal ceramic database used for network analysis subsumes these three nonlocal ceramic
categories into a single variable, that of MacNeish type. Resulting network graphs, as seen above
(Figure 8-34 and Figure 8-35), portray a large component representing one overall ceramic
practice community, segmented but tied together by bridging practices. The distinct nonlocal
practices of NLC Groups 2 and 3 are connected by the practice of NLC Group 1 to form a
unified continuum of ceramic practice.
Participants of NLC Group 1 incorporate practices of NLC Groups 2 and 3 in almost equal
proportions. This is seen most clearly in the almost equal proportions of the two emergent
ceramic categories, with a range of 20 to 36 percent Durfee Underlined vessels and 24 to 26
percent everted-lip ceramics. The total proportion of the emergent vessels in this NLC Group is,
however, much lower than in either of NLC Groups 2 or 3. NLC Group 1, instead, is
characterized by higher usage of vessels assigned by MacNeish to the Five Nations, ranging
from 33 to 48 percent in various ceramic samples. Pottery accredited to each of the Seneca,
Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, and Mohawk territories exist at Keffer, and each of these types is
present in this collection. In NLC Group 1, and in most Keffer collections, the largest portion of
the Haudenosaunee ceramics is of Onondaga affiliation, the vast majority of which are of the
Syracuse Incised type. The second most common type is Mohawk Wagoner Incised. Pratt (1980)
has conflated these two types into the joint Syracuse-Wagoner Incised type, which composes up
to 50 percent of the Haudenosaunee type ceramics in NLC Group 1 and 41 percent at Keffer
overall. In addition to a substantial presence of Haudenosaunee ceramics, the core NLC Group 1
ceramic samples of Middens 65, 61, and 77 contain 11 of the 21 exotics found at Keffer, or 52
percent. Of these, 10 are found in the southern Cluster D Middens 65 and 77.
Compared with NLC Group 1, NLC Group 2 has a ceramic profile dominated by slightly higher
proportions of Durfee Underlined ceramics, ranging between 30 and 50 percent, and lower
proportions of everted-lip ceramics, ranging between 17 and 36 percent, in its robust sample.
Haudenosaunee ceramics comprise a smaller proportion of the ceramics sample, ranging from 14
to 28 percent of NLC Group 2. With the exception of Midden 80, a collection with only six
nonlocal vessels, exotic ceramics are found in the collections of all core members of NLC
259
Groups 1 and 2. Four exotic vessels are found in the Cluster A Midden 60. The remaining three
belong to House 20 and Midden 71, both of which are located alongside Middens 65 and 77, in
Cluster D.
The nonlocal ceramics of NLC Group 3 are characterized by distinctive differences from those of
NLC Groups 1 and 2, as seen in the network graphs. The ceramic profile of Middens 62 and 74,
which form the practice core, is distinguished by the high proportion of Everted-lip ceramics, 65
and 52 percent, respectively. Durfee Underlined vessels, on the other hand, make up only 6 and
13 percent of the nonlocal pottery, whereas 25 to 35 percent of the samples are composed of
Haudenosaunee type ceramics. This is similar to the proportions in NLC Group 2, but much
lower than those in NLC Group 1. Midden 74, the second largest ceramic collection at the site,
with 60 nonlocal vessels, also has 1 exotic vessel. The large size and long duration of this
midden may have allowed for refuse deposition from houses of other nonlocal ceramic NLC
Groups, particularly after the removal of House 12. Allocation of this exotic to another NLC
Group is supported by the absence of exotics in Midden 62. This collection has the largest
proportion of nonlocal ceramics, 25 percent, of any ceramic sample in the village.
The divergent ceramic profiles of NLC Groups 2 and 3 suggest a continuum of nonlocal practice
within both the settlement cluster and the village. This scale of ceramic similarity and difference
is marked at either extremity by the practice of these NLC Groups and is reflective of their node
positions at alternate topological ends of the high-level network components. The topological
bridging position of NLC Group 1, between the NLC Group 2 and 3 components, is indicative of
the central role its members play in bonding these two communities of practice.
Lower, but equal, proportions of both emergent ceramic sets and the larger proportion of
Haudenosaunee tradition ceramics in the NLC Group 1 samples, when compared with those of
NLC Groups 2 and 3, suggests that the emergent ceramics are less important as markers of
distinctive identity for this intermediary NLC Group. Identities associated with the two distinct
emergent ceramic sets are of more concern to the members of NLC Groups 2 and 3 communities.
What aspect of identity these ceramics relay, perhaps kin relations or clan membership, is the
subject of conjecture.
260
Shared Local and Nonlocal Practice at Keffer

The ceramics characteristic of each of these three individual practices are situated along the
continuum of overall nonlocal ceramic practice at Keffer. As most of the earliest and latest
deposits are absent from the core NLC Groups, social factors, rather than chronology, appear to
exert the most influence on this continuum. Local tradition ceramics, separated into delineated
spheres of practice, also occur along a cline. Both social and temporal elements are factors in the
distribution of these practices, however.
The assignment of the Keffer nonlocal ceramics into separate, but linked, practice NLC Groups,
which are archaeological constructs, permits comparison of elements of nonlocal practice with
those of the local tradition practices for the exploration of separate, multiple, coinciding, or
multiscalar identities, in order to understand the processes that created them and why they
disappeared.
The separation of the local and nonlocal ceramic databases facilitates exploratory analysis into
the possible overlap in these two practices at Keffer. Correlation of the NLC Group members
results in a series of four arrays of shared local and nonlocal practice (Table 8-7, Figure 8-41).
As a reflection of the tight small world clusters with few nodes displayed in the nonlocal practice
graphs, early and late settlement features and those with small nonlocal ceramic samples are
absent from these arrays.
Table 8-7. Shared Local and Nonlocal Ceramic Practice.
Shared NLC Group/Community of Nodes at < BR

Practice Array Practice Core Nodes at BR 140 130
1 NLC Group 1/CoP 2 61 (14), 77
2 NLC Group 2/CoP 2 60, 66, 71, 80 1, 59 (16)
2 NLC Group 2/CoP 1 13, 20
3 NLC Group 3/CoP 3 74 (12), 62 (18) 12

261
Figure 8-41. Shared local and nonlocal ceramic practice at Keffer.
Network topology of the nonlocal ceramics demonstrates the close relationship between NLC
Groups 1 and 2, linking them at the BR 130 similarity level. This consonance is reflected in the
presence of these NLC Groups within the same local tradition community of practice, CoP 2.
The assignment of Midden 65 to the earlier practice community, local tradition CoP 3, is a
reflection of the partially temporal nature of the local practice communities and explains Midden
65’s absence in Array 1 despite its high proportion of nonlocal ceramics. The early chronological
262
placement of Midden 65 is partially due to its extensive period of use throughout the lifetime of
the village. During early periods, of less dense occupation, perhaps prior to the introduction of
large proportions of nonlocal ceramics, Midden 65, located in a slight depression in open area
easily accessible to residents of the village’s east side, was possibly a repository with large-scale
use, thus leading to the large deposits of early local tradition ceramics. Later village infilling, and
crowding with additional longhouses, would lead to more localized use of Midden 65 by nearby
residences, Houses 4, 11, 20, and, perhaps, also House 19, a member of the same nonlocal
ceramic practice. This would account for differences in use patterns of this midden, as seen in the
two separate spheres of local and nonlocal ceramic practice.
The co-existence of Middens 77 and 61 within Array 1 (Figure 8-41) suggest the existence of
shared overall practices for Midden 77, just outside House 19, and Midden 61, a proxy for House
14 (Table 8-8). Both middens appear on the site in the Map 3 stage of development (Figure 8-27)
and are characterized by large proportions, over 70 percent, of undecorated neck ceramics.
Midden 61’s (and therefore House 14’s) shared local and nonlocal practices, which separate it
from the practices of Houses 12, 13, and 18, illustrate the existence of very different ceramic
practices side by side in this plateau-top settlement cluster.
Table 8-8. Summary of Ceramic Practices at Keffer.

Local
Tradition Nonlocal Shared Local–
Practice Practice Nonlocal Practice Geographical Area with Highest
Loci Map Sphere Group Array Ties
H15 1 5 Don
M67 1 5 Don
M68 1 5 Don
H1 2 2 2 2 Logan
M74 2 3 3 3 Logan, Don
M57 2 5 1 Don
M55 2 5 2 Don
H12 2 3 3 Don
M75 2 5 3 Don
H10 2 2 Prince Edward County, Humber
H9 2 2 Simcoe, Humber
H8 2 3 Don
M56 2 3 Logan, Don
H7 2 4 Humber
H3 2 5 Credit
M51 2 5 Don
263
M53 2 5 Don
M78 2 5 Don
M61–H14 3 2 1 1 Humber
M77 3 2 1 1 Logan, Don
H13 3 1 2 2 Logan, Don
H20 3 1 2 2 Logan, Trent
M60 3 2 2 2 Humber
M80 3 2 2 2 Logan
M62–H18 3 3 3 3 Logan, Don
M65 3 3 1 Don
M72 3 3 2 Logan, Don
M73 3 3 2 Humber, Don
H11 4 4 Simcoe
M59–H16 5 2 2 2 Simcoe, Humber
M66 5 2 2 2 Humber, Simcoe
M71 5 2 2 2 Logan, Simcoe
M52 5 2 Logan, Don
M63 5 2 Simcoe, Humber
H2 5 4 Humber, Simcoe
H4 5 4 Humber
H6 5 4 Simcoe
H19 6 4 1 Humber, Prince Edward County
M54 8 2 Humber, Logan
In Array 2, members of NLC Group 2 and CoP 2 include Midden 60 and House 1 in Cluster A to
the north; Middens 59, 66, and 80 on the plateau; and Midden 71, beside House 20, in Cluster D
to the south. Like the pottery of Array 1, the local tradition ceramics of this NLC Group date its
members to the time of the expansion and infilling of the original village before the extension of
Palisade 1. Local tradition ceramics of this period includes high levels of undecorated neck
vessels and a small proportion of Neutral ceramics. Local tradition ceramics of CoP 1, composed
of the highly similar local tradition ceramics of Houses13 and 20, differ only in the absence of
Neutral ceramics. The House 13 nodes are located at the heart of the nonlocal NLC Group 3
component. Nonlocal ceramics of this NLC Group are dominated by the Durfee Underlined
emergent ceramics and possess several exotic vessels, implying direct links with ceramic
practices of and people to the east. This eastern orientation in the ceramic practice might explain
the absence of the western influence, seen in absence of Neutral ceramics. The very close
relationship in the local tradition ceramic practices of Houses 13 and 20 has led to the merging of
the two local tradition communities of practice, CoP 1 and CoP 2. Houses 13 and 20 therefore
join Array 2. The shared local and nonlocal practices of this NLC Group spread throughout the
264
village. Spatially, House 13 and Midden 80 anchor this practice NLC Group on the east side of
the plateau, alongside House 14 of Array 1 and House 12 of Array 3. To the east of House 13,
the later House 16 is represented by Midden 59. Both local and nonlocal ceramics suggest that
the members of House 16 share similar practices with House 13. The use of Midden 66 by the
members of House 13b after the removal of House 12 has been suggested earlier. The creation of
a pathway across the remains of House 12, from Houses 13 and 16 to Midden 66, at this time
would explain the matching ceramic patterns of the two residences. The late erection of House
16 and its short period of occupation may suggest, along with the similarity in ceramic practices
that the residents of House 16 were in some way matrilineally related to those of House 13. The
long occupation of the village makes it possible that this household is a spinoff from that of
House 13.
Down slope from House 13 are House 20 and the neighbouring, late Midden 71. The earlier
profile of the ceramics from Midden 77, to the south of Midden 71, indicates its use by early
occupants of House 20. Midden 71 was added later, when House 19 was built, towards the end of
the village occupation. Midden 71, then, represents the later stage of the House 20 communities
of practice. The ceramic practices of House 20, as noted, are highly connected with those of
House 13.
Midden 60 and House 1, beside it, in the northern low town area, also belong to Array 2. The
high proportion of emergent type Durfee Underlined vessels in Midden 60 indicates that other
houses besides House 1—possibly Houses 2, 6, and 7—may have used this midden for refuse
disposal and thus belonged to this NLC Group.
There is a direct correlation between the members of the nonlocal ceramic NLC Group3 and the
local tradition CoP 3, as seen in Array 3 (Table 8-7). The ceramics of these two households on
the west side of the plaza are distinct in both the local and nonlocal ceramic spheres. This close
and distinct ceramic relationship is complicated by the temporal differences between the
longhouses. House 12 is one of the earliest houses to be constructed at the site. House 18a may
have been constructed soon after, but it was not extended until the removal of House 12. The
first, small construction of House 18a was likely home to kin of the House 12 residents and may
have been created when some members of this very crowded house decided to begin a new
household. The distinct nature of the ceramic ties between the houses suggests that the residents
265
of House 12 relocated to the northern portion of the plateau and joined the House 18 household
upon the large-scale expansion of House 18c. It is unlikely that this house was constructed by
members of another community because the distinctive emergent ceramics of these two houses
are not known to be present in large proportions elsewhere on the north shore, or in Iroquoia.
Local tradition ceramics of these deposits, with low proportions of undecorated neck ceramics,
67 to 70 percent, and high proportions of decorated neck ceramics, 16 to 25 percent, attest to an
early date for the construction of House 12 and a slightly later date for House 18. This
chronology, with both the local and nonlocal ceramics of Array 3 predating most collections of
Arrays 1 and 2, may signify a temporal disparity between the employment of the Durfee
Underlined and Otstungo Notched ceramic sets. The production of the Otstungo Notched and
Rice Diagonal vessels may have first appeared at Keffer with the construction of House 12, in
the first stage of village growth, while House 15b occupied the central portion of the plateau.
With the construction, occupation, and expansion of House 18, the popularity of these vessels,
particularly Otstungo Notched, increased. Although these are the only two residences where this
pottery dominated the nonlocal practice to this extent, the practice spread throughout the village.
Members of NLC Group 1 show evidence of consumption and deposition of these vessels in
quite large proportions. Participants of NLC Group 2 practice also used these vessels, but in
much smaller proportions than seen in other locations. Production of the vessels may have
required special skills not possessed by all residents of the village, and it is probable that these
well-made ceramics originated, or were produced, in the practice communities of Houses 12 and,
later, 18, and the subsequently shared with other village occupants.
Discussion
Ceramic practices at the Keffer village are characterized by continuity, diversity, and change
through time. Ceramics of the first settlement at Keffer indicate close relations, and possibly the
origin of the village, with slightly earlier and contemporary local Don valley communities. The
early stages of growth at the village, seen in the construction of three residential clusters
surrounded by a one-row palisade, occur as the first ceramics of St. Lawrence and New York
State Iroquoians appear on sites along the north shore. Local tradition ceramics already in use at
Keffer display some diversity among the practices of the various households. This diversity rests
on a continuum of small-scale temporal differences and is the product of the origin and kin ties
of these families. Even at this early stage in the village’s history, local tradition ceramic practice
266
separate into two dominant communities, CoP 2 and 3. Members of these separate communities
of practice are dispersed in various settlement clusters across the village in a transition from the
early Don valley community influence. An influx of ceramics that are not part of the traditional
practice within the Keffer community occurs soon after the establishment of the village, with
small proportions of vessels typical of the New York Finger Lakes region. These occur in
varying amounts in refuse deposits across the village and suggest that the Keffer residents were
part of the larger north shore interaction network that was moving these nonlocal ceramics into
the area. Concomitantly, an entirely new form of ceramic, totally foreign to the practices of north
shore Iroquoians, appears in large proportions in two highly related households on the village
plateau that share a unique local tradition sphere of practice with one early longhouse situated in
the lower level of the village. This beautifully produced, everted-lip vessel form is a re-creation
of vessels originally established in the Onondaga region. This new ceramic is found on only a
few sites along the north shore of Lake Ontario, and its production may have centred on this
community of practice at the Keffer village because manufacture of this pottery entails
knowledge and skills not used in the production of Ontario Iroquoian ceramics. This new and
unique pottery was meant to be noticed by others, communicating a message of a divergent
identity despite local tradition ceramics indicating a local Don valley origin for the inhabitants of
these houses. The debut of a previously unused vessel form might indicate an accompanying new
culinary, perhaps feasting, practice. As use of this pottery spreads to varying extents across the
village, a second new ceramic is introduced into community practice. This new emergent Durfee
Underlined ceramic is more common than the everted-lip pottery on other contemporary north
shore sites. At Keffer, emergent Durfee Underlined is associated with the practice of a second,
but slightly newer, residential group also centred on the village plateau. Shared local and
nonlocal ceramic practices with the newly established longhouse erected outside the original
palisade indicate that strong, perhaps kin-related, regional connections influenced village growth.
External ties of village households began to shift away from the Don drainage, with new ties
developing with a possible northern special-purpose site and to later Humber and Trent valley
sites. These new relations may be reflected in the newly appearing pottery. The Durfee
Underlined ceramics, though quite different from other ceramics of the north shore, were
produced with similar manufacturing techniques and could possibly have been produced by most
potters at Keffer. This new ceramic does not display the investment of time and skill seen in the
everted-lip ceramics, and this is true of emergent Durfee Underlined vessels found across the
267
north shore. It appears that the message communicated by these ceramics is quite different than
that of the everted-lip pottery. This new practice spread more widely throughout the village, but
it continued to be most popular in the practice community in which it first appears. The two
distinct practice groups adopt each other’s unique emergent vessels, though in much lower
proportions than those of their own. Ceramic messaging of these groups was mediated by a third
group, which shared in both of these new practices equally, but which also seems more
connected to external ties that brought in pottery from New York state communities. The largest
local community of practice, which includes most houses in the lower village and three of the
five houses in the upper village, was split between these newer nonlocal practice groups. By this
time, household ties were strongly oriented to the later Humber Damiani village and various
settlements in Simcoe County. The late introduction of exotic Durfee Underlined vessels of
foreign production indicates that these latter two groups maintained stronger external ties with
St. Lawrence and Northern New York groups, while the first group remains more isolated. With
the introduction of two new longhouses and the expansion of the palisade to include them, local
tradition practice of the village shifts as neck decoration becomes less popular. The
amalgamation of the earlier, first practice group into one expanded longhouse on the plateau
towards the end of the village occupation signals their diminishing influence. Although everted-
lip ceramics are seen in small proportions on contemporary north shore sites, the practice
disappeared with the demise of the Keffer village. Emergent Durfee Underlined vessels also
diminished in proportions as communities from the Don valley eastwards moved out of the north
shore. The importance of communicating the diverse identities expressed in newly emergent
ceramics weakened with the abandonment of Keffer and surrounding villages.
268
9 Conclusions
In this thesis, I reveal the independent and active nature of local and nonlocal ceramic practices
of household social units, thus uncovering the multilevel nature of relational identity as reflected
in joint communities of practice. I differentiate individual spheres of local tradition ceramic
practice and discern co-existent, on-site, nonlocal tradition practices within the social and
temporal village practice continuum through the use of social network and typological seriation
analysis. The main focus of this research is the detection of multiple domains of emergent group
identity as identified through ceramic relations.
The underlying foundation of this research is the relational, fluid, contingent, and emergent
nature of identity and society. This identity itself is intricately linked with social distance among
people (Lyons and Clark 2008), which eschews boundaries in relationships, instead
acknowledging their clinal nature. Social distance is in a constant state of flux between two
entities as a result of unconscious and intentional agency within these relationships.
Communities of practice entail a basic form of social relationship that occurs at multiple levels
and is materialized in the archaeological record. Social network analysis has explored changing
social relations within and beyond the Keffer village. I identified social relationships forming
communities of practice through the identification of patterned spheres of practice as reflected in
the networked ceramic data. Thus, network analysis is an appropriate tool for the detection of
communities of practice within ceramic production and consumption across the Keffer village.
I reconstructed the changing occupation and spatial organization of the Keffer village through
the integration of multiple methodologies. Settlement pattern analysis combined with
stratigraphic studies and the network analysis of ceramic connectivity revealed different periods
of aggregation. In-depth research into specific house and midden ceramic type profiles verified
network interpretations and added nuance to the sequence. This multilayered process resulted in
an array of eight synthetically delineated stages illustrating the progression of the village’s
construction and occupation. The combination of methodologies results in a nuanced
developmental sequence documenting the internal and external ceramically affiliated relations
and consequent population movement within the village.
Further network analysis, combining village loci and pan-Iroquoian ceramics, implemented for
both the local and nonlocal spheres, adds insight into external relations of the village site as a
269
historical and social entity, and also into the internal and external relations of each of its
households and ceramic communities of practice. Local tradition network analyses led to the
identification of reasonable and specific local origins for many of the original village households.
Ceramic similarities among later houses and other southern Ontario Iroquoian villages document
the general path of shared ceramic change at Keffer through its lifetime, ultimately suggesting
the hypothetical destination of the final inhabitants as they moved on from the Keffer village.
Network analysis in archaeology has been used almost exclusively during the past decade to
examine regional and long-distance trade and interaction. In contrast, the exploration of the
dynamics of close, matrilineally tied, kin-based social relationships within the village and local
intra-drainage community performed in this thesis demonstrates the potential of social network
analysis for multiscalar investigation—from the microcosm of household refuse deposition
patterning and matrilineally based intra-village relations to macrolevel, pan-Iroquoian ceramic
emulation and interaction. Analysis of two ceramic realms, local tradition and nonlocal tradition
ceramic types, proved instrumental in the detection of two interrelated spheres of ceramic
practice. Long-held, matrilineal, intra-lineage-based praxis of pottery production and
consumption is displayed in the patterning of traditional ceramic types. At Keffer, ceramic
distribution patterns reflect two primary communities of traditional Ontario Iroquoian ceramic
practice within the village. These two groups are only partly spatially defined, but their influence
is spread throughout households across the village, suggesting that social proximity in the form
of matrilineal relations is not the prime factor in longhouse location. Change within this praxis
over time is revealed through the application of the temporal patterning, as seen in village
development, to the local tradition communities of practice. As discussed in Chapter 8, the
analysis also identified unique nonlocal tradition ceramic practice communities within the
village, as well as extra-village interaction spheres. Results of this work confirm the value of this
approach in multiscalar applications when used in conjunction with the validation of visualized
patterning through a secondary methodology.
Large-scale, pan-Iroquoian networks affirm that Iroquoian peoples of southern Ontario, and
beyond, cannot be lumped together into one larger group, or polity. Instead, each drainage-based
community, and in fact each village and household, were characterized by distinct historical
trajectories and fluid, constantly emerging social identity. Kinship-based social relations are at
the core of this multifaceted identity (Birch 2008; Creese 2012; Sioui 1999). These complex, kin-
270
based relational identities are expressed by the separate, but associated, local and nonlocal
pottery traditions.
Individual, matrilineally based household social groups comprised the fifteenth-century

