PUKASKWA PITS: RETHINKING THE VISION QUEST HYPOTHESIS
A Thesis Submitted to the Committee on Graduate Studies
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Master of Arts
in the Faculty of Arts and Science
TRENT UNIVERSITY
Copyright by Nancy Denise Champagne 2009
Anthropology M.A. Graduate Program
September 2009 Library and Archives Bibliotheque et 1*1 Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition
395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 OttawaONK1A0N4 Canada Canada
Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-53244-7 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-53244-7
NOTICE: AVIS:
The author has granted a non L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats.
The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author's permission.
In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privee, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondares ont ete enleves de thesis. cette these.
While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis.
1*1 Canada ABSTRACT
Pukaskwa Pits: Rethinking the Vision Quest Hypothesis and Other Cosmological Interpretations
Nancy Denise Champagne
Since Norman Emerson's work in the late 1950s and Kenneth Dawson's work in the mid
1970s, little research has been conducted to elucidate the creation of "Pukaskwa Pits" despite the continuing appearance of these cobble features in northern Ontario. Re- analysis of the archaeological evidence which led researchers to the vision seeking hypothesis, reveals that this hypothesis originated in mere conjecture and not in sound academic reasoning. Non-parametric Mann-Whitney U statistics are used to test an alternative hypothesis for these features, which compares these particular cobble features to features found on "traditional" archaeological sites. I conclude that these cobble features were likely not used for cosmological rituals but instead represent a multitude of activities that one would expect on the beaches of a lake which is both known as a migration route and celebrated for its fishing resources. These results enhance our understanding of northern Ontario's archaeological assemblages and inferences we derive from them.
KEYWORDS
Pukaskwa Pits, Lake Superior, Cobble Features, Algonquian, Cree, Ojibwa, Fishing, Vision Quest Hypothesis, Pits, Paves, Rings, Bifurcated Features, Walls, Walled Enclosures, Pole Supports, Hearths, Cache Pits, Archaeological Cultures, Ethnicity, Direct Historic Approach, Archaic, Woodland, Mann-Whitney U Test, Analogy, Ethnoarchaeology.
ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Ben Mortimer for presenting Pukaskwa Pits as a thesis topic. This work would not have been possible without the opportunities presented to me by Parks
Canada. Specifically from Parks Canada I would like to thank Brian Ross for allowing me to join his team in the field and for giving me access to the feature form information and I would like to thank Stacey Taylor for her participation in giving me access to artefacts and helping me around Cornwall. I am also indebted to my supervisor Dr. James
Conolly, and my committee Dr. Susan Jamieson, Dr. Mark Munsen and Dr. Eugene
Morin for their help. Kristine Williams has also been of great help throughout my
Masters, both as an administrator and as someone to talk to. I would also like to thank
Michael Skuce for all his support, I could not have made it through this entire process without him.
in TABLE OF CONTESTS
ABSTRACT / ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS / iii TABLE OF CONTENTS / iv LIST OF TABLES / vi LIST OF FIGURES / vii CHAPTER 1 Introduction / 1 1.1 Environmental Setting of the Red Sucker Point Site / 2 1.2 Competing Hypotheses: Archaeological interpretations at the Red Sucker Point Site / 3 1.3 Main Issues with the Vision Quest Hypothesis / 7 1.4 Research Objectives / 9
CHAPTER 2 Archaeological Context / 11 2.1 Material Culture and Prehistoric Populations / 12 2.2 The Written History of Northwestern Ontario / 24 2.3 Summary/38
CHAPTER 3 Historical Review of Vision Quests in Archaeology and the Vision Quest Hypothesis / 40 3.1 Supporters of the Vision Quest Hypothesis / 40 3.2 Religion and the Vision Quest Hypothesis in North American Archaeology / 46 3.3 The Role of Vision Quests in Indigenous North America / 48 3.4 Symbols Created By Dreams / 50 3.5 TheRoleofAnalogy/52 3.6 Non-Supporters of the Vision Quest Hypothesis / 54 3.7 Summary/61
CHAPTER 4 Data Set/63 4.1 Pukaskwa National Park / 63 4.2 Data Set / 70 4.3 Statistical Method / 86
CHAPTER 5 Analysis / 89 5.1 An Analogy for Living Floors / 95 5.2 An Analogy for Hearths / 99 5.3 An Analogy for Cache Pits / 101 5.4 An Analogy for Pole Supports / 102 5.5 An Analogy for Burials / 103 5.6 Summary/ 105 5.7 Multiple Analogues: Combinations Tested Against the Pukaskwa National Park Data/106 5.8 Field Observation: Do Pits and Mounds Represent Different Parts of the Cache Pit Life Cycle?/114 5.9 Conclusion / 116
IV CHAPTER 6 Discussion / 117 6.1 Vision Quest Hypothesis Premises and Problems / 117 6.2 Premises of the Camp Site Subsistence Model /128 6.3 Summary/132
CHAPTER 7 Conclusion/ 135 7.1 Research Obj ectives /13 5 7.2 The Bigger Picture and Direction for the Future /l 40 7.3 Final Words /142
APPENDIX 4A Tree Throw Revealing Cobble Matrix Below Top Soil /144 APPENDIX 4B Pictures of Artefacts Recovered in Pukaskwa National Park /145 APPENDIX 4C Cobble Beach Feature Summary Form / 148 APPENDIX 4D Break Down of the Apartment Complex Data / 149 APPENDIX 4E Bifurcated Feature Data, Break Down and Images /150 APPENDIX 4F Cairn Feature Information / 153 APPENDIX 4G Linear Formation Data, Break Down and Images / 156 APPENDIX4H Mound Feature Data, Breakdown and Images / 158 APPENDIX 41 Pave Feature Data, Breakdown and Images / 160 APPENDIX 4J Pit Feature Data, Breakdown and Images/ 169 APPENDIX 4K Pole Support Feature Data, Breakdown of Data and Images / 185 APPENDIX4L Ring Feature Data, Breakdown and Images / 189 APPENDIX 4M Wall Feature Information and Breakdown of Data / 195 APPENDIX 4N Walled Enclosure Data, Breakdown and Image / 197 APPENDIX 40 Information on the Miscellaneous Feature / 198 APPENDIX 5A Living Floors Sample From the Archaeological Record /199 APPENDIX5B Hearth Data from the Archaeological Record / 202 APPENDIX 5C Burial Data from the Archaeological Record / 203 APPENDIX 5D Cache Pit Data from the Archaeological Record / 204 APPENDIX 5E Pole Support Data from the Archaeological Record / 205 APPENDIX 5F Results of Mann-Whitney U tests / 206 APPENDIX 5G A Sample of Site Maps From Pukaskwa National Park / 215 APPENDIX6A Cobble Feature Sites in Pukaskwa National Park and Number of Features Recorded / 223 APPENDIX 6B Cobble feature Site Locations Recorded by Parks Canada and Key / 225 REFERENCES / 228
v LIST OF TABLES
Table Description Page
2.1 Legend for Figure 2.1. Site Names 12
4.1 Total Counts of Feature types present in Pukaskwa National Park 72 as of 2007
4.2 Bifurcated Features Sub Types discovered in Pukaskwa National 75 Park
4.3 Cairn Sub Types Found in Pukaskwa National Park 76
4.4 Linear Formation Sub Types Found in Pukaskwa National Park 77
4.5 Mound Sub Types Found in Pukaskwa National Park 78
4.6 Pave Sub Types Found in Pukaskwa National Park 79
4.7 Pit Sub Types Found in Pukaskwa National Park 80
4.8 Pole Support Sub types found in Pukaskwa National Park 82
4.9 Ring Sub Types found in Pukaskwa National Park 84
4.10 Wall Sub Types of found in Pukaskwa National Park 85
4.11 Walled Enclosure Sub Types found in Pukaskwa National Park 85
5.1 Mann-Whitney U Test Comparing Hearth Diameters in Pukaskwa National Park to Hearth Diameters in the Archaeological Record 100
5.2 Mann-Whitney U Test Comparing Cache Pit Diameters in Pukaskwa National Park to Cache Pit Diameters in the Archaeological Record 102
5.3 Mann-Whitney U Test Comparing Pole Support Diameters in Pukaskwa National Park to Pole Support Diameters in the Archaeological Record 103
5.4 Mann-Whitney U Test Comparing Pole Support Depths in Pukaskwa National Park to Pole Support Depths in the Archaeological Record 103
VI LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Description Page
1.1 Map Showing the Location of the Red Sucker Point Site 2
2.1 Map of Sites Mentioned in Chapter 2 12
4.1 Location of Pukaskwa National Park 63
4.2 Main Rivers that Drain Pukaskwa National Park 67
4.3 Size Distribution for Pit features 81
6.1 Location of the North Byron II site and the Swallow Bay site 130
VII 1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
The term "Pukaskwa Pit" first appeared in print in 1958 when Norman Emerson
and Thomas Mcllwraith both wrote about the Red Sucker Point site, near Terrace Bay,
Ontario. Early interpretation at the Red Sucker Point site suggested the pit features were
originally used by hunting groups based on a nuclear family (Emerson 1959:72) or were
created as shelters along an old migration route (Mcllwraith 1958:43). However, the
paucity of temporally diagnostic artefacts recovered during the laborious excavations of
the 1957 and 1958 field season posed interpretive problems. Norman Emerson turned to
ethnoarchaeological research and sought to establish a relationship between human
behaviour and material culture by making an analogy for the archaeological record with
the practices of living cultures. From this, the so-called "Vision Quest" hypothesis was
created.
The Vision Quest hypothesis claims that Pukaskwa Pits were created for or during
vision quests by the dreamer. The purpose of this thesis is to scrutinize the merits of the
vision quest hypothesis first presented in the late 1950s and still in use by contemporary
researchers. This thesis also examines the vision quest from the beginnings of the
anthropological study of North American Indigenous religions to the evidence used in
support of the vision-seeking hypothesis for cobble features. This chapter begins with background information on the Red Sucker Point Site (see figure 1.1) and the competing
interpretations presented by the different researchers to account for its particular
assemblage. This is followed by the main concerns created by the vision quest hypothesis
and the research objectives for this thesis. But first, the first cobble feature site thoroughly recorded and excavated in Ontario is discussed. 1.1 Environmental Setting of the Red Sucker Point Site
Figure 1.1 Location of the Red Sucker Point Site on the North Shore of Lake Superior
) a--*
^^ lake Superior ^^~l
/U jr—-~ ^W
The Red Sucker Point site, in the late 1950s, represented the greatest concentration of pit structures found on the north shore of Lake Superior. Lake Superior covers over
83,000 km2 of land and is the largest freshwater lake in the world (Mason 2002:54).
Because of glaciations and isostatic uplift, Lake Superior is rimmed by the remains of strandlines of former post-glacial lakes that occupied the basin (Phillips 1993:87). The cobble beaches are composed of cobular and angular cobbles, and crevices (Emerson
1958:71,1959:69). These rocks tend to be covered in lichens and caribou moss (Mcllwraith
1958:41). The smaller, finer beach cobbles tend to occur on the lower levels while the upper levels are made up of much larger boulders (Mcllwraith 1958:41).
At the Red Sucker Point site there is a series of 27 raised beaches (terraces), the highest being 40 meters above Lake Superior (Emerson 1959: 71). Four beach areas were studied and 70 structures in total were found, revealing six different structure types: rectangular floors, rectangular with walls, Pukaskwa Pits, circular pits, circular floors, and crescent shaped walls (Emerson 1958:71). Emerson (1959:71) and Mcllwraith (1958:43) 3 believed that the six types of structures recovered represented a temporal sequence with different forms associated with different terrace heights, with the most recent being closest to the shore.
1.2 Competing Hypotheses: Archaeological interpretations at the Red Sucker Point
Site
The beginning of Pukaskwa Pit research is associated with three important people:
Colin MacMillan, Thomas Mcllwraith, and Norman Emerson. Colin MacMillan, a pilot for the Lands and Forestry Department in Marathon, Ontario, first discovered what would later be called Pukaskwa Pits while on a camping trip in 1949 (MacMillan 1986:4). As
MacMillan encountered more features on the northeastern shore of Lake Superior, he began to question what the Pukaskwa Pits could have been used for and formed a hypothesis that he put into practice with experimental archaeology. MacMillan proposed, what he called the "bull boat hypothesis" (Mcllwraith 1958:42), which presumed that
Pukaskwa Pits were temporary shelters built from the beach cobbles and used an overturned boat or a piece of animal skin as a roof. Experiments conducted by MacMillan showed that pits could be constructed, lined with moss, and covered with a skin or an overturned canoe, to produce a snug and comfortable protective shelter in one hour
(Mcllwraith 1958:42).
Thomas Mcllwraith (1899-1964), an anthropologist at the University of Toronto, worked at the Red Sucker Point site for both field seasons in 1957 and 1958 and was involved in the preliminary reconnaissance of the area two years prior which located the
Red Sucker Point site as well as sites on Ypres Point, Swallow River, Newman's Creek, Otter Cove, Cabin Cove, Richardson's Bay, La Canadienne Point, and Granley Harbour
(Mcllwraith 1958:41). Due to the shelters' locations along an early migration route,
Mcllwraith (1958:43) believed that it was unlikely that they were used as sweathouses and
as shelters during a vision quest owing to the large number of features recovered on the
cobble beaches. He describes four different types of stone features (Mcllwraith 1958:42).
The first, Pukaskwa Pits, are considered to be temporary storm shelters along the lines
proposed above by MacMillan. The second, circular pits, are inferred to be food caches because no doorways are recovered and the features are too small (three feet in diameter
and two-three feet deep) to suggest habitation. The third type, circular paves (sorted stones
were used to produce flat, level floors) are 6.10 m (20 ft.) in diameter and interpreted as
tent rings. The last type Mcllwraith describes as the "Pukaskwa apartment building", and
is made up of rectangular paves which he believes are single-unit dwellings (3 m by 3 m),
and in some instances two and three of these units are combined to produce a structure that
is 3 by 9 m.
The indigenous groups local to the Terrace Bay Marathon area had no knowledge
of Pukaskwa Pits or what they may have been used for when questioned at the time of the
features' discovery. According to MacMillan (1986:5), Mcllwraith went to great lengths to question some of the older indigenous people at the Heron Bay mission and at Port
Caldwell to learn if there was knowledge about Pukaskwa Pits. With no information forthcoming from indigenous informants, Mcllwraith believed that the Pukaskwa Pit sites represented short or long term occupation of the cobble beaches, for reasons other than
spiritual activities.
Norman Emerson (1917-1978), anthropologist at the University of Toronto, was involved in the excavations at the Red Sucker Point site and is the creator of the hypothesis 5 that, nearly 50 years later, is still widely accepted. Emerson's interpretations of the Red
Sucker Point site likely remained unchallenged because he "became one of the significant influences of his generation" (Noble 1998:39). In a summary of the 1958 summer's field work at the Red Sucker Point site, Emerson indicates that the few artefacts and faunal remains recovered "accentuated the hunting nature of the economy" (Emerson 1959:72),
and states that the "size and number of structures suggest hunting groups based upon nuclear family were appropriate to this economy" (Emerson 1959:72). He also states that the bull boat shelter hypothesis of the pit types, as proposed by MacMillan, has been confirmed. When reporting on the excavations of the summer of 1959, Emerson claims that "at no point is there sufficient material to indicate a habitation site" and therefore concludes that the lack of materials confirms the vision-seeking hypothesis (Emerson
1960:71). Emerson discredits the "bull-boat" hypothesis because it did not work to explain the morphological variety of features being investigated. Emerson was looking for a culture, the "Pukaskwa Pit" culture; therefore, whatever hypothesis was to be applied to the site had to fit all the structural shapes and sizes, not just the oval, walled Pukaskwa
Pits.
The following year, the paucity of artefacts at the Red Sucker Point site led
Emerson to contradict his earlier claims and to infer the sites were being used for vision quests. Emerson consulted the ethnohistoric literature on the Cree and Ojibwa to find support for his socio-religious interpretation of the cobble beach formations. Vision quests were conducted by pubescent adolescents, in isolated places to fast and meditate (Emerson
1960:72) in an attempt to contact spirit Manitous. In attempting to find a hypothesis that could encompass the differences of cobble feature morphology, Emerson's generalizing 6 hypothesis, over time, concealed the variation in cobble features surveyed at the Red
Sucker Point site.
Emerson's hypothesis was based on four premises. First, cobble beaches are believed to be uninhabitable because they are barren and surrounded by tangled brush; the cobbles are also believed by archaeologists to pose comfort issues for the inhabitants of these sites. Second, few artefacts were recovered which would indicate not much activity was taking place on these beaches. Religious activities, especially fasting and meditation
for vision quests would require little or no artefacts; these artefacts would be considered
sacred medicine and would have been closely guarded and not left behind. Third, beaches
along the shoreline were thought to be isolated, inhospitable and barren and to represent
sufficient high ground for spiritual activities that required isolation from people. Lastly,
food resources supplied by the Boreal forest were thought to be limited and unable to
sustain any long term or large populations. For this reason the north shore of Lake Superior was thought to be unfavourable for habitation of any sort associated with the acquisition of
food.
In the defence of Emerson's new position on the Red Sucker Point site, he states
"what other explanation than vision-seeking would account for the presence....for such long periods of time of men who left such meagre cultural evidence of their presence?"
(Emerson 1960:62). Two years prior to this, when writing for the Land and Forestry
Review, Emerson answered his own question: "because of the nature of the beach structure, all dropped objects disappear down the maze of crevices immediately...[it is] miraculous that even the small sample of cultural material was recovered" (Emerson 1958:19). The problems that led to the difficulty in interpreting the cobble features at the Red Sucker
Point site has led to problems with the interpretation offered for their use. 7
1.3 Issues with the Vision Quest Hypothesis
There are four main issues with the vision quest hypothesis: the analogy used to create the hypothesis, the interpretational biases not recognised by the theory of the time, the use of the direct historic approach, and the semantics of the term 'Pukaskwa Pit'.
1.31 Analogy
The interpretation of Pukaskwa Pits and the continued use of a 50-year old hypothesis by Ontario archaeologists has not inspired new research, and different interpretations have gone largely ignored by researchers. The vision quest hypothesis was hastily created and has been weakly argued. Analogies are widely used in archaeological inquiry and in most cases are central to archaeological epistemology. However, the Vision
Quest hypothesis makes bad use of analogy. An "analogy is not strictly a demonstration of formal similarities between entities; rather it is an inferential argument based on implied relationships between demonstrably similar entities" (Binford 1967:1). The analogy used to create the Vision Quest hypothesis provides few premises to support its conclusion; no comparisons are made with the archaeological remains on the cobble beaches to similar examples in the ethnographic literature.
Furthermore, the Vision Quest hypothesis has not created a useful model that can be applied to other sites. However this has not stopped other archaeologists from making analogies based on superficial similarities between Pukaskwa Pits and the cobble features studied for their research. The vision quest hypothesis did not stay at the Red Sucker Point site; it has become synonymous with "Pukaskwa Pits" and has become a one size fits all hypothesis for cobble features. The Vision Quest interpretation is transferred from the 8
Lake Superior coastline to other sites because of perceived similarities, while the variation and differences between the assemblages being compared are ignored.
1.32 Theoretical Paradigm of the 1950s
These interpretational biases can be attributed to the theoretical framework used by the archaeologists of the 1950s. For example, it was common practice within the culture historic theoretical framework to presume that sites or artefacts were used for ritual activity when they could not be explained by subsistence, trade or warfare (Howey and O'Shea
2006:261).
The Vision Quest hypothesis is a result of the direct historic approach, which serves as middle range theory within the culture historic paradigm. Rather than focusing on the archaeology, the vision quest analogy focuses on the people present in the area during the 1950s and what is known of their cosmological beliefs at the time of contact. A similarity then gets inferred for local Native groups on the grounds that they occupied the same territory as the inhabitants that came before them; therefore, the Natives in the present are the direct descendents of the Natives from the past.
1.33 Semantics
Pukaskwa pits were named after their initial discovery near the Pukaskwa River
(Dawson 1975:1), which was believed to have gotten its name after a local Ojibwa place name which refers to cleaning fish (Dawson 1977:256). According to Brian Ross (personal communication 2007) Pukaskwa is an old Ojibwa family name. The term "Pukaskwa Pit", and its associated hypothesis, has been abused by archaeologists and has become an analogy that is a quick fix solution to ongoing cobble feature research. Pukaskwa Pits were originally considered to be a distinct shape of stone feature: elongated ovals in shape with 9 low walls and corresponding depression where stones have been removed from within the enclosure (Mcllwraith 1958:41). The term, "Pukaskwa Pit", has become an ambassador that represents all cobble features regardless of shape and size. This is problematic because, as this thesis will show, considerable variety exists in the morphology of cobble features. Using one name for such variety implies that the features have something in common besides building materials, yet there is no archaeological or ethnohistoric evidence that implies these arrangements had similar functions at the time of their construction.
1.4 Research Objectives
The objective of this research is to examine the evidence of past researchers and the results of the statistical analysis to draw updated conclusions about "Pukaskwa Pits" and to create a hypothesis to explain their existence that does not mask the diversity in the cobble assemblage of Pukaskwa National Park.
The data set for this thesis was provided by Parks Canada and therefore the quantitative portion will be focused on the cobble features surveyed between 1989 and
2007 within Pukaskwa National Park's boundaries. The Park thus far has 104 known sites,
66 of which have been surveyed. The alternative hypothesis presented by researchers usually argues that these cobble features represent different types of habitation sites, hence that different cobble feature shapes and sizes can be equated with features found on
"traditional" archaeological sites. The non-parametric Mann-Whitney test is used to examine feature dimensions between recorded feature types in the archaeological literature
(i.e. hearths, living floors, pole supports, burials etc.) and the cobble feature assemblage in
Pukaskwa National Park. This test is ideal for this data set because it can be applied to data 10 that does not have a normal distribution and the null hypothesis does not specify a value for the population's parameters (Madrigal 1998:130). This test is well suited for the comparison of small samples, which is the case for some of the cobble feature types and subtypes.
This thesis is divided into two parts. Part one focuses on background information beginning with Chapter Two which discusses northern Ontario archaeology and ethnohistoric records. Chapter Three focuses on vision quests discussing the purpose of vision quests and their appearance in the archaeological literature at the turn of the twentieth century. The quantitative portion of this thesis begins with Chapter Four which outlines the analytical methods and resulting interrogation of the data set. Chapter Five showcases the results of the Mann-Whitney U tests. The vision quest interpretation of cobble features arose haphazardly and, as will be discussed in Chapter Six, it is not without its flaws and interpretational biases. A hypothesis will be formulated from the results of
Chapter Five and will be compared to the Vision Quest hypothesis. Chapter Seven will summarize the results and outline the specific conclusions drawn.
Since the term "Pukaskwa Pit" has been used to describe all cobble features, and is synonymous with the Vision Quest hypothesis, it is not used throughout this paper. The term cobble feature is used as it is a more neutral term. 11
CHAPTER 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF NORTHERN ONTARIO
The archaeological visibility of past peoples is different in the Upper Great Lakes compared to the Lower Great Lakes. Fewer sites have been located in northern Ontario, of these sites not all have been excavated, and in some instances sporadic isolated finds have yielded evidence of land use (i.e. Palaeo-Indian points). Archaeology in the Canadian
Shield is fraught with limitations; the sites contain few diagnostic artefacts and are rarely radiocarbon dated (Arthurs 1995:27). Archaeological visibility of small sites is severely limited and therefore larger warm weather base camps dominate the archaeological record.
In addition acidic soils result in poor preservation of bone and other organic materials, and the thin soil matrix obscures stratigraphy and produces a hopeless mixture of chronologically distinct occupations (Wright 1999:731).
This chapter is divided into two sections: the first discusses archaeological cultures and the archaeological history of northwestern Ontario with an emphasis on placing cobble features into a cultural historical context. The second section focuses on the historic populations present in northwestern Ontario and on population movements and the problems these movements cause when using the direct historic approach to anchor historic populations on the landscape back into prehistory. 12
Figure 2.1 Map of Sites Mentioned in Chapter 2
Table 2.1 Legend for Figure 2.1. Site Names 1. Pass Reserve 12. Hungry Hall 23. Desperation Island 2. Tailrace Bay 13. Long Sault 24. Medicine Cave Site 3. Gods Lake 14. Lady Rapids 25. Naomikong 4. Ash Rapids West 15. MacGillvray 26. Summer Island 5. Ash Rapids East 16. Nipigon Bay Burial 27. Aztalan 6. Ballynacree 17. Wabinosh River 28. Thedford II 7. Ballinamore 18. Red Sucker Point 29. NY State fishing camps 8. Fisk 19. Pic River 30. K.I Site 9. Bally sadare 20. Heron Bay 31. St. Esprit Mission 10. Rushing River 21. Buchanan Creek 32. Sault St. Marie Mission 11. Meek 22. Michipicoten 33. St. Francis Xavier Mission
2.1 Material Culture and Prehistoric Populations
During the late nineteenth century there was a growing interest in ethnic history from which developed the concept of an archaeological culture (Trigger 2006:232). Since then, the value of ethnic analogy for archaeological interpretation has long been accepted 13
without question (Latta 1987:187). Ethnic categories were first created under the cultural
historic paradigm and were later used by processualists without adjustment (Jones 1997).
In the early twentieth century the focus in Canada was on linguistics and ethnology
(Trigger 2006:312). As a result, most archaeological undertakings began in the mid
twentieth century with a primary focus on building cultural chronologies. In the rest of
North America this had begun decades before.
While cultural chronologies and archaeological cultures were being developed under the cultural historic approach, processualist archaeology was using chronologies to understand past human behaviour pertaining to adaptation to diverse and perceived hostile
environments (Trigger 2006:312). Many archaeologists continue to equate
"archaeological cultures", defined on the basis of repeated associations of distinctive
material culture, with past ethnic groups (Jones 1997:13). The development of Canadian
archaeology has made it susceptible to the creation of archaeological cultures and this can be seen in early cobble feature research. Migration, a popular cultural historic explanation
for the sudden appearance of new archaeological phenomena, was initially offered as an
explanation for the creation of cobble features. The features were believed to have been
created by "very ancient Mongol peoples" (Emerson 1958:15). When this was disproved,
the features were believed to be a "cultural phenomenon" (Emerson 1958:16) bounded
within certain geographic limits which were still unknown (Emerson 1958:19). This
"Pukaskwa Pit culture" (Emerson 1958:19) posed a number of elucidation problems because the traditional archaeological methods, such as excavation and the interpretation of temporally diagnostic artefacts, had yielded very little information.
Using culture historic approaches to understand human behaviour, Emerson drew parallels between vision quests in ethnographic sources and the archaeological record. It is 14
common practice when making an analogy for archaeologists to draw from ethnographic
and historic sources for interpretations because these materials provided an eyewitness
account of ritual practice that can be referenced with the archaeological record (Howey and
O'Shea 2006:261). Vision quests are a ritual in Algonquian cosmology well known to
archaeologists and well documented since the nineteenth century.
The remainder of this section is devoted to the Upper Great Lakes archaeological
chronology to better understand where the cobble feature sites of Pukaskwa National Park
fit into Ontario's archaeological assemblages. The ethnographic materials used for the
direct historical approach to ascribe historic groups to pre-contact materials and sites is
examined to assess its usefulness for the study of cobble features on the north shore of
Lake Superior.
2.11 The Shield Archaic
Geomorphological evidence indicates that the major rivers in the Nipigon basin
served as spillways for Glacial Lake Agassiz until shortly after 6550 BC (Arthurs
1996:10). It is believed that the flow through these channels would have been catastrophic
and may have been a natural barrier to human movement to the northeastern portions of
Lake Superior's coast (Arthurs 1996a: 10). As a result it is unlikely that Pukaskwa National
Park was inhabited prior to the Shield Archaic since the land would have been geologically
and ecologically inhospitable, scoured by glaciers, barren, and eroded by swift flowing rivers (Dunlop 1998:11).
The Shield Archaic (5000 B.C. to AD 500) represents the first substantial populations in northern Ontario (Dawson 1979:14; Wright 1995:261). Sites are usually
found along major waterways and islands; this archaeologically visible pattern may be due to archaeological survey bias. Most archaeological surveys and excavations have been 15 conducted along waterways because they are more accessible than the interior. The scarcity of Shield Archaic sites along the north shore of Lake Superior and Lake Huron has been attributed to isostatic rebound, and it is now believed that these early sites have been lost in the dense brush of the Boreal forest (Wright 1995:271). Rivers and lakes are thought to only have been visited in the spring, summer and fall for subsistence and travel: with the exception of Greenman (1964:92), Wright (1999:756), and Dawson (1981), marine sites were not thought to be visited in the winter. Archaic sites are found on the periphery of Pukaskwa National Park, but not in the park itself (Dunlop 1998:9).
Lake Superior is a rich source of copper in this part of the continent (Anselmi
2004:81). One of the distinctive characteristics of Archaic technology in northern Ontario is the manufacturing of tools and ornaments from indigenous copper (Wright 1995:269).
Archaic sites along the northwestern shore of Lake Superior are not far from copper sources at Isle Royale and Mamainse (Dawson 1979:19; Dunlop 1998:11).
A copper projectile point found during excavations in 1959 at the Red Sucker Point beach site was dated to the "Old Copper Culture" by Norman Emerson (1960:71) (later re examined and believed to be a product of the Woodland period [Dawson 1974:108]). The
"Old Copper Culture" has since been discredited, and copper artefacts have been dated and assigned to various assemblages spanning from the Late Archaic to Woodland period cultures (Anselmi 2004:82).
Archaeologists assume the peoples using Shield Archaic material culture built flimsy temporary structures that would leave no evidence in the archaeological record.
Wright (1995:262) claims the peoples of the Middle Shield Archaic also used semi- subterranean dwellings with "excavated entrance ways." There is also archaeological evidence that Archaic groups dug storage pits (Walthall 1998:225). 16
During the Middle Shield period in northern and northcentral Manitoba at the Gods
Lake site, circular dwellings measuring 4.6 m in diameter were reported and are believed to represent a nuclear family lodge. This dwelling is similar to the lodges reported in the
Keewatin district (Wright 1995:283). Remains of living floors in the Shield are rare
(Rajnovich et. al. 1982:103). At the Smoothwater Lake site (CiHd-1), in northeastern
Ontario, an Archaic tent ring rock outline measuring 3.5 m in diameter with an internal off- centre hearth (Pollock 1976:55-67) was recovered. There are no villages for this time period. It is believed that large sites are a product of smaller seasonal re-occupations.
2.12 The Woodland Period
Far more is known about the Woodland period than the preceding periods. This is also the period where a large portion of cobble features are believed to have been constructed. The Woodland period is characterized by the appearance of ceramics, which becomes the dominant archaeological find on sites, though there have been sites found on the Canadian Shield that did not posses ceramics but were still considered to be Woodland sites. It is also characterized by a higher frequency of scrapers on sites (Janzen 1968:99;
Wright 1999:739) and technological changes to the tool assemblage that mark the invention of the bow and arrow with the appearance of more arrowheads and fewer dart heads and spears (Wright 1999:741). All sites are adjacent to lakes or rivers (Janzen
1968:101; Wright 1999:758). In northwestern Ontario the Early Woodland is marked by the appearance of Laurel ceramics which eventually overlap and get replaced by
Blackduck and Selkirk ceramics in certain regions.
Radiocarbon dates and geographic origins for the Laurel period vary depending on the researcher. Reid and Rajnovich (1991:193,204), with the use of radiocarbon data, claim the earliest dates come from northwestern Ontario and northern Minnesota in the Boundary 17
Waters area date Laurel ceramics between approximately 200 B.C. and A.D. 1200. Lenius
and Olinyk (1990:82) claim Laurel ceramics date as early as 50 B.C. to A.D. 1000.
Carmichael (1979:48) and Dunlop (1998:9), who support the Rainy River origin for Laurel
ceramics, believe these ceramics date from 100 B.C. to A.D. 800. Wright (1999:726), with
the use of relative dating methods, mainly the vertical stratigraphy of strandlines around
the Lake Superior basin and stratigraphic excavation, believes Laurel ceramics were
introduced as early as 700 B.C. in the Lower Great Lakes. Strandlines on the north shore of
Lake Superior are not real evidence for stratigraphy because water levels have never been
constant and nothing would have stopped people from occupying terraces that were not at beach level. A "ubiquitous 'collapsed stratigraphy' (Syms 1977) so prevalent in the
Northern Forest" (Reid and Rajnovich 1991:207) is an unfortunate reality that makes
stratigraphy an unreliable tool in differentiating early from later occupations on some sites.
In northern Ontario, Wright himself states that stratigraphy is thin and in bad context
(Wright 1999:731). Wright does not make a strong case for the origin of Laurel in the
Lower Great Lakes.
While there are no Laurel ceramics found in Pukaskwa National Park, they are
abundant in the Lake Superior basin (Dunlop 1998:9). It is speculated that some of the
cobble feature sites may be associated with the Laurel tradition (Dunlop 1998:9) as rock art
sites (Rajnovich 1994:47) in the Canadian Shield have been.
A further characteristic of the Woodland period is the appearance of large warm
season aggregations, which tend to be situated adjacent to good fishing spots. These sites
are referred to by Wright (1999:756) as base camps. Base camps in the Rainy River region contain burial mounds and are also found near wild rice resources. In the Boreal forest and along the north shore of Lake Superior, base camps are believed to be the hub of spring, 18
summer and fall activities with surrounding hunting and fishing satellite camps.
Archaeologically less visible winter camps, which would have been smaller due to the dispersion of people into smaller family groups, are believed to be located in the interior.
Heron Bay (on the north shore of Lake Superior at the mouth of the Pic river), Wabinosh
River (near Lake Nipigon), the Pas Reserve (Saskatchewan River in west-central
Manitoba), Tailrace Bay (Wright 1999:756), and Naomikong (southern shore of Lake
Superior in northern Michigan) (Wright 1999:763) are all believed to be warm seasonal
aggregation base camps.
Wright (1999:756, 757) describes a second model of base camps which was present prior to the arrival of Europeans and which he believes was more likely preferred since it promotes better preservation of natural resources. This second model is made up of a number of small camps within ready communication range of one another, as in the case of the English River where base camps were spread along the waterway at favourable fishing
locations (Wright 1999:756). This is very interesting when one considers the location of most cobble feature sites on exposed cobble beaches along the coast of Lake Superior. It has been argued that these sites were warm weather occupations because of their exposed locations which provided protection from biting insects.
Conway (1979) recognises two types of sites on the northeastern coast of Lake
Superior near the St. Mary's River area: small repeatedly occupied sites which he believes are summer fishing stations, and large sites which are believed to be more intensely occupied villages. Conway (1975:19) considered the cobble beach sites of Lake Superior
Provincial Park to be satellite sites to larger summer coastal villages in the area, used to exploit the Lake Superior fisheries. 19
The abundant fish resources of Lake Superior are believed to have been what attracted people to the area. It was alleged that the earliest fishing activities in the Great
Lakes were carried out during the Late Archaic and Early Woodland period (Cleland
1982:768). Fishing with nets does not seem to have been practiced in the Upper Great
Lakes area until the first few centuries AD (Cleland 1982:769). End Notch sinkers first appear on Laurel sites and a net sinker was collected on the surface of the cobble beach on the Buchanan Creek site (28H29) in Pukaskwa National Park (currently on display in
PNP's visitors centre). Though the context is poor and can not be connected to the cobble feature, it does show that fishing activities were taking place on this beach.
During the Initial Woodland period all burial types are known but cremation is the most prevalent form. Between 300 B.C. to A.D. 1000 the western area of the eastern woodlands is marked by numerous small mounds containing burials, usually in log tombs that contain multiple secondary burials (Fitting 1978:44). An example of this is the
MacGillvray site where a low circular mound, about fifteen meters in diameter, overlies a central burial pit. This mound was constructed of earth which overlies logs that were covered in boulders (Dawson 1980:46). The burial, dated 200 BC to AD 300, contained up to fourteen individuals, both adult and sub-adult, whose bones were wrapped in birth bark containers. This secondary burial dates to the Laurel tradition (Dawson 1980:48).
During the Terminal Woodland period (200 B.C. to A.D. 400) there is a marked increase in archaeologically visible features, and "different societies at different levels participated in the [Hopewellian] interaction sphere" (Struever 1965 in Spence et al.
1979:119). Contrary to earlier beliefs (c.f. Janzen 1968:95) the Hopewellian "cult" did not spread into Ontario (Spence et al. 1979:119). In Ontario, beginning in the Late Archaic, there is no evidence that changes in material culture represented the intrusion of people 20
from the south (Ellis et. Al 1990:100). Instead, new ideas were "grafted" onto existing technologies which reflects broadly shared ideas and an increase in the importance and practice of long distance exchange (Ellis et al. 1990:100, 119-120). Burial mounds appear in the Middle Woodland and are believed to be the result of increasing populations and
"packing" effects (Spence et al. 1990:167). The ritual associated with the group burial of the dead was believed to define group membership as well as to assert a group's claim to a portion of land (Spence et al. 1990:167). The presence of the people at these ceremonies
also served to affirm the inheritance of the territory when new bands were created by
fission (Spence et al. 1990:167). Burial mounds are found on the Canadian Shield in the
Rainy River area on both the Ontario (i.e. the Lady Rapids site, the Long Sault site, the
Hungry Hall site (determined to have been a Blackduck site with Laurel ceramics as fill
(Zibauer 1994) etc.) and Minnesota side of the border.
The increase in features recovered from Middle Woodland period sites is reported
on many sites in northern Ontario. In Northwestern Ontario, on the shores of Lac Des
Milles and Lake Nipigon, circular depressions do occur in association with Laurel sites
(Dawson 1975:110). At the MacGillivray site, in northern Ontario, Dawson (1980:46)
found three pits or depressions that were suggestive of rice husking pits. These were roughly 50 cm in diameter, and 35 cm in depth.
At the Ballysadare (DkKp-10) site, Rajnovich (1980:39) believes to have found a
feature distinguished by a line of small rocks and a change in soil colour. The feature is believed to be a Laurel dwelling similar to those found in the Laurel components of the
Rushing River site (DjKn-5), Fisk site (DlKp-1), the Meek Site (DjKp-3) (which contained a hearth and storage pit (Reid 1984:40)), (Rajnovich 1980:39,41), and the Ballynacree site
(DkKp-8) (which also contained a bark lined storage pit) (Reid 1984:41). All of these sites 21 are in the Lake of the Woods area. Most sites on the eastern shore of Lake Superior date to the Woodland period and show influence from Michigan-style ceramics (c.f. Dawson
1988).
There are numerous examples of possible habitation structures in Ontario's archaeological record. At the Aztalan site near Lake Nipissing, circular semi-subterranean and rectangular structures were identified (Brose 1978:571). At the Fisk site an oval house with a northwest southeast axis 30 m2 in floor area was reported (Rajnovich et al.
1982:103-104). At the Thedford II site, living floors were spaced 5 to 15 m apart and may have been arranged in a circular pattern (Wright 1995:44). At the Summer Island site, in
Northern Lake Michigan, three oval house structures dating to the Middle Woodland are on a northwest southeast axis (Brose 1970:21).
Structures erected in the winter appear to be similar to those used in the summer. A winter hunt camp dwelling was recorded at the KI site in northern Vermont. It was marked by post moulds and measured 4.6 m in diameter (Wright 1995:240). At the Smoothwater site, in northerneastern Ontario, a tentative tent ring with central hearth, indicating winter habitation, measured 3 by 3.7 m (Wright 1995:284). Small round to rectangular semi- subterranean dwellings with central hearths have been recorded for interior winter sites in the Tundra (Wright 1995:432). A fishing base camp in New York contained patches of gravel and sand that were 1.8 to 3.1 m in diameter and were interpreted as remains of house floors (Wright 1995:240). At the Heron Bay base camp, believed to be a Laurel occupation, a 3 m diameter dwelling was outlined by 25 post moulds (Wright 1967:8,
1999:755).
Artefacts have been recovered from Pukaskwa National Park that date to the
Terminal Woodland Period. The majority of artefacts recovered from Pukaskwa National 22
Park are not representative of a specific cultural group or time period. The ceramics recovered have been interpreted by Parks Canada to be Middleport (28H29) and Blackduck with Iroquoian influence (28H70) (see picture in appendix 4B).
Blackduck ceramics, which date to the Terminal Woodland period, predominate in the Pukaskwa National Park area (Dunlop 1998:13). The term Blackduck has traditionally referred to a group of sub-arctic generalized foragers whose earliest sites date between
A.D. 700 and 800 in the boundary waters area of northern Minnesota (Graham 2005:5) and to 1650 possibly as late as A.D. 1775 (Zibauer 1994:12) in Ontario.
Blackduck has yet to be recovered with historic material in Minnesota (Graham 2005:5) but people making Blackduck ceramics in the Boreal forest north of Lake Superior persisted into the historic period, and it is frequently recovered on multi- component sites that include French and English fur trade materials (Graham 2005:6; Reid 1984:40, 41), especially on the eastern shore of Lake Superior (c.f. Dawson 1988).
An early Blackduck burial, situated at the eastern terminus of a historically documented portage across Black Bay Peninsula and radiocarbon dated to A.D. 780, was discovered in Nipigon Bay (Arthurs 1995:29). The pre-contact funerary pattern in the area includes primary flexed interments in shallow oval graves and the use of large cobbles to cover the burial. Some of the rocks appear to be fire-cracked which suggests the intentional use of fire (Arthurs 1995:29). Four circular depressions that ranged in size from 1.8 to 2.4 m in diameter and 0.75 m deep, as well as Peninsular Woodland ceramics have been reported at the Desperation site (CkJk-1) on the eastern shore of Michipicoten Island
(Dawson 1988:24). The Medicine Cave site contained a hearth and historic goods as well as Late Woodland goods (Dawson 1988:23). 23
The Michipicoten site, found south of Pukaskwa National Park on the Lake
Superior coast, represents an unbroken sequence of occupation beginning at approximately
A.D. 1100 and lasting into the historic period (Wright 1968:49). The site possesses three persistent ceramic traditions that are believed to have derived from the south in the states of Michigan and Wisconsin (Wright 1968:49). Six different feature types were recovered from the site. Human burials were reported but not recovered by archaeologists, dog burials were excavated and three varieties of hearths (pit hearths, fire hearth floors and firestone hearth floors) were reported. Three refuse pits, twenty-four post moulds, and four deposits of red ochre (Wright 1968:8-9) were also recovered. The Pic River site, located on
Pukaskwa National Park's northwestern boundary, has been radiocarbon dated to A.D. 950
+/- 80 for the earliest occupation and the latest deposit has been dated to the latter half of the 17th century (Wright 1968:46). Specific reference has been made to the Pic river site being occupied by Algonquian speakers (Long 1791). Blackduck ceramics were found in all three strata at the Pic River site but were absent from the Michipicoten site (Wright
1968:48). Stamped and Peninsular Woodland ceramics were only found on the
Michipicoten site and push-pull rims were found in the historic stratum of both sites. The differences in time depth and assemblage for these two sites are important to mention since both sites flank Pukaskwa National Park and may reveal a time depth for sites within the
Park. In return, the sites located in the Park may show how far east the Pic River site occupants and how far west the Michipicoten site occupants may have settled.
2.13 Summary
The early investigation into the existence of cobble features were framed within the limitations of the archaeological paradigms of the time and their continued study has been hampered by the Canadian tendency to rely on cultural historical concepts. Cobble beaches 24 are found along travel routes and in many cases adjacent to good fishing loci. Though feature information in northern Ontario archaeology is limited, the forms and varieties of features found on cobble beaches do not vary greatly from the different forms and features reported on other archaeological sites. The only differences between cobble feature sites and other sites are the ground surface and the building materials used. The cobble features can be seen as an adaptation to a different environment, even on cobble beaches the same human needs prevail, the only difference is in the building materials used.
2.2 The Written History of Northwestern Ontario
On a macro level Algonquian-speaking people were geographically spread from the
Rocky mountains to the Atlantic (Dickason 2002:46). The land between Georgian Bay and the prairies, along the north shore of Lakes Huron and Superior, was inhabited by continuously shifting kin-related groups of Algonquian-speakers (Dawson 1982:81;). Since there is a certain degree of difference among Algonquian-speaking peoples, specifically their cosmological beliefs and practices, it is important to examine the literature to determine if the direct historic approach, used by Ontario archaeologists when discussing archaeological ethnicity, providing evidence for ethnically based differences in material culture and in support for the socio-religious hypothesis associated with the creation of cobble features.
The main debate surrounding the question of the ethnic identity of the people living around the northern shore of Lake Superior and the Boundary Waters region lies in distinguishing Cree peoples from Ojibwa peoples (Cude 2001:74). Determining the presence of people on the north shore of Lake Superior during contact is relevant for this 25 research because the cobble features can not be dated, and may in part be a historic phenomenon. It is also relevant because the creation of cobble features has been assigned to the Nipissing by Dawson (1975:112) while the occupation of the north shore has been
assigned to the Northern Ojibwa using the Direct Historic approach (Dawson 1982:88;
Wright 1968).
Indigenous oral histories and ethnographic sources are currently the only tools at an
archaeologist's disposal to determine which ethnic groups occupied the Lake Superior
Basin. The fluid nature of Indigenous cultural boundaries make it difficult (if not impossible) to use material culture as a means to identify precise linguistic or ethnic
groups from the past. Though I criticize the direct historic approach in this thesis it is meant to be a critique of the application of this method. There is some merit to the direct historic approach when it is used as a starting point for ideas, as a means to test theories, or
as a bridge for an argument. Since the direct historic approach has played a key role in past research it is necessary to see if this approach can indeed make supportable claims as to the identity of the builders of cobble features and the activities taking place on the north shore of Lake Superior.
