Preface

Reproducibility—the ability to recompute results—and replicability—the chances other experimenters will achieve a consistent result—are two foundational characteristics of successful scientific research (Leek and Peng 2015).

0.1 Basis of inquiry

In a June 18, 1937 WPA interview with Lillian Cassaway, Sadie Bedoka—a Caddo-Delaware woman who was raised wth the Caddo—states that:

Each [Caddo] clan had its own shape to make its pottery. One clan never thought of making anything the same pattern of another clan. You could tell who made the pottery by the shape (Cassaway 1937, 395).

Diagnostic types—whether functional, decorative, morphological, or chronological (O’Brien and Lyman 1999)—are of considerable import in formulating archaeological interpretations; however, the Caddo ceramic types are based primarily upon decorative motifs, and not morphology (Suhm, Krieger, and Jelks 1954; Suhm and Jelks 1962). In recent analyses of Caddo bottle morphology (Selden Jr. 2018a, 2018b, 2019), vessels of the same decorative types (Hickory Engraved and Smithport Plain) were found to differ in morphology when recovered from discrete geographical regions. Those studies were subsequently expanded to include a variety of Formative/Early and Late/Historic Caddo bottle types—from the same regions—to assess whether morphological differences identified in Hickory Engraved and Smithport Plain bottles extend to Caddo bottles generally, and whether those shapes differed through time (Selden Jr. 2021).

More recently, morphological differences have been found to occur across the same geography for Gahagan bifaces (Selden Jr., Dockall, and Shafer 2018; Selden Jr., Dockall, and Dubied 2020a) and Perdiz arrow points, lending further support to the shape boundary hypothesis. This study enlists the largest corpus of Caddo bottles ever to be formally analysed, and assesses whether the trajectory of shape changes in Caddo bottles differs between river basins. Morphological disparity is subsequently used to assess within-basin diversity, eliciting evidence for technological innovation, growth, and maturity associated with Caddo bottle production.

It is not known whether the same Caddo potter that manufactured these vessels also applied the decorative elements. However, if the same potter is assumed to have applied the motif, then it may be the case that Caddo vessel forms and decorative elements were intended to incorporate and communicate discrete cultural signals. Conceptually, these are conceived of as autogenous and adherent signals (sensu Kubler (1962)), where the autogenous signal is representative of vessel form (inclusive of shape and size), and the adherent signal, the motif (and decorative elements therein).

0.2 Hypotheses

0.2.1 Hypothesis 1 (Trajectory)

Morphological trajectories of Caddo bottles differ by river basin through time.

knitr::include_graphics('./images/traj.jpg')
Sites associated with the Caddo bottles used in the study denoting major river basins by colour.

Figure 0.1: Sites associated with the Caddo bottles used in the study denoting major river basins by colour.

0.2.2 Hypothesis 2 (Diversity)

Morphological diversity is reflective of the technological life cycle (innovation, growth, or maturity).

knitr::include_graphics('./images/diversity.jpg')
Conceptual rendering of how two trajectories may differ, illustrating higher/lower morphological diversity at different intervals. Basin 1 (blue) potentially reflects increased diversity through innovation (few makers), while the Basin 2 (orange) potentially reflects increased diversity through maturity (more makers).

Figure 0.2: Conceptual rendering of how two trajectories may differ, illustrating higher/lower morphological diversity at different intervals. Basin 1 (blue) potentially reflects increased diversity through innovation (few makers), while the Basin 2 (orange) potentially reflects increased diversity through maturity (more makers).

0.3 Primary findings

Hypothesis 1 (Trajectory)

Hypothesis 2 (Diversity)

0.4 Acknowledgments

RZS extends his gratitude to the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma, the Caddo Nation Tribal Council, Tribal Chairman, and Tribal Historic Preservation Office for their guidance related to the development of the 3D scanning protocols, for permission and access to NAGPRA and previously repatriated collections, and for frank discussions related to language surrounding burial contexts associated with Caddo children. I extend my gratitude to the Material Sciences Laboratory at Southern Methodist University, the University Museum at the University of Arkansas, the Williamson Museum at Northwestern State University, the Louisiana State Exhibit Museum, the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory at The University of Texas at Austin, and the Louisiana State University Museum of Natural Science for the requisite permissions, access, and space needed to generate 3D scans of Caddo bottles. Thanks also to Hiram F. (Pete) Gregory, B. Sunday Eiselt, Kersten Bergstrom, Lauren Butaric, Dean C. Adams, Michael L. Collyer, Emma Sherratt, Michael J. Shott, and David K. Thulman for their constructive criticisms, comments, and suggestions throughout the development of this research programme, as well as the editors and anonymous reviewers whose comments improved the manuscript.