Iroquoian centre of power and decision making (Creese 2010). These social groups within the
Keffer village were highly involved in a complex network of locally oriented, kin-based ceramic
communities of practice. Simultaneous involvement in independent transactions with long-
distance partners, as seen in the incorporation of nonlocal ceramic practices into the local
household practice, reflects the multiscalar and complex nature of these kin-based identities.
The separation of the ceramic collection at Keffer into local tradition and nonlocal tradition types
enabled the exposure of alternate yet related spheres of social interaction in terms of ceramic
practice. Local tradition ceramics produced within long-standing matrilineal kinship networks
reflect the habitus and the chaîne opératoire of the producers and the enculturation of the
learners within domestic contexts. Shared practices therefore may reflect kin-related households
within the village. The village itself is a fluid alliance of extended matrilineal families, each of
which is constantly manipulating its relations and identity through agency. Membership within
communities of ceramic practice, both local and nonlocal, does not reflect only one aspect of
identity. The independent agency of the households within kin groups is evident in the diversity
of external ties they hold, as seen in the distinct nonlocal ceramic collections. External ties and
interaction patterns may thus be shared according to alternate guidelines prescribed by inclusion
in these, or other, peer collectives. Communities of practice, in this case matrilineally based
families, are fluid. Alliances and external relationships are changing. At some level of similarity,
all Iroquoian ceramicists belong to the same community of practice and share in one larger
identity, as “kinship is the core of Iroquoian society...through which all social relations were
configured” (Birch 2008:207). This work, however, illustrates the multiplicity of relational
identities that can be detected when identity is broken into its constituent parts, and it
underscores the importance of rejecting the normative view of bounded culture, where the
archaeological record of individual sites is constituted as a bounded and unified whole.
Local tradition network ties suggest that the first settlers of Keffer arrived from a nearby
community in the Don River drainage. This may have been prior to the establishment of
widespread interaction among the Don valley communities and those of eastern Ontario, since no
271
nonlocal ceramics appear in this early settlement. They were followed soon after by additional
Don valley inhabitants, and by the mid-life occupation of the village, newcomers bring
indications of strengthening long-distance interaction with the communities of the St. Lawrence
valley and the Eastern Iroquois. These long-distance relationships are materialized in multiple
ceramic domains and reflect varying communities of ceramic practice. Ceramics of all five
Haudenosaunee regions are found in most nonlocal ceramic collections at Keffer. They begin to
appear after the first quarter of the fifteenth century and decline after the turn of the sixteenth
century. Their presence likely does not indicate direct personal contact of north shore
communities with those of the Haudenosaunee, it does but reflect some level of participation in
this extensive north shore interaction sphere, as many north shore sites contain very similar
ceramics. In contrast, the presence of exotics from the St. Lawrence valley in limited deposits
likely suggests that the households who created these deposits may have held direct ties with
communities to the east.
The recognition of a new, previously unidentified ceramic practice at the Keffer village reflects
the appearance within the community of expressions of newly emerging identities. Emergent
vessels are characterized by two distinct and unrelated ceramic forms, the well-executed,
everted-lip jar form, likely produced at the Keffer site, and the locally produced north shore
pottery conforming to the Durfee Underlined type. Unlike the everted-lip vessels, the Durfee
Underlined vessels belong to a pottery “subtype” seen in other north shore collections.
Therefore, their presence does not indicate direct contact with the producers of the original
Durfee Underlined type vessels. The everted-lip ceramics are almost unique to the Keffer village
and communicate a very different identity and/or related consumption activity than any
previously seen. The unique vessel form may also reflect new feasting activity. These ceramics
are purposely employed to indicate one distinct aspect of this group identity. They are not
indicative of external, ongoing trade networks because they are unique throughout Iroquoia to
this practice group. The emergence of the everted-lip pottery reflects the creation of a new
identity within the female potting community. It may also reflect change in the identity of related
males, as they are the most prominent participants in feasting activities. The emergence,
proliferation, and demise of this ceramic by the end of the Keffer occupation indicates that
dynamic fluctuation in social relations and identity formation occurred with changing
membership in the village community. The appearance of vessels of this type at the Parsons and
272
Draper sites may indicate direct interaction among the three villages, conventionally believed to
be contemporary occupations.
In contrast, the emergent Durfee Underlined vessels are found on many fifteenth-century sites
across the north shore. The conformity in motif on these vessels may indicate specialized
production within one site, but more research is needed to confirm this. The more widespread
presence of this pottery indicates a more extensive interaction sphere for these vessels. Both of
these emergent ceramics are the basis for differing ceramic practice communities at Keffer,
which correspond with somewhat unique local tradition ceramic practices. Numerous layers of
practice are performed simultaneously by members of the same household. There may be
correlation of these layers in some cases, but in other instances potters use local and nonlocal
ceramic practice to communicate flexible and disparate identities.
This study has shown that the separation of ceramic collections into separate and unique
practices reflecting different spheres of praxis aids in our understanding of the processes
involved in the formation of multilevel identities. Each sphere is reflective of the existence of
different levels in the clinal relationship of social distance. Ceramics produced within long-
standing matrilineal kinship networks, termed local tradition ceramics, reflect the habitus of the
producers in the chaînes opératoires and enculturation of learners within domestic contexts. The
distinction between locally made and foreign-made ceramics helps us to distinguish between
relationships. This study has also reinforced recent pronouncements by other researchers (Birch
et al. 2017; Bursey 1996; Habiba et al. 2018; Mills 2017) on the relevance of ceramic typology in
the study of regional relationships. In this instance, it has proven essential to the understanding
of dynamics involved in the patterns detected, but not explained, through network analysis.
Through a combination of network analysis, ceramic seriation, and settlement pattern study, a
complex history of the Keffer settlement is unveiled. At Keffer, the first construction of the
village occurs with the erection of a small longhouse or cabin, possibly a construction or special-
purpose cabin, on the central plateau by local peoples from nearby Don River drainage
communities, perhaps the contemporary McNair village. Ceramics suggest a lack of external
nonlocal interaction at this first cabin, unsurprising considering the labour-intensive focus of
these first inhabitants. An influx of local Don drainage people follows after a short period of
occupation. At this time, the first house is doubled in size and a second longhouse is added to the
273
plateau to accommodate these new residents. This growth is accompanied by the construction of
two clusters of three longhouses each on the lower terrace. This newly expanded settlement is
surrounded by a one-row village palisade, marking the social unification of the community.
Inhabitants of the Don valley Risebrough and Watford communities or other nearby communities
are likely settlers of these lower-terrace longhouses, as seen in associated early surface refuse
deposits. Two of these new households in the low town share ceramic practices with the
residents of the first cabin and may be kin from nearby settlements. With growth of the village
population, the need for additional housing results in the demolition of the first longhouse and its
replacement with three tightly spaced houses crowded on the plateau. Residents of the original
longhouse, now occupying one of the newly built structures, are soon joined by a kin group in a
newly constructed longhouses located close by, just outside the village palisade wall. Pottery of
these two households displays shared practices and relations in the realms of both local and
nonlocal ceramic practices. By this time, the small, household-associated surface middens are
generally abandoned because new, shared hillside middens are required for the large amount of
refuse produced by the growing number of households. Over the course of the occupation, three
distinct but related spheres of local ceramic practice exist among the high town residents. The
two households aligned along the west side of the plateau share ceramic profiles with at least one
household in the low town. A second practice sphere with similar but slightly later ceramics
appears on the east side of the plateau, and a third practice of marginally later local ceramics,
reflecting the long-term occupation of the plateau, is seen towards the north of the plateau. These
three ceramic practice spheres occur in three neighbouring households within one settlement
cluster.
At this point, the Keffer village is densely packed within the first palisade. There is little room
for structural expansion and no room for additional longhouses. Therefore, the newest incoming
household, though related by kinship to the village’s first occupants, as reflected in the form of
their ceramic practice, must build outside the palisade. Genetic and ceramic similarities suggest
people of this household are close biological relatives of the occupants of a small special-purpose
cabin at Hidden Spring, located nearby, perhaps an agricultural cabin. This new longhouse is
built in the closest proximity possible to their kin on the plateau surface. Many households from
this middle period of the occupation at Keffer display their highest ceramic similarities with the
small Logan site in the resource-rich higher lands of the Oak Ridges Moraine. Hidden Spring had
274
only two examples of nonlocal ceramics. With no nonlocal ceramics, Logan may also be a
special-purpose site connected with Keffer.
After the construction of a second longhouse exterior to the village wall, the entire original
palisade was removed, and the palisaded area was expanded to incorporate both households. The
large-scale remodelling and expansion of the village included the extension of several
longhouses on both elevations. Additional longhouse realignments and new longhouse
construction in the low town mark a period of great population growth in the village. These new
villagers, like those before them, arrived from local Don River valley settlements. With little
room left in the village area, one last longhouse is squeezed inside the palisade. Finally, another,
the last to be built at the site, is erected in the remaining space outside the palisade. With these
last households, ceramic practices shift and become more reminiscent of the later Wendat
ceramics of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. This last household is accepted into the
village proper with the expansion of the outer palisade around the house exterior. The occupation
of this last house is brief. Soon after its inclusion within the palisade, the house is torn down,
along with a second recently built house in the north end of the village and a third located in the
village centre. Occupation of the village continued for some time after this event; however, the
central planning which coincided with the expansion of the village now disappears. The
relatively small size of the surface middens which appear at this time suggests that occupation of
the village did not continue for long after the first houses were removed. Ceramic similarities
suggest that the marginally later Damiani village, in the neighbouring Humber River watershed,
was the destination of at least a portion of the Keffer population. Ties with northern sites indicate
that a strengthening of relations in that direction was also occurring at the end of the fifteenth
century.
Planning objectives of both the household and the community level changed over time at Keffer.
This began with the first houses being planned at the individual household level, with no view to
longer-term community growth. This is apparent in the erection of this first house diagonally
across the plateau in an orientation that precluded large-scale development in the area. Refuse
deposits in this early period also reflect a lack of long-term planning, as small surface middens
are located across the low town area. In the low town, the alignment of two clusters that
appeared in the first stage suggests local family decisions, not a unified community–level
process. As the village grew, increased planning occurred. The erection of Palisade 2 and the
275
realignment of new houses at the community level reflect community planning. At least one of
these houses was soon dismantled, and the occupants relocated to the neighbouring house, which
expanded overtop its footprint. With the fluid nature of households in Iroquoian communities,
this change could simply reflect a change in household configuration. It may not be indicative of
poor planning. As Birch mentions for Mantle (2010), use of large, community-based middens,
which begins with the first infilling of the village, also suggests village-level organization.
Village-level planning, however, was sporadic, as continual change and fluid, perhaps
unplanned, village membership was the norm at Keffer.
The unplanned and flexible nature of the Keffer village occupation may have been dictated to
some extent by appeals or requests of close kin living in local villages. Keffer was a small hamlet
that continued to sporadically attract small numbers of new residents. Local tradition ceramics
indicate that most newcomers originated in the local Don River drainage area. Nonlocal tradition
ceramics suggest that the groups who arrived after the first households already had well-
established long-distance ties to communities in the east. This is a period when interaction across
the north shore was well established and expanding and when interaction was intensifying with
Iroquoian communities in Quebec and New York. During the period of Damiani’s first
occupation, ceramics characteristic of long-distance interaction continued to appear, but in lower
proportions, indicating weakening ties with people of the St. Lawrence valley and Eastern
Iroquois area.
This study has shown that newcomers placed outside the village palisade may not, in fact, be in
any way socially distant. Pragmatism may have been the deciding factor in the location of new
structures, rather than social exclusion, as was previously believed (for example, by Finlayson
[1985]). Space may be a determinant not just in village-level organization, but also in decisions
regarding possible destinations of households as they relocated outside of the village into new
communities. It is possible that these communities, like Keffer, experienced processes of long-
term, unplanned, and casual growth fuelled by the immigration of various kin-related households
over the course of decades. This pattern of growth contrasts sharply with the unique coalescence
seen at the contemporary Rouge–Duffins Draper site. While in the Keffer village growth was at
least partially based on movement of households of nearby villages into a spatial relationship
with existing members after the initial settlement construction, no episode of expansion is sizable
enough to represent the incursion of entire village populations. Village growth as seen at Keffer
276
may be more typical of Don–Humber drainage villages, reflecting the complex web of inter-
drainage ceramic relations negotiated at the level of the family and household, as illustrated in
the network graphs, and controlled by the agency of each household and each family. As Birch
and Williamson (2013) suggest, each community followed its own path in the course of
community aggregation and separation.
The creation, growth, and final abandonment of the Keffer village do not represent the lifespan
and movement of a single, united community. This village is instead an alliance of extended
matrilineal families originating in related but separate north shore Iroquoian communities from
within the local drainage system. Village growth and decline depended on the fluid agency of the
individual household and those of its kin as they moved into, within, and out of the village,
changing alliances and constantly increasing and decreasing the social distance of each
relationship. Settlement clusters may have originated as kin-based units, but long-term
occupation over the course of several decades eradicated evidence of this early habitation. The
last period of occupation in the archaeological record contains traces of only the last longhouse
residents. At Keffer, the last houses within cluster formations do not share either local or
nonlocal ceramics practices, indicating that kin-based ties may not be the basis of this
cohabitation. This residential pattern may instead be subject to local social and practical
contingencies. Without further research in this area, we can no longer assume that kin ties are the
core of cluster formation.
Though it is not the largest north shore site, the Keffer village may be the longest-occupied
settlement in the region. Keffer alone shows evidence of repeated reconstruction of longhouses
within the same footprint, most likely due to structural deterioration. The rebuilding, in lieu of
relocation, of the village may be due to its beneficial location. Situated at the edge of the
moraine, and south of the passageway between the Logan and Beeton sites, Keffer had access to
the vast resources of the till plain agricultural fields, a large river drainage basin, and the forests
and fauna of the uplands. Ceramic similarity indicates a close connection between Keffer and
Logan. The small Logan settlement may have served as a hunting cabin for Keffer or as a trading
post for the exchange of food resources and deer between Keffer and recently settled
communities in Simcoe County, north of the Oak Ridges Moraine.
277
This study contributes directly to three domains of scholarship. Most noticeably, it augments the
growing empirical record pertaining to the culture history of the greater pre-contact Iroquoian
world and the occupation history and dynamics of Iroquoian lifeways on the north shore of Lake
Ontario, while providing insights into the small-scale relations of one village. This work also
introduced the integration of alternative theoretical treatments of this empirical data through
some novel, and increasingly popular, approaches and methodologies. In the paradigm employed
here, identity is seen as relational, social distance is presented as a measure of social relations,
and identity emerges in the constructs of communities of practice. The integration of a
communities of practice approach at the level of the household has shown that identity and
agency are accessible at the most intimate scales. I have shown that communities of practice
underwrote the construction, change, and continuity of identity.
The relational and multiscalar nature of identity as mediated by ceramic practices is amenable to
social network analysis. While network analysis of macro-regional and regional-scale relations is
an area of widening archaeological interest, network analysis at the microscale of intra-village
relations as employed here is novel and has been proved effective in detecting micro-scale social
relations and likely kin-based identities. Examination of relations at this scale is essential to
interpreting the culture of fifteenth-century Iroquoians and that of other small-scale societies,
based on the household (Creese 2010) and organized through the “vast system of kinship” (Sioui
1999:xi).
With some recent exceptions, the Iroquoian village is commonly depicted as a complete social
unit in and of itself. Analysis of the Keffer communities of practice demonstrates that this
conflation masks the true nature of the social interactions and relationships occurring both within
the village, within settlement clusters in the village, and in the external relationships of
households, communities, and the entire village. My analysis has demonstrated that even co-eval
families within the same cluster maintained differing external interaction spheres. Each cluster is
not inevitably representative of an individual village moving into the site. The reconfigurations
of internal village layout at Keffer, which occurred with the expansion of the palisade and the
integration of previously external households, is reflective of social fluidity, as previously
excluded kin-based households were brought into the social relations of the village.
278
The possibilities for future research are endless. Future work could place more emphasis on
social relations as the foundation and mechanism bonding Iroquoian society at all levels, from
the household, to historic-period Nations, to the Wendat of today. Such work will necessitate
division and analysis of the archaeological record into pieces that can reflect these relations at all
levels. Social network analysis and the concept of emergent “assemblages” hold great promise
for the examination of social relations at multiple scales. Network analysis has provided an
effective tool to explore social relationships within the microcosm of the village. Further
investigations of additional forms of material culture and reanalysis of more detailed, intra-house
provenance information available in recent site reports will further improve the study of small-
scale social relations at the level of the nuclear family.
One of the core goals of this work was to offer a contribution to the growing body of research
that promotes a greater understanding of the southern Ontario Iroquoians as active agents of
culture. The in-depth ceramic seriation produced here has produced a solid relational chronology
which may provide a model for further refinement of carbon dating through Bayesian analysis.
The Iroquoian archaeological record is almost unsurpassed, due to the short-term, single-
occupation character of its sites, in its ability to afford research opportunities at a microlevel.
Thus, Iroquoian archaeology provides a great resource for the study of social relations in
heterarchical agricultural societies.
References
Abbott, David R.
2000 Ceramics and Community Organization among the Hohokam. University of Arizona Press,
Tucson.
Abel, Timothy J.
2002 Recent Research on the Saint Lawrence Iroquoians of Northern New York. Archaeology of
Eastern North America 30:137-154.
2016 The Iroquoian Occupations of Northern New York: A Summary of Current Research. Ontario
Archaeology 96:65-75.
2017 The Iroquoian Occupations of Northern New York. Electronic document,
https://www.academia.edu/30484816/The_Iroquoian_Occupations_of_Northern_New_York.
Adams, Nicholas R.
2003 The Arbor Ridge Site: A Study in Settlement Dynamics and Population Movement during the
Fifteenth Century at the Eastern End of Lake Ontario. Master’s thesis, University of Leicester.
Agriculture Canada
1955 Soil Survey of York County. Report 19. Electronic document,
http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/publications/surveys/on/on19/index.html.
Allen, Kathleen M. S.
2009 Temporal and Spatial Scales of Activity among the Iroquois: Implications for Understanding
Cultural Change. In Iroquoian Archaeology and Analytic Scale, edited by L. E. Miroff and T. D.
Knapp, pp. 153-177. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Anderson, Jacob M.
2009 The Lawson Site: An Early Sixteenth Century Neutral Iroquoian Fortress. Special Publication
No. 2, Museum of Ontario Archaeology, London, Ont.
Anthony, David W.
1990 Migration in Archaeology: The Baby and the Bathwater. American Anthropologist 92:895-914.
ARA (Archaeological Research Associates)
2003 Stage 3&4 Archaeological Assessment, Lougheed Site (BdGw-13) City of Barrie, Simcoe
Township, Former Township of Innisfil. Report on file, Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture
and Sport, Toronto.
Arnold, Dean E.
1991 Ethnoarchaeology and Investigations of Ceramic Production and Exchange: Can We Go Beyond
Cautionary Tales? In The Ceramic Legacy of Anna O. Shepard, edited by R. L. Bishop and F. W.
Lange, pp. 321-345. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, Colo.
1998 Andean Ceramic Technology: An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective. In Ceramic Production in
the Andes: Technology, Organization, and Approaches, edited by I. Shimada, pp. 353-367.
MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archeology 15. Philadelphia.
ASI (Archaeological Services Inc.)
1998 Final Report on Archaeological Salvage Excavation of the Murphy-Goulding Site (AlGu-3),
Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York. Report on file, Ontario Ministry of
Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto.
279
280
2001 The Stage 2 to Stage 4 Salvage Excavations at the Jarrett-Lahmer Site (AlGv-18). Report on
file, Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto.
2004 Report on Stage 4 Salvage Excavation of the Serena Site (AhGx-274) Allison Estates,
Subdivision (25T-91014), City of Hamilton, Regional Municipality of Hamilton, Ontario. Report
on file, Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto.
2005a The Stage 3–4 Salvage Excavations of the Burkholder 2 Site (AlGt-35) Lot 8, Concession 9,
Geographic Township of Markham Box Grove Secondary Planning Area, Box Grove Hill
Development Lands, Town of Markham, Regional Municipality of York, Ontario. Report on file,
Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto.
2005b The Archaeology of the Wellington Site (BcGw-55): A Report on the Stage 4 Salvage
Excavations of the Wellington Site, Holly Secondary Planning Area (43T-92023), Part of the
East Half of Lot 3, Concession 12, City of Barrie, Simcoe County, Ontario. Report on file,
2006a The Stage 4 Salvage excavation of the Baker site (AkGu-15) Lot 11 Concession 2 (WYS) Block
10 O.P.A. 400 Former Township of Vaughan, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York,
Ontario. Report on file, Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto.
2006b The Archaeology of the Dykstra Site (BbGw-5): A Report on the Stage 4 Salvage Excavations of
the Holly Secondary Planning Area (43T-92026), Part of the Northwest Half of Lot 2,
Concession 12, City of Barrie, Simcoe County, Ontario. Report on file, Ontario Ministry of
2006b Stages 1–3 Investigation of the Mantle Site (AlGt-334) Part of Lot 33, Concession 9, Town of
Whitchurch-Stouffville, Regional Municipality of York, Ontario. Report on file, Ontario
Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto.
2007 McGaw Site (AlGu-88) Archaeological Interpretive Program Results of the 2003 Field Season.
Report on file, Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto.
2008a 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, Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport,
Toronto.
2008b The Stage 4 Salvage Excavation of the Orion Site (AlGu-45), Lot 56, Concession 1W.Y.S. Town
of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, Ontario. Report on file, Ontario Ministry of
2009 The Archaeology of the Holly Site (BcGw-58): Stage 4 Salvage Excavation of the Holly Site,
Dykstra Subdivision, Holly Secondary Planning Area (43T-92026), Part of the Northeast Half of
Lot 2, Concession 12, City of Barrie, Simcoe County, Ontario. Report on file, Ontario Ministry
of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto.
2010a Report on the Salvage Excavation of the Antrex Site (AjGv-38), City of Mississauga, Regional
Municipality of Peel, Ontario. Report on file, Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport,
Toronto.
2010b The Archaeology of the Hidden Spring Site (AlGu-368): Stage 4 Salvage Excavation of the
Hidden Spring Site, Oxford West Subdivision Development, Part of Lots 13-16 and 37-40,
281
Registered Plan 1931, Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, Ontario. Report
on file, Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto.
2010c The Archaeology of the Robb Site (AlGt-4): A Report on the Stage 4 Mitigative Excavation of
the Angus Meadows Subdivision 19T-95030 (Revised), Part of Lot 1, Concession 8, Town of
Markham, Regional Municipality of York, Ontario. Report on file, Ontario Ministry of Tourism,
Culture and Sport, Toronto.
2010d The Archaeology of the Walkington 2 Site (AlGu-341): A Report on the Stage 3 and Stage 4
Mitigative Excavations of the of the Nine-Ten Property, Draft Plan of Subdivision 19T-95066
(Revised) Part of Lots 16 and 17, Concession 2, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of
York, Ontario. Report on file, Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto.
2011 The Stage 3–4 Archaeological Excavation of the Hope Site (AlGv-199), Draft Plan of
Subdivision 19T-02V07 and 19T-02V08, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York,
2012a Stage 3&4 Archaeological Assessment Joseph Picard Site (AlGs-376), Highway 407 East, Lot
32, Concession IV Whitby Township, Former Ontario County, Regional Municipality of
Durham, Preliminary Excavation Report. Report on file, Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture
and Sport, Toronto.
2012b Report on the Stage 3–4 Mitigative Excavation of the McNair Site (AlGu-8), City of Vaughan,
Regional Municipality of York, Ontario. Report on file, Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture
and Sport, Toronto.
2014a Report on Stage 3—4 Mitigative Excavation of the Damiani Site (AlGv-231), City of Vaughn,
Regional Municipality of York, Ontario (draft). Report on file, Archaeological Services Inc.,
Toronto.
2014b The Archaeology of the Mantle Site (AlGt-334): Report on the Stage 3–4 Mitigative Excavation
of Part of Lot 22, Concession 9, Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, Regional Municipality of
York, Ontario. Report on file, Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto.
2014c The Archaeology of the Yatsihsta’ Site (AlGs-452): A Report on the Stage 4 Mitigative
Excavation of the Yatsihsta’ Site (AlGs-452) Highway 407 East, Lot 1, Concession VI,
Pickering Township and Lot 35, Concession VI, Whitby Township, Former Ontario County.
Report on file, Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto.
2015 The Archaeology of the Damiani Site (AlGv-231): A Report on the Stage 4 Mitigative
Excavation of the Damiani Site (AlGv-231), Part of Lot 25, Concession 7, Pine Heights Estates,
Blocks 40 and 47, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, Ontario. Report on file,
Bamann, Susan, Robert Kuhn, James Molnar and Dean Snow
1992 Iroquoian Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:435-460.
Barth, Fredrik
1969 Introduction. In Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference,
edited by F. Barth, pp. 9-38. Little Brown, Boston.
Beauchamp, William M.
1984 Curious Iroquois Pottery. Science 23
282
1900 Aboriginal Occupation of New York. Bulletin of the New York State Museum, University of the
State of New York, Albany.
Beisaw, April M.
2010 Memory, Identity, and NAGPRA in the Northeastern United States. American Anthropologist
112(2):244-256.
Bekerman, André and Gary A. Warrick (editors)
1995 Origins of the People of the Longhouse: Proceedings of the 21st Annual Symposium of the
Ontario Archaeological Society. Ontario Archaeological Society, Toronto.
Bentley, G. Carter
1987 Ethnicity and Practice. Comparative Studies in Society and History 29(1):24-55.
Betts, Matthew W.
2008 Subsistence and Culture in the Western Canadian Arctic: A Multicontextual Approach. Canadian
Museum of Civilization, Gatineau, Quebec.
Birch, Jennifer
2008 Rethinking the Archaeological Application of Iroquoian Kinship. Canadian Journal of
Archaeology 32(2):194-213.
2010 Coalescent Communities in Iroquoian Ontario. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.
2011 Unpublished Report on Keffer Site Wall Post Density. Report on file, Department of
Anthropology, University of Toronto at Mississauga.
2012 Coalescent Communities: Settlement Aggregation and Social Integration in Iroquoian Ontario.
American Antiquity 77(4):646-670.
2014 Post Mould Densities of the Keffer Longhouses. Report on file, Museum of Ontario
Archaeology, London, Ont.
2016a Geopolitics and Dimensions of Social Complexity in Ancestral Wendake c. A.D. 1450-1600.
Ontario Archaeology 96:35-46
2016b Interpreting Iroquoian Site Structure through Geophysical Prospection and Soil Chemistry:
Insights from a Coalescent Community in Ontario, Canada. Journal of Archaeological Science:
Reports 8:102-111.
2018 Iroquoian Archaeology. In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, edited by C. Smith, pp. 1-7.
Springer International Publishing, Cham.
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
2012 The Mantle Site: An Archaeological History of a Huron-Wendat Community. AltaMira Press,
Lanham, MD.
2013 Organizational Complexity in Ancestral Wendat Communities. In From Prehistoric Villages to
Cities: Settlement Aggregation and Community, edited by J. Birch, pp. 153-178. Routledge, New
York.
283
2018 Initial Northern Iroquoian Coalescence. In The Archaeology of Villages in Eastern North
America, edited by Jennifer Birch and Victor D. Thompson, pp. 89-105. University of Florida
Press, Gainesville.
Birch, Jennifer, Robert B. Wojtowicz, Aleksandra Pradzynski and Robert H. Pihl
2017 Multi-Scalar Perspectives on Iroquoian Ceramics: Aggregation and Interaction in Pre-Contact
Ontario. In Process and Meaning in Spatial Archaeology: Investigations into Pre-Columbian
Iroquoian Space and Place, edited by E. E. Jones and J. L. Creese, pp. 111-144. University Press
of Colorado, Boulder.
Blair, E.
2015 Making Mission Communities: Population Aggregation, Social Networks, and Communities of
Practice at 17th Century Mission Santa Catalina de Guale. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
California, Berkeley.
Borgatti, Stephen P.
2002 NetDraw Software for Network Visualization. Analytic Technologies, Lexington, KY.
Borgatti, Stephen P. and Daniel S. Halgin
2011 On Network Theory. Organization Science 22(5):1168-1181.
Borgatti, Stephen P., Jeffrey C. Johnson and Martin G. Everett
2013 Analyzing Social Networks. Sage, Los Angeles, CA.
Bourdieu, Pierre
1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bowser, Brenda J.
2000 From Pottery to Politics: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Political Factionalism, Ethnicity, and
Domestic Pottery Style in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Journal of Archaeological Method and
Theory 7(3):219-248.
Bowser, Brenda J. and John Q. Patton
2008 Learning and Transmission of Pottery Style: Women's Life Histories and Communities of
Practice in the Ecuadorian Amazon. In Cultural Transmission and Material Culture: Breaking
Down Boundaries, edited by M. T. Stark, B. J. Bowser and L. Horne, pp. 105-129. University of
Arizona Press, Tucson.
Boyle, David
1889 Township of Nottawasaga. Annual Archaeological Report for Ontario 1888-1889:4-11.
1891 The Southwold Earthwork. Annual Archaeological Report for Ontario 1890-1891:8-10.
1892 Malahide. Annual Archaeological Report for Ontario, 1891:11-12.
1896 Ontario Earthworks. Annual Archaeological Report for Ontario 1895-1896:37-40.
1897 Ontario Mounds. Annual Archaeological Report for Ontario, 1896-7:14-37.
1897 Ossuary in Beverly. Annual Archaeological Report for Ontario, 1896-7:46.
1898 Earthwork in Malahide. Annual Archaeological Report for Ontario, 1897-98:44.
1902 The Yellow Point Mound. Annual Archaeological Report for Ontario, 1901:25-29.
Bradley, James W.
1987 Evolution of the Onondaga Iroquois: Accommodating Change, 1500-1655. Syracuse University
Press, Syracuse, N.Y.
284
Brainerd, George W.
1951 The Place of Chronological Ordering in Archaeological Analysis. American Antiquity 16(4):301-
314.
Braudel, Fernand
1980 On History. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Braun, David P.
1983 Pots as Tools. In Archaeological Hammers and Theories, edited by J. A. Moore and A. S. Keene,
pp. 107-134. Academic Press, New York.
1991 Why Decorate a Pot? Midwestern Household Pottery, 200 B.C.-A.D. 600. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 10(4):360-397.
Braun David P., and Stephen Plog
1982 Evolution of “Tribal” Social Networks: Theory and Prehistoric North American. American
Antiquity 47:504-525.
Brown, Judith K.
1970 Economic Organization and the Position of Women among the Iroquois. Ethnohistory 17:151-
167.
1975 Iroquois Women: An Ethnohistoric Note. In Toward an Anthropology of Women, edited by
Rayna R. Reiter, pp. 235-251. Monthly Review Press, New York.
Brughmans, Tom
2010 Connecting the Dots: Towards Archaeological Network Analysis. Oxford Journal of
Buck, C. E., J. A. Christen and G. N. James
1999 BCal: an on line Bayesian radiocarbon calibration too. Internet Archaeology 7.
(http//intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue7/buck/).
Bull, Steven
1987 Notes on an Investigation of the Relation Between Whole Vessels and Their Rim Sherds. Arch
Notes Sep/Oct:29-30
1989 Reconstructed Ceramic Pots: Relationships Between Whole Vessels and Their Rim Sherds.
Canadian Journal of Archaeology 13:219-222.
Bursey, Jeffrey A.
ca. 1990 Ceramic data forms on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto at
Mississauga.
1993 Prehistoric Huronia: Relative Chronology Through Ceramic Seriation. Ontario Archaeology
55:3-34.
Bush, D. R.
1976 The Chronological Position of the CRS Site, Simcoe County, Ontario. Ontario Archaeology
28:17-32.
Caldwell, Joseph R.
1964 Interaction Spheres in Prehistory. In Hopewellian Studies, edited by J. R. Caldwell and R. L.
Hall, pp. 133-143. Illinois State Museum, Scientific Papers. Illinois State Museum, Springfield,
Ill.
285
Calhoun, Craig J.
1995 Critical Social Theory: Culture, History, and the Challenge of Difference. Blackwell,
Cambridge, Mass.
Cameron, Catherine M.
2013 How People Moved among Ancient Societies: Broadening the View115(2):218-231.
Carr, Christopher
1985 Introductory Remarks on Artifact Analysis. In For Concordance in Archaeological Analysis:
Bridging Data Structure, Quantitative Technique, and Theory, edited by C. Carr, pp. 502-508.
Westport Publishers, Kansas City.
1995 A Unified Middle-Range Theory of Artifact Design. In Style, Society and Person:
Archaeological and Ethnological Perspectives, edited by C. Carr and J. E. Neitzel, pp. 171-258.
Plenum, New York.
Centola, Damon
2015 The Social Origins of Networks and Diffusion120(5):1295-1338.
Chapdelaine, Claude
1989 Le Site Mandeville à Tracy, Variabilité Culturelle des Iroquoiens du Saint Laurent. Signes des
Ameriques 7. Recherches amérindiennes au Québec, Montréal.
1991 Poterie, Ethnicité et Laurentie Iroquienne. Recherches amérindiennes au Québec 21:44-52.
Chapman, L. J. and D. F. Putman
1984 The Physiography of Southern Ontario. Ontario Research Foundation, Toronto.
Chernela, Janet M.
1992 Social Meaning and Material Transaction: The Wanano-Tukano of Brazil and Colombia. Journal
of Anthropological Archaeology 11(2):111-124.
Childe, V. Gordon
1929 The Danube in Prehistory. Oxford University Press, Oxford
1950 The Urban Revolution. The Town Planning Review 21(1):3-17.
Clermont, Norman, Claude Chapdelaine and Georges Barré
1983 Le Site Iroquoien de Lanoraie: Témoignage d'une Maison-Longue. Signes des Amériques 3.
Recherches amérindiennes au Québec, Montréal.
Coe, Michael D.
1962 Mexico. Frederick A. Praeger, New York.
Cohen, Ronald
1978 Ethnicity: Problem and Focus in Anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology 7:379-403.
Collar, Anna, Fiona S. Coward, Tom Brughmans and Barbara Mills
2015 Networks in Archaeology: Phenomena, Abstraction, Representation. Journal of Archaeological
Method and Theory 22(1):1-32.
Comaroff, John L. and Jean Comaroff
1992 Ethnography and the Historical Imagination. Studies in the ethnographic imagination. Westview
Press, Boulder.
Cooper, Martin
286
2016 "In Order to Bring Them to Trade": Neutral Exchange during the Sixteenth Century. In Contact
in the 16th Century: Networks among Fishers, Foragers, and Farmers, edited by B. Loewen and
C. Chapdelaine, pp. 257-267. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Gatineau, Quebec.
Crawford, Gary W.
2003 The Wallace Site (AkGx-1), 1984 and 1985. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology,
University of Toronto at Mississauga.
Crawford, Gary W. and David G. Smith
1996 Migration in Prehistory: Princess Point and the Northern Iroquoian Case. American Antiquity,
Vol. 61:782-790.
2002 Early Late Woodland in Southern Ontario: An Update (1996-2000). In Northeast Subsistence-
Settlement Change: A.D. 700-1300 by John P. Hart and Christina B. Rieth. New York State
Museum, University of the State of New York, The State Education Department, Albany.
Crawford, Gary W., David G. Smith and Vandy E. Bowyer
1997 Dating the Entry of Corn (Zea mays) into the Lower Great Lakes Region. American Antiquity
62:112-119.
Crawford, Gary W., David G. Smith, Joseph R. Desloges and Anthony M. Davis
1998 Floodplains and Agricultural Origins: A Case Study in South-Central Ontario. Journal of Field
Creese, John L.
2010 Deyughnyonkwarakda—“At the Wood’s Edge”: The Development of the Iroquoian Village in
Southern Ontario A.D. 900-1500. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Toronto.
2012 The Domestication of Personhood: A View from the Northern Iroquoian Longhouse. Cambridge
Archaeological Journal 22(3):365-386.
2013 Making Pipes and social persons at the Keffer site: A Life History Approach.
Paper presented at the 78th Annual Meeting of Society for American Archaeology, Honolulu
2014 Wendat Smoking Pipes and Social Networks on the North Shore. Paper presented at the 41st
Symposium of the Ontario Archaeological Society, Peterborough, Ontario.
2016 Making Pipes and Social Persons at the Keffer Site: A Life History Approach. In Perspectives on
the Archaeology of Pipes, Tobacco and other Smoke Plants in the Ancient Americas, edited by E.
A. Bollwerk and S. Tushingham, pp. 27-49. Springer, New York.
Crown, P. L.
2014 The Archaeology of Crafts Learning: Becoming a Potter in the Puebloan Southwest. Annual
Review of Anthropology 43:71-88.
Cunningham, Jerimy J.
2001 Ceramic Variation and Ethnic Holism: A Case Study from the "Younge-Early Ontario Iroquoian
Border" in Southwestern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 25:1-27.
Damkjar, Eric R.
1982 The Coulter Site and Late Iroquoian Migrations to the Upper Trent Valley. Master’s thesis,
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C.
DeLanda, M.
287
2006 A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity. Continuum, London.
2016 Assemblage Theory. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
de Nooy, Wouter, Andrej Mrvar and Vladimir Batagelj
2011 Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek. Rev. and expanded 2nd ed. Structural analysis
in the social sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Dermarkar, Susan
2012 The Keffer Site (AkGv-14): An Overview of Our Current Archaeological Knowledge. Paper
presented at the Annual Symposium of the Ontario Archaeological Society, Windsor, Ontario.
2013 North Shore Interaction in 15th Century Iroquoia. Paper presented at the Annual Symposium of
the Ontario Archaeological Society. Niagara Falls, Ont.
2013 International Interaction in the 15th Century: The Ancestral Wendat Keffer Site and Its Ties to
the Northeastern New York State Iroquois. Paper presented at the Iroquois Conference, Cortland,
New York.
2014 A Preliminary Look at the Definition, Spatial Distribution and Cultural Significance of the
Lalonde High Collar Ceramic Type. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Canadian
Archaeological Association, Calgary.
2014 The Materialization of Interaction, the Land Between and What I Learned about Social Network
Analysis at the Keffer Site. Paper presented at the Annual Symposium of the Ontario
Archaeological Society, Peterborough, Ont.
2016 Explorations of Ethnicity, Identity and Ethnogenesis at the 15th Century Iroquoian Keffer Site.
Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Canadian Archaeological Association,
Whitehorse.
Dermarkar, Susan, Jennifer Birch, Termeh Shafie, John P. Hart and Ronald F. Williamson
2016 St. Lawrence Iroquoians and Pan-Iroquoian Social Network Analysis. Ontario Archaeology
96:87-103.
Diaz-Andreu, Margarita
2015 Ethnic Identity/Ethnicity and Archaeology. In International Encyclopedia of the Social &
Behavioral Sciences, edited by J. D. Wright, pp. 4817-4821. Second edition. Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
Dobres, Marcia-Anne
2000 Technology and Social Agency: Outlining a Practice Framework for Archaeology. Social
archaeology. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
Dobres, Marcia-Anne and John E. Robb
2000 Agency in Archaeology: Paradigm or Platitude? In Agency in Archaeology, edited by M.-A.
Dobres and J Robb, pp. 3-18. Routledge, New York
Dodd, Christine F.
1984 Ontario Iroquois Tradition Longhouses. National Museum of Man, 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 Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650,
edited by C. J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 321-360. Occasional Publication No. 5. London Chapter,
Ontario Archaeological Society, London, Ont.
288
Dorland, Steven G. H.
2016 Practicing Informal Apprenticeship: A Study of Learning Landscapes in 15th Century Great
Lakes Potting Communities. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for American
Archaeology.
2016 Learning Landscapes in the Great Lakes Region: An Analysis of 15th Century Ceramic
Assemblages. Paper presented at the Monthly Meeting of the Ontario Archaeological Society,
Toronto Chapter.
2017 Were Pre-contact Children Really Innovators? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Canadian Archaeological Association
2018 Childhood Learning on Turtle Island: A Ceramic Analysis of Late Woodland Villages in the
Lower Great Lakes Region. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Toronto.
Drennan, Robert D.
1984 Long-Distance Movement of Goods in the Mesoamerican Formative and Classic. American
Antiquity 49(1):27-43.
DRPA (D. R. Poulton and Associates Inc.)
1996a The Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment of the Jarrett-Lahmer Site (AlGv-18), Draft Plan 19T-
95079, City of Vaughan, Ontario. Report on file, Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and
Sport, Toronto.
1996b The 1992–1993 Stage 3–4 Archaeological Excavations of the Over Site (AlGu-120) (W.P. 233-
89-00), vol. 1. Report on file, Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto.
Duff, Andrew I.
2002 Western Pueblo Identities: Regional Interaction, Migration, and Transformation. University of
Dupras, Tosha L. and David G. Pratte
1998 Craniometric Study of the Parsons Crania from Midden 4/Feature 245. Ontario Archaeology
65/66:140-145.
Dyck, Ian
2004 Private and Public Passions: James Pendergast's Archaeology and the National Museum of
Canada. In A Passion for the Past: Papers in Honour of James F. Pendergast, edited by J. V.
Wright and J.-L. Pilon, pp. 5-48. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Gatineau, Quebec.
Ellis, Christopher J. and Neal Ferris (editors)
1990 The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. Occasional Publication No. 5. London
Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, London, Ont.
Emberling, Geoff
1997 Ethnicity in Complex Societies: Archaeological Perspectives. Journal of Archaeological
Research 5(4):295-344.
Emerson, J. Norman
1954 The Archaeology of the Ontario Iroquois. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.
1959 A Rejoinder upon the MacNeish-Emerson Theory. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 29:98-107.
1959 The Bosomworth Site. Ontario History 51(1):61-63.
289
1998 The Research Potential of Huronia (1965). In Five Manuscripts by Dr. John Norman Emerson,
compiled by C. Garrad. Special Publication, The Ontario Archaeological Society 13-14. Toronto.
Emerson, J. Norman and R. E. Popham
1952 Comments on "The Huron and Lalonde Occupations of Ontario". American Antiquity 18:162-
164.
Engelbrecht, William E.
1969a Barker Site Regrouped Ceramic Data. Electronic database, The Digital Archaeological Record
(tDAR), https://core.tdar.org/document/373025/barker-site-regrouped-ceramic-data, accessed
July 27, 2016.
1969b Simmons Site Regrouped Ceramic Data. Electronic database, The Digital Archaeological Record
(tDAR), https://core.tdar.org/document/373067/simmons-site-regrouped-ceramic-data, accessed
July 27, 2016.
1970a Cornish Site Regrouped Ceramic Data. Electronic database, The Digital Archaeological Record
(tDAR), https://core.tdar.org/document/373026/cromwell-site-regrouped-ceramic-data, accessed
July 27, 2016.
1970b Powerhouse Site Regrouped Ceramic Data. Electronic database, The Digital Archaeological
Record (tDAR), https://core.tdar.org/document/373006/, accessed July 27, 2016.
1971 A Stylistic Analysis of New York Iroquois Pottery. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.
1974a Englebert Site Regrouped Ceramic Data. Electronic database, The Digital Archaeological Record
(tDAR), https://core.tdar.org/document/373076/englebert-site-regrouped-ceramic-data, accessed
July 27, 2016.
1974 The Iroquois: Archaeological Patterning on the Tribal Level. World Archaeology 6(1):52-65.
1974b Silverhouse Site Regrouped Ceramic Data. Electronic database, The Digital Archaeological
Record (tDAR), https://core.tdar.org/document/373006/, accessed July 27, 2016.
1977 Ellis Site Regrouped Ceramic Data. Electronic database, The Digital Archaeological Record
(tDAR), https://core.tdar.org/document/373051/ellis-site-regrouped-ceramic-data, accessed July
27, 2016.
1978 Kleis Site Ceramic Data. Electronic database, The Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR),
https://core.tdar.org/document/375156/kleis, accessed July 27, 2016.
1985 New York Iroquois Political Development. In Cultures in Contact: The European Impact on
Native Cultural Institutions in Eastern North America A.D. 100-1800, edited by William
Fitzhugh. Anthropological Society of Washington Series. Smithsonian Press, Washington and
London.
1991 Erie. The Bulletin, Journal of the New York State Archaeological Association 102:2-12.
1993 Smokes Creek (R. Haas). Electronic database, The Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR),
https://core.tdar.org/document/375148/smokes-creek-r-haas, accessed July 27, 2016.
1995 The Case of the Disappearing Iroquoians: Early Contact Period Superpower Politics. Northeast
Anthropology 50:35-59.
1999 Iroquoian Ethnicity and Archaeological Taxa. In Taming the Taxonomy: Toward a New
Understanding of Great Lakes Archaeology, edited by R. F. Williamson and C. M. Watts, pp.
51-59. Eastendbooks, Toronto.
290
2003 Iroquoia: The Development of a Native World. Iroquois and their neighbors. Syracuse University
Press, Syracuse, N.Y.
2004 Northern New York Revisited. In A Passion for the Past: Papers in Honour of James F.
Pendergast, edited by J. V. Wright and J.-L. Pilon, pp. 125-144. Canadian Museum of
Civilization, Gatineau, Quebec.
Engelbrecht, William and Bruce Jamieson
2016 Stone Tipped versus Bone- and Antler-tipped Arrows and the Movement of the St. Lawrence
Iroquoians from Their Homeland. Ontario Archaeology 96:76-86.
Fenton, William N.
1978 Northern Iroquoian Culture Patterns. In Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 296-321.
Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, William C. Sturtevant, general editor,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Ferris, Neal
1999 Telling Tales: Interpretive Trends in Southern Ontario Late Woodland Archaeology. Ontario
2006 In Their Time: Archaeological Histories of Native-Lived Contacts and Colonialisms,
Southwestern Ontario, A.D. 1400-1900. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.
2017 Being Iroquoian, Being Iroquois: A Thousand-year Heritage of Becoming. In Rethinking
Colonial Pasts Through Archaeology. Edited by Neal Ferris, Rodney Harrison and Michael V.
Wilcox, pp. 371-396. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Ferris, Neal and Michael W. Spence
1995 The Woodland Traditions in Southern Ontario. Revista de Arqueología Americana 9:83-138.
Finlayson, William D.
1985 The 1975 and 1978 Rescue Excavations at the Draper Site: Introduction and Settlement
Patterns. National Museum of Man, Ottawa.
Finlayson, William D., David G. Smith and Bern Wheeler
1987 What Columbus Missed! St. George Press for the Museum of Indian Archaeology, London,
Toronto, Ontario
Finlayson, William D., Michael W. Spence, David G. Smith and Peter Timmins
1985 The 1985 Salvage Excavations at the Keffer Site: A Field Report. Kewa (Newsletter of the
London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society) 85(8):2-10.
Ford, James A.
1954 The Type Concept Revisited. American Anthropologist 56:42-53.
Ford, James A. and Julian H. Steward
1954 On the Concept of Types. American Anthropologist 56(1):42-57.
Fowler, Christopher
2004 The Archaeology of Personhood: An Anthropological Approach. Themes in Archaeology Series,
Routledge, London.
2017 Relational Typologies, Assemblage Theory and Early Bronze Age Burials. Cambridge
Archaeological Journal 27:95-109.
291
Garrad, Charles, Jean-Luc Pilon and William A. Fox (editors)

2014 Petun to Wyandot: The Ontario Petun from the Sixteenth Century. Canadian Museum of History,
University of Ottawa Press, Ottawa.
Gates-St. Pierre, Christian
2016 Iroquoians in the St. Lawrence River Valley before European Contact. Ontario Archaeology
96:47-64.
Gaudreau, Marianne and Louis Lesage
2016 Understanding Ethnicity and Cultural Affiliation: Huron-Wendat and Anthropological
Perspectives. Ontario Archaeology 96:6-16.
Gellner, Ernest
1983 Nations and Nationalism. New perspectives on the past. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
Giddens, Anthony
1979 Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Gifford, James C. and Watson Smith
1978 Gray Corrugated Pottery from Awatovi and Other Jeddito Sites in Northeastern Arizona. Papers
of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. Peabody Museum
of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
Gifford-Gonzalez, Diane P., and Jun Ueno Sunseri
2007 Foodways on the Frontier: An Early Colonial Pueblo. In We Were What We Ate: The
Archaeology of Food and Identity. Edited by Kathryn Twiss, pp. 260-287. Annual Visiting
Scholar Conference, Occasional Papers 34. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern
Illinois University, Carbondale.
Gonzalez, Diane P. 2014. Constructing Community Through Refuse Disposal. African
Archaeological Review 31:339-382.
Granovetter, Mark S.
1973 The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology 78(6):1360-1380.
Griffin, James B.
1944 The Iroquois in American Prehistory. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts and
Letters 29:357-374.
Gruber, Rachel
2014 Examining the Relationship between Pipe Style Frequency and Social Interaction Among
Prehistoric Huron-Wendat Groups of Ontario. Manuscript in possession of the author.
Habiba, H., Jan C. Athenstädt, Barbara J. Mills and Ulrik Brandes
2018 Social Networks and Similarity of Site Assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 92:63-
72.
Hall, Stuart
1990 Cultural Identity and Diaspora. In Identity: Community, Culture, Difference, edited by Jonathan
Rutherford, pp. 222-237. Lawrence & Wishart, London.
Hanneman, Robert and Mark Riddle
2005 Introduction to Social Network Methods. Electronic document,
http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/nettext/.
292
Harris, Oliver J. T. and Craig N. Cipolla (editors)