2.21 The Early Written Sources: Who was Living on the North Shore of Lake Superior?
In 1640 Father Lejeune mentions in detail the Algonquian-speaking peoples who neighbour the Hurons or visit them for trade. He refers to the Outaouan (Ottawa) that come from the island in the Huron's fresh water sea (Lake Huron), the Nipisiriniens (the
Nipissings) who are from Lake Nipissing and go to the north sea (Hudson's Bay) to trade with the Kiristinon (Cree). The Jesuit Relations of 1639 describe the people of the Sault
(present day Sault Saint Marie) who came to trade with the Hurons, but it was not until the 26
early 1660s that two groups of European explorers reached the rapids at Sault St. Marie
and travelled to the south shore of Lake Superior.
Pierre Esprit Radisson in 1661 explored the southern coast of Lake Superior. In
1660 the Jesuits sent Father Rene Menard to Lake Superior but news was received of his
death in the Wisconsin forest in 1661 (Thwaites 1959 46: 249, 47:307). In 1661 Radisson travelled to the Sault and along the south shore of Lake Superior; by this time the Sault
(believed to be Ojibwa) no longer lived at the rapids (Adams 1961:120). Radisson claims the people in his party came from the Sault but were now further west along the south
shore at Chagaouamiguong point. The Jesuit relations at this time also claim the
Algonquians who used to dwell on the northern shores of Lake Huron have also taken refuge westward (Thwaithes 1959 44:247). During Radisson's excursions along the south
shore he encountered the Saulteaux and Sioux from the south shore, and the Christinos
(believed to be Cree) from the north shore (Adams 1961:61). The Cree are therefore the
first people reported as living on the north shore. In 1665 Father Alloues traveled to the
south shore of Lake Superior and started a mission on Chagouamignong point called St
Esprit (Thwaites 1959 L:17). In 1667 Father Alloues journeyed to Lake Nipigon along the western coast because he heard that the Nipissings were living there (Thwaites 1959 51:63;
1959 LI: 10). He gave no account of the shores of Lake Superior or the people he encountered on the way.
During the late 1660s three missions were established along the south shore of
Lake Superior: Chagouamignong point, Sault St Marie and Green Bay. In the Relations of
1669-1671 the Jesuits reported that the north shore of Lake Superior "is frightful, by reason of a succession of rocks which form the end of that prodigious mountain chain"
(Thwaithes 1959 54:149), but there is still no eyewitness account of the people living there. 27
Jesuits at St Esprit comment that three nations from the north travel to Chagoumigong to
trade, as many as 200 canoes make the journey (Thwaites 1959 54:167). Jesuits were
aware that the Kilistinos (Cree) were dispersed through the region to the north of Lake
Superior, forever wandering (Thwaites 1959 54:99) but have not yet made contact.
Between 1672-73, the Sioux purged the southern shore of the remnants of the Huron and
the Algonquian tribes (Thwaites 1959 Lvii:15) that moved there to escape the Iroquois.
Charles Bishop (1982:259) feels strongly that the late seventeenth century sources
for the people along or near the shore of Lake Superior reflect the effects of the Iroquois
wars of the seventeenth century which caused the displacement of populations and slowed
the expansion of the Jesuits out of Huronia. During the 1640s the Five Nations devastated
the Hurons (Eid 1979: 306) causing survivors to scatter and become adopted by
Algonquian-speaking groups to the west. The Relations of 1669-1671 (Thwaites 1959
54:103) claim some Hurons took refuge on the Huron Islands in Lake Michigan and on the
south shore of Lake Superior and in the Wisconsin forest. During the 1650s, Iroquois
warriors plundered Ojibwa warriors near Lake Superior, on Georgian Bay and along the
Ottawa River (Eid 1979:300). Ojibwa legend has the Ottawa, Potawatomi and Ojibwa unifying (Eid 1979:299) with the scattered Huron to fight the Iroquois and push them back
into present day New York state in the late seventeenth century (1690) (Eid 1979:308).
It would therefore appear that by the mid to late seventeenth century, when the
Jesuits begin to push westward and start missions on the south shore of Lake Superior,
there had already been quite a few demographic upheavals and social change. Social
geography changed before there could be European eye witness accounts of the original inhabitants of the land west of the Iroquois movement. 28
2.22 Direct Historic Approach
Wright (1972:87, 1994:26) and Dawson (1979:14,16) postulate that there seems to be cultural continuity between the Shield Archaic and subsequent developments in the
Boreal forest which permits the speculation that the Shield Archaic people probably spoke
an Algonkian language and were ancestors to the historic Ojibwa, Cree, Algonquin, and
Montagnais. Interest in identifying ethnicity began in the cultural historic period of
archaeology (Trigger 2006:211) when archaeologists began to draw explicit parallels between geographically and temporally restricted assemblages of formerly similar prehistoric archaeological material as cultures and identifying them as the remains of
ethnic groups (Trigger 2006:233). Wright and Dawson's work conforms to the basic models of cultural historical archaeologists because of their assumption that the archaeological culture of northern Ontario is characterized by a high degree of cultural
similarity (Wright 1972:7) and is produced by a group of people who share a common language, material culture, and way of life. They believe the high degree of cultural similarity allows certain general interpretations to be drawn from relatively limited archaeological data (Wright 1972:7) and therefore ethnicity can be inferred by the archaeological record using the direct historical approach. However, dropping a taxonomic
'silo' over a given piece of land, and joining prehistoric artefacts, as far back as 5000 B.C., in a linear fashion to historic populations, and making inferences about ancestry is problematic (Jamieson, personal communication 2007). There is no evidence that supports the idea that the people of northwestern Ontario existed in a cultural vacuum, and the highly mobile nature of the populations in northern and eastern Ontario, as in the Jesuits accounts above, makes the picture much too messy to draw straight inferences about cultural identity and affiliation through time. 29
The direct historic approach attempts to assign material culture types to specific historic indigenous groups. The Blackduck focus was first attributed to the Assiniboine by
Wilford (1955:136) and MacNeish (1958:79) and described by Wright (1965:201) as being ancestral to the Ojibwa on the north shore of the Upper Great Lakes. Since then other archaeologists have made sweeping statements claiming that the northern Ojibwa or the western Ojibwa are direct descendents of the Blackduck culture (Dawson 1981:3, Dawson
1976:40). This has influenced interpretations. For example, because the Nyman site, on the eastern shore of Lake Superior, contains mostly Blackduck ceramics, Dawson interpreted it as being a northern Ojibwa camp (Dawson 1988:23). Pollock (1975:16) feels that the
"probability is however that this pottery complex was shared by various peoples particularly the Ojibwa and some Cree groups in the west and north" and that the
"development of Ojibwa culture history is likely a fusion of several separate prehistoric groups during historic times" (Pollock 1975:16-17). Wright (1967:90,91) using Bushnell's
(1922:42) research which has the Assiniboine migrating north from the headwaters of the
Mississippi in the early seventeenth century, claims, contrary to previous work (Wright
1965:201), that. Blackduck "cannot possibly be the sole possession of the Assiniboine".
Furthermore, Wright goes on to state that "the assignments of the Blackduck focus to a single ethnic group is an impossible association since the distribution of the focus in
Ontario, Minnesota and Manitoba encompasses territory of historic Assiniboine, Cree and
Ojibwa" (Wright 1967:91). Wright then concludes that the historic Indigenous groups likely possessed the complex with varying degrees of intensity.
Dawson (1977, 1982) has provided the most in-depth archaeological analysis of northern Ontario's inhabitants. Using the direct historic approach, he has assigned historic aboriginal populations to prehistoric pottery types that were present in the same geographic 30 region. Due to the degree of blending of ceramics, Dawson (1982:82) denies the possibility of forming clear cultural boundaries and hypothesises four heartlands for the various pottery traditions in northern Ontario. The northwest (which incorporates southeast
Manitoba) is assigned to the historic Cree and Northern Ojibwa are assigned Selkirk and
Blackduck ceramics respectively. The southwest is dominated by the Northern Ojibwa and the Cree with other types of ceramics present that do not get assigned to a particular cultural group. The southeastern corner is associated with southern Ojibwa (Saulteaux) and is connected to Mackinac ceramics, while Huron-Petun ceramics are attributed to the
Nipissing. The southern portion is characterized by Algonquian groups (Pottawatomi,
Ottawa) and Peninsular Woodland ceramics which are attributed to the Saulk (Saulk, Fox,
Kickapoo) (Dawson 1982:83). The Algonquins occupy the east, the Cree the northwest and the Ojibwa occupy the central area of northern Ontario (Dawson 1982:88).
Under the cultural historical paradigm, one ceramic style represents one people, and once the ceramics change new people arrive. One culture is never attributed to more than one ceramic style because this would be messy and unbounded. It has been shown that "material culture, even on a small scale, can be very susceptible to cross-fertilization"
(Latta 1987:187) and archaeologists as well as historians are discovering that many
Indigenous bands were multi-lingual and multi-cultural (Moore 1994:936).
2.23 The Two Opinions
Prior to Dawson's cultural historical work on the ceramic heartlands of northern
Ontario which placed the northern Ojibwa on the North shore of Lake Superior, he associated the building of the cobble features with the Nipissing (Dawson 1975:112,
1979:266-267, 1981:305-306). Dawson uses ethnographic information for Ojibwa people throughout his interpretation of the cobble features and only makes one reference to the 31
Nipissing people prior to the last page of his report where he claims the cobble features were of Nipissing authorship. While visiting Lake Nipissing, Jesuit Father Gabriel Sagard makes reference to sorcerers that converse with the devil in little round towers (Dawson
1975:22,1979:267). This is likely a reference to the shaking tent ceremony which is
geographically widespread and known among Algonkian-speaking peoples (Bishop
1994a:281). While the Nipissing have been lumped under the Ojibwa umbrella by Dawson
(1975) and Wright (1968), most scholars refer to the group as Algonquian (Tower
1998:181).
Since the Nipissing moved to Lake Nipigon in 1661 to escape the Iroquois (Day
1978:787) and the Michipicoten site had Huron-Petun ceramics, which Dawson assumes belonged to the Nipissing, Dawson feels they are the most likely candidate for the creation of the cobble features, solidifying a date for the creation of the features, though he never elaborates on a timeline.
The Nipissing's ceremonial customs do vary somewhat from other Algonquian speaking peoples. They were known as 'sorcerers' to those who described them (Day
1979:788; Wrong 1939:64). As with other Boreal forest Indigenous peoples they share shamanism with both the properties of oracles and curing, and the thunderbird (Day
1979:788). But what made them different from other Algonquian speakers, is that they shared spiritual practices with their neighbours to the south, the Huron, and their neighbours to the North, the Cree. They practiced the Feast of the Dead, a ceremony practiced by the Huron (Day 1979:788) and other southern tribes. The Nipissing, like the
Huron and the Cree, were also believed to have worshiped the sun (which was also an
Iroquoian practice (Oberholtzer, personal communication 2009)), and it was believed the sun may have been their master of life (Day 1979:788). There is no mention that the 32
Nipissing practiced the rites of the Mide Lodge or had members in the Midewiwin society, which makes them quite different from the Ojibwa.
Dawson's claim that the Nipissing were the builders of the cobble features is a product of the direct historic approach, but also based on ethnoarchaeological evidence, in that he uses ethnographic sources to make inferences about the past and also assumes there is enough similarity between the Ojibwa and the Nipissing to make this inference.
Dawson's entire belief is based in part on one Jesuit account of an invocation structure being built and an analogy which assumes the Nipissing have much in common with the
Ojibwa and his prior belief that cobble features were used for socio-religious functions.
Contradictory to Dawson's ethnoarchaeological interpretation of the cobble feature sites, Wright uses the direct historic approach to make loose links between the Woodland period and the Algonquian-speaking people of the historic period. Wright (1999:771,
2004:1549) claims that some of the features likely had a Laurel authorship and that the cultural continuity from the Laurel to the contact period would favour an Algonquin authorship for the features. Wright (1972:62) goes as far as to say that the Laurel is an unbroken continuation of the Shield Archaic tradition thus establishing Algonquin speaking peoples in northern Ontario for the entire time it was habitable.
In addition to the problems posed by attributing ethnicity to artefacts, discussed below, there are conflicts between the direct historic approach used by Wright and further developed by Dawson's work and the prevailing socio-religious interpretation of cobble features. The northern Ojibwa lacked, except along their southern margin, certain cultural traits found among their Ojibwa neighbours to the west and south. Notably lacking are the social and religious elaborations such as the Midewiwin ceremony (Rogers and Taylor
1981:231). However dreams and vision quests, as they are for most speakers of the 33
Algonquian language, were important sources of power for the individual and were at the centre of the northern Ojibwa's religion (Rogers and Taylor 1981:233). The problem here is that the Northern Ojibwa did not build elaborate structures such as conjurers' lodges and oracle grots (Dawson 1975:21-33) for elaborate ceremonial purposes.
Both Dawson and Wright agree that the north shore of Lake Superior was occupied by Algonquian-speaking peoples, however the duration of that occupation is loosely based on cultural historic methods that assign ethnicity to archaeological cultures that are based on artefact assemblages. Neither the ethnoarchaeology nor the direct historic approach provides good evidence to determine the creators of the cobble features. Since the cobble features can not as of yet be assigned to a specific time period, it is not possible to assign a northern Ojibwa or Nipissing ancestry to their creation.
2.24 Problems with the Direct Historical Approach
The problem with the archaeological approach used by archaeologists to develop ethnic continuity through time in northern Ontario, the aforementioned direct historic approach, is that it assumes populations at time of contact are the populations that were present in pre-history. In eastern Ontario, during the protohistoric period, population movement due to the Iroquois wars and the fur trade have been recorded archaeologically and in the ethnohistoric literature. Bishop (1982:263) feels "it would be naive to assume that the European presence and population shifts to the east did not affect, to some degree,
Indians further west". Hamilton and Larcombe (1994:51) concur "given the potential for fur trade induced transformations of pre-existing aboriginal land use systems, the Boreal forest ethnographic literature should be regarded as biased". As evidenced in the Jesuit accounts earlier in this chapter, when Father Dablon in 1670 reports the Ojibwa on the north shore of Lake Superior (Dawson 1976:20), things had been in flux for decades and 34 people had been moving in and out of occupied territory, causing wars, especially along southern and south-western shores of Lake Superior and Northern United States, and causing assimilation into new cultural groups.
The Ojibwa themselves claim to not have been the original inhabitants of the north shore of the Superior Basin. Warren (1984:99 [1885]) observes there is a lack of traditional accounts for mining any of the copper mines on the coast. According to the Jesuit
Relations the Indigenous peoples living around Lake Superior at contact kept copper rocks as curiosities and did not work them into tools (Thwaites 1959 50:265-267).
Archaeologically, however, copper had been worked for thousands of years, indicating the
Ojibwa did not posses, or lost, the knowledge of the resources available on the land they occupied or the technology to manufacture tools from the highly traded resource.
2.25 Problem with Ethnic Identification
The ethnohistoric sources themselves are not perfect and also create problems with interpretation. Boas, Radcliff Brown and others have stated that documents can't be trusted because, unlike the work of anthropologists, they contain observation and interpretive prejudices and distortions (Bishop 1982:255). Early historic documents can be biased because they are limited in their scope, and they describe highly flexible cultures that were influenced by contact with Europeans (Hamilton and Larcombe 1994:51). Father Lafitau, in the beginning of the 18th century, worked for fifteen years among the Indigenous people, but borrowed most of his material from earlier accounts, usually without any acknowledgments, and was an eyewitness for very little of what he wrote (Hultkrantz
1966:93). Jesuits may have over-exaggerated and falsified accounts to embellish the 35 situation. It is also known that Indigenous peoples frequently deceived Jesuits by telling conflicting tales as a form of entertainment.
Another problem with the documents is the interpretation of cultural groups because spelling varies and names change throughout the early years of AD 1650 to 1750
(Wright 1965:191). The ethnohistoric sources produce a confusing variety of terms: broad designations of either European or Indigenous origin, and differing names for the same groups of people (Rogers 1969:36). For example the term "Gens de Terres" was a broad name which covered everyone inland from the St. Lawrence-Ottawa River to the Great
Lakes (Greenberg and Morrison 1982:85) and the term appears to have been relative to the regional group into which it was applied (Cude 2000:89). With different terms being applied to different peoples over a period of more than 100 years, historians and archaeologists seldom agree about ethnic affiliations which often lead to the general identification of ethnic groups or sweeping statements that the territory in question was the land of "Algonquian-speakers". The matter gets further complicated by the difference in the French and English accounts for Indigenous groups; the French specifically identified
Ojibwa groups while the English were broad in their descriptions (Cude 2000:95). This difference is believed to be explained by the audience with which the written documents were intended; the French were writing official reports to government officials while writers for the English markets, such as Alexander Mackenzie, were writing travel accounts for a wider European audience (MacLaren 1994: 43-53).
According to Wright (1965:189), the problem of linguistic identification is relatively simple; the real problem resides in the ethnic identification of the people in northern Ontario at contact. Researchers have since found that linguistic identification poses challenges because a spoken language is not necessarily a reflection of a person's 36 culture and ethnic affiliation. To further complicate things, some areas of northern Ontario had populations of people that were multi-lingual which further obscured ethnic identification (Moore 1994:936). Bilingualism and language switching is believed to be the means by which the Cree and Ojibwa languages spread into what is presently known as northern Ontario (c.f. Pettipas 1996:67).
Early in the 18th century there was confusion among Europeans reporting on the ethnicity of groups in the Lake Nipigon region caused by the close proximity of Cree and
Ojibwa groups (Cude 2001:90), this proximity had created multilingual communities and a new dialect: Oji-Cree (Cude 2001:76-77). According to Rhodes and Todd (1981:54) there are two types of mixed dialect where language boundaries mix. The first is a transitional type, "in which the sub-dialect within the community is fairly uniform but shares features with each of the two dialects on whose common boundary it sits." Here the older speakers would retain their own dialect whereas the younger speakers would speak the mixed transitional dialect. The second type is mixed, "in which two or more dialects are spoken side by side showing little convergence" (Rhodes and Todd 1981:54). La Verendrye names various groups along the north shore of Lake Superior and westward towards Lake
Winnipeg that spoke "corrupted" Cristinaux (Cree) and a bad "Sauteux (Ojibwa) with a lot of accents" (Greenberg and Morrison 1982:80). As a result La Verendrye was the first to record various forms of Oji-Cree, Ojibwa with Cree influences, and Cree with Ojibwa influences as characteristic of some Indigenous settlements around the north shore of Lake
Superior and in the Boundary Waters region (Cude 2001:77). Linguistically this poses interpretation problems, and complicates the identification of ethnic boundaries, making the problem of linguistic identification much more complicated than Wright (1965:189) implies. 37
The switching and adaptation of various names for one people is believed to be the reason for the sudden appearance of the name "Ojibwa" in some parts of Northern Ontario
(c.f. Bishop 1974, 1976, 1982). Greenberg and Morrison (1982:75) oppose the popular hypothesis presented by Bishop (1974, 1975, 1982) and claim the "emergence of the
Northern Ojibwa was nothing more than the diffusion of the term "Ojibwa" to ethnic units known at contact under a host of different names". Though the evidence used to support this hypothesis has been challenged by Daniel G. Cude (2001:85), there is some validity in the claim that in some instances terms were used interchangeably from one Indigenous group to the next in certain locales by fur traders and Jesuits. Father Dablon, in the 1667-
1671 relations (Thwaites 1959 54:127) states that upper Algonquians are commonly given the name Outuouaks [or Outuoacs]; of which there are more than 30 different nations found to the north. "The first to come to our French settlements were the Outouaks, whose name afterwards remained with all the others". There were admitted cases where names were used interchangeably without regard to actual ethnic identity but that does not, in the case of the northern Ojibwa, explain the emergence of the group as a whole, and Jesuits, after 1660, repeatedly make mention of groups from the east now living in the west.
2.26 The Likely Scenario
It is not until the late 1660s that the population movements begin to be experienced and recorded by the Jesuits along the shores of Lake Superior. By this time it has been shown that many peoples from the Lake Huron basin had been displaced westward in order to avoid the Iroquois. The demographics for the 1670s had been greatly changed by population movements caused by European trade goods and the Iroquois wars. The Crees were the first to be associated with the Northern part of the Lake but it is not known if they 38 lived on the shoreline. It is not until 1670 that Dablon states Ojibwa were on shore and this is the source most often cited by archaeologists. Without early eyewitness accounts we
cannot determine with certainty who were the original inhabitants of the coastal areas of
Pukaskwa National Park and who may have been the builders of cobble features on the relict beaches. It is known that both Cree and Ojibwa occupied the area at one time and that the Nipissing may have used the north shore while they migrated from Lake Nipissing to Lake Nipigon. We know that during early historic times this area was occupied by
speakers of the Algonquian language, therefore Algonquian-speaking peoples may be responsible for the cobble features, but only if they were not built prior to the diffusion of the proto-Algonquian language from the Columbia plateau. It is still important to note that
despite the similarities between the groups under the Algonquian linguistic heading there is variation among Algonquian-speaking peoples' cosmological practices which would leave
different archaeological foot prints.
2.3 Summary
The cobble features sites on the islands and coastline of Lake Superior's northern
shore were Ontario archaeologists' first encounter with features built in stone. Since the
cobble features initial discovery, other sites containing soil and sand rather than cobbles, have indicated that stones were used to cover burials, outline hearths, outlined the perimeter of dwellings, and indicated the presence of post moulds. Features are a rare occurrence on archaeological sites in the Upper Great Lakes prior to the Middle Woodland and even then there is still a paucity of features in the archaeological record. 39
As time progressed, the repeatedly occupied summer camp sites of the Archaic became larger and were occupied for longer periods of time. During the Woodland period these sites become large enough aggregations of people to be called base camps for local subsistence activities. Sites were usually located on open areas adjacent to good fishing locations. The varied ceramic assemblages on sites dating to the Terminal Woodland and the diversity of ceramics recovered at the Pic river site compared to the Michipicoten site indicate that the north shore of Lake Superior had many visitors through time and that the land was settled by people who came from east, south and west of the lake. This may indicate that the Indigenous cultures were in flux and migrating over large expanses of land prior to the changes recorded by the Jesuits in the seventeenth century as a result of the fur trade and Iroquois wars.
The fluid nature of population movements and the likely reality of multi-cultural and multi-lingual gatherings of people complicate the use of the direct historic approach and the assigning of material culture to specific linguistic groups. The use of the direct historical approach is also brought into question for the north shore of Lake Superior by the late eye witness accounts for the north shore. 40
CHAPTER 3: HISTORICAL REVIEW OF VISION QUESTS IN ARCHAEOLOGY
The Vision Quest hypothesis, revised by Ken Dawson (1975), is an ongoing legacy in cobble feature research and has made an appearance in print as recently as 2007 (Julig
2007). Though the majority of the Vision Quest hypothesis's supporters were initially
Norman Emerson's students, the cosmological interpretation of cobble features has remained unchallenged and a new generation of archaeologists now accept the Vision
Quest hypothesis as the explanation and analogy for cobble feature sites. This chapter examines the Vision Quest hypothesis, the emergence of religion as an explanatory device in North American anthropology, and vision quests in North American Indigenous society.
The role analogy has played in interpretation, will also be discussed as will alternative explanations offered by archaeologists who do not support the Vision Quest hypothesis.
3.1 Supporters of the Vision Quest Hypothesis
3.11 Patrick Julig
Patrick Julig (2007), in a brief report, described a cobble feature found in Killarney
Provincial Park on the coast of Georgian Bay. The Killarney Pit site (BIHi-10), located on the western edge of Killarney Provincial Park yielded one cobble feature, a "typical
Pukaskwa Pit", with a long axis of 2.3 m by 2.0 m (Julig 2007:10). A socio-religion interpretation for the site is inferred by Julig based on similarities between the feature in
Killarney and the ones reported by Dawson (1975) in Pukaskwa National Park. Julig
(2007:10) classifies the stone feature as Dawson's Type A (Invocation structure), an
'oracle grot' that would have been used by Algonquian shamans. 41
When dating the feature Julig uses lichen growth as well as the vertical stratigraphy of the strand lines. By comparing lichen growth in the pit versus the surrounding beach,
Julig suggested that the pit was created 500 years ago or less, making the time of construction in the proto-historic or just after European contact (Julig 2007:10). However, lichenometric studies were undertaken at the Swallow Bay site (28H64) in Pukaskwa
National Park (Farvaque 1994:222) and it was determined that using this dating technique was inappropriate south of the Sub-Arctic because the growth rate of lichens was too variable to provide suitable dates (Farvaque 1994:225).
Julig discounts an alternative explanation for the cobble feature stating that "it could be a hunting pit, but this is considered unlikely as it has all the features and context of a "typical Pukaskwa Pit" (Julig 2007:9). What is a "typical Pukaskwa Pit"? Initially,
Pukaskwa Pits were elongated oval features with low walls and corresponding depressions where cobbles were removed to form the interiors (Mcllwraith 1958:41). However since the cosmological interpretation, the term 'Pukaskwa Pit' has come to mean any feature composed of cobbles found in isolation. This latest article goes to show the unchallenged power the Vision Quest hypothesis has had and the persistent strength of cosmological analogies for "unusual" and "enigmatic" archaeological phenomenon.
3.12 James Wright
James Wright (1963, 1995, 1999, 2004) propounded an interpretation of cobble features found on the north shore of Lake Superior and in southeastern Manitoba as cosmological in origin because the "pits" are generally situated in isolated areas exposed to the elements (Wright 1995:290, 1999:729). During his fieldwork at the Pays Piatt site,
Wright (1999:771) reports to have been taken to a cobble feature by Mr. Lawrence
Mushwash, an Indigenous elder, who described the cobble ring as a Thunderbird Nest. 42
Thunderbirds are supernatural beings in the traditional belief system of northern
Algonquians as well as other Indigenous people (Wright 1999:771). As a result these sites would have been used for various rituals connected with the Thunderbird.
The Pays Piatt feature was located 45 m back on a high ridge overlooking the river
to the west. It has an interior diameter of 1.7 m and an exterior diameter of approximately
7.0m, largely due to some of the walls collapsing (Wright 1999:771). The walls are
composed of large boulders ranging from 0.3 to 0.6 m in diameter, but the natural land
surface, sand, is the floor of the pit. Wright reminds archaeologists that it is "probably impossible to determine with any certainty the function of these structures, it would appear that a socio-religious function most closely conforms to the evidence" (Wright 1963:7).
Furthermore, the fact that Wright was told that cobble feature sites were used for
cosmological purposes raises important issues regarding archaeology's influence on
aboriginal communities and raises concerns about the purported phenomenology of these
sites.
Space is socially produced (Tilley 1994:10) and these culturally constructed landscapes, which embody the ancestors, change through time (Chapman 2006:521). The
form of the cobble features does not appear to have changed but, for subsequent generations, the way these features have been experienced and the meaning they held for their users likely has changed. Howey and O'Shea (2009:195) indicate that "ritual systems are no more inherently stable or unchanging than any other aspect of culture". Though the repetitive element of ritual produces material signatures that are readily open to archaeological investigation, the appearance of consistent physical elements does conceal changes in social order since the physical elements of ritual are maintained to help neutralize and legitimize the transforming practices (Howey and O'Shea 2009:195). 43
Therefore Mr. Lawrence Mushwash's interpretation of the site may reflect more recent
generation's relationship to this site.
3.13 Kenneth Dawson
Kenneth Dawson (discussed in Chapter Two) is an important supporter of the
Vision Quest hypothesis because it is now his work that archaeologists turn to for
interpretation of other sites. Through his work, the Vision Quest hypothesis lives on and has been further sub-divided into other cosmological categories. Dawson (1975:21-
33;1977:260) divided the five types of features discovered during his 1974 summer survey of the Pukaskwa National Park coast into four functional groups: invocation structures
(type A), living floors (type B), dedication structures (type C), and hearth features (type
D). Invocation structures were then further divided into oracle grots (typical Pukaskwa
Pits, circular, oblong), vision quest pits (circular, oblong), and conjurer's lodges.
Dedication structures were believed to be cairns or mounds where gifts were given to the
spirits (Dawson 1977:261). Invocation and dedication structures made up 64% of the
features recovered, therefore the sites were considered to be primarily for ceremonial purposes (Dawson 1975:30; 1977:262).
3.14 Patrick Carmichael
Patrick Carmichael (1979:100, 1981:290), offers multiple interpretations for the three cobble features found in southeastern Manitoba at the Thunderbird site on Lake
Wanipigow but, in the end, favours a cosmological interpretation. Carmichael (1979:100-
101, 1981:290) believes the circles were built to assist in divining the future because, he feels, they are obvious places to seek the Thunderbird as a guardian spirit. Carmichael further constructs his interpretation around an ethnographic analogy based on the power of 44 seeking spirit helpers in Ojibwa religion and goes on to discuss special practitioners, called
Jessakkids, who are specialist prophets, and diviners who can see into the future
(Carmichael 1979:104). Carmichael (1981:28) states that "no plausible utilitarian function has been suggested to date" and that he is left with the assumption that the cobble features, which he calls Thunderbird Nests, are of religious significance. In the case of the
Thunderbird site, one of the three stone features was located in the middle of a habitation site.
The Ojibwa migration story indicates the arrival of the Ojibwa in Manitoba is late in the province's prehistory. According to Ojibwa historian William Warren (1984:108-
112[1885]), the Ojibwa migration from eastern Canada was thought to begin in 1300AD
and to finish at the Straights of Macinac approximately 300 years later. The population then dispersed and spread to the north and southern shores of Lake Superior and into
Manitoba. This is all believed to have taken place around 1600AD and makes using the presence of historic Indigenous populations for a direct historic analogy of the features dangerous as it may misrepresent the past. Cultural debris was found in the wall of one of the nests which indicates it was in use at the site during an Archaic occupation (Carmichael
1979:105).
According to George Barker (1979:7), former chief of the Hallow Water Reserve on the Wanipigow River in Manitoba, wild rice harvested in September was placed into a cache made of rocks placed in a circular shape like a big nest. Birch bark was placed on the bottom, then the rice was poured in and covered with another layer of birch bark. Food was collected and stored as part of a group effort and people would revisit the site when more rice was required. Wild rice is considered a sacred food (Susan Jamieson, personal communication 2009) and its collection and storage is a more plausible explanation than 45 vision quests to explain the function of the cobble feature found on the Thunderbird site.
Fish caches and fox traps, as seen on the Labrador coast, may have also been used in this area and would have had similar morphological characteristics (Cath Oberholtzer, personal communication 2009). While this is a possibility, it does not account for all the features recovered. The north shore of Lake Superior does not have wild rice today and likely did not support any in the past, but the Rainy River, Lake of the Woods and Lake Winnipeg area do have wild rice and cobble features have been reported in these areas. Through time, as needs changed, these features may have served different purposes in Indigenous societies.
3.75 William Noble
Features discovered in Algonquin Park in the late 1960s, despite the different physiology of the landscape (i.e., they are not found on cobble beaches), were deemed to have been used for spiritual purposes. William Noble (1968:61), due to the low recovery rate of artefacts, the separation of the pits from a habitation site, and the "very nature of the features themselves", made a comparative analogy with the cobble pits found on the north shore of Lake Superior, and assumed a socio-religious functions for the 31 rock lined pits found on Rock Lake. Noble felt that the site area and the close grouping of the pits ruled out other interpretations such as hunting pits, storage repositories, snares or fish traps. The interpretation favoured by Noble (1986:62), one of Norman Emerson's students, was that the rock lined structures represent "vision pits" constructed and utilized during aboriginal socio-religious ritual.
Other archaeologists believe that rock-lined pits were created and used as storage facilities (c.f Molnar 1991:107; Smith and McNees 1999:125; Stopp 1994:81). The use of stones as pit liners was integral to the construction of subterranean storage features (Stopp 46
1994:81) because the slab lining may have been a deterring factor to rodents and other pests and may have functioned to prevent the basin from collapsing (Smith and McNees
1999:125). In this case, the interpretation of the past is a product of the present. Noble used the cosmological interpretation of cobble features to explain an archaeological phenomenon, rock-lined pits, on a 'traditional' (soil and subsoil) site. This analogy is weak and should be questioned. The Algonquin Park pits were not found on a cobble beach, there was organic material (Noble 1978:50), and a few historic artefacts in the pits that were excavated (Noble 1968:50).
3.2 Religion and Vision Quests in North American Archaeology
The first analysis of the indigenous religions in North America was presented by
th the French Jesuit missionaries in Nouvelle-France (Hultkrantz 1966:92). During the 19 and early 20th centuries, anthropologists and ethnologists believed that the indigenous ~ cultures were quickly dying out (Trigger 1989:5), and as a result archaeology was not a primary concern and the interest in indigenous folklore and mythology grew strong as researchers recorded all available information. One of the problems with the early anthropological writing was that it had a naive evolutionary bias (Hultkrantz 1966:102).
Evolutionary approaches in anthropology began in the 1860s and these ideas were popularized by John Lubbock's book, Prehistoric Times, as Illustrated by Ancient
Remains, and the Manners and Customs of Modern Savages (Trigger 2006:166, 171) and
L.H. Morgan's book (1877) Ancient Societies. Both Lubbock and Morgan's book provided a Darwinian explanation for the imagined biological inferiority of indigenous populations
(Trigger 2006:177). 47
Between 1860 and 1910, archaeology in the United States was growing (Trigger
2006:187). Franz Boas, who disproved of unilinear evolutionism, influenced anthropology and the study of indigenous religion from 1892 to 1925 (Hultkrantz 1967:183). Boas, and later his students, viewed religion as an expression of the same dynamic factors which operate on culture (Hultkrantz 1967:184). As a result, a growing opposition to evolutionary archaeology began to grow and decades after 1914 the idea that indigenous cultures had changed and developed was accepted and regional chronologies began to be built (Trigger
2006:288). Unfortunately the stereotypes of the indigenous North Americans formulated prior to World War I remained (Trigger 2006:288, 289). Functional interpretations of prehistoric lifeways before the 1930s were superficial and based on intuition rather than empirical research (Rouse 1972:147).
Early ethnographic accounts of indigenous religion were biased by romantic expectations and as a result revealed the uncontrolled imagination of the authors
(Hultkrantz 1966:102,103). These ethnologies were concerned with data collecting rather than with theorizing. Dixon (1908) published an outline of North American shamanistic complex (Hultkrantz 1981:62), and published on the food restrictions and offerings required to connect with one's guardian spirit. Dixon's work implies that the quest for a guardian spirit was well known prior to his publication: "it goes without saying almost, that the most widespread method is that of fasting and solitude" (Dixon 1908:4, 5). This work was written during the time period where the racial Darwinian terms "semi- civilized" or "savage" (Dixon 1908:1) were frequently used to describe the people being studied. Indigenous peoples were believed to have not developed culturally and were doomed into extinction since they were inferior to Europeans. 48
During the early part of the twentieth century, archaeology became more professionalized and there was a split between anthropologists who were concerned with ethnographic work and archaeologists. Paul Radin's (1914, 1936) ethnographic works focused on two Woodland tribes, the Ojibwa and Odawa. His publications concentrated solely on dreams and visions for these two peoples (Hultkrantz 1967:193). However, Ruth
Benedict's (1923) famous book on guardian spirits is credited as being the work that refocused attention to the "characteristically North American vision quest" (Hultkrantz
1981:62) and established the vision quest in a new generation of anthropologists' and archaeologists' imaginations.
3.3 The Role of Vision Quests in Indigenous North America
The vision quest often stands at the core of North American indigenous religious traditions (Gill 1982:97), or at least our understanding of it. The act of fasting and dreaming in isolation began at a young age in most indigenous North American societies and continued to be a useful tool into adulthood. In the Ojibwa culture of Great Lakes area it was the practice to begin very early in a child's life to prepare him or her with short fasts for the vision quest at puberty (Gill 1982:97). Ojibwa girls were expected to participate at the time of their first menstruation (Gill 1982:98). For the Lake Winnipeg Saulteaux, boys would travel to remote locations in the bush to achieve a vision; once there they would fast and meditate to make contact with their guardian spirit (Steinbring 1981:251). There is discrepancy in the writing on vision quests as to whether or not women were involved in the practice. This may be an indication of subtle differences between different groups within a linguistic tradition or it may be the result of observer bias in early ethnographic accounts. 49
At the heart of vision quests is the notion that the Cree, Ojibwa and other
Algonquian Indigenous peoples of the Great Lakes region have 'manitous' -spirits that infuse everything (Leeming and Page 1998:70). Dreams are the vehicles for the journey to the manitous' homes (Rajnovich 2002:23). Manitous are believed to exist on another level of reality and one of the ways to gain access to this reality is through a dream (Dumont
1976:76). The purpose of the dream fast is to establish circular vision, total viewing of the world, and to maintain a relationship to non-ordinary reality through one's life (Dumont
1976:75,78). High ground was very important because it was believed the higher the ground the easier it would be to connect with the spirit world (Gray 2007:8).
Once in adulthood, the vision quest falls into three classes: success in the hunt, success on the war path, and obtaining knowledge for the curing of sickness (Landes
1968:33). Dreaming offered a partial interpretation of productive activities (Tanner
1979:126). For example dreaming was the most common way for hunters to learn about their hunting success in advance (Tanner 1979:125). Vision quests beyond puberty were most commonly conducted by skilled individuals who used their dreams to acquire medicine to help the people around them. There are three types of medicine practitioners: the Jessakid, Midewiwin, and Wabeno (Rajnovich 2002:28). Jessakids are specialists in communicating with the manitous and are considered to be prophets and seers; they are the practitioners of the shaking tent ceremony (Carmichael 1979:104; Hallowell 1942:59). The
Midewiwin, also known as the Grand Medicine society, which has eight degrees that preserves traditional knowledge and brings long life and health to the Ojibwa people
(Johnston 1982:95). The Wabeno, believed to be the most recent form of healer among the
Ojibwa, was feared because it was believed they conducted "bad medicine" to inflict harm or death on their enemies" (Rajnovich 2002:29). Medicine men had to dream about each 50
and every item that existed on the land before they could use it to heal someone: "they have to dream these things first if they want to understand them" (Gray 2007:89-90).
Vision quests conducted in adulthood were a ritualized part of everyday life and often did
not take place in isolation.
3.4 Symbols Created By Dreams
Physical traces of dreams may be left behind by the dreamers. Dreams were often drawn on people's clothing and their bodies but the meaning of the drawings remains
secret until the dreamer deems it time to use the power of the dream (Rajnovich 2002:23).
Teachings from the dreams may also be left on the landscape where they were drawn or pecked into stone. On the Canadian Shield every place where rock paintings occur is
special (Rajnovich 2002:10). They mark places certain manitous call home and were painted by the seekers of medicine (Rajnovich 2002:11). The rocks themselves are recognized as being living beings and are believed to have their own manitous (Taylor
2004:5). Besides picture writing, other activities connected with medicine are the shaking tent ceremony and dog sacrifice (Rajnovich 2002:18).
Petroforms, a feature that usually takes the form of an animal, are created by
arranging cobbles on flat bedrock or ground surface. Most are believed to have been created for cosmological ritual (Wright 1995:560). In eastern Manitoba on the Shield, there are some 40 indigenous boulder arrangements and at least two in northwestern Ontario
(Steinbring 1971:2). Most of the sites consist of geometries and effigies laid out on open granite tablerock: circles, birds, snakes, turtles, human effigies, parallel or single boulder lines, connecting lines (or "pathways"), triangles, crosses, heaps or cairns, oblong or elliptical enclosures, and rectangular enclosures (Steinbring 1971:2). 51
Petroforms have also been recovered in the Mattawa River Region of North Bay.
The features are all located at the extremities of lakes, at rivers flowing in or out, and at
portages (Tyyska and Burns 1973:28). The four features all include precisely defined
pathways that lead to enclosed spaces, and two of the structures are associated with
petro forms (Tyyska and Burns 1973:28). Large scale free manipulation of stone implies
summer aggregation when social interaction and group ceremonies occurred (Tyyska and
Burns 1973:30).
There was a culture historic assumption in early research, that a single linguistic or
ethnic group is responsible for the creation of rock art (c.f Buchner 1973:11), has been replaced by the belief that similarities in North American rock art denote certain
shamanistic activities common to most Indigenous North American religions (Keysner and
Whitley 2006:3). Dewdney (1970) was one of the first researchers to propose that there
was a relationship between the latitudinal physiographic alignments of rock images and the
images on Mide birch bark scrolls (Steinbring 1971:3). Petroform sites in the continental
centre are possibly related to Shield pictographs and petroglyphs and the two may share an
extensive history with the formation and spread of the basic Algonquian cultural
configuration (Steinbring 1971:5). Hall (1960), having interviewed Old Joe Black of the
Hollow Water Band, indicates that the petro forms were used in ceremonies of the Grand
Medicine Society (Danziger and Callaghan 1983:155).
Petroforms, pictographs and petroglyphs are examples of sites which use rock to
form features or to convey messages that are believed to be used for cosmological purposes or created as the result of cosmological ritual. 52
3.5 The Role of Analogies
The majority of the supporters of the Vision Quest hypothesis evidently have not done their own research, instead they have uncritically drawn similarities between cobble features found in a variety of different context and those on the Lake Superior shoreline.
The superficial similarity of these features has allowed them to superimpose the interpretation. Little work has been done to support the Vision Quest hypothesis since
1975, and new archaeological finds are simply inventoried, reported and labelled with the existing hypothesis.
An ongoing problem in archaeology is how to identify and understand ritual and ritual behaviour in the material cultural record. Ritual activity is a reflexive explanation used by archaeologists but is primarily the field of study for anthropologists and ethnologists (Hulkrantz 1966:91). Archaeologists have largely viewed religion as subjective or impossible to access from material culture (Howey and O'Shea 2006:261).
Robert Lowie and Frank Speck claimed that because archaeologists could study only material culture, they were unable to theorize about nonmaterial culture (Trigger
2006:265), but most notably Christopher Hawkes (1954:162) presented a ladder of inference in which religion was entirely outside the acceptable realm of archaeological enquiry (Howey and O'Shea 2006:261). The theoretical tides have changed once more and recent researchers Howey and O'Shea (2009) believe that, contrary to early culture historic theory, material culture can be used to study the meaning of ritual behaviour.
The quest for ritual meaning in archaeology has two approaches: internal and external meaning (Howey and O'Shea 2009:198). The first looks for internal meaning and employs universal models that rely on ethnographic analogy and is interested in emotive state and is linked with early archaeological theory (Howey and O'Shea 2009:198). The 53
second, external, seeks to understand what ritual meant to the social and economic
organization of societies (Howey and O'Shea 2009:198,199). The external researcher uses
the material record to contextualize ritual practice within its specific social setting (Howey
and O'Shea 2009:199). The search for external meaning is a new approach which theorizes
that ritual can be studied via material culture since the structure and function of ritual
rather than the specific details are what archaeologists believe their work can uncover
(Howey and O'Shea 2009:197). Howey and O'Shea's (2006, 2009) recent works attempts
to demonstrate that ritual has a practiced component which leaves material signatures in
the archaeological record. These physical traces show that ritual is more than just a mental
construct and that the patterned and repetitive practices are readily open to archaeologists
for investigation.
Since prehistoric hunting and fishing activities cannot be directly observed,
archaeologists reconstruct them with the help of the materials in the ground and
ethnographic accounts. Archaeologists use analogies as a method for explaining most, if
not all, inferences about the archaeological record (Hodder 1999:47). There are three
criteria that must be met for a sound analogy: one, the cultures must be environmentally
comparable, two, culturally comparable and three, a certain degree of continuity must exist between them (Sharer and Ashmore 1979:464 in Hamilton and Larcomb 1994:20). To
fulfil one of the requirements for a good analogy, archaeologists studying hunter-gatherer
societies show cultural continuity between two groups by using the direct historic
approach. Analogies based on the direct historic approach "often involve unfounded assumptions concerning the ethno-linguistic derivation of the distinctive artefacts or other archaeological traits, and geo-political and kin relationship" (Hamilton and Larcomb
1994:20). As a result of the inferential leaps made by the direct historic approach, abuse of 54
ethnographic analogy is common and occurs when a few traits are used as the basis for interpreting the entire form of a culture (Hamilton and Larcomb 1994:20).
Dawson's work in Pukaskwa National Park is an example of circular logic and a questionable use of ethnographic analogy. Dawson assigns contemporary ethno-linguistic
cultural affiliations to cobble features based on a single common trait using a series of
assumptions: rock features served as vision quest structures, the historic Algonquian
engaged in vision quests therefore the people who constructed the features were ancestral
Algonquians (Hamilton and Larcombe 1994:20). Dawson misuses ethnographic analogy when he utilizes it to explain an entire archaeological phenomenon based on one example
of features assumed to have served for ritual activity. Instead of using the ethnographic material as proof for his conclusion, Dawson should have used ethnographic analogy in
one of three ways: as a source for ideas, as a buttress to an argument, or as a test for his
interpretation (Hodder 1999:46). Dawson uses ethnographic analogy to draw conclusions between whole cultures rather than between feature types. Ethnographic analogy cannot be used to further the Vision Quest hypothesis because no ethnographic or ethnohistoric documents contain accounts of structures being built from cobbles for vision quests or other cosmological purposes, and there is no recorded information which indicates why cobble beaches would have been used solely for vision quests.
