A Social Network Analysis of Traditional Labrets and Horizontal Relationships in the Salish Sea Region of Northwestern North America

Abstract

In the Salish Sea region, labret adornment with lip plugs signify particular identities, and they are interpreted as emblematic of both membership in horizontal relationships and achieved status for traditional cultures associated with labret wearing on the Northwest Coast (NWC) of North America. Labrets are part of a shared symbolic language in the region, one that we argue facilitated access to beneficial horizontal relationships (e.g., Angelbeck and Grier 2012; Rorabaugh and Shantry 2017). We employ social network analysis (SNA) to examine labrets from 31 dated site components in the Salish Sea region spanning between 3500 and 1500 cal BP. Following this period, the more widely distributed practice of cranial modification as a social marker of status developed in the region. The SNA of labret data shows an elaboration and expansion of antecedent social networks prior to the practice of cranial modification. Understandings of status on the NWC work backward from direct contact with Indigenous societies. Labret wearing begins at the Middle-Late Holocene transition, setting an earlier stage for the horizontal social relationships seen in the ethnohistoric period. These findings are consistent with the practice as signifying restricted group membership based on affinal ties and achieved social status.

Resumen

En la región del mar de Salish, los adornos labiales en forma de tapón simbolizan identidades particulares, siendo interpretados como un indicador de pertenencia a relaciones horizontals y estatus adquirido en las culturas tradicionales asociadas con el uso de este tipo de adornos en la Costa Noroeste de Norte América (NWC). Los adornos labiales son parte de un lenguaje simbólico compartido a escala regional, uno que, proponemos, facilitó el acceso a las relaciones horizontales (e.g., Angelbeck y Grier 2012; Rorabaugh y Shantry 2017). Utilizamos el análisis de redes sociales (ARS) para evaluar los adornos labiales de 32 componentes datados procedentes de yacimientos arqueológicos en la región del mar de Salish, abarcando el período entre 3500 y 1500 cal aP. Tras este período se desarrolló la modificación craneal, una práctica más ampliamente distribuida en la región en tanto que marcador social de estatus. El ARS del conjunto analizado muestra una elaboración y expansión de redes sociales anteriores a la práctica de la modificación craneal. Las interpretaciones sobre el estatus en la NWC se han construido a partir del contacto directo con las sociedades indígenas. El uso de adornos labiales comienza en la transición del Holoceno Medio-Final, sugiriendo una antigüedad mayor para las relaciones sociales horizontales observadas en el período etnohistórico. Los hallazgos presentados son consistentes con el uso de adornos labiales en tanto que significantes de pertenencia restringida a un grupo según vínculos de afinidad y estatus social adquirido.

The Northwest Coast of North America (NWC) has recaptured the popular (Graeber and Wengrow 2022) and academic (Holland-Lulewicz et al. 2022) imagination regarding the structure of past social and political systems. How did the unique horizontal social relationships in the Salish Sea region of the NWC emerge?

Our previous work (Rorabaugh and Shantry 2017) examined Salish Sea labret lip ornaments using social network analysis (SNA) to assess the chronology and distribution of the practice. Archaeologists in the American Southwest have used SNA to study change in active social symbols, examining social transformations with ceramic styles and sourcing (Birch and Hart 2018; Borck et al. 2015; Brughmans 2010; Gjesfjeld 2014, 2015; Knappett 2011, 2013; Mills 2017; Mills et al. 2015). SNA has also been widely applied to lithic material sources (Buchanan et al. 2016; Golitko and Feinman 2015; Golitko et al. 2012; Mills et al. 2013; Phillips 2011). SNA was also used to examine lithic tool styles (Rorabaugh 2019) and spatial and temporal obsidian tool-stone patterns (Springer et al. 2018) for the Salish Sea.

SNA integrated with a geographic information system (GIS) enables archaeologists to examine social connections at multiple scales. Elsewhere we argued (Rorabaugh and Shantry 2017) that labrets represent a credibility-enhancing display (CRED; e.g., Henrich 2009)—a physical manifestation of a “good name” critical to reciprocity among ethnographic-period Coast Salish political economies. That initial study explored diachronic change in labrets, using the artifacts as a proxy for Coast Salish social networks.