2017 Archaeological Theory in the New Millennium: Introducing Current Perspectives. Routledge,
Abingdon, UK.
Hart, John P.
2000 New Dates from Classic New York Sites: Just How Old are Those Longhouses? Northeast
2012 The Effects of Geographical Distances on Pottery Assemblage Similarities: A Case Study from
Northern Iroquoia. Journal of Archaeological Science 39(1):128-134.
Hart, John P. and Jennifer Birch
2017 Social Networks and Northern Iroquoian Confederacy Dynamics. American Antiquity 83:13-33.
Hart, John P, Jennifer Birch, Susan Dermarkar, Termeh Shafie and Ronald F. Williamson
2015 St. Lawrence Iroquoians and Pan-Iroquoian Social Network Analysis. Paper presented at the
Annual Symposium of the Ontario Archaeological Society, Midland, Ontario.
Hart, John P, Jennifer Birch, Susan Dermarkar, Ronald F. Williamson and Termeh Shafie
2015 Iroquoian Social Network Change in Southern Ontario A.D. 1350-1650. Paper presented at the
SUNBELT International Social Network Conference, Brighton.
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.
Hart, John P. and Hetty Jo Brumbach
2003 The Death of Owasco. American Antiquity 68(4):737-752.
2009 On Pottery Change and Northern Iroquoian Origins: An Assessment from the Finger Lakes
Region of Central New York. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28:367-381.
Hart, John P. and William Engelbrecht
2012 Northern Iroquoian Ethnic Evolution: A Social Network Analysis. Journal of Archaeological
Method and Theory 19(2):322-349.
Hart, John P., Termeh Shafie, Jennifer Birch, Susan Dermarkar and Ronald F. Williamson
2016 Nation Building and Social Signaling in Southern Ontario: A.D. 1350-1650. PLoS ONE 11(5).
Hart, John P., Robert G. Thompson and Hetty Jo Brumbach
2003 Phytolith Evidence for Early Maize (Zea mays) in the Northern Finger Lakes Region of New
York. American Antiquity 68(4):619-640.
Hawkins, Alicia L.
1992 Just Who Made Those Frilled Ceramics? Compositional and Stylistic Analyses of Ceramics from
Ossossane and Freelton. Master’s Research Paper, Department of Anthropology, University of
Toronto.
2001 Genoa Frilled Pottery and the Problem of the Identification of the Wenro in Huronia. Ontario
2004 Recreating Home? A Consideration of Refugees, Microstyles and Frilled Pottery in Huronia.
Ontario Archaeology 77/78:62-80.
Hayden, Brian (editor)
293
1979 Settlement Patterns of the Draper and White Sites, 1973 Excavations. 6. Dept. of Archaeology,
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C.
1979 The Draper and White Sites: Preliminary and Theoretical Considerations. In Settlement Patterns
of the Draper and White Sites, 1973 Excavations, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 1-28. Publication No.
6. Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C.
Hayden, Brian and Aubrey Cannon
1983 Where the Garbage Goes: Refuse Disposal in the Maya Highlands. Journal of Anthropological
1984 Interaction Inferences in Archaeology and Learning Frameworks of the Maya. Journal of
Hayes, Charles F. III
1980 An Overview of the Current Status of Seneca Ceramics. In Proceedings of the 1979 Iroquois
Pottery Conference, edited by C. F. Hayes III, pp. 87-93. vol. 13. Rochester Museum and
Science Center, Research Records.
Hegmon, Michelle
1992 Archaeological Research on Style. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:517-536.
2003 Setting Theoretical Egos Aside: Issues and Theory in North American Archaeology. American
Antiquity 68(2):213-243.
Heidenreich, Conrad E.
1972 The Huron: A Brief Ethnography. Discussion Paper No. 6. York University, Department of
Geography, Toronto.
Hodder, Ian
1982 Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
1985 Postprocessual Archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 8:1
Hoffman, Bernard G.
1961 Cabot to Cartier: Sources for a Historical Ethnography of Northeastern North America, 1497-
1550. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Holterman, Carrie
2007 So Many Decisions! The Fonger Site: A Case Study of Neutral Iroquoian Ceramic Technology.
Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.
Houghton, Frederick
1909 Indian Village, Camp and Burial Sites on the Niagara Frontier. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of
Natural Sciences 9(3):263-374.
1927 The Migrations of the Seneca Nation. American Anthropologist 29(2):241-250.
Hunter, Andrew F.
1900 Notes on Sites of Huron Villages in the Township of Tay, Simcoe County. Annual
Archaeological Report for Ontario, 1899:51-82.
1902 Notes on Sites of Huron Villages in the Township of Medonte (Simcoe Co.). Annual
Archaeological Report for Ontario, 1901:56-100.
1907 Huron Village Sites. Annual Archaeological Report for Ontario, 1906:1-56.
294
Huntley, Deborah L.
2004 Interaction, Boundaries, and Identities: A Multiscalar Approach to the Organizational Scale of
Pueblo IV Zuni Society. Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University.
Hyslop, John
1984 The Inca Road System. Academic Press, St. Louis
Jamieson, J. Bruce
1982 The Steward Site: A Study in St. Lawrence Iroquoian Chronology. Master’s thesis, Department
of Anthropology, McGill University, Montreal.
1990 The Archaeology of the St. Lawrence Iroquoians. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to
A.D. 1650, edited by C. J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 385-404. Occasional Publication No. 5.
London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, London, Ont.
Jenkins, Richard
2000 Categorization: Identity, Social Process and Epistemology. Current Sociology 48(3):7-25.
2004 Social Identity. Routledge, London.
2008 Rethinking Ethnicity: Arguments and Explorations. Second edition. Sage, Thousand Oaks,
California.
Jenkins, Tara
2014 Contexts, Needs and Social Messaging: Situating Iroquoian Human Bone Artifacts in Southern
Ontario, Canada. Paper presented at the Annual Symposium of the Ontario Archaeological
Society.
2016 Contexts, Needs, and Social Messaging: Situating Iroquoian Human Bone Artifacts in Southern
Ontario, Canada. In Theoretical Approaches to Analysis and Interpretation of Commingled
Human Remains, edited by A. J. Osterholtz, pp. 139-183. Springer, New York.
Johannsen, Erika
2014 Investigating Castellation Diversity among Iroquoian Potters at the Keffer Site. Paper presented
at the Annual Symposium of the Ontario Archaeological Society.
Jones, Sîan
1996 Discourses of identity in the interpretation of the past. In Cultural Identity and Archaeology: the
construction of European communities, edited by P. Graves Brown, S. Jones and C. Gamble, pp.
62-80. London: Routledge.
1997 The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present. Routledge, New
York.
Jury, Wilfrid and Elsie McLeod Murray Jury
1955 St. Louis: Huron Indian Village and Jesuit Mission Site. Bulletin 10. Museum of Indian
Archaeology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Kapches, Mima
1981 The Middleport Pattern in Ontario Iroquoian Prehistory. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto.
1987 The Auda Site: An Early Pickering Iroquois Component in Southeastern Ontario. Archaeology of
1990 The Spatial Dynamics of Ontario Iroquoian Longhouses. American Antiquity 55(1):49-57.
295
1993 The Ontario Iroquoian Longhouse ca 1350 to ca. 1640: A Study in Vernacular Archaeology. In
Vernacular Architecture in Ontario, edited by J. Beck and A. Keefer, pp. 3-15. Architectural
Conservancy of Ontario, Toronto.
1995 Chaos Theory and Social Movements: A Theoretical View of the Formation of the Northern
Iroquoian Longhouse Cultural Pattern. In Origins of the People of the Longhouse: Proceedings
of the 21st Annual Symposium of the Ontario Archaeological Society, edited by A. Bekerman
and G. Warrick, pp. 86-96. Ontario Archaeological Society, Toronto.
Katzenberg, M. Anne, Henry P. Schwarcz, M. Knyfe and F. Jerome Melbye
1995 Stable Isotope Evidence for Maize Horticulture and Paleodiet in Southern Ontario, Canada.
American Antiquity 60:335-350.
Kerr, Donald P. and Spelt, Jacob
1965 The Changing Face of Toronto: A Study in Urban Geography. Memoir 11, Geographical
Branch, Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. Queen's Printer, Ottawa.
Knappett, Carl (editor)
2013 Network Analysis in Archaeology: New Approaches to Regional Interaction. Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
2018 From Network Connectivity to Human Mobility: Models for Minoanization. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 25:974-995.
Knight, Dean and Margot Snyder
1981 The 1981 Excavations at the Ball Site. Report on file, Department of Sociology and
Anthropology, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario.
Kolb, Michael J. and James E. Snead
1997 It's a Small World after All: Comparative Analyses of Community Organization in
Archaeology. American Antiquity 62:609-628.
Konrad, J. V.
1973 The Archaeological Resources of the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area: Inventory and
Prospect. Discussion Paper No. 10. York University, Department of Geography, Toronto.
Kossinna, G.
1911 Die Herkunft der Germanen: Zur Methode der Siedlungsarchäologie. Kabitzsch, Leipzig.
Kraus, Bertram S.
1944 Acculturation: A New Approach to the Iroquoian Problem. American Antiquity 9(3):302-317.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1939 Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America. University of California Publication in
American Archaeology and Ethnology 38. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Kroskrity, Paul V.
1993 Language, History, and Identity: Ethnolinguistic Studies of the Arizona Tewa. University of
Kuhn, Robert D.
2004 Reconstructing Patterns of Interaction and Warfare Between the Mohawk and Northern
Iroquoians during the A.D. 1400-1700 Period. In A Passion for the Past: Papers in Honour of
296
James F. Pendergast, edited by J. V. Wright and J.-L. Pilon, pp. 145-166. Mercury Series Paper
No. 164. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Gatineau, Quebec.
Kvetina, Petr and Vaclav Hrncir
2013 Between Archaeology and Anthropology: Imagining Neolithic Settlements. Anthropologie 1-
2:323-347.
LaBianca, Øystein Sakala and Sandra A. Scham (editors)
2006 Connectivity in Antiquity: Globalization as a Long-Term Historical Process. Equinox Pub.,
London, Oakville, Conn.
Lafitau, Joseph-François
1724 Moeurs des sauvages amériquains, comparées aux moeurs des premiers temps. Saugrain l'aîné
et Ch. E. Hochereau, Paris.
Laidlaw, George E.
1891 Balsam Lake. Annual Archaeological Report for Ontario, 1891:13-77.
1917 Indian Sites in Victoria County and Vicinity. Annual Archaeological Report for Ontario, 1917.
Latta, Martha A.
1976 The Iroquoian Cultures of Huronia: A Study of Acculturation through Archaeology. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto.
1980 Controlling the Heights: The Iroquoian Occupations of the Albion Pass Region. Archaeology of
1983 Ceramic Types in Ontario. Report on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto at
Mississauga.
Lave, J. and E. Wenger
1991 Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
1993 The Ontario Iroquoian Longhouse ca 1350 to 1640: A Study in Vernacular Archaeology. In
Vernacular Architecture of Ontario, edited by J. Beck and A. Keffer, pp. 3-15. Architectural
Conservancy of Ontario, Toronto.
Lee, Jaegwon
2006 Emergence: Core Ideas and Issues. Synthese151:547-559.
Lemonnier, Pierre
1986 The Study of Material Culture Today: Toward an Anthropology of Technical Systems. Journal
of Anthropological Archaeology 5:147-186.
Lenig, Donald
1965 The Oak Hill Horizon and its Relation to the Development of Five Nations Iroquois Culture.
Researches and transactions of the New York State Archeological Association 15(1). New York
State Archaeological Association, Buffalo, N.Y.
Lennox, Paul A
1981 The Hamilton Site: A Late Historic Neutral Town. Mercury Series 103. National Museum of
Man, Ottawa.
2000 The Molson Site: An Early Seventeenth Century, First Nations Settlement, Simcoe County,
Ontario. Bulletin 18. London Museum of Archaeology.
297
Lennox, Paul A. and William R. Fitzgerald

1990 The Culture History and Archaeology of the Neutral Iroquoians. In The Archaeology of Southern
Ontario to A.D. 1650, edited by C. J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 405-456. Occasional Publication
No. 5. London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, London, Ont.
Lennox, Paul A. and Ian T. Kenyon
1984 Was That Middleport Oblique or Pound Oblique? A Study in Iroquoian Ceramic Typology.
Ontario Archaeology 42:13-26.
Lerner, Harry J.
1997 The Keffer Site (AkGv-14) Projectile Point Assemblage: A Preliminary Morphological and
Distributional Analysis. Report on file, Museum of Ontario Archaeology, London, Ont.
2000 Static Types to Dynamic Variables: Re-assessing the Methods of Prehistoric Huron Chipped
Stone Tool Documentation and Analysis in Ontario. Master’s thesis, Department of
Anthropology, McGill University, Montreal.
2011 Dynamic Variables and the Use-Related Reduction of Huron Projectile Points. Paper presented
at the 78th Annual Meeting of Society for American Archaeology, Sacramento, California
2015 Dynamic Variables and the Use-Related Reduction of Huron Projectile Points. In Works in
Stone: Contemporary Perspectives on Lithic Analysis, edited by M. J. Shott, pp. 143-161.
University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Lesage, Louis, Neha Gupta and Georges Sioui
2016 Introduction. Ontario Archaeology 96:3-6.
Lockwood, W. G.
1981 Religion and Language as Criteria of Ethnic Identity: An Exploratory Comparison. In Ethnicity
and Nationalism in Southeastern Europe, edited by S. Beck and J. W. Cole, pp. 71-81.
Antropologisch-Sociologisch Centrum, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
López Varela, Sandra L. (editor)
2017 Innovative Approaches and Explorations in Ceramic Studies. Archaeopress, Oxford.
Lucas, G.
2012 Understanding the Archaeological Record. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Lyons, Patrick D. and Jeffery J. Clark
2008 Interaction, Enculturation, Social Distance, and Ancient Ethnic Identities. In Archaeology
without Borders: Contact, Commerce, and Change in the U.S. Southwest and Northwestern
Mexico, edited by L. D. Webster and M. E. McBrinn, pp. 185-207. University Press of Colorado,
Boulder, Colo.
MacDonald, Robert I.
1986 The Coleman Site (AiHd-7): A Late Prehistoric Iroquoian Village in the Waterloo Region.
Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario.
1988 Ontario Iroquoian Sweat Lodges. Ontario Archaeology 48:17-26.
2002 Late Woodland Settlement Trends in South-Central Ontario: A Study of Ecological
Relationships and Culture Change. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, McGill University, Montreal.
MacDonald, Robert I. and Ronald F. Williamson
298
1995 The Hibou Site (AlGo-50): Investigating Ontario Iroquoian Origins in the Central North Shore
Area of Lake Ontario. In Origins of the People of the Longhouse: Proceedings of the 21st
Annual Symposium of the Ontario Archaeological Society, edited by A. Bekerman and G. A.
Warrick, pp. 9-42. Ontario Archaeological Society, Toronto.
2001 Sweat Lodges and Solidarity: The Archaeology of the Hubbert Site. Ontario Archaeology 71:29-
78.
MacEachern, Scott
1998 Scale, Style, and Cultural Variation: Technological Traditions in the Northern Mandara
Mountains. In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, edited by M. T. Stark, pp. 107-131.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
MacNeish, Richard S.
1952 Iroquois Pottery Types: A technique for the study of Iroquois prehistory. National Museum of
Canada, Bulletin 124. Canada Dept. of Resources and Development, National Parks Branch,
National Museum of Canada, Ottawa.
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 Steier and Eva M. Wild
2018 Radiocarbon re-dating of contact-era Iroquoian history in northeastern North America. Science
Advances 4(12). DOI:10.1126/sciadv.aav0280.
Mantha, Alexis
2009 Territoriality, social boundaries and ancestor veneration in the central Andes of Peru. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 28:158-176.
Marin, Alexandra and Barry Wellman
2010 Social Network Analysis: An Introduction. In The Sage Handbook of Social Network Analysis,
edited by J. Scott and P. J. Carrington, pp. 11-25. Sage, London.
Martelle, Holly
2002 Huron Potters and Archaeological Constructs: Researching Ceramic Microstylistics.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto.
2004 Some Thoughts on the Impact of Epidemic Disease and European Contact on Ceramic
Production in Seventeenth Century Huronia. Ontario Archaeology 77/78:22-44.
Mauss, Marcel
1935 Techniques of the Body. Journal de Psychologie Normal et Pathologique XXXII:271-293.
McKern, William C.
1939 The Midwestern Taxonomic Method as an Aid to Archaeological Study. American Antiquity
4(4):301-313.
McNutt, Charles H.
2005 Seriation: Classic Problems and Multivariate Applications. Southeastern Archaeology 24(2):209-
222
McPherson, Miller, Lynn Smith-Lovin and James M. Cook
2001 Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27(1):415-444.
299
Mills, Barbara J. 2003 Ceramics and Zuni Identity. In Zuni Origins: Anthropological Approaches on
Multiple Scales, edited by David Gregory and David Wilcox. University of Arizona Press,
Tucson.
2007 Performing the Feast: Visual Display and Suprahousehold Commensalism in the Puebloan
Southwest. American Antiquity 72:210-239.
2016 Communities of Consumption: Cuisines as Constellated Networks of Situated Practice. In
Knowledge in Motion; Constellations of Learning across Time and Place, edited by Andrew P.
Roddick and Ann B. Stahl, pp. 247-270. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
2017 Social Network Analysis in Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 46(1):379-397.
2018 Intermarriage, Technological Diffusion, and Boundary Objects in the U.S. Southwest. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 25(4):1051-1086.
Mills, Barbara J., Jeffery J. Clark, Matthew A. Peeples, W. R. Jr. Haas, John M. Jr. Roberts, J. Brett
Hill, Deborah L. Huntley, Lewis Borck, Ronald L. Breiger, Aaron Clauset and M. Steven
Shackley
2013 Transformation of Social Networks in the Late Pre-Hispanic US Southwest. PNAS
110(15):5785.5790.
Mills, Barbara J., Matthew A. Peeples, W. Randall Jr. Haas, Lewis Borck, Jeffery J. Clark and John M.
Jr. Roberts
2015 Multiscalar Perspectives on Social Networks in the Late Prehispanic Southwest. American
Antiquity 80(1):3-24.
Moerman, Michael
1965 Ethnic Identification in a Complex Civilization: Who Are the Lue? American Anthropologist
67(5, Part 1):1215-1230.
MPP (Mayer, Pihl, Poulton and Associates)
1987 The 1984 Salvage Excavation at the Boyle-Atkinson Site (AlGu-1), Town of Richmond Hill,
Nash, M.
1987 Ethnicity in Peninsular Malaysia: The idiom of communalism, confrontation and co-operation.
In Dimensions of Social Life: Essays in Honor of David G. Mandelbaum, edited by R. Hockings,
pp. 559-571. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Nash, Philleo
1939 The Pound Village Site, Elgin County, Ontario. Society for American Archaeology Notebook 74-
75.
Niemczycki, Mary Ann P.
1984 The Origin and Development of the Seneca and Cayuga Tribes of New York State. Research
records / Research Division, Rochester Museum and Science Center. Rochester Museum and
Science Center, Rochester, N.Y.
1995 Ceramics and Ethnicity In West-Central New York: Exploring Owasco-Iroquois Connections.
Northeast Anthropology 49:43-54.
Noble, William C.
300
1968 Iroquois Archaeology and the Development of Iroquois Social Organization (1000-1650 A.D.).
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Calgary.
1974 The Jackes (Eglinton) Site: Another Facet of Southern Huron Development in the Toronto
Region. Ontario Archaeology 22:3-31.
Nougaret, Sarah
2012 La Céramique Lalonde High Collar: Comme outil de recherche pour l’étude des échanges dans le
Nord-Est de l’Amérique du Nord (1450-1550 A.D.). Ph.D. dissertation, Laval University,
Quebec.
Ontario Geological Survey
1980 Quaternary Geology Toronto and Surrounding Area. Geological Series, p. 2204. Electronic
document, https://mdl.library.utoronto.ca/collections/scanned-maps/quaternary-geology-toronto-
and-surrounding-area-p-2204.
Ortman, Scott G.
2010 Evidence of a Mesa Verde Homeland for the Tewa Pueblos. In Leaving Mesa Verde: Peril and
Change in the Thirteenth-Century Southwest, edited by T. A. Kohler, M. Varien and A. M.
Wright, pp. 222-261. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Ounjian, G. L
1998 Glen Meyer and Prehistoric Neutral Paleoethnobotany. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto.
Pailes, M.
2014 Social network analysis of early classic Hohokam corporate group inequality. American
Antiquity 79(3): 465-486.
Parker, A. C.
1916 The Origin of the Iroquois as Suggested by their Archaeology. American Anthropologist 18:479-
507.
Pauketat, Timothy R. and Susan M. Alt
2005 Agency in a Postmold? Physicality and the Archaeology of Culture-Making. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 12(3):213-237.
Pearce, Robert J.
1978 A Preliminary Report on the Draper Site Rim Sherds. Research Report 1. Museum of Indian
Archaeology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
1996 Mapping Middleport: A Case Study in Societal Archaeology. Research Report 25. London
Museum of Archaeology, London, Ont.
1997 The Watford Site (AlGu-5), Richmond Hill: License Report. Report on file, Ontario Ministry of
Peeples, Matthew A.
2011 Identity and Social Transformation in the Prehispanic Cibola World: A.D. 1150-1325.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University.
2011 R Script for Calculating the Brainerd-Robinson Coefficient of Similarity and Assessing Sampling
Error. Electronic document, http://www.mattpeeples.net/br.html, accessed September 25, 2014.
Pendergast, James F.
301
1962 The Crystal Rock site: An early Onondaga-Oneida site in eastern Ontario. Pennsylvania
Archaeologist 32(1):21-34.
1963The Payne Site: An Iroquoian Manifestation in Prince Edward County, Ontario. In Contributions to
Anthropology V: Archaeology and Physical Anthropology, pp. 126-257. Bulletin 206. National
Museum of Canada, Ottawa.
1964 The Waupoos Site—An Iroquois Component in Prince Edward County, Ontario. Pennsylvania
Archaeologist 34:69-89.
1965 Other Ideas on “The Ontario Iroquois Controversy”. Ontario Archaeology 8:39-44.
1966 Three Prehistoric Components in Eastern Ontario: The Salem, Gray’s Creek and Beckstead
Sites. Bulletin 208. National Museum of Canada, Ottawa.
1972 The Lite Site: An Early Southern Division Huron Site near Belleville, Ontario. Ontario
1973 The Roebuck Prehistoric Village Rimsherds: An Attribute Analysis. Archaeological Survey of
Canada Mercury Series Paper no. 8. National Museum of Man. Ottawa.
1980 Origins of the St Lawrence Iroquoian Pottery on the Draper Site. Report on file, Museum of
Ontario Archaeology, London, Ont.
1984 The Beckstead Site—1977. National Museum of Man, Ottawa.
Pendergast, James F. and Bruce G. Trigger
1972 Cartier's Hochelaga and the Dawson Site. McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal and
Kingston.
Pihl, Robert H.
1984 Final Report on the Draper Rim Sherd Collection: 1975/1978 Excavated Samples. Report on
file, Archaeological Services Inc., Toronto.
Pihl, Robert H. and Stephen Cox Thomas
1997 The Finch Site: A Late Iroquoian Special-Purpose Site on West Catfish Creek. Ontario
Plog, Stephen
1980 Stylistic Variation in Prehistoric Ceramics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
1983 Analysis of Style in Artifacts. Annual Review of Anthropology 12:125-142.
Pradzynski, Aleksandra
2013 Damiani (AlGv-231) Ceramic Analysis. Report on file, Archaeological Services Inc., Toronto.
Pratt, Peter P.
1960 A Criticism of MacNeish's Pottery Types. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 30:106-110.
1976 Archaeology of the Oneida Iroquois. Occasional Publications in Northeastern Anthropology 1.
Man in the Northeast, George's Mill, N.H.
1980 Oneida Iroquois Pottery Typology. In Proceedings of the 1979 Iroquois Pottery Conference,
edited by C. F. Hayes III, pp. 35-49. vol. 13. Rochester Museum and Science Center, Research
Records.
Preucel, Robert W.
302
1998 Learning from the Elders. In Excavating Voices: Listening to Photographs of Native Americans,
edited by M. Katakis, pp. 17-25. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and
Anthropology, Philadelphia.
R, Core Team
2013 R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical
Computing, Vienna.
Rainey, Dori L.
2002 Challenging Assumptions: An Analysis of the Scattered Human Remains from the Keffer Site
(AkGv-14). Master’s thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Ramsden, Peter G.
1977 A Refinement of Some Aspects of Huron Ceramic Analysis. National Museum of Man, Ottawa.
1978 An Hypothesis Concerning the Effects of Early European Trade Among Some Ontario Iroquois.
1990 The Hurons: Archaeology and Culture History. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D.
1650, edited by C. J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 361-384. Occasional Publication No. 5. London
Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, London, Ont.
1990 Saint Lawrence Iroquoians in the Upper Trent River Valley. Man in the Northeast 39:87-95.
2009 Politics in a Huron Village. In Painting the Past with a Broad Brush: Papers in Honour of James
Valliere Wright, edited by D. L. Keenlyside and J.-L. Pilon, pp. 299-318. Canadian Museum of
Civilization, Gatineau.
2016 Becoming Wendat: Negotiating a New Identity around Balsam Lake in the Late Sixteenth
Century. Ontario Archaeology 96:121-132.
Regal, Alberto
1936 Los Caminos del Inca en el Antigua Peru. Sanmarti, Lima.
Renfrew, Colin
1986 Introduction: Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change. In Peer Polity Interaction and
Socio-Political Change, edited by C. Renfrew and J. Cherry, pp. 1-18. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Renfrew, Colin and J. Cherry
1986 Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change, edited by C. Renfrew and J. Cherry.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Richard, Jean-François
2016 Territorial Precedence in Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Huron-Wendat. Ontario
Ridley, Frank
1952 The Huron and Lalonde Occupations of Ontario. American Antiquity 17(3):197-210.
1952 The Fallis Site, Ontario. American Antiquity 18:7-14.
1958 Did the Huron Really Migrate North from the Toronto Area? Pennsylvania Archaeologist 28(3
& 4):143-144, 150.
1961 Archaeology of the Neutral Indian. Etobicoke Historical Society, Ontario.
1963 The Ontario Iroquoian Controversy. Ontario History 55(1):49-59.
303
Ritchie, William A.
1944 The Pre-Iroquoian Occupations of New York State. Rochester Museum of Arts and Sciences,
Memoir No. 1. Rochester, New York.
1951 A Current Synthesis of New York Prehistory. American Antiquity 17:130-136.
1952 The Chance Horizon: An Early Stage of Mohawk Iroquois Cultural Development. New York
State Museum Circular. University of the State of New York, Albany.
Ritchie, William A. and Richard S. MacNeish.
1949 The Pre-Iroquoian Pottery of New York State. American Antiquity 15(2):97-124.
Robertson, David A., Stephen G. Monckton and Ronald F. Williamson
1995 The Wiacek Site Revisited: The Results of the 1990 Excavations. Ontario Archaeology 60:40-91.
Robertson, David A. and Ronald F. Williamson
1998 The Archaeology of the Parsons Site: Summary and Conclusions. Ontario Archaeology
65/66:146-150.
Robinson, W. S.
1951 A Method for Chronologically Ordering Archaeological Deposits. American Antiquity
16(4):293-301.
Rowlands, Michael
1998 Centre and periphery: a review of a concept. In Social Transformations in Archaeology: Global
and Local Perspectives, edited by Kristian Kristiansen and Michael Rowlands, pp. 214-235.
Routledge, London.
Sackett, James R.
1973 Style, function and artifact variability in Palaeolithic assemblages. In The Explanation of Culture
Change, edited by Colin Renfrew pp. 317-325. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.
1977 The Meaning of Style in Archaeology: A General Model. American Antiquity 42:369-380.
Sahlins, Marshall and Elman R. Service (editors)
1960 Evolution and Culture. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Sassaman, Kenneth E. and Wictoria Rudolphi
2001 Communities of Practice in the Early Pottery Traditions of the American Southeast. Journal of
Anthropological Research 57(4):407-425.
Schachner, Gregson
2017 Corporate Group Formation and Differentiation in Early Puebloan Villages of the American
Southwest. American Antiquity 75(3):473-496.
Service, Elman
1962 Primitive Social Organization: an evolutionary perspective. Random House, New York
Shanks, Michael and Christopher Y. Tilley
1987 Re-Constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice. New studies in archaeology. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Shennan, Stephen J. (editor)
1989 Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity. Unwin Hyman, London and Boston.
Silliman, Stephen W.
304
2015 A Requiem for Hybridity? The Problem with Frankensteins, Purées, and Mules. Journal of
Social Archaeology 15(3):277-298.
Simmel, Georg
1955 [1922] Conflict and The Web of Group-Affiliations. Free Press, [S.l.].
Sindbæk, Søren M.
2010 Re-Assembling Regions: The Social Occasions of Technological Exchange in Viking Age
Scandinavia. In The Archaeology of Regional Technologies: Case Studies from the Palaeolithic
to the Age of the Vikings, edited by R. Barndon, A. Engevik and I. Øye, pp. 263-289. Edwin
Mellen Press, Lewiston, N.Y.
Sioui, Georges E.
1999 Huron-Wendat: The Heritage of the Circle. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.
Skinner, Alanson
1921 Notes on Iroquois Archaeology. Indian Notes and Monographs. Museum of the American Indian,
Heye Foundation, New York.
Smith, Angele
1988 Keffer Field Notes Volume 1. Report on file, Museum of Ontario Archaeology, London, Ont.
Smith, Anthony D.
1986 The Ethnic Origins of Nations. B. Blackwell, Oxford, UK New York, NY, USA.
Smith, David G.
1990 Iroquoian Societies in Southern Ontario: Introduction and Historical Overview. In The
Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, edited by C. J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 279-290.
Occasional Publication No. 5. London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, London, Ont.
1991 Keffer Site (AkGv-14) Rim Sections and Ceramic Smoking Pipes. Museum of Indian
Archaeology, Research Report 23.
1997 Archaeological Systematics and the Analysis of Iroquoian Ceramics: A Case Study from the
Crawford Lake Area, Ontario. Bulletin 15. London Museum of Archaeology, London, Ont.
2014 Pottery Decoration as an Index of Heterarchical Social Relations in Ancestral Wendat Society.
Paper presented at the Annual Symposium of the Ontario Archaeological Society.
2014 The Keffer Site: 26 Years Later. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian
Archaeological Association.
Smith, David G. and Gary W. Crawford
1995 The Princess Point Complex and the Origins of Iroquoian Societies in Ontario. In Origins of the
People of the Longhouse: Proceedings of the 21st Annual Symposium of the Ontario
Archaeological Society, edited by A. Bekerman and G. A. Warrick, pp. 55-70. Ontario
Archaeological Society, Toronto.
1997 Recent Developments in the Archaeology of the Princess Point Complex in Southern Ontario.
2002 Recent Developments in the Archaeology of the Princess Point Complex in Southern Ontario. In
Northeast Subsistence and Settlement Change, A.D. 700-1300, edited by J. P. Hart and C. B.
Rieth, pp. 97-116. New York State Museum Bulletin. Vol 496. New York State Museum,
Albany.
305
ca. 1997 The Roots of Iroquoian Sedentism: Middle to Late Woodland Settlement Shifts in South-Central
Ontario. Report on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto at Mississauga.
Snow, Dean R.
1989 The Evolution of Mohawk Households A.D. 1400-1800. In Households and Communities, edited
by S. MacEachern, D. Archer and R. Gavin, pp. 293-300. University of Calgary Archaeological
Association, Calgary.
1994 The Iroquois. Blackwell, Oxford.
1994 Paleoecology and the Prehistoric Incursion of Northern Iroquoians into the Lower Great Lakes
Region. In Great Lakes Archaeology and Paleoecology: Exploring Interdisciplinary Initiatives
for the Nineties, edited by R. I. MacDonald, pp. 283-293. Quaternary Sciences Institute,
Waterloo, Ontario.
1995 Migration in Prehistory: The Northern Iroquoian Case. American Antiquity 60(1):59-79.
1996 More on Migration in Prehistory: Accommodating New Evidence in the Northern Iroquoian
Case. American Antiquity 61(4):791-796.
1996 Mohawk Demography and the Effects of Exogenous Epidemics on American Indian Populations.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15(2):160-182.
1997 The Architecture of Iroquois Longhouses. Northeast Anthropology 53:61-84.
Somers, Margaret R.
1994 The Narrative Constitution of Identity: A Relational and Network Approach. Theory and Society
23(5):605-649.
Spaulding, Albert C.
1953 Statistical Techniques for the Discovery of Artifact Types. American Antiquity 18:305-314.
Spence, Michael
1988 The Excavation of the Keffer Site Burials. Report on file, Museum of Ontario Archaeology,
London, Ont.
Spence, Michael W., Robert H. Pihl and Carl R. Murphy
1990 Cultural Complexes of the Early and Middle Woodland Periods. In The Archaeology of Southern
Ontario to A.D. 1650, edited by C. J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 125-169. Occasional Publication
No. 5. London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, London, Ont.
Spence, Michael W. and Dori Rainey
2017 Mortuary Practices and Their Social Implications at the Keffer Site, Ontario. Ontario
Stark, Miriam T.
1998 Technical Choices and Social Boundaries in Material Culture Patterning: An Introduction. In The
Archaeology of Social Boundaries, edited by M. T. Stark, pp. 1-11. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington.
1998 The Archaeology of Social Boundaries. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
Stark, Miriam T., Ronald L. Bishop and Elizabeth Miksa
2000 Ceramic Technology and Social Boundaries: Cultural Practices in Kalinga Clay Selection and
Use. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7(4):295-331.
Starna, William A.
306
1980 Mohawk Iroquois Populations: A Revision. Ethnohistory 27(4):371-820.