3.6 Alternatives to the Vision Quest Hypothesis
3.61 Parks Canada
Research on cobble features in Pukaskwa National Park has been conducted by
Parks Canada since 1989 and with this research they have developed new hypotheses concerning the function of these features. Parks Canada believes temporary shelters could 55 be represented in the archaeological record as oval pits with basin-shaped floors (Ross et al
1998:155) that may have served as single person habitations, possibly lean-to structures, where watercraft would have been used as a partial shelter. Recurring utilization of a site could have warranted the construction and reuse of semi-permanent cobble stone structures
(Ross 1994:121). So-called paves, levelled surfaces where the larger rocks have been sorted out of the cobble mixture and only small stones remain, are believed to be living floors that would have formed the inside of teepees and wigwams (Ross and D'Annibale
2000:163). Pave surfaces are either round or rectangular. Pole supports are also documented on the Pukaskwa shoreline and are interpreted as being for the drying and smoking offish (Brian Ross personal communication 2007). Small, circular, sometimes pitted features have been interpreted as hearths (Ross and D'Annibale 1995: 24; 1996:117
2000:163). Simple circular pits averaging 1.3 m in diameter and 0.2 m deep and some smaller oval pits are believed to be opened cache pits (Ross et al. 1998:155; Smith
1910:15,51). These pits may have been temporary storage for food, or may have held tools and equipment left behind for future use. Mounds are believed to be unopened cache pits
(Ross and D'Annibale .1996:118; Ross et al. 1998:155).
3.62 Max Friesen
In order to identify appropriate analogues for the Iqualuktuuq project, Max Friesen
(2002:338) has directly linked elder traditional knowledge to the interpretation of the archaeological record. He has surpassed traditional shortfalls of analogical inference by not using the direct historic approach. He recognizes that the environment did not determine the respective lifeways of the Palaeo-Eskimo and Neo-Eskimo but, because of the differences between the two, environmental variables did play a role in the constraints posed on the people of the Arctic (Friesen 2002:339). Keeping the differences in mind, 56
Friesen focused on the similarities one would expect in "economic, technological, social
and ideological structures closely linked to the landscapes and environments" (Friesen
2002:339) using traditional knowledge of the Inuit elders and ethnographic sources in this regard.
The Iqualuktuuq project focuses on the Ekalluk River region of southeastern
Victoria Island, Nunavut, and includes the study of archaeological sites on cobble fields.
Features built from cobbles on these cobble fields include Late Dorset 'longhouses'
(spectacular boulder enclosures measuring 6 m in length respectively (Friesen 2002:340),
interpreted as warm season aggregation (Friesen 2004:687)), tent rings, and food caches
(Friesen 2001:324).
3.63 Marianne Stopp
Cobble feature sites in northern Quebec and Labrador have been attributed to
Palaeo-Eskimo activities. Cobble beaches are present in northern Newfoundland and
coastal Labrador. On the western shore of Notre Dame Bay, Newfoundland, and along the
Labrador coast between Blanc-Sablon and Partridge Bay, 38 cobble beach sites (209
features) are recorded (Stopp 1994:71), with the most common feature types being circular or oval in plan view.
Cobble beach feature sites are assumed to date to the prehistoric period. Two types of features, level "floors" or bases of smaller cobbles surrounded by larger cobbles (Stopp
1997:73) may represent tent foundations. Conical pits dug into cobble beaches with cobble build up around the outer rim, are interpreted as food storage features (Stopp 1997:131).
Ethnographic evidence from the Arctic and from Labrador further suggests that stone cache pits are characteristic of Arctic adapted peoples such as the Inuit; there is no ethnographic evidence of Indian or European usage of such features (Stopp 2002:12). 57
Burial cairns are also reported and are believed to be a hallmark of the cultural landscape - the living population invests such places with cultural and spiritual meaning, as links in times and space that create a sense of belonging to place (Stopp 2002:13).
3.64 Brian Phillips
Cobble features have also been reported in Wauswaugoning Bay on the western
shore of Lake Superior south of the U.S.-Canada border. These features were discovered by Brian A.M. Phillips while conducting geological surveys along Lake Superior's shore
(Brian Phillips, personal communication 2007). The features usually occur as depressions on the surface of terraced relict cobble beaches and gravel beach ridges (Phillips 1999). A rampart of debris removed from the depression often surrounds them and some are
certainly large enough to have been used as temporary bivouac (Phillips 1999). Phillips
(1999) believes that the proposal that some may have been used as vision quest sites is an interesting one, but enigmatic.
3.65 James Molnar
The Hunter's Point site (BfHg-3), discovered by William Fox (Garrad 1995:32) is a
Middle and Late Woodland period hunting and fishing camp on the Georgian Bay side of the Bruce Peninsula, just below the Niagara Escarpment (Molnar 1991:104). The habitation area is 1.5 ha in extent and is situated on a relict strand of dolostone cobbles. It is believed to be a temporary fishing and hunting camp. Seventy-three pits run in rows along the raised strandlines that occur around the perimeter of the site (Molnar 1991:107,
1992:90).
One cobble pit was excavated. The cobble pit was 2 m wide and 50 cm deep
(Molnar 1992:90). Flat cobbles were arranged to form the bowl-shaped base of the pit, 58 which was lined with flat limestone slabs set on an angle, suggesting a lining for a storage pit (Molnar 1991:107). Two sherds of Late Woodland vessels, as well as fish and bird bones, were recovered from inside this feature (Molnar 1991:107). Artefacts were also recovered just below the surface cobbles including hundreds of fragmented pottery sherds, fish remains and corn kernels (Molnar: 1992:90). Below the cobble slabs, pieces of a complete vessel similar to the Black Necked type were recovered. This dates the lower portion of the pit to the late prehistoric/contact period and, along with European trade axes encountered elsewhere on the site places site occupation in the AD 1630-50 period. Late
Woodland Odawa peoples are believed to have used the site (Molnar 1991:107). Fish bones, lithic tools, and the bones of a hawk or eagle were also recovered from the lower portion of this pit indicating that it may not have been used for storage (Molnar 1993:141).
Only one of the seventy-three pits discovered during surveys was not bowl-shaped. It is made up of flat slabs of rocks stacked in a two by four meter rectangle (Molnar 1993:137).
According to Molnar (1997:110), investigations at the Hunter's Point site and at nearby Cape Croker suggest that the cobble beach tradition of the Bruce Peninsula is different from the one on Lake Superior. Fitzgerald and Romanowski (1996:107-108, in
Molnar 1997:111) claim to have excavated two cobble pits, one at the Hunter's Point site and the other at Cape Croker that contained human burials. Fitzgerald and Romanowski believe that all of these pits were used as part of Odawa ceremonialism for burial.
3.67 Peter Carruthers
Peter Carruthers (1982:10) feels that there is little evidence to support the foregoing cosmological interpretation of cobblestone pits on the Limestone Islands in Georgian Bay.
He claims that biologists studied the pits in 1961 and proposed they represented a settlement pattern of semi-subterranean houses, and he indicates that cobblestone beaches 59 were one of the few places people could live in the area during prehistory (Carruthers
1982:11).
Carruthers excavated on North Limestone Island where four clusters of pits were located and on South Limestone Island which contained two clusters (consisting of four pits and an isolated pit). These pits are round, oval, square and rectangular features 4 to 7 m in diameter and 0.5 to 1.10m deep. Earth was thrown up around their edges to form an encircling embankment. Granitic boulders and limestone slabs on the embankments could have served as pole supports which, in turn, were covered by hides. Cairns were also found on both islands (Carruthers 1982:11). The number of pits recorded at the twenty- nine sites in the Great Lakes also suggests that the area supported more people than has been thought (Carruthers 1982:11).
Material recovered from test pits included quartz and chert scrapers, as well as rim and body sherds similar to Michigan Peninsular Woodland and Algonquian vessels. The existence of the artefacts in the pits and the lack of ethnographic evidence for the use of pits for vision quests causes Carruthers to propose that the Limestone Island's pits were the seasonally inhabited dwellings of fishing and hunting peoples (Caruthers 1982:11).
3.68 Thor Conway
Sixteen cobble beach sites were located along the Lake Superior Provincial Park shoreline between St Mary's River rapids and Michipicoten Harbour during archaeological surveys carried out in 1973. These sites tended to be large, therefore not all the data for them was reported (Conway 1975:23). The Radisson site (CkIf-2) had six distinct pits and two artificial terraces. One feature was a pave, where the stones were intentionally sorted to produce a smooth, levelled surface. The Des Groseillers (CkIf-3) site had rectangular structures with walls dividing features into smaller units. These were found on the highest 60 terrace (Conway 1975:23). A large pit and a circular activity area also were located on the older terrace. Six cobble structures were built on the first ancient beach ridge. They had circular paved floors with low walls and an entrance with walls approximately 0.91 m (3 ft) wide and 1.22 m (4 ft) in length. Chert thinning flakes and cut birch bark with stitching perforations were recovered from features on the lowest terraces (Conway 1975:23).
Conway (1975:17) believed that bands tended to cluster around a nuclear area, and that Lake Superior was an attractive summer resource. The circular paved features were believed to be habitation areas (Conway 1975:23). The fisheries of Lake Superior and major rivers were exploited during summer and early fall, and many satellite sites, believed to be located on cobble beaches were occupied (Conway 1975:19).
Conway worked in the Temagami area in the 1980s where he collected local indigenous accounts regarding cobble features (Kollobok 2006). Alex Missabi, a retired trapper from the Bear Island Reserve, told Thor Conway in 1982 about an island in a nearby lake where Temagamis dug pits to hide from the Iroquois. Alex's grandfather, Old
Msabi, told him of the lore of the area. According to Missabi, several pits along islands were dug by the Temagami to watch for Iroquois raiding parties. Conway, in August 1982, searched the top of the island in question and located three man-made cobble pits along the crest of the steep ridge. Two of the pits were about 1.52 m to 2.44 m (5 to 8 ft) in diameter.
After consulting with older Temagami members, the only reference to these pits that was made was in connection with Nadoway (Iroquois) raids. Conway concludes by saying the pits on Garden Island are located at the best vantage point for a lookout (Kollobok 2006).
3.69 Harlan I. Smith
Along the Yakima Valley, part of the larger Columbia valley in Washington state, many pits have been found on the talus slope of the Yakima Ridge. On the north slope of 61 the Yakima Ridge the pits are believed to be the remains of rock slide graves from which the bodies had been removed. On the Naches River, old cache holes, small pits, and two pits surrounded by a circular ridge were believed to indicate an ancient semi-subterranean house site. On the west side of the Yakima, on a raised terrace which overlooks the mouth of the Naches River, a number of circles made up of angular rocks contained the remains of human cremations (Smith 1910:15). Small circular holes about 1.22 m (4 ft) in diameter, encircled by a slight ridge, are believed to be the remains of ancient food caches. Nez
Perce Indians refer to a field at Kamiah as being the site of winter cache pits (Smith
1910:55). Circle house rings, in several groups, about 7.62 m (25 ft) in diameter have also been located near middle fork of clear water river (Smith 1910:55). None of these features is interpreted as related to the vision quest, despite having superficially similar characteristics to cobble features.
3.7 Summary
Indigenous religion and ritual behaviour has long been the focus of anthropologists and ethnologists, and though it has captured archaeologist's imaginations, it has rarely been identified in the archaeological record. Ethnographic records are a rich source of resources for archaeologists, but they arguably have been uncritically used when deciphering hard-to-interpret sites. Poor use of ethnographic analogy led to the universal
'Vision Quest' hypothesis and superficial similarities between archaeological remains and the ethnographic records have spread the cosmological interpretation for cobble features found on the shore of Lake Superior to other sites on cobble beaches or other features made of cobbles. Ethnographic analogy can be a useful tool that provides controlled ways of reinterpreting data but a weak analogy occurs, as in the case of the Vision Quest 62 hypothesis, when ethnographic accounts are used as explanations rather than as a source of hypotheses to be tested (Binford 1972:52; Wylie 1989:26).
Alternative explanations have been offered for cobble features but they have been largely ignored in the literature. Living floors, cache pits, lookout pits, hearths and burials are viable alternative interpretations of cobble features. All of these functions have been used to interpret of cobble features (pits or cairns) on other sites. Rather than blindly accepting the Vision Quest hypothesis as a default explanation for cobble features, it is important to explore these alternatives via careful examination of the evidence. The following chapter discusses the data set obtained by Parks Canada used in this research, and, using the type designations for features recorded in the field, breaks down the data into sub-types based on the form (simple or compound) of features. Simple statistics are used to reveal information about the various types and sub-types present in this data set. 63
CHAPTER 4 THE DATA SET
The data on cobble features for this thesis was obtained from Parks Canada. Brian
Ross and his team from the Ontario Service Centre in Cornwall, and Public Works in
Gatineau have been locating and documenting "Pukaskwa Pits", starting with the southern portion of Pukaskwa National Park, since 1989. This chapter presents an overview of relevant geological and environmental information about Pukaskwa National Park, then
describes the data set and the methods used by Parks Canada to obtain it. The chapter
concludes with a discussion of the statistical methods used to summarize this data set and the goal behind the tests to be conducted in Chapter Five.
4.1 Pukaskwa National Park
Figure 4.1 Location of Pukaskwa National Park
Pukaskwa National Park is located on the northeast shore of Lake Superior (figure
4.1); it covers 128 km of shoreline and 1878 km2 of land (Farvaque 1997:114). The Park was conceived in 1973 (Farvaque 1994:4) to protect both the cultural and the natural heritage of the area. As a result, the Native inhabitants of the land that is now Pukaskwa
National Park were forced to relocate. Pukaskwa National Park is located on the southern edge of the Canadian Shield in the Lake Superior geological province (Smith and Foster 1982:11). More specifically it is
centered on the Pukaskwa Batholith, which is part of the Wawa Sub-Province of the
Superior Province, part of the Precambrian Shield (Farvaque 1994:12). The Precambrian
Canadian Shield bedrock is predominantly made up from igneous and metamorphic rock
(i.e. granite, feldspar and quartz) (Dunlop 1998:3); where exposed the bedrock has been
smoothed by repeated glacial advances, the last of which took place around 9800-9000 BP
(Dunlop 1998:3). Sedimentological and stratigraphic evidence supports the final deglaciation of the northern coast of Lake Superior around 9500 BP (Farvaque 1994:iv).
The coastline of Lake Superior is diverse and varies throughout Pukaskwa National
Park. The coastline has five types of geological Formations: rock slope, beach, beach slope, cliff and wetland (Smith and Foster 1982:12). The last surge of ice in the Superior basin approximately 9900 BP, known as the Marquette ice re-advance, left a series of large moraines and moraine belts along the Canadian coastline of Lake Superior (Farvaque
1994:15). Because of the advance and retreat of glacial activity and isostatic uplift, Lake
Superior is rimmed by the remains of strandlines of former post-glacial lakes occupying the basin (Phillips 1993:87; Smith and Foster 1982:13). The elevation range of a single terrace is often greater than that between sets of terraces, "so that the correlation of ridges
[terraces] by elevation is unrealistic" (Phillips 1982:140). As of yet, no cobble beaches in the park have been geologically dated (Smith and Foster 1982:13). Archaeologists in the past (i.e. Emerson, Wright) have used terrace heights to assign relative dates to features found at different heights, which is problematic since the water levels in the Lake Superior basin have not dropped consistently. Around c. 6000 BP areas south of the Pukaskwa
River experienced a brief transgression event during which the region was experiencing 65
warmer temperatures (Farvaque 1994:iv). The isostatic uplift and the minor climatic
fluctuations in the Lake Superior basin have resulted in oscillating lake levels as well as
generally rising land levels. Therefore, the edges of Glacial Lakes have been above and
below the present levels for Lake Superior (Phillips 1975:10).
Environmentally, the Lake Superior shoreline is part of the Canadian Biotic
Province (CIeland 1966:9) with the Hudsonian Province to the north and the Carolinian
Province to the south. The Canadian Biotic Province is a transitional one made up of flora
and fauna found in both the Hudsonian and Carolinian Provinces (Cleland 1966:5). In
other words, Pukaskwa National Park lies at the ecotone between the Boreal and Great
Lakes St. Lawrence lowland forest (Dunlop 1998:4). Both "plant and animal macro-and
micro-fossil evidence suggests elements of the Boreal and Great Lakes-St Lawrence forest
were firmly established by 7300 BP" (Farvaque 1994:iv).
The Boreal forest spreads west of the Nipigon River and east towards the
Michipicoten River (Wright 1963:2). The Boreal forest is predominantly made up of black
and white spruce, balsam fir, aspen, white birch, jack pine, larch, trembling aspen, balsam
poplar, and mountain ash (Dean 1994:13). According to Smith and Foster (1982) and
Dunlop (1998), this forest mix is common in Pukaskwa National Park's interior. The Great
Lakes-St Lawrence forest flanks the western and eastern distribution of the Boreal forest
and is largely composed of elm, red maple, ash, maple, beach, white pine, yellow and
white birch, aspen and hemlock (Cleland 1966:8; Wright 1963:2). The Great Lakes-St
Lawrence forest dominates the southeastern edge of the Park (Dunlop 1998: 4; Farvaque
1997:114).
The area of Pukaskwa National Park adjacent to the Lake Superior coast is botanically similar to the rest of the Park but also contains Arctic-Alpine plant 66 communities in harsh and exposed areas due to the effects of the maritime climate caused by Lake Superior (Dunlop 1998:4). The tree coverage on the coast is made up mostly of white birch and some trembling aspen (Smith and Foster 1982:13). However, mosses and crustose tundra arctic lichens (Rhizocarpon geograhicum) are found on the exposed cobble beaches on the Lake Superior shoreline (Farvaque 1994:222).
Woodland caribou are indigenous to the Park and are found on the coast in the winter months when snow levels are much lower than in the interior (Smith and Foster
1982:12). Other mammals found on the coast include black bear, wolf, skunk, marten, beaver, porcupines, squirrel, and rabbit (Dunlop 1998:5; Marsh 1976:9; Ross 1994:119;
Smith and Foster 1982:12). Waterfowl are not common on the Lake Superior coast, and in the spring and fall fish are the most plentiful along the coast (Dunlop 1998:5; Marsh
1976:9; Ross 1994:119; Smith and Foster 1982:12). Inland streams and lakes support trout, whitefish and perch (Dunlop 1998:5). Today moose and white-tailed deer are found in the
Park, but prehistorically they did not occur this far north (Smith and Foster 1982:12).
According to Smith and Foster (1982:12), caribou and fish would have provided most of the biomass within the shoreline environment.
Due to Lake Superior's size it produces its own weather patterns and, as a result, the climate on the coast is less extreme than the interior (Marsh 1976:8). Winds are predominantly westerly (all seasons), causing increased wave action in the spring and fall
(Smith and Foster 1982:11). Summer fog is common as the winds cool over Lake
Superior's surface, and in the winter westerlies clear snow from exposed surfaces, leaving a mean coastal snow accumulation of 30 cm; inland (on coastal hills) snow accumulation exceeds 500 cm (Smith and Foster 1982:11). Ice on the Lake Superior shoreline first accumulates as early as late October and stays as late as May and stretches one to 2 km 67
from shore (Farvaque 1994:5). During the summer, the wind may be responsible for
keeping the coast free of black flies. In 1848 Louis Agassiz reported that the black flies at
the Michipicoten (just south of Pukaskwa National Park) were so bad that they prohibited
inland travel and confined the party to the shore, to the rocks and the beach where such
bugs were not a nuisance (Marsh 1976:21). The mean annual temperature in the Park is -13
Celsius in January, 15.5 degrees Celsius in July, and the wettest months in the Park are
August and September (Farvaque 1994:4,5).
Figure 4.2 Main Rivers that Drain Pukaskwa National Park
Five Main Rivers, as illustrated in figure 4.2, drain the Park: the Pic River, the
Park's northern boundary; the White River; the Cascade River; the Swallow River; and the
Pukaskwa River which is the Park's southern boundary (Dunlop 1998:3). Cobbles appear to be the underlying subsoil for the forest along the coastline (see Appendix 4A). Cobble beaches are more common on the southern coastline of the Park and become less frequent farther north. Most beaches are found between granite outcrops, some with talus slopes. 68
From the water, the steep granite does not provide access to the land, thus cobble beaches,
as well as a few sand beaches, are the only places along the Lake Superior shore line where
watercraft can be brought safely to shore.
Cobble features are found on the relict cobble beaches, which are located behind present day storm beaches. Other sites are further inland surrounded by forest which has
separated and spliced beaches into small isolated pockets. Bedrock is sometimes exposed
on the beaches, and large glacial erratics also can be present.
The size and shape (round or angular) of cobbles varies from beach to beach. Some
beaches are composed of water rolled cobbles, while others are of sharp angular frost
shattered granite blocks (Ross 1994:119). Even on the same beach the natural sorting of
cobbles can vary in size and shape. A general trend observed in Pukaskwa National Park is
that cobbles become larger in size at higher elevations. Mcllwraith (1958:41) also noted a
similar trend at the Red Sucker Point site.
Some relict beaches show evidence of contemporary activity. Bear tosses are
visible where moss and lichens are disturbed or missing from rocks that have been tossed
and flipped to expose underlying grubs and ants. Cobbles have also been displaced by
hikers and kayakers where modern campfires have been made and features have been
disturbed.
Archaeological investigation within the Park boundaries have concentrated along
the Lake Superior shoreline as a response to Park coastal development and increased tourism (Dunlop 1998:9). The interior of the Park is hard to access due to dense vegetation
and tangled brush. Kenneth Dawson (1975) was the first archaeologist to conduct an
archaeological survey of Pukaskwa National Park's coastline to locate relict beaches and identify archaeological sites containing Pukaskwa Pits. Parks Canada has been conducting 69
systematic field research starting on the Park's southern boundary since 1989. During a
two-week field season, every year, beaches which were previously identified by Dawson
(1975) are searched for the features he previously identified, then walked, parallel to the
water, to identify other features that may have been missed by his investigation. Newly
discovered beaches are mostly inland and found with the help of aerial photographs and
GPS (Dawson only explored beaches that were accessible from the modern shore). Brush
clearing equipment is used to clear a path to these beaches only after they have been
surveyed and features have been identified. When features are identified they are
examined by Brian Ross. If there appears to be sorting that stands out from the natural
sorting of the beach, it is deemed cultural. Sometimes these are obvious to the human eye, other times it is noticeable that rocks were culturally disturbed but there is no clearly identifiable shape. The outline of the feature is marked with flour. Flour is used because it
is biodegradable and disappears after the first rainfall and it increases the ease and
consistency of the measurements, drawings and photography.
Once the entire beach has been surveyed the team is split into three groups. Public
Works maps the beach, tree line, features, and terraces with a total station. When the site map is complete, photographs are taken of the beach and each individual feature. A digital
SLR (single lens reflex) camera is used and black and white film is shot using a medium format (120 film) camera. The medium format camera is used for oblique stereophotogrammetry which is later used to create 3D images of the features. The archaeology team records morphological information for each feature, distance and compass bearing to terrace edge, distance and bearing to neighbouring features, major and minor axis is measured and a compass bearing is taken, and entrance orientation and shape is recorded as well as floor shape. Cobble diameters are taken for the feature floor, cobbles used in the feature's construction and cobbles on the beach outside of the feature are taken.
Depths are recorded and the feature is drawn. Brian Ross then photographs each feature and takes a GPS reading for each feature. When artefacts are found their location is recorded by the total station, GPS, and site photography before being removed. During the
2007 field season two possible artefacts were recovered (Appendix 4B). Both are believed to be fire starting rocks. One was discovered on Upper North Swallow beach, the other was discovered in the wall of a circular pave on North Swallow II. Multiple round grooves were located on flat portions of these rocks. Microscopic analysis will be conducted in the lab at Cornwall to determine the type of wear in the circular depressions in the rock.
Neither rock was found near a water source; the preliminary hypothesis is that the
continual friction of a stick in attempts to start a fire was the cause of the circular indentations.
The 2007 field season took place July 14th to July 29th. The base camp was placed on Weiderman's Island in Otter Cove. Every morning the warden's boat, a twenty-two
foot whaler, carried people and gear to the work site. Work in 2007 was conducted north of the Swallow River on North Swallow I (28H6), Upper North Swallow (28H103), North
Swallow 2 (28H11), and Genevieve Lake (28H104).
4.2 Data Set
The data set for this thesis was provided by Parks Canada. Unfortunately over the last 18 years of field work new methods have been introduced (i.e. total station and GPS) and all level of detail is not available for all the sites that have been surveyed. Only eight sites have elevation and coordinate information obtained by GPS which limits the type of tests and work that can be done on the data. As of the 2007 field season, 104 sites are known, 66 of which have been surveyed and have yielded 613 feature forms; some of the features are compound, have multiple parts, so in total there are 645 features that have been measured and recorded (Table 4.1). The largest site (28H58 North Byron II) recorded to date has 57 features spread over 14 terraces, and the smallest sites (28H36 Trapper's
Harbour; 28H40 Cascade Falls) have only one feature. Not all feature types are found on all sites. Parks Canada has provided access to all the data in their collection pertaining to
Pukaskwa National Park. With the help of Stacey Taylor, photographs were taken of the artefacts recovered in Pukaskwa National Park. Thanks to Brian Ross, I was given access to the feature forms from the field and other data accumulated over the years.
Due to frequent changes in computer programming at the Parks Canada office in
Cornwall, all of the 613 feature forms needed to be manually inputted into a spread sheet.
Excel 2007 was used for the initial data entry and for the subsequent spread sheets that were required to organize the different variables into charts in preparation for statistical analysis. The lack of digital data is why no contextual information or analysis (i.e. spacial distribution of features and associated land forms) is presented in this thesis. Future research on cobble features would benefit from different kinds of spatial analysis.
The features have been divided into 12 types based on the different types recorded by Parks Canada (see Appendix 4C for sample of feature record form): Apartment
Complex, Bifurcated Features, Cairns, Other, Linear Formations, Mounds, Paves, Pits,
Pole Supports, Rings, Walls, and Walled Enclosures. Within these 12 types there are recognizable subtypes. Various shapes have been recorded as well as information about the floor (flat, conical, basin-shaped), the entrance orientation and measurement, the inner and outer diameter (not always recorded), the major and minor axis with orientations, surface depths (top of wall to centre bottom, beach surface to centre bottom, wall to beach surface), cobble diameters (for the floor, wall and beach surface), distance to terrace edge, and whether or not the feature is simple or compound. The totals in the tables below vary from Table 4.1 because they represent the total quantity of feature types that have been recorded as part of compound features as well as features that do not have measurement data, whereas Table 4.1 is the total number of features for which there is nominal data.
Table 4.1: Total Counts of Feature types present in Pukaskwa National Park as of 2007
Feature Types Frequency Percentage Apartment Complex 3 0.5 Bifurcated Features 22 3.4 Cairns 35 5.4 Linear 17 2.6 Mounds 18 2.8 Other 1 0.2 Paves 87 13.5 Pits 343 53.2 Pole Supports 15 2.2 Rings 89 13.8 Walled Enclosure 6 0.9 Wall 10 1.6 Total 645 100
4.21 Apartment Complex
Thomas Mcllwraith (1958:42) first recognized a unique form of square feature at the Red Sucker Point site he called the "Pukaskwa Apartment Building". These occur as single square units which are 3.4 m by 3.4 m (10 ft by 10 ft), and they occur in twos or threes and are oriented to produce structures that are 3.4 m by 9.14 m (10 ft by 30 ft) with intervening partitions (Mcllwraith 1958:42). They have flat levelled floors and occur on the higher beach terraces. Ken Dawson also identified similar features during his survey of 73
Pukaskwa National Park; he identified them as type 3D and 3E "Bifurcated stone outlines" and "rectangle of stone" (1975:16), which both contain flat, level floors and were observed to occur on all terrace levels far back from the terrace edge.
Parks Canada has continued to use the term Apartment Complex, even though it is interpretive in nature, to refer to features made up of multiple squares that have low walls that surround flat level cobble floors and prior to 2007 have identified three of these features. All three were identified on terrace three of the Buchanan Creek site (28H29), positioned more than 2 m from terrace edge. Distance to terrace edge is measured from the centre of the feature to the beginning of the terrace ridge. The mean distance was 3.43 m and the median 3.4 m with the shortest distance 2.7 m and the largest distance 4.2 m. All three features are rectangular in shape and have a northwest southeast orientation (see
Appendix 4D). Two of the features have entrances, one to the southwest and one to the northwest. It is possible that since 1989 the Apartment Complex features began to be simply identified as Bifurcated Features, but it is also possible that Apartment Complex features have not been recovered since they were last recorded. Because of this uncertainty and the use of this category by Parks Canada, Apartment Complex was kept for this thesis.
Norman Emerson (1960:71, 72) never passed specific comments on his interpretation of these structures but they do fall under his generalized theory of vision quest activities. Thomas Mcllwraith (1958:42) believed these structures to be single unit dwellings that were combined to form an apartment building-like structure. Ken Dawson
(1975:24) interpreted these structures to be "living floors" which he further inferred their presence on sites to indicate the occurrence of ceremonial activities (1975:32). Ross and
D'Annibale (1996:117) believe these features represent living floors that were used as dwellings on habitation sites and not for any socio-religious functions. 74
The Buchanan Creek site is the first site to have produced artefacts (see sketches in
Appendix 4E) directly associated with a feature. Ross (1996) believes the Buchanan Creek site (28H29) may have been a small camp used by three or four families. Three pottery sherds (one corded body, and two rim sherds) were collected from the interior surface of feature 28H29A, an Apartment Complex. The sherds all appear to be from the same vessel.
The vessel resembles Middleport pottery dated to the late Middle Woodland period (Ross
1996). It has a castellated rim with a flat lip. The exterior decoration is worn and the interior is exfoliated. A utilized Hudson's Bay Lowland chert flake was also recovered from the interior of 28H29A. The edge wear is indicative of scraping and the flake shows evidence of polish or use on the tip as a graver (Ross 1996). The raw material has been used throughout Ontario's pre-contact period. A net sinker was also collected from the surface of the cobble beach but was not recovered in direct association with a feature. It can not be linked to a group, but Parks Canada believes it illustrates fishing along the Lake
Superior shoreline (Ross 1996).
4.22 Bifurcated Features
Parks Canada has identified twenty-one cobble features in Pukaskwa National Park that are bifurcated by a wall of cobbles. Pit Features (n=5), the floors of which are below the beach surface, and Pave Features (n=l 1), the floors of which are levelled and at beach surface, make up the two most common type of Bifurcated Features found in Pukaskwa
National Park (Table 4.2). 75
Table 4.2 Sub-Types of Bifurcated Features discovered in Pukaskwa National Park
Bifurcated Features Frequency Bifurcated Pits 5 Bifurcated Pave 12 Bifurcated Pave with Pit 4 Bifurcated Pave with Mound and Ring 1 Total 22_
These features are not specific to certain elevations or locations within sites.
Throughout the surveyed sites, Bifurcated Features are located on a wide range of terrace
heights. The average distance to terrace edge is 7.94 m, the median is 7.15 m with 0 m being the shortest distance and 21.25 m being the longest. There does not appear to be any
consistency in the orientation of these feature types.
A break down of the data for Bifurcated Features (see Appendix 4E) shows the predominant feature shapes are rectangular (n=10), semi circular (n=3), and oval (n=3),
while the most common entrance direction is south (n=4), facing Lake Superior.
Orientation of features has the most variance with seven features oriented north-south,
seven east-west, six northeast-southwest, and two northwest-southeast. The major axis for
Paves that are bifurcated are clustered between 3.05 to 5.54 m, the remaining feature
subtypes are scattered and show no preference for size. Seven often Bifurcated Paves are rectangular and all have flat floors, the general trend in size is somewhat smaller than the
Apartment Complex sizes which range between 4.55 m to 6.54 m.
4.23 Cairns
Cairns are characterized as small piles of cobbles that are made up of a small quantity of stones. Forty-four have been found in the Park since 1989, fourteen of which are part of compound features. The average height of the Cairns (See Appendix 4F) found 76
in Pukaskwa National Park is 0.36 m. The majority are oriented north-south, perpendicular
to the shoreline, and are oval in shape (n=17). None are larger than 2.04 m, and the
majority are between 0.55 to 1.04 m (n=l 8) in diameter. The average distance to terrace
edge is 3.55 m and the median is 2.5 m with the shortest distance being 0 m and the longest being 12.2 m. Only six Cairns are farther than 6 m from the terrace edge and only two of
these are part of compound features. One site, Top of Richardson Island (28H33), has four
Cairns atop of a granite bluff and not on a cobble beach. Cairns are located on many
terrace levels, but never on the first terrace. Only one has been found on the second terrace,
the remainder are all on terrace three or higher. This indicates that lake levels could have been higher when the Cairns were created or the cairns were purposely built at higher
elevations to be viewed from the water. Parks Canada personnel believe that the Cairns
found close to the terrace edge may have been navigation markers (Brian Ross, Personal
Communication 2007) when the terrace was at the height of then contemporary water
levels.
Table 4.3 Sub-Types of Cairns in Pukaskwa National Park
Cairns Frequency Simple Cairn 30 Compound Component 5 Cairns with no Data 9 Total 44
Dawson believed the presence of cairns on a site meant it was a dedication site
(Dawson 1975:32), but he also acknowledged that they may have been used as navigation aids (Dawson 1975:32). 77
4.24 Linear Formations
Linear Formations are largely believed to be log skids which were created by logging activity that took place in Park between 1840 to 1860 (Dunlop 1998:10). Imogene
Cove (28H31) is the only site believed to contain an Indigenous made cobble feature that was partially destroyed by a log skid. The southwest corner of feature 28H31M, a rectangular Pave, was destroyed by feature 28H31L, a log skid. This stratigraphy indicates that the supposed Indigenous feature predates the log skid and was made prior to the
1840s.
Only four of the Linear Features occupy one terrace, the rest runs perpendicular to multiple beach terraces (see Appendix 4G for the breakdown of the data). Since Linear
Formations are believed to have been created by non-indigenous logging activities they will not be further discussed in this work.
Table 4.4 Sub-Types of Linear Formations in Pukaskwa National Park
Linear Formations Frequency Log Skids 13 Linear 2 Slit Trench 1 Trail 1 Total 17_
4.25 Mounds
Mounds are characterized as an area of cobbles that are higher than beach level.
They differ from Cairns in that they are longer than 0.90 m and involve more extensive stone piling. For the purpose of this thesis, two features (28H6416B, 28H6127b), that were considered by Parks Canada to be Mounds were renamed as Cairns because of their small size. 78
Table 4.5 Sub-Types of Mounds in Pukaskwa National Park
Mounds Frequency Mounds 16 Mounds with cairns 2 Mounds with no Data 6 Total 24_
Some Mounds are associated with Cairns (n=2) while others are associated with rings (n=4), Paves (n=l), and Pits (n=l). The average distance to terrace edge is 5.24 m and the median distance is 3 m with the largest distance being 17.4 m and the shortest being 0 m. There does appear to be a pattern in terrace distribution (see Appendix 4H).
Half of the Mounds are found on the first two (the lowest two) terraces of the sites they occupy, 28% are found in the middle terraces, 17% are found on the highest terraces, and
6% are on a site that consists of only one terrace.
Parks Canada believes Mounds may be unopened cache Pits (Ross and D'Annibale
1996:118) that stored food or tools in a recognizable location on the beach. Dawson
(1975:24) believed that, like Cairns, Mounds were built as dedication structures. It will be proposed in Chapter Five that some of these Mounds may in fact be burials similar to the
Nipigon Bay burial discovered in 1981 (Arthurs 1995:25).
4.26 Paves
Paves make up the third largest feature type found in Pukaskwa National Park.
They are characterized by the sorting of cobbles which has resulted in an even, levelled floor. Paves, in Dawson's (1975:15 +16) work are known as stone outlines with levelled interiors (Type 3c) and as levelled areas (type 4) and are an area of Dawson's work that often get overlooked. Dawson (1975:23) considered these to be living floors or lodges
(Type B), which made up his second largest interpretive category. He assumed the 79 variation in shape and size possibly suggested seasonal use (Dawson 1975:27) and lodge type (Dawson 1975:28). Dawson still applied a cosmological activity to the inhabitants of these habitation structures which is the part of his analysis archaeologists usually focus on.
Parks Canada also believes Paves to be living floors (Ross et al 1998:155).
Simple Paves and Paves with rings make up the two largest sub-types, as indicated in Table 4.6. Cairns, Mounds, Pits and Activity Areas are also associated with Paves.
Activity Areas are classified as areas around the Pave which show evidence of cultural sorting (i.e. levelled stones) but that do not have a clear outline or purpose.
Table 4.6 Sub-Types of Paves in Pukaskwa National Park
Paves Frequency Paves 64 Paves with Pits 1 Paves with Cairns 2 Paves with Cairns and Mounds 1 Paves with Rings 15 Paves with Activity areas 1 Paves with Mounds 1 Paves with wall and cairn 1 Paves with ring, mound and Pit 1 Total 87
There is no visible pattern for terrace placement; Paves occur on all terraces. The mean distance to terrace edge (see Appendix 41) is 5 metres and the median is 3.29 m with the greatest distance being 19.4 m and the shortest 0 m. The smallest Pave is between 1.05 to 1.54 m and the largest is between 13.55 to 14.04 m. Paves with rings are mostly between
2.05 m and 4.04 m, while simple Paves are largely between 2.55 m and 5.04 m in size.
Rectangular (39) and oval (24) are the most common shapes. No preference for entrance location is observed, however north (away from the lake) seems to be the least preferred 80
entrance direction. Paves' orientations were evenly distributed between north-south, east- west, northeast-southwest, and northwest to southeast.
4.27 Pits
Pits are the most frequent type of feature recorded in Pukaskwa National Park. As
seen in Table 4.7, Simple Pits (n=278), are the largest sub-type represented by the data set.
Walled Pits (n=45) make up the second largest subtype. These are Pits with cobble walls built up around the opening and above beach surface. Ringed Pits contain only a single
level of stones above beach level with no evidence of collapsed walls close by. Ringed Pits
(n=17) are the third largest sub type and only make up a small percentage of the
assemblage.
Table 4.7 Sub-Types of Pits found in Pukaskwa National Park
Pits Frequency Percent " Pits 278 81.1 Pit with Walls 45 13.1 Pit with Ring 17 5.0 Pit with Mound 1 0.3 Walled Pit with Mound 1 0.3 Pits with no data 1 0.3 Total 343 100
Pits are generally round (n=157) or oval (n=123) and the shape of the floors ranges from conical (n=141), basin (n=l 10) and flat (n=49) in shape (see Appendix 4J for breakdown of data). For the few Pits (n=69) that have entrances, east and north seem to be the preferred location followed by northeast, south, northwest, south, west, and southwest respectively. There is a clear preference for a north-south orientation with 109 total Pits, representing 37.6%; an east-west orientation makes up 29%; a northeast-southwest orientation represents 16.2% and northwest-southeast represents 17.2%. 81
The major axis of the Pits ranges from 0.45 m to 7.7 m. The largest size category represents 22.5% of the Pits; these are between 1.55-2.04 m in size and is represented by the number four in figure 4.3. There is a clear clustering in the 1.05 to 4.04 m range and is represented by numbers three through eight in figure 4.3 (3=1.05-1.54 m, 4=1.55-2.04 m,
5= 2.05-2.54 m, 6= 2.55-3.04 m, 7= 3.05-3.54 m, 8=3.55-4.04 m. This continues sequentially until number 13=6.55-7.04 and number 14=7.55-8.04). The clustering of the
sizes in such a tight range may indicate that the majority of the Pits were being used for the
same purpose. The average depth from beach surface to centre bottom for the entire
assemblage is 0.38 m. Walled Pits are deepest on average at 0.43 m, ringed Pits are the
second deepest category at 0.38 m and Pits on average are the shallowest at 0.35 m.
Figure 4.3 Size Distribution for Pit features
Distribution of Pit Sizes
100 77
Frequency ot pits •llllii,. 4 1 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Measurement Categories
There is also a measurement from top of wall to centre bottom for the feature which, as expected, indicates Walled Pits are deeper than Ringed and beach level Pits.
Since not all Pits have walls this measurement will not be used as the depth taken from beach surface makes a better comparison for the three feature types. The three sub-types of
Pits are found on all terrace heights. Distance to terrace edge is averaged at 5.52 m, the median is 3 m with 0 m being the shortest distance and 30 m being the longest. 82
As discussed in the previous chapter, Norman Emerson (1960:72) thought Pits were used for vision quests, Mcllwraith (1958:42) hypothesized they were used for
storage, Dawson (1975:23, 26) believed they were used as invocation structures, and Brian
Ross (1994:121) believes they represent opened cache pits. Four sites in Pukaskwa
National Park have Pits built over top of underground streams (Singing Stones 28H60,
North Singing Stones 28H61, North Singing Stones II 28H88, and Upper Singing Stones
28H63). These were believed to have been built to make the sound of the water more audible (Ben Mortimer, Personal Communication 2006).
4.28 Pole Supports
Two types of Pole Supports have been identified in Pukaskwa National Park (Table
4.8). The first is a small ring of stone at beach surface with a small pit below beach level believed to have been deep enough to support a pole. The second is a small cairn built above beach level, with an opening in the top that is believed to have served as a pole
support.
Table 4.8 Sub-types of Pole Supports found in Pukaskwa National Park Pole Support Frequency Ring (beach level) 11 Cairn (built up above beach level) 4 Total 15_
Pole Supports are not widely distributed, they are only found on seven sites (see
Appendix 4K). Seventy percent of the pole support assemblage is found on three sites. Of these 53% are round, and 27% are oval; 53% are oriented north-south, 13% are oriented northeast-southwest, and 7% are oriented northwest-southeast. Their size ranges from 0 to
2.04 m. Interestingly the average height of the cairn style Pole Supports and the average 83 depth of the ring style Pole Supports are both 0.29 m. The average distance to terrace edge is 4.95 m and the median is 5.9 m for the entire assemblage. For the cairns the average distance is 3.48 m and median is 2.95 m. For the rings 5.49 m is the average distance and the median is 6.17 m. Pole Support features never appear on the lower terraces but appear in the middle or higher terraces on sites.
Pole Supports is the second type created by Parks Canada that is interpretative rather than descriptive. Ross (1994:121; Ross and D'Annibale 1995:24) believes Pole
Supports were used for drying and smoking racks. Though it may have been more objective to eliminate the Pole Support category and to distribute their numbers into the ring and cairn categories, this type was based on field observations and I felt it best not to dispense with it. In addition, these features differ from the Ring Features in that they have a small pit in the floor that extends below beach level, and the cairn Pole Supports differ from cairns in that they have an opening in the top. These morphological differences may indicate that these features have a different function.
4.29 Rings
Rings are the second largest type in the cobble feature assemblage thus far documented in Pukaskwa National Park. Rings are features at beach level and their shape is outlined by a single layer of cobbles. Rings are often found associated with other features, such as Paves, and as a result, they have often been documented on Parks
Canada's forms as hearths. Since this is an interpretation of a feature's use it was eliminated as a type and all features previously called hearths have been included under the
Ring category. 84
Table 4.9 Sub-Types of Rings found in Pukaskwa National Park
Ring Frequency Ring 77 Ring and Cairn 4 Ring and Cairn and Mound 1 Ring and Mound 4 Ring and Ring 2 Ring and Wall 1 Rings with no Data 11 Total 100
Rings are found on all terrace heights; they can appear alone or with other features
(see Appendix 4L). The average distance to terrace edge is 5.24 m, the median is 4.4 metres with the largest distance being 19.71 m and the shortest distance being 0 m. More than half (79.78%) of the Rings major axes are between 1.05 to 2.54 m in size. There are two dominant shapes; round represents 45.57% and oval represents 3.5.44% of the
assemblage. Only 10 of the features have openings interpreted as entrances and no preference is shown for entrance location. North-south is the dominant feature orientation with 47.13% of the assemblage, east-west has 27.59% of the assemblage, northwest-
southeast has 17.24% of the assemblage and northeast-southwest has 8.05% of the assemblage.
Under Dawson's classification, Rings were classed in type 3a stone outlines. The larger ones were interpreted as conjurers' lodges (Type A) while the smaller Rings were believed to be hearths (Type D) (Dawson 1975:25).
4.210 Wall
Walls are linear features built up more than one level above the beach surface.
Some are found in association with cairns (n=l), while 40% are semi-circular in shape and interpreted as windbreaks. 85
Table 4.10 Sub-Types of Walls found in Pukaskwa National Park
Wall Frequency Wall 5 Wall and Cairn 1 Wind Break 4 Walls with no Data 1 Total 11_
The majority of the Wall features (80%) are found on the sites' highest terraces (see
Appendix 4M for data breakdown). The average distance to terrace edge is 8.06 m, the median is 5.40 m with the shortest distance being 0 and the largest 28.59 metres. The average Wall height is 0.37 m and 75% of the assemblage is between 2.05 to 2.54 m in size. Half the Wall assemblage is oriented north-south, 20% is oriented northeast- southwest and northwest-southeast, and 10% is oriented east-west. The entrance for the semi-circular wind breaks is located to the east, which, if they are being used as wind breaks, is consistent with the observation that westerly winds blow to shore from Lake
Superior 70% of the time in all seasons (Smith and Foster 1982:11).
