Complexity through Alternate Lens: An A.D 15 th -17 th Century Wendat Case Study Steven Dorland Trigger (1990) argued Ancestral Wendat groups practiced an egalitarian ethos that was ŵediated thƌough eĐoŶoŵiĐ eƋualitLJ. His papeƌ ĐhalleŶged ĐeƌtaiŶ pƌedispositioŶs of tƌiďal soĐieties, ƌegaƌdiŶg theiƌ level of soĐial ĐoŵpledžitLJ. I pƌopose an alternate interpretation to his egalitaƌiaŶ ethos ŵodel ďLJ iŶĐoƌpoƌatiŶg the ŶotioŶ of heteƌaƌĐhLJ, a ĐoŶĐept fiƌst estaďlished in anthropology by Crumley (1979; 1987;1995;2005). Within the proposed heterarchical framework, power structures are considered dynamic and fluid, contextually based, and are constantly being negotiated between various parties or individuals to create balance within social structures. I suggest that within Ancestral Wendat context, there are critical differences between the notion of social equality and social balance. I focus on identifying the relation between heterarchy and both material, and immaterial aspects of Ancestral Wendat lifeways. Applying heterarchy to understand the inner-workings of Ancestral Wendat communities calls for a reassessment of how complexity is addressed within tribal societies. As a result, a more nuanced approach to understanding Ancestral Wendat practices and beliefs develops. Key Words: Heterarchy, Ancestral Wendat, Great Lakes, complexity,social practice In the Anthropological discipline, conceptual understandings of “complexity” are clouded in subjectivity (Alt 2010:1). Generally, complexity refers to the measure that is related to the number of elements in a particular integrated system. The anthropological interpretation of “complexity” has long acted as a heuristic for categorizing and measuring cultural groups through time; a framework that tracks trajectories of sociocultural evolutionary processes. More recently, traditional complexity frameworks fall under criticism for analytical inefficiencies, methodological limitations, and reassessment of implicit assumptions that concern fundamental principles (see Alt 2010; Yoffee 2004; Chapman 2003). Ultimately, the ambiguous nature of “complexity” is problematic. As Alt (2010:3) states, complexity does not represent a physical manifestation. Rather, complexity represents a collection of predetermined traits that archaeologists follow as a guideline for sociocultural evolution. Within this framework, cultural groups are pigeon-holed into generalized categorizations that limit the ability to investigate social and cultural processes.