We argue that the emergence of these relationships, or social foraging (e.g., Smith and Grier 2022), is signified at keystone cultural places (Lepofsky et al. 2017) by labrets. Past researchers (Ames 1995; Keddie 1981, 1989) argued that labrets may have represented “proto elite” status or achieved status. Instead, we suggest that labrets are a physical manifestation of the emergence of horizontal social relationships in the Salish Sea. We contend that labrets are better characterized as reflections of House emergence in the Lévi-Straussian sense given their associated material, immaterial, and relational wealth in the Salish Sea. Here, we refer to Houses as a social institution not to be conflated with house structures, which are but one material reflection of the House as a social institution.

Background

In the 1980s, archaeologists studying house deposits and burial contexts in British Columbia saw labrets in the record by 3200 cal BP, much later than when social inequality and culturally complex systems emerged (Carlson 1987; Coupland et al. 2016; Keddie 1981, 1989). Elsewhere, we argued that both labrets and cranial modification served as unambiguous markers that people used to identify trusted individuals for reciprocation in emerging systems of resource management (Rorabaugh and Shantry 2017). Here, we argue that labrets reflect the emergence and elaboration of Houses in the Salish Sea. The following section discusses the chronology of Houses in the Salish Sea (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Salish Sea regional chronology periods in study shaded.

The chronology contextualizes evolving understandings of Salish Sea lifeways using house structure and burial data to elucidate our discussion of social relationships. We use the term period as opposed to phase or culture type, acknowledging the numerous critiques of culture-historic sequence construction (Henry et al. 2017; Lyman et al. 1997; Oland et al. 2012; Pestle et al. 2013). Ritchie and colleagues (2016) demonstrated the utility of avoiding culture-historical categories when examining demographic variation through time in the Fraser Valley. Following critiques of sequence building and periodization in the Salish Sea (Grier 2022; Morin 2014; Rorabaugh et al. 2020), we refer to periods only as a frame of reference to examine diachronic change.

The role that large-scale procurement and storage of seasonal resources played in building Salish Sea traditions is well documented (Ames 1994; Matson 1992). However, debates still exist regarding the timing of horizontal social organization and the degree of historic continuity in practices (Carlson 1991; Matson 2010; Matson and Coupland 1994; Moss 2011). By 2000 BP, there is clear archaeological evidence for hereditary forms of social inequality (e.g., Beattie 1981; Burley and Knusel 1989; Carlson and Hobler 1993; Curtin 1991; Grier 2003).

Researchers continue to challenge past narratives that argue cultural complexity increased with growth, elaboration, and specialization of subsistence economies through time (e.g., Bilton 2014; Bovy 2005; Butler and Campbell 2004; Campbell and Butler 2010; Daniels 2009; Deur and Turner 2005; Orchard 2007; Orchard and Clark 2006; McKechnie 2014; Monks and Orchard 2011; Moss 2011; Moss and Cannon 2011). Archaeological evidence suggests that the Salish Sea is a mosaic of complex relationships where the increased utilization and diversification of resources profoundly patterned the historical trajectories of Coast Salish groups (e.g., Angelbeck 2009; Angelbeck and Grier 2012; Cannon 2002; Grier 2003; Martindale and Letham 2011).

Despite continuity in many Holocene practices, marked shifts exist in the seasonality of early houses (5000–4000 BP) compared to later houses (2000 BP to contact; Grier and Kim 2012; Lepofsky et al. 2009) and the material expressions of achieved and ascribed social status (Angelbeck and Grier 2012; Rorabaugh and Shantry 2017). Here, we suggest that labrets and cranial modification are diachronic material correlates of status that reflect the emergence of Houses as a social institution in the Salish Sea.