4.277 Walled Enclosures
Walled Enclosures are levelled beach surfaces that are oval or rectangular in shape
(see Appendix 4N). They are not classified as Paves because they are flat beach surfaces and the cobbles do not show the same degree of cultural sorting. These areas are believed to be activity areas.
Table 4.11 Sub-Types of Walled Enclosures found in Pukaskwa National Park
Walled Enclosure Frequency Ringed Enclosure 5 Ringed Enclosure with Mound 1 Total 6 86
Walled Enclosures are found on the highest or middle terraces of sites. The average distance to terrace edge is 6.42 m, the median is 4.85 m with the shortest distance at 1.7 m and the longest distance at 10.7 m. Major axes range from 2.55 to 8.04 m in length.
Enclosures are oriented north-south (66.67%) or northwest-southeast (18.18%).
4.212 Others
Only one feature, 28H21Y on the Otter Cove site, could not be lumped into the eleven previous types. This feature is rectangular in shape, has no walls or entrances, but has a flat floor. It is 7.2 m long and oriented north-south. It is located on the edge of terrace three (appendix 40). This feature could have been partially destroyed after it was created or may have been a staging area or an activity area.
4.3 Statistical Methods
Chapter Five will apply the Mann-Whitney U test, a non-parametric statistic to analyse alternative hypothesis presented for cobble features by Brian Ross and other archaeologists. The calculations for the Mann-Whitney test were done online using the
Vassarstats statistical computation web site created by Dr. Richard Lowry of Vassar
College in Poughkeepsie New York state. Along with the u values this statistical site also generated the p values. This is the optimal statistical test for the project because it tests the significance or difference of two ordinal scale distributions between two groups of data regardless of sample sizes (Shennan 1997:65; Senter 1969:209 and 229; Welkowitz et. al
1976:266). This aspect of the test makes it ideal for this analysis since small samples will need to be tested against large samples. 87
The Mann-Whitney test has been criticized for having a slight tendency to produce more Beta errors (also known as Type II errors, is when a test gives a false negative) than the t-test (Senter 1969:22) and is therefore considered to be a 'less powerful' statistic than the latter, a parametric test. However the Mann-Whitney test is preferred for this analysis because it does not make any assumptions about the distribution of the population being tested (Madrigal 1998:130), unlike the t-test, which assumes a normal distribution
(Sherman 1997:87). When compared to another non-parametric test that examines the difference between two ordinal scale distributions, it is easier to obtain a statistically significant result with the Mann-Whitney test than with the Runs Test (Shennan 1997:68).
The U values determine if a relationship exists between the data sets and the p value determines the strength of that relationship. Background research on features recovered from "traditional" archaeological sites combined with ethnohistoric data will make up one population set and the features from Pukaskwa National Park will make up the second population set for the tests.
4.31 Goal of Statistical Analysis
The main goal of this analysis is to test interpretations that have been applied to cobble features. Of importance to this study is to test the alternative hypothesis offered for cobble feature types by Parks Canada and other archaeologists, and to test if dimensions of various types of cobble features can be compared to known feature types on archaeological sites in Northern Ontario. A test cannot be conducted to test the validity of the Vision
Quest hypothesis because no ordinal data exists for structures or other features created during vision quests. 88
Another goal is to determine the level of variation in Pukaskwa National Park's assemblage. The cosmological interpretation presented by Dawson (1975) and the Vision
Quest hypothesis proposed by Emerson (1960) have homogenized the assemblage and masked the variation in feature shape and size present on the Pukaskwa shoreline. There are twelve different types of features found in Pukaskwa National park. These types are grouped together because of their morphological characteristics. Within these types there are sub-types and in most cases these sub-types are compound features. Chapter Four has already demonstrated variation in the assemblage, Chapter Five will determine if the sub types differ from one another and if they are statistically related to different feature types from the archaeological record. 89
CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS
When trying to interpret the function of cobble features, I am faced with the same problem that Norman Emerson and Kenneth Dawson encountered when they assigned meaning to these features. A direct analogy with the ethnohistoric sources is not possible since none of the sources make direct reference to the creation of features with cobbles or the use of cobble beaches as residential sites. The issue, is "how to assign functions to archaeologically found objects when no ethnographic or historical analogues are known"
(Salmon 1994:735). My predecessors have chosen to assign all the features to the
"remainder category of ritual function" which, in recent years, has become an
"archaeological joke" (Salmon 1994:735). My goal is to use the archaeological record for the Upper Great Lakes, southeastern Manitoba and northern Ontario as the sample for the size analogies conducted below. The reason traditional archaeological sites are used is because there are no recorded features similar to cobble features, this is likely one of the reasons the vision quest hypothesis has never been reviewed.
Research suggests that cobble beaches are a northern occurrence restricted to the
Boreal forest, the Canadian Shield and tundra environments. Three major elements of deglaciation shaped the land in the Upper Great Lakes: ice margin oscillation, differential isostatic uplift and lake level fluctuations (Phillips 1993:94). Many of the cobble beaches are the product of erosion, cut into the front of large deltas formed when debris-laden melt waters from inland ice fronts reached the ancient glacial lakes that occupied the basin of the Upper Great Lakes (Phillips 1975:9). The pattern of ridges and swales on these cobble beaches reflects changes in wave patterns and water levels (Phillips 1982:140). The rock surfaces exposed along the north shore of Lake Superior are Precambrian in age (Mason 90
2002:55). Erosion has removed whatever deposits may have been laid down in the Great
Lakes region within the last 225 million years (Mason 2002:55) leaving the cobble matrix exposed. The high frequency of cobble beaches in the Upper Great Lakes is due to the glacial activity that took place there and in the Glacial Lakes.
I believe the use of cobbles for construction is dominant in the area because cobbles are the resource abundantly available, the cobble beaches are dry and at higher elevations than sand beaches, and the use of cobbles was an adaptation to a landscape that possessed favourable subsistence resources. Since there is no historic, ethnographic or Indigenous studies material that suggests Woodland Indigenous peoples preferred or sought out cobble beaches for cosmological or more mundane activities, and no materials which suggest cobble beaches were avoided, the use of cobbles for architecture is believed to be inconsequential. Therefore the comparison of cobble features to "traditional" feature remains is not believed to de-contextualize these features.
In order to make inferences about the archaeological materials I have devised a middle-range theory to bridge the gap between the material being studied and the features found on traditional archaeological sites. Middle-range theories are descriptive claims that fall between observational descriptions of what the archaeologists find in the present and descriptive reconstructions of the past (Binford 1977:6, in Kosso 1991:622). Field observations have found cobble features to be similar in style and shape to features found on "traditional" archaeological sites.
The similarities between features found on "traditional" archaeological sites and cobble feature sites are compared using a Mann-Whitney U statistical test. This test uses size (major axis length or circumference) measurements to assess the analogy being drawn between specific feature types. Positive results will support the analogical reasoning based 91 on size and will indicate that an analogy can be made regarding size, negative results will indicate that no similarities were present therefore no size analogy can be made between the populations being tested. Positive results will not elucidate function, they will simply indicate that features are a similar size and possibly may have had similar functions.
The archaeological sample collected is varied by geographic distribution, time frame, and feature size. The archaeological sample collected is varied in geographic distribution because there is not one culture affiliated with the north shore of Lake
Superior and there have been ceramics recovered on sites which indicate that peoples travelled from all directions to visit the Upper Great Lakes. The time frame is varied because there are no diagnostic artefacts to date the cobble features and these features could have been built over a considerable time span. I also did not filter the sample for size distribution because the features recorded in Pukaskwa National Park vary considerably in size. I wanted the archaeological sample for these initial tests to be as varied as the sample in Pukaskwa National Park. For future tests it may be useful to only compare certain cultures to the sample or certain size distributions.
There are a few premises which led me to believe that size could be used to form an analogy. First, though this may be a repeat of an old archaeological bias, thus far the archaeological record in northern Ontario does not show much variation in feature style through time. Statements to this effect are found in the archaeological literature: "clearly reflected in the archaeological record is the same degree of mobility and wide ranging cultural sameness recorded historically across the Canadian Shield" (Wright 1999:776-
777).
Dwellings can be used as an example. Archaeologists have learned that the size and appearance of structures depends on function and group size (Fox and Garrad 2004:122), 92 and based on the limited archaeological evidence to date, since the Woodland period this has been fairly constant through time (Reid and Rajnovich 1991:219). Archaeologists, on the basis of ethnographic accounts and archaeological site locations and sizes, assume that specific group sizes and functions occured seasonally. During late fall, winter and early spring extended family groups (10 people for the Round Lake Ojibwa [Rogers 1972:66]) hunted and trapped, possibly moving from one small camp to another (Wright 1999:720).
During late spring, summer and early fall bands, consisting of 50-100 people made up the largest social unit (Rogers 1972:59) (or according to Wright (1999:720) 150 to 300 people made up of multiple family groupings), and were concentrated at favourable fishing locations (Wright 1999:720) where various subsistence activities were carried out from the larger base camp. Ethnographic accounts have also helped to determine standard house sizes. On the northern Plains the historically documented average number of people per lodge was eight (Wright 1995:822). Brose (1970:38), using data on the historic Ojibwa, estimated mean floor space per occupant of a structure at 2.6 or 3.3 m2, though he cautions that his untested estimates are based on a paucity of detailed ethnographic sources and rare comparative settlement data from archaeological contexts (Brose 1970:39).
Second, stone has been used for various features in the archaeological record.
Therefore it is not inconceivable that some of these features would be found on cobble beach sites. Rock lined cache pits have been recovered on "traditional" (soil and subsoil) archaeological sites in Ontario (c.f Molnar 1991:107; Nicholson 1985:175), on boulder fields in the Arctic (c.f Friesen 2001:324), and on cobble beach sites in other provinces
(c.f. Stopp 1997:131). Tent Rings have been discovered on the plains (c.f Bushnell
1922:20; Smith 1910), in the Eastern Woodlands (c.f. Carruthers 1982), on boulder fields
(c.f. Friesen 2002:340) and on other cobble beaches (c.f. Stopp 2002:10, 1997:130). Hearths have also been built by piling stones in oval, linear or circular patterns to contain fires, and stones have been built up on one side of the hearths to reflect heat. Stones have also been heaped over hearths to smother fires (Glynn 1973:77-89). Burials in the Upper
Great Lakes often contain pits bridged with logs which are then covered in boulders (c.f.
Arthurs 1995:26; Dawson 1980:46; Fitting 1978:44).
Third, proving that size equals function would require the morphology of the different feature types to be mutually exclusive, but they are not. As "there is always the chance that some other concentration of circumstances may produce similar results"
(Watson 1982:446), cobble features of similar shape and size could have served multiple functions. There is variation in the sizes of features within the types and sub-types found in
Pukaskwa National Park and different feature types found on 'traditional' archaeological sites overlap in size. There are similarities in size between cache pits and hearths and some hearths are semi-subterranean and without refuse or artefacts or fire-cracked rocks it will be hard to distinguish between pit hearths and opened cache pits. There is overlap in size between dwellings and burials and some styles of burial share similar construction methods and morphology with dwellings. Above ground burial styles would have required the same preparation of the ground surface as habitation structures and could have consisted of the placement of a wooden box, coffin, or a well constructed hut, which had a peaked roof or resembled a wigwam, overtop of the body which lay extended on the prepared ground (Renolds 1978:103). There are examples of Algonquian wigwams being used as burial structures in the ethnographic literature; this usually occurred when disease was involved in the person's death (c.f Stansbury 1852:43; c.f Thwaites 1610-1791 15:135,
16:155). Without assistance from an artefact assemblage, function will be difficult and dangerous to differentiate from feature form. This can be perceived as a strength rather 94
than a weakness. Making an analogy based on size similarities is a means to show that
these features are not as enigmatic as archaeologists once believed. By showing a possible
relationship to features found on other sites, I hope, will encourage researchers to "think
outside the cosmological box" the next time they encounter cobble features.
There are only two things that set "traditional" archaeological sites and cobble
beach sites apart -the ground surface on which sites are built- and most importantly, cobble
feature sites have a higher recovery rate of features than artefacts, the opposite of soil-
based sites where the assemblage is buried over time. The purpose of the model presented
in Chapter Six is to use the results from this chapter and information from ethnographic
and archaeological sources to show that cobble beaches were used for various types of
habitation and not just for cosmological activities. In order for this conclusion to be
possible the Mann-Whitney U test results need to reveal some similarities between the
features found on "traditional" archaeological sites and cobble beach sites.
This chapter compares the data set recovered between 1989 and 2006 by Parks
Canada staff to archaeological data collected from southeastern Manitoba, northern
Ontario, and the Upper Great Lakes. The major axis, or in the case of round features, the
diameter, measurements for all time periods and all variation of feature type are used. Two
series of Mann-Whitney U tests will be conducted. First, the archaeological sample
collected for specific feature types, living floors, hearths, cache pits, burials and Pole
Supports, are tested against the types recorded in Pukaskwa National Park. Second,
combinations of the archaeological samples are tested against the types from Pukaskwa
National Park to determine if multiple analogies can be made per size. This chapter
concludes by testing Ross's hypothesis that the Pits found in Pukaskwa National Park
represent opened cache pits while the Mounds correspond to unopened cache pits. 95
5.1 An Analogy for Living Floors
The use of some cobble features as housing structures was first offered as an explanation on the Red Sucker Point site by Thomas Mcllwraith (1958:42) and Colin
MacMillan (1986:6). Ken Dawson (1975:27-28 ) also attributed some of the cobble features in Pukaskwa National Park to living floors, only he assigned cosmological activities to these structures. Peter Carruthers (1982:10) believes cobble features could represent a pattern of semi-subterranean houses never before encountered by archaeologists. Ross and D'Annibale (2000:163) believe Paves to be living floors for tepees and wigwams, as well as tent and lean-to structures (Ross and D'Annibale
1999:119). Large rocks around the perimeter of Paves may have served as weight stones to hold down the cover of the temporary shelter (Ross et al. 1998:155). Walled Pits are believed to have served as semi-subterranean dwellings (Ross and D'Annibale 2000:164), and large Pits are hypothesised to have served as singte person habitations (Ross et al.
1988:155).
A literature review collected measurement data on structures from the Eastern
Woodlands and Sub-arctic. This sample was tested against the major axis data from
Pukaskwa National Park using a non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test calculated online at
Vassarstats, a statistical computation web site. The average major axis (length) for the seventy-one dwellings (see appendix 5A) in the archaeological sample is 5.87 m and the median is 4.6 m. Length was used as the unit of measure for testing because it was the most commonly reported unit of measure and this way the data set would be consistent.
The null hypothesis states that some of the feature dimensions from Pukaskwa National
Park are analogous to the habitation structures from the archaeological literature and therefore it may be postulated that these features are drawn from the same population. The 96 alternative states that the features are not related in size to the features in Pukaskwa
National Park and therefore the samples are too different to form an analogy based on size, or, since the occupants of the north shore are still unknown, it is possible that these groups produced different house types.
5.11 Paves
The data set was divided into four sub-types for the purpose of testing. Paves
(n=71), Paves with Rings (n=12), Paves with Cairns and mounds associated with them
(n=5), and Paves with features other than Rings (n=4) were tested individually against the literature sample (n=71). The test results show that the size of the Paves from Pukaskwa
National Park and living floors from the archaeological literature are significantly different
(MW u=1549, p<0.0001) and therefore a size analogy can not be made between Paves and the habitation structures in the archaeological literature. No similarity was found between the size of Paves with associated Rings (MW u=174, p<0.0001) and Irving floors.
However, Paves with associated Cairns and Mounds were found to be (MW u=213, p=0.4654) similar in size to living floors. There were only four values for Paves with associated features and as a result the Mann-Whitney U test (u=153, no p value) was inconclusive because the sample was too small. Combining the raw data for the Paves with
Cairns and Mounds and other features, and comparing this to the archaeological data revealed there was a significance between the sizes of the two populations (MW u=366, p=0.4839).
5.12 Pits
Simple Pits (n=270) were tested separately from Walled Pits (n=45) and Ringed
Pits (n=18). Simple Pits, which are excavated from the beach surface, are significantly 97 different (MW u=17549, p<0.0001) from the archaeological population and therefore no size analogy can be inferred between the pit data and the living floor data. The null hypothesis did not show a size analogue for Ringed Pits (MW u=70, p<0.0001) and Walled
Pits (MW u=787.5, p<0.0001). This indicates that the three pit sub-types from Pukaskwa
National Park are not related to the living floors from the literature review.
5.75 Rings
The Ring features were also tested by sub-types: Rings (n=79), Rings with associated wall or Cairns and Mounds (n=2), Rings with just Cairns (n=4), and Rings with just Mounds (n=4). Rings tested as significantly different from the archaeological population (MW u=5395.5, p<0.0001) and therefore no size analogy can be drawn between
Rings and living floors. Rings with Cairns and Mounds (MW u=l, p no data), Rings with
Cairns (MW u=12.5, p no data), and Rings with Mounds (MW u=144, p no data) produced nop value because the samples were too small. Combining all three Ring sub-types into one category for testing purposes also indicated that the sample from Pukaskwa National
Park was significantly different from the literature sample (MW u=157.5, p= 0.0139). No size analogue could be drawn between Rings found in Pukaskwa National Park and the living floors recorded on other archaeological sites.
5.14 Bifurcated Features
Bifurcated features were divided into three sub-types for testing: Bifurcated Pits
(n=5), Bifurcated Paves (n=12), and Bifurcated Paves with associated features (n=5).
When compared to the archaeological sample, the major axes for all Bifurcated features were found to be drawn from the same population, Bifurcated Pits (MW u=143.5, 98 p=0.4839), Bifurcated Paves (MW u=376, p=0.5222), Bifurcated Paves with associated features (MW u=197, p=0.6892).
5.15 Apartment Complex
Only three Apartment Complex features were recorded in Pukaskwa National
Park, which is too small a sample to obtain conclusive results. Since Apartment Complex features are in their basic form Bifurcated Features with flat floors, the raw data for
Apartment Complex features and Bifurcated Paves (n=15) was combined and tested against the archaeological literature sample. As a result, this sub-type was found to be similar in size to the living floors sample (MW u=511.5, p=0.8181).
5.16 Walled Enclosures
When compared to the archaeological sample (n=71), the major axes of Walled
Enclosures (n=6) was found to be drawn from the same population as the archaeological sample (MW u=161.5, p=0.336). Therefore there is no significant difference between the size of the populations and it is possible to formulate an analogy based on size.
5.17 Walls
When compared to the archaeological sample for living floors, the major axis of
Walls (n=10) were found to be significantly different (MW u=204, p=0.0308) and therefore no size analogy can be made between the two samples.
5.18 Results
The null hypothesis was accepted for seven different tests which indicate that the analogy between some of the features in Pukaskwa National Park and the archaeological sample for living floors is acceptable in some cases. Ranked from the highest percentage to 99 the lowest, Apartment Complex with Bifurcated Paves, Bifurcated Paves with features,
Bifurcated Paves, Paves with features, Bifurcated Pits, Paves with Cairns and mounds and
Walled Enclosures all exhibit sizes that are similar to those represented in the archaeological literature for living floors.
5.2 An Analogy for Hearths
Hearths are found on nearly all archaeological sites. During late spring, summer and early fall hearths are usually found outside structures and during late fall, winter and early spring hearths are found inside structures. The hearths are usually located down the centre of the habitation structure, and depending on the social complexity of the household, could be numerous.
Locating hearths on cobble beach sites is difficult for a number of reasons. All cultural and organic materials might have been washed through the cobbles, or forest has sprung up overtop eliminating the possibility of surface finds. It is, at this time, impossible to tell the difference between frost-fractured and heat-fractured cobbles, making it more difficult to isolate activity areas that could have contained hearths. The archaeological study of remains on cobble beaches is still in its infancy, therefore a lot of work needs to be done to interpret surface scatters and subsoil stains on traditional archaeological sites with topsoil and subsoil.
Using the Mann-Whitney U test a sample of 20 hearths from the archaeological literature of northern Ontario and the Great Lakes basin (see appendix 5B) was compared to feature types in Pukaskwa National Park. The mean measurement of the diameter (for oval or linear hearths the major axis length was used) is 1.51 m and the median is 1.1 m. The null hypothesis states that some of the features in Pukaskwa National Park are similar in size to hearths and therefore a size analogy can be made.
The size analogy for the hearth tests was only accepted for two feature types in
Pukaskwa National Park, Cairns (n=35) (MW u=411, p=0.2891) and Pole Supports (n=15)
(MW u=105, p=0.1389). Table 5.1 lists the "u" and "p" values for the hearth dimension tests that did not find a similarity between samples. Surprisingly, the two most likely feature types to be interpreted as hearths, Rings (n=79) and Pits (n=270), did not yield positive results.
When comparing the depths from the archaeological sample for pit hearths and the
Pole Support (n=15) feature type in Pukaskwa National Park (MW u=66, p=0.5687), a positive correlation was made indicating that the depths of these feature types is analogous.
Table 5.1 Results of Mann-Whitney U Test for Hearth Diameter
Type u value p value Wall 179.5 0.0005 Walled Enclosure 110.5 0.0024 Mounds 253 0.034 Rings with features 261 0.0002 Rings 570.5 0.0561 Ringed Pits 244 0.0629 Walled Pits 111.5 <0.001 Pits 1439 0.0005 Paves 104 O.0001 Paves with Features 176 O.0001 Paves with Rings 240 0.0005 Paves with Cairns and Mounds 94 0.0031 Bifurcated Pits 99 0.001 Bifurcated Paves 227 O.0001 Bifurcated Paves with Features 98 0.0012 Apartment Complex with Bif. Paves 287 O.0001 101
5.3 An Analogy for Cache Pits
Archaeologists recognize different degrees of nomadism. Fixed point nomadism is most compatible with the use of storage pits (Ingold 1983:560). These fixed points are visited seasonally, allowing the people to leave behind tools and food for an expected return. Storage aids groups to travel unencumbered and indicates that people expected to find subsistence at known locations (Stopp 1994:82); as a result one might expect a higher number of storage pits in a resource procurement area (Stopp 1994:81). Caching was believed to not only serve economic functions but to serve social and ideological functions
(Gillespie 2007:179). By placing caches at specific locations, portable landscape ideology was permanently transferred to these locations. Caches could also be used to create place names in an area with no obvious landscape features (Gillespie 2007:183).
Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted comparing all feature types in Pukaskwa
National Park to the archaeological sample of cache pits. Only 10 measurements were obtained from the archaeological review (see appendix 5D). This is because cache pits are frequently reported on sites but measurements are seldom included in the published articles and reports. The cache pit sample has a mean of 0.59 m and a median of 0.4 m. The null hypothesis states that some of the features in Pukaskwa National Park are similar in size to the cache pits in the archaeological sample.
The test results indicate that it is not possible to make a size analogy between the archaeological sample and any of the feature types from Pukaskwa National Park. As can be seen in Table 5.2, there are no features in Pukaskwa National Park that are similar in dimensions to cache pits. 102
Table 5.2 Mann-Whitney U Results for Cache pit Tests.
u P Type value value Cairns 61 0.0019 Mounds 5 <0.0001 Paves 1 O.0001 Paves with Features 90 O.0001 Paves with Cairns and Mounds 50 0.0027 Paves with Rings 0 O.0001 Rings 42.5 O.0001 Rings with Features .0 <0.0001 Ringed Pits 8 <0.0001 Walled Pits 0 O.0001 Simple Pits 61.5 <0.0001 Pole Supports 37 0.0375 Bifurcated Pits 50 0.0027 Bifurcated Paves 0 O.0001 Bifurcated Paves with features 50 0.0027 Apartment Complex with Bif. Paves 0 O.0001 Walled Enclosures 60 0.0014
5.4 An Analogy for Pole Supports
Pole support diameters (n=13) (or major axes when oval in shape) were taken from the archaeological record in the Great Lakes basin and northern Ontario (see appendix 5E).
The results of the Mann-Whitney U tests indicate that all samples were significantly different and therefore no size analogy could be made between the archaeological sample for Pole Supports and the features in Pukaskwa National Park. As can be seen in Table 5.3
(for space concerns only smaller features were included in Table. See Appendix 5F for all test results), there are no features in Pukaskwa National Park that are similar in dimension to archaeologically recorded Pole Supports. Table 5.3 Mann-Whitney U test for Pole Supports
Type Value Value Cairns 0 O.OOOl Pole Supports 0 O.0001 Ringed Pits 0 O.0001 Walled Pits 0 O.OOOl Simple Pits 0 O.OOOl Rings 0 O.OOOl Mounds 0 O.OOOl Rings with Features 0 O.OOOl Cairns 0 O.OOOl
The Mann-Whitney U test for the depths of Pole Supports, Table 5.4 below, also
shows no relationship between the samples being tested. None of the feature types recovered in Pukaskwa National Park was found to match in average circumference or
average depth to the archaeological assemblage for Pole Supports.
Table 5.4 Mann-Whitney U test Results for Pole Support Depth
Type Value Value Pole Supports 20 0.1031 Ringed Pits TW 12.5 0.0209 Ringed Pits BSCB 20.5 0.0264 Walled Pits TW 16 0.0009 Walled Pits BSCB 41 0.0164 Simple Pits TW 383.5 0.0105 Simple Pits BSCB 79 0.0042
5.5 An Analogy for Burials
A review of the literature yielded 25 archaeological samples with dimension information for burials. It is believed that some of the mounds in Pukaskwa National Park 104 may contain primary burials similar to the one recovered at Nipigon Bay. Unfortunately no dimensions are available for the mound excavated by Arthurs in 1981 on the north shore of
Lake Superior (Arthurs 1995). The Mounds in Pukaskwa National Park are large enough
(they range from 0.95 to 6.7 m) to have been used as a final resting place or as a temporary resting place for the dead. It is possible that some of the larger Mounds may hold secondary burials. The archaeological data on burials (see Appendix 5C) revealed that mound burials ranged from 0.85m (containing one female covered in red ochre) to 30 m
(containing multiple bundle burials) in length.
The null hypothesis states that the features in Pukaskwa National Park are similar in size and may be drawn from the same population as burials. The tests revealed that it was possible to make the size analogy for 10 different feature types in Pukaskwa National
Park. Rings with features (MW u=100, p=0.3735), Walls (MW u=109, p= 0.5687), Paves
(MW u=856.6, p=0.5287), Paves with features (MW u=l 17.5, p=0.8572), Paves with
Mounds and Cairns (MW u=63, p=l), Paves with Rings (MW u=146, p=0.4065),
Bifurcated Pits (MW u=58,p=0.8259), Bifurcated Paves (MW u=145, p=0.8808),
Bifurcated Paves with features (MW u=-60, p=0.9124), Apartment Complex and
Bifurcated Paves (MW u=182, p= 0.887), and Walled Enclosures (MW u=71.5, p=0.8808) all proved to be analogous. The test results were not significant between burials and
Mounds (MW u=140.5, p=0.0385), Cairns (MW u=751, pO.OOOl), Pits (MW u=4490.5, p=0.0063), Ringed Pits (MW u=133, p=0.0244), and Walled Pits (MW u=642, p=0.0332).
The Mann-Whitney U tests for burials produced some surprising results. Paves were assumed to be the prepared floors for living floors but these tests indicate that they may have been used in a manner similar to that reported in ethnographic sources:
Indigenous peoples built wigwam like structures with low roofs to house their dead. There are numerous pictures in the ethnographic sources of cemeteries with multiple rectangular low lying structures that housed human remains and some archaeological evidence at other
sites where this "grave house" style of burial was in use prior to European contact (Wright
1995:289).
5.6 Summary
There is a statistical probability that a size analogy can be made between the archaeological literature on dwellings and Paves with Cairns and Mounds, Paves with assorted features, Bifurcated Paves, Bifurcated Pits, Bifurcated Paves with features, Walled
Enclosures and Apartment Complex style features. No size analogue was found for pole
supports and cache pits indicating that none of the feature types recorded in Pukaskwa
National Park are similar to these. The hearth sample from the literature was found to be
similar in size to Cairns and Pole Supports from Pukaskwa National Park and the burial
sample could be compared to the size of Rings with associated features, Paves, Paves with
Rings, and Paves with associated features. Simple Rings, Mounds, and all pit sub-types were unrelated to the archaeological populations being tested.
Since the features have never been buried and have remained highly visible throughout their history, numerous taphonomic processes could have altered their appearance. This complicates interpretation since it is difficult to determine if the features are a product of a single historic human activity (Johnson 1999:57-58). This makes it difficult and unwise to make any uniformitarian assumptions about the behaviour of the individuals, through time, who may have used these features. The following investigates amalgamated combinations of data from the archaeological record against the feature sub- types from Pukaskwa National Park to determine if the size variation within sub-types can be explained by making size analogies with multiple feature types.
5.7 Multiple Analogues: Combinations Tested Against the Pukaskwa National Park
Data
The following is a summary of the results from the twenty-four different combinations that were tested against the feature types from Pukaskwa National Park.
Only the percentage of probability for the features within the acceptable range (p values over 0.10) will be included below. For the rest of the percentages and all the u values refer to Appendix 5F.
5.71 All Features
The 18 feature sub-types from Pukaskwa National Park were tested against a
sample population which contained all the feature types from the literature review
combined. Of these, 10 of the tests were found to be significant. The highest percentage of probability for the size analogy was for Walled Pits (91.2%), the second was for Rings with features (88.9%), the third was for Walls (84.2%) and the lowest acceptable probability was for Paves with Cairns and Mounds (12.1%). Simple Pits, Pole Supports,
Cairns, Paves with all features (excluding Rings), Rings, Mounds, Ringed Pits, and
Apartment Complex with Bifurcated Paves did not have acceptable probability levels and therefore these features do not show a strong size relationship to all the archaeological types in the sample. 107
5.72 Cache Pits and Living Floors
Ten of the feature types from Pukaskwa National Park were analogous in size with cache pits and living floors while Cairns, Paves with Rings, Rings, Mounds, Ringed Pits,
Walled Pits, Simple Pits, and Pole Support did not yield high enough probability percentages to accept a size analogy. The highest probability was for the size of Bifurcated
Paves (91.2%), the second highest was for Bifurcated Pits (87.3%), the third was for
Walled Enclosures (72.6%), and the lowest acceptable probability was for the size of Rings with features (12.1%).
5.73 Cache Pits and Burials
Only three feature types from Pukaskwa National Park, Pole Supports, Cairns and
Paves could not be compared to the cache pit and burial sample. Of the remaining fifteen features that tested significant, Mounds (100%) had the highest probability of being from the same population followed by Ringed Pits (85.7%) and Simple Pits (72.6%) while
Apartment Complex with Bifurcated Paves (14.4%) had the lowest acceptable probability to make a size analogy.
5.74 Cache Pits and Pole Supports
Only one test, Paves with all features (excluding Rings) (98.4%), had a probability percentage high enough to indicate a size analogy was possible.
5.75 Cache Pits and Hearths
Pole Supports (87.3%) and Cairns (49%) were the only feature types from
Pukaskwa National Park that were analogous to the size of cache pits and hearths. 108
5.76 Living Floors and Pole Supports
Half of the tests in this series were significant which indicates that a size analogy is possible between samples. Rings, Rings with features, Cairns, Mounds, Ringed Pits,
Walled Pits, Simple Pits, Pole Supports and Paves with Rings did not have high enough probabilities to be accepted for analogy. The highest acceptable probability was for
Bifurcated Pits (98.4%) followed by Walled Enclosures (84.9%) and Bifurcated Paves
(76.4%) while Paves with all features (except Rings) (17.4%) had the lowest acceptable probability to make a size analogy between samples.
5.77 Living Floors, Pole Supports and Cache Pits
Eleven of thel8 feature types tested significant to living floors, pole supports, and cache pits combined. Paves (89.6%) had the highest level of probability followed by
Walled Enclosures (80.3%) and Bifurcated Pits (71.1%) while there were two feature types from Pukaskwa National Park, Paves with Cairns and Mounds and Paves with Rings, which had the lowest acceptable probability of 13.9%.
5.78 Living Floors and Hearths
Ten of the combinations tested from Pukaskwa National Park were analogous in size to living floors and hearths combined. Cairns, Rings, Mounds, Ringed Pits, Walled
Pits, Simple Pits, Pole Supports and Paves with Rings were not significant and therefore a size analogy can not be accepted. Walled Enclosures (99.2%) had the highest level of probability followed by Bifurcated Pits (87.3%) and Paves (55.5%) while Paves with all features (11.2%) had the lowest acceptable probability for the size analogy. 5.79 Living Floors, Burials and Hearths
Of the 18 different tests the analogy was accepted for 10 of the feature types in
Pukaskwa National Park. Walled Enclosures (96%) had the highest probability followed by Bifurcated Pits (94.4%) and Bifurcated Paves (67.5%) while Rings with features
(17.1%) have the lowest acceptable probability. Rings, Mounds, Ringed Pits, Simple Pits,
Walled Pits, Pole Supports, Cairns, and Paves with Rings all had probability percentages
that were too low to accept a size analogy.
5.710 Hearths and Pole Supports
Only Pole Supports (24.6%) in Pukaskwa National Park were analogous to the size
represented in the combination of hearths and Pole Supports from the archaeological
literature.
5.711 Hearths, Cache Pits and Pole Supports
Apartment Complex with Bifurcated Paves (18.4%) were the only features from
Pukaskwa National Park that were analogous in size to the combination of hearths, cache pits and Pole Supports from the archaeological sample.
5.712 Burials, Cache Pits and Hearths
Only three feature types from Pukaskwa National Park, Rings (54.2%), Ringed Pits
(49.7%) and Mounds (35.2%), were comparable in size to the combination of burials cache pits and hearths.
5.713 Burials, Pole Supports and Hearths
Only five of the 18 combination tests had probability percentages high enough to indicate that a size analogy was possible among the samples tested. Ringed Pits (28%) had the highest probability followed by Cairns (24%), Mounds (20.1%), Rings (19.7%), and Pole Supports (18%). All the types acceptable for a size analogy scored within 10% of each other indicating that the probability percentage does not vary much between the types accepted for an analogy.
5.714 Living Floors, Hearths and Cache Pits
Ten of the feature types from Pukaskwa National Park were analogous in size while
Cairns, Rings, Mounds, Ringed Pits, Simple Pits, Pole Supports, Paves with Cairns and
Mounds, and Paves with all features (excluding Rings) did not yield a high enough probability percentage to accept a size analogy. Walls (82.6%) had the highest probability followed by Walled Enclosures (69.7%), Bifurcated Pits (61%), Bifurcated Paves (61%), and the lowest acceptable probability was for Apartment Complex with Bifurcated Paves
(11.6%).
5.715 Living Floors, Hearths and Pole Supports
Eight of the 18 tests showed living floors, hearths and Pole Supports were analogous in size to features from Pukaskwa National Park. Walls (95.2%) had the highest percentage followed by Walled Enclosures (62.4%), Bifurcated Pits (54.2%). Bifurcated
Paves (22.2%) had the lowest acceptable probability percentage. Rings, Ringed Pits,
Mounds, Simple Pits, Pole Supports, Cairns, Paves with Cairns and Mounds, Paves with all features (excluding Rings), Bifurcated Paves with features and Apartment Complex features with Bifurcated Paves did not have acceptable probability levels and therefore a size analogy could not be made between these features and all the features in the sample.
5.716 Burials and Hearths
The sizes of 11 features from Pukaskwa National park were found to be analogous to the combination of burials and hearths. Pole Supports, Walled Pits, Apartment Complex with Bifurcated Paves, Bifurcated Pits, Paves with all features, Cairns and Paves did not yield a high enough probability percentage to accept a size analogy. Mounds (86.5%) had the highest probability followed by Simple Pits (79.5%), Ringed Pits (67.5%), and Paves with Cairns and Mounds (11.4%) had the lowest acceptable probability.
5.717 Burials and Pole Supports
Thirteen of the features from Pukaskwa National Park tests were analogous in size to burials and pole supports. Paves, Paves with all features (except Rings), Bifurcated
Paves, Apartment Complex with Bifurcated Paves and Walled Pits did not yield a high enough probability percentage to accept a size analogy. Ringed Pits (66.7%) had the highest acceptable probability followed by Rings (65.3%), Mounds (57.6%), while Paves with Rings (20.4%) had the lowest probability of the tests within the acceptable range.
There is less than 1 % difference between the Ring Pit results in this test and the Ring results for the burials and hearths test.
5.718 Burials and Living Floors
Seven of the feature types from Pukaskwa National Park were found to be analogous in size to the combination of burials and living floors. Apartment Complex with
Bifurcated Paves (82.6%) had the highest level of probability followed by Bifurcated
Paves with features (79.5%), Bifurcated Paves (59.6%), and Walled Enclosures (43.5%) had the lowest significance within the acceptable range. Bifurcated features only seem to be in the top three acceptable probability percentages when living floors are part of a two or three feature combination. 112
5.719 Living Floors, Hearths, Burials, Pole Supports
Ten of the tests were analogous in size. Walls (85.7%) had the highest percentage of probability followed by Walled Enclosures (71.8%), Paves (71.1%), and Paves with
Cairns and Mounds had the lowest percentage of probability within the acceptable range.
Cairns, Rings, Paves, Paves with all features (except Rings, Rings), Mounds, Ringed Pits,
Simple Pits, and Pole Support tests did not yield high enough probability percentages to accept a size analogy.
5.720 Living Floors, Hearths, Cache Pits and Pole Supports
The sizes of six features from Pukaskwa National Park were found to be analogous to the combination of living floors, hearths, cache pits and Pole Supports. Rings with features (91.2%) had the highest probability followed by Walled Pits (86.5%), Walls
(69.7%), Paves with Rings (63.8%), Walled Enclosures (41.8%), and Bifurcated Pits
(37.4%). There is a wide range of probabilities separating these results with over 50% making up the difference from highest to lowest.
5.721 Living Floors, Burials and Cache Pits
Nine of the feature types from Pukaskwa National park were found to be analogous to the combination of living floors, burials and cache pits. Bifurcated Paves (96.7%) had the highest percentage of probability followed by Bifurcated Pits (85.7%), Walled
Enclosures (74.9%); and Paves (14.9%) had the lowest acceptable percentage of probability. Rings, Rings with features, Cairns, Paves with Rings, Mounds, Ringed Pits,
Walled Pits, Simple Pits, and Pole Supports did not yield a high enough probability percentage to accept a size analogy. 113
5.722 Living Floors, Burials, Hearths, and Cache Pits
Eleven of the tests between the feature types from Pukaskwa National Park and living floors, burials, hearths and cache pits were analogous in size while Paves with all features (except Rings), Rings, Mounds, Ringed Pits, Simple Pits, Pole Supports and
Cairns did not yield a high enough probability percentage to accept a size analogy. Paves with Rings (18.4%) had the lowest acceptable level of probability while Paves (90.5%) had the highest percentage of probability followed by Walled Enclosures (78.7%) and Walls
(75.7%). Walled Enclosures always seem to be in the top three when living floors are combined with three other feature types from the archaeological sample.
5.723 Living Floors, Burials, Cache Pits and Pole Supports
Twelve of the tests showed a size analogy between the feature types from
Pukaskwa National Park and living floors, burials, cache pits and pole supports. Paves with
Rings (14.7%) had the lowest acceptable level of probability while Walled Enclosures
(87.3%) had the highest level of probability followed by Paves (84.3%) and Bifurcated Pits
(81.8%). Cairns, Rings, Mounds, Ringed Pits, Simple Pits and Pole Supports did not yield a high enough probability percentage to accept a size analogy.
5.724 Living Floors, Burials and Pole Supports
Ten of the combinations tested against the feature types from Pukaskwa National
Park were analogous in size while Rings, Mounds, Ringed Pits, Walled Pits, Simple Pits,
Pole Supports, Cairns and Paves with Rings did not yield a high enough probability percentage to accept a size analogy. The lowest acceptable probability was generated from the Rings with features test (13.6%) while Bifurcated Pits (93.6%) had the highest level of probability followed by Walled Enclosures (84.9%) and Bifurcated Paves (84.2%). 114
5.725 Summary
This section demonstrates that the types and sub-types in Pukaskwa National Park need to be further broken down in order to further isolate the specific activities for which the features may have been built. There is a lot of diversity in form and size present in the archaeological record on the cobble beaches of Pukaskwa National Park.
5.8 Field Observation: Do Pits and Mounds Represent different parts of the Cache Pit Life Cycle?
Ross and D'Annibale (2000:163) have interpreted distinct piles of stone next to a circular Pit as opened cache pits, Mounds as unopened cache pits (Ross and D'Annibale
1996:118; Ross et al. 1998:155) and circular Pits, averaging 1.3 m in diameter, as opened cache pits (Ross et al. 1998:155). The following tests whether or not there is a statistical significance between the size of Mounds, Cairns, and Pits in Pukaskwa National Park.
The null hypothesis states that the Pits are a product of the same activity, and therefore that they are the same size as Mounds and Cairns. The two feature types may simply represent different stage of the feature lifecycle. If the null hypothesis is rejected, the alternative states that Pits, Mounds and Cairns are unrelated and represent features used for different functions. In all cases, the major axis measurements were used for comparison.
5.81 Analogical Combinations
Two of the tests were significant and accepted a size analogy. The major axis information for mounds and Ringed Pits were found to be analogous (MW u=162.5, p=l).
To test further the relationship between mounds and Ringed Pits the height information for the Mounds was tested against the depth information for the Ringed Pits. Both the top of wall (MW u=97.5, p=0.4533) and beach surface to centre bottom (MW u=102, p=0.6818) measurements when compared to the height of Mounds were within the acceptable range for a size analogy. Mounds and Ringed Pits are therefore analogous in circumference (or major axis) and depth versus height.
The major axis information for mounds and Simple Pits (MW u=2033, p=0.246) were found to be related. Both the top of wall (MW u=476.5, p=0.7566) and beach surface to centre bottom (MW u=2118.5, p=0.4654) measurement for Simple Pits when compared to the height of the Mounds proved to be from the same population. The size of mounds and Simple Pits and Mound and Ringed Pits were only two tests that showed an analogy could be drawn between the sizes.
5.82 Combinations with no Analogy
The Mann-Whitney U test indicated that the size of Cairns compared to Simple Pits
(MW u=940.5, p<0.0001); Walled Pits (MW u=792, pO.OOOl); and Ringed Pits (MW u=536, pO.OOOl); as well as mounds compared to Walled Pits (MW u=107.5, pO.OOOl) were found to be significantly different and an analogy could not be drawn between the sizes of the two.
5.83 Summary
There is a statistical significance in size between Mounds and Ringed Pits and
Mounds and Simple Pits. The depth of these Pits versus the height of the Mounds was also found to have a similar distribution. This indicates that the two features share similar dimensions and the destruction of one may have resulted in the creation of the other. The test results provide evidence in favour of the claim made by Ross and D'Annibale that Pits may be opened cache pits and Mounds unopened cache pits. This may also indicate that these features were used for different activities such as primary burials (Mounds) and excavated primary burials (Pits). This test assumes that Pits excavated into the cobble beaches will share the same dimensions as the Mounds built over top of the Pits. Though it
is unlikely that the underlying pit will be larger than the mound, there is no way to prove
that the underlying pit will be the same size and not smaller.
5.9 Conclusion
The initial statistical tests yielded a few surprising results. Paves, as predicted in the
field by Mcllwraith, MacMillan, Dawson and Ross, were not analogous in size to living
floors. Instead the dimensions of Paves were found to be most similar to those of burials.
Pole Supports in Pukaskwa National Park were found to be analogous to hearths. Mounds were found to differ when compared to burial sizes. Some of the field observations refuted by the initial statistical tests were later accepted when the archaeological samples were
combined and tested against the feature types from Pukaskwa National Park. The
combination tests indicated that the feature types from Pukaskwa National Park are
analogous in size to features from the archaeological record that served different functions.
These findings complicate interpretation on a feature-to-feature basis but show the
diversity present between types and among sub-types in Pukaskwa National Park. The
findings also indicate that assigning activities on the basis of feature morphologies and
sizes is going to be complicated and that analysis is best performed on a site by site basis
and based on the number of features and their placement. The following summarizes the
findings per feature type in Pukaskwa National Park. CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION
This Chapter discusses the premises and problems of the Vision Quest hypothesis,
and introduces a new model based on the results obtained in the previous Chapters.
6.1 Vision Quest Hypothesis Premises and Problems
Four lines of argument led Emerson to propose his Vision Quest hypothesis. First,
cobble beaches are believed to be uninhabitable because they are barren and surrounded by tangled brush. The cobbles are also believed by archaeologists to pose comfort issues for the inhabitants of these sites. Second, few artefacts were recovered which was believed to
indicate a paucity of subsistence behaviours on these beaches. Religious activities,
especially fasting and meditation for vision quests, were presented as an explanation since they would require little or no artefacts. Any artefacts used for religious ceremonies would be considered sacred medicine and would have been closely guarded and not left behind.