Starna, William A. and Robert E. Funk
1994 The Place of the In Situ Hypothesis in Iroquoian Archaeology. Northeast Anthropology 47:45-
54.
Steckley, John
2016 St. Lawrence Iroquoians among the Wendat: Linguistic Evidence. Ontario Archaeology 96:17-
25.
Sterner, Judy
1989 Who is Signalling Whom? Ceramic Style, Ethnicity and Taphonomy among the Sirak Bulahay.
Antiquity 63(240):451-459.
Stewart, Frances L.
1991 The Faunal Remains from the Keffer Site (AkGv-14), a Southern Ontario Iroquois Village.
Museum of Indian Archaeology, Research Report.
1997 Proto-Huron/Petun and Proto-St. Lawrence Iroquoian Subsistence as Culturally Defining.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, McGill University, Montreal.
Stone, Tammy
2003 Social Identity and Ethnic Interaction in the Western Pueblos of the American Southwest.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 10(1):31-67.
Stopp, Marianne P.
1982 An Archaeological Examination of the Baumann Site, a Precontact Lalonde Settlement in
Simcoe County, Ontario. Master’s thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's,
Newfoundland.
1985 An Archaeological Examination of the Baumann Site: A 15th Century Settlement in Simcoe
County, Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 43:3-29.
Striker, Sarah, Linda Howie and Ronald Williamson
2017 Forming Pots and Community: Pottery Production and Potter Interaction in an Ancestral Wendat
Village. In Innovative Approaches and Explorations in Ceramic Studies, edited by Sandra L.
Lopez Varela, pp. 53-70. Archaeopress Archaeology, Oxford.
Struever, Stuart
1964 The Hopewell Interaction Sphere in Riverine-Western Great Lakes Culture History. In
Hopewellian Studies, edited by J. R. Caldwell and R. L. Hall, pp. 85-106. vol. 12. Illinois State
Museum, Scientific Papers.
Sutton, Richard E.
1990 Hidden Amidst the Hills: Middle and Late Iroquoian Occupations in the Middle Trent Valley.
Occasional Papers in Northeastern Archaeology 3. Copetown Press, Dundas, Ontario.
1995 New Approaches for Identifying Prehistoric Iroquoian Migrations. In Origins of the People of
the Longhouse: Proceedings of the 21st Annual Symposium of the Ontario Archaeological
Society, edited by A. Bekerman and G. A. Warrick, pp. 71-85. Ontario Archaeological Society,
Toronto.
1996 The Middle Iroquoian Colonization of Huronia. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.
307
1999 The Barrie Site: A Pioneering Iroquoian Village Located in Simcoe County, Ontario. Ontario
Svensson, T. G.
1985 Basic anthropological perspectives in the study of ethnicity. In Ethnicity in Canada, edited by A.
Pletsch, pp. 30-50. Marburger Geographische Schriftern, Marburg, Germany.
Swenson, Edward R.
2018 Assembling the Moche: The Power of Contemporary Gatherings on the North Coast of Peru.
World Archaeology. DOI:1080/00438243.2018.1474132.
Thompson, Robert G., John P. Hart, Hetty Jo Brumbach and Robert Lusteck
2004 Phytolith Evidence for Twentieth-Century B.P. Maize in Northern Iroquoia. Northeast
Thwaites, Reuben Gold, editor
1896-1901 The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents. 73 Vols. Burrows Brothers, Cleveland.
Tilly, Charles
1978 From Mobilization to Revolution. [Don Mills, Ontario.] Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., Reading,
Mass.
2001 Mechanisms in Political Processes. Annual Review of Political Science 4(1):21-41.
Timmins, Peter A.
1997 The Calvert Site: An Interpretive Framework for the Early Iroquoian Village. Canadian Museum
of Civilization, Gatineau, Quebec.
Tooker, Elisabeth
1984 Women in Iroquois Society. In Extending the Rafters: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Iroquoian
Studies, edited by Michael K. Foster, Jack Campisi and Marianne Methun, pp. 109-124. State
University of New York Press, Albany.
1991 An Ethnography of the Huron Indians, 1615-1649. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, N.Y.
Topic, John R. and Theresa Lange Topic
1983 Coast Highland Relations in Northern Peru: Some Observations on Routes, Networks and Scales
of Interaction. In Civilization in the Andes: Essays in Honor of Gordon R. Willey edited by
Richard M. Leventhal and Alan L. Kolata, pp. 237-259. University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque.
Trigger, Bruce G.
1976 The Children of Aataentsic: A History of the Huron People to 1660. McGill-Queen’s University
Press, Montreal and Kingston.
1978 Iroquoian Matriliny. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 48(1-2):55-65.
1980b Archaeology and the Image of the American Indian. American Antiquity 45:662-76.
1981 Archaeology and the Ethnographic Present. Anthropologica 23(1):3-17.
1985 Draper: Past and Prologue. In The 1975 and 1978 Rescue Excavations at the Draper Site:
Introduction and Settlement Patterns, edited by W. D. Finlayson, pp. 5-18. National Museum of
Man, Ottawa.
1985 Natives and Newcomers: Canada's “Heroic Age” Reconsidered. McGill-Queen's University
Press, Montreal and Kingston.
308
1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

1990 The Huron: Farmers of the North (Second Edition). Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College
Publishers, New York.
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 S.
Upham, pp. 119-145. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
1995 Expanding Middle-range Theory. Antiquity 69(264):449-458.
2006 A History of Archaeological Thought, Second Edition. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Trigger, Bruce G., L. Yaffe, M. Diksic, J.-L. Galinier, H. Marshall, and J. F. Pendergast
1980 Trace-element Analysis of Iroquoian Pottery. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 4:119-145.
Tuck, James A.
1971 Onondaga Iroquois Prehistory: A Study in Settlement Archaeology. Syracuse University Press,
Syracuse, N.Y.
Tyyska, Allen E.
2017 Huron-Wendat Sweat Baths. Ontario Archaeology 97:64-78.
Upham, Steadman
1982 Polities and Power: An Economic and Political History of the Western Pueblo. Academic Press,
New York.
van der Leeuw, Sander E.
2013 Archaeology, Networks, Information Processing, and Beyond. In Network Analysis in
Archaeology: New Approaches to Regional Interaction, edited by C. Knappett, pp. 335-348.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Vatistas, Andreas
2011 A Typology and Seriation of Rim Sherds from the Forget Site. Report on file, Department of
Anthropology, University of Toronto at Mississauga.
Vygotskiĭ, Lev S.
1978 Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Warrick, Gary A.
1984 Reconstructing Ontario Iroquoian Village Organization. National Museum of Man, Ottawa.
1988 Estimating Ontario Iroquoian Village Duration. Man in the Northeast 36:21-60.
1990 A Population History of the Huron-Petun, A.D. 900-1650. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, McGill University, Montreal.
2000 The Precontact Iroquoian Occupation of Southern Ontario. Journal of World Prehistory
14(4):415-466.
2008 A Population History of the Huron-Petun, A.D. 500-1650. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Warrick, Gary and Louis Lesage
2016 The Huron-Wendat and the St. Lawrence Iroquoians: New Findings of a Close Relationship.
Ontario Archaeology 96:133-134.
309
Warrick, Gary and James Molnar

1986 An Iroquoian Sequence from Innisfil Township, Simcoe County. Arch Notes May/June:21-34.
Wasserman, Stanley and Katherine Faust
1994 Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences
8. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Watts, Duncan J. and Steven H. Strogatz
1998 Collective Dynamics of “Small-World” Networks. Nature 393:440-442.
Waugh, Frederick
1916 Iroquois Foods and Food Preparation. Government Printing Bureau, Ottawa.
Weber, Max
1978 [1922] Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. 2 vols. University of
California Press, Berkeley.
Wendrich, Willeke
2012 Archaeology and Apprenticeship: Body Knowledge, Identity, and Communities of Practice. In
Archaeology and Apprenticeship: Body Knowledge, Identity, and Communities of Practice,
edited by W. Wendrich, pp. 1-19. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Wenger, Etienne
1998 Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Learning in doing. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Whallon, Robert
1972 A New Approach to Pottery Typology. American Antiquity 37(1):13-33.
1980 On the Monothetic Nature of “Traditional” Types: A Contribution from Analysis of Owasco and
Iroquois Ceramics. In Proceedings of the 1979 Iroquois Pottery Conference, edited by C. F.
Hayes III, pp. 9-20. vol. 13. Rochester Museum and Science Center, Research Record.
White, Marian E.
1971 Ethnic Identification and Iroquois Groups in Western New York and Ontario. Ethnohistory
18:13-18.
Wiessner, Polly
1983 Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points. American Antiquity 48:253-276.
1984 Reconsidering the Behavioral Basis of Style: A Case Study among the Kalahari San. Journal of
1985 Style or Isochrestic Variation? A Reply to Sackett. American Antiquity 50:160-165.
2002 The Vines of Complexity: Egalitarian Structures and the Institutionalization of Inequality among
the Enga. Current Anthropology 43(2):233-269.
Willey, Gordon R. and Philip Phillips
1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Wissler, C.
1914 Material Culture of North American Indians. American Anthropologist:16:447-505.
Williamson, Ronald F.
1985 Glen Meyer: People in Transition. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
McGill University, Montreal.
310
2007 "Otinontsiskiaj ondaon" ("The House of Cut-Off Heads"): The History and Archaeology of
Northern Iroquoian Trophy Taking. In The Taking and Displaying of Human Body Parts as
Trophies by Amerindians, edited by R. J. Chacon and D. H. Dye, pp. 190-221. Springer, New
York.
2014 The Archaeological History of the Wendat to A.D. 1651: An Overview. Ontario Archaeology
94:3-64.
2016 East-West Interaction among Fifteenth-Century St. Lawrence Iroquoian and North Shore of Lake
Ontario Ancestral Wendat Communities. Ontario Archaeology 96:104-120.
Williamson, Ronald F., Meghan Burchell, William A. Fox and Sarah Grant
2016 Looking Eastward: Fifteenth-and Early Sixteenth-Century Exchange Systems of the North Shore
Ancestral Wendat. In Contact in the 16th Century: Networks among Fishers, Foragers, and
Farmers, edited by B. Loewen and C. Chapdelaine, pp. 235-255. Canadian Museum of
Civilization, Gatineau, Quebec.
Williamson, Ronald F. and Susan Pfeiffer (editors)
2003 Bones of the Ancestors: The Archaeology and Osteobiography of the Moatfield Ossuary.
Mercury Series Paper No. 163. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Gatineau, Quebec.
Williamson, Ronald F. and Terry G. Powis
1998 Parsons Site Ceramic Vessels. Ontario Archaeology 65/66:53-71.
Williamson, Ronald F. and David A. Robertson
1994 Peer Polities Beyond the Periphery: Early and Middle Iroquoian Regional Interaction. Ontario
1998 The Archaeology of the Parsons Site: A Fifty Year Perspective. Ontario Archaeology 65/66.
Williamson, Ronald F., Stephen Cox Thomas and Robert I. MacDonald
2003 The Archaeology of the Moatfield Village Site. In Bones of the Ancestors: The Archaeology and
Osteobiography of the Moatfield Ossuary, edited by R. F. Williamson and S. Pfeiffer, pp. 19-88.
Mercury Series Paper No.163. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Gatineau, Quebec.
Wintemberg, William J.
1900 Indian Village Sites in the Counties of Oxford and Waterloo. Archaeological Report for Ontario
1899:83-92.
1901 Indian Village Sites in the Counties of Oxford and Waterloo. Annual Archaeological Report for
Ontario 1900:37-40.
1903 Archaeology of Blenheim Township. Archaeological Report for Ontario 1902:58-70.
1913 The Archaeology of Blandford Township, Oxford County, Ontario. National Museum of
Canada, Bulletin 1:187-200.
1939 Lawson Prehistoric Village Site, Middlesex County, Ontario. National Museum of Canada,
Bulletin 94. Canada Dept. of Mines and Resources, Mines and Geology Branch, Ottawa.
1942 The Geographical Distribution of Aboriginal Pottery In Canada. American Antiquity 8(2):129-
141.
Wobst, H. Martin
311
1977 Stylistic Behaviour and Information Exchange. In For the Director: Research Essays in Honor
of James B. Griffin, edited by C. E. Cleland, pp. 317-342. , Anthropology Paper No. 61.
University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor.
Wolf, Eric
1982 Europe and the People Without History. University of California, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Woolfrey, Sandra, Prince Chitwood and Norman E. Wagner
1976 Who Made the Pipes? A Study of Decorative Motifs on Middleport Pipes and Pottery
Collections. Ontario Archaeology 27:3-12.
Wonderley, Anthony W.
2004 Oneida Iroquois Folklore, Myth, and History: New York Oral Narrative from the Notes of H. E.
Allen and Others. 1st ed. Iroquois and their neighbors. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, N.Y.
2005 Iroquois Ceramic Iconography: New Evidence from the Oneida Vaillancourt Site. Ontario
Archaeology 79/80:73-87.
2005 Effigy Pipes, Diplomacy, and Myth: Exploring Interaction between St. Lawrence Iroquoians and
Eastern Iroquois in New York State. American Antiquity 70(2):211-240.
Wray, Charles F. and Harry Schoff
1953 A Preliminary Report on the Seneca Sequence in Western New York—1550-1687. Pennsylvania
Archaeologist 8(2):53-63.
Wright, D. M.
1991 An Archaeobotanical Report Based upon Flotation Analysis of Plant Materials from the Keffer
Site, Vaughn, Ontario. Museum of Indian Archaeology Research Report no. 22, London.
Wright, James V.
1966 The Ontario Iroquois Tradition. National Museum of Canada, Bulletin 210. National Museum of
Canada, Ottawa.
1974 The Nodwell Site. National Museum of Man, Ottawa.
1980 The Role of Attribute Analysis in the Study of Iroquoian Prehistory. In Proceedings of the 1979
Iroquois Pottery Conference, edited by C. F. Hayes III, pp. 21-26. vol. 13. Rochester Museum
and Science Center, Research Record.
Wrong, G. M. (editor)
1939 Sagard's Long Journey to the Huron. The Champlain Society, Toronto.
Wylie, M. Alison
1989 Archaeological Cables and Tacking: The Implications of Practice for Bernstein's "Options
Beyond Objectivism and Relativism". Philosophy of the Social Sciences 19(1):1-18.
Zeitlin, Robert N.
1982 Toward a More Comprehensive Model of Interregional Commodity Distribution: Political
Variables and Prehistoric Obsidian Procurement in Mesoamerica. American Antiquity 47(2):260-
275.
Appendices
Appendix A: Bcal Radiocarbon Dates for the Keffer Site
The radiocarbon dates for the Keffer site are summarized in Table A-1 and Figure A-1.
Table A-1. Calibrations of all the radiocarbon dates for the Keffer site.
312
313
Figure A-1. The 17 radiocarbon dates from the Keffer site run through Bcal Standard
Calibration at 2 Sigma, 95% probability (calibrated by D. G. Smith 2019).
314
Appendix B: X-ray Fluorescence Analysis of Copper Artifacts from the Keffer Site
315
316
Appendix C: Previous Research on the Keffer Site
Preliminary reports of the first excavations presented an initial analysis of botanical samples
undertaken by Charles Turton (Finlayson et al. 1985:8), which documented the presence of the
agricultural cultigens maize, beans, squash, sunflower, and tobacco and also provided evidence
of the relatively long-term occupation of the Keffer village. According to Turton, the presence of
maple and beech charcoal at the base of a village midden overlain by strata containing evidence
of more varied mixed trees marks the initial settlement in an established forest. The non-climax
trees seen in later deposits suggest that the area was entirely cleared of the original forest and
that forest regrowth occurred during the occupation period (Finlayson et al. 1985:9). The use of
the secondary growth forest by Keffer residents argues for a long duration of occupation of the
village.
Dawn Wright (1991) undertook a larger, more thorough analysis of selected midden and house
botanical remains. Frances Stewart’s (1991) analyzed a portion of the Keffer site fauna; David G.
Smith’s (1991) studied the site ceramics; Harry Lerner’s (1997) examined the projectile points
and chipped lithics; Bruce Jamieson’s (1991) analyzed the modified bone, antler, tooth, and shell
artifacts. Michael Spence’s (1988) also reported on the excavation and analysis of the burials,
and Stephen Cox Thomas (n.d.) analyzed the dog burial. Finlayson and his team published a
summary of the 1985 excavation season and a description of the artifacts, in 1987 (Finlayson et
al. 1987), prior to the 1988 excavations of the southern portion of the village.
With financial support from a University of Toronto Graduate Research Grant to Susan
Dermarkar, Brandi-Lee MacDonald performed x-ray fluorescence analysis of two Keffer copper
pieces, one scrap and one rolled bead. Both pieces are of indigenous manufacture, supporting the
assignment of the Keffer site to the precontact era. This research grant also supported six
radiocarbon AMS dates, performed by Direct AMS and Beta Analytic. These analyses examined
pot residue originating from vessels found in diverse areas of the village (see Appendix A).
The Keffer site collections from the 1985 and 1988 excavations, housed at the Museum of
Ontario Archaeology (formerly Museum of Indian Archaeology) in London, have also been the
subject of a large number of academic research projects. Analyses of previously unstudied house
and midden faunal samples from the site have been undertaken by undergraduate students in the
University of Toronto St. George campus faunal analysis lab class, taught by Max Friesen, in
317
2016. The results of these analyses are on file at the Department of Anthropology at University
of Toronto St. George campus. University of Toronto student Rachel Gruber (2014) performed a
preliminary analysis of Keffer pipes and their relation with other north shore Iroquoian
collections. Harry Lerner completed his Master’s thesis on chipped lithic artifacts, using the
Keffer collection (Lerner 2000), and he continues to publish on the material (Lerner 2015). Dori
Rainey’s Master’s thesis investigating the implications of scattered and butchered human bone
found throughout the site was completed at the University of Western Ontario (Rainey 2002).
Frances Stewart’s (1996) PhD thesis, comparing faunal resource use at the Keffer site and the St.
Lawrence Iroquoian McKeown site, was the first thesis to come out of the Keffer site
excavations. This was followed by Bruce Jamieson’s PhD thesis (2016), based on the Keffer
bone artifacts, and, most recently, by Steven Dorland’s PhD thesis (2018), which examines the
Keffer learner ceramics in the interpretation of the dynamics of learning within Wendat ceramic
communities of practice. Working with Keffer whole vessels, Steve Bull (1987, 1989), at the
University of Western Ontario, published two papers on the relations between complete pots and
their rim sherds.
In addition, Keffer has been the subject of several academic presentations and publications These
include the work of John Creese on the Keffer pipes and identity (2013, 2014), my own
(Dermarkar 2012, 2013a, 2013b, 2014b, 2016) presentations on the Keffer site and its ceramic
relations, Tara Jenkins’ work on the human bone artifacts (Jenkins 2014, 2016), Erika
Johannsen’s (2014) research into Keffer castellation typology, Harry Lerner’s (2011) study of
the chipped lithic artifact typologies, David G. Smith’s presentation on Keffer’s settlement
pattern (2015), Michael Spence and Dori Rainey’s (2017) study of the cultural significance of
the Keffer site human burials, and Frances Stewart’s (1991b) examination of the implications of
screen mesh size on faunal recovery rates.
Although a large amount of research has been done on the Keffer site, this large and relatively
complete collection lends itself to further study.
318
Appendix D: All Ceramic Types Represented in the Keffer Site Assemblage
In most cases, the information for these types is taken from text or, where no text is available,
from plates, in MacNeish (1952). The page numbers have been noted below. In some cases,
other sources have been used, as noted below.
EARLY ONTARIO
Middleport Oblique (MacNeish 1952:16–17)
Vessel shape: probably globular
Neck shape: slightly constricted
Collar shape: slightly outflaring rims with poorly defined, incipient collars
Collar height: short, 1 to 2.5 cm
Exterior profile: unspecified
Interior profile: unspecified
Decoration: short, parallel oblique lines on upper rim; horizontal line or lines on lower rim or at
base of incipient collar; sometimes notches or linear punctates on base
Castellations: unknown
Ontario Horizontal (MacNeish 1952:16)

Vessel shape: globular
Collar shape: earlier, outflaring and poorly defined; later, sharply defined, straight, vertical
Exterior profile: convex to straight
Interior profile: concave
Decoration: two to five horizontal incised lines on collar; earlier, sometimes vertical or oblique
gashes above and/or below horizontal lines; later, sometimes ovoid notches at base of collar
Ontario Oblique (MacNeish 1952:18)

319

Collar shape: poorly defined
Exterior profile: slightly convex to straight
Decoration: bands of horizontal obliques of opposing direction on top of each other, often with
more bands of obliques or horizontal lines below
Castellations: rarely
Note: MacNeish (1952:18) states that this type has a “criss cross” design, but that implies lines
crossing each other, which they do not.
Pound Blank (MacNeish 1952:15–16)

Collar shape: well defined
Exterior profile: convex
Decoration: alternating wide-based, undecorated isosceles triangles, separated by four oblique
lines; commonly punctates or gashes form the base of the triangles
Castellations: four, with vertical band of four parallel lines with two undecorated, right-angle
triangles on either side, under castellations
Pound Neck (MacNeish 1952:14–15)

Collar shape: poorly defined, with increasing thickness towards the rim
Exterior profile: straight to convex
320
Decoration: horizontal incisions encircling the neck; oblique or vertical, parallel incisions on
collar
SOUTH-CENTRAL ONTARIO “Huron/Neutral”

Copeland Incised (Wright 1966:73)
Vessel shape: unknown
Neck shape: unknown
Collar shape: sharply defined collar base
Exterior profile: unknown
Interior profile: concave or convex
Decoration: incised horizontal line broken by vertical or oblique lines; may have ovate basal
and/or rim punctates; no lip or interior decoration
Huron Incised (MacNeish 1952:34)

Vessel shape: globular body with outflaring rim
Neck shape: constricted
Exterior profile: commonly concave; sometimes straight
Interior profile: straight or convex
Decoration: parallel oblique or vertical lines around the collar, rarely, inside opposed triangles;
sometimes notches above or below decoration
Castellations: one to four; earlier, pointed; later, sometimes pointed, commonly squared
Seed Incised (MacNeish 1952:35)

Vessel shape: globular body with outflaring collar
321
Exterior profile: concave

Interior profile: usually convex; more rarely, straight
Decoration: short, vertical gashes at top and base of collar; sometimes gashes in middle of collar
Castellations: pointed, squared, or bifurcated
Sidey Crossed (MacNeish 1952:36)

Decoration: closely spaced oblique or vertical parallel lines that are crossed in the centre by a
solid horizontal line or a broken horizontal line
Castellations: present
Sidey Notched (MacNeish 1952:33)

Interior profile: convex
Decoration: closely spaced oblique or vertical parallel lines; rarely, forming opposed triangles;
lips always notched; neck not decorated
Castellations: one, two, or four
Note: MacNeish (1952) does not include notched Warminster Crossed in this type. In this
analysis, what MacNeish (1952) refers to as notched Warminster Crossed is assigned to the
Sidey Notched type.
Warminster Crossed (MacNeish 1952:32)

322
Neck shape: very constricted

Decoration: closely spaced oblique lines crossed by widely spaced oblique lines in the opposite
direction, on short, outflaring collar that is either convex or straight
Castellations: squared and notched
Note: This type may have opposed incised-line triangles on the neck. In this analysis, these
vessels are typed as Black Necked.
Warminster Horizontal (MacNeish 1952:34–35)

Interior profile: usually convex; more rarely, straight
Decoration: three to seven horizontal lines on the collar, usually with vertical or oblique gashes
at base of collar; no neck deck
Castellations: usually pointed; sometimes squared or bifurcated
Black Necked (MacNeish 1952:36)

Exterior profile: straight to concave
Decoration: a variety of oblique lines, etc., vertical lines, opposed triangles, horizontal lines, with
or without broken horizontals (Sidey Crossed) on the rim, with or without basal collar notches
(i.e., Warminster Horizontal); there may be notches on the top of the collar (Sidey Notched);
323
opposed triangles filled with oblique lines on the neck; rarely, only horizontal incisions on the
neck
Castellations: pointed
Lawson Incised (MacNeish 1952:14)

Vessel shape: globular body
Collar shape: collar blends gradually into the neck; poorly defined collar
Exterior profile: straight or concave
Decoration: incised parallel line, usually oblique to the right or vertical; less commonly obliques
to the left; rarely, bases notched
Castellations: one, pointed
Lawson Opposed (MacNeish 1952:13–14)

Collar shape: collar blends gradually into the neck; poorly defined collar
Exterior profile: straight or concave
Decoration: opposed triangles or bands of oblique, parallel lines
Castellations: one, pointed
Lalonde High Collar (Ridley 1952:205)

Vessel shape: elongated body more than 30 cm in height; shoulder diameter greater than collar
diameter
Neck shape: constricted and long, at least two times the collar height
Collar height: 8 cm or greater
324
Interior profile: straight

Decoration: two to three closely spaced incised horizontal lines on collar base, sometimes on
upper rim, sometimes on both the collar base and the upper rim; lines connect or stop at
castellation hachuring; central area of collar has open triangles circumscribed with punctates;
sometimes other spaces hachured with oblique or horizontal lines
Castellations: two, weak, opposed to each other, with numerous vertical hachure lines under
them
Sopher Incised (Latta 1983:39; Noble 1968:172–173)

Collar shape: wider at the base and tapered to the lip
Collar height: high, no specifics
Exterior profile: straight
Interior profile: straight to concave
Decoration: vertical punctates at base of collar, with vertical and oblique plaits divided by a
diagonal ladder plait; sometimes short, vertical strokes below the rim
High Collared (Fitzgerald 2014; Sutton 1990)

Neck shape: slightly to well constricted
Collar shape: generally well defined; upright
Collar height: greater than 35 mm; generally greater than 50 mm
Exterior profile: slightly concave or straight
Interior profile: straight, convex, or concave
Decoration: large variety of oblique and triangular motifs
Castellations: often; present in various shapes
Note: This is a mode, not a type.
NIAGARA AREA/ERIE
Niagara Collared (MacNeish 1952:26)
325

Collar height: short, 2.5 cm
Decoration: usually absent; rarely, lips incised
Castellations: one
Ripley Plain (MacNeish 1952:25–26)

Neck shape: in-sloping
Collar shape: in-sloping
Collar height: short, 2.5 cm
Decoration: usually absent; rarely, lips incised
Ripley Collared (MacNeish 1952:26–27)

Decoration: gashes or punctates at base of collar
Exterior profile: unspecified
Interior profile: unspecified
WESTERN NEW YORK STATE

Dutch Hollow Notched (MacNeish 1952:43)
Vessel shape: small, globular body with outflaring rim
Neck shape: long; slightly constricted
326
Collar shape: thickened lip

Collar height: n/a
Exterior profile: commonly thickened lips of flat or convex shape
Decoration: notches on the rim adjacent to the lip or notches or gashes cutting the thickened lip
and/or outer rim
Castellations: none
Seneca Notched (MacNeish 1952:43)

Neck shape: short; slightly constricted
Collar shape: appliquéd; poorly attached
Collar height: n/a
Exterior profile: straight or slightly concave
Interior profile: various; some concave
Decoration: long notches at base of rim; sometimes notches at top of collar
Castellations: rarely; if present, one or two
Cayuga Horizontal (MacNeish 1952:52)

Vessel shape: globular body with incipient collar
Neck shape: short; constricted
Collar height: high, 6 to 9 cm
Exterior profile: from convex to concave
Decoration: earlier, horizontal line motifs; later, horizontal lines cut at wide intervals by oblique
bands of three to four parallel incised lines; sometimes horizontal lines have band of verticals
crossing them (usually under castellations); sometimes round notches at base
Castellations: two to four
Richmond Incised (MacNeish 1952:51)

Vessel shape: globular body with incipient collar
327
Neck shape: short; constricted

Collar height: high, 6 to 9 cm
Exterior profile: from convex to concave
Decoration: incised vertical or oblique incised lines, alone or in opposed triangles, usually with
notches on collar base; rarely, one or two horizontal lines at top of collar
Castellations: two to four, often with bands of four to six vertical lines
EASTERN NEW YORK STATE

Onondaga Triangular (MacNeish 1952:60)
Collar height: medium, 2.5 to 3.5 cm
Exterior profile: concave to convex
Interior profile: concave to straight
Decoration: right-angle triangles filled with parallel incised lines; a single or double horizontal
line encircles the top of the rim, with a band of short, vertical impressions at the top of the collar;
variant has a diagonal line of punctates or ladder plaits across the hypotenuse of the triangles;
later, oval-shaped notches at base
Syracuse Incised (MacNeish 1952:59)

Neck shape: unstated
Collar shape: well defined; thin
Exterior profile: convex to concave
Interior profile: usually concave; sometimes straight
Decoration: oblique line decoration, generally of opposed triangles filled with oblique lines; no
notching on collar base or rim; some variants may have punctates above and below rim
328
Thurston Horizontal (MacNeish 1952:66, 69)

Collar height: medium to high, usually 2.5 to 4 cm, may be up to 6 cm
Exterior profile: usually convex; sometimes concave
Interior profile: well defined; concave
Decoration: two to seven horizontal lines in middle of collar; above and below are bands of
short, closely spaced vertical lines; sometimes notched or unnotched base; in historic period,
often effigies under castellations
Castellations: two
Cayadutta Incised (MacNeish 1952:77–78)

Decoration: one to two horizontal lines, usually below bands of short, closely spaced vertical
lines just below lip; verticals may be absent; below this are parallel oblique or vertical incised
lines, opposed triangles filled with oblique lines, or oblique lines separated by a band of vertical,
incised oblique line with crescent punctates or oblique notches; earlier, oblique bands of short
linear punctates or opposed triangles outlined by four parallel lines on the neck
Castellations: low, pointed
Chance Incised (MacNeish 1952:78)

Collar shape: sharply defined base
329
Collar height: low to medium

Exterior profile: straight to convex
Decoration: single or double horizontal line below band of short, vertical impressions on top of
collar; below this are a variation of design motifs, including oblique lines, opposed oblique lines,
vertical lines, vertical and oblique lines, horizontal lines, horizontal lines broken by triangles
filled with oblique parallel lines; no collar base notches
Neck decoration: oblique plaits of linear punctates; commonly four oblique lines forming
triangles or herringbone design
Fonda Incised (MacNeish 1952:76)

Collar shape: well developed
Collar height: medium, 2.5 to 3.5 cm; increasing with time
Exterior profile: highly convex to straight
Interior profile: commonly concave
Decoration: multiple horizontal lines below band of short, vertical impressions on top of collar;
horizontal lines may be broken by oblique line–filled triangles
Neck decoration: earlier, opposed-line triangle; crescent-shaped or elliptical notches on collar
base
Otstungo Incised (MacNeish 1952:76–77)

Vessel shape: round body
Collar shape: well developed
Collar height: medium to high, greater than 3.5 cm
Exterior profile: straight
Interior profile: concave but with a lot of variation
330
Decoration: one to two horizontal lines, usually below bands of short, closely spaced vertical line
just below lip; verticals may be absent; below this are parallel oblique or vertical incised lines,
opposed triangles filled with oblique lines, or oblique lines separated by band of vertical incised
oblique line; collar base has round or elliptical notches or punctates
Castellations: incipient (deduced from Plate xxxi)
Otstungo Notched (MacNeish 1952:60)

Neck shape: straight or very slightly constricted
Collar shape: outflaring; thickened rim
Collar height: n/a
Exterior profile: straight lip on everted rim
Decoration: on top of thickened lip; earlier, dominant motif of one or two encircling incisions
parallel to edge of lip, with interior and/or exterior bands of notches or short lines at right angles
to encircling incisions; other motifs have opposed oblique lines
Castellations: none
Note: Originally seen as Mohawk but may have regional origin. A minority ware throughout
Mohawk history; reaches its peak in historic times.
Rice Diagonal (MacNeish 1952:60)

Collar shape: outflaring; thickened rim
Collar height: n/a
Exterior profile: straight lip
Decoration: on top of thickened lip; oblique parallel lines on thickened lips or straight parallel
lines at right angles to lip; rarely, interior and exterior rim notching
Castellations: none
Note: Originally seen as Mohawk but may have regional origin.
331
Wagoner/Wagner Incised (MacNeish 1952:75)

Collar shape: sharply defined base
Collar height: medium, 5 cm
Interior profile: concave opposite collar base
Decoration: oblique or vertical parallel incised lines; commonly opposed triangles filled with
parallel lines; circular notches at base
Castellations: incipient
Durfee Underlined (MacNeish 1952:60)

Collar height: medium
Exterior profile: convex to concave
Interior profile: commonly concave; rarely, straight
Decoration: one or two horizontal lines at base and rim of collar; sometimes between these
horizontals, oblique-line, opposed triangles or opposed, right-angled triangles filled with parallel
lines; sometimes undecorated triangles outlined by incised lines with or without gashes along the
edge; later, basal notches
Castellations: two to six; earlier, sometimes hollow reed punctates below castellations; later,
sometimes effigy faces or figures
Note: Originally seen as Onondaga by MacNeish (1952). Now seen as St. Lawrence valley and
Northern New York (William Engelbrecht 2019 Personal Communication).
Roebuck Low Collar (MacNeish 1952:61, Figures 24.1–24.20)

Collar height: short
332
Exterior profile: convex to straight

Decoration: commonly oblique lines, often forming opposed, isosceles or right-angled triangles
on the bottom half of the collar, with one or two horizontal lines at the top; shows designs
common to Chance Incised, Otstungo Incised, or Durfee Underlined; sometimes basal notches
Castellations: one or two; sometimes three hollow reed punctates under castellation(s); rarely,
handles under castellation(s)
Note: Originally seen as Onondaga by MacNeish (1952). Now seen as St. Lawrence valley and
general area.
Lanorie Mixed (MacNeish 1952:63)

Vessel shape: globular or elongated–globular body with rounded base
Exterior profile: usually straight; sometimes convex
Decoration: designs are complex and can vary; made by two or more decorative techniques of
incising, dentate stamping, or cordwrapped-paddle-edge impression
Note: This name represents a spelling error in the name Lanoraie by MacNeish (1952).
Summary statistics for the ceramic types discussed in the text are provided in Tables D-1 and D-
2.
333
Table D-1. Ceramic Types Present at the Keffer Site.

Total Total Number Number of Vessels
Number Number of of Vessels of of Unknown
of Vessels as % of Unknown Provenience as %
Type Vessels Site Total Provenience of Site Total
Huron Incised 2728 48.1 104 3.8
Black Necked 960 16.9 36 3.8
Lawson Incised 357 6.3 33 9.2
Sidey Crossed 303 5.3 6 2.0
Sidey Notched 246 4.3 12 4.9
Warminster Crossed 157 2.8 3 1.9
Otstungo Notched 126 2.2 4 3.2
Durfee Underlined 99 1.7 4 4.0
High Collar 15th cent. 56 1.0 8 14.3
Niagara Collared 50 0.9 2 4.0
Pound Necked 49 0.9 3 6.1
Rice Diagonal 49 0.9 1 2.0
Warminster Horizontal 49 0.9 3 6.1
Dutch Hollow Notched 47 0.8 4 8.5
Syracuse Incised 47 0.8 0 0.0
Roebuck Low Collar 45 0.8 0 0.0
Wagoner incised 37 0.7 1 2.7
Lalonde High collar 33 0.6 0 0.0
Seed Incised 25 0.4 1 4.0
Copeland Incised 19 0.3 2 10.5
Onondaga Triangular 19 0.3 1 5.3
Thurston Horizontal 19 0.3 1 5.3
Cayuga Horizontal 17 0.3 0 0.0
Fonda Incised 13 0.2 0 0.0
Lawson Opposed 13 0.2 1 7.7
Richmond Incised 9 0.2 2 22.2
Ripley Plain 8 0.1 2 25.0
Ontario Horizontal 5 0.1 0 0.0
Cayadutta Incised 4 0.1 0 0.0
Chance Incised 4 0.1 0 0.0
Ripley Collared 4 0.1 0 0.0
Middleport Crisscross 2 0.0 0 0.0
Otstungo Incised 2 0.0 0 0.0
Middleport Oblique 1 0.0 1 100.0
Ontario Oblique 1 0.0 1 100.0
Pound Blank 1 0.0 0 0.0
Unknown 69 1.2 5 7.2
5674 100.0 241 4.2
334
Table D-2. Keffer Site Ceramic Types Percentage by Community of Practice.

Local Tradition
Total House/ Black Huron Copeland Seed Sidey Sidey

Vessels Local CoP Midden Necked Incised Incised Incised Crossed Notched
39 2 H1 15.4 43.6 0 0 15.4 0
9 4 H2 11.1 66.7 0 0 0 0
6 5 H3 0 50 0 0 16.7 0
22 4 H4 13.6 59.1 0 0 13.6 0
8 4 H6 12.5 37.5 0 0 12.5 12.5
25 4 H7 12.0 84 0 0 0 0
17 3 H8 17.6 23.5 0 0 17.6 11.8
40 2 H9 7.5 60.0 0 0 5.0 0
13 2 H10 15.4 61.5 0 0 7.7 0
37 4 H11 10.8 48.6 0 0 8.1 13.5
112 3 H12 18.8 44.6 0 0 4.5 2.7
131 1 H13 20.6 42.7 0.8 0 9.2 0.8
1 2 H14 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 5 H15 40 50 0 0 0 0
1 3 H18 0 0 0 0 0 0
55 4 H19 5.5 67.3 0 1.8 5.5 0
261 1 H20 21.8 54.4 0 1.1 3.4 3.8
1 2 H16 0 100 0 0 0 0
62 5 M51 22.6 41.9 1.6 0 6.5 3.2
153 2 M52 19.0 51.6 0 0 11.8 2.6
60 5 M53 26.7 38.3 0 0 5.0 6.7
127 2 M54 17.3 56.7 0.8 0.8 4.7 6.3
169 5 M55 23.7 52.1 0.6 0.6 2.4 1.8
49 3 M56 20.4 44.9 0 0 6.1 0
522 5 M57 17.4 44.4 1.3 0.4 4.8 2.9
87 2 M59 13.8 56.3 0 0 5.7 5.7
530 2 M60 14.5 53.0 0.4 0.6 7.4 3.2
413 2 M61 14.0 62.5 0.2 0.7 2.7 1.5
208 3 M62 17.3 39.4 0.5 0.5 2.4 1.9
12 4 M63 16.7 58.3 0 0 0 8.3
966 5 M65 17.5 39.0 0.2 0.7 4.1 9.5
73 2 M66 9.6 47.9 0 2.7 4.1 4.1
18 5 M67 11.1 50 0 0 0 11.1
21 5 M68 19.0 38.1 0 0 0 4.8
103 2 M71 14.6 52.4 0 0 7.8 2.9
87 3 M72 18.4 44.8 0 0 13.8 4.6
51 3 M73 13.7 56.9 0 0 0 3.9
644 3 M74 18.2 48.3 0 0 5.4 4.7
31 5 M75 9.7 51.6 0 0 3.2 3.2
144 2 M77 13.9 43.1 0 0 9.7 2.8
25 5 M78 16.0 32.0 0 0 8.0 0
80 2 M80 13.8 55.0 0 0 12.5 1.3
Non-House
241 /Midden 10.4 53.3 0.2 0.1 4.7 5.6
5674 Total Vessels 960 2728 19 25 303 246
335
Table D-2. Keffer Site Ceramic Types by Community of Practice. (cont.)