Houses and House Societies in the Salish Sea

We follow Lévi-Strauss's concept of the House society, recognizing renewed theoretical interest in critically examining the role of household and kin organization (e.g., Andrews and MacDonald 2022; Beck 2007; Carpenter and Prentiss 2022; Ellis 2023; Gillespie 2001; Joyce and Gillespie 2000). Lévi-Strauss based social and political dynamics on House operation and interaction (Gillespie 2001:12–13), intending to differentiate Houses from other social structures often discussed by anthropologists, such as lineages and clans. English translations and Lévi-Strauss's (1982, 1987) own adherence to the importance of kinship (1987:153–154) have obscured many of the nuances of this approach. Lévi-Strauss noted the limitations of the Anglo-American “corporate group,” where individuals are bounded by descent and/or residence. Instead, Houses are groups that maintain estates perpetuated by member recruitment and relationships expressed in the language of kinship and affinity reinforced by purposeful actions and symbols. Individuals may not be necessarily consanguineal or affinal kin but are described using such terms. Ames (2006) viewed Houses as corporate groups holding estates of material and immaterial wealth that perpetuate through hereditary inheritance of names, goods, and titles. Advancing this (sensu Gillespie 2001), we suggest that displays such as labrets are more consistent with the original Lévi-Straussian articulation of Houses and House Societies without using the descent or residence restrictions of corporate groups. In the ethnohistoric period, Houses served as the primary socioeconomic unit of Coast Salish societies and a keystone social institution, as argued by Holland-Lulewicz and colleagues (2022).

Houses functioned as collective systems that integrated autonomous nuclear families connected to other Houses through marriage, seasonal rounds, and institutional events such as potlatches. The materiality of House relationships is expressed in Coast Salish plank houses, where each family within the structure had their own hearths and food stores (Coupland et al. 2009; Grier 2006; Suttles 1951, 1958). People constructed plank houses in a modular manner so that sections could be added or removed to accommodate fluctuating populations. Families had economic autonomy within each plank house and were not politically constrained by the authority of house leaders (Coupland 2006; Elmendorf 1960, 1971; Miller and Boxberger 1994; Richardson 1982; Suttles 1951, 1958; Suttles and Lane 1990). Individuals often identified primarily with their plank house residence, and they were defined by extensive kin relationships in multiple villages (Thom 1995). House leaders or “House Chiefs” did not have a formal title, and status was assumed informally by a house member with the most prestige (Ames 1995, 2006; Coupland 2006). Chiefs earned leadership, prefaced by existing membership in a high-status family with nobility and inherited privileges. Political participation gave people access to corporeal and noncorporeal resources. Relationships between House Chiefs were fundamentally horizontal, exemplified by the phrase “They Recognize No Superior Chief,” as remarked by Manuel Quimper Benítez del Pino of the 1790 Quimper expedition (Wagner 1933:131).

Charles Period (5500–3500 BP)

The focus of our study is whether a House's social relationships are materially reflected in labrets and if those relationships are horizontal in nature. Beginning with the Charles period, settlement (Figure 2) consisted of smaller domiciles likely used for multiple seasons. There is considerable variation in house structure form during this period. Early structures on the Upper Fraser show considerable variation in size. These include DhRp-52 (Hoffman 2017; Lyons et al. 2018); DgRn-23 Xá: ytem (Mason 1994), and DhRk-8. The structures at Maurer appear to be rectangular plank houses with living floor size consistent with the smaller size range of multifamily winter structures of the later Marpole period (LeClair 1976; Schaepe 2003).

Figure 2. Referenced Salish Sea residential sites.

Although there are similarities with later plankhouse structures in the Salish Sea, variation observed in Charles period structures likely reflect seasonality, group size, and architectural style (Ormerod 2002; Ormerod and Matson 2000). The expanding size of Charles period houses suggests single or extended families (Grier 2003:9). Coupland and colleagues (2009) argued that the Houses had no clear status differentials and that family autonomy was materially reflected in these structures. In addition to large rectangular plank house structures, people also built pithouses, an example of which is at 45WH-34 Ferndale (Gillis 2007; Hutchings 2004). Researchers have also suggested the presence of house structures at DgRr-2, the St. Mungo site (Ham et al. 1983).