Third, beaches along the shoreline were thought to be isolated, and to represent sufficient
space for spiritual activities that required isolation from people. Indigenous Woodland peoples are known to conduct ritual activities in isolation where they would fast to get into
contact with their manitous. Lastly, the population of northern Ontario was believed to be
small and transient (Dawson 1975:4,6). Since fasting was a common practice during vision quests, the lack of resources would not hinder the practitioner of spiritual activities who was not in need of food. Therefore, this newly encountered archaeological phenomenon was believed to be the place for cosmological activities since these sites were not suitable for habitation, there was no evidence of subsistence activities found at these sites, and the sites were isolated and not near sufficient resources to sustain habitation. Developments in archaeology have since revealed a pattern of seasonal aggregation
on the shores of lakes and rivers along migration and travel routes and at locations
favourable for fishing. This pattern is most prevalent in the Middle and Late Woodland
period. Despite the perceived undesirability of the beach surface, the cobble feature sites
located along the shoreline of Pukaskwa National Park correspond to a Woodland pattern
of settlement and seasonal exploitation.
The Vision Quest hypothesis' main flaw is that it doesn't allow for variation. The
cosmological interpretation generalizes about human behaviour at particular locales on the
landscape and masks the differences that are present in the cobble feature assemblage. The
following will outline the shortfalls, assumptions and problems of each of the four
premises presented by the Vision Quest hypothesis and will offer archaeological and
ethnographic evidence that are inconsistent with this hypothesis.
6.11 Problem" 1: Location
The Vision Quest hypothesis assumes that the cobble beaches are in remote,
unpopulated areas. Shorelines were not remote to people who possessed watercraft. The
shores of Lake Superior and the interconnected lakes and rivers that lead to Lake Winnipeg
are part of an old migration route that has been in use for thousands of years. The main
rivers that drain into Lake Superior in the Park (the White River, Willow River, Oiseau
Creek, Cascade River, Imogene River, and the Pukaskwa River) are interconnected to
other bodies of water and would have allowed access to and from the interior.
The beaches are also believed to be uninhabitable spaces because they are barren,
surrounded by tangled brush and the cobble matrix of the beaches was considered hard to walk on. For these reasons it was assumed that there were more favourable places for habitation close by (i.e. sand beaches). However, Pierre Esprit Radisson in his travels to the south shore of Lake Superior in 1659 indicates that the rocky beaches were preferred for camps because they were at a higher elevation and safe from the ravages of Lake
Superior storms. The sandy beaches, considered a more favourable location by Emerson, were much lower in elevation and were repeatedly battered by waves during periods of high winds and during Lake Superior's violent storms (Adams 1961:122). The banks of the sand beaches would often be flooded leaving no place to land boats and the blowing sand was also a chocking hazard (Adams 1961:122). Therefore, it would appear that cobble beaches, though perceived as less comfortable, did have advantages over sand beaches.
The cobble matrixes of these beaches have other benefits that made them attractive locations. When it comes to food storage, cobble beaches also have advantages over sand beaches. According to Marianne Stopp (1994:81), "the morphological properties of a cobble beach formation make it a useful matrix for storage". The lack of enzymatic conditions makes cobble beaches low decay environments and because of the loose pack cobble matrix, and depth of these beaches, they tend to be well drained (Stopp 1994:81).
During the winter cobbles could still be manipulated because unlike soil, cobbles do not freeze and bond together (Greenman 1964:92). If shelter, storage and cache pits, or burials were necessary during the winter months, cobble beaches would have been ideal environments because the cobbles could still be used. Cobble beaches were advantageous spots because they are on higher land which is safe from the ravages of Lake Superior storms, accessible for watercraft landing, well drained, low decay environments, and they had building materials accessible regardless of the season.
Places are always "read" or understood in relation to others (Tilley 1994:27) and
Norman Emerson was comparing the shores of Lake Superior to places he was familiar with and had experienced in southern Ontario. Norman Emerson, while constructing his own interpretations of the cobble beaches, created an illusion of inhospitable romanticism
that, combined with the 'enigmatic' cobble features, makes this part of the landscape seem
hard and unwelcoming. Emerson's interpretation, which he believed was a product of
empathy, was actually a reflection of his own value system.
6.12 Problem 2: Artefact Recovery Rate
The paucity of artefacts recovered from cobble beaches led Norman Emerson to
assume that these sites could not have been used for habitation and subsistence. Rain fall,
melting snow, shifting cobbles from vibrations, and frost action could have displaced
artefacts through the cobble matrix in a manner unknown to archaeologists because the
post-depositional process for cobble beaches has not yet been studied. Artefacts likely fell
through the cobble matrix and disappeared (Farvaque 1997:124). A scarcity of artefacts is
characteristic of most archaeological sites in northern Ontario. In his report to the Land
and Forestry department, Emerson (1958: \9} states that "the conditions of deposition make
it miraculous that even the small sample of cultural material was recovered". With the
exception of a few patches of trees on the beaches, likely growing in the decomposed residue of former storm beaches, all fine sediments, sand and soil are cleared from the beaches by fluvial and aerial processes, leaving features and artefacts visible and making it possible for artefacts to be collected.
Cosmological activities are not the only activities known to leave very little
evidence behind. The absence of hunting equipment could also imply that the sites were not in use during prime times of the year for hunting such as fall and winter (Steinbring
1973:42). Some of the artefacts used for fishing, seine and dip nets, would not have been preserved. An ethnographic example of present day Inuit fishing on the Ekalluk River of
Victoria Island shows that very little evidence of subsistence activities (Friesen 2002:341) is left behind. Individual Inuit spread along the river's banks only left the occasional rectangular cache to indicate the area was used as a fishing camp (Friesen 2002:341).
We do not know to what extent the features, and possibly the artefacts, on cobble beach sites have been culturally filtered. These sites are found in areas that were likely revisited from year to year and this may have created sufficient cultural disturbance to
smudge the record of human activity (Butzer 1982:98-99). For example some of the mounds could have been initially created by the excavation required to sort stones for the floors of shelters and these by-products of house construction may have been subsequently used for different purposes by later occupants. Discerning the different stratigraphic layers of human activity is difficult on these types of sites.
The highly visible nature of the features would have influenced site use. According to ethnographic accounts of Ojibwa rice camps, campsites were recognisable by the sapling frames of wigwams and the presence of these frames established a families territory for several generations (Vennum 1988:162). It is likely that peoples from the more distant past also left behind the skeletal structures of their wigwams as this would serve multiple functions: it would indicate to others that the site was occupied, it would reduce the amount of work required on future visits, and would preserve the wood resources around the camp site by reusing materials. If the location was still attractive and the facilities still functional the site could be re-occupied with little expenditure of energy
(Smith and McNees 1999:118). On the other hand, if the location was still attractive but the facilities were in need of repair people might have erected new structures at a slightly different location on the same beach or people may have made the necessary repairs to existing facilities (Smith and McNees 1999:118). When the location no longer remained 122 attractive, possibly due to depleted resources, then people were likely to relocate (Smith and McNees 1999:118).
The artefacts recovered at the Red Sucker Point site allowed Emerson to postulate a relative dating sequence based on horizontal stratigraphy. During the 1957 field season five features were excavated by carefully removing boulders. It was believed that the only chance of recovering remains was to get down to the bedrock or a consolidated layer of small compact pebbles (Emerson 1959:71). Of the five features excavated on the different beach terraces, only two features on the lower terrace yielded any artefacts. Plain and cord- wrapped pottery fragments were recovered, as well as flint chips, worked flint, caribou teeth, clam shells and burned animal bones (Emerson 1959:72). The recovered artefacts made it clear that Indigenous peoples were the former inhabitants of the sites, and according to Emerson (1959:72), dated the lowest level of the relict beach to a maximum of 1550 B.C. The lack of artefacts on the upper and central terraces was thought to indicate that they were pre-ceramic in age.
James Wright (1995:290) claimed that artefact recoveries had a tendency to date to terraces when they were still active beaches. This assumption is questionable. Due to the composition of cobble beaches, with irregular cobble shapes and crevices, artefacts would have moved through the cobbles in both a vertical and horizontal fashion. The artefacts found at the lower beach sites may have originally been associated with a higher terrace and over the centuries slowly descended to the lower terraces. There is no way to know if the Woodland artefacts recovered at the lower beaches of the Red Sucker Point site were directly below where they were left in situ, therefore the context of their recovery is questionable. 123
Arthurs (1981:27) pointed out a problem with the dating of the pottery fragments found at the Red Sucker Point site, which helped substantiate archaeologists' claims that terrace heights were good indicators of site occupation. Emerson assigned a maximum date of 1550 B.C. (in northern Ontario this is during the Late Archaic which is pre- ceramic) based on the cord-malleated body sherd. Due to Emerson's expertise in southern
Ontario archaeology, he was mistaken in his dating of the pottery because, in the north, cord-wrapped decoration occurs late in the Laurel sequence, dating to approximately 1150-
1500 A.D. (Arthurs 1981:27).
Mcllwraith (1958:43) claims that the appearance of cobble features on "different beach levels suggests great antiquity". Marianne Stopp (1997:131) reminds archaeologists that elevation is not always a reliable method of cultural identification since "later groups may well have used the higher elevation cobble beach pits". There is no archaeological proof that terraces were only occupied while at lake level. The assumption that the occupation of terraces corresponded to the water levels of the time is not well supported by archaeological evidence.
Studies conducted in the 1980s, indicate that isostatic rebound is present on the north shore of Lake Superior and that "the elevation range of a single ridge is often greater than that between sets of ridges, so that the correlation of ridges by elevation is unrealistic"
(Phillips 1982:140). Archaeologically, for example, there are discrepancies with regards to where Woodland sites may be found: "contemporaneous sites on contemporaneous strandlines, but in different locations, will not be found at the same elevation" (Farvaque
1997:97). Lake Superior's basin drains in the southeast, as a result the southwest rises and the northeast sinks (Karrow 1994:227). Due to isostatic uplift some archaeological features
(and later terraces) in Pukaskwa National Park may now be underwater. Water levels reached their maximum in the Nipissing-Great Lakes phase after 4500 B.C. Therefore, it is believed by Arthurs (1981:27) that any structures built prior to the Nippissing maximum, and any artefacts associated with them, have been "submerged and reworked by waves".
Therefore any sites dating to the Early and Middle Archaic would be underwater. Phillips
(1993:93) believes that Woodland sites are found inland and that Late Archaic sites are associated with Nipissing and later lake phases. Wright (1995:126), on the other hand, argues that the "dramatically fluctuating water levels of the Upper Great Lakes during this time period [8000-4000 B.C.] means that many sites are now situated on elevated strandlines in the heavily forested hinterlands of the Upper Great Lakes". It is not just isostatic uplift that influences the location of archaeological sites. As noted by Phillips
(1975:9-10), many interrelated geological elements may influence the archaeological record:
Since the volume of water in the lake basin is dependent upon the inflow of river waters as compared with the outflow into lower lakes and rivers, the history of uplift and minor climatic fluctuation has resulted in oscillating lake levels as well as generally rising land levels. Thus, the edges of ancient lakes have been both above and below present lake level. The lake levels now are eroding the edge of beach materials deposited about 2000 BP [50A.D.] due to a slight rise of the water level in recent time (Phillips 1975:9-10).
Arthurs (1981:27) and Phillips (1993:93) both believe that Archaic sites are now underwater while Wright (1995:126) believes they are located inland despite isostatic rebound evidence which indicates part of the northern shore is slowly dropping. A geological survey of Pukaskwa National Park would shed light on the effects of isostatic rebound within the park boundaries and would give a clearer picture of how fluctuating water levels affected the location of early archaeological sites. The dating of these features based on terrace heights and based on the recovery of artefacts at certain terrace heights is questionable. The low recovery rate of artefacts can also be attributed to post-depositional processes or other activities that are not cosmological. 6.13 Problem 3: Dreams Take Place in Isolation
Cobble beaches are assumed to be in remote, unpopulated areas ideal for secluded vision quests. Coastlines, however, are excellent microenvironments for short term and long term human exploitation (Butzer 1982 table 4.1:57) because they provide access to both interior resources and aquatic resources, and they are located along travel routes.
People would have been drawn to the coast not repelled by it. Waterways were highways that moved large amounts of people and it has been speculated that prehistoric populations as far back as the Palaeo-Indian period possessed watercraft (Stork 2004). Mcllwraith
(1958:43) indicates that the north shore of Lake Superior was part of an old migration route. These were not remote shorelines; they were easily accessible and well travelled by the indigenous peoples of the past.
The lakeside settlement pattern evident in the Woodland period indicates that the mouths of rivers and bays along the Lake Superior shoreline were not isolated areas, they were in fact preferred fishing locations. Dawson (1975:4, 5) acknowledges that fish was a bountiful resource along the coast of Lake Superior but indicates that the ample fish resources led to the worship of Lake Superior. He cites Jesuit Father Allouez's 1667 account of Indigenous worship of Lake Superior and uses this as his justification for classifying all the cobble beach sites as places of socio-religious activities (Dawson
1975:5).
It is one thing to identify sites of ritual activity in the archaeological record, but it becomes a problem if most of the sites investigated in a region are for religious purposes and not for habitation or subsistence, especially when cobble beaches are located next to a highly sought after resource. This cosmological focus implies that cobble beaches on the north shore of Lake Superior were used, in a sense, as a church, that spiritual practices were separated from other activities of subsistence and trade and that this part of the landscape was set aside solely for cosmological purposes. Indigenous studies show that this is a boundary created by research and was not an Indigenous practice. Sagard, while with the Hurons at a fishing camp, states that "in each fishing-lodge there is usually a fish- preacher whose practice is to preach a sermon to the fish.. .exhorted the fish, conjured them, begged and entreated them to come, to allow themselves to be caught" (Wrong
1939:188). In this case, the ritual activity was fully integrated with subsistence and occupation. It was done prior to and during fishing activities and was carried out on the camp site and not in isolation.
As stated in Chapter Three, there are many kinds of dreamers. For adolescents, vision quests are not achieved over night. They take months of preparation for both the mind and the body. When an adolescent first starts the vision quest process it is done hours at a time. It takes a few years to be left in isolation with no food or water (Shirley
Williams, personal communication 2008) . Bad dreams were as much a reality as good dreams and the approach of a bad spirit would cancel the process for a year and the youth would need to start the process again (Gill 1982:98). Elders kept an eye on the young to ensure they were not drinking and eating and they were accessible in case bad spirits appeared (Gill 1982:98). Therefore not all vision quests occur in complete isolation. In most cases they occur on satellite sites, near the place of summer aggregation. In adulthood vision quests were most commonly conducted by skilled individuals who used their dreams to predict the outcome of events or to acquire medicine to help the people around them. Success in the hunt, success on the war path, and obtaining knowledge for the curing of sickness were the most common reason to conduct vision quests. Though it is true that some spiritual rituals were conducted in isolation, the majority of socio-religious practices 127 were conducted on habitation sites to be witnessed by other people (i.e. spirit lodge ceremony).
6.14 Problem 4: Scarcity of Resources
The shores of Lake Superior were thought to be desolate and hold little in resources to attract prehistoric populations. Dawson (1975:4) claims that fishing would have been the economic activity to attract people to the area, and that the food resources provided by the
Boreal forest were limited and only seasonally available.
Woodland caribou are indigenous to Pukaskwa National Park as are other mammals that can be found along the coast like bear, wolf, skunk, marten, beaver, porcupines, squirrel, and rabbit (Dunlop 1998:5; Marsh 1976:9; Ross 1994:119; Smith and
Foster 1982:12). According to Smith and Foster (1982:12) caribou and fish would have provided most of the biomass within the shoreline environment. Forest boundaries change, and game trails, no longer visible today, may have provided access to the interior from these beaches. Forest fires may have cleared patches of land; certain plants, like blueberries will grow the second or third year following a forest fire (Barker 1979:40).
If cobble feature sites are associated with recurring habitation, the multitude of cobble features discovered on the waterways between Lake Winnipeg and Lake Huron, coupled with the sheer size and complexity of the fortress site in Pukaskwa National Park
(Dawson 1975:72), would indicate that the resources available in northern Ontario could sustain a population much larger than originally speculated. The highly productive fishing on Lake Superior during spring and fall spawning season allowed for a high degree of resource security and residential stability in the Upper Great Lakes, furthermore it has been speculated that the resources of the Upper Great Lakes were as bountiful as the Eastern
United States (Cleland 1982:765, 768). Archaeologists do not acknowledge the heterogeneity reflected by local variables in the Boreal forest (Hamilton and Larcombe 1994:33, 34, 35). The species and even the genera of dominant trees and animals within the circumpolar needle-leaved forests are different from region to region across the northern hemisphere's Boreal zone (Odum
1971:140, in Butzer 1982:15). Fishing, gathering and the game available for hunting were ample and diverse enough to support base camps both north (i.e. Heron Bay) and south
(i.e. Michipicoten) of the Pukaskwa National Park.
6.2 Premises of the Camp Site Subsistence Model
The model presented in opposition to the Vision Quest hypothesis makes use of the existing alternative hypotheses that have been offered by several different researchers to explain the function of cobble features. I propose that cobble features found along the shorelines of Lake Superior are the remains of a variety of different activities: temporary sites where shelters were built for overnight stays or for protection from storms; seasonal camp sites with various features for the range of activities conducted on site; and seasonal base camps from which a variety of subsistence activities were carried out. Three lines of evidence lead me to this conclusion.
First, the location of sites. The archaeological evidence for the Canadian Shield beginning in the Late Archaic period and continuing through the Woodland period indicates that settlements were often found at the ecotone between land and water (Wright
1995:279). The earliest evidence for fishing in the Upper Great Lakes dates to approximately 3000 to 1000 B.C., the Late Archaic (Cleland 1982:768), and evidence of fishing continues on Middle Woodland sites settlements occurred more frequently along rivers and lakes (Cleland 1982:770). The Late Woodland reveals a shore-oriented 129
settlement system (Cleland 1982:772) with increasingly larger sites being occupied for
longer periods of time. The sites on the cobble beaches of Pukaskwa National Park are
found on the shoreline of a lake celebrated for its fishing resources. The location of the
cobble beach sites is consistent with the settlement pattern for the Late Archaic, the Middle
Woodland, and Late Woodland periods, and is also congruent with the exploitation of a
highly sought after and bountiful resource widely exploited in the archaeological record,
fish.
The second premise is founded on site size. Larger sites, referred to as base camps by Wright (1995:279, 1999:755; c.f. Conway 1975:19; Cleland 1982:772), were
established at good fishing locations and are believed to have smaller task-specific satellite
sites, that were repeatedly occupied, associated with them (Wright 1995:279; Cleland
1982;772; Conway 1975:19).
Smaller sites adjacent to fish spawning grounds were used by the Odawa on
Georgian Bay (Fox 1990:466) and there is ethnographic evidence of Hurons using satellite
camps for fishing in Georgian Bay. In 1623, Father Sagard set out in the month of October
with the Hurons to a fishing camp north of their village on Georgian Bay. The camp was
established on an island, only one day's trip from their village, and when Sagard's travel party got to the island they saw other dwellings set up "in Algonquin fashion" [sic] by people from other villages. This site was occupied for a month before camp was packed up
and people left for their respective villages (Wrong 1939:185-191). During the winter months, the population at the base camps are believed to have split into smaller family units and travelled inland where smaller, archaeologically unknown, sites were used.
Multiple smaller sites along waterways, located within a short communication range, first witnessed on the English River, are believed to be an alternative style of base camp
(Wright 1999:756).
There is a great variety of site sizes in Pukaskwa National Park which makes it difficult to interpret which settlement pattern is represented by the sites on the coast. The
Michipicoten Site (1100A.D. to historic period [Wright 1968:1]) at the mouth of the
Michipicoten River, just south of Pukaskwa National Park, is believed to have been a centre from which indigenous resource exploitation took place (Conway 1975:17). The
Heron Bay site at the mouth of the Pic River, the northern boundary of Pukaskwa National
Park, would have been a base camp occupied from spring to fall (Wright 1999:755). Some of the sites on the Pukaskwa National Park coast could be interpreted as satellite fishing camps to the larger base camps to the north and south of the Park boundaries.
Figure 6.1 Location of the North Byron II site and the Swallow Bay site 131
The North Byron II site (28H58) (Mcleod Site DaIm-7 (Dawson 1975:81)) has 57
features and the Swallow Bay site (28h64) (Nap Site DbIm-9 (Dawson 1975:64)) has 52
features (see Appendix 6 A for the location of all the sites in PNP as of 2007). The features
on these larger sites may not all be contemporaneous, but the location of the sites is
consistent with the chosen locations for warm season aggregations: the North Byron II site
is located on the south side of a small bay just northwest of the mouth of the Cascade
River, and the Swallow Bay site is located on the south shore of the bay at the mouth of the
Swallow River (see Appendix 6B). The majority of sites, regardless of size, are found in
sheltered bays or near rivers. How many features, specifically dwellings, are required for a
site to be considered a base camp? The answer to this question is crucial in identifying the type of sites in Pukaskwa National Park.
The third premise is established using the quantitative data represented in Chapters
Four and Five. This argument states that the assortment of features in Pukaskwa National
Park's assemblage and the different assortments of features from site to site may indicate that the sites were used for more than one purpose and for different durations. The average number of features per site is 9.3. The smallest sites (n=3) are comprised of 1 feature and the largest contained 57 features. Seven sites contained more than 20 features (see
Appendix 6A). No two sites are the same. The non-parametric Mann-Whitney U tests conducted in Chapter Five showed that there were similarities between feature sizes reported on "traditional" archaeological sites and the cobble features in Pukaskwa National
Park. Chapter Five also revealed that the twelve feature types found in Pukaskwa National
Park were statistically similar in size to a variety of features (i.e. dwellings, burials, etc.) from the archaeological record and thus may have been produced for the same reason features were produced on "traditional" archaeological sites. Chapter Five did show that 132 one feature type from Pukaskwa National Park (i.e. Paves) was likely produced for multiple activities (i.e. dwellings, burials, etc.).
The different kinds of occupations proposed by this hypothesis reflect the mobility patterns of the nomadic hunter-gatherer-fishers in the Great Lakes basin. Since people who anticipate a short occupation on a site will not invest much energy in elaborate dwellings
(Kent 1992:637), it can be assumed that sites with features that show only moderate sorting of cobbles were occupied for shorter periods of time, with no intention of return, and that these occupations may have been unexpected (i.e coming to shore for a storm).
Furthermore these sites could have been used as staging areas to access the interior. As a result, only rare traces of human activity would be expected. More time and energy would be expected for sites that were extensively utilized over one or several seasons. Larger sites or sites with intricate cobble features were likely occupied for multiple seasons or were returned to seasonally. The different site sizes could represent a temporal pattern. Smaller sites are part of the Archaic period settlement pattern. Permanent villages are not known for this time period. Settlement size consisted of small reused camp sites for hunting and fishing. During the Woodland period, sites grew larger as people stayed for longer periods of time to exploit resource areas. Smaller sites could be earlier than larger sites or they may be satellite sites associated with the larger sites. That being said, multiple activities, which could have created different sizes of archaeological remains, likely took place along the
Lake Superior shoreline during any time period.
6.3 Summary
Post-depositional processes and poor preservation are likely the reason why many artefacts have not been recovered on cobble beaches or during the excavation of features. 133
The complex matrix of cobbles has been discussed since the late 1950s and has been stated to be the reason why few artefacts were recovered. Shorelines are not likely to be isolated.
These beaches were part of the waterways which were highways that moved large amounts of people, and unlike the rest of the coastline, which is made up of some sand beaches but mostly consist of towering granite outcrops that plunge into the water, these beaches were
accessible by watercraft and possessed many positive attributes (i.e high ground, dry, good
drainage, low decay environments, readiness of building materials etc.) that made them
favourable environments to set up camp. Resources were seasonally available, and were
likely no more impoverished than any other cultural area in eastern Canada and the United
States.
The Vision Quest hypothesis uses weak analogy to support its conclusions and does not create a good defence against other interpretations. The ethnographic record provides little evidence that cobble features were constructed for spiritual purposes. Furthermore, regionally, though this may be due to archaeological survey bias, we know that favourable
site locations are along lakes, rivers and portages that connect a web of waterways and would have allowed travellers to move west, north, east and south.
The alternative model presented in this thesis states that the location of the cobble
feature sites fits into the locational parameters of known Woodland period sites in the
Upper Great Lakes. Adaptations are rarely momentary; they tend to be cumulative, reflecting local environments in which a group has previously learned and in which its predecessors have learned (Wagner 1974 in Butzer 1982:214). Woodland people exploited the same fish species as Archaic peoples but during the Middle Woodland the appearance of small warm-season camps increases on the shores of the Upper Great Lakes and this is believed to be the result of a change in technology that allowed for greater fishing success 134
(Cleland 1982:774). The larger catches meant more work back at the camp sites. In the fall, fish needed to be smoked and dried to be stored for winter needs. Lakeside settlements increased between the Middle to Late Woodland and this is believed to have been caused by the greater effort and energy required for the fall fishery (Cleland 1982:775). 135
CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS
The objective of this thesis was to dissect all aspects of the Vision Quest hypothesis. Furthermore, I wanted to test the feasibility of the alternative hypotheses offered in the archaeological literature and my aim was to put forward an alternative to the
Vision Quest hypothesis that was flexible enough to explain the diversity of sites located on the Lake Superior. In order to do this, analogy was used but I was mindful of the pitfalls of comparing pre-contact hunter-gatherer-fisher societies and contemporary ethnographic sources and used the archaeological record instead. The following are the conclusions drawn from this research.
7.1 Research Objectives
7.11 Vision Quest Hypothesis
Indigenous religion and ritual behaviour has long been the focus of anthropologists and ethnologists, and though cosmological activities have captured archaeologist's imaginations, they have rarely been represented in the archaeological record. During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, anthropologists and ethnologists believed that the indigenous cultures were quickly dying out (Trigger 1989:5), and as a result interest in indigenous folklore and mythology increased as researchers recorded all available information. Since the work of Dixon (1908), Radin (1914, 1936) and Benedict (1923), the vision quest has been established in the imaginations of anthropologists and archaeologists.
Vision quests, practiced by most Algonquian-speaking Woodland groups, could leave physical traces. Dreams were often drawn on people's clothing and their bodies. 136
Teachings from the dreams may also be left on the landscape where they were drawn or pecked into stone. Petroforms, an animal form created by arranging cobbles on flat bedrock or ground surface, are believed to be for cosmological ritual (Wright 1995:560).
Because of poor preservation, acidic soils, and territorial constraints of inland areas in northern Ontario the fasting activities of one individual likely left little evidence on the landscape other than the deliberate marks left by the dreamer.
The Vision Quest hypothesis, first presented by Norman Emerson (1960) and later further developed by Kenneth Dawson (1975), is a weak analogy (with circular logic) that abuses ethnographic analogy. Emerson (1960:71, 72) argued that a lack of evidence for subsistence activities, the low artefact recovery rate and the remote inhospitable nature of the beaches meant that visitors to the shoreline were conducting vision quests. Not all habitation sites leave evidence of the subsistence activities that were taking place (c.f.
Friesen 2002:341) and hunting equipment would most likely be recovered from fall and winter occupations since these were the prime hunting seasons (Steinbring 1973:42). Post- depositional processes and high visibility of sites diminishes the recovery rate of artefacts and "traditional" sites in northern Ontario are also fraught with low artefact recovery rates.
Shorelines are not remote, land adjacent to lakes and rivers are where all the archaeological recoveries in northern Ontario occur.
Emerson's conclusion about the Lake Superior coast was influenced by his cultural biases. The presence and effects of researchers' cultural constructs was first studied in archaeology by the phenomenological approaches (c.f. Tilley 1994; Thomas 1996) during the post processual movement of the 1980s (Hodder 1999:5). The theoretical developments of the late 1950s did not allow Emerson to be aware of how much his personal experience and opinions had influenced his interpretation of Pukaskwa Pits. Kenneth Dawson (1975) was also not aware of the cultural biases which had shaped his cosmological interpretation of Pukaskwa Pits.
Using the direct historic approach, Dawson formed an analogy based on a series of assumptions, between the cosmological activities believed to be practiced on the cobble beaches and the ethnohistoric accounts from the Jesuit Relations. Since Dawson was able to find a feature being built for ritual among the Nipissing he concluded that the Nipissing made the features. Ethnographic records are a rich source of resources for archaeologists, but they arguably have been used uncritically when deciphering hard-to-interpret sites.
Ethnographic analogy can be very useful to archaeologists but Dawson did not use the ethnographic sources to test his beliefs; he merely read them to find passages that would confirm his theory. Using only one source to prove his conclusions further weakens the vision-seeking analogy. Ethnographic analogy is not useful for the Vision Quest hypothesis because no source contains relevant information on structures being built for vision quests and no sources indicate that cobble beaches were used solely for cosmological purposes.
On cobble beach sites the same human needs prevail as on "traditional" sites. The cobble feature assemblage from Pukaskwa National Park cannot be explained by a single hypothesis because there is a large degree of variation in feature morphology. There is not just variation in feature morphology, site sizes differ and the type of features recovered on these sites also differs. For this reason, site-level analysis will be much more revealing in future work than creating a feature based hypothesis. The interpretation of cobble features does not need to be generalized to fit the entire cobble feature assemblage, cobble features likely represent multiple activities, by different visitors to the Lake Superior shoreline. 138
7.12 New Hypothesis
Alternative explanations have been offered for cobble features but they have been largely ignored in the literature. Even Dawson's (1975:23, 28, 29, 30) interpretations that did not focus on socio-religious activities, such as heaths (an assumption based on the se of stones on traditional archaeological sites to isolate fire), living floors, temporary dwelling in crescent-shaped wind breaks (which he had observed the Northern Ojibwa using in the
1960s), platform cache foundations, and A-frame tripod drying racks have been forgotten.
The alternative explanations recognize the similarities between the forms and varieties of features found on cobble beaches and the different forms and features reported on
"traditional" archaeological sites. The range of sizes of cobble features has been compared to the sizes of living floors, cache pits, pole supports, hearths and burials, and the results indicate that some cobble features share similarities with features found on "traditional" sites. Furthermore, feature types in Pukaskwa National Park corresponded to multiple feature types from traditional sites indicating that a feature (i.e. paves) to feature (i.e. living floors) comparison is not possible. One feature type in Pukaskwa National Park is likely representative of many different activities.
The alternative hypothesis offered in this thesis for the creation of cobble features is focused on a variety of activities that did not require isolation. Some of the rituals that could have taken place on habitation sites may have had a socio-religious function but were an integrated part of routine activities. Louis Bird, in a work compiled and edited by
Susan Elaine Gray (2007:7) states that "there is no place that our ancestors have not used as their temple". Everyplace was sacred. Separating plots of land solely for cosmological purposes was not an indigenous practice. It was a division created by researchers. Though high ground is preferred for the vision quests that take place in isolation, the cobble 139 beaches, though they are terraced, are usually flanked by granite outcrops that are much higher in elevation. Therefore the Vision Quest hypothesis and the idea that Indigenous populations separated their cosmological lives from their daily lives on the landscape is rejected.
Due to the location of the cobble feature sites alongside Lake Superior, a body of water used for travel and for its abundant fish, it is believed that the cobble beaches were used for a number of activities associated with resource exploitation and travel. The location of cobble beach sites is consistent with the settlement pattern documented for the
Late Archaic, the earliest period with evidence that fishing took place in the Upper Great
Lakes, and the shore-oriented settlement system of the Middle and Late Woodland period
sites in northern Ontario.
The assorted sizes of sites and mixed levels of effort required to make the cobble
features indicates that the sites were used for diverse purposes. Some of the dissimilarity of
sites may be explained by temporal adaptations, but it is also plausible that multiple
activities took place on the coast simultaneously. Smaller sites with ephemereal features were likely short-term stays or staging areas for interior travel. Various subsistence activities took people away from base camps and required the establishment of smaller
satellite camps along the coast. Due to the winter presence of caribou on the beaches and the lower percentage of annual snowfall on the coast, some of the smaller sites could have been occupied in the winter as habitation or as processing sites. Smaller sites feasibly represent different durations of occupation and possibly represent the sites with the most varied assortment of uses.
Sites at good fishing locations are believed to have grown in size and in duration of occupation as the fishery became more complex and efficient towards the Late Woodland. Archaeologically, larger sites in the Archaic period may represent repeatedly occupied camp sites. Their size may be a product of multiple generations of use as camp sites.
Without geological dates for the strandlines in Pukaskwa National Park, it is difficult to
solve the disagreement regarding the current location of Archaic sites: underwater or further inland. Larger sites could be examined to see if they indicate multiple short term uses, characteristic of the Archaic and Early Woodland, or longer occupations with many
contemporary households common in the Middle and Late Woodland. The different site sizes and their locations represent different settlement components of hunter-gatherer- fisher society and reflect mobility patterns and subsistence needs.
7.2 The Bigger Picture and Direction for the Future
This work sheds some new light on cobble feature function and has greater implications for the archaeological study of northern Ontario. Considering cobble beaches as preferred locations to establish base camps, as short-term camp sites or as the safest and driest place to land a canoe during a storm, allow researchers to learn more about the subsistence activities and mobility patterns along the north shore of Lake Superior. As important, it will give contemporary research on newly discovered features in other areas of the Great Lakes a new perspective, and will allow new sites to be considered in the greater context of the local archaeological finds rather than as places solely used for cosmological purposes.
There is endless potential for future research on cobble beaches and the archaeology of both Pukaskwa National Park and northern Ontario. This research has the unfortunate side effect of de-contextualizing the features from the landscape. Future research should focus on re-contextualizing the features and sites on the land by studying the features/sites visibility and sight lines as well as the spatial relationship of the features/sites to landforms, local ecology, and location on the landscape. Resurveying the beaches of Pukaskwa National Park that were recorded prior to the use of GPS and total stations would provide digital data that could be used in the re-contextualizing of features and sites. The advancement of cobble feature archaeology will also benefit from the involvement of other disciplines. Having a thorough geological survey done of the Parks coastline and interior will allow for the reconstruction of Lake Superior water level changes and how the fluctuations affected different parts of the Park. With geological dates assigned to the different terraces, archaeologists will be able to determine which time periods have been erased by periods of elevated water levels, and the effects of isostatic rebound on site location could be properly assessed.
In northern Ontario no archaeological work has been done in the huge areas removed from the lakes and streams. Land surveys are required to attain a better understanding of site location, resource exploitation and possibly cosmological activities.
More importantly surveys of the interior will provide more archaeological data on settlement patterns and would allow archaeologists to test old hypothesis based on ethnographic accounts which assume smaller winter habitations are found in the interior.
Archaeological work in the north needs to focus on regional site variation to answer questions about mobility and demographics. According to Susan Kent (1992:635) "the identification of mobility patterns is important to issues of demography". Further surveys of the interior could show that there was a larger population than expected in northwestern
Ontario. In order to learn more about regional settlement patterns, mobility, and demographics, more of the archaeological record needs to be recovered from the interior. Researchers need to find a way to study features since there may be temporally or culturally diagnostic feature types. The cobble feature sites are unique in that features rather than artefacts remain, the opposite of what is usually recovered on "traditional"
sites. This has been seen as a weakness in the cobble feature assemblage but it is merely a challenge to change the way we learn. There are hypotheses as to what features should be present on certain site types based on ethnographic sources rather than the archaeological record because few features are preserved enough to be archaeologically visible or easy to define. In time with new research methods features may provide as much information about site utilization as artefacts. Lastly, geo-archaeology may be very useful in future
studies of cobble beaches as it can shed some light on site formation processes and modification and could develop techniques and new methods to further study cobble features in their broader context.
7.3 Final Words
The early investigation into the existence of cobble features was fraught with the limitations of the archaeological paradigms of the time and their continued study has been hampered by the Canadian tendency to rely on cultural historical concepts. Poor use of ethnographic analogy led to the universal "vision quest" hypothesis and a few superficial similarities between archaeological remains and the ethnographic records have spread the cosmological interpretation for cobble features found on the shore of Lake Superior to other sites on cobble beaches or other features made of cobbles. This research has shown that, taken in their greater archaeological context, cobble feature sites are in accessible and highly sought after resource rich locations and the features on cobble beaches resemble features located on "traditional" archaeological sites. 143
Cobble beaches have been undervalued as a source of rich archaeological knowledge because the features were cloaked in mysticism and were believed to be the remains of ritual activity. Pukaskwa Pits, I'm sure, are not the only archaeological phenomenon with an explanation that has been taken for granted. Old archaeological stereotypes will be preserved as long as archaeologists don't re-open old theories and hypotheses to re-examine the evidence that led earlier researchers to their conclusions. I've learned a lot through the research required for this thesis, but what strikes me the most is how little I learned about the specifics of northern Ontario archaeology. Instead, general themes for time periods and cultural historical analyses dominate the literature. Northern
Ontario archaeology could benefit from a published anthology of recent work. In the meantime, northern Ontario archaeology remains mostly un-charted and it should be the focus of more research. APPENDIX 4A Tree Throw Revealing Cobble Matrix Below Top Soil
'wi? a?^
UP f4" . ^ **4 - «*- rtv. " liTfS^** ' •*• -sTsniSM MBS.., , »^[Bi«l1'* «l v
© Nancy Champagne Cobble Matrix below top soil 145
APPENDIX 4B Pictures of Artefacts Recovered in Pukaskwa National Park
Jil if-r f ^ .sit'** \ \ ^ ^ * >> ^ afi
© Nancy Champagne
Iroquoian Influence vessel recovered from 28H12, artefact number 28H1261-1.
?. *L1 *
4 lv'~ '
CM ajii
© Nancy Champagne ) Nancy Champagne 28H12A 10.1 Willow River 28H12A3.1 Willow River Blackduck? Juntenen Influence? Vessel 3. Iroquoian influence sherd, vessel 4. APPENDIX 4B PkMres ©ff Arteffaefe Recovered! nm Punlkaslkwa Naftn©imal Park
© Nancy Champagne (all pictures in Appendix 4B)
Hudson Bay Lowland chert, Utilized waste flake 28H70 cat #106 North Byron.
Copper Fragment 28H12A 2.1 Artefact number 28H95x99-2. Willow River. Stone with hole,
28H14B1.2 Utilized quartz flake. 28H12A12.1 Willow River Core, Gunflint formation chert. APPENDIX 4B Pktares off Artefacts Recovered! inn Pmikaskwa Naitioimal Park
- - • * r >c 1 "* 1MjJ *-*- ^ *" \, - v 1m i i § ciw j CM rr V n ,- 1 ^ u u u t „ i. *
© Nancy Champagne 28H70 cat # 130 North Byron, 28H12A7.1 Willow River Utilized waste Flake. Iroquoian Influence, vessel 2.
28H14A162-1 White River I, Cap stone for starting fires in situ Agate waste flake. Upper North Swallow found in 2007 field season APPENDIX 4C Cobble Beach Feature Summary Form
COBBLE BEACH FEATURE SUMMARY Site Name: . Site*:. . Map Aroa: ___ UTM Ref.: Borden *: Previously assigned feature*: : Source: Efcvation: _ m. above soafavtl Terrace: I 1 III IV V VI VII VIII IX X Other- Oistanc 1 to terrace edge: „ m. j Distance to neighbouring features: i)Features _,; distance m ; bearing degrees East of North (nragnetic) j ii) Feature fl ; distance __ n ; bearing degrees East of North [magnetic) , iMj Feature a ; distance ___ n ; bearing degrees t-^si of Worth (r t..gneiic) Form: Simple Compound Description: __ _ „™___. '. Component B1 ; Component itZ Type: Pit Ring Pave Wall Cairr Mound Other - Type: PH Ring Pav£ Wall Cairr Mound Other • Shape: Round Oval Square Rectangular Crescent Semi-Circular Shape: Round Oval Square Rectangular Crescent Semi-Circular
Line3r Other - Linear Other - t Wads: Well-defined Poorly-do fined Collapsed Absent Walls: Well-defined Poorly-de fined Collapsed Absent Floor. Flat Conical Basin Other - Obscured Floor: Flat Conical Basm Other- Obscured entrance: Location- N NE £ SE S SW W NW Entrance: Location- N NE E SE S SW v.* K;V | Shape - Simple opening Overlapping Walled Shape - Simple opening Overlapping Wailed j Orientation: Perpendicular Oblique (Angle deg. E of H) Orientation: Perpendicular Oblique (Angle , deg. EorN) '. Major An .a: Length m. Orientation deg. E otN Major A*is: Length m. Orientation deg. E of N i Minor Axis: Length m, Orientation deg. EofN Minor Axis: Length m. Orientation deg. S of N '. Feature Deplh. Beach surface to canter bottom m Feature Depth. Beach surface to conter bottom m 1 Top of wa!l to center bottom m. Top of wall to center bottom m \ Wall height (above beach surface) m Wall height {above beach surface) , m I Entrance: Width m. Length m. Wall height m. Entrance: Width m. Length m. Wall height j Cobble Diameter: Wall cm Sample 3123 Sample area cm' Cobble Diameter: Wall cm Sample sue Sample area _ Floor cm Sample size _____ Sample area . . cm' Floor cm Sample size Sample area Beach „.cm Sample arjo Sample area cm' Beach cm Sample slie Sample area _.
