Canadian Historic Sites: Occasional Papers in Archaeology and History No. 3

The Armstrong Mound on Rainy River, Ontario

by Walter A. Kenyon

Pottery Analysis

With a few exceptions to be noted as they arise, the pottery from the Armstrong Site may be considered to be the same as that described by MacNeish (1958: 142 ff.) as Laurel Plain Ware. Two notable exceptions here are, first, the Armstrong pottery is much thinner, with an average thickness of 5.02 mm. and a range of 3-10 mm.; second, the Armstrong pottery is much harder, having an average hardness of 4.9 on Mohs' scale. In other words, while the Armstrong and the Manitoba Laurel wares are largely identical, the former is thinner, harder and denser. Stoltman (1962: 111) found that the same is true of the Laurel ware from Minnesota also.

Rim Sherds

With the exception of nine cord- or fabric-impressed specimens, all of the rims (258) from the Armstrong Site fitted typological categories that had been previously established by MacNeish (1958) and Stoltman (1962). These pottery types are listed in Table 2, and are illustrated in Figures 11 to 15.

Table 2: Pottery Type Distribution

11 Lockport Linear rimsherds.

12 Lockport Linear rimsherds.

13 1-4, Cord- or fabric-impressed rimsherds; 5-10, Lockport Plain rimsherds.

14 Miscellaneous rimsherds. 1, Pseudo Scallop Shell; 2, Laurel Dentate; 3, Lockport Linear (variant); 4-10, Cemetery Point Incised.

15 Nutmik Oblique rimsherds.

The cord- or fabric-impressed rims are, on superficial examination, almost identical with the Lockport Linear rims. Only with detailed examination under a handglass can the distinction between the two types be detected. Attempts to document the distinction photographically were unsuccessful.

In Table 3 is listed distribution of the individual characteristics or attributes of ceramic decoration. At this time, the distribution of these attributes has no particular significance, apart from the fact that it is an essential part of the record. When more data are available, however, these attributes will almost certainly be re-combined to form more precisely defined pottery types.

Table 3: Attribute Distribution on Decorated Rims