Evidence for hereditary forms of social inequality are based on grave goods observed with subadults (Ames and Maschner 1999; Matson and Coupland 1994). However, there is clear time depth for complex social systems and forms of inequality (Clark et al. 2012; Coupland et al. 2016). One adult male interment was adorned with a mass of ground stone beads, an action requiring a substantial degree of nonkin labor. Similarly dated burials with copious beads exist at the Tsawwassen site (Curtin 1999) and Cowichan Bay (Hanson 1990; Yip 1982). Some form of incipient elite was present, although families were economically autonomous. Social restrictions, in the vein of protocols and practices to prevent intergenerational hoarding and surplus control (Ames 2010; Arnold 1993; Blake and Clark 1999; Cashdan 1980; Trigger 2003; Woodburn 1982) may have hindered the intergenerational transfer of wealth. Status may have been achieved rather than ascribed. Without an entrenched system for intergenerational transfer of wealth and its associated material correlates, we suggest that based on current archaeological lines of evidence, Houses would not necessarily be present in this period and the structure of hereditary social inequality may not have been as systematized.

Locarno Beach Period (3500–2400 BP)

Current literature suggests continuity and change from the Charles to Locarno Beach periods (e.g., Bilton 2014; McKechnie 2014; Orchard and Clark 2006). Well-documented residential structures include DgRr-1 Crescent Beach (Matson 2010), DeRt-1 Pender Canal (Carlson 1987; Hanson 1990), 45WH-48 Simonarson (Gaston 1975), 45WH-55 Woodstock Farm (Campbell et al. 2010; Lewis 2013), 45SJ-165 Decatur Island (Walker 2003), DcRu-1151 Esquimalt Lagoon (Bowie and Kristensen 2011), 45CA-523 Čḯx^wicən (Butler et al. 2019), and 45CA-426 Sequim (Morgan 1996, 1998). Matson (2010) argued that in contrast to other periods with multiple autonomous families in one structure, Locarno Beach residences were primarily winter structures occupied by single nuclear families, in part due to the majority of these archaeologically reported structures being substantially smaller than structures from the preceding Charles period and subsequent Marpole period. Residences dating to the Locarno Beach period also have considerable variation in form, from rectilinear structures to ovoid ones.

Archaeologists assert that grave goods associated with subadults indicate ascribed status (Carlson 1987, 1991). Burley and Knusel (1989) have argued that while evidence of ascribed status throughout the Salish Sea during this period is weak, there is widespread variability in burial practices.

People created art industries such as incised siltstone concretions (Mitchell 1971; Morgan 1998; Walker 2003), small ground stone objects termed “Gulf Islands complex objects” (Duff 1956), and labrets. These may represent embedded craft specialization, with labrets commissioned by elites (Ames 1995). Alternatively, Coupland (1985) argued that the art may have represented lineage markers.

Labrets predate hereditary forms of social inequality by several hundred years (Ames 2003:31; Shantry 2014). We argue that labrets may serve as a material correlate for the emergence of Houses, yet we caution that earlier structures may not have reflected the material reality of Houses. Labrets as a credibility-enhancing display, however, may have helped facilitate the House connections and relationships.

Labrets and dental abrasion from wear have been suggested as a high-status marker people achieved (e.g., Ames 1995, 2001; Angelbeck and Grier 2012; Coupland 1985; Cybulski 1991; LaSalle 2008, 2014; Matson and Coupland 1994; Moss 2011; Shantry 2014). Other potential status markers include knob and top woven cedar hats—perishable items preserved in wet site contexts (Croes 2009).

In the Locarno Beach period, people demonstrated status differentiation when negotiating emergent forms of hereditary social inequality. Social networks were not yet as widespread, rigid, or entrenched as during the Marpole period (Angelbeck and Grier 2012; Clark 2010).

