Indigenous Knowledge · The Practices — Their History

Jewellery and Adornment: What They Made and Wore

Status: Researched draft — cultural review pending

How to read this entry: Documented fact = archaeological record, museum collection record, or published scholarship (Sources). Tradition — the people's own account = oral history or Indigenous-organisation teaching, labelled as such. Debated / Claim = disputed point. No restricted meanings beyond the published record are described; where a meaning is held within a community, this entry records only that it exists. Scope note: a history in time — deep antiquity, the exchange eras, contact-era transformations, continuance. Contact-era materials (silver, glass beads, brass) are labelled as such. Copper at full depth is in the companion Crafts entry; here it is ornament level only, consistent with its dates. Wampum's trade economy in full is in the companion Trade entry.

Deep Antiquity

Shell I: Marine-Shell Gorgets of the Mississippian World

Shell II: Wampum in the Northeast

Shell III: Dentalium on the Pacific Slope

Copper Ornaments of the Great Lakes (Ornament Level)

See the companion Crafts entry for mining, cold-hammering and annealing, and the dating debate at full depth.

Turquoise of the Southwest

Silverwork I: Haudenosaunee Trade Silver (Contact-Era)

Silverwork II: Diné (Navajo) Silversmithing and Zuni Inlay

Inuit Ivory, Bone and Antler Adornment

The Bead Economies: Glass Beads Arrive (Contact-Era)

Tattooing and Paint

Continuance

Sources

Flagged claims / weakest-sourced points in this entry: (1) Spiro iconographic meanings (hand-and-eye, Hero Twins) are scholarly interpretation, labelled in line, not settled readings. (2) Spiro's linguistic identity is unresolved. (3) Old Copper's c. 4000 BCE start is the conventional range; earlier claims are debated (Crafts entry). (4) Chaco turquoise totals (~200,000) vary by source and fragment counting; the order of magnitude is the documented point. (5) The naja's route is documented; deeper symbolic meanings in popular literature are later attributions. (6) "Iroquois shell" for dentalium rests on published ethnographic summary, not a single primary text quoted here. (7) Body paint rests disproportionately on ethnohistoric description, pigment rarely surviving. (8) The walrus-resemblance reading of labrets (museum label, 2005) and the "slept / re-awakened" revival wording (press interviews) are attributed accordingly, not peer-reviewed. (9) Keneshde's c. 1890 date and Juan De Dios's 1920 channel-inlay date rest on trader-record tradition compiled in Baxter (2000) and Bassman (1992) — the standard published dates, not independently dated by hallmarked pieces. (10) The Tennessee–Cumberland mask-gorget dating range varies across museum records and should be verified against a named collection record at publication.