General C, Is (condition, vegetation, interpretation, etc.) _
Component ff3 j Type: Pit Ring Pavo Wall Cairn Wound Other- Shape: Round Oval Square Rectangular Crescent Semi-Circular Linear Other -
( Walls: Well-defined Poorly-defined Collapsed Absent I Floor: Flat Conical Basin Other- __ _ Obscured Entrance;: Location- N NE E SE S SW W NW Shape - Simple opening Overlapping Wailed Orionlation; Perpendicular Oblique (Angle dog. EofN) Major A*is: Length m. Orientation deg. E of N nor Axis: Length _ m. One 11 nation,_ deg.EofN Fcrturc Depth: Beach surface tc center bottom m Top of wall to center bottom , 111. Wall height (above heaeh surface) _m tmrsm:c: Width m. length m. Wall height m. ; Cobble Diameter: Wali cm Sample si.e _ Sample area cm' [ Floor _ cm Sample si*e ___ Sample aroa cm; Beach cm Sample si/e _ Sample area cms
Gcnr:rajCr)t vogetatjo;i. riterprc 149
APPENDIX 4D Apartment Complex Features
Apartment Complex Feature Information from the Cobble Feature Record Forms
Major Axis Minor Axis Feature Distance to Terrace Edge # Shape Floor Entrance (m) DEG (m) DEG Terrace (m) 28H29A RE F NW 6.1 160 3.9 250 III 2.7 28H29B RE F SW 5 158 4.3 258 III 3.4 28H29C RE F NA 5.1 146 4.8 236 III 4.2
Morphological Information for Apartment complex Features (Frequencies)
Entrance Orientation Major Axis NW SW NW 4.55-5.04 5.05-5.54 5.55-6.04 6.05-6.54 Rectangular 1 1 3 1 1 1 APPENDIX 4E Bifurcated Features
BifUrcated Feature Information from the Cobble Feature Record Forms
Distance Major Axis Terrace Feature # Form Type Shape Entry (m) DEG Terrace Edge(m) 28H13D S P,BIF R,B X 5.0 90 III 4.5 28H15U c PA,BIF, P RE X 4.2 90 VIII 2.6 28H22J c PA,BIF RE X 3.5 238 IV 0.0 28H26K c PA,BIF SC S 4.7 82 III 8.8 28H28A c PA,BIF RE SW 4.7 152 III 10.1 28H31G X PABIF RE,C X 4.4 40 IV 13.5 28H48A c P,BIF SC S 4.9 39 III X 28H48B s P, BIF RE X 2.9 285 VI X 28H56B c PA,BIF SPADE X 3.3 72 III 1.8 28H5852 c P,BEF HRT S 6.6 340 XIII 10.0 28H60L c PA,BIF KD W 4.2 35 V 8.5 28H612 X PA, BIF SC S 8.0 90 IV 5.0 28H613 X PA,BIF RE N 5.3 90 IV 15.2 28H63A1 c PA-BIF,RP O E 5.8 0 XVI 12.0 28H63B1 c PA-BIF.P TR X 5.7 0 XVI 21.3 28H63C1 c PA-BIF,P RE X 4.3 0 XVI 18.3 28H649 c PA-BIF,M,H X SE 5.1 174 III 5.8 28H6431 c P,BIF O X 2.8 64 VI 5.0 28H85A c PA,BIF RE X 5.1 31 XIII 10.4 28H99A s PA,BIF RE E 4.1 90 I 2.1 28H99B s PA,BIF RE N 4.0 0 I 2.1 28H103H s PA,BIF O X 3.4 329 XV 2.0
Break down of data by Bifurcated Feature Sub-Types (Frequencies)
SHAPE RE SC KD TR 0 HR R SD P,BIF 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 PA, BIF 7 2 1 1 1 PA, BIF, P 2 1 1 PA, BIF, R, M* TOTAL 10 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 *No shape is indicated for this feature 151
APPENDIX 4E Bifurcated Features (Continued)
Break down of data by Bifurcated Feature Sub-Types (Frequencies)
ENTRANCE S SW W N E SE P,BIF 2 PA,BIF 2 1 1 2 1 PA, BIF, P 1 PA, BIF, R, M* 1 TOTAL 4 1 12 2 1
ORIENTATION N E NE NW P,BIF 2 2 1 PA, BIF 1 4 5 2 PA, BIF, P 3 1 PA, BIF, R, M* 1 TOTAL 7 7 6 2
Major Axis Size trends for Bifurcated Feature Sub-Types (in metres)
2.55-3.04 3.05-3.54 3.55-4.04 4.05-4.54 4.55-5.04 P,BIF 2 2 PA, BIF 3 1 3 3 PA, BIF, P 2 PA, BIF, R, M TOTAL 2 3 1 5 5
5.05-5.54 5.55-6.04 6.05-6.54 6.55-7.04 7.05-7.54 P,BIF 1 PA, BIF 1 1 PA, BIF, P 1 1 PA, BIF, R, M 1 TOTAL 3 10 1 1 152
APPENDIX 4E Bifurcated Features (continued)
~f. -r~.'~~?7~/- ^ =3:^ 1/ tf s-r^*1- V ^i^3i ^ N^ >^ ttp^^^: ^o s^= ^r- :<<2^i
-nra^^ /-j
Sketch of feature 28H63A Bifurcated Pave
Sketch of feature 28H649 Bifurcated Pave with Mound and Cairn
Sketch of feature 28H6431 Bifurcated Pit 153
APPENDIX 4F Cairn Features
Cairn Information from the Cobble Feature Record Forms
Height Feature # Form Shape (m) Majoi• (m) Axis Deg Terrace DTTE(m) 28H11D3 C 0 0.4 0.5 340 III 9.3 28H16E S C 0.2 1.7 33 III 1.8 28H16F S C 0.3 1.5 110 III 3.5 28H16L S X 0.2 0.9 100 III 2.5 28H16R S 0 0.3 0.9 340 III 0.0 28H19E S 0 0.2 1.8 224 IV 0.0 28H21F S 0 0.4 0.8 320 VI 0.0 28H21K S 0 0.4 1.5 0 V 1.0 28H21P S TR 0.3 0.7 254 IX 1.8 28H21Q S R 0.2 0.8 0 VIII 2.3 28H24K S 0 0.3 0.8 10 III 4.9 28H24P S TR 0.3 0.9 274 IV 1.1 28H25A S L 0.2 1.8 360 III 2.0 28H25B S L 0.2 1.4 22 III 3.4 28H25D S 0 0.2 1.0 90 III 0.5 28H26J S X 0.4 1.1 NS II 12.2 28H30B S 0 0.4 0.6 338 V 0.7 28H32E S COL 0.2 2.0 202 V 1.5 28H32M S R 0.2 0.8 0 III 9.4 28H32Q S 0 0.2 0.8 298 IV 4.3 28H32R S 0 0.2 1.0 149 IV 1.9 28H33A S 0 2.0 1.4 57 OTHER X 28H33B S 0 0.5 0.9 136 OTHER X 28H33C S 0 0.9 0.9 22 OTHER X 28H33D s 0 1.0 1.7 68 OTHER X 28H5826BC R 0.5 0.9 0 X 4.6 28H60A s C 0.3 1.7 90 III 0.0 28H60D s 0 0.4 1.0 270 III 9.3 28H60R s X 0.3 1.0 0 IV,V 4.0 28H6127BC X 0.3 0.9 90 XII 3.7 28H6410BC X 0.3 0.7 X III 4.6 28H6416BC X 0.2 0.9 0 IV 6.6 28H62E s 0 0.2 1.0 150 VI 4.0 28H74D s 0 0.3 0.7 60 VIII 6.9 28H101B s X 0.3 0.4 72 XI 2.5 APPENDIX 4F Cairn Features (continued)
Major Axis Size trends for Cairn Features (in metres)
0-.54M .55-1.04 1.05-1.54 1.55-2.04 Simple 1 18 5 6 Compound 1 4 TOTAL 2 22 5 6
COMPOUND 0-.54M .55-1.04 1.05-1.54 1.55-2.04 Oval 1 Round 2 Not mentioned 2 TOTAL 14 0 0
Simple 0-.54M .55-1.04 1.05-1.54 1.55-2.04 Crescent 1 2 Oval 12 2 2 Triangular 2 Linear 1 1 Collapsed 1 Round 2 Not mentioned 1 2 1 TOTAL 1 18 5 6 APPENDIX 4F Cairn Features (continued)
Break down of data by Cairn Feature Shapes and Form (Frequencies)
ORIENTATION SIMPLE N NE NW E Crescent 1 2 Oval 4 4 6 2 Triangular 1 1 Linear 2 Collapsed 1 Round 2 Not mentioned 2 1 1
ORIENTATION COMPOUND N NE NW E Oval 1 Round 1 Not mentioned 1 1
Shape ORIENTATION C R 0 TR L COL NM* N NE NW E Simple 3 2 16 2 2 1 4 11 7 6 6 Compound 2 1 2 3 1 *Not Mentioned APPENDIX 4G Linear Formation Features
Linear Formation Information from the Cobble Feature Record Forms
Feature Major Axis DTTE # Type Shape Entrance (m) Deg Terrace (m) 28H22K LS L X 27.6 331 I-V NA 28H31D LS L NE,W 15.2 38 rv X 28H31F LS L E,NW 34.2 X m,rv,v X 28H31J LS L NE 40.0 X III,IV,V X 28H31L LS L NE,NW 12.4 356 rv,v 1.5 28H31N LS L X 17.9 X III, TV X 28H32A LS L N 16.0 230 II, III X 28H32B LS L E 12.8 68 in, rv X 28H32L LS L X 5.6 52 in X 28H32N LS L X 25.0 235 III, IV X 28H32P LS L X 174.0 X m, rv, v X 28H47B L RE X 13.5 303 III, IV X 28H49A LS L X 15.5 129 III,V 3.9 28H49D LS L X 16.4 43 V X 28H50C L X X 8.2 286 XV, XVI X 28H62A ST RE X 4.6 190 IV 2.6 28H5811 TRAIL L s 3.1 180^ VI &V between
Break down of data by Linear Feature Type (Frequencies)
Shap e Entrance Orientation L X RE S N E NE NE,W E,NW NE,NW NW N NE Log Skids 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 1 Linear 1 1 Slit Trench 1 1 Trail 1 1 157
APPENDIX 4G Linear Formation Features (continued)
Major Axis Size trends for Linear Formations (in metres)
3.05- 4.55- 5.55- 8.05- 12.04- 12.55- 15.05- 15.55- 3.54 5.04 6.04 8.54 12.54 13.04 15.54 16.04 Log Skids 1 112 1 Linear 1 Slit Trench 1 Trail 1
16.05- 17.04- 17.55- 24.55- 27.55- 34.05- 39.55- 16.54 17.54 18.04 25.04 28.04 34.54 40.04 Log Skids 1111 1 1 1 Linear Slit Trench Trail
_ s CET H f WP = — • —-—— _ v I T — — — — _ __ r' ~ — — — - — . __ — —— — — - — £ — — — - _ — 4 ___ — — — _ _ Li. • • — — -
_ —, , _j ~ — — —,- _l 1 , --., ,— , — - i _ — . ( —j i ;-r — , - A — - 1 M ).. ~~ - — , _ - — _ ^r < — — 1i— - — — i _ , — — — _ y <"' , — T, - 11 c~, \Jm __ -..-^ -— — , _ 1 •„ _ - ___ s./' >•:. ~ — ,.:;:l _ _— „ •1 ; — _ ^Z, , _ - — — _ - L_ i- ~ — — — - _ -= , , ^ ~" ~~ — - —-.-. -—L. i_ KX —L —L —L CROSS SECTION: SCSL-E
Sketch of feature 28H32B Linear Formation 158
APPENDIX 4H Mound Features
Mound Information from the Cobble Feature Record Forms
Major Axis Minor Axis DTTE Feature # Form Shape (m) Deg (m) Deg Terrace (m) 28H11E S O 2.3 290 1.6 220 III 1.2 28H11V2 C T 2.2 50 2.4 332 VII 17.4 28H13E S R 1.4 360 1.4 250 II 1.5 28H22Q S O 1.6 112 1.4 7 III 2.9 28H23P S O 2.6 42 1.1 312 II 9.5 28H24B S O 1.0 194 0.9 104 rv 1.7 28H24D S O 1.3 0 X X IV 1.3 28H24F S O 2.2 114 1.5 189 III 10.8 28H24G S O 1.2 90 X X III 10.1 28H26H S O 6.7 112 4.4 204 IV 7.9 28H49B S X 2.3 82 1.1 348 III 12.3 28H49C S C 1.9 286 1.7 197 IV 2.1 28H6424B c X 2.5 0 X X V 3.1 28H644B c o 1.8 280 1.1 350 II 6.5 28H6433B c o 1.8 282 1.2 198 VII 4.1 28H66B3 c X 1.1 X 0.8 X XXVI 0.0 28H86A s o 2.5 298 1.8 24 VI 2.0 28H102B s o 1.3 329 0.9 230 II 0.0
Major Axis Size trends for Mound Features (in metres)
.55-1.04 1.05-1.54 1.55-2.04 2.05-2.54 2.55-3.04 6.55-7.04 Mounds 15 3 5 11 Mounds with cairns 1 1
Break down of data by Mound Feature Shapes (Frequencies)
Shape Orientation O TRXCNENE NW Mounds 12 1 1 2 4 6 2 3 Mounds with cairns 1 1 2 APPENDIX 4H Mound Features (continued)
Orientation of Features by Shape (Frequencies)
Orientation N E NE NW Oval 2 6 1 3 Round 1 No data 1 1 Triangular 1 Crescent 1
©Nancy Champagne
Picture of Mound (28H1 IE) on North Swallow II (28H11)
Sketch of feature 28H22Q Mound 160
APPENDIX 41 Pave Features
Pave Information from the Cobble Feature Record Forms
Major Axis DTTE Feature # Form Type Shape Entry (m) Deg Terrace (m) 28H6B C PA O E 4.0 100.0 III of X 3.9 28H6C S PA O X 2.7 235.0 IVofX 3.3 28H6G S PA O X 4.6 250.0 VII of X 2.0 28H6L s PA R sw 4.8 310.0 XlofX 0.0 28H11B s PA 0 sw 2.2 35.0 II of VII 7.1 8H11D1 c PA D NE 4.7 280.0 III of VII 9.3 28H11F c PA o,i NE 12.8 210.0 III of VII 4.9 28H11H1 c PA O X 4.3 217.0 III of VII 2.4 28H11H2 c PA R SE 2.8 292.0 III of VII 2.4 28H11N1 c PA O S 4.0 20.0 rvofx 3.2 28H11N2 c PA O SE 3.6 8.0 IVofX 3.2 28H11N3 c PA O X 4.6 273.0 IVofX 3.2 28H11R s PA O NW 3.4 8.0 rvofx 13.1 28H11T s PA O S X X VIofX 2.8 28H15H c PA RE SE 5.2 282.0 XofX 12.4 28H15V s PA O X 2.0 90.0 VIII of X 2.0 28H15W s PA O X 2.7 90.0 VII of X 7.3 28H16B s PA RE X 3.4 244.0 II of XVI 0.0 28H16P s PA X X 3.2 0.0 III of XVI 2.7 28H16Q c PA,C,M RE w 6.1 262.0 III of XVI 0.0 28H18B s PA K X 3.7 0.0 ii of rv 12.0 28H19D s PA RE NE 3.3 139.0 iiiofrv 5.4 28H21B c PA RE X 5.0 108.0 III of IX 0.0 28H21X X PA RE X 4.1 96.0 VofIX 0.0 28H22A c PA,C RE X 6.8 59.0 IVofV 0.0 28H22P c PA,W,C X X 4.9 341.0 III of V 5.3 28H23R s PA RE X 3.7 10.0 IlofV 4.5 28H25E s PA R X 4.0 0.0 III of V 2.5 28H26B s PA R SE 4.1 X iiofrv 3.1 28H26C s PA RE X 3.0 185.0 II of IV 3.4 28H26D s PA X X 2.7 90.0 II of IV 3.0 28H28B c PA,C RE SW 4.2 143.0 III of III 8.1 28H28C s PA RE NW 5.3 334.0 III of III X 28H29D s PA heart X 2.9 X III of III 10.0 28H29F s PA R X 4.5 90.0 III of III 9.0 NJ NJ NJ M NJ NJ NJ N) M NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ Fe a 'TJ oo oo oo oo 00 oo oo oo oo 00 oo 00 00 oo 00 oo oo oo oo 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 oo 00 00 oo 00 00 00 00 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X CD en
•O-OTJ-O-O-OTJJOTJTJSBTJTJSS-OTJTJTJTJ-OTJTJTJTJ-OTJ-OTJ-O-aTJ-O-aTJ >>>>>>> ~ >>~>>- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 > TJ 33 J- ^ > B- TJ "33 a W
3J0'"'0'J^',0'J0'J''0i!3'I00>'3J''''0nn337J3J3J3iX3A 00 o o m mm mom mm p m mmmrn "* m m m m m mo cr o w cr •a f£ Tl XX002O0
APPENDIX 41 Pave Features (continued)
Pave Information from the Cobble Feature Record Forms Continued
Major Axis DTTE Feature # Form Type Shape Entry (m) Deg Terrace (m) 28H66A S PA RE X 7.5 0 XXVI of XXVI 0.0 28H66B1 c PA,R,M,P RE w 5.0 0 XXVI of XXVI 0.0 28H68B c PA RE NE 6.1 4 IV of IV 6.4 28H74B s PA RE X 3.8 190 VIII of IX 6.4 28H74F c R,PA O X 2.2 136 VIII of IX 3.5 28H74G c R,PA RE X 2.1 38 VIII of IX 1.8 28H74J c R,PA SQ X 1.8 317 VIII of IX 1.7 28H74P c R,PA SC w 2.9 196 IxofIX 1.8 28H74Q c R,PA RE X 2.8 268 IX of IX 2.5 28H85C s PA RE SE 5.1 0 XVI of XVIII 0.0 28H86B s PA 0 NE 6.3 0 VIofX 1.0 28H86C c PA,R SQ E 3.6 0 XofX 1.7 28H98C c PA F8 X 4.9 95 VIofX 10.2 28H98F c PA,H RE NW. 3.9 80 XofX 6.9 28H101A c PA RE S 4.4 336 VIII of XVI 4.0 28H102A c PAx2 KD X 4.8 65 I of II 1.0 28H103G s PA O X 2.7 320 XV of XV 3.3 28H103J s PA R X 1.3 50 XV of XV 11.1 163
APPENDIX 41 Pave Features (continued)
Break down of data by Pave Feature Types (Frequencies)
Shape O R RE D C HS SQ HR KD X SC Paves 20 6 27 1 11 4 2 Paves with Pits 1 Paves with Cairns 2 Paves with Cairns and Mounds 1 Paves with Rings 2 1 7 3 1 1 Paves with Activity areas 1 Paves with mounds 2 Paves with wall and cairn Paves with ring, mound and pit 1 Total 24 7 39 1 2 13 0 5 2 1
Entrance Orientation E S SE SW W NW N NE N E NE NW Paves 3 4 2 1 19 15 15 12 Paves with Pits 1 Paves with Cairns 1 1 1 Paves with Cairns and Mounds 1 1 Paves with Rings 1 1 2 2 2 2 4 5 2 4 Paves with Activity areas 1 Paves with mounds 2 Paves with wall and cairn 1 Paves with ring, mound and pit 1 Total 4 5 5 5 7 2 25 21 19 20 164
APPENDIX 41 Pave Features (continued)
Major Axis Size trends for Paves (in metres)
1.05-1.54 1.55-2.04 2.05-2.54 2.55-3.04 3.05-3.54 Paves 1 1 2 10 10 Paves with Pits 1 Paves with Cairns Paves with Cairns & Mounds Paves with Rings 1 3 3 2 Paves with Activity areas Paves with mounds Paves with wall and cairn Paves with ring, mound & pit Total 1 2 5 14 12 Mean 1.15% 2.30% 5.75% 16.09% 13.79%
3.55-4.04 4.05-4.54 4.55-5.04 5.05-5.54 6.05-6.54 Paves 12 7 12 3 3 Paves with Pits Paves with Cairns 1 Paves with Cairns & Mounds 1 Paves with Rings 3 2 1 Paves with Activity areas Paves with mounds 1 Paves with wall and cairn 1 Paves with ring, mound & pit 1 Total 15 10 16 3 4 Mean 17.24% 11.49% 18.39% 3.45% 4.60%
6.55-7.04 7.05-7.54 7.55-8.04 12.55-13.04 13.55-14.04 Paves Paves with Pits Paves with Cairns Paves with Cairns & Mounds Paves with Rings Paves with Activity areas Paves with mounds Paves with wall and cairn Paves with ring, mound & pit Total 1 1 1 1 1 Mean 1.15% 1.15% 1.15% 1.15% 1.15% APPENDIX 41 Pave Features (continued)
H V SKti c N? SCALE NORTH ,,' ~
• ^ ^*- :-- ":.. •-' ... -;„ ,.-._ ~ ,< -s .' '-"• -- ... -C ~^\ • ~7
• ..- ±=-± ..-:, ___~ /--'*
--< :• '
•i' """ i--< "•- ~ , l i -;- '- -'"'• L, • —' ^y tr ' ' > / 7^^ ~y ' ,
•^H _..' ' . ! ^ . V - -1 j ~~ T I 1 i
-'• . : • ___^. •-'-- " - ^ -• ~~~ ~11 Sketch of feature 28H22P Compound Pave with Cairn and Ring (Feature N)
'/' s -.^^%r i^zaa^tJS -"A ± cc^?-= : f A ^ 7^.<7^-^*^ tt —2S^ -" = -QSSL l Z^r p^r~ go^ t^ '^ ^£\^ ± ^2" J *>*f /i-^s^ it a.- ? y 11J) C2f Z7- -LX^. Zi "W i •—-^I3C~ ^•-£-a.£ 3~^"C - ^3F^7 Sketch of Pave with Ring 28H63F Sketch of Pave 28H643 5 166
APPENDIX 41 Pave Features (continued)
SCALE MAJOR AXIS —
Sketch of feature 28H6410 Compound Pave with Hearth, mound and Platform
of feature 28H6440 Compound Feature two Paves with Ring and Activity Area 167
APPENDIX 41 Pave Features (continued)
Hearth
Cairn
Entry ©Nancy Champagne North Swallow II (28H11) Compound Pave (28H1 ID) with Hearth and Cairn
Oval Chamber MmmsmMM ©Nancy Champagne North Swallow II (28H11) Two Chambered Pave (28H11H) 168
APPENDIX 41 Pave Features (continued)
Entry
©Nancy Champagne
North Swallow II (28H11) Pave with Entrance
Brian Ross ^^^^^^^M&^Blf^^^^m'-^S^^^ Parks Canada ^i^^^'^^^^M'''^" ''"*"'''
©Nancy Champagne
North Swallow I (28H6) Pave (28H6G) APPENDIX 4J Pit Features
Pit Information from the Cobble Feature Record Forms
Feature Major Axis DTTE # Type Shape Floor Entry Depth (m) (m) Deg Terrace (m) 28H4B P R C X 0.28 0.8 90 III 2.0 28H4C P R C X 0.29 1.1 90 III 1.5 28H4E P,R R B X 0.28 2.7 90 III 8.4 28H4G P RE BOX X 0.15 0.5 120 O 8.1 28H5A P,W 0 B SE .28 TW.48 3.5 0 V 2.1 28H5B P R S X 0.51 2.9 90 IV 13.6 28H5C P,R X C X .11 TW.35 1.1 38 V 3.5 28H5D P,R R B X .12TW.25 1.5 90 o X 28H5E P SC F E 0.2 2.8 0 V 3.9 28H5F P,R O C X .27 TW.49 1.3 0 IV 3.4 28H5G P,R X C X .38 TW.64 0.8 0 V 2.2 28H5H P R B X 0.37 1.1 90 V 2.4 28H5J P R B X 0.2 1.3 90 V 5.0 28H5K P X B X 0.25 2.9 90 V 4.8 28H7A P X B X 0.61 2.5 160 I X 28H7C P,W O X E X 3.0 300 II 1.7 28H6A P O O X .43TW.31 2.6 240 III 6.1 28H6D P C 0 X .69TW.61 1.5 210 III 17.3 28H6F P O B X .48 TW .3 2.8 310 VII 2.1 28H6H P C F X .42TW.18 1.9 238 VIII 15.7 28H6J P C 0 X .67 TW.36 2.3 240 VIII 15.7 28H6K P O 0 X .44 TW.33 2.5 331 X 2.1 28H6P P O 0 X .32TW.18 1.5 300 X 10.0 28H6Q P O 0 X .29 TW.23 1.5 290 X 4.8 28H8C P,R R 0 X 0.4 TW.8 1.8 90 o 1.5 28H9A P R C X 0.4 X X VII 0.6 28H9B P R C X 0.52 X X VI 1.5 28H9C P O C X 0.54 2.9 74 VI 2.2 28H9D P R C X 0.83 3.2 0 VI 0.9 28H9E P R C X 0.67 2.8 0 V 5.1 28H11A P R F E 0.06 4.9 185 II 5.3 28H11C P O O X 0.5 1.1 220 II 1.8 28H11G P,R O C X .26TW.19 1.8 308 III 2.3 28H11S P,R R C X 0.72 3.0 135 V 15.1 28H11U P Q,R O X 0.32 1.8 330 VII 5.3 APPENDIX 4J Pit Features (continued) Pit Information from the Cobble Feature Record Forms Continued
Depth Major Axis DTTE Feature # Type Shape Floor Entry (m) (m) Deg Terrace (m) 28H11V1 P R O E 0.5 3.0 233 VII 17.4 28H13A P R C X 0.5 X X II 3.9 28H13B P O F X 0.4 1.0 40 III 4.2 28H13C P O B X 0.3 1.9 360 III 2.5 28H13D P,W R,B F X 0.3 5.0 270 III 4.5 28H13F P,R O B X .4 TW .6 3.2 45 IV 0.0 28H13G P,W O F X .2 TW .47 4.0 90 o X 28H13H P O B X 0.2 1.6 60 rv X 28H13K P,W O B X 0.1 1.7 40 rv 4.0 28H15A P C F X 0.1 2.8 292 X 23.2 28H15B p R F X 0.2 1.6 0 X 26.4 28H15C p O F X 0.2 3.3 0 o 24.5 28H15D p O F X 0.2 2.2 252 X 22.7 28H15E p R C X 0.8 3.3 90 X 20.3 28H15F p C B X 0.5 3.7 328 X 17.1 28H15G p RE F X 0.6 4.9 X X 15.0 28H15J p C F X 0.4 4.1 18 X 11.8 28H15K p O C X 0.5 2.2 260 X 8.6 28H15L p R C NE 1.0 3.4 90 X 8".9 28H15M p O B X 0.5 3.1 0 X 6.0 28H15P p O F X 0.3 1.8 53 X 4.8 28H15Q p R F X 0.2 1.9 45 X 6.3 28H15R p R C E 0.5 2.5 0 X 7.8 28H15S p R C X 0.7 3.3 0 X 3.1 28H16A p R B X 0.5 X X II 7.0 28H16C p R C X 0.1 X X III 1.4 28H16D p R C X 0.5 2.1 X III 2.2 28H16H P,W O B N tw 0.49 4.3 360 III 6.1 28H16J p R C X 0.6 2.2 0 rv 0.0 28H16K p R C X 0.3 1.2 180 in 2.5 28H16M P,W O B N 0.5 3.3 344 in 2.5 28H16N p R C X 0.4 1.7 0 rv 4.4 28H16S P,W O B N tw 0.43 4.9 350 VII 3.7 28H16T p O B X 0.3 1.9 42 XI 0.0 ^r in rr © 1/1 r-; o rj- © oo © (N •* NO ^r CN ^r © fa © (m ) DTT E
>—1 h—< 1—1 > || |k KH f-H C-i I—I HH W M M U >S
irrac e X
X o © o X ©
s- o IT) -J VI ON ON 5S fa —* t^- \o o ^o _• _* • • • r~- • -—< M ©'©'©©©O©'© o © 0000000 00 0) T3 U u 2 © »H od2d d --° TW. 3 Wl. l
fa 8T W H O TW. 7 £ £ £ £ o a, H in • 3 •4—» 1 3 o CM x> fa CM o U 0 »!OOOpi ON <3" (N ON oo >/-) p m O oo o oo ON oqoqir>r~;ppooo^- o ^^3S3>^^^33333« —>^>3S>^>^>5 g rVONOOOOOOOrOOOOV> " o o o o o o ^ m ^ l-l 3 G Q u w XXXXXXXXXXXXwXWooSxXXXXXXoowXX^^XX Z P-, W o a. o OH O U E uun,mwuuu«h«fr,fflMi(n,(affl(1 G O £ £ £ £ £ PHPHPHPHPHPHPHPHPHPHPHPHPHPHPHPHPHPHPHPHPHPHPHPHPHPHPHPH PH PH PH PH OKHjS^ Pit Information from the Cobble Feature Record Forms Continued Feature Depth Major Axis DTTE # Type Shape Floor Entry (m) (m) Deg Terrace (m) 28H28E P RE F X 0.3 3.8 126 III 4.5 28H29E P O B X 0.4 2.7 138 O 13.0 28H30C P,W O F SE 0.4 2.3 134 VI 2.9 28H31A P O B X 0.2 1.6 290 III 7.6 28H31C P R C X 0.4 1.2 0 rv 9.0 28H32K P R C X 0.5 2.3 90 IV 3.0 28H32S P O C X 0.3 3.2 100 in 5.9 28H32T P C B X 0.2 1.7 52 m 5.3 28H32U P O B SE TW 0.26 2.8 152 rv 2.6 28H32V P R C X 0.6 2.8 0 VI 11.7 28H32W P R C X 0.3 2.1 0 VII 1.8 28H32X P R C X 0.5 1.2 0 VII 7.1 28H34A P R B X 0.3 3.7 90 V 3.3 28H34C P TRAP B s 0.26TW.5 5.3 0 in 4.3 28H35A P R UN N 0.3 4.4 90 XIV 3.0 28H35B P RE UN NW 0.2 2.5 19 XIV 4.8 28H35C P R B X 0.2 1.0 90 XV 1.7 28H35D P,W RE O X 0.5 4.2 127 XV 0.0 28H35E P,W RE F N 0.5 3.1 128 XV 0.0 28H35F P,W RE F N,S 0.6 3.9 202 XV 0.0 28H35J P,W RE F X 0.8 7.6 138 XVI 9.7 28H35K P,W RE B X 0.6 4.0 134 XVI 9.8 28H35L P,W RE F X 0.5 3.6 25 XVI 15.9 28H35M P,W RE F X 0.6 6.8 138 XVI 17.4 28H35N P,W RE O X 0.8 3.8 59 XVI 22.4 28H35P P,W RE O X 0.8 5.4 315 XVI 27.5 28H36A P HS UN N COL 1.8 112 NA X 28H38A P R C X 0.3 2.7 0 I 3.1 28H38B P O F SE 0.3 2.5 303 X X 28H38C P O C X 0.4 2.4 9 X X 28H47A P O C X .19tw.43 1.0 110 V 1.0 28H40A P R B X 0.8 3.5 0 o 22.5 174 APPENDIX 4J Pit Features (continued) Pit Information from the Cobble Feature Record Forms Continued Major Axis DTTE Feature # Type Shape Floor Entry Depth (m) (m) Deg Terrace (m) 28H50A P R B X 0.3 1.4 90 XVI 3.4 28H50D P R B X tw 0.2 1.8 90 XVI 6.3 28H50E P 0 B w tw 0.4 2.3 20 XVII 1.2 28H50F P O B w 0.5 2.7 114 XVII 1.2 28H50G P 0 C X 0.8 2.2 184 XVII 3.4 28H50H P R B X tw 0.2 1.7 90 XVII 1.6 28H51B P R C X 0.3 tw 0.4 1.2 0 III 3.0 28H52B P R C X 0.7 3.2 X rv 3.4 28H52C P O C X 0.4 3.1 350 o X 28H52D P,W R B w 0.1 tw0.3 2.8 0 rv 4.4 28H52E1 P,W RE C E 0.1 tw0.5 2.7 0 rv 1.7 28H52F P,W R B X 0.2 tw 0.5 2.5 280 IV 8.4 28H53A p R B NE 0.2 tw 0.4 2.0 90 in 3.0 28H53B p R C X 0.2 tw 0.3 1.1 180 in 3.0 28H54A p O NA X 0.3 2.8 122 in 5.6 28H54B p R NA X 0.2 2.1 0 m 7.5 28H54C p R NA X 0.3 1.6 90 IV 3.8 28H54E p R C X 0.4TW 0.6 2.8 0 IV 8.1 28H56A P,W HS F s 0.1TW0.3 1.7 180 II 9.2 28H56C P,W O C sw 0.3TW 0.6 3.1 119 IV 1.4 28H56D P R C X 0.2 1.1 X IV 5.1 28H56E p SC B X 0.4TW 0.5 2.8 154 IV 6.5 28H56J p R C X 0.1 1.6 90 rv 3.0 28H581 p O C X 0.7 2.3 145 in 7.2 28H585 p R C X 0.3 1.5 0 V 4.5 28H586 p R C X 0.3 1.2 0 V 6.2 28H5810 p R C X 0.2 0.9 0 V 1.3 28H5813 P,R D C X 0.4 3.5 38 V 1.7 28H5815 P,R O NA X TW0.1 2.7 127 V 4.3 28H5816 P 0 C X 0.4 2.0 49 VII 1.6 28H5818 P R C X 0.4 X X VII 1.8 28H5819 P 0 Slash N 0.1 TW 0.2 2.3 208 VIII 2.2 28H5820 P 0 F X TW0.3 3.2 70 VIII 4.0 175 APPENDIX 4J Pit Features (continued) Pit Information from the Cobble Feature Record Forms Continued Feature Major Axis DTTE # Type Shape Floor Entry Depth (m) (m) Deg Terrace (m) 28H5822 P D C X 0.2 TW 0.4 2.2 130 VIII 4.7 28H5829 P R C X 0.1TW0.3 1.0 0 XI 3.4 28H5830 P O F X 0.2 TW 0.3 2.2 226 X 5.2 28H5831 P R C X 0.1 1.8 0 X 5.7 28H5832 P R C X 0.1 TW 0.2 1.3 0 XI 2.2 28H5833 P R B X 0.2 TW 0.2 1.6 X XI 1.6 28H5834 P O B X 0.1 TW 0.2 1.8 52 XI X 28H5837 P R C X 0.3 1.8 0 XIV 2.8 28H5838 P RE B X 0.4 3.2 40 XII 4.6 28H5839 P R B X 0.2 TW 0.2 1.2 0 XII 0.8 28H5840 P 0 B X 0.2 TW 0.4 1.7 50 XII 1.7 28H5841 P HS B NE .06 TW 1.6 2.8 38 XII 2.8 28H5842 P 0 B X 0.2 2.2 150 XII 0.0 28H5843 P R B X 0.1 1.4 X XII 0.0 28H5844 P 0 B X 0.2 2.3 142 XII 0.0 28H5845 P R C X 0.2 1.1 0 XIII 1.4 28H5846 P R C X 0.5 1.9 0 XIII 0.0 28H5848 P R B X 0.2 1.8 X XIII 2.1 28H5849 P O B X 0.2 1.2 290 XIII 8.0 28H5851 P RE B N 0.3 TW 0.6 5.6 82 XIII 9.3 28H5853 P 0 B X 0.2 2.4 44 XIII 13.0 28H5855 P O B X 0.2 TW 0.4 4.8 320 XIII 10.0 28H5856 P O B X 0.1 1.3 180 XIII 3.4 28H5858 P R C X 0.3 1.4 0 XII 1.3 28H59A P R B X 0.6 3.3 0 III 1.5 28H59B P RE Slash X 0.2 TW 0.8 3.5 360 III 1.5 28H60B P,R R C X TW 0.6 1.8 90 III 6.3 28H60C P,R O c X TW 0.5 2.0 65 III 9.6 28H60E P O Slash X TW 0.3 1.9 25 III 13.6 28H60F P O C X TW 0.4 2.1 92 V 1.9 28H60G P R FI X TW 0.1 1.3 0 V 2.1 28H60H P R B X TW 0.2 1.1 0 V 0.5 28H60J P O FI X TW 0.3 1.4 290 V 2.7 176 APPENDIX 4J Pit Features (continued) Pit Information from the Cobble Feature Record Forms Continued Major Axis DTTE Feature # Type Shape Floor Entry Depth (m) (m) Deg Terrace (m) 28H60K W,P 0 B NW TW 0.5 2.7 315 V 10.1 28H60M P R C X TW 0.7 1.8 90 V 20.4 28H60Q P R C X TW 0.6 2.0 0 V 2.8 28H60S P R c X TW 1.1 2.7 90 III 12.7 28H60T P R c X TW 0.2 1.1 X rv, v 0.0 28H60V P R c X TW 0.5 0.9 X V 27.2 28H60W P R c X TW 0.6 1.4 0 V 9.8 28H611 P O c X 0.5 2.2 0 rv 14.4 28H615 P R B X 0.3 1.2 X VII 11.2 28H616 W,P O c X TW 0.5 2.0 0 VI 0.5 28H617 P 0 c X 0.5 2.7 0 V 6.8 28H618 P R c X 0.4 1.7 0 V 11.9 28H619 P R F X 0.9 3.7 X VI 1.9 28H6110 W,P R C E TW 0.7 3.5 90 VII 5.9 28H6111 P O B X 0.4 2.9 0 VII 1.0 28H6112 P,R O C S,SE 0.7 3.3 0 VII 16.1 28H6113 P R C X 0.3 1.8 0 VIII 5.8 28H6114 P R C X 0.4 1.8 0 VIII 8.5 28H6115 P R C E 0.6 2.0 0 VIII 10.6 28H6116 P R C X 0.4 1.5 0 IX 9.1 28H6117 P R C X 0.3 1.3 X X 2.5 28H6118 P R C X 0.3 1.1 90 X 10.2 28H6119 P R C X 0.4 1.2 90 X 0.0 28H6120 P R C,B X 0.3 1.0 90 X 6.7 28H6121 P O C X 0.4 1.5 90 X 1.0 28H6122 P R C X 0.4 1.6 0 X 2.0 28H6123 P R C X 0.4 1.8 90 X 4.7 28H6125 P R C X 0.5 2.2 0 X 12.3 28H6126 P R C X 0.4 1.0 90 X 22.8 28H62C R,P SC B NE 0.2 TW 0.4 1.1 0 IV 0.5 28H62D2 P X X X 0.4 1.3 90 IV 21.0 28H62F P R C X 0.5 2.3 0 V 2.0 *T3 K) MIOWWK)MNMWWMMWMWMNWK)S)tOWK)WMWK)MWIO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 00 •n 0o3 ur e 2 a 8* •J » ^ u w - omow ON N> to =tt P3 H ""d ^"d ^"d ^"d ""O 50 ^"0 ^"0 ^"0 ^0 ^"0 ^"0 ^"0 ^o ^o o ^o ^"d ^"d <3 ^"d ^d ^d nd ^d ^d ^d ^d ^d ^d H o "^0 •<; S3 i5 C/3 3 rr a> SB •d O o a- nBii'iiiiiiffl'n'DOOffltjjfflnBnwoffliionnnnoonnon 3 w o O 00 x^^xx^xxxxxxxx^xxxmxzixxxxxxxxxx X 3 I al->l 1- n> 55 o , a o oooooooo*— ooooooooooooooooooooooo CD & »(t> o e re o o o o o 13 a 3' 3' c aC o K) U) U> >— 4^ 4S> -fc Ui O OU> -P* KJ ON -~J ^O K> 09 «• 4^ O OO \0 OO 00-t>.O©ts>00C><~'iO-&' X o o o o o X O 00 O o o o o X X X v v y < < < < ^ < o H I-* HH ^H ^H ^*s a> a OO^WKJOJ^00004^0^fOOVON4^NJOJONJOOOOCN^UJN)>>OOOOi—»K> k>bo^boooN^^oo^boi^^l^^^o^OOOoL/)!^oLnwlt*w 178 APPENDIX 4J Pit Features (continued) Pit Information from the Cobble Feature Record Forms Continued Major Axis DTTE Feature # Type Shape Floor Entry Depth (m) (m) Deg Terrace (m) 28H6446B P O O X 0.4 2.8 32 rx 0.0 28H6447 P O C X 0.4 1.3 279 IX 8.3 28H6449 P R c X 0.3 1.4 90 VII 4.1 28H6450 P P c NE 0.4 1.8 92 II 5.4 28H65A P DS c X 0.7 3.4 67 XXIII 0.0 28H65B P R B NE 0.3 2.8 203 xxrv 2.6 28H65D P,R O F X 0.4 2.3 265 xxrv 0.0 28H65E P R B X 0.3 2.0 0 xx X 28H65F P R B X 0.4 2.0 0 XIX X 28H66B4 P R C X tw0.5 0.5 0 XXVI 0.0 28H66C W,P O B X tw0.9 4.4 350 XXVI 16.3 28H66F P 0 C X 0.5 2.9 188 XXVI 30.0 28H67A P R B X tw 1 2.7 90 NA 3.3 28H67B P R F X 0.2 1.5 0 NA X 28H68A P R C E 0.8 3.7 0 rv 2.4 28H71A P R C X 0.8 3.4 0 XI 0.0 28H74A - P SC X X 0.3 3.3 202 VIII 7.0 28H74C P O B X 0.5 1.9 160 VIII 10.8 28H74L P,W R C X 0.1 tw0.3 2.2 90 VIII 3.2 28H74M P O B X 0.6 2.1 155 IX 0.0 28H74N P 0 B X 0.3 1.8 324 IX 0.0 28H75A P 0 C X 0.3 2.2 89 rv 2.4 28H75D P O B X 0.1 tw0.2 2.1 326 rv 6.3 28H75E P 0 Slash X 0.8 3.1 334 in 5.1 28H75F P R B X 0.3 1.2 X in 4.8 28H75G P R C X 0.3 2.1 X IV 0.0 28H75H P 0 C X 0.3 1.4 298 V 1.3 28H85D P R C X 0.2 1.9 0 XVII 0.0 28H85E P 0 F NE 0.3 2.3 230 XVIII 2.9 28H85F P R C X 0.3 1.6 90 XVIII 4.1 28H88A P R B X 0.4 2.0 X XVII 0.0 28H89B P 0 B X 0.4 1.5 90 IX 9.6 28H89C P 0 C-B X 0.7 2.0 84 VIII 6.0 179 APPENDIX 4J Pit Features (continued) Pit Information from the Cobble Feature Record Forms Continued Depth Major Axis DTTE Feature # Type Shape Floor Entry (m) (m) Deg Terrace (m) 28H98A P R C X 0.6 tw 0.9 2.7 0 III 5.2 28H98D P 0 X s 0.1 tw0.4 3.5 82 VI 12.6 28H98E P O C X 0.6 2.6 90 rx 1.4 28H98G P R Slash X 0.2 2.5 100 X 4.0 28H99C P O B X 0.1 tw0.3 2.3 280 i 9.7 28H99D P RE B X 0.7 tw 0.9 4.6 295 II 0.0 28H100A P SC B NW 0.4 tw 0.5 3.4 0 UN 7.6 28H100D P R C X 0.5 1.9 0 UN 5.9 28H101C P R C X 0.8 3.1 75 XII 0.0 28H101G1 P O B X 1.5 2.4 225 XVI 2.8 28H101G2 P RE F X 0.3 3.8 254 XVI 2.8 28H102C P O C X 0.4 1.0 328 II 3.9 28H103F P O B X 0.6 tw 0.3 2.7 308 xrv 14.2 28H104A P O C s 0.4 2.5 245 UN 2.9 tw= Top of Wall depth Measurement (Beach Surface to Centre Bottom is listed before top of wall measurement) APPENDIX 4J Pit Features (continued) Major Axis Size trends for Pit Sub-Types (in metres) 0-.54M .55-1.04 1.05-1.54 1.55-2.04 2.05-2.54 Pits 2 20 52 68 45 Ringed Pits 16 4 1 Walled Pits 5 5 Walled Pit with Mound Pit with Mound Total 2 21 58 77 51 Percentage 0.58% 6.14% 16.96% 22.51% 14,91% 2.55-3.04 3.05-3.54 3.55-4.04 4.05-4.54 4.55-5.04 Pits 36 28 13 Ringed Pits 4 2 Walled Pits 7 7 9 Walled Pit with Mound 1 Pit with Mound 1 Total 47 38 23 Percentage 13.74% 11.11% 6.73% 2.63% 2.34% 5.05-5.54 5.55-6.04 6.55-7.04 7.55-8.04 Total Pits 3 1 277 Ringed Pits 18 Walled Pits 1 1 2 45 Walled Pit with Mound 1 Pit with Mound 1 Total 4 112 342 Percentage 1.17% 0.29% 0.29% 0.58% 100.00% APPENDIX 4J Pit Features (continued) Break down of data by Pit Sub-Types (Frequencies) SHAPE R RE O SC C D HS DS KD F8 TR TRP Pits 141 16 95 8 13 1 Pits with rings 7 7 1 Pits with Walls 9 12 20 1 1 Pits with wall and mound 1 Pit with Mound 1 Total 157 29 123 9 2 10 10 ENTRANCE N S E W SE NW NE SW Pits 6 8 5 4 6 6 1 Pits with rings 1 11 Pits with Walls 2 5 11 2 3 3 Pits with wall and mound Pit with Mound Total 12 9 14 6 6 8 10 Floor B C O SL UN Pits 89 124 37 10 3 14 3 Pits with rings 4 10 2 1 Pits with Walls 17 6 9 3 Pits with wall and mound 1 Pit with Mound 1 Total 110 141 49 14 5 14 3 Orientation N NE NW E Pits 88 35 34 69 Pits with rings 5 4 3 5 Pits with Walls 15 8 12 10 Pits with wall and mound 1 Pit with Mound 1 Total 109 47 50 84 APPENDIX 4J Pit Features (continued) iK K \ MAP CALF N — t < / I,-. a t ). / ^ ~z ">. / ? \ \ V \ , T *l ^K • ^— 1 ^ U-t j \ ) 1^ ) I k / ^\ 1 ^ I 1 ^ l-v^ 1 [ / \ i 1 •^ 1 ! C ,-' ! /- *\ ^ i ••, r I y ~--_, \ ! | ; ! < i i 1 1 1 1 Sketch of Pit 28H54A SKETCH MAP SCALE NORTH r ^ 'r- N, ~1 y c '---•( J ? •^' 4^ r / ^ / s ' \ V / ;v \ i r' s -"^•, v /;, •-• y~ •! j ~-^ •* /-' L^ i '' r \ fi i. r -^—. i ? ,~ *=; ;K —, - V -^ ~),\ - ' : i --»m ~ H / y \ . _/ ,c ,y JL>. . ^ \ L______i _ _ Sketch of feature 28H6418 Pit A \r~v~ A A-4 (\ t&m V izi C ^'~<^ m 2£T t Sketch of feature 28H6412 Walled Pit 183 APPENDIX 4J Pit Features (continued) Pit28H21C Pit 28H21D Pit 28H21E ©Nancy Champagne Otter Cover (28H21) Three Pits on Beach (Features C, D, E) mmmamm ©Nancy Champagne Otter Cover (28H21) Pit D view of the Cove 184 APPENDIX 4 J Pit Features (continued) ©Nancy Champagne North Swallow 1 (28H6) Pit against Glacier Erratic (28H6D) North Swallow II (28H11) Walled Pit with South-West Entrance (28H1 IB) 185 APPENDIX 4K Pole Support Features Pole Support Information from the Cobble Feature Record Forms Ring Shape Major Axis Distance to Feature Depth Terrace edge # Type Shape (m) (m) Deg Terrace (m) 28H32G PS 0 0.2 1.7 101 IV of VII 6.5 28H32J PS R 0.2 0.5 90 IV of VII 7.5 28H68D PS R 0.4 0.8 90 IV of IV 3 28H103B PS R 0.3 0.6 20 XII of XV 6.1 28H103C PS 0 0.2 0.8 0 XII of XV 8.1 28H103D PS R 0.2 0.9 231 XII of XV 10.5 28H101D PS R 0.2 0.4 0 XII of XVI 3.4 28H11J PS 0 0.2 0.6 20 III of VII 0.8 28H11K PS R 0.3 0.7 220 III of VII 5.2 28H11L PS R 0.1 0.7 256 III of VII 8.2 28H22B PS R 0.4 1.6 0 VofV 0.9 Pole Support Information from the Cobble Feature Record Forms Cairn Shape Wall Major Axis Distance to Feature Height Terrace # Type Shape (m) (m) Deg Terrace edge (m) 28H21J C, PS RE 0.3 0.7 392 Vof IX 0 28H32F C-PS 0 0.1 0.9 200 IV of VII 5.9 28H32H C-PS COL 0.2 1.1 182 IV of VII 8 28H101E C,PS RE 0.3 0.5 132 XIII of XVI 0 Break down of data by Pole Support Feature Shapes (Frequencies) SIZE Orientation R O RE COL E N NE NW Ring style Pole Supports 8 3 4 5 2 Cairn style Pole Supports 12 13 1 186 APPENDIX 4K Pole Support Features (continued) Major Axis Size trends for Pole Support Features (in metres) 0-.54M .55-1.04 1.05-1.54 1.55-2.04 Ring style Pole Supports 1 6 Cairn style Pole Supports 1 2 Heights 0-.54M Cairn Style Pole Supports 0.39 4 0.15 0.29 0.32 Total 1.15 Average 0.29 Depth 0-.54M Ring Size Pole Supports 0.24 11 0.26 0.47 0.33 0.24 0.29 0.29 0.22 0.31 0.12 0.40 Total 3.17 Average 0.29 187 APPENDIX 4K Pole Support Features (continued) j... SK TCH MAP SCALE /-H ^ -c 3ft ^ M "T /h T Sketch of feature 28H32F Cairn Style Pole Support S (LI H ^Al ' SCALE. / -H / •-' —-- ' ... > • t< — ,i ..- • •> -;- | V ...... - - b ~ CROSS SECTION: SCALE nS.'OR AUS I 1 c r4-U4> 1 1 •TT-I — — 1 r _f ~rri ! 1 1 1 3aa1 1 i T •7 I -mi . Sketch of feature 28H22B Pit Style Pole Support APPENDIX 4K Pole Support Features (continued) ©Nancy Champagne Otter Cove (28H21) Cairn Style Pole Support (28H21J) %» 'if ^Xl^i^l^ 1 4 && -*«£>* mill^Lj-."—* f *- "«, V" * %a North Swallow II (28H11) Pit Style Pole Support (28H11L) en oo HrtO]oqrfiqiD*iDoo = X X X = = = = xx> = = = >>>>>>> = = > , , 4— 4— 4— 4- )>.>.>.> 4-4-0->.>.?>4-H-4-4-4-4-.^.1_J 4- ^4-4-4-4-4-4-XXX o o o o 4-4-4-4- O O^-TM-H- O O O O O O ^ Q M- O O -^0000004-4-4- o o o oxx^^ o o____^_°^ o--^ = > X ^> =_ > > > = > = - = = o = = = = >>°°° > X oor>oo 03 0> fa DC a CO XXXXXXXXXXXZXXXXXXXXXXXXOOLOOOXXXXCOXXX 2 c3 LOCOL/1LOLJLOCOLOLOLOC/1l/}LOLOLOL/->LnL/1LOOL/lLOLOL^ rsi =2 Q ^ O. a z h- es 3 z CO 0£ u LL. LL. u CO Q CO U a < 13 X 13 CM ro S-i u- LU 2 rH rH rH rH LD ID rH fM fM N'J^^^miDOOlS^^OHHININlDIOOOO"=t LO IX) fM *t O rH O "=t to U3 tzo HrldrlHHrlrMNrMNININNNINNISIHrDrni/lUlinUlinifllfllfllfrH rH rH rH rmH rH rH fM rsi fM 99 5 l 5 fO X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXIXXXX a 01 oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo rvlNOINNNNNrNNNNrNrvlNNNNNNfNNNNNNNrvlrMNNNfslrjPJ PH 190 APPENDIX 4L Ring Feature Information (continued) Feature form information For Ring Features Continued Major Axis DTTE Feature # Form Type Shape Floor Entry (m) Peg Terrace (m) 28H587 C R SPR F E 4.1 323 VI of XIV 3.3 28H5812 C R,C R F NW 2.3 132 V of XIV 1.8 28H5817 s R O F X 1.4 342 VII of XIV 2.5 28H5821A c R 0 C X 2.9 140 VIII of XIV 2.5 28H5821B c R 0 C X 1.8 150 VIII of XIV 2.5 28H5823 s R R c X 1.0 0 IX of XIV 5.5 28H5824 c R RE F X 4.7 90 IX of XIV 9.8 28H5825 c R R,0 F E 2.9 90 IX of XIV 15.2 28H5826 c R,C R F X 2.4 90 X of XIV 4.6 28H5827 c R,C R F X 2.4 90 X of XIV 6.7 28H5835 c R,M R F X 4.0 X XII of XIV 4.8 28H5836 X R,M O X X 5.3 4 XIII of XIV 3.1 28H5847 s R 0 F X 1.8 300 XIII of XIV 1.5 28H60N s R R B X 1.9 0 VI of VI 1.9 28H60P s R X B X 1.8 90 VI of VI 1.1 28H6124 s R R B X 2.1 0 X of XII 8.4 28DH63D s R R F X 1.4 90 xviiofxvni 4.4 28H63F2 c RinPA R NA X 1.2 90 XVII of XVIII 13.5 28H63H s R O B X 2.1 320 XVIIIofXVIII 4.0 28H63J s R RE F X 2.3 339 XVIII of XVIII 4.2 28H648 c R,R SQ F X 3.0 28 III of IX 3.3 28H6410C c R(H) X X X 1.1 1.1 III of IX 4.6 28H6419 s R X F X 1.9 0 IV of IX 6.8 28H6424 s R,M R F X 4.5 0 VofIX 3.1 28H6433A c R SC F X 4.7 187 VII of IX 4.1 28H6437 s R R B X 1.6 X VII of IX 10.5 28H6448B c R(H) X X X 0.8 90 IX of IX 19.4 28H6451 s R R F X 1.1 VII of IX 13.5 28H6452 s R R B X 1.3 0 IV of IX 6.5 28H65C c R,M R B sw 5.0 0 XXIV of XXIV X 28H66B2 c R R X X 0.6 0.6 XXVI of XXVI 0.0 28H68C s R 0 B X 1.5 171 IV of IV 1.2 28H71B s R R C X 1.1 0 VIII of XI 2.2 28H73A s R RE F X 1.2 42 II of II 17.5 191 APPENDIX 4L Ring Feature Information (continued) Feature form information For Ring Features Continued Major Axis DTTE Feature # Form Type Shape Floor Entry (m) Peg Terrace (m) 28H73B S R 0 F X 1.5 78 II of II 19.7 28H73C S R R C X 1.2 122 II of II 14.6 28H74E S R O F X 1.3 180 VIII of VIII 4.0 28H74H S R 0 F X 2.0 167 VIII of VIII 6.5 28H74K C R O B SE 1.9 116 VIII of VIII 2.2 28H75B S R O F X 1.9 302 IVofV 9.3 28H75C s R R B X 1.2 X IVofV 7.7 28H85B s R O F X 1.3 358 XIV of XVIII 0.4 28H86C2 c R X X N 1.0 1 XofX 1.7 28H87B s R SC F X 1.3 1 XX of XX X 28H88B c R,R R F X 2.1 90 XVII of XVIII 3.0 28H88B2 c Inner R O X X 1.3 40 XVII of XVIII 3.0 28H89A s H R F X 1.8 0 IX of IX 6.9 28H98B s R O F X 1.1 X III of X 7.9 28H98F2 c R(H) R X X 0.2 80 XofX 6.9 28H100B s R R B X 1.7 0 UN 4.7 28H100C s R R F X 1.3 284 UN 3.5 28H101F s R R B X 1.4 180 XIV of XVI 3.4 28H103A s R R F X 1.8 340 XII of XV 5.4 28H103E s R O F X 1.8 350 XIII of XV 4.4 Ring Feature Data Broken Down (Frequencies) Entrance Orientation SW SE S NW NE E N E NW NE Ring 2 2 1 2 37 19 14 7 Ring and Cairn 1 3 1 Ring and Cairn and Mound 1 Ring and Mound 1 3 Ring and Ring 1 Ring and Wall 1 1 Total 2 2 2 1 1 2 41 24 15 7 192 APPENDIX 4L Ring Feature Information (continued) Ring Feature Data Broken Down (Frequencies) Shape R O KD SC X RE SQ SPR Ring 27 26 Ring and Cairn 4 Ring and Cairn and Mound 1 Ring and Mound 3 1 Ring and Ring 1 1 Ring and Wall 1 Total 36 28 1 1 Major Axis Information for Ring Features (in meters) 0-0.54 0.55-1.04 1.05-1.54 1.55-2.04 2.05-2.54 2.55-3.04 Ring 1 6 31 27 6 4 Ring and Cairn 4 Ring and Cairn and Mound 1 Ring and Mound Ring and Ring 1 Ring and Wall 1 Total 1 6 31 29 11 4 Mean 1.12% 6.74% 34.83% 32.58% 12.36% 4.49% 3.55-4.04 4.05-4.54 4.55-5.04 5.05-5.54 Total Ring 1 2 78 Ring and Cairn 4 Ring and Cairn and Mound 1 Ring and Mound 1 1 1 1 4 Ring and Ring 1 Ring and Wall 1 Total 1 2 3 1 89 Mean 1.12% 2.25% 3.37% 1.12% 100.00% 193 APPENDIX 4L Ring Feature Information (continued) 3Li w W3> I? sx zm. p ^ m r & sm 3 2 V- 3> n <2 xi s^ ™-.