0.5 Funding

Development of the analytical work flow and production of 3D scans from the Turner and Webb collections was funded by a grant to the author (P14AP00138) from the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training. Production of 3D scan data for Caddo bottles from the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory was funded by two Research Support Fund grants to the author from the Texas Archeological Society, and collection of 3D scan data for previously repatriated Caddo bottles was funded by a grant to the author from the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma. Funding to collect 3D scan data at the University Museum at the University of Arkansas was provided by the Heritage Research Center at Stephen F. Austin State University as well as a Data and Analytics grant and Residency to the author from the Spatial Archaeometry Research Collaborations through the University of Arkansas’ Center for Advanced Spatial Technology and Dartmouth’s Spatial Archaeometry Lab.

0.6 Data management

The data and analysis code associated with this project can be accessed through this document or the GitHub repository, which is digitally curated on the Open Science Framework (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/GH7VZ). The reproducible nature of this undertaking provides a means for others to critically assess and evaluate the various analytical components (Gray and Marwick 2019; Peng 2011; Gandrud 2014), which is a necessary requirement for the production of reliable knowledge.

Reproducibility projects in psychology and cancer biology are impacting current research practices across all domains. Examples of reproducible research are becoming more abundant in archaeology (Marwick 2016; Ivanovaite et al. 2020; Selden Jr., Dockall, and Shafer 2018; Selden Jr., Dockall, and Dubied 2020b; Selden Jr et al. 2021), and the next generation of archaeologists are learning those tools and methods needed to reproduce and/or replicate research results (Marwick et al. 2019). Reproducible and replicable research work flows are often employed at the highest levels of humanities-based inquiries to mitigate concern or doubt regarding proper execution, and is of particular import should the results have—explicitly or implicitly—a major impact on scientific progress (Peels and Bouter 2018).

0.7 Colophon

This version of the analysis was generated on 2022-11-01 14:49:41 using the following computational environment and dependencies:

# what R packages and versions were used?
if ("devtools" %in% installed.packages()) devtools::session_info()
## ─ Session info ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
##  setting  value
##  version  R version 4.2.1 (2022-06-23 ucrt)
##  os       Windows 10 x64 (build 19045)
##  system   x86_64, mingw32
##  ui       RStudio
##  language (EN)
##  collate  English_United States.utf8
##  ctype    English_United States.utf8
##  tz       America/Chicago
##  date     2022-11-01
##  rstudio  2022.07.1+554 Spotted Wakerobin (desktop)
##  pandoc   2.18 @ C:/Program Files/RStudio/bin/quarto/bin/tools/ (via rmarkdown)
## 
## ─ Packages ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
##  package     * version date (UTC) lib source
##  bookdown      0.29    2022-09-12 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  bslib         0.4.0   2022-07-16 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  cachem        1.0.6   2021-08-19 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  callr         3.7.2   2022-08-22 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  cli           3.4.1   2022-09-23 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  crayon        1.5.2   2022-09-29 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  devtools      2.4.5   2022-10-11 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  digest        0.6.30  2022-10-18 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  ellipsis      0.3.2   2021-04-29 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  evaluate      0.17    2022-10-07 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  fastmap       1.1.0   2021-01-25 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  fs            1.5.2   2021-12-08 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  git2r         0.30.1  2022-03-16 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  glue          1.6.2   2022-02-24 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  here          1.0.1   2020-12-13 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  highr         0.9     2021-04-16 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  htmltools     0.5.3   2022-07-18 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  htmlwidgets   1.5.4   2021-09-08 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  httpuv        1.6.6   2022-09-08 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  jpeg          0.1-9   2021-07-24 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.0)
##  jquerylib     0.1.4   2021-04-26 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  jsonlite      1.8.3   2022-10-21 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  knitr         1.40    2022-08-24 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  later         1.3.0   2021-08-18 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  lifecycle     1.0.3   2022-10-07 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  magrittr      2.0.3   2022-03-30 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  memoise       2.0.1   2021-11-26 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  mime          0.12    2021-09-28 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.0)
##  miniUI        0.1.1.1 2018-05-18 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  pkgbuild      1.3.1   2021-12-20 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  pkgload       1.3.1   2022-10-28 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  prettyunits   1.1.1   2020-01-24 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  processx      3.8.0   2022-10-26 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  profvis       0.3.7   2020-11-02 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  promises      1.2.0.1 2021-02-11 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  ps            1.7.2   2022-10-26 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  purrr         0.3.5   2022-10-06 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  R6            2.5.1   2021-08-19 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  Rcpp          1.0.9   2022-07-08 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  remotes       2.4.2   2021-11-30 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  rlang         1.0.6   2022-09-24 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  rmarkdown     2.17    2022-10-07 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  rprojroot     2.0.3   2022-04-02 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  rsconnect     0.8.28  2022-10-24 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  rstudioapi    0.14    2022-08-22 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  sass          0.4.2   2022-07-16 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  sessioninfo   1.2.2   2021-12-06 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  shiny         1.7.3   2022-10-25 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  stringi       1.7.8   2022-07-11 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  stringr       1.4.1   2022-08-20 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  urlchecker    1.0.1   2021-11-30 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  usethis       2.1.6   2022-05-25 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  xfun          0.34    2022-10-18 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  xtable        1.8-4   2019-04-21 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
##  yaml          2.3.6   2022-10-18 [1] CRAN (R 4.2.1)
## 
##  [1] C:/Users/seldenjrz/AppData/Local/Programs/R/R-4.2.1/library
## 
## ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Current Git commit details are:

# where can I find this commit? 
if ("git2r" %in% installed.packages() & git2r::in_repository(path = ".")) git2r::repository(here::here())  
## Local:    main D:/github/bottle.traj
## Remote:   main @ origin (https://github.com/aksel-blaise/bottle.traj)
## Head:     [998ccd4] 2022-03-11: <edit index>

References

Cassaway, Lillian. 1937. “Indian-Pioneer History Project for Oklahoma: Sadie Bedoka.” Report. Works Progress Administration.
Gandrud, Christopher. 2014. Reproducible Research with r and RStudio. Book. The r Series. London: CRC Press.
Gray, Charles T., and Ben Marwick. 2019. “Truth, Proof, and Reproducibility: There’s No Counter-Attack for the Codeless.” Book Section. In Statistics and Data Science, 111–29. Communications in Computer and Information Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1960-4_8.
Ivanovaite, Livija, Kamil Serwatka, Christian Steven Hoggard, Florian Sauer, and Felix Riede. 2020. “All These Fantastic Cultures? Research History and Regionalization in the Late Palaeolithic Tanged Point Cultures of Eastern Europe.” European Journal of Archaeology 23 (2): 162–85. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.59.
Kubler, George. 1962. The Shape of Time: Remarks on the History of Things. Book. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Leek, Jeffrey T., and Roger D. Peng. 2015. “Opinion: Reproducible Research Can Still Be Wrong: Adopting a Prevention Approach.” Journal Article. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112 (6): 1645–46. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1421412111.
Marwick, Ben. 2016. “Computational Reproducibility in Archaeological Research: Basic Principles and a Case Study of Their Implementation.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 24 (2): 424–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-015-9272-9.
Marwick, Ben, Li-Ying Wang, Ryan Robinson, and Hope Loiselle. 2019. “How to Use Replication Assignments for Teaching Integrity in Empirical Archaeology.” Advances in Archaeological Practice 8 (1): 78–86. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2019.38.
O’Brien, Michael J., and R. Lee Lyman. 1999. Seriation, Stratigraphy, and Index Fossils: The Backbone of Archaeological Dating. Book. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Peels, Rik, and Lex Bouter. 2018. “Humanities Need a Replication Drive Too.” Nature 558 (7710): 372. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05454-w.
Peng, Roger D. 2011. “Reproducible Research in Computational Science.” Journal Article. Science 334 (6060): 1226–27. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1213847.
Selden Jr, Robert Z., John E. Dockall, C. Britt Bousman, and Timothy K. Perttula. 2021. “Shape as a Function of Time + Raw Material + Burial Context? An Exploratory Analysis of Perdiz Arrow Points from the Ancestral Caddo Area of the American Southeast.” Journal Article. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.102916.
Selden Jr., Robert Z. 2018a. “A Preliminary Study of Smithport Plain Bottle Morphology in the Southern Caddo Area.” Journal Article. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 89: 63–89. https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/crhr/283/.
———. 2018b. “Ceramic Morphological Organisation in the Southern Caddo Area: Quiddity of Shape for Hickory Engraved Bottles.” Journal Article. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 21: 884–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2018.08.045.
———. 2019. “Ceramic Morphological Organisation in the Southern Caddo Area: The Clarence H. Webb Collections.” Journal Article. Journal of Cultural Heritage 35: 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2018.07.002.
———. 2021. “Louisiana Limitrophe: An Iterative Morphological Exegesis of Caddo Bottle and Biface Production.” Book Section. In Ancestral Caddo Ceramic Traditions, edited by Duncan P. McKinnon, Jeffrey S. Girard, and Timothy K. Perttula, 258–76. Baton Rouge: LSU Press.
Selden Jr., Robert Z., John E. Dockall, and Morgane Dubied. 2020b. “A Quantitative Assessment of Intraspecific Morphological Variation in Gahagan Bifaces from the Southern Caddo Area and Central Texas.” Southeastern Archaeology 39 (2): 125–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/0734578x.2020.1744416.
———. 2020a. “A quantitative assessment of intraspecific morphological variation in Gahagan bifaces from the southern Caddo area and central Texas.” Journal Article. Southeastern Archaeology 39 (2): 125–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/0734578x.2020.1744416.
Selden Jr., Robert Z., John E. Dockall, and Harry J. Shafer. 2018. “Lithic Morphological Organisation: Gahagan Bifaces from the Southern Caddo Area.” Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 10: e00080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2018.e00080.
Suhm, Dee Ann, and Edward B. Jelks. 1962. Handbook of Texas Archeology: Type Descriptions. Book. Austin: Special Publication No. 1. Texas Archeological Society; Bulletin No. 4, Texas Memorial Museum.
Suhm, Dee Ann, Alex D. Krieger, and Edward B. Jelks. 1954. “An Introductory Handbook of Texas Archeology.” Journal Article. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 25: 1–562.