Marpole Period (2400–1000 BP)

Do Houses emerge during the Marpole period? Recent syntheses suggest that marine and terrestrial resource use did not become more specialized or intensified (Bilton 2014; Butler and Campbell 2004; Campbell and Butler 2010; Orchard and Clark 2006). Extended kin likely owned Marpole resource locations (Coupland 1985; Grier and Kim 2012). Lenert (2007) argued for ownership of the salmon fishery at the Katz site in the Upper Fraser Valley. Lepofsky and colleagues (2005) forwarded a hypothesis that a drier climate allowed for more resource heterogeneity and intercommunity institutions, such as Houses, developed for the redistribution of resources.

By 2000 BP, large plank houses, ranging from single large houses to multihouse villages, are reported in villages throughout the Salish Sea. Substantial plank house structures appear by 2600 cal BP at the Scowlitz site on the Upper Fraser (Lepofsky et al. 2000), and the variation in house structure styles noted in the Locarno Beach period also continued until 2300 BP (Johnstone 1991, 2003), Estimated household size varied greatly; some had less than 20 individuals, whereas others had more than one hundred (Ames and Maschner 1999; Coupland et al. 2009; Lepofsky et al. 2009; Sobel 2006). House structures have been documented at DgRs-1 Beach Grove (Matson 1980), 45SJ-25 Garrison Bay (Kenady et al. 1973; Stein 2000), 45SJ-24 English Camp (Kornbacher 1989; Stein 1992; Taylor and Stein 2011), DgRw-4 False Narrows (Burley 1988), DfRs-1 Whalen Farm (Smith 1921), DgRv-3 Dionisio Point (Grier 2001; Mitchell 1971), 45KI-59 Tualdad Altu (Chatters 1989), and 45WH-1 Xwe'chi'eXen (Blodgett 1976; Grabert 1988). Archaeologists have excavated features likely consistent with house structures at DhRs-1 Marpole (Borden 1970) and 45SN-100 Biederbost (Nelson 1962; Nordquist 1976). Both taphonomic processes and sampling strategies make it difficult to assess site structure (Taylor and Stein 2011:3–7, 170). Not all reported structures are winter residences; some, such as DhRt-5 Point Grey, are argued to represent spring occupations (Borden 1947; Coupland 1991). Clear evidence exists for task and status differentiation within Marpole-dated structures (Chatters 1989; Grier 2001, 2003, 2006) where hierarchical and horizontal social relations are materially reflected in the spatial order (Coupland et al. 2009).

Grave goods reflecting status are more common and diverse, including the interment of subadults with elaborate grave goods (Ames 1995; Burley and Knusel 1989). The accumulation of grave goods does not appear gendered (Ames 1995; Beattie 1981; Burchell 2006), although gendered differences among higher-status adults may exist (McIlraith 2012). Child burials are mostly devoid of grave goods, suggesting that achieved status prevailed during the Marpole period.

The practice of cranial modification reflects ascribed status and is theorized to evolve from an achieved status of labret adornment (Ames and Maschner 1999; Angelbeck and Grier 2012; Matson and Coupland 1994:214–215; Rorabaugh and Shantry 2017). Elsewhere, we have more cautiously argued that both practices served as credibility-enhancing displays. Cranial modification is more spatially widespread and present among Wakashan-speaking peoples on the outer coast (Dingwall 1931:164). We suggest that this reflects the establishment, negotiation, and entrenchment of hereditary elites (e.g., Angelbeck and Grier 2012; Coupland et al. 2009; Schaepe 2012). Houses provide the most complete context for understanding how adornment is engaged in the trade of prestige items, including nephrite, dentalia, copper, obsidian, and ground stone objects such as bowls (Angelbeck 2009; Burley 1980; Clark 2010; Grier 2003, 2006; Matson 2010; Matson and Coupland 1994; Morin 2012; Springer et al. 2018). The prerogatives for production and consumption of prestige items may have also been restricted by hereditary lines.

Marked shifts in burial practices occurred toward the end of the Marpole period (1600–1000 BP; Thom 1995) from subsurface interment to aboveground burial (Burley and Knusel 1989; Cybulski 1993). The intentional manipulation of mortuary symbols, including the increased prevalence of cranial modification (Angelbeck and Grier 2012; Rorabaugh and Shantry 2017), has been argued to reflect adoption by lower-status persons (Thom 1995).