^ Sketch of feature 28H648 Ring inside a Ring =fe: -t W, ZE WKE S ^ IS N « ft Sketch of feature 28H73C Ring Sketch of feature 28H6433 Ring with Mound 194 APPENDIX 4L Ring Feature Information (continued) ©Nancy Champagne North Swallow I (28H6) Ring Feature (28H6N) ©Nancy Champagne Upper North Swallow (28H103) Ring (28H103E) 195 APPENDIX 4M Wall Features Wall Feature Information from the Cobble Feature Record Forms Height Major Axis DTTE Feature # Form Type Shape (m) Entry (m) Deg Terrace (m) 28H4D C W,C KD 0.1 SE 5 20 III of III 7 28H13J C W RE 0.2 X 3.2 360 II of IV 2.3 28H35G S W L 0.8 X 4.6 236 XV of XVI 5.7 28H35H s W L 1.2 NE 4.1 308 XVI of XVI 0 28H5850 s W C 0.3 X 4.5 230 XIII of XXVI 8 28H66D s WB,B SC 0.2 E 2.3 0 XXVI of XXVI 19.8 28H66E s WB,B SC 0.3 E 4.3 180 XXVI of XXVI 28.5 28H75J s WB SC 0.3 X 2.5 322 VofV 4 28H87A s WB,B SC 0.3 E 2.2 0 XX 0.5 28H4A c W 0 0.1 W 3.4 90 II of VII 5.1 SC = Semi-Circular KD = Kidney Shaped L= Linear C = Circular 0= Oval WB = Wind Break WB, C = Wind Break with Cairn WB,B = Wind Break with Blind APPENDIX 4M Wall Features (continued) Major Axis Size trends for Wall Features (in meters) 2.05-2.54 3.05-3.54 4.05-4.54 4.55-5.04 Wall and Cairn 1 Wall 2 2 1 Wind Break 3 1 Break down of data for Wall Features (Frequencies) Shape Entrance Orientation KD RE L SC O C SE E W N NE NW E Wall and Cairn 1 1 1 Wall 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 Wind Break 4 3 3 1 Total 1 1 ? 4 1 1 1 3 5 ? ? 1 APPENDIX 4N Walled Enclosure Features Walled Enclosure Information from the Cobble Feature Record Forms Feature Major Axis DTTE # Form Type Shape Floor Entry (m) Peg Terrace (m) 28H645 C WE RE F: X 4.7 360 III of IX 3 28H6416 C WE, M OorRE F: X 7.9 334 IV of IX 6.6 28H6421 S WE 0 F: E,W 3.1 180 IV of IX 10.7 28H6423 S WE HS F: E 3.5 118 VofIX 3.1 28H52E2 C WE RE F: SE 3 182 IV of IX 1.7 28H6420 C WE HS F: N 4.1 0 IV of IX 7 Major Axis Size trends for Walled Enclosures (in meters) 2.55- 3.05- 4.05- 4.55- 7.55- 3.04 3.54 4.54 5.04 8.04 Walled enclosure with mound 1 Walled Enclosure 12 11 Break down of data for Walled Enclosures (Frequencies) Shape Entrance Orientation RE O HS E-W E SE N N NW Walled enclosure with mound 1 1 Walled Enclosure 2 12 11114 1 Sketch of feature 28H645 Walled Enclosure 198 APPENDIX 40 Miscellaneous Feature Feature form information on Miscellaneous Feature Distance to Major Axis Minor Axis Terrace Feature # Shape Floor Entry (m) Peg (m) Peg Terrace Edge (m) 28H21Y RJ3 F NA T2 5 5.8 90 III 0 SKETCH MAP _ SCALE NORTH > -T^5= <'• ^ - 3- ^T N 1 KN -,*- /£*" ^a :£ ^?? -*?\ ~t £>* » AVI~~ i ^ ,v nr iU?A v - i <::> - a tJ - JfetiTT- _-n - 3^ -*o— -J-w" U ' v^ *& -+ T -> er- -x,,- ^ o^ ' - -.2$ ! x y ^ *^ ! -^r- C 4>-V'' - r ^:1^ i uL-* i ' ! CX- s ^-kz D \ V ' 4v-— >/ I -4 "\ f*\ J> 0 1 \ CROSS SECTION: SCALt MAJOR AXFS ] 1 1 nr -T-^ —J—1— •• —f-4 -r- —i—r-H-+ Sketch of Miscellaneous Feature 199 APPENDIX 5A Living Floors Sample From the Archaeological Record Date/Complex/People Location Shape Size (M) Source Historic Algonquian North Minnesota Re 5.48 BushnellJR 1922:11 Historic Algonquian Re 7.62 BushnellJR 1922:12 Historic Algonquian O no data BushnellJR 1922:12 Historic Algonquian Re 30.48 BushnellJR 1922:13 Historic Algonquian Sq 6.9 Bushnell 1922:16 Historic Algonquian c 0.91 Bushnell 1922:17 Cree Plains Con 7.62 Bushnell 1922:20 Palaeo Indian period Adkin Site Northwest Main O 8 Wright 1995:46 Palaeo Indian period Udora site Ontario 3.5 Wright 1995:44 Palaeo Indian period Virginia O 7.3 Wright 1995:46 Palaeo Indian period Vail site, Maine R 3.5 Wright 1995:46 Palaeo Indian period? Piano Grant Lake site, Keewatin District 4.8 Wright 1995:112 Palaeo Indian Period Overlooking Schultz Lake Re 3 Wright 1995:112 Middle Great Lakes St Lawrence Culture (MGLSL) Northern Maine 4.5 Wright 1995:240 MGLSL Vergennes phase 4,000 to 3,500 BC KI site Vermont 4.6 Wright 1995:240 MGLSL Brewerton phase 3,500 to 2,000 BC New York 2.45 Wright 1995:240 MGLSL 2,000 to 1,000 BC Knechtel I Site 4.6 Wright 1995:245 Late Archaic Innes Site lake Huron O 11 Wright 1995:245 Late Archaic Innes Site lake Huron O 13 Wright 1995:245 MGLSL 2,000 to 1,000 BC Thistle Hill site 4 Wright 1995:245 MGLSL 2,000 to 1,000 BC Thistle Hill site 4.3 Wright 1995:245 Middle Shield Culture Aberdeen Site Keewatin District O 4.6 Wright 1995:280 Middle Shield Culture Aberdeen Site Keewatin District 4.3 Wright 1995:281 Middle Shield Culture SE Manitoba God's Lake Site C 4.6 Wright 1995:283 Archaic Gods Lake Site NE Manitoba C 5.5 Wright 1970:32 Northern Ontario Smoothwater Middle Shield Culture site 3.7 Wright 1995:284 Middle Shield Culture Middle Plains Harder Site 4 Wright 1995:316 Middle Shield Culture Alaska 2 Wright 1995:432 200 APPENDIX 5A Living Floors Sample From the Archaeological Record (continued) Size Date/Complex/People Location Shape (M) Source Early Palaeo Eskimo 2500-1500 BC Amapik Site O 3.7 Wright 1995:434 Early Palaeo Eskimo 2500-1500 BC Thyazzi Site, Northeastern Manitoba 9 Wright 1995:434 Early Palaeo Eskimo 2500-1500 BC Seahorse Gully site O 4 Wright 1995:434 Early Palaeo Eskimo 2500-1500 BC Seahorse Gully site C 2.4 Wright 1995:434 Early Palaeo Eskimo 2500-1500 BC Seahorse Gully site Re 3.4 Wright 1995:434 Early Palaeo Eskimo 2500-1500 BC Seahorse Gully site Re 3 Wright 1995:434 Early Palaeo Eskimo 2500-1500 BC Seahorse Gully site Re 4.3 Wright 1995:434 Early Palaeo Eskimo 2500-1500 BC Seahorse Gully site Re 6.1 Wright 1995:434 Early Palaeo Eskimo 2500-1500 BC Junction Site 4 Wright 1995:436 Early Palaeo Eskimo 2500-1500 BC Great Bear Lake Site O 3 Wright 1995:436 Early Palaeo Eskimo 2500-1500 BC Great Bear Lake Site O 5 Wright 1995:436 Early Palaeo Eskimo 2500-1500 BC Cold Site Re 3 Wright 1995:439 Early Palaeo Eskimo 2500-1500 BC Cold Site Re 3.2 Wright 1995:439 E & M Woodland, Meadowood Complex Scaccia Central Base Camp New York Ob 4.9 Wright 1999:647 E & M Woodland, Saugeen Complex Sinking Pond Site O 4.7 Wright 1999:648 E & M Woodland, Saugeen Complex Donaldson Site Re 7 Wright 1999:649 E & M Woodland, Saugeen Complex Donaldson Site Re 5.2 Wright 1999:649 E & M Woodland, Point Peninsula Complex Ault Park Site O 3.7 Wright 1999:657 Late Eastern Shield Culture Donald Rattle Site 8 Wright 1999:715 Late Western Shield Culture Heron Bay base camp c 3 Wright 1967:8, 1999:755 Laurel Ballynacree 0 7 Wright 1999:761 Reid and Rajnovich Laurel Ballynacree 0 8 1991:194 Laurel Boundary waters Bundoran c 4 Wright 1999:761 Late Plains Culture River Point Site, NE Minnesota c 3.5 Wright 1999:761 Besant Complex British Block Cairn Site, Alberta c 5.85 Wright 1999:821 Late Plains Culture, 600 BC Bow Bottom Site 4.95 Wright 1999:821 Late Plains Culture, Pelican Lake Complex Cranford Site 5.5 Wright 1999:821 Ross Glen 6.3 Wright 1999:822 201 APPENDIX 5A Living Floors Sample From the Archaeological Record (continued) Size Date/Complex/People Location Shape (M) Source Middle Palaeo-Eskimo, 1,000 BC to 500 AD Re 4 Wright 1999:1036 Bernard Harbour I site, Victoria Island O 3 Wright 1999:1038 Bernard Harbour I site, Victoria Island 0 7 Wright 1999:1038 Early Dorset Re 5 Wright 1999:1039 Seahorse Gully site 5.8 Wright 1999:1039 Early Dorset Morrison site 9.4 Wright 1999:1039 Dorset Occupation 1,000 BC to AD 1 Philip's Garden West Site 3.5 Wright 1999:1046 Dorset Occupation 1,000 BC to AD 1 Newfoundland Cow Head Peninsula Re 4 Wright 1999:1046 Nobakov and Easton 2500-1800 BC Assawompset Pond SE Massachusetts C 10.97 1989:55 Nobakov and Easton 2500-1800 BC Assawompset Pond SE Massachusetts C 18.29 1989:55 Late Prehistoric time of occupation Hunters Point Site 3.5 Molnar 1993:137 Late 19th century Lake Superior Provincial Park 6.09 Conway 1975:26 Yakima Valley C 7.62 Smith 1910:55 1908 Nez Perce Indians Re 21.33 Smith 1910:55 Archie Smoothwater Lake Site NE Ontario C 3.5 Pollock 1976:55-67 no Middle Woodland AD 150 to AD 290 Summer Island Site Lake Michigan O data Brose 1970:290 Early Palaeo Eskimo 2500-1500 BC Northwest Territories Closure Site O 2 Wright 1995:434 202 APPENDIX 5B Hearth Data from the Archaeological Record Depth Date/Compl ex/People Location Shape Size(M) (m) Source Late Woodland Lake Superior National Park L 1.5 Conway 1975:20 Reid and Rajnovich Laurel, Initial Woodland Ballynacree site, Winnipeg R. C No data 0.06 1991:195 Laurel Tradition McGillivray Site C 1 Dawson 1980:45 Middle Great Lakes St Lawrence Malcom Site O 1.8 0.9 Wright 1995:250 Late Eastern Shield Culture Central Labrador C 1.5 Wright 1999:714 Late Eastern Shield Culture Daniel Rattle Site L 4.5 raised Wright 1999:715 Late Western Shield Culture Naomikong Site O 1.4 0.3 Wright 1999:763 Woodland, AD 1450 Michipicoten Site pear 0.45 0.17 Wright 1968:9 Woodland Michipicoten Site C 0.2 0.17 Wright 1968:9 Woodland Michipicoten Site O 0.52 0.25 Wright 1968:9 Woodland Michipicoten Site c 0.3 0.45 Wright 1968:9 Woodland Michipicoten Site c 0.3 0.45 Wright 1968:9 Woodland Michipicoten Site 0 1 na Wright 1968:9 Woodland Michipicoten Site c 0.45 na Wright 1968:9 Archaic, woodland Adena Pilots Point, Connecticut o 3.65 0.61 Glynn 1973:77-89 Archaic, woodland Adena Pilots Point, Connecticut 0 2.74 0.61 Glynn 1973:77-89 203 APPENDIX 5C Burial Data from the Archaeological Record Height Depth Location Size (m) (m) Type Source Southeastern Manitoba burial pit Wright 1995:286 Crowfield Site 1.5 Cremation (Deller and Ellis 1984) Wright 1995:48 Nipigon Bay 12 large rocks capped the pit Arthurs 1995:26 Hunters Point site 1.3 0.3 Odawa ceremonialism for burial. Molnar 1997:110-111 MacGillivray site 15.0 1 0.35 mound over burial pit Dawson 1980:46,47 Tumulus II 9.0 1.3 mound with central crypt Wright 1995:203 Ouissinaougouk Site 0.4 grave offering in boneless pit Wright 1995:289 Independence I 2.0 Burial tent over deceased. Wright 1995:441 Red Lake Site 6.6 crematoria Wright 1999:661 Near Kingston Ontario 12.2 1,2 stone slab coverings Wright 1999:667 Princess mound, Rice Lake 11.6 1.4 Wright 1999:667 Trent River 7.6 limestone enclosed a central cist Wright 1999:679 20.0 1.5 to 2.6 Wright 1999:765 Bracken Cairn Burial 3.0 on a hill offering left at cairn Wright 1999:826 Middle Missouri 23.6 0.4 to 2.1 0.6 to 1.2 subfloor pits Wright 1999:827 North Antler Area Mound C 25.6 2.43 pit covered by poles Capes 1963:164 Mound R section 32 1.1 0.66 mound with central burial pit Capes 1963:165 Mound 3 section 15 12.2 0.61 burial pit, poles had covered pit Capes 1963:167 Moore group mounds, Moore A 7.9 0.3 1.52 mound over pit, large boulders Capes 1963:171 Pit A Moore group mounds 1.2 covered in boulders, red ochre Capes 1963:172 Pit B Moore Group Mounds 1.2 pit burial Capes 1963:172 Pit C MooreGroup Mounds 0.9 red ochre Capes 1963:172 Pit D MooreGroup Mounds 0.9 covered in boulders and poles Capes 1963:172 Minnesota 3.7 post structure covered in stone Aiton 1852 Red Wing Minnesota 2.7 2.74 post moulds Sweney 1864 Near Brockville 6.1 0.61 human bones Quick 1885:3-5 SE Mountain Virginia 15.2 1.22-1.52 coffin/cavity revealed bones Kengla 1883:868-872 204 APPENDIX 5D Cache Pit Data from the Archaeological Record Size Depth Date/Complex/People Location Shape (M) (M) Source Middle Shield Culture Ouissinaougouk Site 0.4 Wright 1995:289 Meadowood Complex Scaccia 0 1.35 0.43 Wright 1999:646 Meadowood Complex Scaccia C 0.89 0.2 Wright 1999:646 Late Plains Culture Muhlbach site, Alberta 0.2 Wright 1999:820 Reid and Rajnovich Laurel Ballynacree site, Lake Winnipeg 0.4 0.6 1991:195 Rajnovich et al. Laurel Fisk site C 0.4 0.09 1982:103 Rajnovich et al. Laurel Fisk site C 0.6 0.21 1982:103 Middle Woodland Summer Island Site C 0.3 0.48 Brose 1970:36 Middle Woodland Summer Island Site C 0.9 0.71 Brose 1970:36 Blackduck Lady Rapids site C 0.5 0.3 Callaghan 1982:14 205 APPENDIX 5E Pole Support Data from the Archaeological Record Size Depth Time/People Location Shape (M) (M) Source Laurel Heron Bay Site round 0.05 Wright 1967:8 Laurel Heron Bay Site round 0.07 Wright 1967:8 Summer Island Site, Northern Lake Middle Woodland Michigan round 0.05 Brose 1970:32 Summer Island Site, Northern Lake Middle Woodland Michigan round 0.15 Brose 1970:32 Blackduck Lady Rapids Site oval 0.05 Callaghan 1982:14 AD 1460 Michipicoten stratum II or III 0.07 0.09 Wright 1968:9 AD 1460 Michipicoten stratum II or III 0.19 0.58 Wright 1968:9 AD 1460 Michipicoten stratum II or III 0.11 0.25 Wright 1968:9 Laurel Ballynacree Site, Winnipeg River 0.05 0.03 Reid and Rajnovich 1991:194-195 Laurel Ballynacree Site, Winnipeg River 0.28 Reid and Rajnovich 1991:194-195 Point Peninsula oval 0.05 Wright 1995:657 Point Peninsula oval 0.06 Wright 1995:657 Odawa Hunters Point Site oval 0.03 0.05 Molnar 1997:108 Odawa Hunters Point Site oval 0.05 0.1 Molnar 1997:108 APPENDIX 5F Results of Mann-Whitney U tests Pave Pave with Rings Living Floors u=1549,p=0.0022 u=174,p<.0001 Hearths u=104,p<.0001 u=240, p=0.0005 Pole Supports u=0, p<.0001 u=156,p<.0001 Cache Pits u=l,p<.0001 u=0, p<.0001 Burials u=856.5, p=0.5287 u=146, p=0.4065 All Features u=42975, p=0.2543 u=735, p=0.4965 Living Floors and Cache Pits u=2178,p=0.1336 u=314,p=0.008 Living Floors and Pole Supports u=2368, p=0.2757 u=356,p=0.0188 Living Floors, pole supports and Cache pits u=2997, p=0.8966 u=496,p=0.1389 Living Floors and Hearths u=2705, p=0.5552 u=414,p=0.0357 Living Floors, Hearths and Cache Pits u=3334, p=0.6101 u=554,p=0.1936 Living Floors, Hearths and Pole Supports u=3524,p=0.4122 u=596, p=0.2757 Living Floors, Hearths, Burials, Pole Supports u=3737.5,p=0.7114 u=615,p=0.242 Living Floors, Hearths, Cache Pits, Pole Supports u=4153,p=0.0854 u=736, p=0.6384 Living Floors, Burials, Cache Pits u=2896.5, p=0.1499 u=460, p=0.0214 Living Floors, Burials and Pole Supports u=3086.5, p=0.2713 u=502, p=0.0385 Living Floors, Burials and Hearths u=3423.5, p=0.4902 u=560, p=0.0588 Living Floors, Burials, Cache Pits, Pole Supports u=3268.5,p=0.8415 u=532,p=0.1471 Living Floors, Burials, Hearths and Cache Pits u=3569.5,p=0.9045 u=579,p=0.1835 Burials and Hearths u=960.5, p=0.0045 u=386, p=0.2077 Burials and Pole Supports u=856.5,p=0.0173 u=328, p=0.2041 Burials and Living Floors u= 1980.5, p=0.0069 u=320,p=0.0016 Burials and Cache Pits u=857.5, p=0.0703 u=286,p=0.3681 Burials, Cache Pits and Hearths u=961.5, p<0001 u=526, p=0.0357 Burials, Pole Supports and Hearths u=960.5, p<0001 ~ u=568,p=0.0214 Cache Pits and Pole Supports u=l,p<.0001 u=322,p<.0001 Cache Pits and Hearths u=105,p<.0001 u=380,p<.0001 Hearths and Pole Supports u=104,p<.0001 u=422,p<.0001 Hearths, Cache Pits and Pole Supports u=105,p<.0001 u=562,p<.0001 APPENDIX 5F Results of Mann-Whitney U Tests (continued) Pave with all Features Pave with C & M Living Floors u=366, p=0.4839 u=213,p=0.4654 Hearths u=176,p<.0001 u=99, p=0.001 Pole Supports u=117,p=0.0001 u=65,p=0.0016 Cache Pits u=90, p=0.0003 u=50, p=0.0027 Burials u=117.5,p=0.8572 u=63, p=l All Features u=866.5, p=0.0536 u=490,p=0.1211 Living Floors and Cache Pits u=456, p=0.2225 u=263, p=0.267 Living Floors and Pole Supports u=483,p=0.1738 u=278, p=0.2301 Living Floors, pole supports and Cache pits u=573,p=0.0801 u=328,p=0.1389 Living Floors and Hearths u=542,p=0.1118 u=312,p=0.1645 Living Floors, Hearths and Cache Pits u=632, p=0.0536 u=362,p=0.1052 Living Floors, Hearths and Pole Supports u=659, p=0.0434 u=377,p=0.091 Living Floors, Hearths, Burials, Pole Supports u=776.5, p=0.091 u=440,p=0.1707 Living Floors, Hearths, Cache Pits, Pole Supports u=749, p=0.022 u=427,p=0.0615 Living Floors, Burials, Cache Pits u=573.5,p=0.3173 u=326, p=0.3898 Living Floors, Burials and Pole Supports u=600.5, p=0.267 u=341,p=0.3472 Living Floors, Burials and Hearths u=659.5,p=0.1902 u=375,p=0.2713 Living Floors, Burials, Cache Pits, Pole Supports u=690.5,p=0.1499 u=391,p=0.238 Living Floors, Burials, Hearths and Cache Pits u= 749.5, p=0.1074 u=425,p=0.1868 Burials and Hearths u=293.5, p=0.0357 u=162,p=0.1141 Burials and Pole Supports u=234.5,p=0.0891 u=128,p=0.2187 Burials and Living Floors u=483.5,p=0.5619 u=276 ,p=0.5755 Burials and Cache Pits u=207.5,p=0.1499 u=113,p=0.3077 Burials, Cache Pits and Hearths u=383, p=0.0088 u=212,p=0.0032 Burials, Pole Supports and Hearths u=410.5,p=0.0061 u=227, p=(M)385 Cache Pits and Pole Supports u=103.5,p=0.984 u=115,p=0.0006 Cache Pits and Hearths u=266,p<.0001 u=149,p=0.0005 Hearths and Pole Supports u=293,p<.0001 u=164,p=0.0005 Hearths, Cache Pits and Pole Supports u=383,p<.0001 u=214,p=0.0003 APPENDIX 5F Results of Mann-Whitney U Tests (continued) AC with Bif Pave Bif Pave with features Living Floors u=511.5, p=0.8181 u=197, p=0.6892 Hearths u=287,p<.0001 u=98, p=0.0012 Pole Supports u=0,p<.0001 u=65,p=0.0016 Cache Pits u=0, p<.0001 u=50, p=0.0027 Burials u=182,p=0.887 u=60,p=0.9124 All Features u=1325.5,p=0.0854 u=470,p=0.1835 Living Floors and Cache Pits u=661.5, p=0.5892 u=247,p=0.4179 Living Floors and Pole Supports u=706.5, p=0.4593 u=262, p=0.3576 Living Floors, pole supports and Cache pits u=856.5,p=0.1835 u=312,p=0.2225 Living Floors and Hearths u=798.5, p=0.2937 u=295,p=0.2713 Living Floors, Hearths and Cache Pits u=948.5, p=0.1164 u=345,p=0.1707 Living Floors, Hearths and Pole Supports u=993.5, p=0.0873 u=360, p=0.0873 Living Floors, Hearths, Burials, Pole Supports u=l 175.5, p=0.1738 u=420, p=0.2543 Living Floors, Hearths, Cache Pits, Pole Supports u=l 143.5, p=0.034 u=410,p=0.0989 Living Floors, Burials, Cache Pits u=843.5, p=0.7039 u=307, p=0.5552 Living Floors, Burials and Pole Supports u=888.5, p=0.5892 u=322, p=0.4965 Living Floors, Burials and Hearths u=908.5, p=0.4237 u=355, p=0.4009 Living Floors, Burials, Cache Pits, Pole Supports u=1038.5,p=0.303 u=372, p=0.3472 Living Floors, Burials, Hearths and Cache Pits u=l 130.5, p=0.215 u=405,p=0.2801 u=469,p=0.0251 Burials and Hearths u=158,p=0.1443 u=377, p=0.0703 Burials and Pole Supports u=125,p=0.2627 u=693.5,p=0.8259 Burials and Living Floors u=257, p=0.7949 u=332,p=0.1443 Burials and Cache Pits u=110,p=0.3681 u=619,p=0.0032 Burials, Cache Pits and Hearths u=208,p=0.0615 u=664,p=0.0018 Burials, Pole Supports and Hearths u=217,p=0.0688 u=345, p<.0001 Cache Pits and Pole Supports u=115,p=0.0006 u=437,p<.0001 Cache Pits and Hearths u=148, p=0.0006 u=482, p<.0001 Hearths and Pole Supports u=163,p=0.0006 u=856.5, p=0.1835 Hearths, Cache Pits and Pole Supports u=213,p=0.0004 APPENDIX 5F Results of Mann-Whitney U Tests (continued) Cairns Mounds Living Floors u=18,p<.0001 u=89,p<.0001 Hearths u=411,p=0.2891 u=253, p=0.034 Pole Supports u=0, p<.0001 u=0, p<.0001 Cache Pits u=61, 0.0019 u=5, p<.0001 Burials u=751,p<.0001 u=140.5, p=0.0385 All Features u=1175,p=<0001 u=891.5,p=0.0477 Living Floors and Cache Pits u=307, p<.0001 u=264,p<.0001 Living Floors and Pole Supports u=473, p<.0001 u=323, p=0.0001 Living Floors, pole supports and Cache pits u=762,p<.0001 u=498, p=0.006 Living Floors and Hearths u=307,p<.0001 u=342,p<.0001 Living Floors, Hearths and Cache Pits u=596, p<.0001 u=517,p=0.0037 Living Floors, Hearths and Pole Supports u=762,p<0001 u=576, p=0.0093 Living Floors, Hearths, Burials, Pole Supports u=886, p<.0001 u=716.5,p=0.0088 Living Floors, Hearths, Cache Pits, Pole Supports u=1051,p<.0001 u=751,p=0.0688 Living Floors, Burials, Cache Pits u=431,p<.0001 u=404.5,p=0.0001 Living Floors, Burials and Pole Supports u=597, p<.0001 u=463.5, p=0.0004 Living Floors, Burials and Hearths u=431,p<.0001 u=482.5, p=0.0003 Living Floors, Burials, Cache Pits, Pole Supports u=886,p<.0001 u=638.5, p=0.006 Living Floors, Burials, Hearths and Cache Pits u=720,p<.0001 u=657.5, p=0.004 u=393.5, p=0.865 Burials and Hearths u=413,p=0.0003 u=374.5, p=0.5755 Burials and Pole Supports u=579, p=0.3472 u=229.5,p<.0001 Burials and Living Floors u=142,p<.001 u=315.5,p=l Burials and Cache Pits u=413,p=0.0193 u=568.5, p=0.3524 Burials, Cache Pits and Hearths u=702,p=0.0316 u=627.5, p=0.2005 Burials, Pole Supports and Hearths u=868, p=0.246 u=409, p<.0001 Cache Pits and Pole Supports u=61,p<.0001 u=428, p=0.0008 Cache Pits and Hearths u=472, p=0.4902 u=487, p=0.0002 Hearths and Pole Supports u=411,p=0.0414 u=662, p<.0001 Hearths, Cache Pits and Pole Supports u=1033,p=0.005 APPENDIX 5F Results of Mann-Whitney U Tests (continued) Walled Pits Walls Living Floors u=787.5, p<.0001 u=204, p=0.0308 Hearths u=111.5,p<.0001 u=179.5,p=0.0005 Pole Supports u=0, p<.0001 u=130, p<.0001 Cache Pits u=0, p<.0001 u=100,p=0.0002 Burials u=642, p=0.0332 u=109,p=0.5687 All Features u=3094, p=0.9124 u=722.5,p=0.8415 Living Floors and Cache Pits u=1237.5,p=0.0029 u=304, p=0.2005 Living Floors and Pole Supports u=1372.5,p=0.0108 u=334, p=0.2937 Living Floors, pole supports and Cache pits u=1822.5,p=0.1902 u=434, p=0.6965 Living Floors and Hearths u=1576, p=0.0293 u=383.5, p=0.4179 Living Floors, Hearths and Cache Pits u=2026, p=0.2983 u=483.5, p=0.8259 Living Floors, Hearths and Pole Supports u=2161,p=0.4593 u=513.5, p=0.9522 Living Floors, Hearths, Burials, Pole Supports u=2644, p=0.3735 u=662.5, p=0.8572 Living Floors, Hearths, Cache Pits, Pole Supports u=2611,p=0.865 u=613.5,p=0.6965 Living Floors, Burials, Cache Pits u=l 720.5, p=0.0069 u=413,p0.2501 Living Floors, Burials and Pole Supports u=1855.5, p=0.01782 u=443, p=0.332 Living Floors, Burials and Hearths u=2059, p=0.0385 u=492.5, p=0.4295 Living Floors, Burials, Cache Pits, Pole Supports u=23505.5,p=0.1707 u=543, p=0.6527 Living Floors, Burials, Hearths and Cache Pits u=2509, p=0.2543 u=592.5, p=0.7566 Burials and Hearths u=1271.5,p=0.0366 u=288.5,p=0.1707 Burials and Pole Supports u=642, p=0.0524 u=239,p=0.2187 u=313,p=0.0719 Burials and Living Floors u=1270.5, p<.0001 u=209, p=0.3628 Burials and Cache Pits u=642, p=0.1585 u=388.5, p=0.0404 Burials, Cache Pits and Hearths u=1721.5,p=0.0008 u=418.5,p=0.0264 Burials, Pole Supports and Hearths u=1856.5,p=0.0003 u=230, p<.0001 Cache Pits and Pole Supports u=0, p<.0001 u=2795,p=0.0001 Cache Pits and Hearths u=111.5,p<.0001 u=309.5,p<.0001 Hearths and Pole Supports u=111.5,p<.0001 u=409.5,p<0001 Hearths, Cache Pits and Pole Supports u=111.5,p<.0001 APPENDIX 5F Results of Mann-Whitney U Tests (continued) Simple Pits Ringed Pits Living Floors u=17549,p<.0001 u=70,p<.0001 Hearths u=1439, p=0.0005 u=244, p=0.0629 Pole Supports u=0, p<.0001 u=0, p<.0001 Cache Pits u=61.5,p<.0001 u=8, p<.0001 Burials u=4490.5, p=0.0063 u=133, p=0.0244 All Features u=23540, p<.0001 u=853, p=0.0285 Living Floors and Cache Pits u=17610.5,p<.0001 u=242, p>.0001 Living Floors and Pole Supports u=17549,p<.0001 u=304, p=0.0001 Living Floors, pole supports and Cache pits u=17610.5,p<.0001 u=476, p=0.0034 Living Floors and Hearths u=18988, p<.0001 u=314,p<.0001 Living Floors, Hearths and Cache Pits u=19049.5,p<.0001 u=487,p=0.0017 Living Floors, Hearths and Pole Supports u=18988, p<.0001 u=548,p=0.0051 Living Floors, Hearths, Burials, Pole Supports u=23478.5, p<.0001 u=681,p=0.0047 Living Floors, Hearths, Cache Pits, Pole Supports u=19049.5,p=0.0002 u=720, p=0.0424 Living Floors, Burials, Cache Pits u=22101,p<.0001 u=375, p<.0001 Living Floors, Burials and Pole Supports u=22039.5, p<.0001 u=437, p=0.0002 Living Floors, Burials and Hearths u=23478.5, p-c.0001 u=447, p=0.0001 Living Floors, Burials, Cache Pits, Pole Supports u=22101, p<.0001 u=609, p=0.0033 Living Floors, Burials, Hearths and Cache Pits u=23540, p<.0001 u=619,p=0.0019 Burials and Hearths u=5929.5, p=0.7949 u=377, p=0.6745 Burials and Pole Supports u=4490.5, p=0.215 u=367, p=0.6672 Burials and Living Floors u=22039.5, p<.0001 u=203, p<.0001 Burials and Cache Pits u=4552, p=0.7263 u=305, p=0.8572 Burials, Cache Pits and Hearths u=5991,p=0.0238 u=549, p=0.4965 Burials, Pole Supports and Hearths u=5929.5, p=0.0037 u=611,p=0.2801 Cache Pits and Pole Supports u=61.5,p<.0001 u=406, p<.0001 Cache Pits and Hearths u= 1500.5, p<.0001 u=416,p=0.0019 Hearths and Pole Supports u=1439,p<.0001 u=478, p=0.0004 Hearths, Cache Pits and Pole Supports u=1500, p<.0001 u=650, p<.0001 APPENDIX 5F Results of Mann-Whitney U Tests (continued) Rings Rings with Features Living Floors u=5395.5,p<.0001 u=157.5,p=0.0139 Hearths u=570.5,p=0.0561 u=261, p=0.0002 Pole Supports u=0, p<.0001 u=0, p<.0001 Cache Pits u=42.5, p<.0001 u=0, p<.0001 Burials u=1424, p=0.0009 u=100,p=0.3755 All Features u=3548.5, p<.0001 u=1065.5,p=0.8887 Living Floors and Cache Pits u=961,<.0001 u=453.5,p=0.1211 Living Floors and Pole Supports u=1240.5, p<.0001 u=288.5,p=0.1074 Living Floors, pole supports and Cache pits u=1988, p<.0001 u=388.5, p=0.3735 Living Floors and Hearths u=1223, p<.0001 u=328,p=0.1499 Living Floors, Hearths and Cache Pits u=1970.5, <.0001 u=428, p=0.4295 Living Floors, Hearths and Pole Supports u=2250, p<.0001 u=458, p=0.5363 Living Floors, Hearths, Burials, Pole Supports u=2801, p<.0001 u=558, p=0.4777 Living Floors, Hearths, Cache Pits, Pole Supports u=2997.5, p=0.0001 u=558,p=0.9124 Living Floors, Burials, Cache Pits u=1512,p<.0001 u=358.5, p=0.093 Living Floors, Burials and Pole Supports u=1791.5, p<.0001 u=388.5,p=0.1362 Living Floors, Burials and Hearths u=1774,p<.0001 u=428,p=0.1707 Living Floors, Burials, Cache Pits, Pole Supports u=2539, p<.0001 u=488.5, p=0.3524 Living Floors, Burials, Hearths and Cache Pits u=2521,p<.0001 u=528, p=0.3952 Burials and Hearths u=1994, p=0.2585 u=269.5,p=0.3371 Burials and Pole Supports u=1424, p=0.6527 u=230,p=0.3173 u=258.5,p=0.0168 Burials and Living Floors u=764.5, p<.0001 u=200, p=0.5029 Burials and Cache Pits u=1466.5,p=0.6101 u=369.5, p=0.0873 Burials, Cache Pits and Hearths u=2037,p=0.5419 u=399.5, p=0.0588 Burials, Pole Supports and Hearths u=1994.5,p=0.1971 u=230, p<.0001 Cache Pits and Pole Supports u=42.5, p<.0001 u=269.5, p=0.0002 Cache Pits and Hearths u=613, p=0.0001 u=299.5, p<.0001 Hearths and Pole Supports u=570.5, p<.0001 u=399.5, p<.0001 Hearths, Cache Pits and Pole Supports u=613,p<.0001 APPENDIX 5F Results of Mann-Whitney U Tests (continued) Bifurcated Pits Bifurcated Pave Living Floors u=143.5, p=0.4839 u=376, p=0.5222 Hearths u=94,p=0.0031 u=227, p<.0001 Pole Supports u=65,p=0.0016 u=156,p<.0001 Cache Pits u=50, p=0.0027 u=0, p<.0001 Burials u=58, p=0.8259 u=145, p=0.8808 All Features u=410.5,p=0.4965 u= 1024, p=0.1936 Living Floors and Cache Pits u=193.5,p=0.8729 u=496,p=0.9124 Living Floors and Pole Supports u=208.5, p=0.984 u=532, p=0.7642 Living Floors, pole supports and Cache pits u=258.5,p=0.7114 u=652, p=0.3843 Living Floors and Hearths u=237.5, p=0.8729 u=603,p=0.5519 Living Floors, Hearths and Cache Pits u=287.5,p=0.610 u=723, p=0.2757 Living Floors, Hearths and Pole Supports u=302.5,p=0.5419 u=759, p=0.2225 Living Floors, Hearths, Burials, Pole Supports u=360.5, p=0.6599 u=904,p=0.3371 Living Floors, Hearths, Cache Pits, Pole Supports u=352.5, p=0.3735 u=879,p=0.1052 Living Floors, Burials, Cache Pits u=251.5,p=0.8572 u=641,p=0.9681 Living Floors, Burials and Pole Supports u=266.5, p=0.9362 u=677,p=0.8415 Living Floors, Burials and Hearths u=295.5, p=0.9442 u=748, p=0.6745 Living Floors, Burials, Cache Pits, Pole Supports u=316.5,p=0.8181 u=797, p=0.5093 Living Floors, Burials, Hearths and Cache Pits u=345.5,p=0.7188 u=868, p=0.4009 Burials and Hearths u=152,p=0.2077 u=372, p=0.0466 Burials and Pole Supports u=123,p=0.2983 u=301,p=0.0989 Burials and Living Floors u=201.5,p=0.5552 u=521,p=0.5961 Burials and Cache Pits u=108,p=0.4122 u=265,p=0.1835 u=492, p=0.0083 Burials, Cache Pits and Hearths u=202, p=0.0873 u=528,p=0.0051 Burials, Pole Supports and Hearths u=217,p=0.0688 u=276,p<.0001 Cache Pits and Pole Supports u=115,p=0.0006 u=347,p<.0001 Cache Pits and Hearths u=144,p=0.0012 u=383,p<.0001 Hearths and Pole Supports u=159,p=0.001 u=503,p<.0001 Hearths, Cache Pits and Pole Supports u=209, p=0.0006 APPENDIX 5F Results of Mann-Whitney U Tests (continued) Pole Supports Walled Enclosure Living Floors u=5, p<.0001 u=161.5,p=0.336 Hearths u=105,p=0.1389 u=110.5,p=0.0024 Pole Supports u=0, p<.0001 u=78, p=0.0007 Cache Pits u=37, p=0.0375 u=60, p=0.0014 Burials u=36, p<.0001 u=71.5,p=0.8808 All Features u=454, p=0.0003 u=481.5,p=0.5222 Living Floors and Cache Pits u=118,p<.0001 u=221.5,p=0.7263 Living Floors and Pole Supports u=200,p<.0001 u=239.5, p=0.8493 Living Floors, pole supports and Cache pits u=313,p=0.0006 u=299.5, p=0.8026 Living Floors and Hearths u=110,p<.0001 u=272, p=0.992 Living Floors, Hearths and Cache Pits u=223, p<.0001 u=332, p=0.6965 Living Floors, Hearths and Pole Supports u=305, p=0.0001 u=350, p=0.6241 Living Floors, Hearths, Burials, Pole Supports u=341,p<.0001 u=421.5,p=0.7188 Living Floors, Hearths, Cache Pits, Pole Supports u=418,p=0.0013 u=410,p=0.4179 Living Floors, Burials, Cache Pits u=154,p<.0001 U=293, p=0.749 Living Floors, Burials and Pole Supports u=236, p<.0001 u=311,p=0.8493 Living Floors, Burials and Hearths u=146, p<.0001 u=343.5, p=0.9601 Living Floors, Burials, Cache Pits, Pole Supports u=349, p=0.0001 u=371,p=0.8729 Living Floors, Burials, Hearths and Cache Pits u=259, <.0001 u=4035, p=0.7872 Burials and Hearths u=141,p=0.0008 u=182,p=0.1738 Burials and Pole Supports u=231,p=0.2891 u=149.5,p=0.2301 Burials and Living Floors u=41,p<.0001 u=233, p=0.4354 Burials and Cache Pits u=149,p=0.0168 u=131.5,p=0.3371 Burials, Cache Pits and Hearths u=254, p=0.0238 u=242, p=0.0643 Burials, Pole Supports and Hearths u=336,p=0.1802 u=260, p=0.0488 Cache Pits and Pole Supports u=308, p=0.0001 u=138,p=0.0002 Cache Pits and Hearths u=218,p=0.8729 u=170.5,p=0.0007 Hearths and Pole Supports u=300, p=0.246 u=188.5,p=0.0005 Hearths, Cache Pits and Pole Supports u=413,p=0.1096 u=248.5, p=0.0003 215 APPENDIX 5G A Sample of Site Maps From Pukaskwa National Park 1 '•, '<& T«EE» anea '.-?>>. TREED fiREfl £S" s.-«~ ;s.a»-s~^, ^4-MM^. .A X ";" %'-t PLAN 1/ <^0 -wasrs^™- ~" -— T?^" ' \ " ,-V 4 Site Plan for Otter Island North (28H15) Site Plan for Swallows Mouth (28H38) APPENDIX 5G A Sample of Site Maps From Pukaskwa National Park (continued) '• . .1* WW ««•«.•. ^~ • • •. '• ' • ^ • ."••.'" - •-"• •gj^SfJfW— • ~/ "^i '" ''' /' ^ : x y $> 7p/M, I '•"'*"" -f 7 //: // // / } A. . ^.j... i i \->/K) c-f^~ W.#V : •- "' n xs / ./ / ; Shfrr-^f ^••' /' 3-; /' .../..;£/ / XzLJX ZW / Canada Site Plan for Otter Cove (28H21East) <* Site Plan for Otter Cove (28H21West) APPENDIX 5G A Sample of Site Maps From Pukaskwa National Park (continued) ^m S";STORM BEACHfe*' A./ y-^%. /• 7-; ;••• TERRACE I ACTIVE BEACH ROCK """ \ 1NORTH SWALLOW III (28H102)! felTE PLAN ^J. [0 2 4 1016 , 20m V\\,? LAKE SUPERIOR [SCALE 1:200 Site Plan for North Swallow III (28H102) ' Y///AA^yAAy\ AAMAm AA\ AA\ AYA YY/,>, Ai I-// Site Plan for North Byron Township Site (28H54) APPENDIX 5G A Sample of Site Maps From Pukaskwa National Park (continued) MODERN STORM BEACH css ^ TOMBOLO 12SH68) SITE PLAN £jt§ SCiUI 1:1011 '^ Site Plan for Tombolo (28H68) \ \ 1 '-• 1 \ ---- »• • - •'. \ ;.:,- : „ . ...r --::..-•••->. /-~ \ /••' •• r i j •j :..'. .' - 1 Site Plan for Lower Agawinogwad (28H87) APPENDIX 5G A Sample of Site Maps From Pukaskwa National Park (continued) ^v>v" 'O Site Plan for Otter Head (28H28) •&• ^, * Site Plan for Cascade Bay (28H22) APPENDIX 5G A Sample of Site Maps From Pukaskwa National Park (continued) ^3 m^d is«e ABdwaocr SIHGINC s lasts y« CTrmra snr. ?mm w pi m nnAii Site Plan for Singing Stones (28H60 East) '/////•' / / / / / ••', //////. m ™~1- ^^.UAUU>X^ //////• A/A • \ '• •'. '////// vyMv&z~.,!.'.Al iiili!jid.i"'' tWU'!' //////, y •-'/•'-i AAA/A ^iiiii. \AAAAAAAA, yy~™ / y ~ V /////// / yi -ts. AAyWA> "'4 A//////, '// / 4 /] ^7K '©ill -' A ,/&iilJ:Li!,, - '//fa vy^r^-yy///////// /////////A '//////// g)]GINyy/yyC STONES SflT //////////?