Local Tradition (cont.)
War Warm Lalonde
Local House/ minster inster High High Lawson Lawson
CoP Midden Crossed Horizontal collar Collar Incised Opposed
2 H1 2.6 5.1 2.6 0 0 0
4 H2 11.1 0 0 0 0 0
5 H3 0 0 0 16.7 16.7 0
4 H4 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 H6 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 H7 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 H8 5.9 0 0 5.9 5.9 0
2 H9 0 0 0 0 12.5 0
2 H10 0 0 0 0 7.7 0
4 H11 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 H12 7.1 2.7 0 0.9 1.8 0
1 H13 4.6 2.3 0.8 0.0 0 0
2 H14 0 0 100 0 0 0
5 H15 0 5 0 0 0 0
3 H18 0 100 0 0 0 0
4 H19 3.6 1.8 0 0 0 1.8
1 H20 3.4 0.8 0.8 0.4 0 0
2 H16 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 M51 3.2 0 0 1.6 9.7 0
2 M52 1.3 0.7 0 0.7 5.2 0
5 M53 3.3 0 1.7 1.7 3.3 0
2 M54 0 0.8 0 0.0 5.5 0
5 M55 0 0.6 0 0.6 8.9 0
3 M56 0 2.0 0 4.1 2.0 0
5 M57 3.1 0.4 1.5 1.7 11.1 0.2
2 M59 1.1 1.1 0 0 2.3 0
2 M60 2.6 0.8 0.8 1.1 5.8 0.8
2 M61 1.2 0 0.2 1.0 4.6 0.5
3 M62 3.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 3.4 0.5
4 M63 0 0 0 8.3 0 0
5 M65 4.1 1.2 0.7 0.5 7.5 0.2
2 M66 2.7 1.4 0 0 5.5 0
5 M67 0 0 0 0 16.7 0
5 M68 0 0 0 0 19.0 0
2 M71 5.8 1.9 0 0 3.9 0
3 M72 3.4 0 1.1 0 9.2 0
3 M73 0 0 2.0 2.0 5.9 0
3 M74 3.3 0.8 0.2 0.9 6.1 0.2
5 M75 0 0 6.5 0 19.4 0
2 M77 2.8 0.7 0 1.4 3.5 0
5 M78 0 0 0 8.0 24 0
2 M80 0 0 1.3 1.3 5.0 0
Non-H/M 0.9 0.8 0.0 4.8 10.0 0.1
Total Vessels 157 49 33 56 357 13
336

Early Ontario Erie area
Middle Middle
House/ port port Ontario Ontario Poun Pound Niagara Ripley Riple
Local Midde Crisscros Obliqu Horizonta Obliqu d Necke Collare Collare y
CoP n s e l e Blank d d d Plain
2 H1 0 0 0 0 2.6 0 0 0 0
4 H2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 H3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 H4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 H6 12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 H7 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 H8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 H9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0
2 H10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 H11 0 0 0 0 0 2.7 0 0 0
3 H12 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 0 0.9
1 H13 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0
2 H14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 H15 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0
3 H18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 H19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 H20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 0.4
2 H16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 M51 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.2 0 0
2 M52 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 0 0 0
5 M53 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1.7
2 M54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 0
5 M55 0 0 0.6 0 0 3.0 0.6 0 0
3 M56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 M57 0 0 0.2 0 0 2.1 0.4 0 0
2 M59 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.7 0 0
2 M60 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 0.6 0 0
2 M61 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 1.5 0 0
3 M62 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.4 0 0
4 M63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 M65 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 0.9 0.2 0.2
2 M66 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.4 0 0
5 M67 0 0 0 0 0 11.1 0 0 0
5 M68 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.8 0 0
2 M71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 M72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 M73 0 0 0 0 0 2.0 0 0 2.0
3 M74 0.2 0 0.3 0 0 0.8 0.5 0.2 0
5 M75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 M77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.7 0 0
5 M78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 M80 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 0 0
Non-H/M 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.8 0.0 0.2
Total Vessels 2 1 5 1 1 49 50 4 8
337

Northern New York–St. Haudenosaunee Territory
Lawrence
Local House/ Durfee Roebuck Low Otstungo Rice

CoP Midden Underlined Collar Notched Diagonal
2 H1 2.6 0 0 2.6
4 H2 0 0 0 0
5 H3 0 0 0 0
4 H4 0 0 0 0
4 H6 0 0 0 0
4 H7 0 0 0 0
3 H8 0 0 0 0
2 H9 0 2.5 0 0
2 H10 0 0 0 7.7
4 H11 5.4 0 0 0
3 H12 0 0 3.6 0
1 H13 3.8 2.3 1.5 2.3
2 H14 0 0 0 0
5 H15 0 0 0 0
3 H18 0 0 0 0
4 H19 3.6 0 3.6 1.8
1 H20 2.3 1.5 1.1 0
2 H16 0 0 0 0
5 M51 0 0 0 0
2 M52 0 0 0.7 0
5 M53 0 0 0 1.7
2 M54 0 0.8 0 2.4
5 M55 0.6 1.2 0.6 0.6
3 M56 0 2.0 2.0 2.0
5 M57 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.2
2 M59 1.1 2.3 1.1 0
2 M60 2.6 0.6 0.9 1.1
2 M61 1.7 0.7 1.5 0.7
3 M62 1.4 0 14.9 2.4
4 M63 8.3 0 0 0
5 M65 2.6 1.4 2.4 0.4
2 M66 4.1 2.7 1.4 4.1
5 M67 0 0 0 0
5 M68 0 0 4.8 0
2 M71 1.9 1.0 1.9 2.9
3 M72 2.3 0 2.3 0
3 M73 2.0 2.0 0 0
3 M74 0.8 0.5 3.9 1.4
5 M75 0 0 3.2 0
2 M77 4.9 0 3.5 1.4
5 M78 4.0 4 0 0
2 M80 3.8 1.3 1.3 0
Non-H/M 1.4 0.0 1.0 0.2
Total Vessels 99 45 126 49
338

Haudenosaunee Territory (cont.)
Local House/ Dutch Hollow Seneca Cayuga Thurston Onondaga Richmond Syracuse
CoP Midden Notched Notched Horizontal Horizontal Triangular Incised Incised
2 H1 2.6 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 H2 11.1 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 H3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 H4 0 0 0 4.5 4.5 0 0
4 H6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 H7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 H8 0 0 0 0 5.9 0 5.9
2 H9 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 5.0
2 H10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 H11 2.7 0 0 2.7 0 2.7 2.7
3 H12 0.9 0 1.8 0.9 0.9 0 0
1 H13 2.3 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 H14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 H15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 H18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 H19 0 0 0 3.6 0 0 0
1 H20 0.8 0 0 0 0.8 0 0.8
2 H16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 M51 3.2 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 M52 1.3 0 0 0.7 0 0 1.3
5 M53 1.7 0 0 0 0 0 1.7
2 M54 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.6
5 M55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 M56 10.2 0 0 0 0 0 2.0
5 M57 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 1.1
2 M59 1.1 0 0 0 0 1.1 0
2 M60 0.6 0 0.2 0 0.8 0.2 0.4
2 M61 0.2 0 0.2 0.2 0 0.2 1.2
3 M62 2.4 0 1.0 0 0.5 0 1.9
4 M63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 M65 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 1.0
2 M66 4.1 0 0 1.4 0 1.4 0
5 M67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 M68 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 0
2 M71 1.0 0 1.0 0 0 0 0
3 M72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 M73 2.0 0 2.0 0 0 0 0
3 M74 0.2 0 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.8
5 M75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 M77 0.7 0 2.1 2.8 0.7 0 2.1
5 M78 0 0 0 0 4.0 0 0
2 M80 1.3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Non-H/M 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.0
Total Vessels
47 1 17 19 19 9 47
339

Haudenosaunee Territory (cont.)
House/ Wagoner Cayadutta Chance Fonda Otstungo

Local CoP Midden incised Incised Incised Incised Incised Untypable (%)
2 H1 0 0 0 0 0 5.1
4 H2 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 H3 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 H4 0 0 0 4.5 0 0
4 H6 0 0 0 0 0 12.5
4 H7 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 H8 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 H9 0 0 0 0 2.5 0
2 H10 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 H11 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 H12 0 0 0 0 0 4.5
1 H13 0 0 0 0 0 5.3
2 H14 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 H15 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 H18 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 H19 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 H20 0.4 0.8 0 0 0 0.8
2 H16 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 M51 1.6 0 0 0 0 1.6
2 M52 0 0 0 0 0 2.0
5 M53 1.7 0 0 0 0 0
2 M54 1.6 0 0 0 0 0
5 M55 0 0 0 0 0 1.8
3 M56 0 0 0 0 0 2.0
5 M57 1.9 0.2 0 0 0 2.3
2 M59 0 0 0 1.1 0 0
2 M60 0 0 0 0 0 0.4
2 M61 1.2 0 0 0.7 0 0.5
3 M62 1.0 0 0 1.4 0 0.5
4 M63 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 M65 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.2
2 M66 0 0 0 1.4 0 0
5 M67 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 M68 0 0 0 4.8 0 0
2 M71 0 0 0 0 0 1.0
3 M72 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 M73 0 0 0.2 0 0 2.0
3 M74 0.6 0 0.3 0 0 0.6
5 M75 0 0 0 0 0 3.2
2 M77 1.4 0 0 0.7 0 1.4
5 M78 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 M80 0 0 0 0 0 1.3
Non-H/M 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9
Total Vessels 37 4 4 13 2 69
340
Appendix E: Appendix to Chapter 4: Methodology
Brainerd-Robinson Adjacency Matrix
The approach employed in order to explore the presence of ceramic practice communities within
the larger Keffer village community requires the application of some form of measurement to the
ceramic types used as proxies for consumer choice. In a network approach, this measurement is
based on relationships between entities, in this case, house and midden ceramic samples. The
similarity seen among the collections represents the strength of these relationships.
A commonly employed method for assessing archaeological ceramic samples is the Brainerd-
Robinson co-efficient of similarity or dissimilarity matrix, signed specifically for this purpose
(Brainerd 1951; Robinson 1951). This approach measures the similarity in the proportions of the
values of the selected variable. In this case, the values selected are relative frequencies of
ceramic types within the variable of the MacNeish typology. As suggested by McNutt (2005),
the results of the similarity measures may be misleading, and it is therefore important to
understand the data being used. The same level of similarity between two entities can be derived
in quite different ways. The presence of one dominant value in both samples can result in a high
similarity co-efficient. On the other hand, equal, or very close, proportions of all values, whether
they are high or low, within the two cases may result in the same high BR index.
Sample Size and Geographical Proximity
In this study, similarity in the realm of shared ceramic types is used as a proxy for social ties. It
must be realized, however, that such similarity reflects interaction in only in regard to ceramics.
It is not indicative of similarity in terms of any other index. It is important to be cognisant of
dominant values which may affect similarity results. In this case, the Huron Incised type, or
undecorated neck Huron category, can, in rare cases, comprise up to 100 percent of the sample.
Dominant values can cause skewing in small samples, where diversity of types is less likely to
occur. In order to control for the possibility of this skewing in the Keffer ceramics, the data have
been divided into three matrices. Two of these, with sample sizes ranging below 30 vessels, are
considered less robust. The third, with a minimum sample size of 30 vessels, is used to form the
base graphs on which the analysis is grounded.
341
This value matches the minimum sample size chosen by the Southwest Social Networks Project
team of Barbara Mills and associates, leaders in archeological ceramic network analysis (Habiba
et al. 2018). There are 42 categories of ceramic wares among the more than 4 million vessels in
the Southwest Social Networks database. The actual similarity measured, as noted by Habiba et
al. (2018:64) and Mills (2017), is the consumption and disposal of ceramics. In the absence of
technical information pertaining to manufacturing processes, the production of vessels cannot
form part of the study of practice communities.
BR matrices for large archaeological datasets are easily created with the use of Matt Peeples’ BR
subprogram in the open source statistical program R (Peeples 2011). The program is capable of
transforming either frequency or percentage data input in csv (comma-separated variables)
format. The relative weighting of each loci collection is an inherent property of frequency data,
in contrast to percentage data, where each sample is given equal weight and where sample size
may skew results in the output matrix files. To counteract skewing effect, Peeples (2011) has
included a Monte Carlo simulation of 1,000 iterations with frequency input. This results in the
production of a probability matrix output file predicting the likelihood (between 0 and 1) that
each cell in the output BR matrix represents randomized data. According to Peeples
(http://www.mattpeeples.net/br.html; Matthew Peeples, personal communication 2015), the
numbers generated are unlikely to be within the acceptable range (P<.05) if the samples
compared originate in the same population. Peeples suggests that collections from within the
same region, and particularly with the same site, may be too similar to fit the randomized
sampling level generally accepted. This does not mean that these samples are unsuitable for
comparative analysis; it merely demands that extra vigilance in their interpretation. SNA has
advanced greatly in the past few years, and some researchers (Dermarkar et al. 2016; Hart and
Engelbrecht 2011; Hart et al. 2016) now employ the robust interpretive powers of SNA statistics,
such as External-Internal Index, which compares the strength of internal ties to those of external
ties, indicating strong homophily (−1) or strong heterophily
(www.analytictech.com/essex/Exercises/Interpreting_UCINET.doc) and centrality measures, to
verify visual interpretation of SNA plots in the exploration of social relationships.
The extreme proximity, in social, spatial, and temporal terms, of the ceramic samples from
within the Keffer settlement suggests that results from many network statistics are unlikely to be
robust at this level. Therefore only frequency-based matrices are used for Keffer intra-site
342
network analysis. At the inter-site, regional, and pan-regional levels, in contrast, frequency data
is often not available and percentage data is relied upon for the BR matrix production.
Social Network Analysis Interpretation
The intended analysis was proposed to take two fundamental forms, visual and statistical
investigation of ceramic type through social network analysis (SNA) software programs and
basic statistical analysis. Although ceramic types form the core of this analysis, I also examined
vessel attribute variables deemed to be of chronological or social significance, both singularly
and in combination, to unmask and interpret patterns. The raw data were restructured into several
assemblages, each of which was constructed in order to uncover different kinds of relationships
within the database. Initially, the finalized data was sorted in Excel, according to loci, into house
and midden contexts. Specific palisade designations were not available, though in most cases it
was possible to identify middens which post-dated palisade removal or collapse.
I selected Ucinet 6 for social network analysis software for this project for a variety of reasons.
As Ucinet 6 is a common platform, detailed software directions and information are available
online. This program is accessible without in-depth computing or statistical background
knowledge and is therefore relatively easy to use. Ucinet Netdraw (Borgatti 2002) contains many
features of use which produce relatively simple, clear, yet well-nuanced portrayals of similarity
data. It is well suited for network illustration, such as node attribute and tie-strength
characteristics, as discussed below. SNA programs require the storage of input data in a square
matrix form. Ucinet data files are specifically designed for Netdraw. Two forms of data files are
necessary for fluid SNA graph interpretation: Brainerd-Robinson coefficients of similarity and
node attribute data. The original matrix portrays the inter-node similarity levels. A second file
encodes attributes of the nodes, or physical origins of the samples. The node attribute files
created for this study describe individual characteristics of the nodes.
Graph Node Attributes
Sample Size at Keffer
I produced network graphs of the Keffer ceramic data for each of the three increasingly exclusive
data sets, with sample sizes of 6–19 vessels, greater than 20 vessels, and greater than 30 vessels.
343
Although statistical analysis is generally believed to be more robust with sample sizes above 30
units, smaller data samples are used here to produce the most inclusive network graphs possible.
The weak ties seen in these plots provide hints for directions of inquiry for internal village
relationships involving these poorly represented loci. Several longhouses yielded very limited
material culture remains due to a combination of the low number of longhouse pit features and
the extensive mechanical topsoil stripping of ploughed topsoil in the northern portion on the site.
With 37 distinct type variables present in the Keffer ceramic collection, and therefore in the
database, entities with small samples will not reflect the diversity present in the overall
collection. This sampling bias must be accounted for in analysis (Habiba et al. 2018:66). In order
to visualize this discrepancy for immediate recognition during graph pattern exploration, the
relative size of each ceramic sample is included in the node attributes.
This first node attribute, which portrays the number of vessels, or sample size, is an ordinal
variable. These sample size categories are not separated by uniform divisions; rather, the
quantitative differences between the categories are uneven. At the lower end of the spectrum, the
values are divided into several smaller-range categories, while at the higher end of the spectrum,
values represent greater size ranges. The relative size of the small samples gives a more precise
picture of the variability possible within each sample. Larger samples, defined as between 200
and 499 vessels or more than 500 vessels, hold greater likelihood of variability. I have divided
sample sizes into intuitively colour-coded groups based on the number of vessels within them,
with the colours reflecting the amount of caution needed. Darker colours portray more robust
samples. These assignments are illustrated in the figure legends.
Node Type: House or Midden
The second node attribute variable, as seen in node shape, is nominal and describes the
archaeological context of the sample origin, either longhouse or midden. House nodes are
portrayed by circles and middens by squares.
The association of the loci in relation to the village palisades is integral to the temporal
positioning of site features in the site development sequence. This affiliation is portrayed in the
third variable, also nominal, of settlement cluster location. Cluster assignment is also displayed
by colour. Where cluster affiliation is used in network analysis, it replaces the variable of sample
size as seen in the figure legends.
344
Node Variables for Ontario and Pan-Iroquoian Network
Ontario and pan-Iroquoian network nodes have two integrated attributes. The first, portrayed by
node colour, is the geographic region of the site. The second, portrayed by node shape, is the
time period assigned to the site.
Methods of Visualization
In order to establish a background network for the ceramic social relations across the village, the
BR matrix includes all ceramics with identifiable occupation contexts, using the Ucinet Netdraw
program. Network graphs are produced at several BR levels of similarity for each data matrix.
BR cut-off levels are arbitrarily defined by the researcher, with the objective of the analysis in
mind (Habiba et al. 2018). The lowest similarity level displayed for each of these graph series is
set at the BR measure where all nodes of the matrix are connected in one main component. From
this foundation, network graphs are produced at BR value increments of 10 points, or 5 percent
of similarity, until in the highest BR levels no ties remain between nodes. At any point where
there appears to be a significant increase in the number of broken ties, indicating numerous
changes in similarity among nodes, plots are generated at a midpoint BR level of 5, as in BR
145.
Netdraw plots are automatically produced in a “spring embedded” layout. This layout (also
termed an arrangement or an organization) produces a graph where strongly linked (i.e., high BR
value) nodes are attracted closely together, but where the program lightly repulses nodes from
each other to produce an easily legible plot. This form of layout, however, does not visually
reproduce a linear relationship in the distance between two nodes. Instead, it aims to cover as
much of the graph surface area as possible while reflecting relative similarities. As mentioned,
these plots render nodes and their relative positions readily identifiable.
More realistic representations of the relationships between nodes are produced with the
complimentary Gower layout. With its overlapping nodes and closely spaced ties, this layout can
be difficult to read but more instructive, because more realistic, proportional distances are
illustrated.
345
A combination of the two layouts is advantageous. Ease of the graph reading, that is,
decipherment, is also aided by software options that allow for the portrayal of differing levels of
tie strengths and several options for altering the appearance of nodes based on their
characteristics. In addition, the visual depiction of various centrality vectors with Netdraw
clearly illustrates the influence of each of the nodes in the overall network through node size
enhancement, thus facilitating comprehension of the intensity of interaction.
With binary data, used to indicate the presence or absence of a tie, Degree Centrality node size is
indicative of the relative number of ties a node shares with other nodes, not the strength of those
ties. The Degree Centrality option is useful in visually connecting locations with specific ceramic
types or attributes. It will be employed to illustrate the co-existence of exotic ceramics in the
pursuit of direct ties among occupants within the village.
A “valued” graph goes beyond noting the presence or absence of a tie, by also measuring the
strength of a tie between two nodes, such as BR value. In such a “valued” graph, the Eigenvector
and Degree Centrality options also portray node dominance through node size and colour, with
larger nodes indicating greater influence, or pull, on the total network.
Network Graph Layouts
Visualisation of networks in NetDraw can take an almost infinite number of forms. The software
is capable of producing graphs in numerous diverse layouts, combined with a multitude of
relationship analysis programs displayed through a variety of tie transformation applications.
While many layouts and analysis procedures can be useful for applications in archaeology, it is
necessary to select, generally through trial and error, those most suited to the needs of the
specific project pursuant to the nature, size, and scale of the research data. In this thesis, the high
similarity level of the relationship ties and the nature of the community of practice bonds being
investigated may be best explored through simple graph layouts and basic centrality measures,
because this high level of similarity does not produce well-defined or useful outcomes in most of
the analysis procedures. Some centrality measures, such as Eigenvector and Network Density,
are useful and will be incorporated in support of the various graph layouts employed.
Basic graph layouts in NetDraw include the default graph theoretic (spring embedded), Gower,
non-metric multidimensional scaling (MDS), and ego network configurations, each of which is
346
employed in the investigation of the Keffer site ceramics. Spring embedded loading is
characterized by node repulsion, resulting in links of equal length between each node. This
layout portrays the existence of a tie between two nodes at the given similarity value, but both
the absolute and relative strengths of the ties are obscured in weighted networks. While this
default layout is the result of the direct illustration of the matrix data, other layouts are produced
from the application of secondary algorithms on this initial default graph.
Metric layouts, such as Gower scaling, formally called Torgersen-Gower scaling, on the other
hand, produce configurations which are highly representative of Euclidean space. In other words,
nodes are located in any space by co-ordinates, one for each dimension of space being
represented. The high similarity levels seen in the Keffer ceramics produce Gower layout graphs
characterized by dense, and often indecipherable, clusters of nodes. MDS layouts result in more
visibly interpretable structures, which incorporate a slight repulsion of nodes, making the graph
easier to read and nodes more visible. In this layout, although the precise measure of tie strength
is lost, the relative spacing of nodes is preserved. This is not true of other layouts, such as spring
embedded loading. MDS algorithms may be applied to various existing graph layouts. The most
consistently accurate non-metric MDS graph diagrams are achieved through the application of
this layout on existing Gower network diagrams, in contrast to the default layout, in which
Euclidean placement is not a priority and which may produce final network graphs that differ
from one another (Borgatti et al. 2013). Therefore, in this work, non-metric MDS layout is
applied systematically to Gower metric graph layouts to produce comparable results in each of
the iterations. Ego layouts, both spring embedded loading and Gower, display only those nodes
connected to ego at this level in the network. Extraneous nodes are removed, simplifying
relations to the ego node. In the spring embedded layout, distance of these nodes from the ego
node is not indicative of the strength of the ties (Figure E-1). However, networks are rendered
centring on the ego node, thereby emphasizing outliers in the relationship. In Gower ego
networks, those nodes most similar to ego are placed in alignment with the Euclidean distance of
their relations (Figure E-2). The less cluttered ego graphs aid in the visual interpretation of
individual node relationships at all levels.
347
Figure E-1. Local tradition ceramics Over 29 Vessels sample BR 170 default spring
embedded layout.
Figure E-2. Local tradition ceramics Over 29 Vessels sample BR 170 ego Midden 54 default
spring embedded layout.
348
Figure E-3. Local tradition ceramics Over 29 Vessels sample BR 170 ego Midden 54 Gower
layout.
The Brainerd-Robinson co-efficient of similarity matrix is well suited to both the metric spatial
representation of Gower scaling and the more readable node placement of non-metric MDS
layout.
The true nature of the relationship between two nodes is most accurately displayed at the highest
cut-off levels of similarity in the Gower layout, followed closely in precision by non-metric
MDS graphs. In both cases, as similarity levels decline, the more numerous, but lower strength,
ties to the additional nodes exert pulls on these original nodes, thereby drawing them away from
their most similar counterparts and into more complex, lower-level relationships. These higher-
strength relationships must be preserved in the analysis results when lower-level similarity
graphs are interpreted, introducing relationships with the newly introduced nodes at these lower
levels. In the Keffer case, the relationships visible in the Gower and MDS layout graphs at BR
190 (Figures E-4 and E-5) are seen as most accurately reproducing the strength of the
connections between the original nodes. The force of these ties is visually softened with the
addition of the new nodes at the lower BR 180 (Figures E-6 and E-7) and 170 levels (Figures E-8
and E-9).
349
Figure E-4. Local tradition ceramics Over 29 Vessels sample BR 190 Gower layout.
Figure E-5. Local Tradition ceramics Over 29 Vessels sample BR 190 MDS layout.
350
Figure E-7. Local tradition ceramics Over 29 Vessels sample BR 180 MDS layout.
351
Figure E-9. Local tradition ceramics Over 29 Vessels sample BR 170 MDS layout.
Network graphs of the exclusive Over 29 Vessels matrix at BR 193 (Figures E-10 and E-11) and
each of the chosen similarity levels in both Gower and MDS layout illustrate this point. The
utility of the two layout algorithms in terms of node visibility at different similarity cut-off levels
352
is also revealed. The enhanced Midden 54 node is observed changing position relative to other
nodes as the similarity level decreases.
Figure E-11. Local Tradition ceramics Over 29 Vessels sample BR 193 MDS layout.
At BR 193, Midden 54 (the large, bright yellow node) ties to Midden 60 (BR 193.1) and Midden
77 (BR 195.1). In the Gower layout (Figure E-8), these three nodes rest on top of one another
353
due to their similarity at BR 193. Middens 61 and 80 are linked in the network but do not tie
directly with Midden 54 at this level and are therefore not incorporated in this mass. Only
Middens 77 and 80 are this closely associated with Midden 54 at the BR 190 benchmark. When
the BR is lowered to BR 180, Midden 80 moves away, leaving Midden 77 alone overtop of
Midden 54.
Midden 60 reconnects with Midden 54 at BR 170, bringing Midden 52 along with it, while
Midden 77 separates to rejoin Midden 80. These movements are due to attraction of other, newly
introduced nodes at this level, particularly the over–BR 170 ties that the original nodes have with
their new partners. The Gower layout portrays the ties in accordance with their Euclidean
distance. Two nodes with the same relations to all other nodes will therefore overlay one another.
This does not imply that these nodes are 100 percent similar, merely that their relations to other
nodes at this BR level are the same. Usually these nodes are closely tied themselves. This layout
can be confusing and misleading because some nodes, and their labels, may be totally obscured
by others. Therefore, MDS, which places nodes in the graph in relational distance, with a small
amount of repulsion between them, allowing the visibility of all nodes, is often preferred. As the
level of similarity in these samples is extremely high, Gower layout provides more precise
demonstration of proximal relationships. The use of non-metric MDS as a backup facilitates the
decipherment of the nodes involved in these compact associations.
Statistical Analysis
Visual interpretation of network graphs comprises the majority of the analysis. Network statistics
are used in some instances to confirm or support properties of the Keffer site ceramics relations.
These statistics are produced with the Ucinet program and are almost entirely confined to the
evaluation of network densities produced from the various-sized sample databases. The measures
employed focus on comparison of valued edges, the similarity measures between each pair of
nodes. Statistics resulting from comparison of the presence or absence of edges at certain
similarity levels, such as the E-I Index, are not useful in this case. The high level of similarity of
the values generally shared among the Keffer site nodes results in the simultaneous appearance
or disappearance of edges, or ties, as similarity threshold levels decrease or increase,
respectively. Resulting statistics show little differentiation among the village nodes or within
highly connected site clusters. The use of social network analysis as an exploratory tool used to
354
generate hypotheses in this study supports the prioritization of visual examination of network
components over statistical analysis, which would be more relevant for hypothesis testing.
355
Appendix F: Appendix to Chapter 4: Network Analysis and Keffer’s Place in the Iroquoian
World
Table F-1 lists the pan-Iroquoian sites employed in the social network analysis.
Table F-1. Name, Date, Location or Historic Territory, and Sources for the Sites Used in
the Social Network Analysis.
Time
Period
Site Name (A.D.) Location/Historic Territory Source
A. Brown 1400–1450 Simcoe County Bursey ca. 1990
Adams 1550–1600 Seneca Niemczyski 1984
Alexandra 1350–1400 Scarborough–Highland Creek ASI 2008a
Alonzo 1600–1650 Simcoe County Bursey ca. 1990
Ames 1400–1450 Trent valley Bursey ca. 1990
Angoutenc 1500–1550 Simcoe County Bursey ca. 1990
Antrex 1350–1400 Credit River ASI 2010a
Arbor Ridge 1400–1450 Prince Edward County Adams 2003
Atsista (Yatsihsta) 1450–1500 Lynde Creek–Oshawa ASI 2014c
Atwell 1500–1550 Onondaga Engelbrecht 2004:141
Auger 1600–1650 Simcoe County Bursey ca. 1990
Aurora 1500–1550 Rouge River–Duffins Creek Birch et al. 2017
Bach 1550–1600 Oneida Engelbrecht 2004:142
Baker 1400–1450 Don valley ASI 2006a
Ball 1550–1600 Simcoe County Knight and Snyder 1981
Bark 1400–1450 Trent valley Sutton 1990
Barker 1550–1600 Mohawk Engelbrecht 1969a
Barnes 1500–1550 Onondaga Engelbrecht 2004:142
Barrie 1350–1400 Simcoe County Wright 1966
Bathurst 1350–1400 Humber valley ASI 2014b
Baumann 1400–1450 Simcoe County *
Beckstead 1400–1450 St. Lawrence valley Pendergast 1966
Belcher 1500–1550 Seneca Niemczyski 1984
Bernaults 1600–1650 Simcoe County Bursey ca. 1990
Best 1400–1450 Rouge River–Duffins Creek Birch et al. 2017
Beswetherick 1350–1400 Simcoe County Bursey ca. 1990
Bidmead 1600–1650 Simcoe County Bursey ca. 1990
Black Creek 1400–1450 Humber valley Wright 1966
Bosomworth 1400–1450 Simcoe County Wright 1966
Boyle Atkinson 1450–1500 Don valley MPP 1987
Bradt 1550–1600 Milton area Bursey ca. 1990
Buffum 1500–1550 Erie Wright 1966
356
Burkeholder 2 1400–1450 Rouge River–Duffins Creek ASI 2005a

Buyea 1450–1500 Oneida Engelbrecht 2004:142
Cameron 1600–1650 Oneida Niemczyski 1984
Campbell 1350–1400 Milton area Smith 1997
Carlos 1400–1450 Northern New York Engelbrecht 2004: 137
Carmichael 1450–1500 Collingwood area Garrad et al. 2014:276-277
Carson 1450–1500 Simcoe County Bursey ca. 1990
Cayadutta 1500–1550 Mohawk Lenig 1965:100
Cedar Point 1600–1650 Simcoe County Latta 1976:392
Cemetery 1450–1500 Onondaga Engelbrecht 2004:141
Chance 1400–1450 Mohawk Lenig 1965:100
Charlebois 1550–1600 Simcoe County Latta 1976
Chase 1550–1600 Onondaga Engelbrecht 2004:141-142
Chaumont 1450–1500 Northern New York Engelbrecht 2004:137
Chew 1600–1650 Simcoe County Bursey ca. 1990
Chypchar 1350–1400 Milton area Smith 1997
Cleary 1400–1450 Simcoe County Warrick and Molnar 1986
Clifton Springs 1400–1450 Cayuga Niemczyski 1984
Connor-Rolling 1600–1650 Collingwood area Garrad et al. 2014:276-277
Cooper 1550–1600 Simcoe County Bursey ca. 1990
Copeland 1450–1500 Simcoe County Bursey ca. 1990
Cornish 1600–1650 Seneca Engelbrecht 1970a
Coulter 1500–1550 Trent valley †
Cranston 1400–1450 Simcoe County Bursey ca. 1990
Crawford Lake 1400–1450 Milton area Smith 1997
Cromwell 1500-1550 Mohawk Lenig 1965:100
Crystal Rock 1350–1400 St. Lawrence valley Pendergast 1962
CSR 1450–1500 Simcoe County Bush 1976
Damiani 1450–1500 Humber valley ASI 2014a: 2015
Dansville 1400–1450 Seneca Lenig 1965:88
Davey 1350–1400 Simcoe County Sutton 1999
Deowingo 1350–1400 Mohawk Lenig 1965:100
Deshambault 1400–1450 Simcoe County Latta 1976
Diable 1550–1600 Oneida Engelbrecht 2004:143
Doncaster 1350–1400 Don valley Wright 1966
Downsview 1400–1450 Humber valley Wright 1966
Draper 1450–1500 Rouge River–Duffins Creek Pihl 1984
Drumholm 1350–1400 Milton area Smith 1997
Dunn 1400–1450 Simcoe County Bursey ca. 1990
Dunsmore 1450–1500 Simcoe County Robertson and Williamson 2003
Durfee 1450–1500 Northern New York Engelbrecht 2004:137
Durham 1450–1500 Northern New York Engelbrecht 2004:137-138
357
Dutch Hollow 1600–1650 Seneca Lenig 1965:88

Dykstra 1350–1400 Simcoe County ASI 2006b
Eaton 1550–1600 Erie Wright 1966
Edwards 1350–1400 Neutral Smith 1997
Ellery 1600–1650 Simcoe County Bursey ca. 1990
Ellesmere- 1450–1500 Simcoe County Bursey ca. 1990
Morrison
Ellis 1600–1650 Erie Engelbrecht 1977a
Elwood 1550–1600 Mohawk Snow 1995
Emmerson 1500–1550 Credit valley Hawkins 2004
Springs
Englebert 1550–1600 Susquehannah Engelbrecht 1974a
Factory Hollow 1600–1650 Seneca Lenig 1965:88
Farlain Lake 1450–1500 Simcoe County Latta 1976:337
Farrell 1350–1400 Seneca Niemczyski 1984
Finch 1400–1450 Southwestern Ontario Pihl and Thomas 1997
Footer 1350–1400 Seneca Niemczyski 1984
Forget 1600–1650 Simcoe County Vastistas 2011
Fort Drum 1400–1450 Northern New York Engelbrecht 2004:138
Fournier 1450–1500 Simcoe County Bursey ca. 1990
Frank 1450–1500 Northern New York Engelbrecht 2004:138
Freeman 1450–1500 Northern New York Engelbrecht 2004:138
Ganada 1500–1550 Mohawk Snow 1995
Garoga 1450–1500 Mohawk Lenig 1965:100
Genoa Fort 1550–1600 Cayuga Lenig 1965:87
Gervais 1400–1450 Simcoe County Sutton 1999
Getman 1450–1500 Mohawk Lenig 1965:100
Glebe 1600–1650 Collingwood area Garrad et al. 2014:276-277
Goff 1450–1500 Oneida Pratt 1976
Goodeve 1500–1550 Simcoe County Bursey ca. 1990
Goodyear 1550–1600 Erie Wright 1966
Gostick 1400–1450 Rouge River–Duffins Creek ASI 2014d
Graham- 1600–1650 Collingwood area Garrad et al. 2014:276-277
Ferguson
Graham-Rogers 1550–1600 Simcoe County Wright 1966
Grandview 1400–1450 Lynde Creek–Oshawa McDonald 2002
Green Lake 1550–1600 Erie Wright 1966
Grey's Creek 1400–1450 St. Lawrence valley Pendergast 1966a
Gwynne 1500–1550 Simcoe County Bursey ca. 1990
Hamilton 1600–1650 Milton area Lennox 1981
Hanes 1500–1550 Milton area Bursey ca. 1990
Haney-Cook 1600–1650 Collingwood area Garrad et al. 2014:276-277
Lower
Haney-Cook 1600–1650 Collingwood area Garrad et al. 2014:276-277
Upper
358
Heath 1450–1500 Northern New York Engelbrecht 2004:138

Heron 1400–1450 Simcoe County Bursey ca. 1990
Hidden Springs 1450–1500 Don valley ASI 2010b
Hillier 1400–1450 Prince Edward County ‡
Holly 1350–1400 Simcoe County ASI 2009
Hope 1400–1450 Don valley ASI 2011
HOro17 1550–1600 Simcoe County Bursey ca. 1990
Howie 1550–1600 Collingwood area Garrad et al. 2014:276-277
Hubbert 1400–1450 Simcoe County McDonald and Williamson 2001
Hummel 1350–1400 Cayuga Lenig 1965:87
I. Elliot 1400–1450 Bruce County area Bursey ca. 1990
Inverhuron 1450–1500 Bruce County area Wright 1966
Ivey 1350–1400 St. Lawrence valley Lenig 1965:86
Jackes 1400–1450 Don valley Noble 1974
Jarrett-Lahmer 1450–1500 Don valley ASI 2001
Joseph Picard 1450–1500 Lynde Creek–Oshawa ASI 2012a
Keffer 1450–1500 Don valley §
Kelly-Campbell 1600–1650 Collingwood area Garrad et al. 2014:276-277
Kienuka 1550–1600 Erie Wright 1966
Kirche 1500–1550 Trent valley †
Kleis 1600–1650 Erie Engelbrecht 1978
Klinko 1450–1500 Cayuga Niemczyski 1984
Klock 1550–1600 Mohawk Lenig 1965:100
Laidlaw 1400–1450 Simcoe County ARA 2003
Lalonde 1400–1450 Simcoe County Bursey ca. 1990
Lanoraie 1350–1400 Lower St. Lawrence valley Lenig 1965:86
Latimer 1550–1600 Collingwood area Garrad et al. 2014:276-277
Lawson 1450–1500 Southwestern Ontario Wright 1966
Lite 1450–1500 Prince Edward County Pendergast 1972
Logan 1400–1450 Humber valley Bursey ca. 1990
Long Point 1450–1500 Seneca Lenig 1965:88
Macartney 1400–1450 Don valley Pearce 1998
MacMurchy 1550–1600 Collingwood area Garrad et al. 2014:276-277
Mantle 1500–1550 Rouge River–Duffins Creek ASI 2014c
Martin 1550–1600 Mohawk Engelbrecht 2004:143-44
Matteson 1450–1500 Northern New York Engelbrecht 2004:139
McAllister 1550–1600 Collingwood area Garrad et al. 2014:276-277
McCrae 1400–1450 Simcoe County Bursey ca. 1990
McEwen 1600–1650 Collingwood area Garrad et al. 2014:276-277
McGaw 1400–1450 Don valley ASI 2007
McKenzie- 1500–1550 Humber valley Birch et al. 2017
Woodbridge
McNair 1400–1450 Don valley ASI 2012
359
McQueen 1550–1600 Collingwood area Garrad et al. 2014:276-277

