In this poster, we present the methods we use to revisit a collection of over six hundred so-called gorgets found throughout southern Ontario and now in the Royal Ontario Museum`s antiquarian collections. These methods include re-categorizing gorgets according to attributes that highlight their various morphologies and defining their stone types and properties. We also identify traces that speak of gestures involved in their shaping and use, of their relations with other materials, and of their specific trajectories. Provenience information (Township and/or County) allows us to map gorgets according to their find place and retrace their connections to Indigenous people in the present. By better understanding where gorget differences and similarities are situated, more nuanced stories can be told of these highly varied objects. Assessing Gorget Variation in the Royal Ontario Museum’s Antiquarian Collections Tiziana Gallo 1 , Eileen Bethune 2 , and Derek Moreno Ordonez 3 1 tgallo@rom.on.ca, ROM – Rebanks Postdoctoral Fellow in Ontario Archaeology; 2 ebethune@my.centennialcollege.ca, Centennial College – Museum and Cultural Management; 3 derek.morenoordonez@student.tdsb.on.ca, North Toronto Collegiate Institution Tabular ground stone objects classified as “gorgets” remain enigmatic and understudied. Gorgets were found over a large geographic area stretching from the mid-west of the United States up through southern Ontario and eastern North America, with concentrations around the Great Lakes. The earliest were found in Glacial Kame contexts (ca. 3000 to 2800 BP) and they persist into the Woodland period, likely into contact. However, because they were popular among antiquarians from the late 19 th to mid-20 th century, gorgets often lack proper archaeological context, which rarely includes more than broad find spots and name of collector. There remains no set classification of stone gorgets, or a stated difference with stone pendants. Functions suggested over time (e.g., ornaments, armguards, ceramic tools) remain untested and hypothetical, and the variety observed in collections surpasses known types (Peabody and Moorehead, 1906; Curren, 1977; Converse. 1978; Cooper, 2005; Keller, 2009). In this poster, we revisit a collection of over six hundred so-called gorgets found throughout southern Ontario and now in the Royal Ontario Museum`s antiquarian collections. This includes re- categorizing gorgets according to attributes that highlight their various morphologies and stone types and identifying traces that speak of gestures involved in their shaping and use, of their relations with other materials, and of their specific trajectories. Provenience information (County) allows us to map gorgets according to their find place and retrace their connections to Indigenous people in the present. By better understanding where gorget differences and similarities are situated, more nuanced stories can be told of these highly varied objects. Research questions Methodology • Describe gorget morphologies - Dimensions, profiles, edge shapes, cross-sections - Perforations: location, dimensions, shape • Identify stone types • Identify shaping strategies, steps • Localize and describe use-wear patterns on: - Both faces, perforations, edges • Provenance • How do gorgets vary in materials, morphology, wear, trajectories, and find areas? • What patterns can we identify, and what new insights about gorget variability, functions, and relations to Indigenous peoples in the present do these patterns suggest? References • Converse, R. N. (1978). Ohio Slate Types. Ohio, Archaeological Society of Ohio. • Curren Jr, C. B. (1977). Potential interpretations of "stone gorget" function. American Antiquity 42(1): 97-101. • Peabody, C. and W. K. Moorehead (1906). Bulletin II. The So-Called "Gorgets". Andover, Massachusetts, Phillips Academy, Department of Archaeology. The Andover Press. 2.0 mm 2.0 mm 2.0 mm 2.0 mm 2.0 mm 5 mm 0 polish scars pits striations HD693, x20 Rounded ridges and polished surface between perforations NS41818, x20 Gouged area from attachment between perforations HD691 Scar and striation from suspension NS41530 Rounded and polished bevelled working edge with isolated sliced scar and dense oblique- parallel micro-striations NS42053 Rounded and polished bevelled working edge with uneven and run-together sliced and stepped scars NS226 Large sliced scar with a levelled surface and a rounded and polished ridge Use-wear With photographs, sketches, and low-power microscopy, we document the distribution, density, shape and orientation of the traces left on the surface of gorgets. These include polish, scars, pits, striations, grooves, notches, engravings and residues that testify to their various uses, transformations and relations. Images: Courtesy of ROM (Royal Ontario Museum). Toronto, Canada. ©ROM • Keller, C. K. (2009). Glacial Kame Sandal-Sole Shell Gorgets: An Exploration of Manufacture, Use, Distribution, and Public Exhibition. Masters of Arts Thesis, Ball State University. , Muncie, Indiana. • Cooper, M. (2005). Etched in Stone: Ground Stone as a Symbolic Medium. Ontario Archaeology 79-80: 63-72. Background Stone types Sample: N=475 Mudstone; 171; 36% Meta-rhythmite, 133, 28% Argillite; 65; 14% Limestone; 38; 8% Silicified mudstone; 20; 4% Shale; 11; 2% Slate; 11; 2% Pipestone; 6; 1% Siltstone; 6; 1% Sandstone; 4; 1% Schist; 3; 1% Oolitic stone; 2; 0% Petoskey stone; 1; 0% Phyllite; 1; 0% Porphyry; 1; 0% Jasper; 1; 0% Steatite; 1; 0% Results Among 627 gorgets, we identified 13 preforms, 455 complete, 119 broken, and 41 gorget fragments. Sixty-four percent of the assemblage fits within 23 distinct profiles and 12 cross- sections. While highly varied, gorgets are more commonly made of mudstone or meta- rhythmite, have 1-2 biconical perforations, and a biplano, sub-convex, or biconvex cross- section. Spatial distributions show concentrations in what is now known as Middlesex Co. and Prince-Edward Co. Use-wear analyses suggest that gorgets had multiple functions, including as pendants, buttons, cutting or scraping tools, and strike-a-lights. Future experiments will help test these functions and refine our current understanding. 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 Lenght (mm) Width (mm) Acknowledgements: Thank you to the Royal Ontario Museum, the Rebanks family, Craig Cipolla, Justin Jennings, and April Hawkins for supporting this research # of perforations Shape of perforations Cross-sections 4 23 6 3 17 9 12 63 23 27 18 15 21 7 31 4 18 46 9 23 12 4 6 N= Location of x20 images