48 
Part of the decoration on the antler comb, illustrated in Plate XXII, 
figure 1, is very unusual. The zigzags across the top and through the 
middle, of course, are not uncommon, but the zigzags, with each, or every 
other angle, bisected, are rarely seen. 
The writer knows of only two other artifacts from Ontario, which bear 
similar designs; one is an earthenware pipe, found at a site on lot 25, con. 
VII, Malahide tp., Elgin co., 1 the other, a sandstone pipe, from Markham 
township, York county 2 . A stone pipe, of Micmac type, from Matapedia, 
Quebec, 3 bears a somewhat similar design. 
Ornamental carvings in the round can be seen on only three specimens 
(See Plate XX, figures 19, 20, and 22). The upper groove on the specimen, 
seen in figure 19, encircles the awl. 
Exclusive of the nodes, seen on many of the pots, only one pot had 
plastic ornamentation in high relief (See Plate V, figure 4). 
The only apparent life form, modelled in the round, is the stem of a 
pipe, illustrated in Plate XXIII, figure 14. Its lower side, of which a 
cross-section is shown in figure 3e, is covered with rounded nodes or bosses, 
which give it a somewhat botryoidal appearance, suggestive of the manner 
in which the scutes on the body of the alligator are sometimes represented 4 . 
We would scarcely find representations of this animal so far north as On- 
tario, but the similarity in treatment suggests that if an animal figure 
had been modelled on the bowl of this specimen, it would have represented 
the alligator or snapping turtle, which has rows of scutes along the top 
of the tail 6 . 
The fact that much of the pottery decoration differs from that on 
Iroquoian ware, both in simplicity and technique, whereas the culture 
otherwise is mainly Iroquoian, might lead some to argue that the art here 
was decadent. The writer thinks, however, that it was more likely in a 
formative stage. Parker suggests that the Iroquois possibly had different 
pottery when they first came into New York state, 6 and the pottery of 
the first Iroquoian arrivals in Ontario may have been different likewise. 
The Iroquois evidently developed their distinctive ware after they arrived 
in the east, for none, or very little, is found along any of the presumed 
routes by which they may have come from their former home. 7 They 
must have used pottery during their migration, but we can safely assume 
that most of the decorative designs were not what we commonly call 
Iroquoian, since otherwise we would surely find them. In view of this, 
and also on account of the culture generally being more Iroquoian than 
Algonkian, why could not the decorative art on the Uren pottery, and 
pottery from other sites of the same culture, be that of some early Iroquoian 
arrivals, and represent their art in process of evolution or development 
into what we now recognize as typically Iroquoian? 
'Cat- No. VIII-F-5656, Nat. Mus. of Can. 
! See Fig. 464, W. K. Moorehead's “Stone Art in North America,’’ vol. II (Boston and New York, 1910). 
J No. 287, Patterson collection, Dalkousie University, Halifax, N.S. See Plate LXXXIII, fig, 1, Harlan I. 
Smith: "An Album of Prehistoric Canadian Art,” Op. cit. 
■•Hartman, C. V.: "The Alligator as a Plastic Decorative Motive in Certain Costa Rican Pottery,” Am, Anthro- 
* pologist, N.S., vol. 9, pp. 307-314, Plates XV-XX (1907). 
6 A somewhat similar specimen is illustrated by Schoolcraft (Plate 33, figure 6), and on page 94, described as an 
“implement of pottery, with a singular rugose mouth." (Information Respecting the History, Condition, and 
Prospects of the Indian Tribes of the United States, Philadelphia, 1853, pt. I). Unfortunately, he does not give 
the locality where it was found, 
®Op. cit., p. 481. 
7 Parker illustrates some pottery from a site near South Bend, Indiana, which may be Iroquoian. See his 
"Archaeological History of New York,” New York State Mus. Bull., Albany, No, 235, pt. 1, PI. 55. (July-August, 
1920). 