Melville 1600–1650 Collingwood area Garrad et al. 2014:276-277
Messenger 1350–1400 Milton area Smith 1997
Middleport 1350–1400 Southwestern Ontario Wright 1966
Millroy 1350–1400 Rouge River–Duffins Creek Wright 1966
Milton 1400–1450 Milton area Smith 1997
Molson 1550–1600 Simcoe County Lennox 2000
Morse 1450–1500 Northern New York Engelbrecht 2004:139
Moyer 1350–1400 Waterloo County Smith 1997
MudCreek 1450–1500 Northern New York Engelbrecht 2004:139
Munsville 1600–1650 Oneida Lenig 1965:93
Myers Station 1600–1650 Cayuga Lenig 1965:87
New 1350–1400 Rouge River–Duffins Creek ASI 2008a
Newton Hopper 1550–1600 Erie Engelbrecht 1977b
Nichols Pond 1450–1500 Oneida Engelbrecht 2004:143
Nodwell 1400–1450 Bruce County area Wright 1966
Nohle 1450–1500 Northern New York Engelbrecht 2004:139
Orion Murphy- 1450–1500 Don valley ASI 1998, 2008a
Goulding
Orr Lake 1600–1650 Simcoe County Wright 1966
Otsungo 1450–1500 Mohawk Lenig 1965:100
Over 1400–1450 Don valley DRPA 1996b
Paddison- 1500–1550 Collingwood area Garrad et al. 2014:276-277
Bellwood
Parsons 1450–1500 Humber valley Williamson and Powis 1998
Payne 1450–1500 Prince Edward County Pendergast 1963
Peacock 1600–1650 Collingwood area Garrad et al. 2014:276-277
Pengilly 1400–1450 Credit valley Bursey ca. 1990
Pipeline 1350–1400 Milton area Smith 1997
Plater-Fleming 1600–1650 Collingwood area Garrad et al. 2014:276-277
Plater-Martin 1600–1650 Collingwood area Garrad et al. 2014:276-277
Pompey Center 1600–1650 Onondaga Lenig 1965:88
Potacki 1400–1450 Northern New York Engelbrecht 2004:139
Pound 1400–1450 Southwestern Ontario Wright 1966
Power House 1600–1650 Seneca Engelbrecht 1970b
Pretty River 1600–1650 Collingwood area Garrad et al. 2014:276-277
Pugh 1400–1450 Rouge River–Duffins Creek Birch et al. 2017
Putnam 1400–1450 Northern New York Engelbrecht 2004:140
R[aymond] Reid 1400–1450 Milton area Bursey ca. 1990
Rices Woods 1550–1600 Mohawk Snow 1995
Richmond Mills 1500–1550 Seneca Niemczyski 1984
Rife 1350–1400 Milton area Smith 1997
Ripley 1550–1600 Erie Wright 1966
360
Risebrough 1400–1450 Don valley ‖

River 1400–1450 Credit valley Bursey ca. 1990
Robb 1350–1400 Rouge River–Duffins Creek ASI 2008c
Robitaille 1600–1650 Simcoe County Latta 1976:427
Rock Bottom 1600–1650 Collingwood area Garrad et al. 2014:276-277
Roebuck 1500–1550 St. Lawrence valley Jamieson 1982; MacNeish 1952
Roof 1550–1600 Simcoe County Warrick and Molnar 1986
Rumney Bay 1450–1500 Trent valley †
Salem 1400–1450 St. Lawrence valley Pendergast 1966a
Second Lake 1400–1450 Simcoe County Bursey ca. 1990
Second Woods 1400–1450 Mohawk Snow 1995
Seed Barker 1500–1550 Humber valley Birch et al. 2017
Serena 1350–1400 Milton area ASI 2004
Sewell 1350–1400 Scarborough–Highland Creek ASI 2008a
Shelby 1550–1600 Erie Wright 1966
Sidey-Mackay 1550–1600 Simcoe County Bursey ca. 1990
Silverheels 1600–1650 Erie Engelbrecht 1974b
Simmons 1550–1600 Erie Engelbrecht 1969b
Slack Caswell 1350–1400 Milton area Smith 1997
Smith 1450–1500 Mohawk Engelbrecht 2004:144
Smokes Creek 1600–1650 Erie Engelbrecht 1993
Snodden 1350–1400 Trent valley ¶
Sopher 1550–1600 Simcoe County Noble 1968
Southwold 1400–1450 Southwestern Ontario Wright 1966
Spang 1450–1500 Rouge River–Duffins Creek Birch et al. 2017
St Lawrence 1400–1450 Simcoe County Engelbrecht 2004:140
Starr 1450–1500 St. Lawrence valley Bursey ca. 1990
Steward 1450–1500 Northern New York Jamieson 1982
Swarthout 1450–1500 Northern New York Engelbrecht 2004:140
Talcott Falls 1450–1500 Northern New York Engelbrecht 2004:140-141
Temperance 1500–1550 Onondaga Engelbrecht 2004:142
Thomson 1350–1400 Scarborough–Highland Creek ASI 2008a
Thurston 1600–1650 Oneida Engelbrecht 2004:143
Train 1400–1450 Simcoe County Bursey ca. 1990
Unick 1350–1400 Milton area Smith 1997
Uren 1350–1400 Bruce County area Wright 1966
VanEden 1350–1400 Milton area Smith 1997
Vints 1600–1650 Simcoe County Bursey ca. 1990
Wagners 1550–1600 Mohawk Engelbrecht 2004:144
Hollow
Walkington 2 1400–1450 Don valley ASI 2010d
Wallace 1450–1500 Credit valley Crawford 2003
Warminster 1600–1650 Simcoe County Wright 1966
361
Warren 1600–1650 Seneca Lenig 1965:88

Watford 1400–1450 Don valley Pearce 1997
Waupoos 1450–1500 Prince Edward County Pendergast 1964
Webb 1400–1450 Simcoe County Bursey ca. 1990
Wellington 1350–1400 Simcoe County ASI 2005b
White 1500–1550 Collingwood area Garrad et al. 2014:276-277
Whitford 1450–1500 Northern New York Engelbrecht 2004:141
Wiacek 1350–1400 Simcoe County Robertson et al. 1995
Wilson 1350–1400 Trent valley Sutton 1990
Woodley 1450–1500 Cayuga Lenig 1965:87
Wylie-Bowman 1400–1450 Collingwood area Garrad et al. 2014:276-277
Wylie-Coyle 1550–1600 Collingwood area Garrad et al. 2014:276-277
Yong-McQueen 1550–1600 Collingwood area Garrad et al. 2014:276-277
* Based on the author's examination of collections held at the Department of Anthropology,

Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo.
† Based on the author's examination of drawings of rimsherds by Peter Ramsden.
‡ Based on the author's examination of collections held at the Canadian Museum of History.
§ Based on the author's examination of collections held at the Museum of Ontario Archaeology,
on loan to the Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto at Mississauga.
‖ Based on the author's examination of collections held at the Department of Anthropology,
University of Toronto, and the Royal Ontario Museum.
¶ Based on the author's examination of collections held at York North Archaeological Services
Inc., Peterborough, Ontario.
362
Social Network Analysis of Pan-Iroquoian Ceramic Practice
The ceramic types included in this analysis were chosen on the basis of common usage. Types
present on only a small number of sites in small proportions were removed to prevent
overweighting of minor types. In addition, several pairs of types have been combined under
compound names, such as Pound-Black Necked, since it has become common in Iroquoian
research to combine types with similar characteristics (see Lennox and Kenyon 1984; Pratt 1980)
Data available in many Iroquoian ceramic reports include conflated type names following the
work of Pratt 1980. These combined types are used here.
At the low similarity measure of BR 100, or 50 percent similarity, (Figure F-1), the pan-
Iroquoian network, including sites of all periods, t1–t6, separates into three basic components.
The largest of these includes all of the Ontario-based sites. A degree of temporal and spatial
clustering is apparent across this component, portraying patterned interaction across time and
space. New York sites form two well-separated groups, with t2–t6 Cayuga and Seneca sites
roughly laid out by time and location. The larger New York state component displays clear
separation of site collections by location. In this network, north shore St. Lawrence Iroquoian
sites are most tightly connected with the Northern New York cluster. A pendant off this group
ties the later t4 St. Lawrence Roebuck and t4 Northern New York Swarthout and Durfee sites to
t5 and t6 Oneida sites, perhaps suggesting community movement in this direction over time. It is
only through the t3–t6 Oneida and Onondaga sites that the large Mohawk-area cluster connects
with the St. Lawrence, Northern New York, and later t5 and t6 Oneida nodes at the BR 100 level.
363
Figure F-1. Pan-Iroquoian network BR 100 spring layout.
As the similarity level rises, New York groups begin to disentangle and disperse, with several
smaller components being formed. By BR 140, or 70 percent similarity (Figure F-2), these
smaller segments are visibly divided by both time and geography. The Ontario component
remains a connected group, although temporal and geographical patterning becomes more
apparent here as well.

364
It is only at the low similarity value of BR 95, or 47.5 percent (Figure F-3), that ties appear
between the two geographic regions. As this level, connections are only present through a chain
of nodes, across multiple time periods. Sites of t4–t6 Eastern Iroquois Oneida, Onondaga,
Mohawk; Northern New York; and the St. Lawrence are tied to predominantly t2 and t3 Neutral
Ontario sites, through t5 and t6 Erie sites and a t3–t6 Cayuga, Seneca, and Erie bridging
segment. This extremely weak connection, tied through nodes spanning two centuries, merely
indicates that certain traditional ceramic practices of the western Iroquois, represented through
the lens of types, were shared with nearby neighbours at one point in time.
Contemporary New York and Ontario sites first connect at the BR 93 level (Figure F-4).
Northern New York sites from south of the St. Lawrence River tie with nearby north shore of
Lake Ontario Prince Edward County sites. At this level, early t1 and t2 western Iroquois Seneca
and Cayuga sites are connected with t1 Ontario sites and do not link to later western Iroquois
sites. In fact, t1 Seneca sites are more closely tied with some t1 Neutral-area sites than are other
Ontario t1 sites.
365
In this time period, the pan-Iroquoian network is quite dispersed at BR 94, or 47.5 percent
similarity, with the Ontario component well separated from those of the Mohawk and Seneca
clusters to the bottom (Figure F-6). St. Lawrence sites are tied to the larger Northern New York
component.
366
Figure F-6. Pan-Iroquoian network t2–t3 BR 94 spring layout.
Direct ties between New York and Ontario sites in the latter half of the fifteenth century,
contemporary with the occupation of the Keffer village, do not appear until the similarity level is
lowered further, to BR 93 (Figure F-7). Here ties appear between the Northern New York
Matteson and Mud Creek sites and the nearby ancestral Wendat Prince Edward County Waupoos
site. Waupoos is not itself a highly integrated node in the Ontario component, falling out at BR
127. Its own weak position adds to the fragile nature of this bridging tie with the Ontario cluster.
367
The t2–t3 network graph at BR 80 (Figure F-8) displays the similarity level, 40 percent, at which
all the main components tie together. The two linked main components, the first comprised of St.
Lawrence t2 and t3 sites and the second of the tight cluster of the Northern New York sites, are
lightly tied to the t2 and t3 ancestral Eastern Iroquois Oneida, Onondaga, and Mohawk nodes,
from with a pendant of two western Cayuga-area sites hangs. Two Seneca sites form a small
component isolated from both larger ones. In this time period, the Northern New York–St.
Lawrence cluster is more highly tied with Ontario sites than with New York sites. The second,
denser cluster of ancestral Ontario Iroquoian Neutral and Wendat sites is characterized by a
slight separation of t2 and t3 nodes, with the t2 nodes displaying a measure of spatial segregation
as well. This suggests a pattern of widespread interaction within the southern Ontario region,
with a small bias towards intra-area concentration and a smooth transition to later t3 ceramic
practices.

368
A similar pattern is seen in the t3–t4 network graphs at BR 90 (Figure F-10). Again Eastern
Iroquois and Northern New York Iroquois form two clusters linked with slightly looser ties. In
all components there is less separation of nodes of the two time periods. Seneca sites remain
isolated once again, and the southern Ontario component is composed of closely tied nodes at the
BR 80 level. The role of geography in the ties of the Ontario sites is less evident in this graph.

369
With both datasets it is the t3 Northern New York Mud Creek and Matteson sites and the Prince
Edward County Waupoos sites which bridge the divide between the groups at BR 93 (Figure F-
11). No t2 or t4 sites connect the main groups at this level. These weak connections suggest that
some level of interaction was occurring in t3 between eastern Ontario ancestral Wendat and
some Northern New York t3 peoples.

Appendix G: Appendix to Chapter 5: Social Network Analysis of 140 Ontario Iroquoian Local
Tradition Ceramic Collections
This appendix describes the steps taken to produce a network analysis of the similarities found
among local tradition ceramic collections of the Iroquoian sites in southern Ontario. Local
tradition ceramics from 140 sites (Appendix C) spanning the period A.D. 1350–1650, previously
known as the Late Ontario Iroquoian period, are examined.
Collections with very low proportions of Ontario local tradition pottery, including Salem, Grey’s
Creek, and the eastern New York sites, are therefore also not included in this analysis. In these
cases, the removal of high percentages of nonlocal tradition ceramics from the data matrix
produces a skewed representation of the small proportions of local tradition ceramics remaining.
In addition, the interaction responsible for the low proportions of nonlocal ceramics present in
most assemblages cannot be reflected in value-based network analysis.
The ceramics samples employed in this analysis are derived from excavation, surface survey, and
casual/amateur collections across southern Ontario, from the Neutral/London area northward to
Simcoe County, near Georgian Bay, and eastward across the north shore of Lake Ontario to
Prince Edward County (PEC). Although the number of collections is considerable, ceramic data
for many additional sites were either not suitable or not available. Time restrictions limited the
number of collections which could be analyzed to those deemed most chronologically and
geographically pertinent to this study. As such, results of this research are not considered
definitive, merely suggestive. For this analysis, sites are categorized temporally into six 50 year
periods following the work of Engelbrecht (2003) and Hart and Engelbrecht (2012).
 t1 1350–1400
 t2 1400–1450
 t3 1450–1500
 t4 1500–1550
 t5 1550–1600
370
371
 t6 1600–1650
The framework is composed of arbitrary divisions, which do not reflect actual historical
boundaries. The dates assigned to these sites by researchers often do not neatly fit into these
categories, as some straddle two periods. Pigeonholed assignments within these categories
merely give a frame of reference for relative temporal positioning and do not reflect steps in
ceramic or culture change. Network ties may be more indicative of temporal similarity than these
categories suggest. Sites of all six time periods are included in the analysis to show historical and
regional relationships. Thus, the resulting graphs are not strongly predetermined based on, or
delineated by, time periods.
Collections were assigned to groups based on the physical presence of the site within, or
associated with, specific drainage catchments or geographical regions. These include, roughly
from west to east, the Neutral area, with sites to the south and west of Lake Ontario; the Credit
River drainage; the Humber River drainage; the Don River drainage; the Scarborough Creek and
Highland Creek drainage; the Rouge River and Duffins Creek drainage; the Lynde Creek
drainage and the Oshawa area; the Trent River drainage; and, at the eastern limit, Prince Edward
County. The final area is that of Simcoe County, to the north of Lake Ontario.
372
Figure G-5. Local tradition ceramics of Ontario Iroquoian sites BR 99 Gower layout.
At BR 99 (Figures G-5 to G-7), all 142 site nodes are connected into the Ontario Iroquoian
ceramic practice network. The Simcoe Angoutenc collection drops out of the networks at BR
100, or 50 percent similarity among nodes. However, aside from this and a few other peripheral
nodes, a picture of several highly clustered, but heavily linked, largely temporally defined
groups, appears. Even at this level, the chronological separation of the early sites (t1) from the
latest Simcoe-area sites (t6) is immediately obvious. The division of these t1 sites into two large
and distinct clusters suggests the presence of two unique but linked communities of practice in
this early period. These divisions do not appear to be along geographically defined parameters,
and nodes of various geographically defined groups, including those of the Neutral area, are
found within both clusters. Interestingly, when looking at Neutral-area smoking pipes of this
period, Smith (1990) also noted two separate practice communities, not pre-determined by
geographic location. Several of the early t1 sites form a bridge to later t2 sites located in the
more easterly watersheds of the greater Toronto area, from the Don valley to Prince Edward
County, while more westerly t2 and t3 sites of the Neutral, Humber, and Simcoe areas, along
with the later, eastern Payne site, form a separate, more direct, path to later t5 and t6 sites, the
majority of which are located in Simcoe County. The t2 and t3 sites of the Don, Rouge–Duffins,
Trent, and Prince Edward County areas are highly topologically dispersed, with some forming
373
small clusters spreading along both axes across the central portion of the graph. The t2 and t3
Simcoe sites are scattered within these clusters, suggesting loosely shared ceramic practices
among most eastern groups during this 100 year period. Humber valley and Neutral sites, with
the exception of the Black Creek site, remain removed from this interaction but appear inter-
related in a separate graph area.
Figure G-6. Local tradition ceramics of Ontario Iroquoian sites BR 99 MDS layout.
374
Figure G-7. Local tradition ceramics of Ontario Iroquoian sites BR 99 spring layout.
MDS and spring layout graphs at this level, BR 99, show Trent valley sites to be moderately
peripheral, while Don valley sites are scattered, but central to the t2–t3 network.
As the similarity level rises to the 60 percent mark, BR 120 (Figure G-8), a number of London-
area Neutral and central Simcoe County Huron sites become decisively more peripheral from the
central core, with nodes of the two areas separating in opposing directions. This may be an
375
indication that ceramic practices in these two areas are following unique paths during this vibrant
100 year period around the turn of the fifteenth century, while dynamic changes were occurring
in Iroquoian culture.
Figure G-9. Local tradition ceramics of Ontario Iroquoian sites BR 130 Gower layout.
376
Figure G-10. Local tradition ceramics of Ontario Iroquoian sites BR 130 MDS layout.
By the BR 130 level (Figures G-9 and G-10), several Neutral sites are connected only by a
pendant, and at BR 140 (Figure G-11), they form a small component separated from the main
network. The t2 and t3 Simcoe sites form a pendant off the earlier Trent valley Bark site node at
BR 140 (Figure G-11), but they no longer tie to the main component at BR 150 (Figure G-12).
Separation at this level indicates that a minimum of 25 percent of the ceramic practices of these
Neutral and Simcoe sites are unique from those of the main component sites. Meanwhile, at the
lower, BR 130, measure, sites of the Don, Rouge–Duffins, and Trent areas, along with the t2
Humber Black Creek site, remain interwoven and form the networks’ central core as Simcoe
County sites are removed to the periphery. The presence of t2 sites in the core up to this point
argues for a 60 percent base level of similarity in ceramic practice among most north shore and
Simcoe County groups.
377
Figure G-11. Local tradition ceramics of Ontario Iroquoian sites BR 140 main component
MDS layout.
Non-Neutral-area t1 sites disentangle from, but remain connected to, the relatively homogenous
t1 Neutral communities at BR 140, and the schism between the earlier and later ceramic
assemblages becomes evident as earlier types rapidly decline in popularity around the turn of the
fifteenth century.
378
Figure G-12. Local tradition ceramics of Ontario Iroquoian sites BR 150 main component
spring layout.
At BR 150 (Figure G-12), the Don valley sites, along with the later Trent valley Coulter and
Kirche sites, bridge the gap between the t2 and t3 Rouge, Humber, and St. Lawrence cluster and
the Simcoe cluster, in which the later t4 and t5 Humber, Rouge–Duffins, and St. Lawrence nodes
reside.
Figure G-13. Local tradition ceramics of Ontario Iroquoian sites without the Kirche and
Coulter sites BR 150 spring layout.
379
Removal of the later Trent nodes, Coulter and Kirche, results in relations where t3 Don and
Rouge–Duffins sites link the eastern Toronto communities with those of the Humber t2–t5
Simcoe t2–t6 component, to the right, and its related but peripheral late Toronto sites (G-13).
The addition of ceramic data from other Trent valley sites, such as Jamieson, Benson, and Trent-
Foster, may provide an alternative conduit for connections among Trent valley sites and those of
Simcoe County, and in so doing may explain the intermediate position of the t4–t5 Coulter and
Kirche sites within the BR 150 network. However, typed data for these sites was not available
for this analysis.
The Humber Damiani and the Rouge–Duffins Aurora and Mantle sites have more in common
with the late t4–t6 Simcoe County sites at 80 percent, BR 160 (Figure G-14), than they do with
earlier or contemporary Toronto-area sites. At this level, these more southerly sites merge with
this large, homogenous cluster and separate entirely from clusters of earlier sites.
Sites of the greater Toronto area and those to the east sustain a common ceramic praxis as levels
rise to BR 160 (Figure G-14), but here division among ceramics of these sites begins. This
breach is not, however, mainly along drainage basin, geographic, or temporal lines, unlike that
380
seen in the earlier Neutral and later Simcoe components. Ties linking Jarrett-Lahmer, Logan,
Risebrough, and Keffer through the Damiani (Humber) and Fournier and Gwynne (Simcoe) sites
to the main Simcoe component are broken, and the eastern Toronto-area cluster fragments into
four smaller components. Only that component composed of Risebrough, Jarrett-Lahmer, Logan,
and Keffer appears to have separated along geographic lines. The two early t2 groups may be
chronologically constituted, but this is uncertain, as the other four components also include
several t2 nodes. In the larger cluster, Don and Rouge–Duffins sites link earlier Trent and PEC
sites to later Trent sites. No Neutral-area nodes interface with other nodes outside their region at
this level.
381
Appendix H: Appendix to Chapter 7: Factors Affecting Social Network Analysis Results for
Keffer Site Local Tradition Ceramics
Effect of Sample Size on Network Similarity Ties
In Appendix E, the effect of graph layout on the interpretation of the Keffer dataset was
intensively examined. Graph layout was seen to have a substantial effect on visual interpretation,
and it was concluded that network graphs portrayed in Gower metric and non-metric
multidimensional scaling (MDS) best display the true strength of relationships both between
individual houses and middens and throughout the greater village. Consequently, these two graph
algorithms are adopted here in the examination of local tradition ceramic relationships and
communities of practice across the Keffer village.
To mitigate against the problems associated with the great range in size of the loci samples, from
6 to 966, and the extremely small size of some of these samples, matrices of three differing
sample size parameters are used to examine the effect of sample size on network results. The
first of these includes all samples containing between 2 and 19 vessels (labelled Over 1 Vessel);
the second includes all samples containing between 20 and 29 vessels (labelled Over 19
Vessels); and the third includes all samples containing 29 or more vessels (labelled Over 29
Vessels). Statistically, sample sizes larger than 30 are considered more robust, and results
produced from the Over 29 matrix are therefore considered the most reliable. However, several
important loci on this site are characterized by samples of fewer than 29 vessels. While those
features with 20 to 29 vessels (Over 19 Vessels) may provide statistically weaker results, their
inclusion contributes essential evidence regarding the nature of their relationships. There can be
little confidence in results arising from network analysis of samples under 20 vessels (Over 1
Vessel), but they offer the only hints regarding the relationships of the archaeological features
containing these vessels with other features within the greater ceramic community of the village.
Three loci, Houses 14, 16, and 18, are characterized by only one vessel each, and these ceramics
have not been included in the analysis.
Three network graph runs were completed with each of the three matrices, for a total of nine
runs. In the first step, the most exclusive (Over 29 Vessels) database was analyzed at increasing
similarity levels: BR 170, 180, and 190. The Over 19 Vessels and Over 1 Vessel matrices were
382
then run following the same procedure. When the similarity level is increased with each run, the
number of nodes included in the graph decreases and the pull exerted on the remaining nodes is
also reduced. Through visual comparison of these ties, the effect of smaller samples on the
overall structure of the graphs can be evaluated. Network statistics, graph density, and node
degree are employed to confirm these observations.
Network analysis is applied to each of these matrices in order to test the effect of small samples
on the greater network. As each node, regardless of sample size, is given equal weight within the
database, it has the potential to exert the same strength of node attraction as each of the others.
Nodes have been colour coded to visually display sample size differences among the
relationships portrayed, as described in Chapter 6. Houses and Middens are shown as circles and
squares, respectively. A comparison of relative node position within the network diagrams
resulting from the application of the three matrices will show the effects of small sample sizes on
the graph structure. These networks will be depicted in Gower layout, where the strength of the
ties is most accurately reflected, and also in the somewhat less accurate but more visually
accessible MDS layout.
Both the Gower and the MDS graphs of local tradition ceramics of Over 29 Vessels sample sizes
at the BR 170 level visually illustrate several tight node clusters in an otherwise relatively
dispersed network (Figure H-1). The greater core area is split in four directions and has no
central focus. Several outliers surround the more central groups, that is, Groups 1 to 5. Of these
five groups, four tight, internally linked clusters are apparent at first glance: Group 1a (Middens
52, 54, and 60), Group 1b (Middens 65, 72, 73, and 74), Group 5 (Middens 77 and 80), and
Group 6 (Middens 51 and 55). Nodes of these clusters are positioned one on top of one another
at this BR level, and these groups sit in close proximity within the graph. Three more loosely tied
groups, Group 2 (Middens 59, 61, 66, and 71), Group 3 (Houses 13 and 20), and Group 4
(Middens 56 and 62), are placed somewhat distant from the “core” area of the graph.
The most isolated nodes are typically of small sample size, between 31 and 55 sherds.
Interestingly, Midden 57, which, with 522 vessels, is one of Keffer’s largest collections, is quite
distant from, yet has several ties to, the core area. It is these outliers, in their connections with the
tighter core groups, which exert an attractive force on the central groups of nodes, pulling them
away from each other.
383
Figure H-1. Local tradition ceramic groups Over 29 Vessels BR 170 Gower layout.
384
Figure H-2. Local tradition ceramic groups Over 19 Vessels BR 170 Gower layout.
The BR 170 network graph created with the inclusion the Over 19 Vessels nodes portrays a
slightly different picture (Figure H-2). The addition of five new nodes with samples sizes
ranging from 20 to 25 vessels changes the dynamics of the visible structure. Three of these nodes
become network outliers, and they have only a small effect on the structure as they join with
House 11 and Midden 66 to form a small peripheral cluster. Houses 4 and 7 pull Midden 66
towards them in the periphery. Newly appearing Middens 69 and 78 pull Midden 51 outwards,
separating it from the Midden 55 node. House 15 has little effect on the overall network,
although it places a slight attraction on Middens 51, 55, and 68–78. Group 3, Houses 13 and 20,
moves from the periphery, away from House 19 and Midden 53, to the centre of the network.
385
Figure H-3. Local tradition ceramic groups Over 1 Vessel BR 170 Gower layout.
When additional loci of Over 1 Vessel samples are introduced, seven new nodes emerge, each
with between 6 and 18 vessels (Figure H-3). Outliers House 3 and Midden 67 have no visible
effect on the network. Houses 2 and 6 appear to join a small group exterior to the core body,
along with Houses 4, 7, and 11, but otherwise also have little effect. Midden 63 joins the Houses
13 and 20 cluster. House 10, with only 6 sherds, becomes tightly integrated into Group 2, and
along with Midden 63, pulls House 1 out of the cluster to the left and attracts the large Group 1
(Middens 52, 54, 72, and 74) node towards it. At the same time, the appearance of the House 8
node repulses the group outward while attracting Midden 65.
This analysis of the three sample size matrices at the inclusive BR 170 similarity level has
resulted in the production of three slightly different depictions of node cluster relationships. The
effect of smaller sample size nodes on the larger sample size is visible in the movement of nodes
such as Middens 77 and 80 from Group 5 into Group 2 when the smaller samples of House 10
and Midden 63 are added. On the other hand, the strength of the ties binding nodes within
386
Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 is apparent (Table H-1), suggesting these groups form the basis for the
communities of practice at the site. This hypothesis is further investigated below through more
in-depth analysis of the relationships at higher similarity levels.
Table H-1. Houses and Middens Included at BR 170 in Each of the Seven Node Cluster
Groups for Each Sample Size.
Node
Cluster House/Midden Over 29 House/Midden Over 19 House/Midden Over 1
Group Vessels Vessels Vessel
1 a 52, 54, 60 52, 54, 60, 65, 72, 73, 74 52, 54, 60, 65, 72, 73, 74
b 65, 72, 73, 74
2 59, 61, 66, 71 1, 4, 7, 59, 61, 66, 71 1, 61, 63, 66, 71, 10, 77,
80
3 13, 20 13, 20 13, 20
4 56, 62 56, 62 56, 62
5 77, 80 77, 80
6 51, 55
7 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 59
Smaller-sample nodes often appear as outliers and pendants. This should, logically, pull the
network apart, but the opposite occurs. In the Over 29 BR 170 network, the central area is empty,
with several node clusters encircling it, forming a roughly rectangular shape. As more, smaller-
sample nodes are introduced, these clusters become larger, in some cases due to the merging of
previously separate node clusters. The larger node clusters are attracted towards one another,
lowering the level of the difference between clusters while changing the general shape of the
structure from rectangular to a more compact, square configuration. Nodes underlying others in
387
the Over 29 Vessels sample begin to drift apart, finally becoming visible in the Over 1 Vessel
BR 170 network. Increasing attraction among the most similar nodes draws them into more
complex relationships, thus rendering the strongest relationships more visually unclear.
Network density decreases from an average of BR 173.8 for the Over 29 Vessels network to BR
168.9 for the Over 19 Vessels network, with five additional nodes, a decrease in the BR value of
4.9 (Table H-2). The addition of seven new nodes in the Over 1 Vessel network results in a much
smaller decrease in network density. The BR reduction of just 2.1, to BR 166.8, confirms that
these small samples do not have a large effect on the overall network. The standard deviation
averages change in the opposite direction, rising from 12.7 to 17.1 and then to 17.03,
respectively. The Over 29 Vessels network is visually and statistically a tighter network. Yet, the
variation of only 7 points from the most exclusive to the most inclusive matrices in a scale
measured out of 200 is only a 3.5 percent decrease in the strength of the average ties when all
nodes are included. This suggests that, although these small samples do affect network
structures, the effect is minimal and does not necessitate their exclusion. Consequently, while the
larger-sample networks form the basis for the main corpus of observations, the smaller-sample
nodes provide weaker, yet suggestive relationships and additional directions for investigation.
The greatest dissimilarities across the village will be disclosed through the examination of the
larger samples. Accordingly, exploration of the local tradition ceramic network, and the resultant
communities of practice, will begin with visual examination of these relations, using the Over 29
Vessels matrix to build a foundation of ceramic interaction, with additional insight being gleaned
from the smaller-sample matrices subsequently introduced.
Table H-2. Network Density, BR Co-efficient Reduction, and Standard Deviation by

Sample Size.
Network Density BR Co-efficient

Sample Size (BR Co-efficient) Reduction Standard Deviation
Over 1 Vessel 166.8 17.03
Over 19 Vessels 168.9 2.1 17.1
Over 29 Vessels 173.8 4.9 12.7

388
A second factor which greatly influences the graph structure is the measure selected for the
lowest level of similarity at which ties will be depicted. Low levels produce infinitely more ties
than do higher ones. This can result in almost unreadable graphs, as the multitude of lines can
create a basically undecipherable “hairball” effect. Experimentation with different levels of
similarity, in this case based on the Brainerd-Robinson Co-efficient of Similarity (Brainerd 1951;
Robinson 1951), determine the level at which all nodes are linked into the main component of
the graph with no excess production of lines. In this case, the most inclusive—that is, the Over 1
Vessel—data are chosen as the base measure. Although the cut-off level at which all nodes are
incorporated increases slightly as the sample size rises, the BR 170 level is established as the
standard for all matrix applications to ensure comparability.
The graphs examined up to this point include only those of the lowest BR level, 170, at which all
nodes are connected within the main component. As the Over 1 Vessel matrix has the lowest
level at which this occurs, namely, BR 171, a BR value of 170 was chosen for the introductory
verification of the decision to include all loci samples of Over 1 Vessel in this research.
Although many general relationship patterns are elucidated at this measure, details of these
relations become more explicit at high levels, where higher-value ties, or connections, are more
clearly illustrated with the denser mass, also referred to as a hairball (Dermarkar et al. 2016; Hart
et al. 2016), of lower-level connections. Values of BR 180 and BR 190 similarity have also been
selected for examination. At these levels, large-scale changes in the network layout are evident.
The few ties which exist above BR 190 are clearly evident and discernible in the BR 190 graph.
Effect of Geographic Distance on Similarity Ties
Network graphs produced by NetDraw, as described in Chapter 4, suggest directions of inquiry

regarding possible relationships which might exist within the databases. Visual analysis and
description of these relationships are proposed to reflect the dynamics of the communities of
practice—that is, production and usage—of the local tradition ceramics. One of these dynamic
forces is physical distance.
The effect of geographic distance as it pertains to similarities in local tradition ceramic types
within the Keffer village is explored through network graphs illustrating the approximate intra-
village location of all house and midden ceramic samples (Figure H-4). In this figure, red lines
represent ties at and above the BR 190 measure, or 95 percent similarity. Thick black lines
389
represent ties between BR 180 and BR 189, or 90–94.5 percent similarity, and thin black lines
depict lower ties, of BR 170 to 179, or 85–89.5 percent similarity. Visual inspection indicates no
apparent correlation between geographic proximity and ceramic similarity values. Edges of all
three measures appear to span every sector and settlement cluster of the village equally.
Figure H-4. Local tradition ceramics Over 1 Vessel BR 170 by cluster and approximate
respective location. Line thickness denotes relative strength of tie. Cluster A is Yellow,
Cluster B is Blue, Cluster C is Orange, Cluster D is Green.
A good example of this lack of spatial correlation is manifest in the Over 29 Vessels BR 180 and
190 graphs (Figures H-5 and H-6). Adjoined cluster A Middens 57 and 60, both with large, 500+
vessel collections, share no ties at BR 180, although Midden 60 experiences five connections at
BR 190 with other loci across the site, in Clusters B, C, and D.
390
Figure H-5. Local tradition ceramics Over 29 Vessels BR 190 Gower layout.
Figure H-6. Local tradition ceramics Over 29 Vessels BR 180 Gower layout.
391
Closely related to the influence of physical location on local tradition ceramic relationships is the
effect of settlement cluster origin. The lack of any spatially correlated colour patterning indicates
that, at the lowest level, cluster origin may not be a primary factor in the ceramic relationships.
Statistics on the average density of ties between and inside clusters, both interior and exterior
(Table H-3), support this conclusion in a general sense but point to a more complex situation in
regards to intra- and inter-cluster relationships.
Table H-3. Average Tie Densities within and between

Individual Clusters, the Combined Interior Samples, and the
Combined Exterior Samples.
Cluster
Cluster A B Cluster C Cluster D
Cluster A 167 161 165 175
Cluster B 161 167 164 163
Cluster C 165 164 166 170
Cluster D 175 163 170 181
Exterior 167 162 166 169
Interior 167 167 166 181
Interior/exterior
difference 0 +5 0 +12
Percent difference 2.5% 6%
Total difference 14 6 6 18
Note: Boldface denotes intra-cluster density.
These figures represent the average density of only those node ties within each cluster in relation
to ties with those nodes outside the cluster. The average density of ties across all four clusters is
392
BR 167.3, with a range of only 7 points (or 3.5 percent), from BR 162 to BR 169. The general
picture here is one of overall similarity. Two clusters, A and B, display identical interior average
tie weights. Slightly stronger ties are seen within the remaining two clusters. In no instance does
the average of the exterior ties exceed that of the average interior ties, indicating that in general
shared cluster origin appears to have a weak positive effect on tie similarity. While the cluster
density measures display a slightly different picture from the visual impression of dispersed
cluster relations in the network graphs, there is an overall lack of consistency in the results. It is,
therefore, apparent, despite omitting physical barriers or topographic differences, that geographic
position within the village is not a major determinant of ceramic interaction. High-level
connections may instead be temporal in nature, perhaps tracing change in ceramic community of
practice through time, or within social groups, when influence of the founding communities of
practice spread throughout the village. Social factors affecting ceramic change are elusive,
however, as longhouse clusters, thought to represent matrilineally related social groups which
formed pottery manufacturing groups, or communities of practice, are not highly visible in the
weak pattern of intra-cluster ties seen in the statistical evidence of the non-existent or negligible
intra-cluster tie densities and those of the interior-exterior values seen in Table H-3. This is also
demonstrated in the graphic evidence portrayed by the dispersed nature of some cluster nodes
seen in more inclusive graphs, below the BR 180 similarity level.
In a related macro-scale study of collar motifs composed of a large number of pan-Iroquoian

ceramic collections, John Hart determined that “geographic distance has little effect on pottery
assemblage similarity” (Hart 2012:128). Taking this conclusion in concert with that seen above,
distances between archaeological features are not considered highly influential factors in the
following cross-village ceramic network analysis.
393
Appendix I: Appendix to Chapter 7: Chronological Patterning in Keffer Local Tradition Ceramic

