the archaeological record to provide the answers regarding the past. He highly relies on the archaeological record (ceramic styles, design) to determine information on identity, politics and interrelationships between the St. Lawrence Iroquoians and Huron-Wendat people.
Opinions in Place of Conclusions:
These are unsupported assertions which Gibbon (2014) suggests are opinions. Therefore, the following are opinions asserted in place of conclusions:
¬ Ramsden (2016:6) suggests that his interpretations of the group of 7 houses outside the Kirche site that were never enclosed represents a group of people that moved from outside the area looking to join the Kirche village. o This is Ramsden’s conclusion regarding the houses found outside the Kirche community, there is no evidence for this rather it is Ramden’s opinion about the houses located outside the community indicate.
¬ At the Benson site the use of the barred neck motif is part of the process of blending the St. Lawrence Iroquoians and Huron-Wendat styles (Ramsden 2016:12). o Ramsden (2016) does not provide any explicit evidence that the barred neck motif is part of the blending of these two groups, ¬ Breaking and discarding St. Lawrence Iroquoian pipes were part of the process of negotiating the adoption of the St. Lawrence Iroquoian people into the Kirche community (Ramsden 2016:13). ¬ Stamped bars on St. Lawrence Iroquoian pipes was a symbol of men’s St. Lawrence Iroquoian identity (Ramsden 2016:13). o Ramsden (2016) does not discuss why this is a symbol of St. Lawrence Iroquoian men’s identity or provide any archaeological/ethnohistorical background to justify this opinion. ¬ The barred motif was being used as a form of resistance by the adopted St. Lawrence Iroquoian people (Ramsden 2016:18). o There is no archaeological evidence that it was used as a form of resistance, it was a suggestion made by Ramsden (2016). Errors in Framing the Questions: According to Gibbon (2014) there are six errors of framing questions. The only error of framing questions that are present in Ramsden (2016) article is the error of too many questions. Gibbon (2014) mentions that the error of too many questions refers to two or more questions being asked within one question. Additionally, Ramsden (2016:1) asks, “How these groups of people who had different geographical origins interact with each other?” In this one question there are two other questions present, (1) how did these two groups of people interact with each other and (2) did these two groups of people have different geographically origins? In addition, Ramsden (2016) also asks, “How is ethnicity and identity expressed through material culture?” There are two questions presented within this one, (1) how is ethnicity and identity expressed through material culture and (2) does material culture express ethnicity and identity? What is the Argument? Ramsden 2009 Main Arguments: The following are the main arguments presented in Ramsden’s (2009) article, and the “[P]” represents the premise of each argument. ¬ House 10 extended double its size [P] because of the adoption of St. Lawrence Iroquoian refugees (Ramsden 2009:306). ¬ House 10 had European trade links [P] since St. Lawrence Iroquoian immigrants brought it with them (Ramsden 2009:306). ¬ St. Lawrence Iroquoian immigrants brought with them European trade links which made House 10 a special and significant household at the Benson site [P] since only House 10 contains all three classes of artifacts such as European metal, St. Lawrence Iroquoian pottery and pipes (Ramsden 2009:306). ¬ …show more content…
Yes, there are a conclusion that I noticed in Ramsden (2009) article which serves as premise for another argument:
¬ [C] St. Lawrence Iroquoian immigrants brought with them European trade links which made House 10 a special and significant household at the Benson site [P] since only House 10 contains all three classes of artifacts such as European metal, St. Lawrence Iroquoian pottery and pipes (Ramsden 2009:306).
¬ [C] House 10 was considered a ‘progressive’ household [P] because St. Lawrence Iroquoian immigrants brought with them European trade links which made House 10 a special and significant household at the Benson site (Ramsden 2009:306). o Therefore, “St. Lawrence Iroquoian immigrants brought with them European trade links which made House 10 a special and significant household at the Benson site” serves both as a premise and a conclusion for two
Opinions in Place of Conclusions:
These are unsupported assertions which Gibbon (2014) suggests are opinions. Therefore, the following are opinions asserted in place of conclusions:
¬ Ramsden (2016:6) suggests that his interpretations of the group of 7 houses outside the Kirche site that were never enclosed represents a group of people that moved from outside the area looking to join the Kirche village. o This is Ramsden’s conclusion regarding the houses found outside the Kirche community, there is no evidence for this rather it is Ramden’s opinion about the houses located outside the community indicate.
¬ At the Benson site the use of the barred neck motif is part of the process of blending the St. Lawrence Iroquoians and Huron-Wendat styles (Ramsden 2016:12). o Ramsden (2016) does not provide any explicit evidence that the barred neck motif is part of the blending of these two groups, ¬ Breaking and discarding St. Lawrence Iroquoian pipes were part of the process of negotiating the adoption of the St. Lawrence Iroquoian people into the Kirche community (Ramsden 2016:13). ¬ Stamped bars on St. Lawrence Iroquoian pipes was a symbol of men’s St. Lawrence Iroquoian identity (Ramsden 2016:13). o Ramsden (2016) does not discuss why this is a symbol of St. Lawrence Iroquoian men’s identity or provide any archaeological/ethnohistorical background to justify this opinion. ¬ The barred motif was being used as a form of resistance by the adopted St. Lawrence Iroquoian people (Ramsden 2016:18). o There is no archaeological evidence that it was used as a form of resistance, it was a suggestion made by Ramsden (2016). Errors in Framing the Questions: According to Gibbon (2014) there are six errors of framing questions. The only error of framing questions that are present in Ramsden (2016) article is the error of too many questions. Gibbon (2014) mentions that the error of too many questions refers to two or more questions being asked within one question. Additionally, Ramsden (2016:1) asks, “How these groups of people who had different geographical origins interact with each other?” In this one question there are two other questions present, (1) how did these two groups of people interact with each other and (2) did these two groups of people have different geographically origins? In addition, Ramsden (2016) also asks, “How is ethnicity and identity expressed through material culture?” There are two questions presented within this one, (1) how is ethnicity and identity expressed through material culture and (2) does material culture express ethnicity and identity? What is the Argument? Ramsden 2009 Main Arguments: The following are the main arguments presented in Ramsden’s (2009) article, and the “[P]” represents the premise of each argument. ¬ House 10 extended double its size [P] because of the adoption of St. Lawrence Iroquoian refugees (Ramsden 2009:306). ¬ House 10 had European trade links [P] since St. Lawrence Iroquoian immigrants brought it with them (Ramsden 2009:306). ¬ St. Lawrence Iroquoian immigrants brought with them European trade links which made House 10 a special and significant household at the Benson site [P] since only House 10 contains all three classes of artifacts such as European metal, St. Lawrence Iroquoian pottery and pipes (Ramsden 2009:306). ¬ …show more content…
Yes, there are a conclusion that I noticed in Ramsden (2009) article which serves as premise for another argument:
¬ [C] St. Lawrence Iroquoian immigrants brought with them European trade links which made House 10 a special and significant household at the Benson site [P] since only House 10 contains all three classes of artifacts such as European metal, St. Lawrence Iroquoian pottery and pipes (Ramsden 2009:306).
¬ [C] House 10 was considered a ‘progressive’ household [P] because St. Lawrence Iroquoian immigrants brought with them European trade links which made House 10 a special and significant household at the Benson site (Ramsden 2009:306). o Therefore, “St. Lawrence Iroquoian immigrants brought with them European trade links which made House 10 a special and significant household at the Benson site” serves both as a premise and a conclusion for two