We argue that viewing labrets as a credibility-enhancing display (CRED) leaves the door open for broader interpretation in the context of House representation without predefining status as achieved or ascribed (Rorabaugh and Shantry 2017). Our social network analysis intentionally eschews the periodization prefaced here to examine diachronic change. We hypothesize that the structure of labret social networks from 3500 to 2000 BP (Ames 1995) reflects the development of House relationships through time in the region.

Methods

Social Network Analysis

Combining data visualization and mathematical methods, social network analysis (SNA) explores the structure and effects of social networks on its participants (Freeman 2004; Freeman et al. 1991). SNA examines and compares networks generated from archaeological data and can represent different spatial or temporal scales. Network characteristics include degree centrality, graph centralization, graph density and spatial length.

Degree centrality is a calculation of the total number of connections from a single node (Freeman 1977). Graph centralization is a measure of the tendency that any single node is more central in a given network. Graph density is an index of the number of connections in a network compared to the total number of possible connections. This study uses the spatial length of ties as a straight geodesic (shortest route) distance between archaeological sites.

Hypotheses

We examine diachronic change using arbitrary 500-year time periods, which not only avoid culture history frameworks but are sized appropriately for comparison given the available data. Our three general hypotheses address labrets as a practice reflecting Coast Salish House relationships.

1. (1) The Expansive Network is based on a high degree of regional interaction, expansion over time, and increasing network ties and expansive populations, reflecting a low variation in degree centrality. A high degree of communication between Houses would result in an intentionally or unintentionally shared symbolic language in the region (e.g., Rorabaugh and Shantry 2017).

2. (2) The Spatially Circumscribed Network assumes a lower degree of regional interaction and highly variable networks in degree centrality through time, with consistent centralized nodes reflecting shared local styles. This model assumes less communication and more territoriality, with labret styles used intentionally as local markers until replacement by cranial modification.

3. (3) Autonomized Networks are anarchic forms of social organization observed among Marpole hunters (Rorabaugh 2019). The concept of anarchism is embedded in Western capitalist history. Therefore, we use autonomization to reflect the economic structures of Houses in traditional Coast Salish society. This model predicts a low variation in degree centrality, with a transition to weak network ties in later time periods. Here, labrets are used as a symbol of House autonomy, whereas cranial modification is introduced as a more inclusive identity in the region.

Sample

We examined dated labrets from 31 site components (Table 1; N = 96; Rorabaugh and Shantry 2017). Compilation of this dataset is not straightforward due to factors including concerns related to Tribal sovereignty, Truth & Reconciliation, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and various curation study requirements. Prior to the LaSalle (2008) and Shantry (2014) studies, no accounting of labrets in the Salish Sea had ever been compiled. Labret distribution is almost continuous on the east coast of Vancouver Island up to Comox, on the Gulf Islands, on the Fraser Delta, and in the San Juan Islands, and they are exceedingly rare in Puget Sound—likely a reflection of urbanism, survey intensity, and frequency of house excavations (Rorabaugh and Shantry 2017:Appendix A). Salish Sea labret styles vary and have similarities to styles found farther north on the NWC and in the Arctic (Figure 3; LaSalle 2008; Rorabaugh and Shantry 2017; Shantry 2014).

Table 1. 500-Year Periods, Component Sample Size, Labret Sample Size, and Labret Stylistic Richness.

Figure 3. Labret styles (Rorabaugh and Shantry 2017).

Organizing dated contexts by 500-year periods mitigates plateaus in regional radiocarbon curves from 2200 to 2460 BP (e.g., Hutchingson 2014; Wessen 2017) as well as uncertainties surrounding local marine reservoir corrections for marine shell dates. The study tested variable sizes and temporal breaks to confirm robustness. In addition, site components mitigate time-averaging effects given that many sites examined in this study have occupations spanning thousands of years.

