0.3 Primary findings
Hypothesis 1 (Trajectory)
Hypothesis 2 (Diversity)
2022-11-01
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).
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).
Morphological trajectories of Caddo bottles differ by river basin through time.
::include_graphics('./images/traj.jpg') knitr
Figure 0.1: Sites associated with the Caddo bottles used in the study denoting major river basins by colour.
Morphological diversity is reflective of the technological life cycle (innovation, growth, or maturity).
::include_graphics('./images/diversity.jpg') knitr
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).
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.
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.
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).
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>