«H60. SKF PI A^ nfWI Bfsasp^'ws Site Plan for Singing Stones (28H60 West) 221 APPENDIX 5G A Sample of Site Maps From Pukaskwa National Park (continued) ;7< SWALLOW BAY (28H641 SITE PLAN tZ>y '7 f/ •> ,v v / r,s' ^'v ,,—~/ ' NOTTOSCALE ^> ,' ^ ^ ; ;,- ^ t^ 1 / •28 33 / 4/ ' /"'/»; 49 -, ~ -" .30 «• ,- ' ^ / ' ' '*•' , ,, //t ? • /" / *• -^ / ** r <• / M /• / > / 26 /' J- 11 ',., • r •- t-<* '•-• /-~-•--•-*• /-—J.. -- - .t~. -iJ. ' / * t/1in .'3 * •s* V/ 014 16. ^f / r v m^ % ^'|, vv;«v,a -. • 5§K! ' / FOREST / r / LAKE W /' SUPERIOR, Site Plan for North Byron Township Site (28H64) 222 APPENDIX 5G A Sample of Site Maps From Pukaskwa National Park (continued) LAKF; sjf-ER.oR \*x ^ :rr"^v. V'"^' m& « / 1. W $'• / / « :® •• / 0 : © Jl ffl B fc^W W%,%Sl Site Plan for North Byron II (28H58) APPENDIX 6A Cobble Feature Sites in Pukaskwa National Park and Number of Features Recorded Parks Canada Borden Number of Site Name # # Features Newmans Bay I 28H4 DbIm-4 7 Newmans Bay II 28H5 DbIm-5 10 Newmans bay III 28H7 DbIm-2 2 North Swallow I 28H6 X 15 Shotwatch Cove South 28H8 DcIn-2 2 Shotwatch Cove North 28H9 Dcln-l 5 North Swallow II 28H11 X 20 White River II 28H13 X 10 Otter Island North 28H15 Dalm-12 21 Otter Island South 28H16 DaIm-4 23 Pukaskwa Depot 28H17 X 0 North Richardson Harbour 28H18 DaIl-5 7 Richardson Island North 28H19 DaIl-6 5 Otter Cove 28H21 DaIm-3 23 Cascade Bay 28H22 DaIm-5 18 North Cascade Bay 28H23 DaIm-6 16 Richardson Island South 28H24 DaIl-2 16 Richardson Island South II 28H25 DaIl-3 7 Bonamie Cove 28H26 DaIl-9 10 Otter head 28H28 Dalm-l 6 Buchanan Creek 28H29 X 6 Tagouche Creek 28H30 DaIl-7 3 Imogene Cove 28H31 Dall-14 13 Point La Canadienne 28H32 Dall-ll 22 Top of Richardson Island 28H33 Dall-12 4 Tug Harbour 28H34 X 4 Otter Island Fortress Site 28H35 DaIm-4 14 Trapper Harbour 28H36 X 1 Swalow's mouth 28H38 X 3 South Cascade I 28H47 X 2 Cascade Falls 28H40 X 1 South Cascade II 28H48 X 2 North byron creek 28H49 X 4 Otter Island Pond 28H50 DaIm-4 8 Lighthouse Point 28H51 X 4 Old Dave's harbor 28h52 X 7 North Tagouche 28H53 X 2 APPENDIX 6A Cobble Feature Sites in Pukaskwa National Park and Number of Features Recorded (continued) Parks Canada Borden Number of Site Name # # Features North Byron Township 28H54 X 7 Richardson Island West 28H56 DaIl-4 9 North Byron II 28H58 DaIm-7 57 North Byron IV 28H59 2 Singing Stones 28H60 DaIm-9 21 North Singing Stones 28H61 Dalm-10 27 Upper Singing Stones 28H63 X 9 South Triangle 28H62 Dalm-l 1 8 Swallow Bay 28H64 DbIm-9 52 AKITA KKI 28H65 X 6 Upper Agawinogwad 28H66 X 6 Swallow River 28H67 DbIm-8 2 Tombolo 28H68 X 4 East Tombolo 28H71 DbIm-6 2 Point La Canadienne II 28h73 Dall-10 3 South Richardson Interior 28H74 X 15 Richardson Harbour 28H75 Dall-l 9 Deep Harbour 28H85 DaIm-2 6 South Triangle III 28H86 X 3 Lower Agawinogwad 28H87 X 2 North Singing Stones II 28H88 X 2 South Triangle II 28H89 X 3 Grandma Steven's South 28H98 X 7 Grandma Steven's North 28H99 X 4 Upper Newman's South 28H100 X 4 Upper Newman's North 28H101 X 7 North Swallow III 28H102 X 3 Upper North Swallow 28H103 X 9 Genevieve Lake 28H104 X 1 225 APPENDIX 6B Cobble feature Site Locations Recorded by Parks Canada Simons Harbour Newmans Bay- 24,25,26,27,^ S&3, Lake Superior 28,29,30,31, 34\ 23 Otter • V © f Island ^H9^^X^II 2U.21 2SJ N Otter Cove 5,6,7,8; 9,10 226 APPENIDX 6B Cobble feature Site Location Map Key: Site Number and Site Name Map Site Site Number Name Number 1 Imogene Cove 28H31 2 Point La Canadienne 28H32 3 Point La Canadienne II 28H73 4 Bonamie Cove 28H26 5 Richardson Island South 28H24 6 Richardson Island South II 28H25 7 South Richardson Interior 28H74 8 Richardson Island West 28H56 9 Top of Richardson Island 28H33 10 Richardson Island North 28H19 11 Richardson Harbour 28H75 12 North Richardson Harbour 28H18 13 Tagouche Creek 28H30 14 North Tagouche 28H53 15 Buchanan Creek 28H29 16 Otter Head 28H28 17 Deep Harbour 28H85 18 Otter Cove 28H21 19 Otter Island South 28H16 20 Otter Island Fortress Site 28H35 21 Otter Island Pond 28H50 22 Lighthouse Point 28H51 23 Old Dave's harbour 28H52 24 Cascade bay 28H22 25 South Cascade I 28H47 26 Cascade Falls 28H40 27 South Cascade II 28H48 28 North Cascade Bay 28H23 29 North Byron II 28H58 30 North Byron IV 28H59 31 North Byron Creek 28H49 32 North Byron Township 28H54 33 Singing Stones 28H60 34 North Singing Stones 28H61 35 Upper Singing Stones 28H63 36 South Triangle III (interior) 28H86 37 Lower Agawinogwad (interior) 28H87 APPENDIX 6B Cobble feature Site Location Map Key: Site Number and Site Name MAP SITE SITE NUMBER NAME NUMBER 38 North Singing Stones II (interior) 28H88 39 South Triangle II (interior) 28H89 40 Upper Agawinogwad (interior) 28H66 41 AKITAKKI 28H65 42 South Triangle 28H62 43 Swallow Bay 28H64 44 Swallow's mouth 28H38 45 Swallow River 28H67 46 Trapper Harbour 28H36 47 Tombolo 28H68 48 East Tombolo 28H71 49 Grandma Steven's South 28H98 50 Grandma Steven's North 28H99 51 Newmans Bay I 28H4 52 Newmans Bay II 28H5 53 Newmans Bay III 28H7 54 Upper Newman's South 28H100 55 Upper Newman's North 28H101 56 North Swallow I 28H6 57 North Swallow II 28H11 58 North Swallow III 28H102 59 Upper North Swallow 28H103 60 Genevieve Lake (interior) 28H104 61 Shotwatch Cove South 28H8 62 Shotwatch Cove North 28H9 63 White River II 28H13 REFERENCES CITED Adams, A.T. (Editor) 1961 The Exploration of Pierre Esprit Radisson. (From the original manuscript of the Bodleian Library and the British Museum.) Ross and Haines, Minneapolis. Aiton, J.F. 1852 Letter from J.F. Aiton to the Reverend E.D. Neil in St. Paul MN on January 17, 1852. Electronic Document, http://www.fromsitetostory.org/rwl/stonecairns/stonecairnsaiton.asp, accessed May 13, 2008. The Institute for Minnesota Archaeology. Anselmi, L.M. 2004 A Brief Retrospective of Investigation of Archaic to Contact Period Copper-based Metal Artefacts in Northeastern North America. Ontario Archaeology 77/78:81-94. Arthurs, D. 1996 Lanceolate points from Expansion Lake- Is there Palaeo East of Nipigon? Arch Notes N.S. 1(3):9-11. 1995 Dating the Nipigon Bay Burials. Arch Notes 95(3):25-31. 1981 The Mysterious Structures on Thompson Island. Arch Notes 81 (2). Barker, G. 1979 Forty Years a Chief. Peguis Publishers Limited, Winnipeg. Benedict, R. 1923 The Concept of the Guardian Spirit in North America. American Association Memoirs 29. . Binford, L. R. 1972 Smudge Pits and Hide Smoking: The Use of Analogy in Archaeological Reasoning. In An Archaeological Perspective, pp. 33-58. Seminar Press, New York and London. Bishop, C.A. 1994a Northern Algonquians, 1550-1760. In Aboriginal Ontario: Historical Perspectives on the First Nations, Edward S. Rogers and Donald B. Smith eds., pp.275-288. A publication of the Ontario Historical Studies Series for the Government of Ontario, published by Dundurn Press, Toronto, Oxford. 1994b Northern Algonquians, 1760-1821. In Aboriginal Ontario: Historical Perspectives on the First Nations, Edward S. Rogers and Donald B. Smith eds., pp.289-306. A publication of the Ontario Historical Studies Series for the Government of Ontario, published by Dundurn Press, Toronto, Oxford. 229 Bishop, C.A. 1982 The Indian Inhabitants of Northern Ontario at the Time of Contact: Socio- Territorial Considerations. In Approaches to Algonquian Archaeology Proceedings of the thirteenth AnnualChacmool Conference, Margaret G. Hanna and Brian Kooyman eds. pp 253-273. The Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary. 1975 The Emergence of the Northern Ojibwa: Social and Economic Consequence. American Ethnologist 3(l):39-54. 1974 The Northern Ojibwa and the Fur Trade: an Historical and Ecological study. Holt, Rinehart and Winston of Canada, Toronto. Bishop, C.A. and M.E. Smith 1975 Early Historic Populations in Northwestern Ontario: Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Interpretations. American Antiquity 40(l):54-63. Brose, D.S. 1970 The Archaeology of Summer Island: Changing Settlement Systems in Northern Lake Michigan. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Anthropological Papers 41. 1978 Late Prehistory of the Upper Great Lakes Area. In Northeast, edited by Bruce Trigger, pp. 569-582. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Brower, J. V. 1903 Memoirs of Explorations in the Basin of the Mississippi. Volume 6. H. L. Collins, Saint Paul. ~ Buchner, A.P. 1973 The 1973 Rock Art Studies at the Tie Creek Site: A Preliminary Report. Papers in Manitoba Archaeology. Miscellaneous Paper No. 14 Studies in Manitoba Rock Art I. Petroforms. 1983. pp 9-20. Department of Cultural Affairs and Historical Resources. Bushnell, D. I. Jr. 1922 Villages of the Algonquian, Siouan, and Caddoan Tribes West of the Mississippi. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 77, Washington D.C. Butzer, K.W. 1982 Archaeology as Human Ecology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Callaghan, R.T. 1982Test Excavations at the Lady Rapids Site (DcKc-1): A Multi-Component site in the Boundary Waters Area of Northwestern Ontario. In Two Conservation Archaeology Sites: The Lady Rapids and Fisk Sites, edited by C.S. "Paddy" Reid, pp. 11-43. Archaeology and Heritage Planning Branch Ontario Ministry of Citizenship and Culture, Toronto. 230 Capes, K.H. 1963 The W.B. Nickerson Survey and Excavations, 1912-15, of the Southern Manitoba Mounds Region. Anthropology Papers No. 4, National Museum of Canada Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, Ottawa. Carmichael, P.H. 1979 The Thunderbird Site EgKx-15: A Prehistoric Petroform Site in Manitoba. Papers in Manitoba Archaeology Final Report No. 6. Winnipeg. 1981 The Thunderbird Site and the Thunderbird Nest Phenomenon in South-eastern Manitoba. In Megaliths to Medicine Wheels: Boulder structures in Archaeology, Michael Wilson, and Kathie Road and Kenneth Hardy, eds., pp.279-295. Proceedings of the eleventh Annual Chacmool Conference. University of Calgary Archaeological Association, Calgary. Carruthers, P. 1982 Life in the Pits: Semi-Subterranean Houses in the Great Lakes Area. Arch Notes 82(2): 10-11. Chapman, R. 2006 Middle Woodland/Hopewell: A View from Beyond the Periphery. In Recreating Hopewell. Edited by Douglas K. Charles and Jane E. Buikstra, pp.510-528. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Childe, V.G. 1956 Piecing Together the Past: The Interpretation of Archaeological Data. Routeldge and Kegan Paul, London. Cleland, C.E. 1982 The Inland Shore Fishery of the Northern Great Lakes: Its Development and Importance in Prehistory. American Antiquity 47(4):761-784. Conway, T.A. 1975 An Archaeological Survey of the Northeastern Shore of Lake Superior. Canadian Archaeological Association Collected Papers Research Report 6. Ontario Historical Sites Branch Division of Parks Canada, Toronto. 1979 Heartland of the Ojibwa. In Collected Archaeological Papers, Archaeological Research Report 13, edited by David Skene Melvin, pp. 1-28. Historical Planning and Research Branch, Ontario Ministry of Culture and Recreation, Toronto. Cude, D.G. 2001 Identifying the Ojibway of Northern Lake Superior and the Boundary Water Region 1650-1750. In Papers of the Thirty-Second Algonquian Conference, John D. Nichols ed., pp.74-99. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg. Danziger E., and R.T. Callaghan 1983 The Southeastern Manitoba Petroforms: Assessment of an Expanded Sample. Papers in Manitoba Archaeology. Miscellaneous Paper No. 14 Studies in Manitoba Rock Art I. Petroforms. 1983. pp. 57-173. Department of Cultural Affairs and Historical Resources. Dawson, K.C.A. 1974 The McClusky Site. National Museum of Man, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Mercury 25, Ottawa. 1975 Archaeological Shore Survey at Pukaskwa Park, Ontario 1974. Parks Canada Unpublished Manuscript. Ontario Service Centre, Cornwall, Ontario. 1976 The Nyman Site. A Seventeenth century Algonkian Camp on the North Shore of Lake Superior. Canadian Archaeological Association Bulletin 8:1-56. 1977 An Application of the Direct Historical Approach to the Algonkians of Northern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 1:151-183 1979 Pukaskwa National Park and the Prehistory of the North Shore of Lake Superior. Parks Canada Unpublished Manuscript Number 439, Cornwall. 1980 The MacGillivray Site: A Laurel Tradition Site in Northwestern Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 34:45-68. 1981 The Wabinosh River Site and the Laurel Tradition in Northwestern Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 36:3-46. 1982 The Northern Ojibwa of Ontario. In Approaches to Algonquian Archaeology: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Chacmool Conference, Margaret G. Hanna and Brian Kooyman, eds., pp 81-96. The Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary. 1983 Cummins Site: A Late Palaeo-Indian (Piano) Site at Thunder Bay, Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 39:3-40. 1984 A History of Archaeology in Northern Ontario to 1983 with Bibliographic Contributions. Ontario Archaeology 42:27-92. 1988 Michipicoten Area Archaeological Survey. Arch Notes 88(3):20-26. Day, G. M. 1978 Nipissing. In Northeast, edited by Bruce Trigger, pp. 787-791. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Dean, W.G. 1994 The Ontario Landscape, Circa A.D. 1600. In Aboriginal Ontario: Historical perspectives on the First Nations, edited by Edward S. Rogers and Donald B. Smith, pp 3-20. A Publication of the Ontario Historical Studies Series for the Government of Ontario. Dundurn Press, Toronto. Dewdney, S. 1970 Dating Rock Art in the Canadian Shield. Royal Ontario Museum Art and Archaeology. Paper 24. Toronto. 232 Dickason, O.P. 2002 Canada's First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times. Third Edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Dixon, R.B. 1908 Some Aspects of the American Shaman. The Journal of American Folklore 21(80):1-12. Dumont, J. 1976 Journey to Daylight Land: Through Ojibwa Eyes. In The First Ones: Reading in Indian/Native studies 1992, David R. Miller, Carl Beal, James Dempsey, and Wesley Heber eds., pp.75-80. Saskatchewan Indian Federated College Press Piapot Reserve #75, Saskatchewan. Dunlop, H.L. 1998 Pukaskwa National Park Evaluation of Archaeological Collections. Parks Canada Agency Service Centre unpublished Manuscript, Cornwall. Eid, L.V. 1979 The Ojibwa-Iroquois War: The War the Five Nations Did Not Win. Ethnohistory 26(4):297-324. Ellis, C.J., I.T. Kenyon, and M. Spence 1990 The Archaic. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Chris J. Ellis and Neal Ferris, eds., pp. 65-124 London Chapter of the Ontario Archaeological Society Occasional Publication No. 5, London, Ontario. Emerson, J.N. 1958 The Mystery of the Pits. Sylva 14(6):15-19. 1959 The Pukaswa Pit Culture: A Pilot Study. Ontario Historical Society 51 (1 ):69-72. 1960 The Pukaswa Pits and the Religious Alternative. Ontario Historical Society 52(l):71-72. Farvaque, R.N.R. 1994 Holocene Environments Along the Lake Superior Coast of Pukaskwa National Park, Ontario. Unpublished M.Sc thesis, Department of Earth Sciences M.Sc program, University of Waterloo, Waterloo Ontario. 1997 The Effects of Landscape Change on Woodland Groups and Their Sites, Pukaskwa National Park, Northeast Lake Superior. In Home is Where the Heart is: the Contribution of Small Sites to our Understanding of Ontario's Past, J.L. Pilon and R. Perkins, eds., the Ottawa Chapter of the Ontario Archaeological Society. Fitting, J.E. 1978 Regional Cultural Development 300 B.C. to A.D. 1000. In Northeast, edited by Bruce Trigger, pp. 44-57. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 233 Fox, W.A. 1990 The Odawa. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Chris J. Ellis and Neal Ferris, eds., pp. 457-474. London Chapter of the Ontario Archaeological Society Occasional Publication No. 5, London, Ontario. Fox, W.A. and C. Garrad 2004 Hurons in an Algonquian Land. Ontario Archaeology 1111%: 121-134. Friesen, M.T. 2001 A Zooarchaeological Signature for Meat Storage: Re-thinking the Drying Utility Index. American Antiquity 66(2):315-331. 2002 Analogues at Iqualuktuug: The Social Context of Archaeological Inference in Nunavut, Arctic Canada. World Archaeology 34(2):330-345. 2004 Contemporaneity of Dorset and Thule Cultures in the North American Arctic: New Radiocarbon Dates from Victoria Island, Nunavut. Current Anthropology 45(5):685-691. Garrad, C. 1995 Thoughts About the Hunter's Point (BfHg-3) Site. Arch Notes 95(3):32-35. Gill, S.D. 1983Native American Religions: An Introduction. Wadsworth Publishing Company, California. Gillespie, J.D. 2007 Enculturing an Unknown World: Caches and Clovis Landscape Ideology.- Canadian Journal of Archaeology. 31(2):171-189 Glynn, F. 1973 Excavation of the Pilot's Point Stone Heaps. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 38:77-89. Graham, J. 2005 Blackduck Settlement in South-Western Manitoba: Land Use and Site Selection. Unpublished Masters of Natural Resources Management Thesis. Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba. http://scape.brandonu.ca/download/GrahamDefenseDraft.pdf. Accessed on April 3, 2007 Gray, S. E. (editor) 2007 The Spirit Lives in the Mind: Omushkego Stories, Lives, and Dreams. Louis Bird. McGill-Queens University Press, Montreal and Kingston. Greenberg, A.M. and J. Morrison 1982 Group Identities in the Boreal Forest: The Origin of the Northern Ojibwa. Ethnohistory, 29(2):75-l 12. Greenman, E.F. 1964 The Pukaskwa Pits on Lake Superior. American Antiquity 30(l):91-92. Hall, F. 1960 Medicine on the Rocks: The Strange Tale of Ojibwa Mosaics. The Bison 13(2): 14- 16. Hallowell, A. I. 1942 The Role of Conjuring in Sauteaux Society. Publications of the Philadelphia Anthropological Society 2. Philadelphia. Hamilton, S., and L.Lacombe 1994 Cultural Heritage Resource Predictive Modelling Project: Volume 1 Introduction to the research. Report Prepared by the Ontario Ministry of Natural resources. Centre for the Archaeological Resources Prediction, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay. http:www// modelling.pictographics.com/pdfs/carpvoll.pdf Accessed November 2006. Hawkes, C. 1954 Archaeological Theory and Method: Some Suggestions From the Old World. American Archaeologist 56:155-68. Hodder, I 1999 The Archaeological Process: An Introduction. Blackwell publishing, Oxford. Howey, M.C.L., and O'Shea, J.M. 2006 Bear's Journey and the Study of Ritual in Archaeology. American Antiquity 71(2):261-282. 2009 On Archaeology and the Study of Ritual: Considering Inadequacies in the Culture- History Approach and Quests for Internal "Meaning". American Antiquity 74(1):193-201. Hultkrantz, A. 1966 North American Indian Religion in the History of Research: A General Survey Part 1. History of Religions 6(2)91-107. 1967 North American Indian Religion in the History of Research: A General Survey Part 2. History of Religions 6(3): 183-207. 1981 Belief and Worship in Native North America. Edited with an introduction by Christopher Vecsey. Syracuse University Press, New York. Ingold, T. 1983 The Significance of Storage in Hunting Societies. Man 18:553-571. Janzen, D.E. 1968 A Naomikong Point Site and the Dimensions of Laurel in the Lake Superior Region. Anthropological Papers No. 36, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan Ann Arbor, University of Michigan. 235 Johnston, B. 1982 Ojibwa Ceremonies. McClelland and Stewart, Toronto. Johnson, M. 1999 Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishing, Maiden, Oxford. Jones, S. 1997 The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present. Routledge, London, New York. Julig, P. 2007 A Brief Report on a Killarney Pukaskwa Pit. Arch Notes New series 12(3):9-10. Karrow, P.F. 1994 Geomorphology and Glacial History: The Archaeological Implications of Quaternary Geology. In Great Lakes Archaeology and Paleoecology,edited by Robert I. MacDonald, pp. 219-235. The Quaternary Sciences Institute, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario. Kengla, L.A. 1885 Stone Mounds of Hampshire County, W. VA. In. Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, Showing the Operations, Expenditures, and Condition of the Institution for the Year 1883 Government Printing Office, Washington. Kent, S. 1992 Studying Variability in the Archaoelogical Record: an Ethnoarchaeological Model for Distinguishing Mobility Patterns. American Antiquity 57(4):635-660. Keysner, J.D., and D.S. Whitley 2006 Sympathetic Magic in Western North American Rock Art. American Antiquity 71(l):3-26. Kollobok, N. 2006 Iroquois Battles and Look Out Pits in Temagami. http://temagami.nativeweb.org/tales-nadoways.html, Accessed March 11, 2006, February 10, 2009. Temagami Native Web. Kosso, P. 1991 Method in Archaeology: Middle-Range Theory as Hermeneutics. American Antiquity 56(4):621-627. Landes, R. 1968 Ojibwa Religion and the Midewiwin. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 236 Latta, M.A. 1987 Archaeoethnic Reasearch and the Ontario Iroquoians. In Ethnicity and Culture Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Chacmool Conference, edited by Reginald Auger, Margaret F. Glass, Scott MacEachern, and Peter McCartney, pp. 181-189. Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary. Leeming, D. and J. Page 1998 The Mythology of Native North America. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Lenius, B.J., and D.M. Olinyk 1990 The Rainy River Composite: Revisions to Late Woodland Taxonomy. In The Woodland Tradition in the Western Great Lakes: Papers Presented to Eldon Johnson, G.E. Gibbon, ed., pp. 77-112. Publications in Anthropology No. 4. University of Minnesota. Minneapolis. Long, J. 1791 Voyages and Travels of an Indian Interpreter and Trader. J. Long, London. Lovis, W.A., R.E. Donahue, and M.B. Holman 2005 Long-Distance Logistics Mobility as an Organizing Principle among the Northern Hunter-Gatherers: A great Lakes Middle Holocene Settlement System. American Antiquity 70(4):669-693 MacLaren, I.S. 1994 From Exploration to Publication: the evolution of a 19 century arctic narrative. Arctic 47(l):43-53. Mcllwraith, T.F. 1958 The Pukaskwa Pit Culture. Ontario History 50(l):41-43. MacMillan, C. 1986 The Discovery of the Pukaskwa Pits. WANIKAN 86(2):4-7. MacNeish, R.S. 1958 An Introduction to the Archaeology of Southeast Manitoba. National Museum of Canada Bulletin 157. Madrigal, L. 1998 Statistics for Anthropology. Cambridge University Press, New York. Marsh, J.S. 1976 The Human History of The Pukaskwa National Park Area 1650 to 1975. Unpublished Manuscript, Parks Canada Ontario Service Centre, Cornwall, Ontario. Mason, R.J. 2002 Great Lakes Archaeology. Blackburn Press, New Jersey. Molnar, J. 1991 Excavations at the Hunter's Point Site, Bruce Peninsula, Ontario. Annual Archaeological Report Ontario 2:104-108. 1992 Additional Excavation at the Hunter's Point Site. Annual Archaeological Report Ontario 3:90-91. 1993 The 1992 Season at the Hunter's Point Site. Annual Archaeological Report Ontario 4:137-141. 1997 Interpreting Fishing Strategies of the Odawa. State University of New York, Albany, Anthropology Department Doctoral Dissertation. Moore, J.H. 1994 Putting Anthropology Back Together Again: The Ethnogenetic Critique of Cladistic Theory. American Anthropologist 96(4):925-948. Nicholson, B.A. 1985 The Kain Cache Site (DiLw-12): A Functional Explanation of a Boulder Structure on the Northern Plains/Parkland Interface. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 9(2): 173-181. Noble, W.C. 1968 "Vision pits", Cairns and Petroglyphs at Rock Lake, Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 11:47-64. 1998 J. Norman Emerson: Contributions to Canadian Archaeology. In Bringing Back the Past: Historical Perspectives on Canadian Archaeology, edited by Pamela Jane Smith and Donald Mitchell, pp. 39-51. Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada. Paper 158, Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull. Pettipas, L. 1996 Aboriginal Migrations: A History of Movements in Southern Manitoba. Manitoba Museum of Man and Nature, Winnipeg. Phillips, B. 1975 How Molten Rocks and Lava and Then Ice Sheets Shaped the Grandeur of Superiors North Shore. Canadian Geographic Journal 91(5):4-11. 1982 Raised Cobble Ridges in the Terrace Bay Area. Canadian Geographer 26(2): 128- 141. 1993 A Time Space Model for the Distribution of Shoreline Sites in the Lake Superior Basin. Geoarchaeology 8(2):87-107. 1999 Retrodeformation: A Precursor to the Building of an Archaeological Site Prediction Model for the Shore Slopes of Cook County Minnesota. Paper Presented at the 6th Annual EPPL7-EPIC GIS Conference. Earle Brown Center, St Paul Campus of the University of Minnesota. Pollock, J.W. 1976 The Culture History of Kirkland Lake District, Northeastern Ontario. National Museum of Man, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Mercury Series 54. 238 Pollock, J.W. 1975 Algonquian Culture Development and Archaeological Sequences in Northeastern Ontario. In Canadian Archaeological Association Bulletin No 7, William J. Byrne, Donald Mitchell, Robert McGhee, William C. Noble Gilles Samson, James A. Tuck, J.V. Wright eds., pp. 1-53. Canadian Archaeological Association. Praetzellis, A. 2000 Death By Theory. AltaMira Press, New York, Oxford. Quick, E.R. 1885 Stone Mounds on the Whitewater. In Contributions to the Natural History of Franklin County, Indiana. Bulletin No.l, edited by O.M. Meyncke and C.F. Goodwin, pp. 3-4. J.M. Coe Printer, Richmond Indiana. Radin, P. 1914 Some Aspects of Puberty Fasting Among the Ojibwa. Canada Geological Survey, Museum Bulletin, No. 2. Ottawa. 1936 Ojibwa and Ottawa Puberty Dreams. Essays in Anthropology Presented to A.L. Kroeber, Berkeley, California. Rajnovich, G. 1980 Ballysadare (DkKp-10): A Laurel-Blackduck site at the source of the Winnipeg River. Ontario Archaeology 33:37-58. 2002 Reading Rock Art: Interpreting the Indian Rock Paintings of the Canadian Shield. Second Edition. Natural Heritage/Natural History Inc, Toronto. Rajnovich G., C.S. "Paddy" Reid and C.T. Shay 1982 Rescue Excavations at the Fisk Site (DlKp-1) In Northwestern Ontario. In Two Conservation Archaeology Sites: The Lady Rapids and Fisk Sites, edited by C.S. "Paddy" Reid. pp.65-113. Archaeology and Heritage Planning Branch Ontario Ministry of Citizenship and Culture. Archaeology Research Report 18, Toronto. Reid, C.S. 1984 Some Woodland Radiocarbon Dates From Northwestern Ontario With Comments on Significance. Ontario Archaeology 41:37-44. 1980 Early Man in Northwestern Ontario: New Piano Evidence. Ontario Archaeology 33:33-36. Reid, C.S., and G. Rajnovich 1991 Laurel: A Re-Evaluation of the Spatial, Social and Temporal Paradigms. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 15:193-234. Renolds, B. 1978 Beothuk. In Northeast, edited by Bruce Trigger, pp. 101-108. : Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Rhodes, R.A. and E. Todd 1981 Subarctic Algonquian Languages. In Northeast, edited by June Helm, pp. 52-66. : Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 6, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Rogers, E.S. 1978 Southeast Ojibwa. In Northeast, edited by Bruce Trigger, pp760-771. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1972 The Round Lake Ojibwa. Royal Ontario Museum, Occasional Paper 5. 1969 Band Organization among the Indians of Eastern Subarctic Canada. In Contributions to Anthropology: Band Societies. David Damas, ed. pp. 21-50. National Museum of Canada, Bulletin 228. Ottawa. Rogers, E.S., and G. Taylor 1981 Northern Ojibwa. In Northeast, edited by June Helm, pp. 231 -243. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 6, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Ross, B.D. 1994 In Pukaskwa National Park, Ontario, Canada: Monitoring and Protection of Mysterious Stone Structures. In Archaeological Remains in Situ Preservation: Proceedings from the second ICAHM International Conference, pp. 119-127. Montreal. 1996 Interoffice memo. On file. Ontario Service Centre, Archaeology Department, Cornwall. Ross, B.D., and C. D'Annibale 1995 Pukaskwa National Park: Pit Recording and Inspection (28H). Annual Archaeological Report Ontario 6:23-24. 1996 Pukaskwa National Park (28H). Annual Archaeological Report Ontario 7:116-123. 1999 Pukaskwa National Park: Pit site Recording and Inspection (28H). Annual Archaeological Report Ontario 10:116-119. 2000 Pukaskwa National Park (28H): Pit Site Inspection and Documentation. Annual Archaeological Report Ontario 11:162-164. Ross, B.D., C. D'Annibale and K. Spence 1998 Pukaskwa National Park: Pit site Recording and Inspection (28H). Annual Archaeological Report Ontario 9:152-156. Rouse, LB. 1972 Introduction to Prehistory. New York, McGraw-Hill. Salmon, M.H 1994 On the Possibility of Lawful Explanation in Archaeology. In Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, edited by Michael Martin and Lee C. Mclntyre, pp.733-746. Institute of Technology. The MIT Press Massachusetts, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Senter, R.J. 1969 Analysis of Data: Introductory Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences. Scott, Foresman and Company, Glenview Illinois. Shelly, C. 1999 Multiple Analogies in Archaeology. Philosophy of Science 66:579-605. Sherman, S. 1994 Introduction: Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity. In Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, edited by Stephen Sherman, pp. 1-32 Routeledge, New York. 1997 Quantifying Archaeology. Second Edition. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City. Smith, H.I. 1910 The Archaeology of the Yakima Valley. American Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers 6(1), New York. Smith, E.A. 1983 Anthropological Applications of Optimal Foraging Theory: A Critical Review. Current Anthropology 24(5):625-651. Smith, S.A. 1978 On Population Fluctuations in Northern Ontario. Arch Notes 78(3):8-l 3. Smith, S.A., and G. Foster 1982 Archaeological Research on the Cobble Beach Sites ofPukaskwa National Park in 1981. Manuscript on file. National Parks Branch, Parks Canada Environment Canada, Cornwall Ontario. Smith, C.S., and L.M. McNees 1999 Facilities and Hunter-Gatherer Long-Term Use Patterns: An Example From Southwest Wyoming. American Antiquity 64(1):117-136. Spence, M.W., W.D. Finlayson, and R. H. Pihl 1979 Hopewellian Influences on Middle Woodland Cultures in Southern Ontario. In Hopewell Archaeology: A Chillicothe Conference, edited by David S. Brose and N'omi Greber, pp. 115-121. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio. 241 Spence, M.W., R.H. Phil, and C. R. Murphy 1990 Cultural Complexes in the Early and Middle Woodland Periods. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Chris J. Ellis and Neal Ferris, eds., pp. 125-170 London Chapter of the Ontario Archaeological Society Occasional Publication No. 5, London, Ontario. Stansbury, H. 1852 Explorations of the Valley of the Great Salt Lake of Utah, Including a Reconnoissance of a New Route Through the Rocky Mountains. Lippincott Grambo and Co., Philadelphia. Steinbring, J.H. 1971 Boulder Art in Eastern Manitoba. Papers in Manitoba Archaeology. Miscellaneous Paper No. 14 Studies in Manitoba Rock Art I. Petroforms. 1983. pp. 1-8. Department of Cultural Affairs and Historical Resources, Winnipeg. Steinbring, J.H. 1981 The Astwood Site (EbKu-10): A Possible Archaeological Association for Eastern Manitoba Petroforms. Miscellaneous Paper No.14 Studies in Manitoba Rock Art I. Petroforms. 1983. pp. 35-56. Department of Cultural Affairs and Historical Resources, Winnipeg. Stopp, M.P. 1994 Cultural Utility of the Cobble Beach Formation in Coastal Newfoundland and Labrador. Northeast Anthropology 48:69-89. 1997 Long term Coastal Occupancy between Cape Charles and Trunmore Bay, Labrador. Arctic 50:2:119-137. 2002 Reconstructing Inuit Presence in Southern Labrador. Populations and Migrations/Populations et Migrations 26(2): 1-23. Storck, P. L. 2004 Journey to the Ice Age: Discovering and Ancient World. UBC Press, Royal Ontario Museum, Vancouver. Syms, E.L. 1977 Cultural Ecology and Ecological Dynamics of the Ceramic Period in Southwestern Manitoba. Plains Anthropologist 22(76-2), Memoir No. 12. Tanner, A. 1979 Bringing Home Animals: Religious Ideology and Mode of Production of the Mistassini Cree Hunters. Social and Economic Studies No. 23 Memorial University, Newfoundland. Taylor, D. 2004 The Teaching Rocks, a Sacred Site. In Petroglyphs. Ontario Parks Information guide. Queens Printer for Ontario, Ontario. Thomas, J 1996 Time, Culture and Identity: An Interpretive Archaeology. London: Routledge. Thwaithes, R.G. (editor) 1959 The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France 1610-1791. 73 Vols. Pageant Book Company, New York. Tilley, C. 1994 A Phenomenology of Landscapes. Berg, Oxford. Tower, C. B. 1998 Nipissing. In The Gale Encyclopedia of Native Amerian Tribes, vol 1: Northeast, Southeast, Caribbean, edited by Sharon Malinowski, Anna Sheets, Jeffery Lehman and Melisa Walsh Doig, pp. 181-183. Gale, Detroit. Trigger, B.G. 1989 Archaeology and Anthropology: Current and Future Relations. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 13:1-9. 2006 A History of Archaeological Thought. 2n edition. Cambridge University Press, New York. Tuck, J.A. 1978 Regional Cultural Development, 3000 to 300 B.C. In Northeast, edited by Bruce Trigger, pp. 28-43. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Tyyska, A.E. and J.A.Burns 1973 Archaeology from North Bay to Mattawa. Ministry of Natural Resources Historical Sites Branch. Ontario. Research Report 2. Toronto. Vennum, T., Jr. 1988 Wild Rice and the Ojibway People. Minnesota Historical Society Press, St. Paul. Walthall 1998 Rockshelters and Hunter-Gatherer Adaptation to the Pleistocene/Holocene Transition. American Antiquity 63(2):223-238. Warren, W.W. 1984 [1885] History of the Ojibwa People. Reprinted. Minnesota Historical Society vol. 5. Minnesota Historical Society Press, St Paul. Watson, P.J. 1982 Review of Living Archaeology by R.A. Gould. American Antiquity 47:445-448. Welkowitz, J., R.B. Ewen, and J. Cohen 1976 Introductory Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Academic Press, New York. Wilford, L.A. 1955 A Revised Classification of the Prehistoric Cultures of Minnesota. American Antiquity 2192): 130-142. Winterhalder, B., and E. A. Smith 2000 Analyzing Adaptive Strategies: Human Behavioral Ecology at Twenty-Five. Evolutionary Anthropology 9: 51-72. Wright, J.V. 1963 An Archaeological Survey Along the North Shore of Lake Superior. In Archaeological Papers, National Museum of Canada. Vol. 3: 1-9. Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Ottawa. 1965 A Regional Examination of Ojibwa Culture History. Anthropologica 7 (2): 189-227. 1967 The Laurel Tradition and the Middle Woodland Period. National Museum of Canada, Bulletin 217, Ottawa. 1968 The Application of the Direct Historic Approach to the Iroquois and the Ojibwa. Ethnohistory 15(1):96-111. 1972 The Shield Archaic. Publications in Archaeology, No. 3 National Museums of Canada, Ottawa. 1994 Before European Contact. In Aboriginal Ontario: Historical Perspectives on the First Nations, Edward S. Rogers and Donald B. Smith eds., pp.21-38. A publication of the Ontario Historical Studies Series for the Government of Ontario, published by Dundurn Press, Toronto, Oxford. 1995 A History of the Native People of Canada Volume 1 (10,000-1,000 B.C.). Mercury Series Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper 152. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull. 1999 A History of the Native People of Canada Volume 2 (1000 B. C.-A.D. 500). Mercury Series Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper 152.Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull. 2004 Part 1: Maritime Algonquian, St. Lawrence Iroquois, Ontario Iroquois, Glen Meyer/Western Basin, and Northern Algonquian Cultures. In A History of The Native People of Canada Volume 3 (A.D. 500-European Contact). Mercury Series Archaeological Paper 152, Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull. Wrong, G.M. (ed.) 1939 The Long Journey to the Country of the Hurons. The Champlain Society. Toronto. Wylie, A. 1989 The Interpretive Dilemma. In Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology: Essays in the Philosophy, History and Socio-Politics of Archaeology, edited by Valerie Pinsky and Alison Wylie, pp. 18-27. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York. Zibauer, D.P. 1994 An Analysis of Ceramics from the Hungry Hall Site, Northwestern Ontario. Unpublished Masters Thesis. Department of Anthropology. Trent University, Ontario, Canada.