Social Network Analysis and Its Effect on Interpretations of Village Settlement Patterns
Chronological Interpretation of Keffer Ceramic Network Analysis
In this section, the network graphs are examined from the viewpoint of temporal patterning in
order to interpret the occupation sequence of the Keffer village. This results in a series of five
village plans, labelled Stages 1 to 5, suggested to be chronological in nature. These results are
then combined with those of the settlement phases, Phases 1a to 2b-2, produced in Chapter 6 to
verify that the patterns seen in the network topology reflect archaeological patterns in the
ground. This culminates in a second level of possible temporal village development plans,
labelled second-level Stages 1–5.
Interpretation of the network topologies dealing with intra-site relations is dependent on the
establishment and use of a frame of reference (see Betts 2008). Results of settlement studies in
the form of settlement phases produced in section 6.5 provide this context in terms of a temporal
backdrop or setting. Following the proposed stages, two houses, Houses 15 and 19, have been
assigned chronological positions as, respectively, the first and last longhouses to be built at
Keffer. Their appearance as topologically opposed isolated pendants circumscribing most house
and midden collections in Over 19 Vessels BR 170 (Figure I-1) local tradition network intimates
that chronology may be a fundamental component of the Gower and MDS layout graph
structure. Therefore, analysis will continue on the supposition that an axis of the graph
approximately horizontal in orientation roughly represents temporal change in the ceramic
practice across this village.
394
Figure I-1. Local tradition ceramics Over 1 Vessel BR 170 MDS layout with BR 190 Blue
Backbone structure.
Following this logic, Midden 62, at the left end of the BR 190 backbone of highly connected
nodes, is deemed to be the earliest component of the structure. Midden 66 located at the opposite
extremity, or terminus, is regarded as the latest. Houses 13 and 20, forming a second and
independent component at BR 190, rest together, in line with the Midden 62 node, as they do in
the Over 29 BR 190 graph, indicating their similarly early presence. The absence of Houses 15
and 19 from the exclusive backbone graph (Figure 7-1) supports the interpretation of their
positions as temporally peripheral to the main component; since the first and last residences in
the village are expected to differ somewhat from those characterizing the midlife stage of
Keffer’s long occupation.
Production of a temporal and social sequence for residence occupation of the village
relationships employs the backbone graph as its base. The sequence develops through time in
this structure, from the relatively early Midden 62 (House 18), followed by the largest and
presumably long-term Midden 65 (Houses 11 and 20). The tight pair of Midden 72 (House 13)
and Midden 74 (House 12), Group 3, is the next to appear, tied by Midden 52 (Houses 4 and 8), a
deposition over Palisade 1, to the somewhat later small world group (Group 2), which dominates
this component. The closely related Midden 54 (Houses 7 and 8), Midden 60 (Houses 1, 2, and
3), Midden 61 (House 14), and Midden 80 (House 13 and possibly House 20) appear to be
simultaneous depositions. The presence of Midden 54 over House 6, which itself lies over
395
Palisade 1, suggests a relatively late date for these depositions because Midden 52 must post-date
the removal of Palisade 1, in Phase 2. Midden 66 (Houses 12 and 18) is the last deposition
manifest within this backbone structure. It’s very late position over Palisade 2 may be the result
of post-occupation slumping of the deposits. Houses 4, 11, and 7 form a small but tight group,
Group 4, which appear around the same late time as Midden 66, in the Over 19 Vessels BR 190
network (Figures J-2 and J-3). The very small, 6 vessel, sample of House 10 is integrated into
Group 2 with the introduction of the Over 1 Vessel data (Figures J-5 and J-6). At the same time,
House 2, with 9 vessels, is added to the late House 7–House 11 pair. Although suggestive, the
small sample results cannot be considered robust.
As BR levels are decreased, new nodes are introduced into relationships with the existing nodes
of the structural foundation. The pull exerted on the structure by these nodes misshapes it,
resulting in altered relationships, both temporal and social, which are applied to the pre-existing
backbone structure, not to the newly transformed structures. Still, these additional nodes must be
viewed in the context of their closest ties at the level at which they first appear. For instance,
nodes which first appear at BR 180 closer to Midden 72 than to Midden 74 must be characterized
by this relationship in the comprehensive analysis. Final results will therefore not closely
resemble any single graph produced from the data matrices but will reflect the combined results
of all earlier network graph dissection. With the incorporation of 11 newly appearing nodes of
the Over 29 Vessels matrix graph at BR 180, the temporal span of the previous network is
expanded. House 19 forms the right-hand terminus of the graph. It is connected by the small
world of Houses 2, 4, and 7 through House 11, Group 4, linking the network with the final
occupation of Keffer with House 19. Midden 59 and Houses 1 and 9 appear somewhat earlier
than this, as contemporaries of Midden 71 and Houses 13 and 20, Group 1. Middens 57, 55, 51,
and 53, Group 5, extend the graph linearly towards the earlier limits of the graph, while Middens
56 and 73 and Houses 8 and 12 belong somewhat later, near Midden 65. Nodes appearing with
the incorporation of BR 170 matrices, with the exception of Midden 75, are all characterized by
samples of less than 30 vessels. These include the earliest house, House 15, which is temporally
close Middens 67, 68, and 78. Houses 3 and 8 appear somewhat closer to the temporal middle of
the graph, as does Midden 75. Midden 63 seems to share a similar age with the larger small
world group, Group 2, being almost contemporary with the nearby House 1. Likewise, House 6
may be concurrent with the neighbouring House 11, towards the end of the village occupation.
396
This suggested chronology is an interpretation of the combined results from the various network
graphs. As each graph displays relationships in a different light, each interpretation simply
provides a direction for further investigation. Steps in the sequence, as seen below (Figure I-2),
were divided by apparent gaps between nodes and node clusters as seen in the graphs
themselves. The maps and plans are oriented with north up unless otherwise noted.
Figure I-2. Original Stages 1–5 as established through social network analysis.
The data employed in the original matrices were not selected for their chronological
characteristics. Although some ceramic types have been postulated to possess temporal
significance, this is not true of all types. The appearance of Neutral ceramics on central north
shore sites may be more indicative of social factors. Nonetheless, the topology of the resulting
graphs does appear to have temporal meaning in general. Stages 1–5, produced from visual
analysis, propose a chronology of the site as a basis for further exploration of the data.
Application of Local Tradition Ceramics Social Network Analysis Results to Phases
The illustrations below show the phases as determined in Chapter 6, which portray the sum of all
village features which potentially co-existed within that specific phase. As is apparent in Stage 1
(Figure I-3), a much greater number of features are present in the phase maps than are proposed
in the sequence images.
It is essential to include distinct natures of the house and midden deposition processes in the
interpretation of the network analysis results. Midden deposits are not the direct product of
primary occupation; they are the result of, and are reflective of, post-production and post-
consumption deposition by individuals associated with principal residences. The assumption is
made here that middens are the result of deposits of material culture originating from the
397
residence of closest proximity with clear, direct, and accessible pathways. That this is not true in
all cases can be seen in the physical matching of a number of vessel sherds (House 9 and Midden
60) and pipe fragments (House 12 and Middens 72 and 74) from across various areas of the
village. In most cases, however, vessel matches occur on sherds of loci in close physical
proximity. Ceramics originating in these midden deposits are therefore interpreted as proxies for
those houses to which they are assigned (Table I-1).
Table I-1. Possible House–Midden

Associations.
House Middens
1 51, 57, 60, 63
2 51, 54, 57, 60, 63
3 57, 60, 63
4 52, 53, 54, 63
6 52, 55, 63
7 54, 55, 57, 60
8 52, 54, 55
9 55, 56, 58, 67
10 55, 56, 67
11 53, 54, 65
12 66, 72, 73, 74
13 66, 72, 73, 74, 75, 80
14 61, 66, 67, 68, 74

398
15 59, 67, 68, 75, 78
16 59, 66, 73, 78
18 61, 62, 66
19 71, 77
20 65, 71, 77
Note: Boldface indicates most likely

associations based on proximity.
Stage 1 (Figure I-3) sees the appearance of the first residence, House 15, and some mostly distant
middens, all removed from the plateau surface. Midden 57 is located on the side of a large, open
hill slope easily accessible to all areas of the village. Its deposition and growth, eventually
spreading northward into the area of Midden 60, cannot be considered indicative of the
concurrent habitation of nearby houses. As evidenced by the physical mend between sherds of
House 9 and Midden 60, this area was most likely used as a refuse area by occupants across the
site throughout the village history.
Figure I-3. Stage 1: House 15a, Middens 51, 53, 55, 57, 67, 68, 78 (left); Phase 1a (centre);
second-level Stage 1 (right).
399
In Stage 2 (Figure I-4), the village begins to expand, as Houses 3, 8, and 12 are erected in the
area of future Clusters A, B, and C, respectively. On the hill slope south of the House 15b,
expansion the new Midden 75 appears. Also in Cluster C, Midden 62 is present on the northern
hill slope, presumably accompanied by the erection of House 18a. In the low town area downhill
from House 15b, Midden 56 is accumulating inside the first palisade.
Figure I-4. Stage 2: Houses 3, 8, 12, Middens 56, 62, 75 (left); Phase 1a (centre); second-
level Stage 2 (right).
In Stage 3 (Figure I-5), network graphs suggest that the small world group of House 10 and
Middens 54, 60, 61, 77, and 80, Group 2, may materialize next. House 14, the likely origin of the
Midden 61 material, may appear in parallel with House 13 to its south and House 20, a residence
of similar age that is closely linked to House 13. Middens 72, 73, and 74 (Group 3), linked with
Houses 13 and 20 (Group 1), are also from this period. The village’s largest midden, Midden 65,
also dates to this period. The size of the ceramic assemblage from the midden, with 966 vessels
almost 20 percent of the village total, points to long-term use of this refuse deposit, with local
ceramic profiles averaging to this period. The presence of a large number of nodes within the
central portion of the graph core, thought to be the temporal midpoint of village occupation,
suggests that this large-scale growth occurred in its midlife. In general, there is little conflict
between the sequences and settlement phases which reflect the possible order of the construction
of the village features, houses, and middens. However, the presence of Middens 52 and 54, both
of which overlie other village features, in the third sequence does not accord well with the
400
phases. It may be that the first palisade had been removed by this time, but Midden 54 must post-
date House 6, over which it was deposited. Network position suggests that Midden 77, located at
the southern end of House 20, is earlier than House 19. Settlement analysis shows that this
midden overlies the eastern end of House 19. However, the longer duration of the House 20
occupation may account for the post–House 19 accumulation in Midden 77. Visual survey of all
network graphs shows House 19 as consistently very peripheral in all cases, supporting its
designation as the final residential construction.
Figure I-5. Stage 3: Houses 10, 13, 14, 20, Middens 52, 54, 60, 61, 65, 72, 73, 74, 77, 80 (left);
Phase 1b (centre); second-level Stage 3 (right).
In Stage 4 (Figure I-6), several houses (Houses 1, 4, 6, and 9) and the small Midden 63 (near
House 1, in the northern section of the village) share a highly linked position within the network
and seemingly shared a community of practice. Although the small sample of House 6 makes its
relationships tenuous, its construction across Palisade 1 would require the rebuilding of the
village palisade, assigning this fourth sequence to the Phase 2a configuration. The ceramic
relationships of Midden 59, which is also located within this sequence, argue for the existence of
the associated House 16 simultaneously. Similarly, the co-existence of Houses 12 and 18 on the
plateau is implied by the appearance Midden 66, although the origins for material in this deposit
are not as assured. The occurrence of Midden 71 suggests a change in depositional habits of the
south end residents of House 20 around this time.
401
Figure I-6. Stage 4: Houses 1, 4, 6, 9, Middens 59, 63, 66, 71 (left); Phase 2a (centre);
second-level Stage 4 (right).
Houses 2, 7, and 11 (Figure I-7) share similar temporal topological axis graph positions—distinct
from other ceramic samples—and may represent the penultimate ceramic development of Group
4. The physical relationship of House 7 with Houses 6 and 7 and the overlying Midden 54 is
complex, and it seems probable that House 6 was removed around this time, after a short period
of occupation.
Figure I-7. Stage 5: Houses 2, 7, 11 (left); Phase 2b-1 and Phase 2b-2 (centre); second-level
Stage 5 (right).
The last house to be erected in the village, as indicated by both the settlement pattern and the
graph position on the periphery of the networks, is House 19. Its removal prior to the end of the
402
village occupation can be seen in the expansion of Midden 77, as suggested by the excavation
records, across eastern end of House 19. The postulated short-term nature of the occupation is
supported by its ephemeral nature.
Final Keffer Village Settlement Plans, Maps 1–8: The Incorporation of Local Tradition
Ceramic Profiles
In the following section, the local tradition ceramic characteristics of each house and midden
sample are employed to aid in the temporal placement of the features. This analysis results in a
final set of eight settlement plans as described below.
Map 1
Visual analysis of the local tradition network graphs and settlement evidence firmly anchor
House 15 as the first occupation of Cluster C and organize the nodes of Middens 51, 53, 55, 57,
67, 68, and 78, the middens farthest removed from the plateau surface, within this first settlement
stage. The nearby small deposits of Middens 68, 67, and 78 are also associated with Cluster C.
The more distant Midden 51 is located at the far end of Cluster A to the northeast. Two larger
surface middens, Midden 55 of Cluster B and Midden 53 of Cluster D, are located at the far
eastern edge of the lower level. The large Midden 57 is located down slope from House 15, in
Cluster A (Figure I-8, Table I-2).
403
Figure I-8. Stage 1 and Map 1.
Table I-2. Settlement Changes in Map 1.
Palisades Houses Added or Houses

in Use Expanded Removed Middens in Use
15a 67, 68
The introduction of local ceramic profiles (Table I-3) for these loci provides a basis for the
determination of a more nuanced sequence for the first occupation at Keffer. House 15 has by far
the largest proportion of UNH vessels, at 40 percent, and the lowest of DNH vessels, at 55
percent. These numbers support the early appearance of this structure. Although the ceramic
sample from House 15 is quite small, numbering 20 vessels, no other deposit on the site is
characterized by such an even ratio of DNH and UNH ceramics. The ceramics of Midden 67,
down slope from the south end of House 15a, and Midden 68, directly north of the house, contain
slightly differing, but still low, proportions of undecorated neck vessels, 61 and 50 percent,
respectively. The presence of Neutral ceramics in these samples, 22 percent and 17 percent,
results in smaller proportions of decorated neck Huron vessels, 11 percent and 22 percent.
Midden 67, with only 18 vessels, dates slightly earlier than its counterpart, Midden 67, due to the
404
presence of early, fourteenth-century horizontal motif, vessels. Located to the south of the fence
line at the base of the plateau, labelled Palisade 3, Midden 67 may pre-date the erection of this
fence line. The absence of nonlocal or exotic ceramics further supports the early temporal
assignment of House 15 and Midden 67 and their affiliation early in the occupation of the high
town. Given the small size and light occupation of House 15a, and the large area encompassed
by the first palisade, it is unlikely that Palisade 1 was erected in this early period.
Table I-3. Proportion of Local Tradition Ceramics in Second-Level Stage 1.
Niagara
Times Sample High &
Locus Built Map Cluster Size UNH DNH Neutral Collar Ripley
H15 2 1 C 20–29 55 40 0 0 5
M68 1 C 20–29 50 22.2 22.2 0 5.6
M67 1 B <20 61.1 11.1 16.7 0 0
M53 2 D 50–99 57.1 28.6 3.6 3.6 7.1
100–
M55 2 B 199 60.9 24.8 9.3 0.6 0.6
M51 2 A 50–99 60.3 24.1 10.3 1.7 3.4
M57 2 A >500 62.3 19 12.3 3.5 0.4
M78 2 C 20–29 45.5 18.2 27.3 9.1 0
Although Midden 78, which network analysis has suggested belongs in Stage 1, has an early
ceramic profile, its location, near the south end of the House 15b extension, argues for a close
relationship between this midden and the later extension of House 15b. For this reason, Midden
78 is not incorporated within the first occupation of House 15a in Map 1 (Figure I-8). The large
size, slightly later ceramic profiles, and distance from the lightly occupied House 15a, suggests
that neither Midden 51 nor Middens 53, 55, and 57 belong to this first construction.
The prime location, diagonally oriented across the central portion of the plateau, suggests that the
32 m House 15a was initially erected without forethought to future development. This structure
may, like those of the Hidden Spring site, have originated as a special purpose site and may not
have originally been intended to serve as the foundation for a future village. If that is the case,
405
the external post moulds, originally labelled House 17 in the field, may relate to this early
construction. Alternatively, House 15’s unique and early ceramic profile, not replicated
elsewhere on the site, may signify a simplified ceramic assemblage reflecting the practical
orientation of an advance construction party, the initial settlers of the community. A similar
topographic position, also crossed by two later longhouses, is suggested for the first house at the
later Rouge–Duffins Mantle village (Birch and Williamson 2013:69). Like that of House 15 at
Keffer, the orientation of this first house at Mantle does not correlate with that of the later
structures. Thus, settlement and ceramic data suggest that the first presence at Keffer is most
likely composed of House 15a and the small, nearby Midden 67 and Midden 68 refuse deposits,
as illustrated in Map 1 (Figure I-8).
Map 2
The Keffer village sees a large-scale expansion in its second occupation stage, with the addition
of eight new structures (Figure I-9, Table I-4). The configuration of the first palisade, neatly
enclosing the ends of these buildings but leaving room for intra-village movement, suggests a
planned construction of this first village within the Palisade 1 walls.

406
Houses
Palisade Houses Added or Remove
s in Use Expanded d Middens in Use
1a, 3a, 5, 7a, 8, 9a, 10a,

1, 3 12, 15b 51, 53, 55, 56, 57, 74, 75, 78
Network analysis deals only with complete household ceramic samples and cannot portray
settlement feature changes such as structural expansions of houses already considered present. In
the case of House 15 the ceramic profiles of nearby associated middens, thought to originate in
the extension, can be used as a proxy for the ceramics of House 15b.
Ceramic profiles from Middens 75 and 78 (Table I-5), located down slope from the end of the
House 15b southern extension, display an early date, suggesting that they are related to this
expansion. Midden 78 has the lowest proportion, 45.5 percent, of UDH ceramics on the site, but
the small, 25 vessel, size of the sample and the appearance of 9 percent high collar vessels,
characteristic of the mid-fifteenth century, in addition to an 18.2 presence of DNH decorated
neck Huron ceramics and a 27.3 percent presence of Neutral ceramics, suggest that this is not the
earliest midden associated with House 15.
Table I-5. Proportion of Local Tradition Ceramics in Map 2.
Niagara
Times Sample High &
Locus Stage Built Map Cluster Size UNH DNH Neutral Collar Ripley
M53 1 2 D 50–99 57.1 28.6 3.6 3.6 7.1
100–
M55 1 2 B 199 60.9 24.8 9.3 0.6 0.6
M51 1 2 A 50–99 60.3 24.1 10.3 1.7 3.4
M57 1 2 A >500 62.3 19 12.3 3.5 0.4
M78 1 2 C 20–29 45.5 18.2 27.3 9.1 0
M56 2 2 B 30–49 66.7 25.6 2.6 5.1 0

407
100–
H12 2 1 2 C 199 70.4 21.4 2 1 5.1
H8 2 1 2 B <20 66.7 20 6.7 6.7 0
M75 2 2 C 30–49 62.1 10.3 20.7 6.9 0
H3 2 2 2 A <20 66.7 0 16.7 16.7 0
M74 3 2 C >500 69.6 20.2 6.9 1.2 0.7
Cluster C
In Midden 75, the low level (66.7 percent) of undecorated neck Huron vessels and small
presence of decorated neck vessels (11.1 percent) is offset by the sizable incidence of Neutral
ceramics, at 22.2 percent. Surprisingly, no Neutral ceramics were found in House 15. The
expansion of House 15b marks the beginning of large-scale growth at Keffer, the beginning of a
village community. The extension of House 15b to 65 m makes it the longest house at the
settlement. However, the low density of internal post moulds and features and the lowest wall
post density of any longhouse at the site, at 3.8 ppm, argue for a short occupation span for this
residence.
Ceramics suggest that the next construction in the growth of the Cluster C group is that of House
12. The large increase in undecorated neck Huron vessels, to 70.4 percent, up from 55 percent, at
House 15, and the significant drop in the proportion of decorated neck Huron vessels, from 45
percent at House 15 to 21.4 percent at House 12, indicate that the main occupation of this
residence occurred sometime after the construction of House 15b. House 12, a relatively large
structure at 44 m, is located directly west of House 15b in the largest open space left on the
plateau. This longhouse has abundant evidence of long-term occupation in the form of a high
concentration of interior posts, pits, hearths, and sweatbaths and a higher density of exterior wall
posts (6.4 ppm). House 12 is surrounded on the down slope surface to the south and west by the
second largest midden at the site, Midden 74. The extreme proximity and very similar ceramic
profile of this midden to that of House 12, with 69.6 percent undecorated neck Huron pottery and
20 percent decorated neck Huron ceramics, testify to a strong relationship between this residence
408
and the refuse deposit. Although it was in use throughout most of the village’s lifetime, as seen
in the proportionally high level of nonlocal tradition ceramics (9.6 percent), this midden
probably originated with the erection of House 12.
Cluster A
With most of the available space on the plateau occupied by Houses 12 and 15b, further growth
in the settlement was restricted to the lower area, called the low town by the field crew, nestled
to the east, between the plateau and nearby hillside. On this lower level of the site, Middens 51
and 57, which were assigned by topographic position in the network graphs to the first stage,
display higher proportions of UNH, at 60.3 and 62.3 percent, respectively, than the very small
middens associated with House 15a. These midden samples are matched more closely with those
of House 3, another small sample, of only 6 vessels, with 68 percent UNH, in Cluster A. This
house is placed through network analysis into Stage 2. While House 3a may have been the first
residence, the small ceramic sample renders this early temporal assignment insecure. A
somewhat later assignment may be possible since no DNH ceramics are present in the sample,
which holds both Neutral and High Collar vessels. The first construction of House 3a measures a
mere 20 m, making it the shortest house at the site. This structure shows evidence of short-term
occupation, with a relatively low wall post density, of 4.1 ppm, and a low density of interior
features. In addition, its side and end walls are entwined with those of the later House 2,
indicating it does not remain throughout the occupation of the village.
Wall post alignment strongly supports the co-presence of Houses 3 and House 5 (Figure I-10), a
round structure of unknown function with a diameter matching the width of the village
longhouses, at just under 8 m. The western edge of this structure directly abuts the eastern limits
of the extended House 3b and likely pre-dates this expansion, therefore placing the House 5
construction during this first village growth period. No analyzable ceramics were retrieved from
“House” 5, although a central hearth is evident in the structure.
409
Figure I-10. Map showing postmoulds of House 5.
The orientation of Houses 3 and 5 and the contemporary House 8 in Cluster B suggests that these
houses were erected in isolation. The parallel alignment of Houses 1 and 7 (Figure I-11) in
Cluster A suggests, following the work of Dodd (1984) and Warrick (1984), that these houses
were, if not erected in one preplanned event, at least contemporary, and that they may have
constituted a social unit.
Directly south and parallel to Houses 3a and 5 is House 7. The placement of House 7a within this
first stage of village development relies almost exclusively on strong settlement data. Its
contemporaneity with Houses 1 and 3 is supported by its parallel alignment with these two
structures. The exterior wall post density of 13.4 ppm represents the highest wall density of any
Iroquoian longhouse investigated to date (see Chapter 6). Analysis of the wall post configuration
suggests that this density is the result of at least two reconstructions of House 7 in the same
location, with the first two structures measuring 30 m. Iroquoian longhouses were often subject
to repair during their lifespan. Evidence of such repair is generally accepted to indicate a long
occupation for the structure. Rebuilding is not as common and may have occurred most often
after destruction of buildings by fire. There is no evidence of fire noted for this or any structure
at Keffer, and reconstruction of House 7 is presumed to be an indication of structural
deterioration due to long-term occupation. The existence of a House 7b hearth over top of the
walls of the later House 6 also confirms a prolonged occupation for House 7. A high density of
interior hearth and sweatbath features also supports this conclusion. The small ceramic sample
(25 vessels) is composed of 84 percent UNH and 12 percent DNH ceramics and one early vessel.
The extreme longevity of House 7, in conjunction with its small ceramic sample size, easily
explains the network topology trend to a later occupation date, as the large majority of the
410
ceramics associated with the house may have been relocated during successive cleanings, repair,
and reconstruction.
Figure I-11. Map showing wall post and hearth features of Houses 1 (top); 2, 3, and 5
(centre); and 7 (bottom).
The parallel alignment of House1 with Houses 3, 5, and 7 in Cluster A indicates that House 1a
was likely constructed in concert with Houses 3a, 5, and 7a. Measuring 37 m, House 1a is longer
than House 7a and much longer than House 3a. Like House 7, House 1 displays characteristics of
long occupation. Wall post configuration and the exterior wall post density, of 10.7 ppm, show
clear evidence of total rebuilding and expansion of the structure (Figure I-12). The long
occupation is also seen in the high interior feature density, primarily in the form of numerous
sweat lodges. These small post features form an almost continual column down the central core
of the structure. The relatively high proportion of DNH vessels, making up 17.6 percent of the
local tradition ceramics, hint at comparatively relatively early occupation, while the UNH
ceramics, which make up 76.5 percent of the sample, illustrate a trend towards a later
occupation. The longevity of the household occupation could easily account for these
proportions.
411
Figure I-12. Map showing posts and features of House 1.
Midden 51, just outside Palisade 1, near the east end of House 1a, may originate with the
construction of this first Cluster A house. Decorated neck vessels make up 24 percent of the
ceramic sample. Undecorated neck vessels compose just 60 percent, with Neutral ceramics
adding another 10 percent. These numbers support an early appearance of this midden. A pipe
fragment match with Midden 64, a small surface midden located just inside Palisade 1, near the
end of House 1a, suggests that refuse in Midden 51 originated in this area of the cluster. Midden
64 has no identifiable vessels and is therefore not included in this analysis. Midden 57, one of the
largest middens on the site, is located on the riverside slope to the west of Houses 3a and 7a and
close to House 1a. A vessel match between Midden 57 and House 7 confirms their association,
although both the midden and the house show evidence of long-term use suggesting Midden 57
may have not overlapped House 7 for a long period. With a very similar ceramic profile to that
of Midden 51, of 19 percent DNH, 62 percent UNH, and 12 percent Neutral, Midden 57 may
also be first created with the construction of these first houses. Ceramic and settlement data
suggest that Houses 1a, 3a, 5, and 7a were built in Cluster A during this first occupation of the
low town. Middens 51 and 57, at opposite ends of this cluster, originated at the same time.
Parallel to Houses 1a, 3a, and 7a is House 8. It is located 5 m south of House 7a, in the area of
the second low town residential group, Cluster B. This cluster is composed of three longhouses:
Houses 8, 9a, and 10a. Village layout suggests that Houses 9a and 10a, which form a cluster with
House 8 around the open area containing Midden 55, are erected at the same time as House 8.
The ceramics of House 8 support its early temporal assignment and synchronic presence in this
412
cluster. Decorated neck Huron vessels make up 17 percent of the local tradition ceramics in the
sample. Undecorated neck Huron vessels portray a relatively early profile for the house, making
up 67 percent of the local tradition ceramics. House 8 is unique in that it is the most isolated
structure of both the densely populated area of the northern portion of the low town and the
plateau. In these areas, houses are generally constructed very close together and often overlay
one another. Yet the low density of interior features and lack of structural expansion suggest
short-term use for this longhouse. The only other houses on the site with these characteristics,
Houses 2, 6, and 19, are also thought to be short-term residences. Yet the presence of wall
trenches in House 8 and the relatively high wall post density of 7 ppm suggest that this house
may have been renovated or rebuilt. In addition, the deposition of Midden 54, late in the village
history, occurs directly north of House 8, and while it covers both Houses 6 and 7, it is not noted
as covering House 8.
Midden 55 is located just outside the western end of House 8. Its early occurrence in this cluster
is suggested by the high, 27 percent, proportion of DNH ceramics and low, 60 percent,
proportion of UNH pottery. Network topology places this midden, House 8, and Midden 56 in
this building stage. The higher proportion of UNH pottery, at 67 percent, but similar proportion
of DNH ceramics, at 26 percent, may indicate a slightly later date for this midden than the first
appearance of Midden 55. The location of Middens 55 and 56, at opposite ends of Houses 9 and
10, supports the placement of these two houses in this stage. However, the coexistence of Houses
9 and 10, though supported by close parallel alignment, cannot be confirmed ceramically. Due to
the superimposition of the later Midden 58, only 6 vessels are definitively assigned to House 10.
All of these House 10 ceramics fit in the UNH category, with no evidence of neck decorated
pottery in the sample. The larger ceramic sample of House 9, composed of 40 vessels, is similar
to that of House 1, with a proportion of 74 percent undecorated neck Huron and 7 percent
decorated neck Huron. Unlike most samples with a high level of UNH, indicating a possibly later
date for this house, House 9 has a relatively high proportion, 14.3 percent, of Neutral ceramics,
which are more common in earlier samples. A substantial line of sweatbath features along the
central hearth line, extensions at both ends of the house and a wall post density of 7.9 ppm give
credence to long-term occupation of House 9. The ceramics, which date it slightly later, may be
reflective of this long occupancy. Settlement evidence suggests that the parallel buildings Houses
9a, at 36 m, and 10a, first erected at 22 m, were constructed together. House 10a is surrounded
413
on three sides with a fence line. There is a 5 m gap between the house and the surrounding fence
line, labelled Palisade 3. The purpose of this barrier is speculative, but its position at the base of
the plateau’s eastern slope implies some form of protection from events commencing at the
hilltop, perhaps runoff from precipitation. The co-existence of this fence line with the Houses 9
and 10 forms a barrier to movement across the base of the slope. However, a mend between
sherds from House 9 and Midden 60 shows that occupants of Cluster B used the lower-level
hillside Middens 57 and 60 for refuse deposition. Access to this area may have been restricted
for the occupants of House 10, and possibly House 9, with these obstructions. This situation may
have resulted in the deposition of the surface Midden 55 at the apex of the three Cluster B
houses. Although Midden 55 appears to hinder interaction with the more northerly Cluster A, its
presence in the early sequence is substantiated by the relatively high proportion of 26.5 percent
decorated neck Huron and the relatively low proportion of 60 percent undecorated neck Huron
pottery.
With only 57 percent UNH and 28.6 percent DNH ceramics, Midden 53, located 20 to 50 m from
the Cluster B houses, at the base of the eastern hillside, may be an alternate refuse deposit for the
occupants of this area in this early period of occupation. It is likely that the first palisade,
Palisade 1, was constructed at this time. In most cases, there is a distance of 10 m between the
barrier and the long house ends. The exception to this appears to be House 1a, which may have
been built right up to the palisade wall in the east.
Map 2 (Figure I-9) portrays the characteristics of the first large-scale occupation of Keffer, as
new inhabitants create socially distinct residential groups embodied in the clustering of these
first houses. Construction of the 44 m long House 12 and the expansion of the already lengthy
House 15a from a 40 m structure to a 65 m structure dominating the plateau left little room for
further expansion in Cluster C. Although House 15 was originally responsible for small middens
located off the hilltop, heavier occupation led to the creation of Midden 74, to the west of House
12. It may be at this time that settlement spread to the base of the plateau, with the establishment
of two residential clusters. To the north, cluster A was composed of four structures aligned
basically east–west, in a parallel fashion. The first construction of these three longhouses ranged
in length from the House 3a, at 20 m, to House 7a, at 30 m, and House 1a, at 37 m. Refuse from
these new houses formed Midden 57, on the open hillside to the west of House 7a, and the small
Midden 51, outside the palisade, near the eastern end of House 1a. In Cluster B, three more
414
houses were erected. House 8 alone was built at its final length, of 40 m. Although it is
equidistant from both House 7a in Cluster A and House 9a in cluster B, the fact that its
orientation forms a circular plaza with Houses 9a and 10a suggest that it may be part of this
social grouping. This plaza area was the site of Midden 55. A 50 m fence line was erected around
the northern end of the 22 m House 10a, perhaps protecting it from upslope erosion. House 9a, at
36 m, is situated parallel to House 10a.
The presence of Palisade 1, erected at this time, may have provided a sense of unity and
belonging for settlers of this new village.
Map 3
Differences in ceramics suggest that the large Group 2 community appears to have developed in
two stages. New additions to the village display two principal ceramic practice communities in
Stage 3 (Figure I-13, Table I-6). The location of the construction of House 20, outside the village
palisade, represents one of the defining characteristics of this changing village. The
establishment of House 20 is mirrored by the coinciding construction of House 13a nearby, on
the plateau, just inside the palisade.
This highly connected pair of houses displays ties most similar to the Trent valley Kirche site,
followed by Logan. The ties which remain with Logan when the Trent ties are removed are
deemed more relevant, although further investigation into the nature of the Trent ties may prove
informative in terms of their significance.
415

