to leave the community and join another. Therefore, since there are expectations to this generalization this argument of House 14 being the winner, does not pass this criteria.
Ramsden 2016
Main Arguments:
¬ The use of a hybrid ceramic style is a way of creating a hybrid identity in order ease the adoption of St. Lawrence Iroquoians into the Huron-Wendat community. [P] Since style in material culture indicates identity and allows negotiation of social relations (Ramsden 2016:15).
¬ Making a traditional Huron-Wendat vessel with neck decorations sends a sign of political allegiance with the traditional group [P] since that group is dominated by Huron-Wendat membership (Ramsden 2016:16).
¬ Making traditional St. Lawrence Iroquoian vessel sends …show more content…
Lawrence Iroquoians into the Huron-Wendat community. [P] Since style in material culture indicates identity and allows negotiation of social relations (Ramsden 2016:15). o this premise is true but I do not see how it produces the conclusion that, hybrid ceramic style is a way of creating a hybrid identity and therefore it is irrelevant to the conclusion. There is no direct connection between the premise and the conclusion thus the premise is unacceptable.
Lastly, Gibbon’s last criteria is, ‘is there an exception to the generalization?’ in Ramsden (2016) article I found that there is:
¬ The barred motif is used as a form of resistance by adopted of St. Lawrence Iroquoians women [P] since women are the upholders of tradition (Ramsden 2016:17-18). o There is an exception to this generalization, as women may have not been the ones using the barred motif as a form of resistance since this motif is found on men’s pipes therefore it may have been men that could have been using this …show more content…
This article is comparison to Ramsden’s (2009) article was less effective, since in this article Ramsden (2016) only uses one form of evidence which is pottery and ceramic style to interperate political and economic affiliation and one’s ethnicity and identity. It seems as if throughout this article Ramsden (2016) is making assumptions based merely on ceramic/vessel style and the presence of the barred motif. This article was also harder and more confusing for me to read as his writing is not clear. Additionally, Ramsden (2016) mentions two sites but focuses on one, the Benson site, this was confusing when reading the article at first since he only mentions once that he thinks the “Benson site is a good candidate for the place that the Kirche village moved to” (Ramsden
Ramsden 2016
Main Arguments:
¬ The use of a hybrid ceramic style is a way of creating a hybrid identity in order ease the adoption of St. Lawrence Iroquoians into the Huron-Wendat community. [P] Since style in material culture indicates identity and allows negotiation of social relations (Ramsden 2016:15).
¬ Making a traditional Huron-Wendat vessel with neck decorations sends a sign of political allegiance with the traditional group [P] since that group is dominated by Huron-Wendat membership (Ramsden 2016:16).
¬ Making traditional St. Lawrence Iroquoian vessel sends …show more content…
Lawrence Iroquoians into the Huron-Wendat community. [P] Since style in material culture indicates identity and allows negotiation of social relations (Ramsden 2016:15). o this premise is true but I do not see how it produces the conclusion that, hybrid ceramic style is a way of creating a hybrid identity and therefore it is irrelevant to the conclusion. There is no direct connection between the premise and the conclusion thus the premise is unacceptable.
Lastly, Gibbon’s last criteria is, ‘is there an exception to the generalization?’ in Ramsden (2016) article I found that there is:
¬ The barred motif is used as a form of resistance by adopted of St. Lawrence Iroquoians women [P] since women are the upholders of tradition (Ramsden 2016:17-18). o There is an exception to this generalization, as women may have not been the ones using the barred motif as a form of resistance since this motif is found on men’s pipes therefore it may have been men that could have been using this …show more content…
This article is comparison to Ramsden’s (2009) article was less effective, since in this article Ramsden (2016) only uses one form of evidence which is pottery and ceramic style to interperate political and economic affiliation and one’s ethnicity and identity. It seems as if throughout this article Ramsden (2016) is making assumptions based merely on ceramic/vessel style and the presence of the barred motif. This article was also harder and more confusing for me to read as his writing is not clear. Additionally, Ramsden (2016) mentions two sites but focuses on one, the Benson site, this was confusing when reading the article at first since he only mentions once that he thinks the “Benson site is a good candidate for the place that the Kirche village moved to” (Ramsden