We constructed three contemporaneous social networks (1500–2500 cal BP, 2500–3000 cal BP, 3000–2500 cal BP). The 1500 and 2000 bins were combined to increase sample sizes. We refrained from constructing a social network for the earliest component of the Pender Canal site as it had no paired site component.

Social Network Statistics

We used Brainerd-Robinson coefficients of stylistic classes to construct networks and a Monte Carlo simulation to assess variation resulting from sampling error. The Brainerd-Robinson similarity coefficient is independent of sample size and is a pairwise measure of the proportional similarity of nominal categories. A measure of 0 is no similarity, and 200 has identical proportions. Using Brainerd-Robinson coefficients to assess the similarity of archaeological assemblages has been the basis of many SNA studies (e.g., Mills et al. 2015). Although this study has a sample size substantially smaller than the 4.3 million examined by Mills and colleagues (2015), the methods employed are equally suitable for small sample sizes.

We converted the results to a cost matrix in ArcGIS10.3.1, and the outdegree centrality statistic was used to assess the centrality of each network node based on the summed weights of all outbound edges of a node (Freeman 1977, 1979). To compare networks, we used the standardized form of the outdegree centrality statistic, which divided the summed outbound edge weights of a node by the sum total of all edge weights in a given network. For cross-comparison, we used Kruskal-Wallis tests and Spearman's R. Statistical analyses were performed in R 3.4.4.

Results

SNA resulted in three social networks (Figures 4–6). The oldest (3500–3000 cal BP) has strong assemblage similarity, and high Brainerd-Robinson coefficients (Supplemental Table 1) indicate similar proportions of labret styles (Figure 7). Later (1500–2500 BP) assemblages exhibit less stylistic similarity (Table 2).

Figure 4. 1500–2500 cal BP labret social network.

Figure 5. 2500–3000 cal BP labret social network.

Figure 6. 3000–3500 cal BP labret social network.

Figure 7. Pairwise component Brainerd-Robinson coefficients by 500 year cal BP period whiskerplot.

Table 2. Social Network Statistics.

Brainerd-Robinson coefficients also showed statistically significant bin differences at a 0.05 level (Kruskal-Wallis test N = 220, Χ² = 7.983, df = 3, p = 0.046). Smaller sample sizes in later periods contributed to an increase in labret stylistic richness over time (e.g., Grayson 1981; Jones et al. 1983). However, the transition to lower pairwise component Brainerd-Robinson coefficients also appears to be a robust pattern among bins.

Brainerd-Robinson coefficients and geodesic distance using Spearman's R did not correlate at a statistically significant level for any constructed network (1500 BP N = 43, Spearman's R = 0.24, p = 0.121; 2500 BP N = 44, Spearman's R = 0.23, p = 0.134; 3000 BP N = 46, Spearman's R = 0.24, p = 0.290). This result is consistent with the low transportation cost of watercraft (Ames 2002).

Graph density and graph centralization reflect the density, or connectivity, of social networks (Freeman 1979; Table 2). Network density values suggest that connectivity decreases through time. Degree centrality variance for the latest time period examined also increases, but this does not appear to be patterned by increased stylistic richness or sample size (Supplemental Tables 2 and 3).

Diachronically, labret social networks overlap multiple ethnohistoric linguistic areas, specifically Hul'qumi'num, Straits, and Lushootseed Coast Salish speakers. The increase of degree centrality variance is coupled with a decrease in labrets and a rise in cranial modification. Less connected sites with lower-degree centrality tend to be seasonal components such as a temporary fish-drying rack associated with labrets at Xwe'chi'eXen (45WH1).

The autonomization model—where labrets are a symbol of House autonomy and cranial modification follows as a more inclusive symbol of regional identity—fits the data best in terms of networks exhibiting low variation in degree centrality and a transition to weak network ties in later time periods. The Spatially Circumscribed model, suggesting that labrets were used as regional territorial markers with consistent centralized network nodes through time, does not accommodate the temporal trends. Similarly, the Expansive model—marked by an elaboration of increasing network ties with low variation in degree centrality reflecting a strong, shared, regional symbolic grammar—does not fit these data. The broader context, including intentional labret destruction and a transition to cranial modification, suggests a more nuanced process reflecting an interplay between the expansive and autonomization models through time.