3b, 9b, 10b, 13a, 14a/b, 60, 61 (H14), 62 (H18), 65, 72,
1, 3 18a, 20 15 73, 77, 80
Ongoing changes in the village population dynamics continue to be centred on the occupation of
House 15, on the central plateau. Network and settlement analyses indicate the introduction of
several new households on the hilltop. Ceramic profiles suggest the introduction of Houses 13a,
14a, and 18a. It is possible that House 16a appears as part of this new settlement organization,
although slightly differing ceramic ratios suggest that it may be somewhat later. The low level of
interior posts and features seen in House 16 supports a later date for this longhouse (Figure I-14).
The three new longhouse structures sit in parallel alignment with the pre-existing House 12, and
their construction necessitates the removal of House 15b, which up until this point dominated the
village.
416
Figure I-14. Map showing posts and features of House 16.
House 13 overlies the southern expansion of House 15 and must have been established following
the latter’s removal. The early ceramic character of House 13, with 25.2 percent DNH and a
relatively modest presence of 72.9 percent UNH vessels (Table I-7), suggests that the occupation
of House 15 through both its stages was short-lived and early in the village’s life. This brief
lifespan is supported by the fact that House 15 has the site’s lowest post mould density, at 3.8
ppm, and that, unlike those residences with more lengthy occupation, it possesses no wall
trenches and shows no evidence of rebuilding or renovation except for its initial expansion.
Second- Niagara
Level Times Sample High &
Locus Stage Built Cluster Size UNH DNH Neutral Collar Ripley
M65 3 - D >500 67.0 19.9 8.7 1.4 1.5
200–
M62 2 - C 499 67.5 23.8 5.3 1.3 2
M73 3 - C 50–99 68.9 15.6 6.7 4.4 2.2
M72 3 - C 50–99 69.9 19.3 9.6 1.2
100–
H13 3 2 C 199 73.1 25 0.9
M60 3 - A >500 73.6 15.7 7.2 2 0.6
200–
H20 3 1 D 499 73.8 24.1 1.3 0.8
417
100–
M77 3 - D 199 75.2 17.7 4.4 1.8 0.9
M80 3 - C 50–99 75.3 15.1 5.5 2.7 1.4
200–
M61 3 - C 499 75.7 15.5 5.6 1.3 1.6
The first version of House 13, 13a, measuring 32 m, sits just within the southern limit of Palisade
1, parallel to and 8 m east of House 12, a slightly earlier structure. House 13 has a somewhat
earlier ceramic profile than other loci associated with this period, and the absence of Neutral
ceramics marks it as unique in Cluster C. To the southeast of House 13a, a small midden appears
around this time. Midden 73’s placement over a portion of House 15b’s southern end attests to
this placement. That Midden 73 post-dates House 15 and is contemporary with House 13 is also
evident from its ceramics, with 68.9 percent UNH and only 15.6 percent DNH. Midden 73 is
directly adjacent to the east wall of House 13. Like most other deposits on the plateau, Midden
73 is characterized by a small proportion, 6.7 percent, of Neutral ceramics. Network analysis and
local tradition ceramic seriation suggest that Midden 72, located somewhat farther southwest of
House 13, is contemporary with Midden 73. The ceramic profile of this midden almost mirrors
that of Midden 73, with 69.9 percent UNH and 19.3 DNH. Midden 72 possesses a slightly larger
proportion of Neutral ceramics, 9.6 percent. Another new deposit linked with the appearance of
House 13a is Midden 80, on the hill slope to its south. This midden, with slightly less, 14
percent, DNH and a more, 74 percent, UNH, illustrates the continuing occupancy of House 13 as
these houses grow with future extension. Midden 80 is similar in ceramic profile to Middens 61
and 62. These three refuse deposits likely appear simultaneously and are fundamental to the
illustration of village growth at this time.
Midden 61, one of the larger deposits at the site, with 413 vessels, is located on the northern
slope of the plateau, directly adjacent to House 14a. The position of this deposit to the east of the
house, distant from other hilltop residences, leads to the assumption that Midden 61 is directly
related to the occupation of House 14. The ceramic profile of this midden, with 16 percent
decorated and 76 percent undecorated neck vessels, and therefore of its associated house, House
14, is well matched with that of House 13, suggesting their co-existence. In addition, a vessel
418
mend (Vessel 740023) among three sherds from House 14, House 12, and Midden 74, confirms
the coexistence of House 14 with other residences on the plateau.
The absence of a ceramic rim sample from House 18, located 2 m to the west of House 14, is
unfortunate. However, information on the temporal and social relations of the occupants can be
surmised by employing the characteristics of the adjoining midden sample as a proxy (Table I-7,
Figure I-13). This is supported by the close proximity of Midden 62, a large midden directly
north of and down slope from the plateau at the north end of House 18. Local tradition ceramic
type proportions of 24 percent decorated neck and 68 percent undecorated neck Huron support
the chronological placement of Midden 62 and House 18 at this time. The presence of a small
proportion of Neutral pottery, 5 percent, ties it with samples of Cluster C. Network topology
originally placed Midden 62, and therefore House 18, earlier in the village history. However, the
ratio of decorated to undecorated neck Huron vessels suggests that this midden, and its
associated house, House 18, are not characteristic of an earlier period. The site plan, which
shows the walls of Houses 15b and 18b touching each other, also supports the suggestion that
these two houses are not contemporary. The appearance of cultural material above both the first
and second palisades demonstrates that the bulk of the deposits are related to this later residence,
House 18a. The close proximity of Houses 14 and 18, at 2 m, suggests that space for construction
at the top of the plateau may have once again been an issue.
While large-scale transformation in palisade expansion affecting all areas of the site may be
reflected in simultaneous settlement pattern modifications, changes in village dynamics on the
plateau and in the lower level cannot be temporally correlated on a small scale. The renovation
of the plateau Cluster C therefore does not directly correlate with that elsewhere. However,
ceramic profiles related to these changes support relative temporal contemporaneity for these
events.
In low town Cluster A, to the north the concentrated refuse deposit of Midden 57, which was
generated by the initial housing, clusters begin to spread northward, and a new midden, Midden
60, with ceramics dating slightly later that those of Midden 57, develops. Only 15 percent of the
low town local tradition rims are characterized by neck decoration, while 73 percent are
undecorated. The expansion of House 3b from 20 m to 34 m at this time may be partially
responsible for this growth, though a mend between Midden 60 and House 9 suggests that an
419
influx of refuse from Cluster B may be occurring as well. The increases in sizes of House 9b,
extended by 6 m, and House 10b, extended by 7 m, are the only significant changes in Cluster B.
Increasing population in this group may also be responsible for the increased deposits on the
steep riverside slope.
The most significant developments at Keffer during this period are the appearance of House 20
to the south, isolated at a distance of 30 m from the village palisade, and the creation of the
adjacent refuse deposit, Midden 65. This surface midden with 944 identified vessels is the largest
of all middens at Keffer. The local tradition ceramics portray an early temporal placement for
Midden 65, with 19.9 percent neck decorated pottery and relatively few, 67 percent, undecorated
neck vessels, perhaps hinting at an origin predating that of Middens 60, 61, and 80 on the
plateau. Neutral ceramics account for 8.7 percent of the collection, and Early ceramics account
for 1.5 percent. In fact, only the earliest ceramics—that is, late Middle Woodland and early Late
Woodland, such as Ontario Oblique, which is very rarely seen in the greater Keffer collection—
are absent from Midden 65. The extensive nature of this ground midden and its well-preserved
state, together with the large physical size of a significant proportion of the sherds, may possibly
be attributed to the midden location within a wide but shallow depression on the village’s
southeastern periphery (Figure I-13). Contributing to the creation of this new midden were the
occupants of a newly constructed longhouse, House 20, outside the palisade wall.
Directly adjacent to Midden 65, on somewhat higher ground to the south, House 20 shows a
similar, but slightly earlier, proportion of Huron vessels, with 24.3 percent decorated neck to
Midden 65’s 20 percent and a slightly higher proportion, 74.5 percent, of undecorated neck rim
sherds to Midden 65’s low 67.3 percent. No Neutral vessels are found in House 20. Unlike other
houses with evidence of long-term, heavy occupation, House 20 does not appear to have been the
subject of expansions or rebuilding. Construction of House 20 prior to Houses 4 and 11 is
supported by the comparatively favourable location of this longhouse. House 20 enjoys a wide-
open location on the southern portion of the site, with few physical constraints and abundant
room for movement. Houses 4 and 11 do not share this benefit, as they are both located close to a
palisade wall. The wall post density of 6.6 ppm may instead reflect structural repair over the
course of its lifespan. Midden 77, a small surface midden with 57 vessels, is located at the
southwest corner of House 20 and near the base of the surrounding hillside slope. The ceramics
of this midden suggest that it originated with the creation of House 20. The 17.7 percent
420
decorated and 75.5 percent undecorated neck ceramics correspond well with a slightly later
ceramic profile than that of House 20 and the existing Midden 65 repository.
The erection of longhouses exterior to the village palisade can sometimes be attributed to long-
term, or overwinter, visits from Algonkian groups to the north. In this case, however, the ceramic
profile of House 20 is almost identical to that of House 13 on the plateau. These two ceramic
collections in fact form the tight-knit Group 3 of the network analysis, suggesting a close
common ceramic tradition for the occupants of both houses. All signs suggest that House 20 was
not the home of temporary visitors.
Map 4
The next development within the Keffer village also takes place outside the village palisade, in
Cluster D. The ceramic profile and wall post alignment of House 11a (Figure I-15) suggest its
construction at this time just north of Midden 65. The northwest corner of the 41 m long House
11 lightly touches the palisade wall, projecting from it at an angle of 10 degrees. Its existence
prior to the removal of the early village palisade, Palisade 1, can be seen in its well-aligned and
snug fit abutting the palisade wall. In a similar fashion, the outside corners of Houses 1 and 13
briefly meet the palisade. In this location, House 11 is not crowded into the available level space
and has good access to all areas across the village. This first rendition of House 11 (House 11a),
was the last longhouse to be erected during the Palisade 1 lifespan (Figure I-16). Despite the
virtually identical ceramic profiles of Houses 4 and 11 (Tables I-8 and I-9) (with 84 and 16
percent and 84 and 13 percent undecorated neck vessels and decorated neck vessels,
respectively), settlement pattern analysis suggests that House 11a was erected prior to House 4,
which was likely constructed concurrently with the second palisade. The possible appearance of
a keyhole-shaped semi-subterranean sweat lodge adjacent to the east wall of House 11 (Figure I-
15) would support an early date, as these features are characteristic of the late fourteenth and
early fifteenth century and begin to disappear by the mid-fifteenth century (MacDonald and
Williamson 2001; Williamson 2014:11).
421
Figure I-15. Detail map showing posts and features of House 11a. East is up.

1, 3 11a
422
Second- Niagara
H11 4 3 D 30–49 83.9 12.9 0 0 0
Map 5
The changes seen in the last three maps took place in a gradual manner, with houses being built,
removed, repaired, and rebuilt in a constant pattern of change (Figures I-17 to I-19, Table I-10
and Table I-11). After the construction of the first settlements in the village, it is unlikely that
wholesale renovation and rebuilding of the village happened in steps. A project on this scale
would have entailed a huge workforce, interrupting the ongoing production and procurement of
food.

423
Palisade Houses Added or Houses

2a 1b, 2, 4, 6, 7a, 11b, 13b 3b, 5 59 (H16), 63, 66, 71, 52
Second- Niagara
100–
M71 4 D 199 79.3 16.3 4.3 0 0
H6 4 1 A <20 71.4 14.3 0 0 0
100–
M52 5 D 199 72.2 20.1 5.6 0.7 0
M63 4 A <20 72.7 18.2 0 9.1 0
M59 4 C 50–99 76.3 15 2.5 0 6.3
M66 4 D 50–99 79.3 12.1 6.9 0 1.7
H4 4 1 D 20–29 84.2 15.8 0 0 0
H2 4 1 A <20 87.5 12.5 0 0 0
However, the introduction of these two new longhouses, House 11a and House 20, outside the
first village palisade marks the beginning of large-scale change at Keffer. This transformation is
exemplified in the next step of the village development. Sometime after House 11a was squeezed
into the largest remaining flat surface in the village area, the need for further expansion may
have prompted the removal of the first palisade, which was greatly constricting growth of the
existing longhouses. The removal of Palisade 1 and its replacement with Palisade 2, which
encircled the greatly expanded community, was the foundation of settlement and social
modification. Evidence of rapid population growth, as represented by increased indoor living
424
space, is seen throughout the site. Social changes are reflected in the changing dynamics of
residence location. With the expansion of House 11b to 55 m and the construction of the 43 m
long House 4, just inside the eastern palisade wall, existing social relations may have expanded
or changed. The area formerly separated into Clusters A and B and the northern section of
Cluster D is more open with the palisade removal and may have re-formed into a more cohesive
social unit. Major changes take place in the layout of this area. The removal of the first palisade
allows for the expansion of the heavily occupied House 1b by an additional 8 m, to 45 m. At the
same time, Houses 3 and 5 are taken down and two new longhouses, Houses 2 and 6, replace
them. House 2 replaces House 3. House 2 has a slightly more parallel alignment with Houses 1
and 6, while the previous House 3 was more in line with House 7a. It may be that House 7a was
also rebuilt at this time, but its position does not change. Directly to the east of House 7a, House
6 is built very close to House 4 but parallel to the other houses surrounding it, Houses 1b, 7, and
8. The perpendicular alignment of House 4 to this group is most likely due to spatial limitations
imposed by the rising slope of the hillside to the east.
Houses 1, 4, 6, and 9 and the small Midden 63 share a highly linked position within the network.
Network analysis groups these houses on the later periphery of the network, suggesting
contemporary construction and occupation. Although each of these houses, Houses 2, 4, 6, and 7,
have small ceramic samples, fewer than 30 vessels, their ceramic profiles consistently portray a
late date in the village history. The ceramic sample of House 7, which was arguably built in the
first major construction period, may represent only one period of the house’s occupation, as
ceramics found in the overlap with House 6 were not included in the analysis. Although the same
holds true for House 6, the sparse interior features suggest it did not experience a long-term
occupation. The eight ceramics of House 6 cannot be relied upon for temporal assignment, and
its relative date within the village lifecycle is not therefore refuted ceramically (the proportions
are 14.3 percent undecorated and 71.4 percent decorated neck Huron).
Likewise, the small ceramic sample of House 2, at nine vessels, does not produce robust
statistics, but the 12.5 to 87.5 percent ratio of decorated to undecorated neck Huron hints at a late
date for this household, particularly when compared with the 17 and 67 percent proportions of
the earlier, now-replaced, House 3. The ceramic profile of House 4, with 84 percent UNH and 16
percent DNH, closely matches that of House 2. Although the majority of refuse from these
houses most likely ended up in the large hillside middens to the west of the structures, a small
425
surface midden, Midden 63, with 12 vessels, appears near the end of House 2, between Houses
1b and 6. A vessel match between this midden and House 2 supports its association with House 2
and its late date. The somewhat low, 73 percent, UNH and high, 18 percent, DNH ceramics for
this time period are overpowered by the match with House 2, whose late date is supported by its
replacement of House 3. A second surface midden, Midden 52, is located between House 4 and
the end of House 8, over top of the Palisade 1 post line. The ceramic profile of 72 percent UNH
and 20 percent DNH parallels that of Midden 63. A vessel match with House 4 supports the late
date of House 4 in that it post-dates Palisade 1. It also provides a more solid dating for the house
due to its robust sample of 153 vessels.
The growth seen in the low town during this period was paralleled by longhouse expansion in the
high town. House 13, whose southern end previously abutted the southern reaches of Palisade 1,
is extended 8 m after the palisade’s removal. On the northern end of the plateau, House 18 sees
and expansion to both the north and south with the removal of the palisade, growing from 22.5 to
33 m. At this point, the only real space left on the plateau is utilized for the building of a new
structure, House 16. With only one ceramic vessel, the dating of the event is based on the small
midden located at its northwestern end. No other midden exists in proximity to this house, as it
rests on a promontory with little flat ground surrounding it. The late construction of this building
is suggested by its limited access and low density of interior features, particularly in its
extension. The ceramic sample from Midden 59, which rests beside it on the top of the slope, is
composed of 76 percent UNH and 15 percent DNH ceramics. Like most deposits on the plateau,
it also has a small proportion, 2.5 percent, of Neutral ceramics, making House 16 the latest
longhouse to be built in Cluster C. The effects of this population growth on the plateau may have
resulted in the production of a new midden over the remnants of Palisade 1 on the western
hillside. The ceramic characteristics of Midden 66—situated down slope, to the west of Houses
12 and 18b (Table I-11)—with 12 percent decorated neck and 79 percent undecorated neck
vessels, indicate a late date for the creation and use of this deposit. Its central position on the
slope makes it accessible to most hilltop residences before the final extension of House 18c. To
the south, a new midden, Midden 71, forms just north of Midden 77, outside the southern end of
the densely occupied House 20. Its appearance at this time is seen in the high ratio of UNH to
DNH vessels, 79 percent to 16 percent. With a small proportion of Neutral ceramics, 4.3 percent,
426
the profile of this sample closely matches that of Midden 66, a relationship portrayed in the
network analysis. This is a period of high-density occupation throughout the Keffer village.
Map 6
The last longhouse added to the Keffer village is House 19 (Figure I-18, Tables I-12 and I-13), as
suggested by network graphing. The late date of this occupation is indicated by the very high
proportion of undecorated neck Huron vessels, 92 percent, and the low proportion of decorated
neck vessels, 2 percent, along with its position, removed from the main community and at the
extreme edge of relatively flat ground. House 19 was built outside of the original walls of
Palisade 2, where it appears to have been squeezed in beside Middens 71 and 77. According to
excavation records, a deposit located at the western edge of House 19 was originally assigned the
label Midden 76. Subsequently it was determined this area had been subject to a large-scale
disturbance, perhaps a tree fall. This resulted in the cancellation of the midden designation.
Ceramics from this area may have originated with House 19, but they have not been included in
the House 19 sample due to the uncertainty of their origin.

427
Palisade in Use Houses Added or Expanded Houses Removed Middens in Use
2a 19
Second- Niagara
H19 5 1 D 50–99 91.7 6.3 2.1 0 0
To the north of House 19, the second extension and rebuilding of House 11c may have occurred
during this period of continued population expansion. Neither network nor settlement analysis
can confirm this event. The increase in the longhouse length to a final total of 62 m may have
resulted in a situation where, once again, pathways across this section of the village may have
been difficult to negotiate, with the northern extension of House 11c located very close to the
side wall of House 4. At some point in the period, the lightly occupied House 6, also located in
close proximity to the House 4 western side wall, was removed. Its short occupation period is
supported by a low wall post density, of 4.3 ppm, and the presence of the House 7b extension
and hearth overtop of House 6’s western end wall, which may have occurred at this time.
Map 7
The next significant event in the village settlement is marked by the demolition of a small section
of Palisade 2 to the north of the newly constructed House 19 and its rebuilding several metres to
its south in order to bring the House 19 inhabitants into the interior of the village (Figure I-19,
Table I-14). It is possible that the extension of Houses 11c may have occurred at this point, but
the relatively high interior feature density of House 7b and evidence of its rebuilding or
renovation suggest that it is longer lived than House 11c. Also happening near the end of the
village life is the expansion of Midden 74 over the southwest wall of House 12. The final growth
and rebuilding of House 18c over its northern end suggest that House 12 may have been
428
removed. The late timing of this longhouse removal and the rebuilding of House 18c is implied
by the very short-term occupation of this extension to House 18. House 18c displays very few
internal features and light construction in terms of visible wall post density. In fact, the only part
of House 18 with any appreciable interior feature presence is the first occupation, of the north
end of structure, labelled House 18a.

2a 7b, 11c,18c 6, 10, 12

429
Map 8
The final occupation of the Keffer village visible archaeologically sees the continuing removal of
longhouses, following the earlier removal of Houses 6 and 12 (Figure I-20, Tables I-15 and I-
16). This process is seen in the late deposition and expansion of village middens. The appearance
of Midden 58, which hosts an unreliable and tiny vessel sample, in the central portion of House
10’s occupation area confirms the removal of this longhouse during the village occupation. The
House 7b extension, and perhaps the entire longhouse, was also removed while substantial
habitation remained in the area. Midden 54, which overlies it and House 6, has a quite sizable
sample size, with 127 vessels. Network analysis placed Midden 54 somewhat earlier. The sample
profile, with 18.5 percent DNH and 74.8 percent UNH, supports this placement, but its position
over the extended House 7b indicates a later date for this event. The ceramic profile of Midden
54 is closely matched by that of House 1, a long-lived residence, suggesting that this midden
likely contains refuse from the removal or cleaning of other houses in the area. In the southern
portion of the village, the expansion of Midden 77 over top of the eastern end of House 19, as
reported in excavation notes, signals the removal of this short-lived residence as well.

430

2b 7a/b, 19 54, 58; expansion of 74, 77
Second- Niagara
100–
M54 5 B 199 74.8 18.5 5.9 0 0.8
431
Appendix J: Appendix to Chapter 7: Social Network Analysis of Keffer Site Social Relations and
Communities of Practice
Social Network Analysis of Keffer House and Midden Local Tradition Ceramic Samples
Confirmation that neither sample size nor geographic distance are major factors in the site-level
network topology supports further exploration of Keffer houses and midden local tradition
ceramics via a network approach. Here, the strength and direction of social ties as displayed in
network graphs are examined, with the ultimate goal of revealing communities of ceramic
practice throughout the village. In this work, each node represents ceramic praxis of a single
household or, in the case of middens, neighbouring households. The strongest ties among these
practices are seen in the BR 190, Over 29 Vessels, graph (Figure J-1). This component represents
the basic backbone structure, that is, the strongest inter-node connections, of all local tradition
ceramic relations at Keffer. Each subsequent graph builds on the foundation of the highest-level
relationships demonstrated here. Onto this robust graphic framework, nodes characterized by
slightly weaker ties are sequentially added. Lower-count nodes are then introduced at uniform,
consecutive dissimilarity levels. In this way, the strongest to weakest intra-village relationships
emerge in succession. Stronger relationships are acknowledged prior to changes caused by the
introduction of lower-level attractive forces.
Figure J-1. Local tradition ceramics Over 29 Vessels BR 190 Gower layout.
432
At this level, many of the matrix loci do not appear in the network. Those absent are dominated
by the smaller sample sizes, accentuating the significant omission of the large Midden 57, with
522 vessels, from the structure at this level. The network at this cut-off point is divided into two
components, with the House 13–House 20 pair, Group 3, clearly dissociated from the larger,
main component. Central to this main component is a “small world” network of five spatially
distant loci nodes. A small world structure is composed of a cluster of internally linked nodes
held together by short paths, or high edge values—in this context, an edge being a line linking
two nodes. Nodes of this array type are highly connected to other nodes within the cluster but
have few, or no, external ties (Borgatti et al. 2013; Collar et al. 2015:11; de Nooy 2011; Watts
and Strogatz 1998). “Enhanced signal propagation speed” characteristic of small worlds spreads
the results of contact, such as diseases, more easily than alternate network topologies (topology
in this context is defined as “the manner in which constituent parts of a graph are interrelated or
arranged” [Oxford Dictionary.com]) (Watts and Strogatz 1998:440). According to Watts and
Strogatz, small worlds are typified by homophily (McPherson et al. 2001), in which people with
more similar traits tend to cohere closely together therefore interacting more regularly within the
small world. The few external interactions usually occur with other small worlds. These outside
contacts are made directly and not through intermediaries (Watts and Strogatz 1998). This
ceramically defined small world, Group 2, is composed of the late middens, Middens 54 and77
in the Palisade 2–era unified low town; Middens 61 and 80, occupying opposite ends of the high
town plateau; and Midden 60, from the north end of the village. To the left of the small world
cluster (Group 2), Midden 52, which overlies Palisade 1, forms a bridge to neighbouring Cluster
C high town Middens 72 and 74 (Group 1b). These are then linked towards the graph’s periphery
with the context that yielded the site’s largest ceramic collection, Midden 65. Appended still
farther out from Midden 65 is Midden 62. Forming a bridge in the opposite direction between the
small world group to the right and Midden 66 is the smaller Midden 71.
The Over 29 Vessels local tradition BR 190 small world is informative in terms of pottery
communities of practice. The tightly knit small world body—as seen in the strong ties of
Middens 54, 60, 61, 77, and 80—has intense relationships with others within the community, but
the cluster links to other parts of the network through one or very few ties, as described by Watts
and Strogatz (1998). This implies close temporal and/or social relationships among the producers
and/or consumers of the vessels in these loci. As settlement data, in the form of overlapping
433
features, show Middens 54 and 77 to be very late in the village occupation, it is proposed that the
strong tie strengths shared with Middens 60, 61, and 80 indicate these deposits to be of
comparable age, that is, also dating towards the end of the village lifespan. The extremely strong
similarity, 95 percent of local tradition ceramics, among Middens 54, 60, 61, 77, and 80 suggests
deposition from inhabitants with extremely similar ceramic tradition backgrounds and
presumably the same, or closely related, community of practice, as these are considered
temporally late deposits. The split of the network in two divergent directions from the core body
illustrates that this unity is not characteristic of all loci (Figure J-2). Midden 71 and its “pendant
node” (referring to a node linked to the graph by only one tie), Midden 66, show a clear
separation from those of the more highly connected left arm of the network, where Midden 52
forms a bridge between the small world formations of Group 3 and Group 2. The Midden 72–
Midden 74 pair, in turn connects Midden 65, by far the largest midden at the site, and the more
distant Midden 62 to the core component.
Only a small change is seen in the network configuration when the nodes of the Over 19 Vessels
samples are integrated (Figures J-2 to J-4). The House 4 node appears in an independent pendant
linked by the existing Midden 77 bridge node. Connected by House 4, Houses 7 and 11 emerge
as a tight pair of outliers (Group 4). Although most similar to Midden 71, this tripartite group is
dissimilar to Midden 66 and all other members of the network at this level.
Figure J-2. Local tradition ceramics Over 19 Vessels BR 190 spring layout.
434
Figure J-4. Local tradition ceramics Over 19 Vessels BR 190 MDS layout main component.
435
The meager ceramic collection (6 vessels) of House 10 is highly integrated into the small world
group centred on Midden 54 when the Over 1 Vessel samples are merged. The size of this
sample renders its inclusion here unsubstantiated, however. This is also true of the articulation of
the House 2 node, with 9 vessels, into small world Group 4, composed of Houses 4 and 11 and
the newly incorporated House 7 node (25 vessels). Despite these small sample sizes, the
projection of the Group 4 pendant away from the network central component reveals the
increasingly divergent nature of these local tradition ceramics. Additionally, the disconnection of
the Group 3, House 13–House 20 pair, accentuates the uniqueness of these ceramics (Figures J-5
and J-6).
Figure J-5. Local tradition ceramics Over 1 Vessel BR 190 Gower layout.
436
Figure J-6. Local tradition ceramics Over 1 Vessel BR 190 MDS layout.
In summary, network graphs at the BR 190 similarity level illustrate a tight small world core of
Group 2 with solidly linked pendants on its opposing extremities. The addition of low-vessel-
number nodes has little to no effect on the relationships of the two small world components,
Groups 2 and 3, of the network. The unique House 13–House 20 pair remains remote and
isolated (Figure J-5).
The purpose of multidimensional scaling (MDS) is to provide a visual representation of the

pattern of proximities among a set of objects. By proximities we mean any symmetric, one-mode
matrix of similarities, tie strengths, dissimilarities, distances, etc., among a set of objects. MDS
places points (corresponding to our objects) in space such that the distances between the points
correspond in a predetermined way to the proximities among objects in the data.
The presence of nodes situated in contrasting directions off the main component suggest they
possess ceramic samples with characteristics of opposing nature (this is implicit in the
topological distance between two nodes and in statistical centrality closeness measures; see
Centola 2015:1313 on homophily; see also Collar et al. 2015:14). As similarity measures
437
decrease, the number of ties (or edges, meaning a line linking two nodes) in the network graph
greatly increases. Typically, each node acquires numerous additional links affecting the nodes’
degree centrality measures. Although these new connections are at lower BR levels, the increase
in tie numbers creates strong attractions in new directions, often overpowering the higher-level
similarity connections. Ties appearing with the newly emerging nodes pull existing nodes from
their previous positions in the graph. But these visually observable changes within the existing
relationships are not relevant. It is only at the highest similarity level at which new nodes and
edges appear that the strength of ties is relevant.
When the interval is dropped by only 5 points, or 2.5 percent, to BR 185, numerous changes are
seen in the Over 29 Vessels graphs (Figures J-7 and J-8). Eight new loci nodes—Houses 1 and
12 and Middens 56, 59, and 73, as well as the outlying House 13–House 20 pair (Group 3)—
become attached in numerous directions onto the periphery of the network. The closest
association is that of Midden 73, a southern hilltop midden, with the northern Midden 60 node,
one removed from each of the existing Groups 1, 2, or 3. House 1 and Midden 59, on the far side
of the graph, share very similar ties with the Group 2 cluster but are not tied to each other. At this
level, the House 13–House 20 pair, Group 3, joins the main network component, linking with the
newly centralized Midden 62. House 12 connects tightly with House 20, more remotely with
House 13. All three tie to Group 1 and Midden 62. More distantly, Midden 56 ties to Group 1
and Midden 62 and Midden 65. The small world core of Group 2 remains solidly bound and
central, although some of its components, Middens 52, 72, and 74, now cluster together more
tightly while being slightly distanced from the others. Although several new nodes materialize at
this level on the periphery of the graph, it is the appearance of the pendant nodes of Middens 57,
55, and 51, Group 5, projecting from the solitary node of Midden 65 that is most striking. Node
placement on this divergent path (where nodes are only traversed once) (Borgatti et al. 2013)
denotes sequentially decreasing similarity, signifying more distinctive ceramic practices with
distance from the core, most acutely seen in Midden 51 located in the northeast corner of Cluster
A. The emergence of this distinctive feature is the reason for the inclusion of the network graph
at BR 185 (Figures J-7 and J-8). This formation is obscured at both the higher BR 190 and the
lower BR 180 levels. With the connection of the numerous disparate luminal nodes, the overall
patterning is more dispersed, and the graph no longer possesses a consolidated central core. At
438
the same time two main areas of densely connected nodes, Groups 2 and 3, become prominent.
In the Over 19 Vessels there are no new nodes occurring at BR 185.
Figure J-7. Local tradition ceramics Over 29 Vessels BR 185 Gower layout showing newly
integrated nodes in dark blue.
439
Figure J-8. Local tradition ceramics Over 1 Vessel BR 185 Gower layout showing newly
integrated nodes in light blue.
Although the underlying dispersed pattern remains in the Over 1 vessel BR 185 network (Figure
J-8, the nodes of Houses 4, 7, and 11, previously connected in the higher-level Over 1 vessel BR
190 network, provide a foundation for the attachment of House 2 and, ultimately, House 19, to
the graph at BR 185. The formation of this pendant, Group 4, mirrors the progressive
dissimilarity seen in Group 5. In this network, the newly integrated Midden 73 and House 8 are
drawn more closely into the core of the structure than seen only in the Over 29 Vessels graph at
this level.
Of the Over 29 Vessels nodes, only Midden 75 remains isolated, or unattached, at BR 180 (90
percent similarity), emphasizing the variance between it and the adjoined Midden 80, a node
centrally located in the Group 2 small world (Figures J-9 and J-10). Nodes previously connected
440
to the network at higher levels from the Over 1 vessel matrix, Cluster D Houses 11 and 19; now
connect in a pendant from House 1 and Middens 66 and 71. House 9 is joined at a distance from
the main Group 2 small world through Midden 61 and ties in its periphery with Midden 66.
Connecting at the furthest point of the network from House 19, Midden 53 extends the Group 5
pendant a greater distance from the core.
Middens 65 and 62, which were formerly peripheral, become more integrated as new
connections are formed with House 12 and Midden 73.
441
Figure J-10. Local tradition ceramics Over 29 Vessels BR 180 MDS layout.
When the similarity matrix is expanded to include those nodes in the Over 19 Vessels category
(Figures J-11 and J-12), no new loci appear. The House 7 node remains hidden, as it was in the
BR 190 diagram, behind that of House 11, to which it is linked above this level of similarity.
While there is some minor alteration in the structure of the overall graph, it retains the basic
configuration it acquired with the Over 29 Vessels samples.
442
As with the Over 19 Vessels matrix, no new nodes are introduced at the BR 180 level in the
Over 1 Vessel network visualization (Figures J-13 and J-14). Additional edges in the network
overpower higher-value ties resulting in a rearrangement of the central nodes and the interior of
the network becomes less highly clustered.
443
At BR 180, several nodes remain outliers to the networks. These include the Over 29 Vessels
nodes; Midden 75, a relatively small midden with 31 vessels; the Over 19 Vessels nodes of
House 15 and Middens 68 and 78; and the Over 1 Vessel nodes of Houses 3 and 6 and Midden
67.
444
Ultimately, Midden 75 connects as a pendant to Midden 57 at BR 170 (Figures J-15 and J-16),
having little effect on the network in general.
445
As with other terminal pendant nodes, House 15’s appearance at BR 170, Over 19 Vessels
(Figures J-17 and J-18), off the outlying Midden 53 node, marks its unique ceramic
characteristics even as it joins Group 5, a very loosely tied assemblage. A third pendant is
446
formed to the bottom right of Midden 51 as Midden 68 bridges the gap between it and the new
Midden 78, diametrically opposed to House 19.
447
At BR 170, three very small sample nodes join the Over 1 Vessel matrix graph (Figures J-19 and
J-20). House 3 appends itself to the external Midden 75. Slightly closer to the core, Midden 67
links with isolated Midden 57, while the House 6 node ties closely with House 11 of Group 4.
448
449
Note that lower levels of similarity, in this case BR 170, and larger sample sizes, as seen here in
the Over 1 Vessel matrix, naturally yield infinitely more ties than the higher (BR 180 and 190)
levels and smaller (Over 19 Vessels and Over 29 Vessels) matrices, yet the resulting networks
share similar overall form. Modifications to the network structures which result from the
introduction of these lower thresholds, particularly lower similarity measures, are not highly
significant but are useful as guides directing further investigation of the noted patterning.
Summary of Social Network Analysis
The dynamic structure of the graphs and the changing patterns of clusters and outliers apparent at
different similarity levels and samples sizes inform on the nature of the ceramic relationships at
Keffer. The Over 29 Vessels BR 190 (Figure J-1) network provides the backbone structure of the
closest relationships among local tradition ceramic samples. This framework is composed of a
one small world formation, Group 2, composed of several highly similar ceramic midden
collections from across all settlement clusters of the village. Members of this small world appear
to date to the middle of the village occupation, although they have close ties to both earlier and
later deposits. A second minor small world, Group 3, includes primarily deposits of the high
town. As tie levels are lowered and new constituents are added, shifting allegiances and new
bonds emerge. The network fills in and relationships become more numerous and more complex
across the village as a whole. Outliers encircling the core relationships materialize reflecting
diverse influences on local traditions. At the more inclusive end of the spectrum, the Over 1
Vessel BR 170 network, new ties hint at weaker relationships, providing supplementary
information to be integrated into analysis after higher-level connections are taken into account.
This in-depth analysis of graph topology at similarity levels between BR 180 and 190 has
produced a revised series of groups, believed to represent the local tradition ceramic
communities of practice present throughout the village occupation. These groups, as seen below
(Figures J-21 and J-22, Table J-1) represent social ties. These divisions are not fundamentally
chronological. The presence of possible temporal patterns may reflect social ties across time
within the village.
450
Figure J-21. Local tradition ceramics Over 1 Vessel BR 185 Gower layout. Temporal
to right. Colours indicate community of practice group.
451
452
Table J-1. Houses and Middens Associated with Each Local Tradition
Community of Practice.
Local Tradition
Community of
Practice Houses Middens
1 13, 20
2 1, 9, 10 54, 61, 77, 80, 52, 60, 71, 66, 59,63
3 8, 12 72, 74, 73, 65, 56, 62
4 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 19
5 3, 15 51, 53, 55, 57, 67, 68, 75, 78
Note: Boldface indicates initial high-level core nodes of communities.

Order indicates approximate strength of ties.
The five communities of practice (CoP) are numbered according to the relative strength of their
highest ties. That is, the members of community of practice 1 (CoP 1) are more similar than
those of CoP 2, and so on. The strongest ties within each group are indicated in boldface type
and are located within the list next to those with which the group shares this high-level tie. In the
last group, CoP 5, lower similarity level relations produce a less cohesive and more loosely tied
community. Closer examination of these communities of practice occurs in Chapter 8.

Identity Formation at The Keffer Iroquoi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Identity Formation at The Keffer Iroquoi

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Identity Formation at The Keffer Iroquoi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Identity Formation at the Keffer Iroquoian Village: A

Relational Network Approach to Communities of Practice

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

© Copyright by Susan Dermarkar 2019

Graduate Department of Anthropology

identities with others within the village.

scale, at the individual household level.

application of combined social network, community of practice, and agency approaches.

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xii

List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xiv

List of Appendices ..................................................................................................................... xxiv

Situating the Keffer Village ........................................................................................................1

2 Theoretical Underpinning: The Search for Identity ....................................................................7

Identity: From Ethnicity to Active Community ..........................................................................7

Introduction of the Human Factor through Agency Theory .....................................................11

Symbols and Boundaries ...........................................................................................................12

Messaging of Social Distance ...................................................................................................12

Identity and Communities of Practice .......................................................................................22

Interaction and Social Network Analysis ..................................................................................26

Iroquoian Development .............................................................................................................31

Late Woodland I: Princess Point, A.D. 500–1000 .............................................................34

Late Woodland II: Early Ontario Iroquoian, A.D. 1000–1300 ..........................................34

Late Woodland III: Middle Iroquoian, A.D. 1300–1420 ...................................................35

Late Woodland III: Pre-Contact Iroquoian, A.D. 1420–1550 ...........................................37

Keffer Site Environment ....................................................................................................41

Early Research at the Keffer Site .......................................................................................47

Keffer Site Excavation, 1984 and 1988 .............................................................................49

Ceramic Method and Theory ....................................................................................................54

History of Research on the Keffer Ceramics ............................................................................60

General Procedures Followed in the Current Analysis .............................................................61

Iroquoian Ceramic Typology at Keffer .....................................................................................63

Local Tradition Types and Attributes .......................................................................................65

“Huron” Types ...................................................................................................................67

Neutral Area Types ............................................................................................................74

High Collar Types ..............................................................................................................76

Erie–Niagara Frontier Undecorated Types ........................................................................80

Early Ontario Iroquoian Types ..........................................................................................81

Nonlocal Tradition Types and Attributes ..................................................................................84

Ceramics of the Central and Eastern Iroquois ...................................................................86

Distinctive Ceramic Attributes and Emergent Vessels at Keffer.......................................99

Exotic Attributes Seen at Keffer ......................................................................................109

Nonlocal Learner Vessels and Practice Vessels at Keffer ...............................................112

5 Social Network Analysis: Keffer in the Iroquoian World ......................................................117

Social Network Analysis of Pan-Iroquoian Ceramic Practice ................................................117

Ontario Iroquoian Ceramic Relations as Seen Through Network Analysis ...........................122

6 Settlement Pattern Analysis ....................................................................................................130

Spatial Arrangement of Major Settlement Features ................................................................130

Definition of Site Clusters.......................................................................................................138

Definition of Site Settlement Phases .......................................................................................141

Site Settlement Phase 1a .........................................................................................................142

Phase 1a, Cluster A ..........................................................................................................144

Phase 1a, Cluster B ..........................................................................................................147

Phase 1a, Cluster C ..........................................................................................................150

Phase 1a, Cluster D ..........................................................................................................153

Site Settlement Phase 1b .........................................................................................................157

Phase 1b, Cluster A ..........................................................................................................157

Phase 1b, Cluster B ..........................................................................................................160

Phase 1b, Cluster C ..........................................................................................................160