Discussion

We argue that the materiality of Coast Salish Houses and their underlying relationships of status and access to resources are reflected in not only house structures but also labrets. The results of our SNA suggest network patterns consistent with labrets serving as a symbol of House autonomy. Labrets are understood to represent achieved status (Carlson 1987; Keddie 1981, 1989), and we have argued (Rorabaugh and Shantry 2017) that labrets served as a symbol of emergent elite status reflecting the affinal ties of individuals. Labret social networks show strong ties throughout the Salish Sea by 3000 BP, suggesting rapid expansion over 2,000 years following the initial occurrence of labrets at the Pender Canal site around 5000 BP. Access to resources and cultural keystone places are crucial benefits of status.

Following arguments by Ames (1995:159), House networks can include access to noncorporeal resources such as songs, rituals, and dances. Our analysis affirms prior arguments that labrets reflected a symbolic language on the Salish Sea (LaSalle 2008; Rorabaugh and Shantry 2017; Shantry 2014). Diachronic network expansion suggests that labret wearing served as a material manifestation of existing social relationships. Although gender is outside the scope of this study, adult males, females, and subadults wore labrets, which may relate to stylistic variability (Cybulski 2010:10, 17; Rorabaugh and Shantry 2017). Although the materiality of House relationships may be reflected in labrets, community and individuality are also defined and reflected at a more local scale.

It is also possible that as opposed to being a form of controlling “labret inflation,” given that cranial modification is a more expansive symbol, the intentional destruction of labrets was an act of disavowing the symbolic meanings of these heirloom items as the meanings of labrets shifted through time. Labrets and cranial modification are CREDs that may have signified access to both noncorporeal and corporeal resources as household estates expanded through time (Rorabaugh and Shantry 2017). The social construction and reproduction of access to noncorporeal resources includes moral teachings essential to Salish Sea ontologies.

We argue that labrets are not the manifestation of a pre–Coast Salish culture (e.g., Donald 2003:307) but instead are historically situated within the lived experience of Coast Salish identity and cosmology. In essence, labret social networks may be the material manifestation of peer elite horizontal social networks. Dynamic horizontal relationships are not static over time: for example, Wakashan-speaking groups practiced cranial modification, but labrets are absent in the archaeological record.

One issue we could not address in this study is the potential use of other forms of personal adornment. One interpretation of what have been called Gulf Islands complex objects (Ames 1995; Burley 1980; Carlson 1960; Duff 1956; LaSalle 2008; Palmer 2012) is that they may have been part of compound labrets or pendants. However, other researchers have argued for deep time in wealth-based material inequalities based on evidence from beads in shíshálh territory (Coupland et al. 2016), and our study is consistent with their findings. Quartz crystal microblades may also be associated with labret piercings (Kannegard 2015). The only hafted quartz crystal microblade observed is from the Locarno Beach period Hoko River wet site, end hafted on a cedar stick handle (Croes 2009). Makah elders suggested that end-hafted microblades were used in minor surgeries.

Conclusion

Through the use of SNA, we argued that labrets served as a marker of achieved House membership and mark the emergence of Houses and their horizontal relationships in the Salish Sea. A rare type of symbol, labrets demonstrated engagement in peer elite networks initially based on achieved status. This diachronic development incorporated a wider range of access to corporeal and noncorporeal resources. Instead of viewing labrets as a marker of the achieved status of proto-elites, we suggest that they represent a material correlate for House emergence. The transition toward cranial modification and the appearance of elite goods (Angelbeck 2009; Angelbeck and Grier 2012:559–563; Grier 2003; Rorabaugh and Shantry 2017) is likely an elaboration of earlier peer elite social networks. To conclude, we note that viewing labrets as an archaeological manifestation of Houses rises to recent calls against periodization and to consider continuity through deep time (e.g., Grier 2022).